You are on page 1of 549

RINA

INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE

MARINE CFD 2005
4th INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE
ON MARINE HYDRODYNAMICS

30 – 31 March 2005

© 2005: The Royal Institution of Naval Architects

The Institution is not, as a body, responsible for the
opinions expressed by the individual authors or
speakers

THE ROYAL INSTITUTION OF NAVAL
ARCHITECTS
10 Upper Belgrave Street
London SW1X 8BQ

Telephone: 020 7235 4622
Fax: 020 7259 5912

ISBN No: 1-905040-10-5

Marine CFD 2005, London, UK

CONTENTS
A Step Towards the Numerical Simulation of Viscous Flows around Ships at
Full Scale - Recent Achievements within the European Union Project
EFFORT
Michel Visonneau, Charge de Recherche CNRS – HDR, France

Blade Shaping for Off-Design Performance: Cavitation and Efficiency in
Two-Dimensional Cascades
James J Dreyer, Penn State University, USA

Numerical Simulation of Free Surface Wave Induced Separation
S H Sadathosseini, S M Mousaviraad, and M H Sadr, Petropars Ltd., Iran

BASIN – Development of a Practical Boundary Element Code for
Hydrodynamic Analysis
Neil Southall and Brian Corlett, Burness Corlett – Three Quays (IOM) Ltd., UK

VOF-Dynamic Mesh Simulations of Unsteady Ship Hydrodynamics
M Visone, Blue Group, Italy
C Falletta P.L. Ausonio, Ship-Yacht Designers & Consultants, Italy
P Bertetti and R Gandolfi, AZIMUT, Italy
D Paterna and R Savino DISIS Univ. of Naples “Federico II”, Italy

Second-Order Wave Forces and Free-Surface Elevation Around a Moored
Ship in Steep Uni-Directional and Spread Waves
Jun Zang, K Wang, R Eatock Taylor and Paul Taylor, University of Oxford, UK

RANS Application on Ship Manoeuvring Motion
Q Gao, V Shigunov and D Vassalos, Strathclyde University, UK

Comparison Between RANSE Calculations and Panel Method Results for the
Hydrodynamic Analysis of Marine Propellers
Chiara Pittulaga and Paolo Becchi, CETENA, Italy

Consideration on Deviations in Torque Prediction for Propellers and
Waterjets with RANS Codes
Norbert Bulten and Iulia Oprea, Wärtsilä, the Netherlands

Influence of Scale Effects on the Hydrodynamic Characteristics of Propellers
Sven-Brian Müller and Moustafa Abdel-Maksoud, University Duisburg-Essen,
Germany

Predictions of the Thrust and Torque Performance for Two Propeller Blades
Using Computational Fluid Dynamics
Karl Randle and Peter Bull, QinetiQ Haslar, UK

Behaviour of Ship Funnel Exhaust in the Wake of a Bluff Body
P R Kulkarni, S N Singh and V Seshadri, IIT Delhi, India

© 2005: The Royal Institution of Naval Architects

Marine CFD 2005, London, UK

Improving Carrier Operation through the Application of CFD to the CVF *
Design Process
Richard Underhill and Elizabeth Morrison, Frazer-Nash Consultancy, UK

The Effect of Ship Shape and Anemometer Location on Wind Speed
Measurements Obtained from Ships.
Ben I Moat and Margaret J Yelland and Robin W Pascal, Southampton
Oceanography Centre, UK
Anthony F Molland, University of Southampton, UK

Authors’ Contact Details

* Paper withdrawn at request of MOD

© 2005: The Royal Institution of Naval Architects

Marine CFD 2005, Southampton, UK

A STEP TOWARDS THE NUMERICAL SIMULATION OF VISCOUS FLOWS AROUND SHIPS
AT FULL SCALE - RECENT ACHIEVEMENTS WITHIN THE EUROPEAN UNION PROJECT
EFFORT

M Visonneau, Ecole Centrale de Nantes, France

SUMMARY
The EFFORT (European Full-scale FlOw Research and Technology) project is funded by the European Framework 5 program
and aims at the refinement and validation of CFD prediction methods for the viscous flow around a ship hull at full scale, and
their introduction into practical ship and propeller design.
The emphasis is on predicting the full-scale viscous flow field around a ship including the evaluation of the free surface, the
wake field, the hull/propeller interaction, the resistance and the power. RANS computations do offer that possibility, and such
full-scale viscous-flow computations have started to be used in practical ship design; but how accurate these predictions are is
not really known. Validation of full-scale ship viscous flow predictions has generally been insufficient so far, mainly due to
the virtual absence or difficult accessibility of suitable full-scale experimental flow field data such as wake-field data. This is
the fundamental point that EFFORT aims to address.
The paper presents studies carried out in one of the major work-packages which had three main objectives: (i) to develop
and implement the appropriate physical modelling for full scale flows, (ii) to perform numerical studies of full scale flows
around a real ship to check the robustness and the accuracy of the simulation tools in full scale flow conditions, (iii) to issue
recommendations to prepare the simulation tools to be used for CFD validation at ship and model scale, (iv) to develop and
implement the appropriate physical modelling for full scale flows.

1. INTRODUCTION the project manager, HSVA and CTO), five universities
(ECN/CNRS, NTUA, HUT, CTH and the Maritime Uni-
Hydrodynamic aspects play an important role in the quality
versity of Szczecin), four industrial partners (IHC Holland
of a ship. Dominant criteria for the hull form design of many
N.V., Rolls-Royce Kamewa, Kvaerner Masa Yards, Van Vo-
ships are the resistance and powering performance. In addi-
orden Gieterij B.V. and Bassin d’Essai des Carènes) and one
tion, the occurence of noise and vibrations, important for the
classification society (Lloyd’s Register), are:
comfort level for crew and passengers, often have an hydro-
dynamic cause stemming from the operation of the propeller • to extend in a collaborative way, the existing CFD
in the flow field behind the ship hull. Critical information to codes to predict the flow around ship hulls at full scale,
evaluate an industrial configuration is the knowledge of the
flow in the aft-part of a ship and in its near-wake in situations • to carry out a full-scale measurement campaign in
as close as possible to the reality. Theoretically, Computa- which extensive LDV flow measurements will be done
tional Fluid Dynamics (CFD) tools can provide a solution to at sea on board of two vessels,
these questions and the use of CFD tools for simulating the
flow around a scaled ship model with or without propeller is • to collect the most complete possible set of full-scale
more and more frequent. However, such model scale com- flows fo CFD validation and to establish the level of
putations are subject to the same drawbacks as those intro- accuracy and improve the modelling,
duced by the scaling procedures. To make a real step for-
ward in prediction accuracy, it is mandatory to use accurate • to apply the CFD tools to design studies proposed by
and reliable viscous flow solvers for the actual full-scale ship the industrial participants which support the project.
in the design process.
More up-to-date information about the progress achieved in
Viscous flow computations for the full-scale ship is inhibited
this european project may be found in the EFFORT web
by:
site hosted by MARIN (http://www.marin.nl). This paper
• Uncertainty about the proper physical modelling for is more specifically devoted to the CFD development work
full-scale ship flows, performed in Workpackage 3 (WP3) which was focused on
some particular aspects of RANS solvers that play an impor-
• difficult accessibility of full-scale experimental data to tant role in the validation for full scale, or that require further
validate the computations, study before they can be applied reliably for full scale.

• numerical difficulties associated with the use of very • Free-surface effects on the viscous flow will play a role,
large aspect ratio grids required to capture the viscous albeit perhaps limited; a specific task has been included
effect at full-scale. to study the possibility to incorporate this effect for full
scale since this had not yet been demonstrated.
Therefore, the aims of the european project EFFORT
(European Full-scale FlOw Research and Technology) • Turbulence modelling plays a decisive role in the qual-
which groups together three technical centers (MARIN ity of the wake field prediction at model scale, and may

2005:
c Royal Institution of Naval Architects

Marine CFD 2005, Southampton, UK

be expected to do so at full scale as well. Since the pos- following references: [1], [2] for the code developped by
sibility to apply all relevant turbulence models at full NTUA, [3] for COMET and [4] for the studies carried out
scale Reynolds numbers had not been established, this in HSVA, [5], [6] for the code used by HUT, [7], [8] for the
is addressed in another task. approach followed by MARIN, [9] for CTH and [10] for the
code developped by CNRS.
• A representation of the propeller effect will not be par-
ticularly different at full scale than at model scale, but
is needed for making a comparison of predictions with 3. FREE-SURFACE FULL-SCALE COMPUTATIONS
the total-wake measurements to be carried out. There- 3.1 DESCRIPTION OF THE TEST CASE
fore, a small development task addresses this subject
but, for the sake of brevity, the results related to this The research vessel selected for this study is the Nawigator
task are not described in this paper. XXI operated by the Maritime University of Szczecin. The
vessel is designed for restricted navigation on the Baltic and
North Seas within 200NM from the nearest shelter and the
2. COMPUTATIONAL APPROACHES
main destination of the ship is to train students for future
2.1 THE DIFFERENT FLOW SOLVERS work as deck officers, engineers and ship electricians. Fig-
ure 1 shows the real vessel.
The coordinator of the workpackage was CNRS and the par-
ticipants were HUT, CTH, NTUA, MARIN and HSVA. The
list of these CFD groups selected according to relevant CFD
capabilities and earlier work with CFD tools is provided
with Tab. 1 and Tab. 2. Notations NS stands for Navier-
Stokes, FS for free-surface and NLP for Non-Linear Poten-
tial.

Table 1: Partners in WP3

Partner name Abbreviation Country
Chalmers University CHALMERS S
of Technology
Centre National CNRS F
Recherche Scientifique Figure 1: The training and research ship Nawigator XXI
Hamburgische Shiffbau HSVA D
This vessel is characterised with the following parameters:
Versuchs Anstalt
Helsinki University HUT FIN • Length L = 55.155m, Draft D = 3.15m
of Technology • Wetted Surface: SDW L = 665.5 m2
Maritime Research MARIN NL
• Speed 12 knots: Re = 340 106 F r = 0.265
Institute Netherlands
National Technical NTUA G Numerical grids are generated from available CAO database
(see Fig. 2 for a global view of the hull).
University of Athens

Z
Y

Table 2: Contributors and CFD tools X

Organization Code Notes
CHALMERS CHAPMAN NS code (no FS)
CNRS ISIS NS code (FS capturing)
HSVA COMETa NS code (FS capturing)
HUT FINFLO NS code (FS fitting)
MARIN RAPID NLP code
MARIN PARNASSOS NS code (fixed FS) Figure 2: Nawigator XXI: 3D view (Free-surface capturing)
NTUA PARALOS NS code (FS fitting)
a Commercial code
3.2 THE VARIOUS COMPUTATIONAL STRATEGIES
The CFD partners participating in this collaborative work
More detailed information about the numerical strategies represent the whole spectrum of the computational strate-
implemented in the respective solvers may be found in the gies for computing viscous free-surface flows. MARIN uses

2005:
c Royal Institution of Naval Architects

Marine CFD 2005, Southampton, UK

a composite approach which is based on the computation of
the free-surface by a non-linear potential theory and, then,
uses this prescribed free-surface as a fixed boundary for the
viscous flow computations. HUT and NTUA compute the
viscous free-surface flow with a free-surface fitting algo-
rithm, which means that only the flow of water is computed
with adequate physical boundary conditions on an unknown
free-surface which results from the computations. An au-
tomatic regridding strategy is then needed to update the
shape of the free-surface boundary during the computations.
HSVA and CNRS have chosen to use a free-surface captur-
ing methodology which computes the flow in air and wa-
ter. No regridding is therefore necessary and wave-breaking
may be simulated. The accuracy of the computations is
strongly dependent on the specific compressive discretisa-
tion schemes which are used to discretize the concentration
transport equation which characterizes the presence of air or
Figure 4: Free-surface and wall streamlines at full scale
water.
Wave elevations
-0.5 -0.4 -0.3 -0.2 -0.1 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3

3.3 GLOBAL VIEWS OF THE FREE-SURFACE 40

Figures 3 and 4 show a global view of the free-surface and 30

wall streamlines computed by CNRS with a free-surface
capturing methodology for model and full scales, respec- Y
20

tively. One can notice slight differences on the positionning
10
of the main convergence line which refer to the different in-
tensity of the longitudinal vortex. The stern wave height is 0
-60 -40 -20 0 20
X
also larger at full scale than at model scale, a fact on which HSVA : FS : K-w SST : 12 knots

we will come back in the remainder of this article.
Figure 5: Wave elevations: HSVA:12 knots (FS capturing)

Wave elevations
-0.5 -0.4 -0.3 -0.2 -0.1 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3

40

30
Y

20

10

0
-60 -40 -20 0 20
CNRS : FS : K-w SST : 12 knots X

Figure 6: Wave elevations: CNRS:12 knots (FS capturing)

Wave elevations
-0.5 -0.4 -0.3 -0.2 -0.1 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3

40

30
Figure 3: Free-surface and wall streamlines at model scale
Y

20

Figures 5 and 6 show a global view of the free-surface ele-
10
vations around the Nawigator at 12 knots obtained by HSVA
and CNRS, both teams using the free-surface capturing strat- 0
-60 -40 -20 0 20
egy. These computations are performed on identical grids HUT : FS : K-w SST : 12 knots X

comprising roughly 3 million points, and, despite different
discretisation schemes and codes, the results appear quite Figure 7: Wave elevations: HUT:12 knots (FS fitting)
similar.
The second set of results (fig.7 and 8), obtained by NTUA
and HUT, is representative of the free-surface fitting strat- puted by the non-linear potential code RAPID developed by
egy. One may notice the attenuation of the waves in the far MARIN. One may notice the capability of this methodology
field, which is likely due to the lack of grid points in this to capture accurately waves in the far-field although these
region and is not related to the free-surface fitting methodol- specific computations are affected by some spurious short
ogy. Lastly, figure 9 shows the free-surface elevation com- waves occurring in the inner sector of the wave pattern.

2005:
c Royal Institution of Naval Architects

Marine CFD 2005, Southampton, UK

0.03
Wave elevations
-0.5 -0.4 -0.3 -0.2 -0.1 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3
0.025

40 Model Scale
0.02 Full Scale

0.015
30

Z/Lpp
0.01
Y

20 0.005

0
10
-0.005

-0.01
0 -1 -0.5 0 0.5
-60 -40 -20 0 20 X/Lpp
NTUA : FS : K-ε : 12 knots X 10 knots : Wave profile

Figure 8: Wave elevations: NTUA:12 knots (FS fitting) Figure 11: Wave elevation on the waterline and in the plane
of symmetry: model scale vs full scale
Wave elevations
-0.5 -0.4 -0.3 -0.2 -0.1 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3

40

in many computations that the longitudinal vortices which
30
strongly influence the stern flow are only accurately simu-
lated by the most sophisticated turbulence closures which do
Y

20
not rely on an isotropic eddy-viscosity closure (like EASM
10
or Reynolds-Stress Transport Models). Details on the tur-
bulence closures may be found for instance in [11], [12]
0
-60 -40 -20
X
0 20 or [13]. In that case, the modelling error is clearly domi-
MARIN : FS : K-w SST : 12 knots
nating the numerical uncertainty. However, during the last
Gothenburg 2000 workshop [14], several contributors per-
Figure 9: Wave elevations: MARIN:12 knots (fixed FS)
formed full-scale computations around the KVLCC2 tanker
hull and found that the full-scale flow was less vortical than
the model scale, and consequently less dependent on the tur-
3.4 LONGITUDINAL WAVE PROFILES CUTS
bulence modelling. However, it was not possible to confirm
Figure 10 shows the various wave elevations obtained by these computational findings without any detailed full-scale
each CFD partner at Y = 6m. Surprisingly, one can notice stern flow measurements. Clearly, the selection of the most
appropriate level of turbulence closures is still an open ques-
tion as long as full-scale ship flows are considered. This is
0.6 CNRS why it has been decided to compare several different tur-
HSVA

0.4
MARIN bulence closures for the full-scale flow around the Nawiga-
HUT
NTUA tor XXI. Although full-scale flow measurements are not yet
0.2
available for this particular ship, it is interesting to check if
the conclusions relative to the lesser influence of turbulence
Z

0

modelling at full scale are universal or highly dependent on
-0.2
the geometry. In addition to these results, a first compari-
-0.4 son between computations and full-scale flow measurements
-0.6
around the St. Michaelis kindly provided by HSVA, will
-60 -40 -20 0 conclude this brief overview.
12 knots : Wave cut Y=6m X

Figure 10: Wave cuts: Y = 6m: 12 knots 4.2 COMPARISON OF DIFFERENT TURBULENCE
CLOSURES
that there is a relatively large difference between non-linear
Several turbulence models have been employed by different
potential and viscous solutions near the bow which might
partners during this project. All except CNRS use linear
be due to the fact that this bow wave is probably strongly
eddy viscosity models. The K-ω SST model is implemented
breaking. Elsewhere, all the solutions agree reasonably well.
in each code used by every partner except NTUA which
Lastly, figure 11 shows that scale effect on the wave eleva-
uses a k- model. MARIN has also implemented a one
tion is limited to the stern region, where the waves are higher
equation model by Menter. All but HSVA who uses exclu-
at full scale than at model scale. This conclusion was con-
sively wall function approach employ low Reynolds number
firmed by all the contributors.
formulation. CNRS also has wall function approach imple-
mented for two-equation models. Two turbulence models
4. TURBULENCE MODELLING AT FULL SCALE not belonging to the class of linear eddy viscosity model
have been assessed by CNRS. The first one is a quadratic
4.1 THE CONTEXT
explicit algebraic stress model based on the linearized SSG
Although one can expect that the flow around a ship at full pressure-strain rate model called here EASM. The second
scale differs from that at model scale, one can not get any one is a Reynolds stress transport model Rij − ω using the
clear information about the influence of the Reynolds num- IP pressure-strain rate model.
ber on the structure of the flow in the stern region. For
the model-scale ship flows, it has been jointly established One of the challenging task in stern flow computation is the

2005:
c Royal Institution of Naval Architects

Marine CFD 2005, Southampton, UK

correct prediction of the bilge vortex. Detailed experimental
studies and extensive numerical validations performed at
model scale suggest that linear eddy viscosity model under
estimates the intensity of the bilge vortex. The failure of the
linear eddy viscosity model is attributed mainly to the fact
that effect of curvature and anisotropy of the normal stress
which plays a crucial role in the formation of a longitudinal
vortex can not be taken into account by the linear eddy
viscosity model. On the other hand, Reynolds stress model
is capable to give an improved prediction. Improvement Figure 13: Full-scale flow around the Nawigator: X =
over linear eddy viscosity model can also be obtained when 1.6m MARIN vs. CNRS
non-linear model such as explicit algebraic stress model is
used. One of the main objectives of the EFFORT project is
to assess if the same conclusion holds at full scale.

The intensity of the bilge vortex can be easily evaluated by
examining the streamwise velocity contours at transversal
planes in the region near the propeller. The distortion of
the velocity contours due to the bilge vortex results in a
so-called hook-shape contours. It is especially visible in the
propeller plane when the propeller is removed. It also can
be identified at upstream stations when the bilge vortex is
correctly captured. The shape of the wall limiting stream- Figure 14: Full-scale flow around the Nawigator: X =
lines, especially the location of the line of convergence near 1.6m NTUA vs. CNRS
the stern also gives a good indication of the intensity of the
bilge vortex. The line of convergence is pushed downward
when the bilge vortex is strong. formed by CNRS prove that, even at full scale, the influence
of turbulence modelling on the level of longitudinal vortic-
Figures 12, 13 and 14 show a comparison of the isowakes ity is still crucial and comparable to what was observed at
at the propeller disk obtained by HUT, MARIN and NTUA, model scale. The distortion of the streamwise velocity con-
respectively, with those obtained by CNRS. HUT, MARIN tours is clearly visible in the propeller disk section with the
and CNRS have employed the same isotropic eddy-viscosity EASM or the RSTM (not shown here) turbulence closures.
based closure (k − ω SST) and their results are quite compa-
rable although the codes and grids were not identical. NTUA
uses a k − ε turbulence model which results in a less vorti-
cal flow in the stern region. Compared with other turbulence
models mentioned above, k- model reduces the intensity of
the bilge vortex even for the modified k- model by HUT,
which is in agreement with the observation generally ac-
cepted by the community for model scale flows. However, it
is interesting to see that this is also valid at full scale for the
Nawigator XXI.

Figure 15: Isowakes at the propeller disk (X=1.6m) - EASM
model vs. k − ω SST

On the other hand, all computations using linear eddy vis-
Figure 12: Full-scale flow around the Nawigator: X = cosity model show no sign of the existence of a longitudi-
1.6m - HUT vs. CNRS nal vortex at the same position. At the propeller plane X4,
none of the computations using linear eddy viscosity model
Figure 15 shows the influence of turbulence closures on the can give a distortion of the streamwise velocity contours as
isowakes distribution in the propeller disk and, more specifi- strong as that predicted by the RSM and the EASM model.
cally, the influence of the isotropic linear eddy-viscosity hy- This observation suggests that both the RSM and the EASM
pothesis which is the main hypothesis on which most clas- model predict a stronger bilge vortex compared with linear
sical turbulence closures are built. These comparisons per- eddy viscosity model. However, without measurement data,

2005:
c Royal Institution of Naval Architects

Marine CFD 2005, Southampton, UK

assessment can not be made for the moment concerning the
performance of different models.

4.3 VALIDATION ON THE FULL-SCALE FLOW
AROUND THE ST. MICHAELIS

To conclude this study on the role played by turbulence in
full-scale ship flows, one gives the results of a validation
study performed by CNRS within the EFFORT project on
the St. Michaelis, a ship for which full-scale measurements
were performed by HSVA, several years ago. Figures 16,
17 and 18 show the flow just in front of the propeller disk
(X − XP = 0.228D where D is the diameter of the pro- Figure 18: Full-scale flow around the St. Michaelis: X −
peller) computed with the k −ω SST, EASM and RSTM tur- XP = 0.228D - Experiments vs Rij − ω model
bulence closures, respectively. Although the experimental
results are not so easy to interprete, one has the feeling that
the real flow is characterized by a strong vortical structure 5. FORCE COEFFICIENTS
which causes the well-known hook-shape of the isowakes,
The resistance coefficients are obtained from the following
a behaviour which is only accurately simulated by the most
normalization:
sophisticated turbulence closures EASM and RSTM.
RF RP
CF = 1 2
, CP = 1 2
,
2 ρSDW L U 2 ρSDW L U

RT
CT = 1 2
2 ρSDW L U

Where SDW L is the wetted hull surface at rest equals to
665.5m2 , U is the reference velocity speed. RF and RP
are the resistance forces from friction and pressure part, re-
spectively. RT is the total resistance RF + RP .

Figure 16: Full-scale flow around the St. Michaelis: X −
XP = 0.228D - k − ω SST model vs experiments

Figure 19: Forces coefficients (x1000) - Double model

Figure 19 shows a comparison of the force coefficients ob-
tained by all the participants on the double-body problem at
12 knots with similar turbulence closures. A relatively good
agreement is observed between CNRS, HUT and MARIN,
although one can point out the relatively small value for CP
obtained by HUT. The results obtained by CTH are clearly
far from the mean values since one can observe a deviation
of 8.6% (171%) for CF (CP ), respectively from the mean
Figure 17: Full-scale flow around the St. Michaelis: X − values obtained by the three other contributors.
XP = 0.228D - EASM model vs experiments
Figure 20 shows the distribution of the forces obtained
for the computations including the free-surface. For some

2005:
c Royal Institution of Naval Architects

Marine CFD 2005, Southampton, UK

contributors (MARIN and CTH), the free-surface is fixed model is relatively complex, the EASM model may be
and computed by a non-linear potential approach. Here an interesting alternative choice.
MARIN1 stands for computations based on the Menter’s
one equation turbulence model and MARIN2 for the k − ω • A large comparison of different free-surface modelling
SST model, respectively. For HUT and NTUA, a viscous strategies has also been completed. Here again, one
free-surface fitting procedure is employed while CNRS and must notice a relatively good agreement between the
HSVA use a similar free-surface capturing strategy, differ- viscous approaches (free-surface capturing and fitting
ing only by the discretisation schemes These different ap- strategies) and large differences concerning the ampli-
proaches are observed in the results. CNRS and HSVA ob- tudes of the waves when the viscous computations are
tained relatively similar results when MARIN and CTH pro- compared with the potential approaches (the potential
vide similar CF coefficients but higher values for CP force waves being considerably higher than the viscous ones,
coefficient (by 50%). This may be attributed to the higher at the bow and the stern of the hull). Without any ex-
amplitudes of the non-linear potential waves. Once again, perimental information, it is difficult to conclude on the
one can observe the very large value of CP obtained by reliability of the respective approaches but the differ-
CTH, although they have used a prescribed free-surface pro- ences near the bow are surprising since a strong vis-
vided by MARIN. cous/inviscid coupling was not expected here, contrary
to the stern region. However, while the influence of
the computational strategies is large on the free-surface
elevation, one may notice that the influence on the near-
wake flow in front of the propeller is relatively small.

• In several occasions, it has been possible to carry out
the computations on the same or very similar grid. This
is an ideal situation to verify the codes and this should
be pointed out since it is quite unusual in such a joint
project. However, an exchange of grids appear difficult
to generalize since some CFD codes are still limited in
terms of topology.

7. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This work is a part of the project EFFORT supported by
Figure 20: Forces coefficients (x1000): Free-surface the 5th Framework ’GROWTH’ program of the European
Union and by the industry. This financial support is grate-
fully acknowledged. The author would like to thank all the
6. CONCLUSIONS WP3 partners for their patience and the remarkable work
which was performed by everybody during this collabora-
This paper has described the studies carried out in the work-
tive work.
package 3 ’CFD developments’ of the european project EF-
FORT. During this workpackage, a very impressive work has
been produced by all the partners to implement in their re- 8. AUTHOR’S BIOGRAPHY
spective CFD codes all the ingredients needed to perform a Dr. Michel Visonneau is a Research Associate at CNRS and
realistic full-scale flow. Several interesting and sometimes holds the position of head of the CFD team of the Fluid Me-
unexpected conclusions should be drawn. chanics Laboratory at Ecole Centrale de Nantes. During the
EFFORT project, he was in charge of the workpackage 3
• It has been generally observed that full-scale flows are
“CFD developments”.
not dramatically more complicated to compute than
model-scale flows, the influence of the near-wall grid
size on the numerical conditioning remaining accept- REFERENCES
able for most flow solvers. [1] G. Tzabiras, A. Dimas, and T. A. Loukakis, “A nu-
• Surprisingly, the role of the turbulence modeling has merical method for the calculation of incompress-
been reinforced by these computations, which is in ible, steady, separated flows around aerofoil,” Interna-
contradiction with the results obtained during the last tional Journal for Numerical Methods in Fluids, vol. 6,
Gothenburg 2000 workshop for a totally different hull pp. 789–809, 1986.
geometry. This shows that it is risky to draw very gen- [2] G. Tzabiras, “On the calculation of the viscous flow
eral conclusions concerning the influence of the turbu- around bulbous or u-shaped bows at zero froude num-
lence modelling on the near-wake flow since this role ber,” Ship Technology Research, vol. 42, pp. 31–44,
seems clearly highly dependent on the geometry of 1995.
the considered hull. The complex turbulence closures
(Rij − ω) yield a more intense vortical flow than the [3] S. Muzaferija and M. Peric, “Computation of free
classical isotropic eddy-viscosity based closures, as it surface flows using interface-tracking and interface-
was observed at model scale. One must notice that, capturing methods.” Non linear wave interaction,
if the implementation of a Reynolds-Stress transport 1998. Computational mechanics computations.

2005:
c Royal Institution of Naval Architects

8. “A practical nonlinear method for calculat- ing ship wavemaking and wave resistance. [14] L. F. “Efficient methods to compute steady ship viscous flow with free surface. and V. Starke. Visonneau.” in Proc. eds. Conf. Bertram. Visonneau.” in 6th World Congress on Computational Mechanics. 2003. Raven. Deng.” in Proc. vol.” J Mar Sci Technol. “Assessment of turbulence models for ship flow at full scale. 2001. Larsson. 1992. 1999. China. 51-3. vol. Deng and M. “A multi- grid semi-implicit line-method for viscous incom- pressible flow on high aspect ratio grids. Vierendeels. Schweighofer. Marine CFD 2005. Helsinki University of Technology. “Numerical propulsion tests. Raven and B. Hellsten. Seoul. con- clusions and recommandations of the Gothenburg 2000 Workshop. Reimslaugh. R. Vison- neau. 48-2. PhD thesis. 2004.” in A Workshop on Numerical Ship Hy- drodynamics (L. Fukuoka. “Free-surface capturing ranse simulations for a ship at steady drift. 1999. 1998. P. Beijing. (Göteborg). Dick.” Ship Tech- nology Research.” Ship Technol- ogy Research. 11–25. 7th Int. “Summary. Visonneau. “Comparison of explicit algebraic stress models and second-order turbulence closures for steady flows around ships. 2003. and M. Naval Hydrodynamics. Rep. Bertram. [11] R.” Journal of Computational Physics. Investigation of Two-Dimensional Transom Waves Using Inviscid and Viscous Free- Surface Boundary Conditions at Model and Full-Scale Ship Reynolds Numbers. Queutey. UK [4] K. [10] P. “Finflo: the parallel multi-block flow solver.” Tech. vol. 154. Kaurinkoski and A. September 2000. [12] G. A-17.). and V. Queutey and M. Japan. Stern. 19th Symp. Korea. Southampton. and E. [5] P. Helsinki University of Technology. [7] H. Stern.” in Proc. on Numerical Ship Hydrodynamics. 2005: c Royal Institution of Naval Architects . [9] J. Duvigneau and M. Laboratory of Aerodynamics. 2002. vol. K. 2004. Naval Hydrodynamics. F. [8] H. pp. Larsson. 24th Symp. pp. Duvigneau. [13] G. Ship Laboratory. Chao. “On the role played by turbulence closures in hull shape optimization at model and full scale. Chalmers University of Technology. [6] J. 310–341.

efficiency. ξ -direction A Inviscid flux Jacobian matrix. independent variable I Cost function y Cartesian coordinate.and multi-point cavitation. Cost functions for incidence-driven surface cavitation and section efficiency are presented. i. x-direction approach at the kth design cycle J Metric Jacobian δ Perturbation ĵ Unit vector. y-direction Gk Smoothed and attenuated cost function W Domain wake-cut boundaries gradient vector at the kth design cycle w Vector of flow field dependent variables G kn Cost function gradient vector for the nth cost we Specified exit plane flow variables function at the kth design cycle. The results establish this approach as a straightforward. The approach is demonstrated on several cases using a linear cascade of NACA 65410 hydrofoils.. y Components of the blade surface unit normal bk Vector of design variables P Periodic boundary.e. shape optimization of a linear cascade of hydrofoils is demonstrated for the improvement of surface cavitation inception and section efficiency over a range of operating conditions. ξ -direction t Pseudo time F Vector of geometric parameters U ξ -contravariant velocity component F Flow field inviscid flux vector. independent variable In nth term of the composite cost function αk Scalar step size for the steepest descent iˆ Unit vector. ξ -direction s Arc length Ê v Adjoint viscous flux vector. η -direction NP Number of terms in the composite cost Bc Blade surface boundary function B 1. η -direction V Reference velocity magnitude. preconditioning matrix CD Blade section axial force coefficient p Static pressure C ij Scalar deflator for the ijth mesh point pa Realized surface static pressure CL Blade section transverse force coefficient pd Target static pressure Cp Static pressure coefficient p∞ Static pressure in the far-field pv Vapor pressure cn Scalar weights for the composite cost function r R Flow field residual operator dA Elemental blade surface directed-area vector Re Reference Reynolds number E Flow field inviscid flux vector. and combined cavitation/efficiency are presented. NOMENCLATURE L Selection matrix Mξ Modal matrix. A continuous adjoint approach is adopted for the efficient computation of cost function gradients for multiple operating point consideration.2 e Domain exit boundaries n Blade surface normal direction r Bi Domain inflow boundary n Blade surface unit normal vector bi ith design variable nx . and efficient means of considering off-design performance in the design of blade sections and a promising avenue to pursue for the development of practical tools for the design of marine thrusters. Results for single. η -direction ui ith component of the velocity vector F̂v Adjoint viscous flux vector. The Pennsylvania State University. y Components of the blade surface area Ev Flow field viscous flux vector. η -direction u Velocity component. robust. USA SUMMARY In this work. ξ -direction S x. ξ -direction ND Number of design variables B Inviscid flux Jacobian matrix. y-direction δˆ Variation due to a flow variable perturbation L Reference length (blade chord) δ Variation due to a geometric perturbation © 2005: Royal Institution of Naval Architects . η -contravariant velocity component Fx x-component of net section force r Fy y-component of net section force Vw Blade surface slip velocity ~ v Velocity component. ∂I n ∂b k wi Extrapolated interior flow variables Gi ith component of the cost function gradient x Cartesian coordinate. x-direction Fv Flow field viscous flux vector. UK BLADE SHAPING FOR OFF-DESIGN PERFORMANCE: CAVITATION AND EFFICIENCY IN TWO-DIMENSIONAL CASCADES J J Dreyer.Marine CFD 2005: Southampton.

The second optimization of two-dimensional blade sections operating (detailed) design phase is primarily concerned with the in a cascade configuration.g. optimization procedure. probably quite good) blade section design.. sizing. For this these steps are as follows: Given the desired meridional reason it is appropriate to adopt a gradient-based flow path (i. section efficiency code is a three-dimensional candidate geometry. the product of the section stacking η Generalized coordinate. the purpose of either is simply performance evaluation. νe Eddy viscosity νT Total viscosity The steps just described form a design iteration. etc. r ψv Adjoint velocity vector 2.2]). UK δ ij Kronecker delta input LE/TE velocity triangles and the stream sheet ε Constant smoothing coefficient geometry at a given spanwise location. Follow on work will focus on demonstrating the approach on quasi-three-dimensional Broadly speaking. though with the familiar caveats σ ij Fluid shear stress tensor associated with RANS simulations. This phase involves both computational and experimental efforts and 2. the continuous adjoint approach of Jameson [3] is desired thickness distribution are then run through a adopted. The candidate designs (e. three-dimensional design-of-record. layout. efficiency over a range of incidence iterate on promising designs.) work described in this paper focuses on shape that may meet the mission requirements. in this spanwise locations. Finally. The immediate goal For this reason. any optimization that is τ ij Fluid total stress tensor currently attempted is done as a cut-and-try process. a formal optimization step is generally not included Ψ Vector of adjoint dependent variables as part of the marine propulsor design process. viscous flows. there is a strong impetus to consider off. The section shapes are analysis of three-dimensional candidate geometries. The purpose of this optimization will naturally follow that effort (though phase is to establish the broad characteristics of some initial efforts are described in references [1. Mean Streamline (MSM) analysis. and ultimately produce a angles. an much of their operational life in off-design conditions. the end wall locations) and blade loadings.e.1 CONTINUOUS ADJOINT APPROACH accounts for perhaps 90% (or more) of the overall design cost. Work on truly general three-dimensional shape fidelity flow and geometry models. The resulting blade section shapes. The use ρ Reference density of high-fidelity CFD simulations can reduce dramatically the calendar time and manpower needed to complete σi Incipient cavitation index such an iteration. Specifically. along with rake and skew εˆ Variable smoothing coefficient distributions are then input to a blade section stacking γ Pseudo acoustic speed code (STK). INTRODUCTION The long term goal of the path of research to which this work belongs is routine shape optimization of complex By the nature of their usage. To ξ Generalized coordinate date. incremental approach was adopted. podded thrusters spend three-dimensional propulsor blades. MULTIPLE OPERATING POINT SHAPE Ω Ratio of blade section force sensitivities OPTIMIZATION 1. propulsor blade design is generally stream sheets and the construction of a viable design tool carried out in two phases. At typically 6-12 gradient calculation is appropriate. It is assumed. section. Briefly. This 3D Λξ Diagonal matrix of eigenvalues of A geometry is then available for RANS analysis or small- µ Reference dynamic viscosity scale physical model construction and testing. Marine CFD 2005: Southampton. To this end. therefore. This code provides the blade section camber line definition appropriate for the © 2005: Royal Institution of Naval Architects . The functions and constraints is low (as will be apparent) and outputs of this solution are the detailed mean meridional the number of design variables is reasonable large (as stream surfaces and the leading and trailing edge mean will be shown) an adjoint equation-based approach to the velocity triangles for each blade row. It is ultimately intended to insert a formal shape optimization step into an existing and well-established Bridging these two design phases is a well-defined series design environment.. Whether CFD σ̂ ij Adjoint shear stress tensor simulations or small scale model testing is used for performance evaluation. blade counts. if possible. Because the number of cost a Streamline Curvature (SCM) solution is obtained. of this work is the demonstration of the technology on design performance as early as possible in the design relevant problems in two-dimensional inviscid and process. that the of steps leading from a desired circumferential mean starting point for any re-design is an existing (and performance to a three-dimensional geometry. these velocity triangles along with a work. and. The first (preliminary) design to be inserted into the environment described in the last phase is characterized by trade-off studies using low. The modified to improve surface-type cavitation performance purposes of this phase are to weed-out weak designs.

The equations due to a design variable perturbation may be approach followed in this work closely follows that of expressed as Reuther. The final result is that the cost function variation is given Newton approach (Reuther [5]). and w n is the vector of flow variables for the in equation (6) may be analytically eliminated if the new nth operating point. field variable. to equation (7)].. This relation states that given a single flow solution [i. This may be The cost function gradient is computed following the computed by finite differences very inexpensively method of Jameson and Reuther [6] and is reviewed (especially for local design variables) with the ith term of briefly here.Marine CFD 2005: Southampton. the result is the cost function. the variation of the flow optimization over a series of N p flow conditions. et al [4]. bi . Whereas the following equation: convergence rate of steepest descent is well-known to be quite slow for most problems.e. however. is leading edge surface cavitation.. I = ∑ c n I n (w n .. gradient using N D evaluations of equation (3) (i.e. shape In analogy with equation (3). with equation (5). A perturbation of each of the N D design the gradient expressed simply as variables results in a variation of the cost function that can be expressed as δI Gi = . the convergence properties ∂R ∂I T of the continuous adjoint approach and the small expense ΨT =− .. moreover. that minimize (1) If equation (3) is augmented with the inner product of an arbitrary function. δbi ∂I ∂I T T δI = δw + δ F = δ I + δˆI (3) ∂w ∂F The following sections describe the specific implementation of this approach first for improving where the overbar indicates a variation due to the flow multipoint cavitation performance using the Euler field perturbation and the carat denotes a variation due equations. F) Np where N p is the number of operating points.. To first-order the corresponding incipient cavitation R (w. then for single-point efficiency improvement solely to the geometric perturbation. The flow field governing equations (i.e.e.e. c n are [ ] δI = δ I + Ψ T δ R + δˆI + Ψ T δˆR . 2. Assembling the using the Reynolds-averaged Navier-Stokes equations. especially at off-design field governing equations and a judiciously chosen new operating conditions. The model unconstrained multipoint ∂R ∂R optimization problem may be stated in the following δR = δw + δ F = δ R + δˆR = 0. finite-difference approach) is clearly cost-prohibitive as it requires at least N D + 1 evaluations of the flow field. i. and G kn is the cost gradient with N D evaluations of equation (8). (6) scalar weights.. the adjoint variable) satisfies the simple steepest descent approach is utilized. F) = 0 . one can construct the entire cost function from the multipoint cost function. (7) of the gradient calculation will likely more than offset the ∂w ∂w cost of the larger number of steps required to reach an optimum in comparison to a conjugate gradient or quasi. requires only the geometric design cycle. (8) b k +1 = b k − α k ∑c GNp n k n (2) The implications of equation (8) are profound. sensitivity of the cost function and the residual operator to a perturbation of a design variable. the Euler or Navier-Stokes equations) may be written As a given blade operates at very high or very low incidence angles. the and finally a combination of the two cost functions. The steepest descent simply by update of the vector of design variables for problem (1) is given simply by δI = δˆI + Ψ T δˆR. Evaluation function gradient vector for the nth cost function at the kth of equation (8). UK This work also considers multipoint design. F is a vector of parameters describing the It is then easily shown that the expensive bracketed term geometry. to where α k is a scalar step size.e. c n is the scalar weight equation (4)] and a single adjoint solution [i. can be eliminated from equation (3) by introducing the flow For a well-designed rim-driven thruster. a leading-edge suction peak will symbolically as develop on the suction or pressure surface respectively.2 CAVITATION COST FUNCTION The costly flow field dependence. (5) way: ∂w ∂F Determine the N D design variables. the most likely form of incipient cavitation. For the solution of this problem a field variable (i. Ψ . (4) number for this condition is approximated by © 2005: Royal Institution of Naval Architects .

where ε is an O(1) constant and δ is some specified 2. In this way a εˆ =  p min C p stag pt. For the efficiency problem.3 EFFICIENCY COST FUNCTION convergence to steady state. To this end. For the cavitation problem. Note also that if the x. because the interest is in the shape smoothing coefficient according to (13) restricts its effect optimization of blade sections operating in time-mean to “hammering” down the suction peak. p v is the vapor and dA = S x iˆ + S y ˆj dξ pressure. An alternative approach. At each design iteration. equation (10) does not are the total stress tensor and the elemental directed offer a well-posed cost function in the context of the surface area respectively with the reference Reynolds is continuous adjoint approach. the section is ε ⋅ ∂ 2 pa ∂ 2 pa for ξ − ξ min C ≤ δ  ∂s 2 ∂s 2 rotated.4 SECTION LIFT CONSTRAINT pressure distribution with the undesirable suction peak attenuated. and the domain is re-meshed. the appropriate form of the governing flow equations is the pseudo- For a thruster. flow. this problem only has meaning ∂t ∂ξ ∂η when viscous effects are present. The appropriate cost function for efficiency improvement is. p a is the actual pressure at the current design continuously updated sensitivity maintained throughout the design iterations. maintaining lift is part of the problem statement. UK σ i = − min(C p ) (10) axial force. the lift is constrained by changing the stagger angle. Marine CFD 2005: Southampton. The size of the adjustment is determined by a the section. In equations given (in generalized body-fitted coordinates) the context of two-dimensional. after the cycle. and specifying the appropriate. where direction is positive downstream (as is traditional). (12) ∂ξ ∂ξ throughout the design iterations. µ can thus be re-cast as an inverse design problem where the target pressure distribution is the actual (or realized) 2. of the In equation (12). β . The problem Re = . given as however. the following cost function For both the cavitation and efficiency optimization can be used: problems. In this work. lift is often ∂ ∂ constrained by altering the angle of attack of the vehicle pd − εˆ pd = pa . Unlike transonic or supersonic flow. As such. ξ is a computational coordinate along cascade. maximizing efficiency is equivalent to compressible Reynolds-averaged Navier-Stokes maximizing the thrust force produced at fixed power. a stagger angle change. Note that equation (12) is nothing more than an implicit smoothing operation on In this work. and V is the reference speed. is to recognize that the problematic minimum ρVL pressure always occurs at a suction peak. ρ is the reference density. In other words. therefore. the assumption of incompressible flow is the blade surface pressure distribution. ∆β . though this is not a practical solution. Also. Unfortunately. (13) constant lift can be maintained throughout the design  0 for ξ − ξ min C > δ p iterations. A pseudo-time coordinate can then be used to facilitate 2. linear cascades.5 GOVERNING FLOW EQUATIONS number of mesh intervals. maximizing thrust is equivalent to minimizing the net © 2005: Royal Institution of Naval Architects . meaningful results can only be obtained if one constrains the transverse or “lift” force at one of the I= ∫ Bc 1 2 ( p − p d ) 2 ds (11) operating points. one could always improve the apparent where s is the arc length around the section and p d is the cavitation performance by simply loading the blade target pressure which is a solution to the following: section less. is computed to satisfy the lift constraint. For external aerodynamic optimization problems. the assumption of steady flow is reasonable. the “thrust” force points in the negative direction. and εˆ is determined by section shape alteration. in JP + (E − E v ) + ∂ (F − Fv ) = 0 (15) incompressible flow. where the minimum is taken over the blade surface and I= ∫ Bc τ xx S x + τ xy S y dξ (14) p −p p − p∞ σ i = 1∞ 2 v and C p = 1 1  ∂u i ∂u j  2 ρV 2 ρV τ ij = − pδ ij + +  2 where Re  ∂x j ∂x i   ( ) r where p ∞ is the ambient pressure. this is by analogous to maximizing the axial force while fixing the ∂w ∂ transverse force.

ξ σ + ξ σ  η σ + η σ  extending from the lower outlet around the leading to the  x xy yy   x xy yy  upper outlet and the η coordinate extending from the y y blade surface outward. the metric terms are given by the following: Jξ x = yη . Finally.e. Jξ y = − xη . B e2 : 1 w = M ξ (LM ξ−1 w e + (I − L)M ξ−1 w i ) σ xx = 2ν T . The boundary conditions for In equation (15) the contravariant velocities are defined viscous flow consistent with the labelling of Figure 1 are by given by U = ξ x u + ξ y v . Jη y = xξ BC W Bi Be2 P Be1 Figure 1: Schematic of the cascade computational domain with the various boundaries labeled. σ yy = 2ν T . Fv = J η x σ xx + η y σ xy . In words: no-slip velocity and zero The preconditioning matrix is the standard diagonal form pressure gradient conditions are applied the blade of Chorin [7]. v  vU + ξ p  vV + η p  ξ xη y − ξ yη x    y   y  and The domain in which equation (15) is solved is shown schematically in Figure (1) with the bulk flow running  0   0  from left to right.. n is where νT = e the blade surface normal direction. Topologically. ∂p ∂n = 0 (16) ∂u ∂v  ∂u ∂v  B . specified velocity and extrapolated static pressure are enforced at the inflow. i. F = J uV + η x p . ∂p ∂n = 0 The viscous stresses are given by B i : u ( y ). E = J uU + ξ x p . M ξ is the ξ - Re direction modal matrix. and L is a diagonal selection and ν e is the eddy viscosity. computational mesh is a     C-type mesh with the ξ computational coordinate E v = J ξ x σ xx + ξ y σ xy . (1 +ν ) In the above. the subscript w denotes the wall value. J= = x ξ yη − xη y ξ . v( y ) specified .e. V = η x u +η y v . σ xy = σ yx = ν T  +  e ∂x ∂y  ∂y ∂x  P. where γ is the pseudo acoustic speed. © 2005: Royal Institution of Naval Architects .. and the periodic boundaries and wake cut are handled with straightforward two-cell overlap conditions. surface. r B c : V w = 0. for completeness. L = diag [0 0 1] . UK  p  U   V  where       1 w =  u . matrix to choose the incoming waves. W : 2 cell overlap.Marine CFD 2005: Southampton. characteristics-based P = diag [ 1 γ 2 1 1] conditions are applied at the exit planes. Jη x = − y ξ . i.

ξ σˆ + ξ σˆ  η σˆ + η σˆ  ~  x xy y yy   x xy y yy  δb k = −α G k where ~ where α is a scalar step size and G is a smoothed and ∂ψ 2 ∂ψ 3 attenuated cost function gradient. The blade geometry is then updated at the ith surface point according to © 2005: Royal Institution of Naval Architects . the only above boundary conditions.. however. is applied to the cost functions (11) and (14) with the domain. Λ ξ is the diagonal matrix of difference in the respective adjoint equations is the blade eigenvalues of A. and a straightforward Dirichlet ∂t ∂ξ ∂η ∂ξ ∂η condition on the adjoint velocity for the efficiency cost function. 2. Note that the blade surface boundary condition is a ∂Ψ ∂Ψ ∂Ψ ∂Eˆ v ∂Fˆ v transpiration type condition for the inverse design JP T − AT − BT − − = 0. ∂x ∂y gradient is required to ensure smooth geometry updates given the inherently non-smooth. Fx and F y are the axial and transverse surface boundary condition. B e2 : Ψ T PM ξ Λ ξ = 0 for outgoing waves (18a) equations (15). B c : Cavitation : ψ v ⋅ n = p − p d The final results are a field equation and boundary Efficiency : ψ 2 = −1. and Dreyer [1. design variables. the adjoint derivations for condition choices may be found in Reuther [5]. expression with an arbitrary adjoint variable is then integrated over the flow domain.e. The gradient is also attenuated at the geometric leading and trailing edges to preserve the In other words. i. the viscous operator in the adjoint chord length throughout the design cycles. It is equations is nothing more than the physical viscous straightforward to show that neither the smoothing nor operator acting on an adjoint velocity defined by attenuation operations alter the descent property of the gradient [2].6 ADJOINT EQUATIONS ψ v = ψ 2 iˆ + ψ 3 ˆj. UK r 2. ψ 3 = Ω. The necessary detail. (17) (cavitation) cost function. Briefly. i. the design variables are updated at the kth E v = J ξ x σˆ xx + ξ y σˆ xy . Not surprisingly. described by equations (3) through boundary conditions for the adjoint variable on this (7). ∂β ∂β Because both cost functions (11) and (14) are blade A good discussion of the remaining (arbitrary) boundary surface-based integral metrics. In the the two are very similar. and the viscous terms are given by Each blade surface-coincident point can move in a direction normal to the local surface element and the     design variable is the scalar distance in this direction. W : 2 cell overlap. The smoothing operator is a standard  ∂y ∂x  implicit type. (8) to inexpensively build the cost function gradient. discrete nature of the  ∂ψ 2 ∂ψ 3  σˆ xy = σˆ yx = ν T  + . In the interest of brevity. Marine CFD 2005: Southampton. An inner product of the resulting P. the boundary conditions a variation of the cost function [(11) or (14)]. The adjoint field equation for both cost functions is given by blade section forces. the process begins by taking the first variation of the flow B 1e . The smoothing of the σˆ xx = 2ν T . An adjoint solution ∂Fx ∂F y satisfying these relations may then be used in equation Ω= . In 0 0   ˆ   this work. In equation (17) A and B are the flux Jacobian matrices from the flow equations. the step-by-step derivation of Like the flow equations. Good given by examples of the steps involved for various cost functions and flow equations may be found in Jameson and r Bi : ψ v = 0 Reuther [6]. σˆ yy = 2ν T .2]. The boundary conditions (16) are incorporated and the result is added to On the blade surface. the adjoint equations (17) are the appropriate adjoint equations will not be covered in solved on the domain depicted in Figure 1. are flow equations given by equations (15) and (16). Reuther [5]. that are common to both cost functions.e. The process. and β is the blade stagger angle. (18b) conditions for the adjoint variable. differ for the two cost functions and are given Appropriate forms for the adjoint are then easily respectively by determined that eliminate the flow variation r r dependencies from both the field and domain boundaries.7 DESIGN VARIABLES AND DOMAIN RE-MESHING ∂E ∂F A= and B = ∂w ∂w In this work a design variable is associated with each blade surface-coincident point in the computational mesh. Fv = J η x σˆ xx + η y σˆ xy  ˆ design cycle using the steepest descent approach.

(All other Briefly. both systems have the design cycle. the eddy where s ij is the normalized arc length along the η . (c) +5° incidence. For turbulent flow simulations. the ijth field point is updated according to: and an eigenvalue-scaled fourth-difference artificial δx ij = C ij δx ik and δy ij = C ij δy ik dissipation is added for stability [8]. finite volume.5 0. The discrete equations are integrated in pseudo-time to a steady state where C ij is a scalar deflator defined as condition using a five-stage Runge-Kutta-like scheme [9].4 0. local time-steps. Discretely. Both sets of equations are Once the blade section shape is altered at the end of a advection-diffusion equations. central differences are used for advection and diffusion terms.0 0. (d) cavitation bucket.6 0.8 BASELINE 1. © 2005: Royal Institution of Naval Architects .5 -0. the surrounding field mesh must be same wave speeds (though pseudo-acoustic waves travel regenerated for the flow and adjoint solutions of the next in opposite directions in pseudo-time). implicit C ij = 1 − (3 − 2s ij ) s ij2 residual smoothing and a W-cycle multigrid scheme are used [10].8 0.2 0.2 0.Marine CFD 2005: Southampton. 1.8 0. This similarity is exploited automatic domain remeshing procedure.0 Cp Cp Cp -0.5 0.4 1.6 0.6 0. (b) 0° incidence.2 (d) 1.2 0.0 σ 0.0 -1.8 0.2 0. This simple remeshing procedure turns out to be very robust in practice.0 0. are mathematically analogous the linearized form of the flow equations (15).) The only requirement on mesh established computational techniques.8 FLOW AND ADJOINT NUMERICAL SOLUTION where n x and n y are the components of the local surface It is important to note that the adjoint field equations (17) unit normal vector. the flow and adjoint solvers are based on well- points remain stationary.4 0.0 0. and both have design cycle. Spatial movement is that it ceases at the η max boundary.6 1.5 0.0 α 28 30 32 34 36 38 40 42 44 46 48 SYN103I SYN103I SYN103I 0.6 0.0 0. surface point movement for all field points that share an η -direction mesh line with a surface point. The purpose of the deflator is to Spalart and Allmaras [12].4 0. discretization is cell-centered. smoothly attenuate grid point movement as the outer boundary is approached. For convergence acceleration. The procedure by using the same numerical scheme to solve both algebraically relates field point movement to blade systems. This is accomplished using a very simple identical viscous operators.4 0. viscosity is constructed using either the algebraic model direction mesh line measured from the blade surface to of Baldwin and Lomax [11] or the one-equation model of the outer boundary.5 -1.0 (a) (b) (c) 0. UK ~ ~ δx ik = −α G ik n x and δy ik = −α G ik n y 2.0 0.8 x x x Figure 2: Cavitation performance of the baseline NACA 65410 cascade: (a) -5° incidence.0 -1.5 -0.

Note that the blade stagger angle. there are 113 blade. CD Cp. In fact. In fact. and +5° incidence for the blade that was degrades at both the high and low incidence conditions. The ultimate goal is to shows that this blade also avoids the formation of a flatten or broaden the cavitation bucket shown suction peak at the 0° condition. UK (a) 1. For illustrative purposes.5° over most of the remainder of the section. However. RESULTS optimizing for this condition.05 σ 0.50 SYN103I NDES 0.40 -0. the best.1 CAVITATION section shapes are very similar to one-another though closer examination reveals the optimized blade to be Leading edge surface cavitation at off-design operating slightly thicker than the baseline NACA 65410 and conditions is an incidence-driven phenomenon.5 C Tp DESIGN CYC: 50 -0.225 for the ratio of 1. 3.17 -0.0 x Figure 3: Single point optimization of the NACA 65410 cascade for improvement of cavitation performance at the +5° incidence: (a) evolution of the key parameters over the design cycles. the lowest.25 0.90 -0.10 1. maintaining section lift by adjustment of the blade axis clockwise to the chord line. A comparison it is predominantly inviscid in nature and it is reasonable of the initial and final pressure distributions shows that to investigate it using the Euler equations.00 -0.0 0.05 C p DESIGN CYC: 50 1. Note that for all shows the appearance of a significant suction peak when inviscid shape optimization cases. cavitation number of the three occurs at Figure 4(a-c) show the surface pressure distributions at - the design condition and cavitation performance 5°. Not surprisingly.2 0.05 (b) SECTION DESIGN CYC: 0 C p DESIGN CYC: 0 -0. α ..35 0. blade section shapes as well as the initial and final surface pressure distributions. However. as Figure 4(d) illustrates. Figure 3(b) shows the initial and final sections appear inverted for the analyses in this work. 0°. pressure from each solution. and All of the results in this paper are obtained for a NACA stagger angle over 50 design cycles. +5° incidence case. and 30° flow angle respectively). often the case with single point optimization. Figure 2(a-c) the undesirable suction peak was effectively removed shows surface pressure distributions computed for the without significantly impacting the pressure distribution NACA 65410 section operating at design and +/.13 SECTION DESIGN CYC: 50 0. Figure 4 illustrates this phenomenon numbers are simply the negative of the minimum surface for this example. optimized for performance at the +5° operating point (i. (b) initial and final blade shapes and surface pressure distributions. all to show the results of single point optimization around three single point designs exhibit worse off-design each condition. Figure 4(a) (somewhat crudely) in Figure 2(d). the number of peak is deeper than that shown by the baseline NACA design variables. off-design Figure 2(d) summarizes the corresponding cavitation performance usually degrades with improvements at the numbers for these three conditions. this suction surface-coincident mesh points.0 0. the 65410 cascade with 30° of stagger and a pitch to chord cavitation number was reduced from 1. Also. N D .30 -0. it is clear that each off-design condition exhibits a the blade shown in Figure 3).6 0. i. Figure 4(c) shows the same sharp suction peak near the leading edge: on the pressure pressure distribution as the final distribution shown in side for the low incidence condition and suction side for Figure 3(b) with its attenuated suction peak.e.15 -0. 65410 at this same condition [Figure 2(a)].4 0. These cavitation design condition. Figure 3 summarizes the results of © 2005: Royal Institution of Naval Architects . oriented at a slightly larger stagger angle. As such.0. 40°. as measured from the +x.18 0. The initial and final 3.20 0. 35°. it is useful three conditions.15 1. this blade operates at -5° incidence.75 0 10 20 30 40 -0. Figure 4(b) the high incidence condition.e. Figure 3(a) shows the evolution of the cavitation number.0 CL.20 σ 1.8 1.. Figure 4(d) summarizes this behaviour for single point designs at all Before carrying out a multipoint optimization.80 -0.25 0.85 -0. For this case.45 -1.10 CL CD -0.. therefore. as is incidence (i.837 for the optimized section while or 35° absolute flow angle.16 -0. The design condition for this cascade is +5° NACA 65410 to 0.15 -0. CTp ∆β dβ -0. we focus on the cavitation performance than the baseline NACA 65410.95 -0.5 0. is 113.00 1.14 -0. section forces.e. Marine CFD 2005: Southampton.

2 0.0 0.4 0.8 0.30 ∆β -0. (d) cavitation bucket.0 σ 0.12 ∆β CL σ 0.8 x x x Figure 4: Performance of the single point optimized NACA 65410: (a) -5° incidence.5 0.24 0.0 (a) (b) (c) 0.40 30 σ 0.5 -0.5 .2 (d) 1.5 -1.10 -0.50 -0.80 -0.0 0.10 0.0 Cp Cp Cp -0. 40= +5° incidence) To broaden the cavitation bucket of the NACA 65410 unweighted and the two off-design conditions (+/-5°) are cascade requires the simultaneous consideration of equally weighted.25 1.20 1.Marine CFD 2005: Southampton.10 -0.5 for the three operating points under consideration.5 0.2 0.0 0.4 0.4 0.e. this amounts to choosing the scalar weights in equation (1) c1 = 0. Note that the legend in the figure labels according to flow angle (i.06 1. 35 CL 35 σ 30 CL 1.00 0 10 20 30 40 50 NDES Figure 5: Evolution of the cavitation number. the design condition is used only to fix the blade achieved when the design condition (0°) is completely section lift coefficient and the off-design conditions are used exclusively to build the cost function gradient. section lift coefficient.0 0. UK 1.6 0. In the present context.4 0.18 0.00 0.6 0. In this this case that very good off-design performance is mode.20 -0.0 0.04 0.8 0.0 -1.14 0.15 -0. (c) +5° incidence. There where the subscript 1 refers to the design condition and are an infinite number of possible choices.4 BASELINE 1.6 1-PT (30) 1-PT (40) 1.2 0.02 1.60 -0.5 -0.22 0.0 -1.20 0. © 2005: Royal Institution of Naval Architects .30 40 CL 40 σ -0.2 0.08 0.0 . It turns out in subscripts 2 and 3 are the off-design conditions. choosing multiple operating points.16 0.90 0. i.05 -0. 35 = 0°.5 0. 30 = -5° incidence. and stagger angle for the multipoint optimized NACA 65410 cascade.8 1-PT (35) 1.6 0.70 -0.8 0.e.40 0.. c 2 = 0. incidence.6 0.00 -0.. and c3 = 0.0 α 28 30 32 34 36 38 40 42 44 46 48 SYN103I SYN103I SYN103I 0. (b) 0° incidence.

Figure 5 shows the evolution of the cavitation number. Figure 6 summarizes the cavitation performance of the 3.0 0.5 0.2 0.2 0. clearly section lift coefficient and stagger angle over the design show the improvement in section pressure distributions iterations for this three point example.8 0.0 0.0 Cp Cp Cp -0.4 σ 1.8 x x x Figure 6: Performance of the three-point optimized NACA 65410 cascade: (a) -5° incidence.8 1.0 3-POINT OPTIMIZED 1.6 0.5 -0. Figure 6(d). UK 1. in a crude multipoint cost function approach. Figures shows the desired broadening of the bucket indicating © 2005: Royal Institution of Naval Architects .2 1. Figure 7 compares the stagger angle with the optimized section having about more resolved cavitation buckets of the original and 0.2 0.6 1-PT (30) 1-PT (40) 3-PT (30.5 -1.0 -1.2 0. Marine CFD 2005: Southampton. (d) comparison of the cavitation buckets. both section lift at the design condition is maintained blade sections were simulated over a 16° angle of throughout the iterations by adjustment of the section incidence range in 1° increments.6 0.0 (d) σ 0. Although the depth of the bucket for the optimized point optimized blade relative to the baseline NACA section is slightly shallower. the cavitation sense.4 2. To verify the actual cavitation cavitation performance at the design condition.2 α 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 40 42 44 Figure 7: Comparison of the computed cavitation buckets for the baseline NACA 65410 cascade and the three-point optimized cascade (design points indicated).8 1-PT (35) 1.4 0.0 0. optimized blade sections.35.5 -0.4 0. (c) +5° incidence.6 0. the optimized blade clearly 65410 and the single point optimized sections. when compared directly to Figures 4(a-c).4 BASELINE 1.6 0. also shows the effective broadening of the performance at both off-design operating points is cavitation bucket relative to the baseline as well as all of simultaneously improved with only a small penalty in the single point designs.8 0.4 0. 6(a-c). (b) 0° incidence.0 0. Blade performance of the baseline and optimized blades.5 0.8 0.27° more stagger than the baseline NACA 65410. 2.6 Design Points 1.0 α 28 30 32 34 36 38 40 42 44 46 48 SYN103I SYN103I SYN103I 0.4 0. Using this across this 10° incidence range.0 -1. Also indicated in this figure are the points about which the baseline blade was optimized.2 NACA 65410 2.0 0.40) 1.0 (a) (b) (c) 0.8 0.0 0.4 0.6 0.2 1.5 0.

11 -1.8 1.604 CD ∆β 0. will likely improve strength this improvement. the 100 design iterations. that the section would ratio of 1.606 1. 3. more interesting approach.602 0.0 0. Clearly. (b) comparison of the initial and final blade section shapes and surface pressure distributions. lift and drag coefficients.5 -0. is of limited practical As a sanity check.5% and it continues upward even as the iterations downside.6 0.00 0. © 2005: Royal Institution of Naval Architects . On the by 0.Marine CFD 2005: Southampton.607 -0.60 -0. is to use a Specifically.10 C L.70 (b) SECTION DESIGN CYC: 0 C p DESIGN CYC: 0 0. in this context. In incompressible flow.4 0. thicker thickness.70 0. i. and stagger angle.10 0. η ≡ CD CL . Absent any constraints on blade and acoustic performance. is also apparent that it will degrade cavitation N D = 225 . It also shows the operating range. Note that for all thinning the section has negative ramifications for both viscous shape optimization cases in the following. Figure 8(b) shows the mechanism for propulsor but. we examine the case where N P = 1 and the compound. In generate identical lift at the design condition ( α = 35° ). on the upside.30 0.2 EFFICIENCY Clearly evident in Figure 8(a) is a monotonic increase in section efficiency over the design iterations. (a) 1. very thin shape. multipoint cost function.e.50 0.10 SYN103I 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 NDES 0.08 1.5 1. section efficiency is increased design conditions tends to thicken the blade. we briefly consider single point value.0 and the flow conditions are such that the evolve toward a cambered.605 0. from Figure 8(b) it are 225 blade surface-coincident mesh points.0 0.. performance. some of the cavitation bucket depth has been traded off for width.0 η 0.07 1. Hydrodynamically. there structural and acoustic performance.608 1. especially in the low incidence end of lift. C D ∆βCp 1. and drag over 100 design cycles.600 0. the blade blades will likely degrade the propulsive efficiency section has thinned considerably over the course of the relative to the baseline propulsor. One possible remedy is to enforce permissible efficiency maximization of the baseline NACA 65410 thickness constraints throughout the design cycles. thicker blades will increase the weight of a were terminated.0 x Figure 8: Summary of the single point efficiency maximization case: (a) evolution of the efficiency. Over the course of edge incidence-driven cavitation performance at off.610 1.30 0. the section one can only consider efficiency in the context of viscous incidence has been increased by adjustment the stagger flow. For this reason.90 CL -0.09 0.601 0.20 -0. UK less sensitivity to surface cavitation in off-design Figure 8(a) shows the evolution of the section efficiency.0 0. design iterations. all results hereafter are generated angle.20 0. The net result is a leading edge-biased loading and from solutions of the RANS flow equations and the the formation of a suction peak that was absent in the viscous adjoint equations.2 0. Also evident Improving the robustness of a blade design for leading is a large increase in stagger angle. unconstrained section efficiency maximization. The asymmetry of the improvement C L = transverse force coefficient also suggests that it may be desirable to asymmetrically C D = axial force coefficient weigh the cost function to further manipulate the off- design performance. therefore. the present context. Intuitively this is what again the NACA 65410 cascade with a pitch to chord one would expect to occur.60 SECTION DESIGN CYC:100 -0. cost function is given by equation (14). Aggressively chord Reynolds number is 1x106. It should also be noted that both blades variation of the stagger angle needed to maintain lift.50 C p DESIGN CYC:100 0.40 0. in order to improve efficiency.609 1. In the effort to maintain lift.40 0. The baseline geometry is once NACA 65410 at this condition. conditions. the following relations are relevant: In essence.603 η 0. however. A cascade at the design condition of 0° incidence.80 0.

10 0.6032 35 η 0.10 0.6036 35 CL 0.6036 0.80 -0.05 0. some NACA 65410 Cascade design point performance has been sacrificed for off- Cavitation (40) Optimized design improvement.90 0.200 -0.75 35 σ -0.180 -0.33% lower than the initial NACA 65410 cascade.50 0.90 1. All shows the results of 100 design cycles using a relative three sections are very similar in shape.6032 35 CD 0.30 -0.55 0.0 CL.70 0.68/0. once again.00 1.060 1.6022 -1.6030 40 σ -0.90 35 CD 5. Marine CFD 2005: Southampton.060 1.0 and c 2 = 1. combined efficiency/cavitation shape optimization of the NACA 65410 cascade: (a) relative weights = 0.70 -0.6042 0.0/1.200 -0.10 0.20 0.0 0. The problem is to decrease the 5° cost functions respectively. the efficiency-based cost function (14) is implemented at the Figure 10 directly compares the optimized blade section design point in conjunction with the cavitation mitigation shapes for the baseline NACA 65410 cascade and the cost function (11) at the off-design condition.6046 -0.6028 -0. 3. lift and drag coefficients. of course.00 0.90 0.60 0. due to the inevitable SYN103I thickening of the blade section to increase robustness to 0. Figure 9(a) summarizes the results for 100 design facilitate comparisons between the two cases. The weights for this shape Efficiency (35) & Cavitation (40) Optimized optimization case were set at c1 = 0.10 0. efficiency/cavitation optimized blade sections.50 -0.20 0.53/1. Specifically.85 0. From this it is apparent that the efficiency of the optimized cascade is about 0.70 0.30 -0.0 for the design and off-design cost functions respectively.05 0. consider a two-point for the design point efficiency and off-design cavitation optimization problem.45 0.] The final cycles (though from the figure it is apparent that the incipient cavitation number spread for the optimized design stabilizes after only 25 design cycles).6040 -0.10 0. The figure blade in this case is 0. UK (a) (b) 0.10 35 CL -0.6042 0.50 1.80 0.07% reduction in design/off-design conditions respectively (at design cycle efficiency.6044 0. CD 35 σ ∆β ∆β η η σ σ 0.60 1.833 and c 2 = 0. that the design point was used only to constrain the blade lift. multipoint cost function is examined.30 0.6024 -0.080 1.60 0.50 0. CD CL.70 35 η -0.70 ∆β 0.00 1.40 0.15 0. number spread for the optimized blade has improved to 0.140 -0.6028 -0. As has been evident in other cases.6034 0.60 0.25 0.00 0.100 0. Once again.50 0.8 x incidence angle.40 1.0/1.20 0.6030 -0. stagger angle.95 -0.0/1.80 ∆β -0.90 0.6038 0.6022 -1.20 0.59/0.40 1. implying.0.00 0.6024 0. (b) relative weights = 5.0.88 – worse for both conditions shows that the initial NACA 65410 cascade has an than the previous case [Figure 9(a)] but this blade incipient cavitation number spread of 0.6044 0.45 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 NDES NDES Figure 9: Evolution of efficiency.00 0. this loss in efficiency may not be tolerable.0 0. The baseline weighting of NACA 65410 cascade provides the largest axial force of © 2005: Royal Institution of Naval Architects .0/1.00 0.80 -0.00 0.160 -0.6038 0.3 COMBINED CAVITATION AND EFFICIENCY c1 = 0.2 0.80 0.80 0. Depending on the particular design problem.4 0. which is considerably better than the previous 0).50 1.95 0. and cavitation number over 100 design cycles for the two-point.6046 -0.120 0. Figure 9(b) optimized sections described in Figures 9(a) and (b).75 0. [Note that while constraining the lift at the design point (35° flow Figure 9(b) is plotted on the same scales as Figure 9(a) to angle).160 -0.6040 -0.65 -0.080 1.65 0. This is. a compound. the design point incidence (40° flow angle) incipient cavitation number lift was constrained by pitch angle adjustment.25 0.167 For illustrative purposes.120 0.20 0. Also plotted in Figure 9(a) is the section efficiency at the design flow condition.15 -0.90 1.6 0.60 1.140 40 σ -0.6026 0.71. the cavitation case.40 0.60 -0. Figure 10: Comparison of the baseline NACA 65410 cascade with off-design cavitation-only and multipoint To mitigate this undesirable phenomenon.55 -0.6034 0.30 0.15 for the achieves this spread with only a 0. At the end of 100 design cycles.70 0.20 0.85 -0.100 0.180 -0.6026 -0.

. Research Engineer and Head of the CFD Analysis Department at the Applied Research Laboratory at the 6. 1. Dreyer... cavitation-only section yields the best cavitation characteristics of the three but provides the least axial 2.. Dept. J. design. they included: single and multiple AIAA Paper 81-1259. Chorin. The off. UK the three for the specified transverse load. Princeton improvement in the desired metric or metrics was University.J. His primary responsibility is to provide high-fidelity RANS simulations in support 1. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS 12. The point to be stressed here is that there is a lot of 4. ‘Hydrodynamic Shape Optimization of force. Comp..R. it demonstrates better cavitation Approach.. vividly demonstrated the flexibility inherent in the proposed approach to these types of shape optimization 11. Dissertation. the poorest off-design cavitation performance.. ‘Aerodynamic Shape Optimization Using Control Theory. turbulent cascade flow. Vol. A. University of In this work.R. Jameson. the final stagger angle of the compromise 3. Journal of Aircraft. The Airfoil Design Using the Euler Equations.. J. Reuther. W. and Turkel.. Sci. ‘Constrained Multipoint and efficiency over a range of operating conditions while Aerodynamic Shape Optimization Using an Adjoint maintaining constant powering performance at the design Formulation and Parallel Computers. J. The multipoint combined Euler Equations for Aircraft Configurations. L. Jameson. Allmaras. metrics were outlined in the context of two-dimensional. 3(3):233-260. Also essential to this work was the advice and assistance of 7. Part I. A. Department of performance improvement. ‘Aerodynamic Design via Control cascade does not lie between the other two sections – this Theory. and Reuther.J. 1996. P. J. Martinelli. ‘Calculations of Viscous Flows with a multipoint combined cavitation and efficiency Multigrid Method.. Jan. 2. 8. Baldwin.. © 2005: Royal Institution of Naval Architects .. ‘A Numerical Method for Solving continuous adjoint problem. 1978.’ J. Jameson. Dissertation..J.D. ‘Thin Layer problems. ‘Control Theory Based incipient surface cavitation and section efficiency.. 1967. Lomax. 1992. The derivation of the Incompressible Viscous Flow Problems. 1987. Martinelli. 4. In each case. June 2001. demonstrated.’ were executed. performance Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering. 2002. J. and Saunders. this latter feature is essential for developing 10. efficient multipoint shape optimization was California Davis. E. operating point cavitation performance improvement. The context was marine thruster design and the performance metrics used were leading edge 6. CONCLUSIONS 5. ‘A One-Equation This work was supported by the Office of Naval Turbulence Model for Aerodynamic Flows. ‘Numerical Solutions of the Euler Equations by Finite Volume Several demonstrative shape optimization procedures Methods Using Runge-Kutta Time-Marching Schemes. The Pennsylvania State University. J..’ Journal of appropriate adjoint problem for both performance Computational Physics. Dissertation. Alonso. A.. No. S. A. B. REFERENCES Pennsylvania State University.’ Ph.. ‘Hydrodynamic Shape of the design of marine propulsors and pumps for Optimization of Propulsor Configurations Using a manned and unmanned underwater vehicles. T. J. Baker.S. 1981. 1984... higher thrust than the cavitation-optimized cascade.’ AIAA Paper Research under contract number N00014-00-G-0058 92-0439.D. H.Marine CFD 2005: Southampton. D. 94-4272. steepest descent approach. Jameson. 51:60. of Mechanical performance than the baseline cascade and provides Engineering. monitored by Tom Calvert and Lynn Petersen.. The combined efficiency and cavitation optimized Propulsor Configurations Using a Continuous Adjoint section is a compromise. Approximation and Algebraic Model for Separated Turbulent Flows. 5..’ Ph. Spalart.’ AIAA Paper 2001-2580.D. AUTHOR BIOGRAPHY Professor Luigi Martinelli of the Department of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering at Princeton James Dreyer holds the current position of Associate University. Interestingly.. L. Reuther.J. is an outcome that doesn’t seem to be intuitively obvious. ‘Multigrid Solution of the a useful design tool. Schmidt.’ AIAA Paper optimization procedure used was a simple gradient-based.’ AIAA condition. 36. Rimlinger.J.’ Ph.’ AIAA Paper 78-257.. The required gradients were constructed very efficiently from the solution of a 7. Jameson. and 9. A. single-point section efficiency improvement. Dreyer. 1999. 1988. J. achieved while maintaining the specified design point performance. 1994. flexibility inherent in this approach to trade-off cavitation M.J. A. though it has Continuous Adjoint Approach.’ AIAA cavitation/efficiency cost function case in particular also Paper 84-0093.

Petropars Ltd. Chow observed regions of separated flow originating just beyond the wave trough U∞ Free-stream velocity and in some cases beyond the trailing edge. Iran SUMMARY The present simulation deals with numerical calculation of free surface wave induced separation.37. and are important with regard to (2001) provided detailed experimental data ship performance. Such effects are a unique wave breaking. The nature of the flow in Free surface wave induced separation. because of its lower cost and higher level of producible data. The NACA0024 foil is a simplified geometry pressures for surface piercing NACA0024 hydrofoil. thus Kandasamy et al. and drag coefficients. free surface elevations. Y. (1989) using a surface piercing flat ′ ′ plate with attached wave generating upstream horizontal ui u j Reynolds stresses submerged foil (foil-plate model). wave breaking. which simulates the U∞ Stern et al. and M H Sadr. In comparison to the Fr Froude number. but with different foil geometry. for RANS simulation of wave induced separation. S M Mousaviraad. and platform documentation of the wave elevations and surface stability. 0. along with the already formidable subject of skin friction lines.19. and which free surface streamlines are treated similarly as turbulence. in order to investigate the shape effects on the wave induced separation. separation the separation region was qualitatively similar as Choi solely due to wave induced effects. It was also X. i. vorticity. that has insignificant separation at large depths. designed for insignificant t Time separation at large depths. The wave breaking flow is also simulated successfully and results are presented. As with Chow. separation. Flow features are studied and discussed with regard to separation. Numerical modeling is found to be very effective for studying such complicated flows. These studies υ Kinematic viscosity showed the dependence of the streamwise and depthwise extent of the separation region on Froude number and αw Volume fraction of water wave steepness. experimental geometry. Zhang and U∞L Stern (1996) studied the problem through RANS Re Reynolds number. The first simulation is performed for NACA0024 surface piercing hydrofoil over a range of Froude number (0. (1997) performed and poorly understood problem of ship and platform experimental study of free surface wave induced hydrodynamics due to wave making.55). υ (Reynolds Averaged Navier Stokes) simulation with 1. Wave induced separation results are presented and compared with both available experimental data and previous numerical computations. (2001) used CFDSHIP-IOWA (a making an ideal geometry by isolating the wave induced general purpose research code for ship hydrodynamics) separation. r v Velocity vector separation initiated just beyond the wave trough and λ Wave length extended to the following wave crest. and that the transverse extent is wedge αa Volume fraction of air shaped with significant free surface vorticity and turbulence.. where there is no free surface wave. It involves the derived for free surface wave induced separation in complexities of free surface deformations. thus isolating wave induced separation. UK NUMERICAL SIMULATION OF FREE SURFACE WAVE INDUCED SEPARATION S H Sadathosseini. which is an important phenomenon in naval architecture and offshore engineering problems. but described in detail using a topological rule ocean and marine engineering. wake signatures. They © 2005: Royal Institution of Naval Architects . The the flow is naturally unsteady for high Froude numbers. Z Cartesian coordinates studied by Stern et al. boundary layer becomes complicated when there is a free and both further numerical and experimental study are surface due to the effects of gravity waves and free needed for accurate analysis of flow characteristics and surface boundary condition. INTRODUCTION exact nonlinear kinematic and approximate dynamic free surface boundary conditions. is very important in and Stern.Marine CFD 2005: Southampton. The second modeling is carried out for a circular cylinder. the extent was grossly over/under gL predicted for the laminar/turbulent solutions. The NACA0024 foil was exploited for the reason that it almost has no separation at large depths. experimental data. along with wave breaking at Fr=1. NOMENCLATURE The wave induced separation was first identified by g Acceleration of gravity Chow (1967) using vertical (surface piercing) and L Foil chord length & Cylinder diameter horizontal (submerged) foils. 0. Zhang and Stern also remarked that three dimensional boundary layer separation. Metcalf et al.e. Choi and Stern (1993) performed laminar and ρ Density turbulent CFD calculations for a surface piercing flat µ Viscosity plate with an external Stokes wave. Pogozelski et al. and/or incident waves.

Marine CFD 2005: Southampton. The results of wave breaking at Fr=1 are considered the first test case.822. NUMERICAL MODELLING Wave breaking. In addition. Having a diameter of the volume fraction of water in each cell. solves RANS equations simultaneously for both water and air. For example. 0. 1. The treatment for the free surface flow uses an interface capturing method. with reference to the experimental data.6 percent of L. presented.26)× 10 . 2. and momentum equation. RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS ∂α w r + v .. the present study includes shape effects 6 investigation for free surface wave induced separation. 3 shows the wave profile along the circular cylinder this manner. is also an intricate problem. The wave profile is similar following constraint: to that of a typical ship. and is simulated in of 2 m (75% in water). The individual Reynolds stresses modeling technique. 3. which has significant separation at the flow at Fr=1 is calculated to study the wave breaking large depths.52. is solved. If the volume 1. bow wave peak is almost 6. Fr=(0. Three conditions are simulated.19. volume of fluid (VOF).. viscosity) are also computed in Fig. 0. than by A single momentum equation is solved throughout the Kelvin waves generated by the high pressure stagnation domain. the tracking of the interface between the phases Fig.2 m. wave induced and shape induced separations. a span numbers. 2.19. but there are no experimental data or previous numerical results for comparison. and the wave length is slightly αw + αa = 1 (2) greater than that given by Kelvin wave theory ( λ = 2πFr ).55) and the Moreover. 1 shows the grids generated for the NACA0024 foil is accomplished by the solution of a continuity equation and the circular cylinder. an additional transport equation is solved for vastly used in offshore platforms. ui u j . The cells near free surface in both air and water The CFD (Computational Fluid Dynamics) results are fields are designed to be very small (2 mm height) to obtained solving RANS equations by finite volume catch more accurate water deformation results. is modeled to examine the interaction of flow of the hydrofoil. (RSM). A single set of transport equations is solved. method. COMPUTATIONAL METHOD which consists of 215000 hexahedral structured cells. it is intended to evaluate the shape effects on the wave induced fraction of water and air in each cell is denoted as α w separation. This model involves calculation of the individual ′ ′ The present computation presents an improvement in Reynolds stresses. 2 presents the wave profile along the foil. which occurs at very high Froude A NACA0024 foil with a chord length of 1. experimental data than all previous numerical and the Reynolds stresses are shared by the phases calculations. This equation has the following form: 4. circular cylinder. The bow wave peak is about 1.g. The free surface waves are more dominated by the strong pressure distribution of bluff body.∇α w = 0 (1) ∂t Fig. and α a . In The second test case is a circular cylinder. and The volume fraction equation will not be solved for air. and a thickness of 0. for Fr=0. which are then used to obtain closure of the Reynolds averaged takes the effects of outer air into consideration. ρ = α w ρw + α a ρa (3) All other properties (e. UK also studied the effects of blockage considering four Turbulence is modeled using the Reynolds Stress Model different solution domains. A corresponding Re=(0. compares it with Zhang & Stern experimental and the volume fraction of air will be computed based on the numerical results for Fr=0. The momentum equation is dependent on the the free surface elevations decrease with an almost volume fractions of all phases through the properties ρ constant steepness before the cylinder shoulders. and the resulting velocity field is shared among point. which is this method. It is due to using a robust free surface throughout the field. The results are nearly as accurate as 2 The properties appearing in the transport equations are determined by the presence of the component phases in Zhang & Stern numerical results.2 m (equal to the foil chord length).37. Since the geometry is symmetrical. The and µ .6 percent of L. for the volume fraction of water. i. indicating that the each control volume. the density in each effects of air on numerical results of this test case are not cell is given by: significant at low Froude numbers. © 2005: Royal Institution of Naval Architects .19.29 cm is this study. using differential transport numerical modeling and shows better agreement with equations.e. VOF (Volume Of Fluid). and then the phases. only half domain. The water piles up in front of the body.

Marine CFD 2005: Southampton. the wave profiles 0. The wave profiles are relatively flat 0. 6 and 7 show the wave profiles along the circular cylinder for Fr=0.05 Present Simulation Z(m) 0 -0. 4 and 5 show the wave profiles along the -0.7 0.05 in the separation regions.4 0.05 Z(m) 0 -0.4 0.05 respectively. Figure 5: Wave Profile along the NACA0024 Foil for Fr=0.3 0.1 0.9 1 X/L Figure 3: Wave Profile along the Circular Cylinder for Fr=0.1 -0.55 At these Froude numbers. and this flat region is smaller z(m) for Fr=0.6 0. which suggests the significance of the air effects at higher Froude numbers.6 0.3 0.2 0. -0.4 0.3 0.37 and Fr=0.2 0.55 are 6 and 12 percent of L.6 0.37 and Fr=0.19 0.5 0.8 1 X/L data.05 -0.6 0.8 0.55.8 1 X/L Figure 2: Wave Profile along the NACA0024 Foil for Fr=0.4 0. 0.37 and Fr=0.1 Experiment [Zhang &Stern] Numerical [Zhang &Stern] Present Simulation 0.7 0.15 0.5 0.37 and Fr=0.1 0.55 are 9 and 18 percent Fr=0. which are much greater than those of the NACA0024 foil.05 Z(m) 0 -0.2 -0.1 0. the wave profiles are different 0.5 0.1 and the Circular Cylinder 0.3 0. The bow wave peak for 0 Fr=0. Unlike the foil.05 -0.05 z(m) 0 -0.1 0.4 0.8 0.1 NACA0024 for Fr=0.55 than for Fr=0. -0.37 of L.1 from those of ships.7 0.9 1 X/L Figs.8 1 X/L Figure 4: Wave Profile along the NACA0024 Foil for Fr=0.55 © 2005: Royal Institution of Naval Architects .1 0 0.15 Figure 1: Computational Grids for the NACA0024 Foil Experiment [Zhang &Stern] Numerical [Zhang &Stern] 0.37 0.05 -0.1 Present Simulation 0.37.8 0. The bow Figure 6: Wave Profile along the Circular Cylinder for wave peak for Fr=0.1 z(m) 0 -0. UK 0. respectively.2 0.19 0.1 -0.05 Figs.4 0.2 0.15 0 0.15 present modeling agrees better with the experimental 0 0.6 0.1 -0.55.1 0 0.6 0.2 0.2 are not flat in the separation regions. respectively.2 0.9 1 X/L Figure 7: Wave Profile along the Circular Cylinder for Fr=0. respectively.15 0 0. The -0.3 0 0.15 Experiment [Zhang &Stern] Numerical [Zhang &Stern] 0.

3 at different Froude numbers.4 0.6 0.05 0 0.005 Figure 9: Comparison of the Wave Profiles of the 0. UK Fig.37 Fr=0.2 0.2 0. NACA0024 Frictional Pressure Total 0. However. the shape effects seems to become stronger.05 separation region.9 1 x -0. For Fr=0.1 X/L -0. For Fr=0. the wave steepness. the 0.55 0. 11 presents the variations of pressure.19 0. 0.19 0.6 0. the bow wave peak and -0.4 0.2 -0. the 0.1 0.1 z(m) 0 NACA0024 Foil at Different Froude Numbers -0. Fig.6 0.9 1 -0. 10 is intended to investigate the shape effects on the Frictional Pressure Total wave pattern of surface piercing bodies. and the wave pattern is relatively flat in the -0.19 Fr=0. the free 0 0.1 Fig.8 0.4 0.2 0.4 0.1 wave pattern is similar to that of ships. All values are © 2005: Royal Institution of Naval Architects . Fr=0.3 0.37 0. with increase in 0 0.1 0.15 cylinder is affected by the strong pressure distribution of 0.55 Circular Cylinder at Different Froude Numbers Circular Cylinder Fig.2 0.55.3 0. 8 compares the wave profiles of the NACA0024 Fr=0.37 and Figure 10: Comparison between the Wave Profiles of the Fr=0. the wave patterns are Froude dependent. For Fr=0.05 Circular Cylinder NACA0024 bow wave becomes more significant.37 Fr 0.1 Fr=0.7 0.7 0.5 0.7 0. the 0. For Fr=0.01 z(m) 0 -0.05 the distortions in the separation region are larger for the 0.6 0.6 0.15 Circular Cylinder NACA0024 0.3 0. 0 is Froude dependent. the free surface has an -0. mainly affected by the high pressure 0.2 -0. the wave height.8 1 Fr=0.37. For Fr=0.19. i.1 0. frictional and total drag coefficients versus Froude number for the NACA0024 and the circular cylinder.2 Circular Cylinder NACA0024 Figure 8: Comparison of the Wave Profiles of the 0. Marine CFD 2005: Southampton. wave steepness.3 0. because of its blunt shape.2 stagnation point.55.005 -0. the wave pattern.1 0.3 0.8 0.3 0 0 0.55. 9 compares the wave profiles of the circular cylinder -0.3 shape effects are dominant.15 0 0.9 1 bow wave peak.05 -0. The NACA0024 Foil and the Circular Cylinder wave height.3 0. and the wave pattern of the circular 0.2 0. and distortion of the X/L free surface in the separation region.37.55 X/L 0. the wave steepness z(m) 0 is larger.1 0.15 0.05 Z(m) 0 -0.1 -0.7 0. and the distortions in the separation region are more significantly affected by the shape effects.19 Fr=0.37 Fr=0. NACA0024 Foil and the Circular Cylinder the wave steepness.1 0. although the primary pattern of the wave remains Froude Fig 11: Variations of Drag Coefficients versus Fr for the dependent.2 Fr=0.25 similar to ships.5 0. which is similar to that of circular cylinder at large depths.55 0 0.55 Fr circular cylinder. and the distortion in the separation region become larger with Froude.9 1 surface elevations are affected by the strong pressure X/L distribution of the body.5 0.19.19.8 0.1 0.8 0.5 0. For Fr=0.1 even more complicated wave system.05 the wave steepness and the trend of the wave elevations.19 hydrofoil at different Froude numbers. For Fr=0.1 the blunt shaped body. For Fr=0. the wave pattern of the foil is Variations of Drag Coefficients 0.37 0.4 0.05 z(m) 0.e.015 Variations of Drag Coefficients 0.

For smaller than that of Fr=0. Besides. extend to about Z=-1 m. The separation regions. Fig.37.55 at which water deformations are extended behind the trailing edge. pattern is dominated by the shape effects. the pressure drag coefficient increases due to the effects of the bow wave. and the separation in free Fr=0.37 and Fr=0.19 to 0. 16 presents the contours of X component of the wall For Fr=0. 13 shows the pressure contours for the circular cylinder.37. the wave effects are limited to depths very close to the free surface. the primary wave patterns of shear stress on the circular cylinder. and the separation region in free surface area is very small. For Fr=0. 12 shows the pressure contours in the symmetry plane for the NACA0024 foil.55.Marine CFD 2005: Southampton. circular cylinder are similar. and not shape. UK subtracted from the corresponding values for Fr=0. The shape effects are evident on the bow wave peak. For Fr=0. where the wall shear stress values are negative. the extent of the free surface effects. The water deformations are considerably extended behind the body. and the separation in free surface area starts at about X/L=0.55.19. Therefore. and the separation point at large depths This suggests that at high Froude numbers.32. the wave effects become strong.86.56. especially at Fr=0. are also marked in the figure. the wake pattern of the circular cylinder is much different from that of the NACA0024 foil.55. and the wave pattern of the circular cylinder is dominated by the pressure distribution of the bluff body. 14. Therefore the separation surface waves are a function of Froude. Figure 12: Pressure Contours for the NACA0024 Foil in the Symmetry Plane For Fr=0. the free is located at about X/L=0. At low Froude numbers.15 m. Kelvin waves are generated around the surface area occurs at about X/L=0. in an attempt to show the free surface elevations around the foil.19. the wave patterns of the NACA0024 foil and the surface wave effects only delay the separation. unlike Fr=0.3 m. The frictional drag coefficient.67. the waves are found to be insignificant far from the body. For Fr=0. As Fr increases.37 and then increases a little as Fr increases further to 0.19. Fig. and the free Hence. decreases as Fr increases from 0. © 2005: Royal Institution of Naval Architects . the the foil and the circular cylinder are similar. hydrofoil.19. the flow recovers to 2D at about Z=-0. the wave effects become even stronger and The wave patterns in the wake of the NACA0024 foil extend to about Z=-1.55. despite of their different shapes. The separation region is and the circular cylinder are presented in Fig. and the distortion in the separation and wake regions. Figure 13: Pressure Contours for the Circular Cylinder in the Symmetry Plane Fig. 15 presents the contours of X component of the wall shear stress on the NACA0024 foil. though there location of the separation point in free surface area is at are more disorders in the wake of the circular cylinder. on the other hand. about X/L=0. Fig. which is consistent with the size of the separation region.

respectively.55). Associated with the periodically. dependent. and close to the NACA0024 hydrofoil. the wave effects for the circular nature of the separation. the pressure drag coefficient increases with NACA0024 foil at Fr=1. This suggests that 5. The present simulation was region. nevertheless further © 2005: Royal Institution of Naval Architects . Flow results are presented and analyzed with regard to the wave and viscous flow. over a delay the separation point.64. and drag coefficients. cylinder extend to very larger depths than for the foil.37 and Fr=0. the flow becomes (0. in agreement with the separation turbulence. the problem.4 and X/L=0. and the separation patterns are all Froude its streamwise extent. the free on the depthwise extent of the separation region.37). range of Froude numbers. 17 shows the free surface waves for the wave pattern. CONCLUSIONS at these high Froude numbers. able to cope with these difficulties. Marine CFD 2005: Southampton. and then decreases as Fr unsteady. The phenomenon is extremely Fr. which are very different from large depths.55. The shape effects also slightly bodies of NACA0024 foil and circular cylinder. This indicates that the shape effects are more significant The study indicates that the drag coefficients. At all Froude numbers. UK Figure 14: Wave Patterns of the NACA0024 Foil and the Circular Cylinder For Fr=0. the separation points in free developments seem to be needed to explain the details of surface areas are located at about X/L=0. than on surface waves. decreases with Fr. The frictional drag coefficient increases and then complicated due to the effects of unsteadiness. The bow wave peak increases with Fr and the separation region increases as Fr increases from small At very high Froude numbers. and free surface wave induced The free surface flow is calculated for surface piercing separation is dominant. and the waves arise and break down increases further to high (0. especially at high Fr.19) to medium (0. and air trapping. the separation pattern is Froude dependent. Fig.

Marine CFD 2005: Southampton. UK Figure 15: X-Wall Shear Stress Contours on the Figure 16: X-Wall Shear Stress Contours on the Circular NACA0024 Foil Cylinder © 2005: Royal Institution of Naval Architects .

Z. F. S.E. numerical simulation is possible only with robust free surface and turbulence modeling techniques. study the effects of Reynolds number. the depthwise extent of the separation. M. pp. For very high Fr. M. Theory”. IA. Marine CFD 2005: Southampton. 546-554. pp. and JAW. F. 118. UK of its streamwise extent. Iowa City. “The Flow Structure around a Surface-Piercing Strut”. ZHANG.. Physics of Fluids. “Experimental investigations of Wave-Induced Separation on a Surface-Piercing NACA0024 Hydrofoil”. METCALF. KATZ. University of Iowa. but further numerical and experimental investigations are recommended for identifying detailed flow features. At very low Fr. 1. August 1995. Iowa City. 6th International Conference on Numerical Ship Hydrodynamics. Thesis. 9. University of Iowa. 63-80. “Free-Surface Effects on Boundary-Layer Separation on Vertical Struts”. HWANG. F. and STERN. and the flow becomes extremely unsteady. 8.. 1387-1399.S. The next steps are to evaluate the performance of turbulence models. However. B. J. Engineering. 6. Vol. 2001. pp. Z. 1996. Journal of Fluids At higher Fr.. S. despite © 2005: Royal Institution of Naval Architects . REFERENCES 1.. 4. June 1967. E. in addition to fine grids. Journal of Ship Research. STERN. Figure 17: Wave Breaking of NACA0024 Foil at Fr=1 6. J. ZHANG.Y.. “RANS Simulation of Free-Surface Wave-Induced Separation on a Surface–Piercing NACA0024 Hydrofoil”. 2. the wave breaking occurs. “Wave-Induced Separation”. and govern the primary pattern of the separation. W. the wave effects become very significant. 215-238. and assess the critical Fr. and shape effects dominate the flow and separation regime. “Solid-Fluid Juncture Boundary Layer and Wake with Waves”. Moreover. PhD Thesis. IA. KANDASAMY. pp. No. As a result. 5.. wave induced separation is not strong. 33. at which the wave breaking begins. and in providing an implement of design and optimization for ocean engineering applications. especially for medium and high Fr. “Free-Surface Wave-induced Separation”. University of Iowa Thesis.. University of Iowa Thesis. 1989.K.. 2001. The present numerical model is useful both in taking insight into the complicated problem of free surface wave induced separation. CHOW. No. August 1993. is highly affected by the shape effects. T. the distortions of the wave pattern in the separation and wake region are shape dependent. CHOI.. 5. and STERN. Vol. 7.. Proc. Vol. Iowa City. The present modeling was able to solve the wave breaking flow. POGOZELSKI. “Effects of Waves on the Boundary Layer of a This study also proves that the effects of air on the Surface–Piercing Flat Plate: Experiment and accuracy of the numerical modeling are very significant. and HUANG. 1997.S. IA. 3.

Marine CFD 2005: Southampton. Pref Static pressure. with a particular emphasis on large amplitude ship motions. A NURBS-based definition of the geometry of each body and the free-surface is used.Three Quays. tanks etc.Three Quays (IOM) Ltd. A primary aim of the project was to ensure its effectiveness in solving practical naval architectural problems.t) Free surface elevation by the inclusion of various analytic and empirical n Total number of panels components.2] is an velocity example of one of the more sophisticated codes. Robust dynamic meshing plays a critical part in the success of the method. A source/doublet boundary element method is used in conjunction with Euler-Lagrange time stepping to solve the fully non-linear free surface equations. Their applicability to problems with vs Velocity of a point on a body large amplitude motions. where slamming and green vr Flow velocity relative to the body water effects become significant. and each body and the free surface are re-meshed up to the dynamic waterline at every time step. Strip-theory codes are widely used in the σ Source density industry for prediction of ship motions and loads. but µ Doublet density whilst being very useful and computationally n Unit normal to the surface undemanding. velocity vt Tangential component of panel perturbation The time domain strip theory FREDYN [1. assumptions. In addition to describing the background to the development of the code. Atmospheric pressure blended method combining non-linear hydrostatics and ρ Water density Froude-Krylov exciting forces with linear radiation- g Acceleration due to gravity diffraction forces computed using conformal mapping. named BASIN (Boundary-element Analysis for Seakeeping Investigation). but generally has limited applications for ship L Vessel length between perpendiculars seakeeping studies due to the inherent restrictions on k Wave number forward speed.y. NFS Number of free surface panels NW Number of wake panels 3D Diffraction theory is used extensively in the offshore λ Wavelength industry. the authors present some very encouraging validations of the code against standard data. slender vessels. a Wave amplitude za Heave amplitude θa Pitch amplitude © 2005: Royal Institution of Naval Architects . has been developed in house by Burness Corlett . and roll damping vn Normal component of panel perturbation must be linearised. The use of conformal mapping restricts the NH Number of body panels range of sectional shapes that can be analysed. they have inherent limitations that restrict r Position vector their usefulness. although various methods have been W Surface of the wake(s) devised to analyse non-linear problems with varying v Perturbation velocity degrees of success. including steady state wave making. UK SUMMARY This paper describes the development of a time domain potential flow code which was conceived as a tool for the analysis of general hydrodynamics problems. They are based on linearising S Surface of the bodies. The method is only the body reference frame strictly valid for long. The code. Burness Corlett . heave decay of a displaced spheroid and large-amplitude heave and pitch motions in regular and irregular head seas for the S-175 containership. is questionable and vb Velocity of the body reference system problems can also occur for high Froude numbers and ω Angular velocity of the body about an axis in ships with significant bow flare.. Other effects are modelled η(x. A V Prescribed velocity for free surface vertices correction is made to the linear components to account t Time for large amplitude motions. it uses a P. INTRODUCTION x. UK BASIN – DEVELOPMENT OF A PRACTICAL BOUNDARY ELEMENT CODE FOR HYDRODYNAMIC ANALYSIS N R Southall and B J Corlett.y. NOMENCLATURE 1.z Cartesian coordinates Accurate prediction of six degree-of-freedom ship Φ Velocity potential motions in heavy seas without resorting to model testing Φi Inner potential has always been a difficult problem for the naval Φ∞ Free stream potential architect.

quantitative risk analysis requirements for a full seakeeping analysis in irregular and other technical studies. Empirical and semi-empirical direct integration of the pressure distribution over the methods are available for dealing with this type of body. The tools have to be capable of being realistic timeframes. This code produces knowledge based market where much of the knowledge excellent results but it is difficult to apply the method to necessary for the success of the business depends on the complex geometries. and loads arising from them including the effects of freedom motion history of the body can be obtained by a slamming and green water. Marine CFD 2005: Southampton. The formulation is fully non-linear and is applicable to a wide range of hydrodynamic We currently use various programs for sea keeping problems. To carry out this type of work the The BASIN (Boundary-element Analysis for Seakeeping naval architects involved need to know about and Investigation) code currently under development by understand the principles involved and they need to have Burness Corlett . This is worthwhile in its own right and has initially conceived for other industries have been important cross fertilisation benefits for the more general developed to be more useful for marine problems. Some problems have been means. This of our staff are fundamental to this and to a large extent appears to be a good approach to the problem but it does this capability is developed and maintained in the course not seem to have had its true potential realised in this of ongoing consultancy work carried out by the various code. Viscous models can be added to provide estimates problem and there are various analytical codes being of viscous damping effects. and a linear episodic events involving large loadings and motions solution used in the outer domain. Maskew [8-10] also uses an long term technical and commercial experience of the Euler/Lagrange method but uses a source/doublet panel staff in the marine industry. reliable. code developed by Lin et al. BASIN uses a similar boundary.Three Quays was conceived as a available flexible. casualty investigations. the business has always cultivated a measure of higher level technical knowledge Reynolds-Averaged Navier-Stokes (RANS) codes have and capability that has enabled it to sell more analytical become increasingly popular in the marine industry in or research orientated consultancy to a wide range of recent years. We operate in a highly an Euler/Lagrange approach. excellent results can be obtained for steady state problems such as Group companies carry out various activities including prediction of ship wave resistance and time-varying design of a wide range of vessel types. The complete six degree-of. [4-7] at the University of Michigan uses a desingularised source Burness Corlett . UMDELTA code. optimisation. using methods derived from work in Beck’s the time.Three Quays is part of a broad based panel approach and solves the non-linear problem using marine consultancy group. It is particularly useful for investigation of singularity method used in the inner domain. It assumes that waves experiencing rapid change in the time domain that cannot due to radiation/diffraction effects are small compared to realistically be investigated computationally by any other the incident waves. It uses a split-domain method possible to run useful problems in a realistic timeframe separated by a matching surface. BUSINESS JUSTIFICATION UMDELTA method developed by Beck et al. but knowledgeable but who are not narrow specialists and includes more accurate calculation of some of the critical will be involved in other technical activities for much of components. In practical over the body is calculated. The 2. with business as well. Naval Architects as a practical everyday tool for this ship motion investigation. practical and accessible practical tool for use in the analysis of real problems in analytical tools. but it is motions and loads. In addition to that. With the codes available today. Aspects of our sea keeping work involve static problem at discrete time steps with unsteady investigation of very large motions and the accelerations boundary conditions. but the computational studies. [3] is a fully non-linear method for prediction of six degree-of-freedom ship The method is computationally demanding. Many of the activities seas are enormous and huge advances in computational involve hydrodynamic analysis in one form or another power will be required before these codes can be used by including resistance prediction. encountered with the hull coming into contact with the matching surface during analysis in oblique seas. used by naval architects who are generally element formulation to that used by Maskew. hull form optimisation. units. The LAMP-4 structural analysis. sophisticated. prediction including strip theory and 3D diffraction theory methods but we are very aware of the limitations The code operates in the time domain by solving the of them. Commercially-available RANS codes clients. UK Several researchers have developed non-linear time suitable for generating load cases for finite element domain methods with encouraging results. As the full pressure field developed which can start to address them. etc. performance problems such as sloshing in tanks. manoeuvring analysis and application. ship-ship and ship-bank interaction investigation. with a Rankine on a fast PC. In the modern world that means having treatment of free surfaces becoming much more access to high level and cost effective analytical tools. The training and background method to solve the Euler boundary value problem. the method is particularly terms we have taken the view that there is nothing © 2005: Royal Institution of Naval Architects .

the general solution to (1) these can be offset by the knowledge gained during the can be constructed by a sum of source and doublet software development process and the benefits that distributions placed on each boundary S owning and intimately understanding the code provides.∇ Φ (3) emergence. z ) = 4π S ∫ µ n ⋅ ∇ dS + r σ  dS + 4π S  r  ∫ the project is within reasonable bounds for an 1 1 organisation of our size. The wake surfaces between vessels and banks. z ) = 4π ∫ µn ⋅ ∇ r dS + 4π ∫ σ  r dS + S S the fluid is incompressible and that away from the (4) boundaries. y. with strengths set by • Squat prediction.g. inviscid and irrotational flow. e. • Added resistance in waves. These include: from a surface distribution of normal doublets of strength • Resistance optimisation studies. z ) = 4π ∫ µn ⋅ ∇ r dS + S and extend the software capabilities in future as required 1 1 and to integrate the code with our other software 4π ∫ σ  r dS + Φ S ∞ packages. or surfaces included in the problem.g. to update Φ( x. The third integral is the contribution from any wake • Interaction between vessels. carry a doublet distribution only. e. slamming. At present the RANS type codes where circulation is highly significant. • Probability of deck wetness. too expensive or too restricted for our purposes. flow is considered inviscid and irrotational. so that we are very aware of the potential problems and pitfalls.Marine CFD 2005: Southampton. 3. at SPMs or for FPSOs. • Motions when moored. use of a Kutta condition implemented along wake- • Manoeuvring prediction and numerical PMM shedding lines. etc. whether third party or in-house. We also know that Following Green’s theorem. which satisfies Laplace’s equation: maintained our own software for intact and damage stability.2 GOVERNING EQUATIONS After careful consideration of the scale of the project we Assuming incompressible. However. MATHEMATICAL MODEL on the body surface S. etc. This must be modified to allow inclusion of wake effects: The panel code development which is described in this 1 1 1 1 paper meets our basic requirements in that the scale of Φ( x. µ =Φ (2) • Design for minimisation of wave making. y . UK available to us in the market place which meets the full method renders it unsuitable for analysis of problems range of requirements. (Planar Motion Mechanism) • Manoeuvring in waves Use of the Dirichlet boundary condition requires that the perturbation potential Φ has to be specified everywhere 3. y. y. RAS or STS. it should be capable of running on 4π W ∫ µ n ⋅ ∇ dW + Φ ∞ r relatively straightforward hardware and it offers the possibility of extension into a wide range of The first integral is the contribution over the boundaries hydrodynamic application and problems. 1 1 Wake effects can be included by expelling wave panels 4π ∫W µ n ⋅ ∇ dW + Φ ∞ r from specific separation lines and a simple viscous model based on calculated streamlines can be included [8]. both to fit in with other commitments and to spread the budget appropriately. By placing the point (x. decided to develop our own in-house software package. such as analysis are too heavyweight for real sea keeping analysis and of vortex shedding from tubular elements. other non-linear time domain codes are either in-house. ∇2 Φ = 0 (1) manoeuvring simulation..1 ASSUMPTIONS 1 1 1 1 The main assumptions of Potential Flow methods are that Φ i ( x. In-house development gives us the flexibility to identify 1 1 the initial priorities. strip theory ship motions. longitudinal strength. We can also set the development timetable. z) inside the body the inner potential Φi is obtained: 3. the boundary-element based nature of the © 2005: Royal Institution of Naval Architects . the fluid motion can be described by a velocity potential. in this case to generate a well validated large motion sea keeping application. The second integral is the contribution from a surface • Motions and loads in waves including green water distribution of sources of strength loading. Over a period of many years we have developed and Φ. propeller σ = n. the method has few basic compromises.

 results in the horizontal locations of the approach of Longuet-Higgins and Cokelet [11] is used. y. as the atmospheric pressure and assuming problem: that the pressure at the free surface is uniform. the source distribution on δ ∂ the body is given by: ≡ + V. ω is the velocity of rotation of the body δt 2 about an axis in the body reference frame and r is the position vector relative to that axis. Setting  ∂η  On the free surface. The flow Or alternatively: velocity relative to the surface is: ∂η ∂ Φ = − ∇ Φ . source and doublet terms are both set to zero. This allows the horizontal movement of the vs is the velocity relative to the global reference frame: free surface nodes to be restricted to prevent the piling up of nodes. The free The pressure is given by Bernoulli’s equation (11). The approach is described in [4]. At a updated using the Bernoulli condition: point moving with speed vs this becomes: © 2005: Royal Institution of Naval Architects . vs = vb + ω × r (8) The Bernoulli condition becomes: where vb is the velocity of the body relative to the global δΦ 1 = − gη − ∇ Φ . the mixed Eulerian/Lagrangian V =  0.4 HYDRODYNAMIC FORCES individual Lagrangian points on the free surface to find their new positions and potentials.e. then the fully non-linear boundary conditions are used to track 3.∇η (15) δt ∂z n ⋅ v r = n ⋅ (v − v s ) = 0 (9) where: Using Equations (3) and (7-9). Marine CFD 2005: Southampton. and the Kinematic condition becomes: The condition of zero-flow normal to the boundary gives: δη ∂ Φ = − (∇ Φ − V ).3 BOUNDARY CONDITIONS ∂r =∇Φ On each body. t ) is the free surface elevation. The initial conditions The forces and moments acting on each body are found assume that the free surface is undisturbed and so the by integrating the pressure distribution over the body.∇ Φ + V. reference frame. this is the pressure at a stationary point. problem is solved in an Eulerian frame. Pref. surface velocity potential (i.∇η (13) vr = v − vs ∂t ∂z where v is the perturbation velocity in the global where z = η ( x. the source distribution is determined by ∂t specifying zero-flow normal to the boundary.∇ δt ∂t σ = n ⋅ v s = n ⋅ (v b + ω × r ) (10) is the time derivative following the moving node. the doublet strength) is However.  ∂t  This involves two major tasks at each time step: the nodes remaining fixed in the global coordinate system. which is given by the gradient of the potential: It is convenient to rewrite the free surface boundary conditions in terms of the time derivative of a point v =∇Φ (7) moving with a prescribed velocity V relative to the global origin.0. we obtain: 1 1 1 1 ∂Φ ∫ µn ⋅ ∇ r dS + 4π ∫ σ  r dS + 1 = − ∇ Φ⋅ ∇ Φ− gz (12) 4π S S ∂t 2 (6) 1 1 4π ∫W µ n ⋅ ∇ dW = 0 r The free surface elevation is updated using the kinematic condition by moving the free surface nodes with the local flow: 3. Taking the reference Substituting (5) into (4) gives the basic boundary integral pressure. UK The Dirichlet condition gives: P − Pref 1 ∂Φ =− ∇ Φ⋅ ∇ Φ − gz − (11) ρ 2 ∂t Φ i = (Φ + Φ ∞ ) i = Φ ∞ (5) where z is the free surface elevation.∇ Φ (14) reference frame.

The panels are oriented so that their normal vectors point into the fluid.Marine CFD 2005: Southampton. For a single matrix for each body and the free surface. NW = Number of wake panels. the distributions on each panel. parameters for the solution. the zero normal flow condition (3). mass and inertia Kernel Libraries (MKLs) or the FASTLAP Multipole properties of each body. The influence of each panel perturbation velocity must be evaluated on each panel. δt where MLHS is the n-by-n matrix of doublet and source 4. giving the main problem formulation: The doublet gradient is calculated in two directions (the panel’s local x and y directions) over each panel using second-order differencing. Froude numbers. The first task is to import one or more geometries into the program describing each body to be analysed. UK P − Pref δΦ NH NH + NFS ∑µ A ∑σ B 1 =− ∇ Φ⋅ ∇ Φ − gz − + v s ⋅ ∇ Φ (16) + = ρ δt i ij i ij 2 i =1 i = NH +1 δΦ  NH NH + NFS NW  Accurate evaluation of the δt term is critical for  i =1 ∑ −  σ i Bij + i = NH +1 ∑ µ i Aij + ∑µ i =1 Wi C ij   computation of the hydrodynamic forces. where n is the total number provided by the source strength. multiple calculations are required during are defined by one or more NURBS (Non-Uniform each time step meaning that the Multipole solver only Rational B-Spline) surfaces and the free surface is also really provides a benefit for 5000 panels and over. is found at the centroid of each other panel. this is calculated using backward differencing but for large. where the problem is δΦ M LHS ⋅ VLHS = −VRHS reformulated to solve for instead of Φ. This 4. 4. The doublet strengths on the free surface are set to zero at the first time step. and a tangential of panels used at that time step. the Multipole method is considerably faster wavemakers for seakeeping problems etc. as the memory found and the initial mesh is created automatically on the requirement using a conventional solver soon becomes hull and free surface. δt At each time step. If the MKL direct solver is used. The bodies body motions. Typically. source strength on each free doublet strength: surface panel) are collected on one side of the equation and the known quantities are summed to form the right v = v n n + v t = σ n + ∇µ (17) hand side. possible.1 PROBLEM SETUP size-n vector containing the summations of known quantities. around 3000 panels.2 MATRIX FORMATION δΦ each iteration for the term in the pressure equation. where NH = Number of hull panels. The term must be calculated δt source and wake doublet respectively. panel densities method [12] for efficient solving. forming a set This has two component parts – a normal component vn of n simultaneous equations. the full source strengths on each body panel are calculated from calculation must be carried out each time. NFS = Number of amplitude free body motions this approach is not free surface panels. source and doublet strengths. The unknowns (doublet component vt found from the surface gradient of the strength on each body panel. IMPLEMENTATION influence coefficients. using either the Intel Math including the extent of the free surface. Each body has than the MKL solvers once the problem size exceeds its own reference system and items such as rudders etc. the procedure is as follows. The described by a NURBS surface created by the software. but for problems involving free can be included and moved independently. using quadrilateral panels where prohibitive.4 PANEL VELOCITIES The surface integrals in (6) are performed on a panel-by- panel basis assuming uniform source and doublet Once the source and doublet strengths are known.3 MATRIX SOLUTION must be in the form of a surface definition and at present the IGES and STEP file formats are supported. Multipole method is always used for problems which Intersections between the free surface and each body are cannot use a plane of symmetry. This can be directly and an approach similar to that described in [4] written in matrix-vector form as: is used to accomplish this. Various BASIN has a range of solvers to calculate the unknown other run parameters must be specified at this stage. sufficiently accurate. VLHS is the size-n vector of unknown source and doublet strengths and VRHS is the 4. © 2005: Royal Institution of Naval Architects . the inverse of the influence matrix MLHS can be calculated and used on 4. The whereas when the Multipole method is used. Aij. Bij δΦ & Cij are the influence coefficients for the doublet.

In the integrated over the body to find the forces and moments absorbing regions in the vicinity of the wave generators. For simple wave resistance calculations. this simply takes the form of Figure 1 shows a typical arrangement of damping zones an equivalent linear damping coefficient predicted using for a seakeeping analysis without a plane of symmetry – the method described in Himeno [15] and Ikeda [16]. the downstream edge for low/zero speed problems. In the regions used as absorbing beaches. The disadvantage of the method is calculated and used in the equations of motion to that the damping zones are large and so have a great calculate the new velocity and acceleration terms. the beaches track the vessel. the method is valid for low- here is to estimate the velocity and acceleration (using speed or zero-speed problems. The damping zones on the free surface 4. Tanizawa found that the δt reflection coefficient from the damping zone for deep ∂ δ Φ must be calculated directly. Marine CFD 2005: Southampton. here the damping zones extend for one vessel length This will be updated in the future to a full non-linear © 2005: Royal Institution of Naval Architects . and the   term water waves was less than 2%. but not unfortunately in the wavemaking zones as this would result in attenuation of the higher The free surface panel velocities are interpolated to the frequency waves. Various wave generation methods have been evaluated for the code. A wave absorber is still needed at free surface panels in the vicinity of the wave generators. acting upon it. This uses pulsating ‘tank’ instead – the tank walls prevent transverse source terms on tank walls for wave generation. it is necessary to include a freedom seakeeping analysis wave generator upstream of the vessel. damping factor must be included in the equations of motion. UK On the body.7 BODY FORCES AND MOMENTS absorb the differences in potential and wave amplitude between specified reference values and the actual values The pressure acting on each panel is found from (16) and found from the free surface boundary conditions. using the results of (14):  δΦ  µ ( t + ∇t ) = µ ( t ) + ∇ t    δt  4. a viscous roll damping zone length equivalent to the mean wavelength. Forces and moments are for low-speed runs. The difficulty for free body motions the reference values are found from analytical solutions δΦ [14]. The approach used absorbing wavemakers. but it is still sensible δt to have upstream and downstream boundaries. open boundaries can be δΦ term and use this in (16) to find the pressure used at the sides of the free surface. The method is attributed to Cointe et al. ∂n  δt  required for this calculation requires that the velocity and Because the method transforms the wave generators into acceleration of the body is known. although for irregular wave analysis we have found that it is sufficient to set the For problems where a vessel is free to roll. At the present time. the problems is that for an accurate solution.6 WAVE GENERATION AND ABSORPTION Figure 1: Typical damping zones for a six-degree-of- For seakeeping problems. especially distribution over the body. panel nodes and the nodes are moved using a simple Euler scheme:  δη  r ( t + ∇t ) = r ( t ) + ∇ t    δt  The doublet strengths on the free surface panels are updated in a similar way. For long-crested head seas problems the vessel is run in a culminating in the present method. For problems with the values from the previous time step). dissipation of the generated waves and allow the use of a combined with absorbing wavemaker conditions on the narrower free surface. calculate the forward speed. the term reference values are set to zero. This particular the local velocity vs to give the resultant velocity: arrangement is a good illustration of the computational overhead required for the beaches – 75% of the free vr = v − vs surface panels lie in the damping zones. the perturbation velocity is combined with from each boundary of the free surface. which damping zones must be at least as long as the wavelength typically takes 5 iterations. for regular wave problems. and is described in Tanizawa [13]. Tanizawa states that the process is then repeated until the values stabilise. The effect on the problem size.5 FREE SURFACE MOVEMENT absorbers. It is possible to reduce the panel density in the zones acting as simple 4.

UK damping correction. once each body has been moved to its new position. but which may completely submerge at some stage during an analysis. The new damping term. and the NURBS surface extends over part of the deck. Once the body velocity has been calculated. Implementing a method for re-meshing is probably the most critical and difficult task during the development of a code of this nature – it must be robust. a distribution of points is found around the boundary of the patch. Figure 2: Four stages in the procedure to generate a new mesh on the body and free surface © 2005: Royal Institution of Naval Architects . There is deck edge immersion at this time step. wave damping) surface mesh is transferred to the new mesh by must be excluded during the calculation of the additional interpolation and the old mesh is discarded. both they and the free surface must be re- meshed to the new waterline(s). and the resulting grid is transposed to 3D space to form the new mesh for that patch. example.Marine CFD 2005: Southampton. The damping components that are The distribution of doublet strengths on the old free inherent to the potential flow model (e. with the old body mesh still displayed to illustrate the change in the wetted area. Panel methods have been used to predict tightly coiled wake patterns behind slowly heaving airfoils [17] and we are developing a method to apply this technique to bilge keel vortices. a new NURBS surface has been fitted through the free surface nodes in the vicinity of the body. fast.8 MESHING At each time step. The total number of panels is very dynamic – there are often entire surfaces in the description of each body which are dry when the body is at rest. More sophisticated prediction of the mesh is then knitted into the mesh outside of the re- various wave damping components is possible – for meshed region ready for the next time step cycle. In the next frame. and the body has been moved to its new position for the next time step. vortex shedding from bilge keels can be modelled by shedding wake panels from the bilge keels. The major tasks during the re-meshing process are shown in Figure 2.g. These points are transformed to the 2D parametric space of the surface to calculate a mesh of grid points inside the patch boundary. For each wetted patch of each surface making up the geometrical definition of each body. The re-meshing is a significant computational task at present but the performance will be greatly improved after some optimisation of the method. 4. each body is moved in all of the degrees of freedom that have been designated as ‘free’ – full six degree-of-freedom integration can be used for non-symmetric problems. The third frame shows the lines of intersection which have been found between the body surfaces and the free surface. The final frame shows the new meshes on the body and free surface. We begin with the free surface panels which have been moved according to the velocities calculated at that time step. run with no user-intervention and the resulting mesh must be of sufficiently high quality to ensure that the numerical method is not affected.

6 hullform was run at fixed draft.316 © 2005: Royal Institution of Naval Architects . although there is a discrepancy in the shape of the bow wave.1 SERIES 60 WAVEMAKING Although the code is primarily focussed on seakeeping analysis. The experimental results obtained by the IIHR are extensive and include an 8000-point wave height survey. The IIHR results are shown on the port side and the BASIN results are shown on the starboard side. with comparisons made both with public-domain and in-house data. The wave profile along the hull is shown in Figure 3. Most of the major features of the wave pattern are predicted well.316 The wave contour plot (viewed from above the vessel) is shown in Figure 4. 0. although the complex system of small waves and troughs are smoothed by the coarse mesh used. 5. RESULTS A wide range of verification and validation exercises have been carried out using the code. This is probably due to insufficient mesh density in this region. and the under- prediction of the peak at the bow identified in the wave profile is also obvious. Marine CFD 2005: Southampton. Figure 4: Wave contours for the Series 60 at Fr. Figure 3: Wave profile for Series 60 at Fr. Some examples of the results from these exercises are shown below. 0. The Series 60 Cb=0. UK 5.316 and compared to data from the Iowa Institute of Hydraulic Research (IIHR) [18]. sinkage and trim at a Froude number of 0. The agreement with the experimental results is reasonable. The predicted peak just aft of the stern is not as cusped as the experimental result. the mesh used here was more typical of that used for a seakeeping problem and is too coarse to resolve the region of high curvature in the free surface at the bow. the method is applicable to problems of prediction of steady state wavemaking.

head seas for a range of wavelengths. Results compare very well with the experimental results by Liapis for the first three oscillations. radius of gyration (assumed value) 0.526 Table 1: SL7 Principal Particulars The vessel was run in regular waves. undisturbed free surface. radius r. Length between perpendiculars (L) 268. The sphere is given an initial upwards displacement of 0.3 wave height was set at (wavelength/50).4 m Breadth 32. The result from Maskew’s USAERO code experiences excessive damping. Runs were made using a moving free surface. free to heave after an initial displacement Ah 5. Pitch results are non-dimensionalised equilibrium. Heave A standard test case for ship motions codes is the results are non-dimensionalised by wave amplitude and decaying heave motions of a freely floating sphere. The principal particulars of the vessel are shown in Table 1. the sphere’s centroid lies in the plane of the by (wave number * wave amplitude). The heave decay over time is shown in Figure 5. At the shorter wavelengths.4 m LCB (LCB/L fwd AP) 0.25 L CB 0. which may be due to numerical damping of heave & pitch oscillation and relative motions at the FP the generated waves. The heave results are slightly under predicted throughout.Marine CFD 2005: Southampton. and Figure 6: Head seas motions for the SL7. 0. panel density and so the damping effect of the node © 2005: Royal Institution of Naval Architects .2 MOTIONS OF A FLOATING SPHERE FREE higher speed runs at a Froude number of 0. moving The under-prediction is most significant at shorter approximately with the vessel. there are compared to the experimental results published in are far fewer nodes over the length of a wave for a given O’Dea [19]. published in Maskew [10]. UK The results presented in Figure 6 correspond to O’Dea’s 5.3 – this TO HEAVE equates to approximately 30 knots for this vessel.2 m Draft 10. Results are compared to experimental results from Liapis.3 SL7 CONTAINER SHIP Results for free-body motions in regular head seas were generated for the SL-7 containership.472 Long. Figure 5: Motions of a floating sphere. At wavelength by L. Wave slope was kept constant. Results for magnitude of wavelengths. Fr.5r where r is the sphere radius and is then released.

meshing. Heave and pitch transfer functions were found for a range of wavelengths (1.0 are in in good agreement except at λ/L = 2. The foredeck was wet aft of 1/3L back from the bow during the large wave amplitude runs. This can be The heave results are shown in Figure 7.4L) and wave heights. 5. ka = 0. although there is Pentium IV 2.236 L CB 0. where the pitch is good agreement with the experimental results of O’Dea under-predicted.12.572 Table 2: S175 Principal Particulars The problem was approached in a similar manner to that used for the SL-7. 320 time steps were used corresponding to ten wave encounters for the λ = L case.4 m Depth 15. up to ka = 0.12 run was almost 17 degrees. The results shown the correct trend green water on the foredeck would be to reduce the although as for the heave results. the effects of green water are becoming significant and are not correctly modelled Relative motions at the forward perpendicular are also by the present method. Green water effects will have a significant effect on some of the runs at larger wave heights. Length between perpendiculars (L) 175 m Breadth 25.275 and the maximum wave height used was just over 9m. This time. The effect of a large volume of shown in Figure 6. The principal particulars of the vessel are shown in Table 2.5 m Longitudinal radius of gyration 0. and the pitch alleviated by use of a finer panel density. and because the effect of green water is not modelled some over-prediction is experienced.4L. Pitch results are results in Figure 8. © 2005: Royal Institution of Naval Architects .5 m Displacement 24742 tonnes LCG aft midships 2.53Ghz PC with 1Gb RAM. The motions are fairly large – for example the pitch magnitude for the λ = 1.2 are in good number varied during the run due to the dynamic agreement with the experimental results up ka = 0. At this point. wave slope was not held constant for each run. Approximately 2000 panels were used although this Both the heave and pitch results for λ/L = 1. The heave results for λ/L = 1. Marine CFD 2005: Southampton. Experimental results are by O’Dea and were taken from Wang [20]. thus giving a smaller response. Figure 7: Heave results for the S175 in regular waves Each analysis took approximately six hours to run on a The pitch results are in good agreement. symmetry was used to reduce the problem size. the relative motions are upward heave.08.0L – 1. A line of some under prediction at shorter wavelengths. UK velocity calculations becomes significant.4 S175 CONTAINER SHIP – REGULAR WAVES The S175 containership was selected by the ITTC as a standard test case and so a large amount of test data is available. under-predicted. and these effects are not correctly modelled in these simulations. All runs were at a Froude number of 0. however.4 m Draft 9.

The heave and pitch results are generally in good agreement. A problem arises when © 2005: Royal Institution of Naval Architects .1m Hs spectrum. but bow-up pitch is over-predicted.g. Overall.2m. Some of this over- At λ/L = 1. however. and we were able to obtain time histories for the 4. the heave results exhibit a noticeable trend of over-prediction of amplitude.5 S175 CONTAINER SHIP – IRREGULAR although the agreement of phasing is excellent. the results are extremely encouraging. It is possible to use BASIN to generate a sufficiently long sample (>100 wave encounters) so that reliable results for the response spectra will be obtained. prediction may be due to the effects of green water being although at the larger wave height (ka = 0. High frequency waves have a tendency to ‘drop out’ as the waves travel along the length of the free surface – because they are short.4.1m and 9. there are insufficient panels to define them properly and there is a tendency for them to experience some numerical damping. however. Fonseca presents pitch results which are positive bow down. but in most cases the Naval Architect wants to be able to predict with reasonable accuracy the motions and loads for a vessel in irregular waves. The results of the analysis are shown in Figures 9 and 10. The inaccuracy due to the modelling of green water manifests itself in the pitch result in this case. This is to be expected as the heave result significant green water episodes in the region of the time collapses to a direct response of 1. irregular waves because most available validation data is presented in the frequency domain. For the 6. the heave amplitudes are generally in good agreement. Fonseca [21] published results for the S175 vessel in irregular head seas using Pierson-Moskowitz spectra of significant wave height (Hs) 4. the time history can be recreated with sufficient accuracy. 6. and using these results it was possible to recreate the two spectra in BASIN.2m Hs spectrum. Results for ship motions in regular waves are interesting. For the 4. and there are no green water episodes during this run. The pitch results show a Figure 8: Pitch results for the S175 in regular waves good agreement on the magnitudes of bow-down pitch. The simulated waves are an excellent match to the experimental results.9m. T = 170s – 180s. particularly with regard to phasing.12) the pitch is excluded from the BASIN calculations – there are over-predicted.2m and 6. The pitch WAVES results exhibit over-prediction of bow-up pitch.0 for this longer history from 200 to 270 seconds. Correctly modelling an irregular spectrum presents some difficulties.Marine CFD 2005: Southampton. The amplitudes and phases of the components making up the spectrum as realised in the tank were obtained using Fast Fourier Transforms. both results are in good agreement.1m cases. If an appropriate panel density is used. Wave amplitude was measured during the tests by a wave probe located 140m (full scale) forward of the vessel centre of gravity. wavelength. and we have kept to that convention here.12 show an over-prediction both of attempting a validation exercise of a time domain code in heave and of pitch. UK The results for ka = 0. with the small discrepancies at some of the peaks almost certainly due to numerical damping of the high frequency waves. but making a direct comparison for a known time history of wave amplitude and responses is potentially more informative for validation purposes. but the response seems to take longer to settle after a series of large waves are encountered (e. 5. T = 285s – 295s) suggesting that the BASIN calculation is under-damped.

1m Hs spectrum Figure 10: Time Histories for 4. Marine CFD 2005: Southampton. UK Figure 9: Time Histories for 6.2m Hs spectrum © 2005: Royal Institution of Naval Architects .

UK Figure 11: Wave contours at four stages of a wave encounter during the 6.Marine CFD 2005: Southampton.1m Hs simulation © 2005: Royal Institution of Naval Architects .

and PAULLING. 9. R.. Y. 20th Symposium on Naval The results presented here are free to heave and pitch Hydrodynamics. The method combines Arbor. it will be 4. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS identified using linear methods [22]. only. De KAT. ‘Numerical solution for large- method is in areas such as re-meshing. ‘Ship Stability Study in realistic timeframe on a single PC. Alternatively. this will necessitate improvements to the roll damping If statistical results are required. 1994. We feel that progress to date has justified the decision to start the project. CONCLUSIONS Burness Corlett . The simulation was run for 1000 time steps model will be completed so that motions in oblique corresponding to 338 seconds full scale. O. and we would especially like to Encouraging progress has been made in the development thank Nuno Fonseca at the Technical University of of a method capable of predicting large amplitude ship Lisbon for providing the time histories used in the motions in waves. W. the extremes by statistical analysis of a relatively short and prediction of bilge vortex shedding. ship motions in short-crested seas. a run of three times this duration would be Other planned developments include the ability to sufficient as there would be over 100 wave encounters analyse multihulls/multiple vessels. The first has been due in part to the limited resources available image shows a stage with significant green water and the and the demands of other projects and R&D work. Marine CFD 2005: Southampton. water. ‘Non-linear ship motion computations using the desingularized method’. Ann with some other methods. LIN.1m Hs analysis. Preliminary results compare well with irregular wave study. long enough period to generate a reliable sample – in the case here. the input spectrum can be modified to hit the most likely extreme responses. the code can be used in model and optimisation of the code to improve three ways. 1990 practicality with an open theoretical approach which ensures that once the development is complete.. as can the significant green 7. and THOMAS. although the effects of green water must be included for a more rigorous analysis of large. W. This will include the of this time was taken up with re-meshing. We last shows a stage with significant forefoot emergence. Amongst other things. W. possible to use BASIN for a huge range of applications. 1989 Although the calculations are computationally demanding.2Ghz PC with 2Gb RAM. Santa Barbara. although unsurprisingly © 2005: Royal Institution of Naval Architects . 2001 A significant part of the difficulty in developing such a 3. prediction of during this period. and YUE. California. Proceedings theoretical background is relatively simple in comparison of the 18th Symposium on Naval Hydrodynamics. Approximately 3500 panels were used although this number varied during the run due to the dynamic Development and testing of the six degree of freedom meshing. LIN.. J. experimental data. UK Figure 11 shows wave contour plots at four stages in a development has taken longer than had been hoped. R-Q. CAO. S. ‘The better prediction of the results.Three Quays for their assistance with the work in this paper. hope to be running validation on the six degree of with the two images in between showing intermediate freedom model in the next few months. and SCHULTZ. time history. A line of addition of various methods to study the effects of green symmetry was used to reduce the problem size. Simulation of Ship Motions and Capsizing in Severe Seas’. Obviously the code could simply be run for a performance. A second approach would be to find manoeuvring in waves.. The code is largely the Coastal Region: New Coastal Wave Model Coupled un-optimised at present and a large reduction in runtime with a Dynamic Stability Model’. FUTURE WORK water boarding. 8. This wave encounter during the 6. Almost half simulations in irregular head seas. The effects of radiation/diffraction from the vessel can be clearly seen. SCORPIO. We have identified areas where we can further improve the method. The actual amplitude ship motions in the time domain’. R.. BECK. irregular waves can be predicted. stages. 23rd Symposium on Naval Hydrodynamics. it is possible to obtain useful results in a 2. J. particularly during re-meshing. Immediate work will focus on improvements to the Each analysis took approximately 30 hours to run on a method so that better agreement can be obtained for the dual Intel Xeon 3. Work on the six degree of freedom model is well advanced with some initial test runs carried out. Transactions of SNAME. which will result in 1. but the formulation is applicable to full six degree of freedom problems. REFERENCES amplitude motions. The authors would like to thank their colleagues at 6.. Proceedings of the will be achievable after optimisation work is completed. D.

David W. At Burness Corlett .D. A. 19. New York. MASKEW. WANG. 'Multipole-accelerated preconditioned from Southampton University. FONSECA.. Computations Using a Multipole Accelerated Taylor Naval Ship R&D Center. 1998. Y. involved in the execution of a wide range of sea keeping MA. Washington.Three Quays he has been problems’. AUTHORS’ BIOGRAPHIES Deformation of Steep Surface Waves on Water: I. BECK. Free Surface Problems’.Marine CFD 2005: Southampton. Arbitrary and Complex Hull Forms’. 1991 22. Boundary Element Methods 15. and LONGO. IKEDA. and VADA. Wave Tank’. Naval Architect at Burness Corlett . At Burness Corlett ..Sc.. UK 5. 22nd McGraw-Hill. Naples. Iowa. Proceedings of the Neil Southall currently holds a position of Consultant Royal Society of London. Transactions of SNAME. Desingularized Method’. of 4th Osaka Colloquium on Seakeeping Performance of Ships.. R. DEAN. 10. A. Department of 1983 Naval Architecture and Marine Engineering... L. D. T. 36. Transient Wave/Hull Problems on Arbitrary Vessels’. ‘Evaluation of Methods for Estimation of Extreme Non- linear Wave Hull Interactions on Complex Vessels’.. He has been involved in many technical 16. ‘Mean-Flow Measurements in the Boundary Layer and Wake and 6. and LEE. No. 2004 Italy. World Engineering Science from the University of Durham and Scientific. Oceanic Mechanics for Scientists and Engineers’. 1993 Hydrodynamics. Y.K. 48. 8. in Yacht and Small Craft Design WHITE. Containership in Irregular Waves’.. Y. Technical University of Denmark. Brian Corlett currently holds the position of Managing Director of Burness Corlett . Worcester. University of Iowa... TANIZAWA. A350.. ‘Prediction Methods of Roll Damping of studies and casualty investigations which have included Ships and Their Application to Determine Optimum hydrodynamic analysis. 1993. J. Report of NA & ME. BECK. LONGUET-HIGGINS. 1992 Naval Hydrodynamics. an M. PhD Thesis..316’. 18. KORSMEYER. 1997 20.. Proceedings.Three Quays he State of the Art’. Journal of Ship Symposium on High-Speed Marine Vehicles. 1991 21. ‘Relative Motion and Deck Wetness 7. ‘Fully Non-linear Ship-Wave Investigation of the SL-7 Containership’. Research. 1993 investigations including the investigation of structural response to sea loads. in Series on Ocean Engineering . and GUEDES SOARES. B. 1991 Symposium on Naval Hydrodynamics. No.M. NABORS.. Advanced Investment Corporation Ltd.from Wing Theory to Panel Methods’. 6th linear Ship Responses Based on Numerical Simulation International Conference on Numerical Ship and Model Tests’. Ph. Journal of Ship Method’. Y. R. KATZ. He is a Graduate Member iterative methods for three-dimensional potential of RINA. pp. ADEGEEST.. ‘A Non-linear Numerical Method for January 2000. N. Stabilization Devices’. 22nd Symposium on Naval Hydrodynamics. No. J. MASKEW.. 2000. and TIDD. CAO.. K.F. 17.. F. ‘Hydroelastic Analysis of High-Speed Ships’. D. S. ‘Experimental Investigations of the Non-linear Effects on 9. and DALRYMPLE. 2. University of Michigan. ‘Prediction of Non. BRAATHEN. ‘Water Wave technical director of the parent company. O'DEA. ‘Low-speed S.Three Quays. 1976... J. C. ‘The State of the Art on Numerical hydrodynamic software development. J. He has a B. B. T.Three Quays and is 14. MASKEW.Volume 2. ‘The 10.6 Ship Model . He is responsible for 13. in Mechanical Engineering from Oxford 12. 4. B. C. Proceedings 6th International Conference on Research. in Marine Technology from the University of Newcastle.Sc. group responsibility for IT and software management and development. Proc. and COKELET... D. and PLOTKIN. SCORPIO. 360-377. 6th International Ship Stability Workshop. ‘Fully Non-linear Wave Field of a Series 60 CB=0.A Time domain the Statistics of Vertical Motions and Loads of a Approach to Complex. T. Ann Arbor. Thesis.. ‘USAERO/FSP . A.C. He has an M.. K. R. He is a Fellow of RINA and a former 15. Vol. Z-H. The University of has overall responsibility for all technical work including Michigan. YUE.Eng. M. and University and an M. Vol. R. 1998.. 2002 © 2005: Royal Institution of Naval Architects . A Numerical Method of Computation’..16 and 0. Report SPD-1081-01. STERN. 2000 11. TODA. 1981.Sc..Part 1: Water Wave Computations using the Desingularized Froude Numbers 0. Vol.239. ‘Fully Non-linear Free-Surface Computations for Aerodynamics . HIMENO. ‘Prediction of Ship Roll Damping – Member of Council. SUBRAMANI. and SCORPIO.

AZIMUT. Approximately one million hybrid tetrahedral/hexahedral cells have been used in the simulations. Italy C Falletta and P L Ausonio. for this type of hulls. showing a very promising agreement. Italy D Paterna and R Savino. comparing the results of different model tests performed at the Brodarski Institute in Zagreb. This is mainly due to the θ : computed trim angle (deg) fact that model tests are very expensive and time- θexp : trim value from experiments (deg) consuming.0. The lift. with suitable wall functions for near wall treatment. naked hull with spray rails.8. scale ratio 1:6. fully equipped with appendages. 2) the ship motion simulation in a given sea- main reasons: 1) to avoid the uncertainties associated state (seakeeping calculations) or in manoeuvring with the use of empirical equations. scale ratio 1:3. The presence of the water-air interface has been taken into account with a Volume-Of- Fluid (VOF) technique. Validation of the computational simulation has been carried out. which are only conditions. in x direction.Marine CFD 2005: Southampton. and 2) to mitigate the © 2005: Royal Institution of Naval Architects . The results have been compared with the experimental data. that allows to track the wave form at each time during the numerical simulation. University of Naples. SUMMARY The computation of the complex hydrodynamic and aerodynamic flows around motor boats is extremely challenging and requires state-of-the-art numerical techniques and computer technology. Moreover. We want here to mention only two main applications in the marine field: 1. in z direction. between T and CG (m) The numerical simulation could be of large benefit in this ZTG : distance. NOMENCLATURE most often prohibitive costs associated with extensive model testing.g. provided that a reliable. the results ZG : computed dynamic vertical position of CG (m) are sometimes unreliable. have been performed to compute the hull attitude in static and dynamic conditions. Italy P Bertetti and R Gandolfi. especially if performed on ZGexp: dynamic vertical position of CG from experiment small models. sufficiently fast and Hull-B : 18 mt overall length reasonably expensive approach is available. Italy. due to the Reynolds effects. turbulent flow simulations around the hull of a planning boat. bearing forces. Ship-Yacht Designers & Consultants. applicable to similar hull shapes. The parallel computations have been carried out on a Linux cluster. Two AZIMUT hulls have been taken into account: Hull-A. SUBSCRIPTS Today computer power and progress in the field of computational fluid dynamics (CFD) make the numerical z: derivative wrt z direction approach an interesting tool. adapted to meet the full scale Teq: thrust in equilibrium conditions (N) performance of similar hulls. between T and CG (m) field to overcome these problems and give to the Naval α: thrust angle with respect to x axis (deg) Architect a guidance in the design of optimized hull Hull-A : 15 mt overall length. An “ad hoc” iterative computational procedure has been developed. at steady speed through calm water. cavitation. using e. Blue Group Engineering & Design. based on a dynamic mesh algorithm. Dexp : total drag from experiments (N) the Savistky method [1] with some literature or home- M: computed pitching moment (Nm) made correction procedure. drag and dinamic trim have been computed in the final equilibrium positions. In this paper. to compute the time-dependent position and orientation of the hull at each time during calculations. (m) XTG : distance. and a Hull-B. Turbulence has been modelled using the Reynolds Average Navier Stokes (RANS) equations and the k-ω model. which presents several θ: derivative wrt θ direction advantages over traditional techniques. INTRODUCTION 1) the simulation of the behaviour of propulsors (screw propellers or water-jets) in different operating conditions Prediction of hull performances with the aid of (efficiency. UK VOF-DYNAMIC MESH SIMULATIONS OF UNSTEADY SHIP HYDRODYNAMICS M Visone M Eid. forms. induced computational tools is particularly important for two pressures). L : computed total lift (N) W : boat weight Very often the performance prediction of small planing D : computed total drag (N) boats is performed on a semi-empirical basis.

over Hexaedral techniques which explicitly track the surface during the Element iterations. Flow turbulence has been taken into account through a Reynolds Averaged Navier Stokes (RANS) approach. corresponding to the hull sinkage. Tetrahedral Element Results of the CFD simulations give the forces and moments acting on the hull surface. small model. B. Two degrees of freedom have been taken into account: a vertical movement.8. using a finite volume method. forces and moments. A global iterative procedure has been developed to utilize these results to determine the position of dynamic equilibrium of the hull. The VOF In this paper. using a Volume-of-Fluid algorithm [3]. drag. All computations have been performed using the Fluent 6. The Wilkox k-ω model has been utilized in the computations [4]. in scale 1:6. leading to higher lift values. with the same inclination of a planing hull. the towing tests were performed on a naked model with spray rails. complex geometries and a faster dynamical adaption of This approach allows the real shape of the free surface to the mesh. CFD COMPUTATIONS on the hull surface. The same towing condition was simulated in Savitsky approach and by experiments using a relatively the numerical computation. that determines the hull attitude. problems. to dynamically adapt the mesh during the CFD algorithm iterations. for the Hull- commercial RANS CFD code. and a rotation around the axis normal to the symmetry plane. scale ratio moving at steady speed through calm water. treatment of spray. In the numerical calculation they didn’t model turbulence and they used a relatively low The next sections describe in further detail the global resolution grid (of the order of 150. be obtained as a result of the simulation. calculating the frictional components separately. in terms of equilibrium position. dynamic trim and sinkage of planing hulls performed on a model with full appendages. in terms of efficiency and robustness. having an overall length of about 4 m. 6E05 computational cells have been used technique is particularly advantageous for this kind of for the numerical simulations. and passing through the hull center of mass. Figure 1: Computational Grid : Hybrid Mesh This iterative procedure is based on the possibility. UK This paper presents a CFD approach for the calculation As for the Hull-A. Matching Surface offered by the Fluent code. Both models were towed through the shaft calculations performed using the FLUENT CFD code on line thrust bearing position. with a computational time cost reduction [5]. calculation procedure. Computations have been performed taking into account The hybrid grid has been coupled with “matching both the water-air interface and the flow turbulence. The surface” techniques to join the different grid blocks. faster modelling of computations. This air-water interface has been explicitly captured during procedure allows smaller mesh sizes. They indicated as The Fluent code solves the complete set of Navier-Stokes possible causes of that discrepancy an insufficient grid equations on structured/unstructured computational resolution. with respect to the experimental values. leading to an overall length In 2002 Thornhill and others [2] presented the results of of about 3 m. are then compared to the available experimental data obtained on scaled models at the Brodarski Institute in Zagreb. several resistance tests were of lift. water environment. The results.1 CFD code [3].000 elements). Figure 2: Computational Grid : Matching Surface © 2005: Royal Institution of Naval Architects . In general they found an over prediction of the net pressure 2. An hybrid tetrahedral/hexahedral mesh has been set up to The approach here presented is an attempt to overcome calculate the flow field around the hull in a mixed air- these problems. the lack of turbulence modeling and the domains. compared with the results obtained by the the shaft. using a 1:3. Marine CFD 2005: Southampton.

corresponding to Figure 4: Free Surface shape around the Hull-B constant values of the hull speed and weight. The first step consists of solving the flowfield in an initial position (obtained using the Savitsky method) of the hull.01 s has been chosen in the time implicit algorithm.2). 4-5). In these new positions. DESCRIPTION OF THE PROCEDURE TO DETERMINE THE HULL EQUILIBRIUM POSITION An iterative methodology has been developed to Z (m) determine the hull equilibrium position. Then two other steps follow. where either the hull sinkage or the hull trim angle are arbitrarily modified. new CFD computations are performed.5 m/s for the Hull-B (fig. FIGURES (Pa) Figure 8: Static Pressure on the Hull-B surface 3.Marine CFD 2005: Southampton.3). air Interface Figure 6: Path Lines around the Hull-B Outlflow Inlet Air Surface Hull V Inlet Water Symmetry Figure 3: Computational Grid with Boundary Condition The unsteady RANS and VOF equations have been solved using the sequential algorithm available in Fluent. b) Path lines around surface hull (fig. The following figures show the computational results for Hull-A and Hull-B in equilibrium position: a) The free surface shape (figs. (Pa) based on the SIMPLE method by Patankar [3]. to determine the corresponding forces and moments acting on the hull surface. UK The cell spacing near wall surface has been chosen such that the wall y+ value does not exceed 100 (figs. and then to move with a relative velocity of water 15 m/s for the Hull-A and 17. and then to evaluate the corresponding forces and moments. Figure 5: Free Surface shape around the Hull-B © 2005: Royal Institution of Naval Architects . 1-. to avoid numerical instabilities associated with the highly nonlinear equations. 6) a) Pressure contours on both hull surfaces (figs. 7-8) 4. A time Figure 7: Static Pressure on the Hull-A surface step of 0. Both hulls have been considered to be initially at rest in calm water. Each run of the code has been performed on a four Pentium processors Linux cluster and required about ten days to reach a steady state solution.

one may write: experimental results  ∆L   ∆L   ∆L =L − Leq =   ⋅( ϑ −ϑeq ) +   ⋅(Z −Zeq )   ∆ ϑ z  ∆Z ϑ  Savitsky Method θ (i ) . Figures 11 and 12 show. Hull-A +5% -3% Hull-B -4% . equilibrium Position. compared require an externally generated grid. The derivatives appearing in the system (1) may be computed by finite differences. Marine CFD 2005: Southampton. Meq = Teqsina XTG – Teqcosa ZTG = M Equations (1). Indeed. M (i +1) . assuming Model (θ – θexp)/ θexp (ZG – ZGexp)/ ZGexp a linear dependence of forces on position. Dz( i ) . using the results of the previous CFD computations. Fluent capability to dynamically adjust meshes when boundaries are modified. Indeed. 9).8 2. L(zi ). drag and Hull-B . Z (i +1) . allows the new mesh to be Model (L – W)/W (D – Dexp)/Dexp regenerated inside Fluent.97 underestimate the experimental ones in both the Table 1: Sinkage. for the Hull-A. z and the different values of the trim angle θ (table 1). Model L (N) W (N) D (N) Dexp (N) Hull-A 106 550 101 500 16 620 17 150 Z (m) Hull-B 121 000 126 050 17 200 19 340 Figure 11: Free Surface shape around the Hull-A (Comp. © 2005: Royal Institution of Naval Architects .Dϑ( i )  ∆M   ∆M   ∆M = M − Meq =   ⋅( ϑ −ϑeq ) +   ⋅(Z −Zeq )  ϑ  ∆ z  ∆Z ϑ  Equilibrium Equation where the equilibrium values are related by the static equilibrium conditions (fig. D(i ) . the free position and orientation. the computed drag values seem to Hull-B 3.16 agreement between experimental and numerical data. In particular. 10. θ (i +1) . M z( i ) . Comparison between experimental associated with the lower values of the computed sinkage and computational results. Trim angle and Thrust values in computed cases. that can be used to predict the equilibrium position. M (i ) . Mϑ( i ) .18 % +3% pitching moment around the (unknown) equilibrium Table 2: Relative Error between computational and values. θ (trim) and Teq (thrust). A flow diagram describing the procedure is presented in Fig. which.11 % At this point.1 3. L(ϑi ). in combination with the surface shape with the corresponding experimental image.44 2. a user with the experimental data are shown in the tables 1 and defined function has been developed to change the hull 2. A lower computed drag is. together with (2). D (i +1) v Teq ZTG x O α W Equilibrium? Figure 9: Force Equilibrium L eq = W – Teqsina = L NO Yes End Deq = Teqcosa = D (2) Figure 10: Flow diagram to predict the equilibrium position.5 4. Z ( i )  ∆D   ∆D   (1) ∆D =D − Deq =   ⋅( ϑ −ϑeq ) +   ⋅(Z −Zeq )  CFD  ∆ ϑ z  ∆Z ϑ  L(i ) .2 2. Hull-A +7% + 13 % performing a Taylor series expansion of lift. constitute a linear algebraic system of three equations in the three unknowns: z (sinkage). UK It must be noted that the new computations do not The results of this computational procedure. three sets of forces data are available. in turn. Results) Model θ (deg) θexp (deg) ZG (m) ZGexp (m) The results presented in Tables 1 and 2 show a fair Hull-A 4.T ( i +1 ) eq L XTG CFD z M G D ϑ L(i +1) .03 1.

the effect of the higher trim at BLUE Group. so that the overall effect is low Development Responsible at BLUE Group. April 2003. California. angle (compared with the experimental value) on the computed drag is partially compensated by the effect of Mhoammed Eid. CFD Responsible In the case of the Hull-A. Aerospace Engineer. Furthermore. the combined RANS-VOF CFD numerical simulation appears to be very promising in the planing hull field. REFERENCES [1] Hydrodynamic Design of Planning Hull.1 User Guide. Associated Professor of Aerodynamic. the computations on the Hull-B show Ship-Yacht Designers & Consultants. From a numerical point of view. DISIS. However. Italy. a sensitivity study of the computed solution to the mesh size and quality. Italy view. using a numerical procedure that combines the RANS and VOF approaches. Naval Architect. Fluent Inc. Lebanon. From an experimental point of University of Naples. Research and the lower sinkage. Eric Thornhill et al. [3] FLUENT 6.. of Naples. partner SYDAC Srl On the contrary. it is necessary to find a suitable trade off between mesh resolution and the surface capturing methodology to reduce the computational time and costs to acceptable levels. [4] Turbulence Modeling for CFD.. DISIS.Marine CFD 2005: Southampton. 6. The Naval Architet. a global iteration procedure has been developed to dynamically determine the hull sinkage and attitude for a given speed condition. Calogero Falletta. observed discrepancies. and a fair agreement has been found. Naval Architect. Italy that the effects of the trim angle and the boat sinkage act in the same direction to reduce the drag with respect to Pier Luigi Ausonio. La Canada. PhD. (differences on drag are about 3%). 1998. New Hampshire. C. The numerical results have been compared with the available experimental data. Figure 12: Free Surface shape around the Hull-A (Exp. UK 5. Twenty-Fourth Symposium of Naval Hydrodynamics. Aerospace Engineer. Daniel Savitsky. Srl Ship-Yacht Designers & Consultants. DCW Industries Inc. 2002. further model and/or full scale tests with pressure distribution measurements should be advisable to obtain Raffaele Savino. Italy Further analyses are foreseen to try to explain the Diego Paterna. © 2005: Royal Institution of Naval Architects . and to the turbulence model should be performed. Univ. Research Assistant. 2003. Although further investigation seems necessary from both the numerical and experimental point of. [5] Advances in computational fluid dynamics Technology. a more detailed comparison with the computed values. AUTHORS’ BIOGRAPHIES Results). partner SYDAC the experimental data. CONCLUSIONS CFD computations have been performed to determine the forces and moments acting on the surface of a motor yacht. Wilcox. October 1964 [2] Planning Hull Performance Evaluation Using a General Purpose CFD Code. D. Michele Visone. 4. Marine Thechnology.

The significance of wave directional spreading on mean-drift forces is then addressed and discussed. using a novel approach numerical treatments for spread seas. For ships it is often assumed that there is an representation of an FPSO is discussed first in this paper. The conventional method is very demanding on computer and human resources – in Finally some results based on a design similar to the particular adequate resolution of wave spreading is hard. 1. our in. our numerical results direction and thus long-term calculations are made on the show excellent agreement with experiments conducted at assumption of a uniform distribution of directions. even in areas A wide range of benchmarking tests in unidirectional and with severe wave environments. Recently. illustrating the effects Therefore. it has been given in [11]. 12]. with implications for both wave transverse one. and the flow is irrotational. advanced methods for the design and planning of wave directionality on low frequency drift forces. University of Oxford. Regular waves and uni-directional and directionally spread waves can be treated in a computationally efficient manner. there are problem are obtained for various types of directional difficulties using with standard tools for computing the spreading. K Wang. in particular as a result of their requirement to remain in the same The non-linear interaction of steep waves with a simple position. wave directionality is much more important then presented and discussed. UK SUMMARY Based on a quadratic boundary element method. wave run-up around an arbitrary fixed or moored ship. Numerical solutions of the than other types of platform. our in-house computer program DIFFRACT has been developed to allow the calculation of non-linear wave forces and wave run-up around an arbitrary fixed or moored ship. A wide range of benchmarking tests in unidirectional and directional waves have been performed to validate the scheme. INTRODUCTION for including the effect of wave directionality on the non- linear hydrodynamics of an FPSO. It is able to deal with uni-directional A justification of the second order wave diffraction and directional bi-chromatic input wave systems.Marine CFD 2005: Southampton. Recent research directional waves has been performed to validate the undertaken in Oxford has demonstrated the importance numerical scheme. Here. Non-linear wave loads and free of non-linear effects for the surface run-up around the surface elevations on a bottom mounted circular cylinder bow of a floating ship in unidirectional waves [11. We shall make the house computer program DIFFRACT has been developed following assumptions: the fluid is incompressible and to allow the calculation of non-linear wave forces and inviscid. much prone to the effects of the weather. An arbitrary. as FPSOs are very sensitive to combined loading from more than one The results for the same body exposed to spread seas are direction. Under these conditions. Furthermore. Imperial College. UK SECOND-ORDER WAVE FORCES AND FREE-SURFACE ELEVATION AROUND A MOORED SHIP IN STEEP UNI-DIRECTIONAL AND SPREAD WAVES J Zang. equal probability of encountering waves from any For head-on uni-directional waves. The non-linear interaction of steep waves with an FPSO is discussed first in this paper. emphasis is placed on the special extended to tackle spread seas. unidirectional waves and spread seas. © 2005: Royal Institution of Naval Architects . However. the equation of continuity shows that velocity potential Φ Regular waves and uni-directional and directionally satisfies the Laplace’s equation. the direction of the loading. R Eatock Taylor and P H Taylor. order mooring forces. of operation of these vessels require more sophisticated models of the directionality of the environment [5] as 2. spread waves can be treated in a computationally efficient manner. have been checked against published results for bi- directional and bi-chromatic regular waves and focussed Fixed and floating offshore production units are very wave groups. The non-linear sum and difference FPSOs have a ship-like form with one axis of symmetry frequency free surface components at the bow of the ship and with the longitudinal dimension much larger than the are very significant. The results are compared with the effects of wave directionality in the prediction of second corresponding results for a unidirectional wave. which make them particularly sensitive to impact and green water on the structure. theory and the methodology implemented in our calculating second-order wave diffraction under regular numerical analysis for unidirectional wave groups. three-dimensional structure is considered to be fixed or freely floating on water of depth h in Using a quadratic boundary element method. were waves and focused wave groups. Schiehallion FPSO are discussed. The use of ship-shaped floating oil production systems is becoming commonplace around the world. WAVE DIFFRACTION THEORY AND well as models of hydrodynamic loads and structural NUMERICAL APPROACH response that are able to cope with the additional directional information.

There quadratic transfer function (QTF) matrices for a large are 16 gauges aligned along the centre of the wave number of bi-directional and bi-chromatic waves. and the wave group is investigated in the two cases of crest focussing and For an FPSO. y . y . numerical trough focussing at the bow of the FPSO model. z )e FPSO in a head-on unidirectional wave group. normal procedure for obtaining QTFs in unidirectional waves requires the integration of free surface integrals. The most obvious way of T=0. Wave condition Wave periods in top-hat spectrum wave group involving first order scattered wave results at pairs of frequencies [11. FPSO model structure layout Length of FPSO model L=962mm N2× M2 pairs of second order diffraction calculations Width of FPSO model w=325mm would be required. then input this non- −iωij−t planar wave as a component for each pair of diffraction + φ ( x . and N is the total order solutions. However. Thus if there are N frequencies and M directions in the discretisation of a directional spectrum. The velocity potential calculation for spread waves to around the same amount φ is a spatial variable: its first order and second order of the computational effort as for unidirectional waves. Inclined unidirectional wave groups incident on where ki is wave number. results for spread seas are discussed and by + and – respectively. Finally. For comparison with experiments at Imperial College. sum and difference frequency components are designated Following this. and the second-order diffraction in directional spread seas needs model is rigidly mounted at the centre of the tank. y . y. z . RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS M φi(1) ( x. which leads potentially to an Draught of FPSO b=125mm extremely large computation. y . N M η (1) ( x. one only needs to evaluate N2 pairs of second Here ωi is the ith wave frequency. a m =1 simple representation of an FPSO in a head-on uni- an is the wave amplitude of the nth wave in the wave directional wave group is considered in our numerical group. The channel. UK By applying Stokes’ perturbation method. z )e − ij ]+K calculations in bi-chromatic waves. with complex body geometry. t ) = ∑ φi(1) ( x. y. rather than N2× M2. to m =1 n =1 compare with experiments performed at Imperial College. the wave numerical analysis using a boundary element method velocity potential in directionally spread seas to second shows that a major reduction of computational demand order can be expressed by may be obtained if we perform the analysis based on non-planar waves. z )ei ( k ( x cos(θ i m ) + y sin(θ m ))) In order to validate the numerical model. terms can be expressed as 3. z )e −iωij+ t i =1 i =1 j =1 together as a single incoming wave. z ) = ∑ an ∑ bnm ( k n ( x cos(θ m ) + y sin(θ m )) − ω n t ) n =1 m =1 3. and M is the same body are analyzed next. y . z )e −iωi t + ∑∑ [φij+ ( x. wave channel at Imperial College. The idea is to group all the waves N N N from different directions but with same frequency Φ( x. compared with unidirectional results. and bnm is the coefficient for the mth wave modelling. z ) = ∑ φim(1) ( x.2s performing the analysis in a spread sea would be to do Water depth d=1200mm these integrals for each pair of frequencies at each pair of Wave crest elevation at focus A=62mm directions. θm is wave direction. Only free surface diffraction analysis. A focused wave group is generated in the direction with the nth wave frequency. a moored vessel similar to NewWave group can be given by the Schiehallion FPSO is considered and mean-drift forces are discussed.8m. which has a total width of 2. This will reduce the number of frequency components. Using this new approach.12]. which is simulation is required to perform the non-linear headed directly into the wave direction. y . z ) = ∑∑ φijmn ± i ( k i ( x cos(θ m ) + y sin(θ m )) ± k j ( x cos(θ n ) + y sin(θ n ))) ( x . examination of the structure of the second order wave diffraction theory and its implementation in © 2005: Royal Institution of Naval Architects . The of wave direction on the wave hydrodynamics. The computation for conventional elevations are measured in the experiments. to highlight the effect the total number of components of wave direction. the first m=1 calculation presented in this paper is to apply the M M numerical algorithm to a simple representation of an φij± ( x.8s ~ 1. y. to provide first- hand information on nonlinear wave interaction with a A linear representation of a directionally spread body in a spread sea. Marine CFD 2005: Southampton.1 COMPARISON OF NUMERICAL RESULTS where WITH EXPERIMENTS FOR HEAD-ON UNI- DIRECTIONAL WAVES M ∑ bnm = 1.

05 0 −0. the middle body doesn’t always occur at the bow.2 0.4 1 0.5 0 0. 1.05 -0. we can see the effect of the wave ship) and linearised incoming wave heading on the non-linear free surface elevations and run-up on the ship in Figure 4.1 -2 -1.Marine CFD 2005: Southampton.4m.05 CASE −6 −4 −2 0 2 4 6 time t (s) By applying the same wave group to a few non-head on Figure 2: Measured free surface time histories (without wave directions.) 0. The maximal time series. The comparison of numerical results with the Similarly.15 full 1st+2nd order diffracted 1. UK Two-plane symmetry was used in the numerical amplitude of the incoming wave is increased.1 trough focussed (Expt.8 1st order diffracted 0.) 0 0. 30o. Both free surface elevations for sum and and along the waterline. the maximum of the non-linear free largest wave is the complete first plus second order surface takes place at a mid part of the ship. If the © 2005: Royal Institution of Naval Architects . 45o) are Figure 2 shows the derived linearised incoming wave presented for waves focusing at x=-0. The upper and lower figures difference frequency agree very well. and the wave heading of 45o. which is half the difference of the two value in the graph is obtained by taking the maximum of measured traces (crest focused and trough focused free the non-linear free surface elevations reached during the surface time histories). Figure 3 gives three different free surface time histories The bow is the crucial location for both maximal and predicted from the numerical analysis. while the diffracted case. What is clear from the work so far is the complex local 0 −0. First order diffraction increases the incident crest elevation by 45%. The final mesh enhanced value will be increased rapidly due to the used for the numerical analysis is shown in Figure 1.8 elevations local to the body. the maximal and minimal wave run-up on the incoming wave used for numerical modelling.6 2 0.1 interaction between the incoming and diffracted waves 2 and the resulting greatly increased water surface 1.05 −0. as do the total non. Both sum and difference frequency minimal value happens between the mid-section of the components of the second order diffraction effects are ship and the stern.05 -0. correspond to the lee side and the weather side linear free surfaces. respectively. 15o.5 2 −6 −4 −2 0 2 4 6 time t (s) time t (s) Expt free surface time history at bow (without ship) Figure 3: Incoming wave.) 0. significant.2 INCLINED UNI-DIRECTIONAL WAVES −0. squared relationship with the input amplitude.2 1 1st order incident 0.05 Expt free surface time history at bow (without ship) crest focussed (Expt. and the second order effects increase the crest elevation by a further 30%.05 history around bow 0 3. Note the stretched vertical scale. as shown in detail for each location along the center line outside the body. this computation for calculation efficiency. The trace in the minimal values for the head-on case.1 0 Figure 1: Numerical mesh 0.5 0 0. diffraction process for each location within a range of time from –4s to 4s for wave focusing at x=-0. The maximal and minimal The incoming waves used for the numerical simulation total non-linear free surface to second order at four was derived from the experiments.4m. the minimal values are given in the same way experiments at Imperial is very good.6 1. elsewhere [11].5 0.2 0.5 1 1.4 elevation (m) 1.5 -1 -0. first order diffracted wave and linear input (Expt. The bottom picture in different wave headings (β=0o. Particularly for a wave is the first order diffracted free surface.1 complete first plus second order diffracted wave time 0. But for other wave figure appearing as the smallest wave is the linear headings.

12].4 elevation (m) 0.4 uni-directional o 0. such as directional spreading σθ=15o and 30o in the main wave spreading function. The non-linear interaction of spread seas with the simplified FPSO model is considered in this section. frequencies considered.e.05 0. UK Maximal and minimal non-linear free surface spatial profile for lee side QTFs are progressively reduced below the uni- 0. For uni-directional waves wave loading.15 β=30 β=45 Surge QTF β 0=0o 0.0 θ o 0 Spread sea σ =30 focusing at 0.4 θ o 0. It is evident that.05 0.2 directional values at high frequency.5 2 0.5 1 1.05 θ o Spread sea σ =30 focusing at -0. a shift in position of the focus point also affects the wave force. at certain wave frequencies in certain wave directions. directional waves. For this case the uni-directional forces are largest at all frequencies. the local -0. β=0 β=15 0. size and spread wave characteristics etc. it is (θ −θ ) 2 interesting to see that the mean drift sway QTFs obtained − 1 2σ θ 2 from spread waves are bigger than those from uni- D(θ ) = e 2π σ θ directional waves for some frequencies. focusing position. our numerical results show excellent agreement with experiments conducted at Imperial College [11.25 -0. with various values for σθ.1 looks locally uni-directional.1 Figure 5: Surge QTFs for various values of Gaussian spreading function focused at different locations in head- on case elevation (m) 0.5 1 1.15 β=30 ω β=45 0.0 θ 0.5 0 0. but a larger degree of 3. Marine CFD 2005: Southampton.15 -2 -1. The influence of wave directionality on the mean drift surge force in the head-on case is shown in Figure 5. (σθ=0).1 0. main incoming wave direction.1 0.3 SPREAD SEA CASE wave spreading always leads to a reduction of the surge force. 30o.05 0 Figure 5 also shows the effect of focusing position on the mean surge force. The above results have shown the significance of wave directional spreading on mean-drift forces. wave direction βo=0.2 β=0 0 β=15 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 0. and 45o are frequency. is used to model waves of spread waves may lead to a more severe design case for various angular spreading. As the x (m) FPSO used in the calculation is relatively large compared Figure 4: Maximal and minimal values of non-linear free with the wavelength for the entire range of the wave surface for various wave headings.5 0 0.1 x (m) Maximal and minimal non-linear free surface spatial profile for weather side 0.35 Spread sea σ =15 focusing at -0.2 -0. and relative ratio of body obtained and compared with the results from uni. While it is found that uni-directional waves still produce the maximum mean drift surge forces.05 behaviour of a spread wave close to the focus point leads to the idea of a ‘focus spot’ over which the spread wave -0. A Some of the results for non-head on cases are presented Gaussian directional spreading function in Figure 6. As discussed in [10].5 -1 -0. They also demonstrate that the influence of wave directionality on The QTFs for mean drift forces (i. where A is the wave amplitude and b is the draft.3 Spread sea σ =15 focusing at 0. As the spreading angle is increased the surge © 2005: Royal Institution of Naval Architects .5 -1 -0. for ωij− = 0 ) with the FPSO depends on a number of factors. The relative size of this ‘focus spot’ as compared to the size of the body plays an -2 -1.0o (head-on). The forces are normalised by πρgbA1A2. 15o.5 2 important role in the diffraction of spread waves.

We may underestimate the wave loading if wave directionality is not considered. Figure 7: Body surface mesh for FPSO otherwise a major underestimation of the wave impact on -4 the structure could occur.4 ω ω Figure 9: Sway QTFs for various wave headings ( ω− = 0 ) Figure 6: QTFs of mean sway drift forces for various bandwidths of Gaussian spreading function in main wave direction βo=15. The sway QTF values increase dramatically with the A vessel similar to the Schiehallion FPSO was chosen to increase of the angle of wave heading away from the investigate the non-linear wave hydrodynamics in the head-on in the case of short waves.5m. The orientation of the main wave heading ω can have a substantial influence on the spreading effects Figure 8: Surge QTFs for various wave headings ( ω− = 0 ) on the body. Examples of surge and sway mean. © 2005: Royal Institution of Naval Architects .18 θ o β=30 Spread sea σ =30 θ β=45 o 1.Marine CFD 2005: Southampton. CONCLUSIONS drift forces.2 0.8 1 1. The computer program DIFFRACT developed at the University of Oxford has been successfully extended to deal with uni-directional and directionally spread waves. problem is solved by employing a quadratic boundary element method. In order to provide data to partners for their mooring analysis. presented in this paper. QTFs are obtained for slow.4 0. the width is 45m.2 1. calculating nonlinear wave hydrodynamic loads on the ship and free surface elevations on and around the ship. 4. The one-plane symmetric The second order wave interaction of uni-directional numerical mesh created for the diffraction analysis is focused wave groups and spreading seas with FPSOs is shown in Figure 7.6 β=15 Spread sea σ =15 o 0.06 0 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 0 0.4 0. The length of the ship is 238m.8 1 1. As the wave amplitude is x 10 Surge QTF 6 increased. The non-linear wave scattering drift forces are presented in Figure 8 and Figure 9. while the minimal value occurs between the mid 3 part of the ship and the stern. It is interesting o 5 β=15 o to note that the crucial location for both maximal and β=30 β=45 o minimal values for the non-head on case is not at bow.2 0. 4 For a wave heading at 45o.16 1.6 0. which contrasts to the effect of spread seas on a circular 0 0 0.2 0. Our numerical results for the non-linear free surface have shown that both sum and difference frequency second- order free surface components at the bow of the ship are significant. UK o -3 Sway QTF β 0=15 x 10 Sway QTF 0. this second order enhancement will increase β=0 o rapidly as the square of wave amplitude.4 0.6 0.08 0. the maximum of the non- linear free surface takes place near the mid-section of the ship.8 0.0o The surge QTFs seem not to vary much between the wave headings for most frequencies. and the draft is 11.1 0.4 0. REBASDO project. and cannot be neglected if one requires accurate prediction of the wave-structure interaction.2 0.4 cylinder [10].8 uni-directional o o 1.6 0. the results demonstrate that uni-directional waves do not always lead to the 1 maximum wave forces on a ship-shaped FPSO. 2 In the case of the spread seas.12 0.14 1 0.2 1. But sway QTFs 3.4 MOORED VESSEL ANALYSIS vary considerably when the wave directions are changed.2 1.

8. 301-320. the REBASDO Project. 1991. Swan. Swan. 3. ‘Long period oscillations of moored Technology. 1st Int.. Taylor. ‘On the Lecturer at the Department of Engineering Science. 25. and Van Langen. Engineering at the Department of Engineering Science. Ph.H. R. Journal the Department of Engineering Science. and Vijfvinkel E. OMAE. REFERENCES Jun Zang currently holds the position of Departmental 1. The collaborative ‘Diffraction of a directionally spread wave group by a partners include Shell. P. P.. Bowers. Estaleiros Navais da LISNAVE and Noble Denton.S. AUTHORS’ BIOGRAPHIES 6. 19. 37-41. 181-191. Naval experience on design of offshore platforms and onshore Archit. 2003. Applied Ocean Research.. DHI. U.V.H. 309-327. and she has several years of industry ships subject to short wave seas’. Anaturk. Vancouver. 118. Bateman. 6. Swan. E. R. J.H. University of Oxford. University College London. He has coordinated several 5. computing support for the calculation. & Eatock Taylor. ‘Non-linear wave diffraction around a Chris Swan at Imperial College for facilitating the moored ship’. Dynamics and Loads on Structures... Part 2: Paul Taylor holds the position of University Lecturer at Bichromatic incident waves and body motions’.P ‘The second order velocity potential for diffraction of waves by fixed offshore structures’. Jonathan. supported by EU under Framework 5.. 1989. D. & Taylor.K. P. of the 1998 International OTRC Symposium. P. ‘High Ke Wang was a Research Assistant in the Department of frequency TLP responses’. W.J. P.D. and currently a Vice-President of the Royal Academy of Engineering. 211. the SUT Group on Environmental Forces (SUTGEF). R. Imperial College. UK 5. Rodney Eatock Taylor is Professor of Mechanical dissertation. F. 1997. Buldakov. P. Chamberlain. ASCE Proc. M. calculation of mean drift forces for the Schiehallion ship- type model. efficient numerical simulation of directionally spread University of Oxford. A. 2004. 420-427.P. Journal of Computational Physics. of Naval Architects. Offshore and © 2005: Royal Institution of Naval Architects . & Eatock Taylor.H. Chau. E. C. ‘Observations of wave-structure interaction for a multi- legged concrete platform’. P.H. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Polar Engineering Conference (ISOPE). ‘On irregular. 1993. Taylor P. He was responsible for the (final report on project FLU80). Zang. Taylor. Applied Ocean Research. Marine CFD 2005: Southampton. 557-593. He currently chairs 7. Eatock Taylor. & Eatock Taylor. University of Oxford for providing continuous 12. Trans. 3. Gibson. cylinder’.. Her 174. 1998. 7. & Yue. 119.H.H. 19 IWWWFB.H. DNV. Inst. Journal of Offshore Mechanics hydrodynamics. doctorate was obtained at the State key Laboratory for Coastal and Offshore Engineering at Dalian University of 2. P. Italy.D. P. 1997. R. H. structures. non-linear national research programmes in the area of marine waves in a spread sea’. University of of Fluid Mechanics. Taylor.G. & Taylor. Managed programme on Engineering Science. J. ‘The complete second-order diffraction solution for an axisymmetric body. also like to thank the Oxford Super Computing Centre. Edinburgh. We would theory’. C. 9. Oxford. & Hagemeijer. Taylor. 1990. This study is part of the EU project Reliability Based Structural Design of FPSO Systems (REBASDO) 10. 277-305.K. Tromans. 2001. P. Prior to that he spent 20 years in the mechanical and offshore engineering industry. Kim. EU for the financial support and the useful discussions ‘Speculation on the adequacy of second order diffraction with the partners during the review meetings. The authors would like to thank the 11. C. Cortona. Proc. Zang. University of Oxford during part of behaviour of fixed and compliant offshore structures. 2004. 64-71.. Houston. where she is responsible for two surface water waves’. Instituto Superior Tecnico. 4. research projects as principal or co-investigator. He is a Fellow of the Royal Institution and Arctic Engineering.M. and Professor R. ‘Focused Wave Groups on Deep and Shallow Water’. Ocean Wave Kinematics. Canada.C. ‘A new model for the kinematics of large ocean waves - application as a design wave’. experimental comparisons. 1975. R.

In this paper. for ship manoeuvrability predictions is based on Three dimensional separation and vortex shedding were calculation of hydrodynamic derivatives of forces and captured well and force results were reasonably moments with respect to the individual degrees of consistent compared with experiment data. V Shigunov and D Vassalos. Forces. The linear algebraic equation system was solved by a Gauss-Seidel method with multigrid acceleration. INTRODUCTION Cura Hochbaum [2] presented a calculation of the vessel The traditional method currently used by towing tanks in steady oblique motion on 22nd ONR symposium. freedom. on turbulent flow and ship hydrodynamics were studied by RANS solver FLUENT. However. vortex available from IIHR [4]. Lateral force was viscous effects. MATHEMATICAL FORMULATION Longo and Stern [4] carried out towing tank experiments The Reynolds averaged Navier-Stokes equations with Κ- of yaw effect on ship flow for a 3. moment coefficient. The agreement was encouraging. Experimentally based predictions are predicted with good accuracy. although there ∂t were two main limitations on their numerical method. 2.Marine CFD 2005: Southampton. UK SUMMARY Numerical simulation of effect of yaw angle and ship attitude on ship hydrodynamics was carried out by a RANS approach. University of Strathclyde. Second order upwinding difference method was used for the discretization of convection flux. the application change and free surface? of RANS method to predict force and flow field around Series 60 ship model under steady oblique motion was In this paper. However. SIMPLE algorithm combined with Rhie and Chow interpolation was used to deal with the coupling of velocity with pressure. The general agreement is satisfactory. The governing equations were discretized by finite volume approach with collocate grid layout. UK NUMERICAL SIMULATION OF YAW EFFECT Q Gao. © 2005: Royal Institution of Naval Architects . Two-equation turbulence model of renormalization group (RNG Κ-ε) was used together with non-equilibrium wall function. ship attitude expensive and can be applied only to the type of hulls effects were excluded in the calculation. Ju and Lew [1] firstly studied asymmetric effect on flow physics by finite-analytic difference scheme. which were used to explain complicated physics and provide valuable data for Continuity equation: computational fluid dynamics validation. the effects of yaw angle and attitude change reported. A question arises in the study of yaw effect on ship Methods based on RANS solver have been becoming hydrodynamics: how large is the effect of ship attitude progressively more popular. They Momentum equations: ∂ r rr r validated results on HSVA tanker and SR107 bulk ( ρV ) + ∇ ⋅ ( ρVV ) = ρg − ∇P carrier. Volume-of-Fluid (VOF) and geometric reconstruction methods were applied to locate free surface. and strong free surface effect. Series 60 hull form was chosen as a validation case. The model. side force. One is a double model assumption of the free surface + ∇ ⋅τ + S effect and the other is that only stern part of ship model was included in the simulation. performance in real manoeuvres for design purpose.048m Series 60 ship ε turbulence model for closure were solved. Alessandrini and Delhommeau [3] presented a paper on The hydrodynamic derivatives are calculated from 22nd ONR Symposium on viscous free surface flow past experiments or using potential flow simulation methods. r ∇ ⋅ V = 0. measured in detail. The computed free surface wave pattern. they were obtained for. Patel. wave pattern and model attitude were governing equations can be written as follows. There were few successful studies in this area. The numerical results were The flow around ship hull under steady yaw motion is given and compared with experimental measurement characterised by complex flow separation. Wave pattern Potential methods can only be used in manoeuvrability particularly for the bow wave shows a close agreement calculations with additional care because of strong between calculation and measurement. Series 60 in steady sway motion. velocity field were compared with experimental data. shedding. These derivatives are then used in free surface and ship attitude effects were not included in manoeuvrability simulation programs to evaluate ship the calculation. 1.

316. resistance coefficient in oblique number was set to 0. The Non-equilibrium wall function was used on ship hull comparison between measurement and calculation (case boundary to save computational effort.035. viscous effect as well. which is located at one ship and yaw angle 10°. UK Turbulence model: 4. 0 Y -2 pressure. surface and attitude change due to sway motion on ship manoeuvring performance. The first and second transverse wavelength are Froude Yaw Sinkage Trim Heel different each other and with Kelvin theory. 2) was shown in figure 2-4. P -2 2 r r τ = µ [(∇V + ∇V T )] stress tensor. trim and heel.316 10 Yes Yes Yes shoulder.316 given on side boundary.316 5 Yes Yes Yes 0. Marine CFD 2005: Southampton. Therefore. K turbulent energy and ε turbulent dissipation rate. 0. attitude change effect as well as yaw angle effect on ship which is larger than that in straight-forward motion hydrodynamic performance. Therefore.316 10 Double model stern shape. back shoulder and stern wave. which were ( ρε ) + ∇ ⋅ ( ρVε ) = C1 P − C 2 ρ based on the uncertainty study of resistance calculations. NUMERICAL RESULTS AND ∂ r DISCUSSION ( ρK ) + ∇ ⋅ ( ρVK ) = P − ρε ∂t µ 4. Series60 hull form was chosen for validation purpose. without sinkage.5 Yes Yes Yes Table 1 The list of test cases © 2005: Royal Institution of Naval Architects .5 Yes Yes Yes 0. g gravity vector. which is number angle related to the nonlinear interactions between bow. In all test cases. ρw and ρa water and air densities.1 MESH + ∇ ⋅ (( µ + T )∇K ) σK Three-dimensional computational grids were generated.316 2. it is needed to quantify the influence of free where two velocity components were imposed. 0 2 4 -2 6 ρ = rw ρ w + ra ρ a mixture density. Ship wave where hydrostatic pressure is prescribed. However. The difference 0. condition. S 4. TEST CASE From figure 2. Downstream outlet is at two ship lengths behind stern. Bow wave at port is larger than that at starboard. three separate Velocity components and free surface elevation were calculations were carried out for Froude number 0. µ = rw µ w + ra µ a X 8 10 Figure 1: Boundary meshes mixture viscosity. σε VOF equation: ∂ r (rw ) + ∇ ⋅ (rwV ) = 0. trim and heel.316 10 No No No of wave height at bow and stern may attribute to bow and 0. front 0. The magnitude of bow wave height is about 0. 3. µw and µa water and air dynamic viscosities. it can be seen that the general agreement between computed and measured wave profile is good. The wave measurement was carried out in restrained condition without sinkage. case 3 for double model. The computational cases are motion tends to be larger than that in straight-forward listed in table 1.2 ATTITUDE EFFECT external body force.316 7.015). ∂t K K The sketch of computational domain and boundary µT + ∇ ⋅ (( µ + )∇ε ) meshes is shown in figure 1. ∂t 0 r Z r where V is velocity vector. trim and heel) and all Boundary conditions were prescribed past numerical calculation were made in restrained condition (without attitude change) or with double The inlet is located at half a ship length ahead of bow model. Since the model tests for force measurement were carried out in free condition (with sinkage. Froude (0. ∂ r ε ε 2 The total cell numbers are about 400000. named as case 1 and 2 for with and length away. wave height is very close near stern on both Numerical calculation includes study of free surface and sides.

04 z 0 0.02 -0.74 0. star boundary layer and weaker vortex strength.5 X/L -0.91 0.05 y with heel.83 0.03 0.07 0 0. 1.0 U 1.79 -0. port Computed.58 -0 0.08 Frame 003  01 Feb 2005  title -0 layer thickness and cross-stream distribution.06 -0.02 U 3 -0.0102 0.00 0.79 -0.51 there is a significant attitude effect on both boundary -0.01 7 0.9.06 -0.0 13 0.05 0.0 z X/L -0.74 0.04 0.0 y figure 3-4.05 0 0.07 -0.83 0.05 0.0101 0. However.74 0.0020 -0.25 0.0265 17 15 0.5 X/L -0.96 -0.87 -0.02 U 1 -0.65 0.0224 0.1 1 (Calculation case 1) Level z 19 0.01 increasing mesh resolution.05 -0.0 0.Marine CFD 2005: Southampton. 0.1 (Calculation case 2) Velocity field The three dimensional velocity fields were compared in 0 1.96 0.08 -0.5 1 1. Compared -0.70 0. (Measurement [4]) 1 Level z 19 0. Heel angle is large to change the (Measurement [4]) vortex shedding and pressure distribution on the hull surface.75 1 0.01 -0.87 -0.72 The results from calculations case 1 and 2 show that -0.0102 0.70 -0.0101 1.0183 1.96 0.0062 -0. © 2005: Royal Institution of Naval Architects . the calculation results in case 2 are consistent 0.1 from ship hull due to the mesh resolution.0060 0.87 -0.02 Computed.04 z 0 0.0021 Y/L 5 -0. star 0. However.02 U -0 other at 0.05 0 0. The numerical results could be expected to improve by Zeta/L 0.5 9 0.03 0.5 9 0.05 0 0.0 13 0.0143 0 11 0.0 rame 003  01 Feb 2005  title The measured and computed wave patterns were given in -0.05 0.0183 1.04 z 0 0.06 -0. One is at x/L=0. the numerical calculation appears to be over diffusive far Figure 5: Velocity field at x/L=0.99 0.00 Y/L 5 -0.9 velocity distribution. the computational results Measured.91 0. UK 0.83 0.08 -0.87 -0.91 0.02 -0.08 -0.05 y Figure 3: Wave pattern (Measurement [4]) Figure 6: Velocity field at x/L=0.1 and the -0.85 -0 z z 0.70 Figure 2: Computed and measured wave profile -0.74 0.78 0.03 0.03 with measurement.79 -0.0020 3 -0.79 0. It can be seen that general wave structure is -0.05 0 0.05 y Figure 4: Wave pattern (Calculation case 2) Figure 7: Velocity field at x/L=0. sinkage and trim has less effect on cross Figure 8: Velocity field at x/L=0.92 -0.00 -0.0 well predicted by numerical approach.70 -0.07 0 0.83 0.01 -0.01 7 0.00 -0.0 -0.06 0.0021 U 1.0062 -0.91 1.96 -0. which result in thicker Measured.0 0 0 -0.0 figure 4-9 at two cross planes.5 1 1.0224 0.0265 17 15 0.0 -0.04 Generally. port have some numerical diffusion.0060 1 -0.0143 0 11 0.5 0.

99 mesh resolution.5 angle. Case Ct Cs Cm 10 Com. and partly due to the Κ-ε turbulence -0. (Calculation case 1) computational hydrodynamic forces and moments are 0 1.0 slightly underestimated. The definition of force coefficient is given below: Resistance coefficient: 5 Yaw angle Ct=Fx/(0.316 and yaw angle 10 degrees is given in table 2.9 and measurement is generally acceptable.78 0.98 -1.72 0. This means that the attitude change -1 Com. Cm experimental data. UK 0 1.99 0. -0.78 0.04 0. This is partly due to limitation of -0. has a significant influence on the overall ship hydrodynamics and cannot be neglected in larger yaw -1. z 0. Exp.5 the computational side force and moment from case 2 (without attitude effect) are much smaller than Exp.05 0 0. Forces and moments 6 Com.05 y Figure 10: Velocity field at x/L=0. 0 Yaw angle The computed results from case 1 (with attitude effect) 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 agree reasonably well with experimental data.91 24.65 0.78 -1. However.05 0 0.92 Based on above analysis.72 -0.3 -1. The comparison of numerical and 0.12 26.0 4.3 YAW EFFECT -0. However.02 U 0.02 U 0. 20 15 Exp.08 0 Yaw angle Case 2 6.08 8 -0. -0.45 Case 1 7.65 are undergoing.9 7 (Calculation case 2) Ct Exp.04 0.5ρU2S) 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 Side force coefficient: Cs=Fy/(0. a series of numerical -0.85 calculation were carried out by using measured sinkage.81 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 Table 2: Forces and moments coefficient (*1000) It can be seen that the forces and moments are closely Figure 12: Side force coefficient related to the computational conditions. That -2 means that wave effect cannot be neglected as well.58 0.85 18.06 0.05 y It could be seen that the agreement between calculation Figure 9: Velocity field at x/L=0.08 experimental results was given in figure 11-13.85 model.26 -1. Figure 13 Yaw moment coefficient © 2005: Royal Institution of Naval Architects . The studies of K-ω and turbulence stress model z 0.83 5 Case 3 3.51 -0.51 -0. Marine CFD 2005: Southampton. [4] 7.58 trim and heel.5ρU2Lpp3) 30 25 Side force (N) The comparison of force and moments at Froude number 0.92 0.01 25. -0.06 0.5ρU2S) Figure 11: Resistance Coefficient Yaw moment coefficient: Cm= Mz/(0. The computational results from double model calculation are far below experimental results.

USA 3. Lew (1990) Viscous Flow past a Ship in a Cross Current. REFERENCE 1. Hochbaum (1998) Computation of the Turbulent Flow around a Ship Model in Steady Turn and in Steady Oblique Motion. Ju and J.. 22nd Symposium on Naval Hydrodynamics. C. Washington D. J. Norway © 2005: Royal Institution of Naval Architects .. However. increasing mesh resolution and enhanced turbulence models are recommended in future study to improve numerical accuracy. C. 22nd Symposium on Naval Hydrodynamics. USA 4. UK 5. Free surface effect cannot be neglected for high Froude number as well. A.Marine CFD 2005: Southampton. V. C. Patel. Longo and F. 18th ONR Symposium on Naval Hydrodynamics. Ann Arbor 2. Delhommeau (1998) Viscous Free Surface Flow Past a Ship in Drift and in Rotating Motion. 21st Symposium on Naval Hydrodynamics. B. Stern (1997). Alessandrini and G. S. Yaw Effect on Model- Scale Ship Flows. M. C. CONCLUSION Based on comparison of computed and measured results. the following conclusion could be drawn: a. The general agreement between computational results and measurement are satisfactory. The effects of attitude change on hydrodynamics are significant in large yaw angles and should be taken into account in the numerical prediction of manoeuvring motion. Washington D. c. b. 6.

spanwise direction of the propeller flow using both potential (panel S(i. RANSE calculations were carried out. INTRODUCTION D Propeller diameter The study of the main propeller is a priority research R Propeller radius theme for naval hydrodynamics owing to the complexity ζ Non-dimensional radial position of the related physical phenomena and its impact on the p total pressure overall ship design. A detailed analysis was performed in order to define the better panel grid for the propeller. VR Resultant velocity at a blade section etc. So. This kind of comparison makes it possible to relate the panel method pressure results to the viscous phenomena that is possible to study by RANSE calculation. for a single operating condition.. This sensitivity analysis was carried out for the design operating condition. these kind of numerical results can be used to improve © 2005: Royal Institution of Naval Architects . UK COMPARISON BETWEEN RANSE CALCULATIONS AND PANEL METHOD RESULTS FOR THE HYDRODYNAMIC ANALYSIS OF MARINE PROPELLERS P Becchi and C Pittaluga. For this reason the propeller design patm atmospheric pressure should be carried out taking into account the ship shape.p. in terms of thrust. rudder. torque and efficiency coefficients. Italy SUMMARY The study of the main propeller is a priority research theme for naval hydrodynamics owing to the complexity of the related physical phenomena and its impact on the overall ship design. the VA Advance velocity fuel and bearing consumption. especially for tip vortex. engine design. g gravity shaft line and brackets. The work presented in this paper regards a validation study carried out for a high skewed propeller geometry and concerning a comparison between experimental data. j Panel counter in spanwise direction nPANC Number of panels.Hydrodynamic Dept. Then validation against experimental data was carried out in open water conditions. in order to compare the pressure distributions over the blade sections. CETENA is involved in R&D activities on the modelling of the propeller flow using both potential (panel methods) and viscous (RANSE solvers) flow methods. s(i. trailing vortex and streamlines over the blade. At the end. noise and vibration level. j) Arch length of the panel (i. RANSE and panel method results were carried out. in order to choose the panel grid that lead to the better performance result and the less time consuming. the ρ Water density propeller wake phenomena that highly influence an CD Drag coefficient accurate prediction of the propeller efficiency. n Rotational speed (rps) KT Thrust coefficient Nevertheless the advancements made by these research KQ Torque coefficient the potential flow method cannot take into account local η Propeller efficiency effect such as the tip and root vortex structures.Marine CFD 2005: Southampton. This work is P(ζ) Blade pitch at the radial position ζ own to the feedback from an extensive campaign of J Advance coefficient theoretical / experimental correlation studies. The h head optimal propeller’s operation condition depends on ω rotational velocity significant aspect such as the contractual ship speed. The RANSE calculation results were carried out within the European-founded project “LEADING EDGE” (Contract No: G3RD-CT- 2002-00818). chordwise direction CETENA is involved in R&D activities on the modelling nSTRIP Number strip. CETENA S. j) methods) and viscous (RANSE solvers) flow methods. This chain of different related and important aspects RN Reynolds number doesn’t allow to fix the numerical tool employed for the i Panel counter in chordwise direction study of the naval propeller.A. j) Area of the panel (i. For this CF Friction coefficient reason it is necessary to introduce the viscous effect LE LEADING EDGE EU project combining the potential flow theory with viscous method MKC Morino Kutta Condition [1] based on the boundary layer approximation and / or with IKC Iterative Kutta Condition tools related with the solution of the Reynolds Navier- Stokes equations. . j) from the The propeller panel method PROPACE [2] was leading edge developed in the early 90s at CETENA’s and since then C(j) Chord length of the panel strip (j) has been constantly validated and improved. once the reliability of this RANS technique has been tested against experimental data. NOMENCLATURE 1.

233 m Boss/diameter: 0. by planar and (PROPACE). to provide details the computational method. PROPELLER GEOMETRY The propeller geometry used in this work is a four bladed. especially from the point of view of the non-planar panels with a constant distribution of source viscous correction formulation and pressure coefficient and doublets. high skew. developed in order to implement the pre-process phase of a calculation. So. the t/C value at the tip and the blade thickness at the trailing edge have to be equal Figure 1 to zero. Main propeller geometry data in model scale Propeller diameter: 0. the propeller geometry needs to be checked. a windows graphical user interface has been screw propellers. Also the panel shape and aspect ratio at the tip have to be checked. Marine CFD 2005: Southampton. In this case. For this reason.729 The propeller was analysed at an off-design pitch. while reliability of CFD calculations as regards the the wake shape can be modelled considering two determination of the 3D wake around this propeller has different ways: constant or equal to the blade pitch been carried out and funded by the EC project distribution. the second section handle the propeller geometry in a quick way. LEADING EDGE. The pressure Kutta condition is imposed at distribution in steady condition. the viscous approach. The assessment of the the blade trailing edge with an iterative procedure. CFD TOOLS AND COMPUTATION fast and accurate tool for the preliminary propeller design. The blade surface must to be a close surface: the edges have to overlap at the tip and at the trailing edge. the pressure distribution over the blade in the tip region can be affected by numerical errors. UK the precision of potential methods that still remain a quite 3.1 PANEL METHOD – PROPACE study developed for a highly-skewed propeller in open water condition. to describes the propeller geometry. the following sections describe the etc. 5. 2.321 Number of blades: 4 Rotational Speed: 14 Hz Maximum Skew: 27° AE/AO: 0. A commercial RANSE solver (CFX5) The PROPACE code is a panel method mainly based on [3] was validated and the results of this computation has the potential theory published by Hoshino [4. this © 2005: Royal Institution of Naval Architects . Figure 2 3. The been employed to improve CETENA’s panel code propeller geometry is represented entirely. especially for high skewed propeller. In fact. The PROPACE GUI makes it possible to The paper is organised as follows: the first section perform an automatic panel grid sensitivity analysis. experimental data and lastly the verification and validation procedure. SETTINGS The work presented in this paper regards a validation 3. controllable pitch propeller from LEADING EDGE EU project. a panel method calculation requires some geometrical conditions to be fulfilled.1(a) Geometry of Panelization In order to perform a PROPACE calculation. both the potential and the 3D surface files used to define the CFD fluid domain. that concerns prediction of leading edge and tip flow for the design of quiet and efficient Recently. 6].

it is formulation that makes it possible to estimate the friction important to check the better panel configuration that drag contribution on thrust and torque. in order to interface was developed for the PROPACE code. optimise the calculation time. the PROPACE code uses a semi-empirical influence on the calculation performing and results. in order to   P(ζ )     ⋅ (ζ ⋅ R ) check the reliability of a very highly defined grid. a graphical user In this work.1166 Number of sections: 25 Hub zone 4: Length [m]: depending on the blade root section length in axial direction Number of sections: 25 Hub zone 5: Length [m]: 0. UK problem can be avoided setting a non-zero tip chord Based on these results. In ρ⋅n ⋅D 2 4 ρ ⋅ n 2 ⋅ D5 spanwise direction.1(b) Panel Method Sensitivity Analysis 3. so to numerical results. Because the panel grid setting has a particular performances. three different K T TOT = K T POT − K T FRIC analyses were carried out: in the first one.0583 Number of sections: 25 Hub zone 3: Length [m]: 0. j) ⋅ S(i.0583 Number of sections: 25 BLADE PANEL GRID Number of Points in: Spanwise direction 35 Chordwise direction 50 Points distribution law: Spanwise direction COSIN Chordwise direction COSIN WAKE CONFIGURATION Number of sections in axial 200 direction Wake Pitch COSTANT Wake contraction model No Contraction Table 1 Figure 3 © 2005: Royal Institution of Naval Architects . a R j=1 i =1 different panel configuration was tested. In the second phase. j) ⋅ 1 QF = 2 to 50. being  P(ζ )   sinusoidal law. the panels were distributed with a co.Marine CFD 2005: Southampton. Cos Arc tan     π ⋅ ζ ⋅ D  As mentioned before. were fixed. j) ⋅ S(i. some diagrams of the second sensitivity analysis are HUB CONFIGURATION shown. to the wake TFRIC Q FRIC K T FRIC = Z ⋅ K Q FRIC = Z ⋅ contraction model and the wake pitch distribution. a sensitivity analysis was In order to evaluate the viscous effect on the propeller performed. by an extrapolation procedure on the chord length set in order to provide the higher defined geometrical distribution. j) ⋅Sin  Arc tan  1   2 model. discretization. The total KT and makes it possible to provide good results and reduced KQ results are defined in the following way: computation time. Hub zone 1: Length [m]: 0. and the panel distribution law in the chordwise direction. in CETENA. At the end. The parameter set used for the calculation is represented in the following table. For this reason.1(c) Viscous Correction Formulation In order to define the better panel grid setting for a PROPACE calculation. based on the previous results. In the following pictures. in order minimize the mean difference between experimental and to handle the sensitivity analysis in automatic way.1166 Number of sections: 25 Hub zone 2: Length [m]: 0. the panel grid configuration was length. 3. while the number of points in j=1 i =1 2   π ⋅ ζ ⋅ D  chordwise and spanwise direction was changed from 30 nSTRIP nPANC ∑ ∑ 2 ⋅ρ⋅ V ⋅ C D (i. the effect of K Q TOT = K Q POT + K Q FRIC the number of points in chordwise and spanwise direction was studied jointly to the effect of the panel where the frictional contributions are evaluated as: distribution law in chordwise direction. the CD formulation was tested. the wake contraction nSTRIP nPANC  TF = ∑ ∑ ⋅ ρ ⋅ VR ⋅ C D (i.

The code employed for the mesh generation is the 3. The skew of the whole domain is 270°. whilst for the generation of the domain of computation and the periodic surface. The different J value was achieved by tuning the advance velocity value. that includes the fluid close to the flow around the propeller has been investigated in open propeller blade and a part of the shaft line. a K-ε turbulence model in conjunction with a scalable wall function method has been adopted in order to keep the grid dimensions and thus reduce the computational time. J = 0. in the 2D cylindrical section along several directly by the value of the potential on the last panels given blade section. CFX 5. this code solves the Reynolds has to be divided into two sub-domain: Averaged Navier Stokes Equations on a structured multi- block mesh. The propeller has been tested onto three different operating conditions. to investigate a Kutta-Joukowsky condition models: the Morino Kutta propeller in open water conditions.1(d) Kutta-Joukowsky Condition structured multi-block code ICEM CFD – Hexa[7]. edge three curves are defined towards respectively the lower face) at the trailing edge. starting from the blade section ∑ D φ +∑ W j=1 ij j m =1 im (∆φ) m = ∑ Sij   . the minimum pressure difference at the trailing edge. The mathematical model consist of several law to connect the chord line with the axial The MKC suggests to evaluate this mathematical entity direction. K. is a cylinder shaped Condition (MKC) and the Iterative Kutta Condition domain located around the propeller and co-axial with (IKC).2 RANSE METHOD – CFX 5.7 The RANS solver solves the equation in a Multi Frame The computation has been performed with a general Reference (MFR) System.2. the calculation was the outflow section at about 4D behind and. From the blade up to the farfield cylindrical zone the skew is reduced along the The IKC introduces a correction ∆W aimed to provide radius. the water condition. MKC : (∆φ)w = φ u − φl + U ∞ ⋅ rte r r ( ) IKC : (∆φ)w = φ u − φl + U ∞ ⋅ rte + (∆W )w The propeller geometry was already available in IGES format (LE). The difference concerns the value of the doublets the propeller axis. 736. For this work. The PROPACE solver can be set with two different The domain of computation adopted. upper face. In order to supply the unperturbed boundary condition the solver tries to minimize a numerical problem and the section where the flow is directed inward the domain then the solution can be affected by a non physical has to be located at about 2D ahead the propeller blade.2(a) Meshing approach characterized by the bigger errors in KQ prevision. UK propeller. 3. corresponding to J = 0. the influence of the other blades is taken into account by the Wake doublet formulations: r r ( ) application of a periodic boundary condition. cylindrical external border at about 5D. N p j=1  ∂n  j geometry.2. optimisation. so the computational domain purpose code.7 [3]. All the calculation has been performed in model scale. i = 1. has been employed Linear equation system a numerical methodology for the parametrical generation Np NW N p  ∂φ  of these surfaces. The flow around the propeller is flow is solved in the rotating reference system. Marine CFD 2005: Southampton. computed in a rotating reference system attached to the (propeller reference system ) © 2005: Royal Institution of Naval Architects . For the present study the steady viscous • Inner domain. and keeping fixed the revolution number. this analysis has the main effect on torque results. in this case. this technique is developed within CETENA’s Panel Code PROPACE. but it has a lower stability due to the fact that. between potential and friction contribution. 736 that correspond to the case with Considering the difference in order of magnitude smallest thickness of boundary layer. A sensitivity analysis has carried out: since a scalable Figure 4 wall function was adopted the grid of computation was set up for J = 0. starting from the leading and trailing (respectively on the back. inflow and outflow zone. propeller flow. Considering the periodicity of the that a panel method needs to consider on the blade wake. and on the face. which is 3. and performed with the MKC.5. only one blade can been modelled. J = 0.

About 830. Spatial discretisation Finite-volume colloc. an O-Grid topology is applied with the generation of 5 new blocks: OUTER domain two blocks are applied along the leading and trailing edge (from the hub till about 0. close to the blade. steady calculation is carried out in a Multiple Frame of Reference System (MFR). of iterations 3100 Table 2: Solver Configuration The RANS study has been carried out for the Leading Edge EU Project. In order to simulate a propeller operating in open water. Conv. The first O-grid is located around the inner domain to build up the grid at the domain interface as a coarse distribution of the inner domain one.9 of the radius). this tools allow to use non. For this Order of acc. UK • Outer domain. The final mesh size is about incipient tip vortex structure The taking advantage of 1. the the volume.Terms Second reason first volume grid for inner domain has been Pressure-velocity Coupling Fully coupled Type of turb. The second O-grid is applied to generate a radial distribution from the hub to the farfield zone. at the outflow section a “zero” pressure gradient. Diff. for further Figure 5: Viscous mesh information refer to the CFX User’s guide [12]. with y + (5 ÷ 55) coefficient 1:3 or 1:4. K-ε generated and then volume grids for outer domain have Wall function Wall func without press. As an example.736.grad. For brevity. The governing equations of the viscous flow are solved for the mass and momentum conservation. and satisfy the requirement 5< y+<55 domain subdivision the size of the grid is increased close for the mesh spacing of the first point near the wall.130.Marine CFD 2005: Southampton. so the initial block is subdivided in 6 blocks. that includes the fluid between INNER DOMAIN: A H-Grid topology is applied to split the inner domain and the domain boundary. the last two are applied respectively for the pressure side and suction side. Criteria: Residual No. been built up as a coarse distribution of the former.000 the domain border correspond to: at the inflow section nodes structured multiblock. A Frozen Rotor algorithm with a GGI interface guarantees the conservation of the fluid properties at the domain connection. The boundary condition applied to from propeller region. some information about the solver configuration is shown in table 2. flow is solved in a steady reference system. (reduction coefficient 1:3 or 1:4).000 nodes.000 nodes. the computation J =0. INNER domain OUTER DOMAIN: Total grid size of this region is about 200. © 2005: Royal Institution of Naval Architects . 3. made up by 16 blocks organised in two O grid index.. but if the number of nodes differs too Diffusion Terms Discr Upwind much the algorithm couldn’t perform properly. then into the inner domain. Convection Terms Discr Upwind stnd matching node distribution for the surface grid of Order of acc. in to the blade whilst the domain size is decreased away the higher J (=0. particular attention was given to key The K-ε turbulence model with a scalable wall function features of this the project: the flow around the centre was used to keep the grid dimensions and thus the and the tip region of the propeller in order to capture the computational time. The total mesh Size is a 1. and the Far-field region the undisturbed velocity is applied. Terms Second adjacent region. one along the tip region. The different domain are connected by General Grid Velocity formulation Absolute velocity dependent Interface Algorithm (GGI). The O-Grid is again divided to reflect the characteristic features of the blade geometry. An algebraic multi- grid algorithm is employed to accelerate the convergence of the linear solver.8÷0.000 nodes. pointed out that the y+ parameter is in the range 5÷55.130. the Rotating reference frame is applied to the fluid domain close to the propeller blade in order to add additional terms compared to those in the inertial system. model Two-eq.2(b) RANSE solver settings The commercial code CFX 5 was used to perform the simulations.736).

in order to reduce the error shown especially by the viscous correction formulation used. one of the validation phases value is included in the range from 3. the detailed formulations cannot be published. So a big δKT or δKQ make it possible to understand if the numerical result is result could mislead. In Figure 6.2 VISCOUS CORRECTION RESULTS The model scale calculations show that the mean δKT As mentioned before. and then of the viscous effect. PROPACE and experimental data is shown. Otherwise.2(a) MODEL scale results 4. it was possible to check the different effect of the Reynolds number on the 4. these parameters actual KT and KQ value respectively. So. These results the KQ distribution results. while concerns the optimization of the viscous correction the δKQ in the range from 0. K T EXP K Q EXP As mentioned before. model and full scale calculation.7360 -1. j) R N chord = R R N arc = R ν ν J δKT[%] δ10KQ[%] For each spanwise panel strip. the δKQ is smaller than the previous calculation. and then not so reliable. the following 2D diagrams parameters can be very high. for every propeller scale calculation. the comparison between CFX5.50 to 17. VALIDATION results. The convergence has been achieved zero. difference about 12-15% on torque and 4-5% on thrust. Figure 6 V ⋅ C( j) V ⋅ s(i. two important 0. depending on formula.439% calculation were performed for each propeller scale dimension. You can see that every formulation © 2005: Royal Institution of Naval Architects . UK a Periodic boundary condition (GGI) is given at the when the experimental data (KT or KQ) are quite close to Periodic surface.761% 5. especially for the turbulent K − K T EXP K − K Q EXP δK T [%] = T δK Q [%] = Q and then also the envelope viscous correction formula.5000 2.1 EXPERIMENTAL DATA involving a friction coefficient (CF) depending on the Reynolds number in laminar condition. The object of this study was the characteristic length that has to be used for the evaluation of the RN. but they are indicated The validation phase was carried out comparing the by the following notations: numerical data with two experimental open water condition data sets. • “LAMINAR”: concerns a formulation 4.00%. Evaluating the Reynolds number with the arc length. it is important to understand that Then.952% hydrodynamic greatnesses have been considered: the 0. For confidentiality reasons. the Reynolds number formulation effect has been investigated. actually implemented in the PROPACE code. for each viscous correction formulation considered the δKT and δKQ coefficient values are affected by the and respect to the experimental data. • “ENVELOPE”: concerns a formulation involving where the friction coefficient (CF) is the maximum between the laminar and the turbulent condition. have to be analyzed. In order to be right in judging the overestimated or not. It is important to notice that these different formulations used. • “TURBULENT”: concerns a formulation involving a friction coefficient (CF) depending on the Reynolds number in turbulent condition.50 to 9. Table 3 4. This percentage gap between numerical and experimental data is calculated as follows: only the KQ results seem to be better. with 3100 iterations and has been carried out using different resolution scheme up to the second accurate The viscous correction investigation was carried out for scheme order.809% 5. the residual (RMS) are below 10E-06.2000 4.382% 3. provided by SSPA and HSVA (LE • “ACTUAL”: concerns the formulation Project). The Open Water curves concern the Reynolds number calculation based on the obtained by the PROPACE application show a mean total chord length. Then eight different 0.00%. Marine CFD 2005: Southampton.436% total chord length and the arc length.

31% 5.2000 8.5000 7. and also the numerical difference is very small.55% 0. CHORD LENGTH REYNOLDS NUMBER . The two KQ behaviors have the same slope.20% 9.2000 11.32% 4.87% 7. especially for the higher advance coefficient values.18% 5.02% 0.2000 4.07% 7.48% 6.89% 1.89% 1.7360 17.55% 5. This behavior is more evident on the ACTUAL LAMINAR TURBULENT results provided by the chord length Reynolds number J ENVELOPE Formulation Formulation Formulation evaluation.5000 3.33% 5.2000 4.98% 7.7360 17.25% 0.2000 6.75% 0.02% 0. UK considered leads to curves quite similar to experimental ones.5000 12.59% 6.72% 7.7360 9.54% 7. Figure 8 Using the arc length for the calculation of the Reynolds number. By the 2D diagrams and the following tables.00% of difference between the two Reynolds number formulations.40% 5.7360 5.59% 6.68% 5.66% 6.2(b) FULL scale results The full scale calculations lead to results similar to the previous ones.47% 7.63% 5. which is characterized by about 1.66% 6.10% 11.00%.55% 6. The better formulation for the KQ evaluation seems to be the laminar one.72% 6. In this scale calculation the Reynolds number formulation seems to be not so important.δ10KQ[%] ACTUAL LAMINAR TURBULENT J ENVELOPE ACTUAL LAMINAR TURBULENT Formulation Formulation Formulation J ENVELOPE Formulation Formulation Formulation 0.64% 0.17% 6.67% 0.24% 0.68% 7. about 3.25% 7. with J ACTUAL LAMINAR TURBULENT ENVELOPE Formulation Formulation Formulation a more or less constant gap about 5.2000 11.δ10KQ[%] experimental data. but in this case it is possible to see different KQ slope and offset: the numerical prevision is very close to the experimental data. the KQ curve presents a slope more similar to the experimental curve slope.5000 3.δKT[%] overestimate the thrust coefficient in the same way.31% 11.63% 7.06% 3. but in this case there is a constant difference from the experimental data. greater than in the case of the chord length Reynolds number.42% Table 5: Model Scale Arc length RN results 4.δKT[%] ACTUAL LAMINAR TURBULENT J ENVELOPE Formulation Formulation Formulation 0.δKT[%] CHORD LENGTH REYNOLDS NUMBER .72% 3.72% 3.5000 6.32% 0.55% 7. The KT curves are affected by an increase of the error.10% 0.16% 5.48% -0.45% Table 6: Full Scale Chord length RN results © 2005: Royal Institution of Naval Architects . 0.5000 12.09% 5.09% Figure 9 0.87% 5.85% 6.07% 0.29% Differently.45% 4. 0.Marine CFD 2005: Southampton.δ10KQ[%] Table 4: Model Scale Chord length RN results J ACTUAL LAMINAR TURBULENT ENVELOPE Formulation Formulation Formulation 0.77% 12.20% 9. The KT curves are very close each other and they ARC LENGTH REYNOLDS NUMBER .75% 1.24% 7. you can see a better δKQ Figure 7 behavior: the mean difference from the experimental curves is reduced of 5.63% 0.45% 8. the KQ curves are characterized by a quite 0.65% 0.7360 5.46% 5.11% 4.28% 8.72% CHORD LENGTH REYNOLDS NUMBER .00%.7360 9.00%.68% CHORD LENGTH REYNOLDS NUMBER .01% 5.65% 5.24% 4.00% different slope and a difference varying respect to the ARC LENGTH REYNOLDS NUMBER .44% 7.

A direct comparison is shown in 2D diagrams.5000 6. the application of the Bernoulli’s equation leads to this pressure coefficient formulation: 2  V  C p PROPACE = 1 −    Figure 11: J=0. originating on the back and separating from the blade surface at about r/R=0. The pressure coefficient considered is evaluated in different way by the two solver because of their boundary condition. Figure 10 5.67% 3.15% 0. the propeller is characterized by a significant angle of attack along most of the blade sections.37% 0.44% 8. the resultant velocity at the ACTUAL LAMINAR TURBULENT single spanwise position is given by: J ENVELOPE Formulation Formulation Formulation VR = VA (ζ ) + (ω ⋅ ζ ⋅ R ) 2 2 0.7360 9.1(a) J=0.30% 5.06% 2.7360 9.37% 7.1 BLADE PRESSURE DISTRIBUTION In order to evaluate the propeller performances by the light of the hydrodynamic behaviour of every blade sections.77% 12. where the CP distribution is plotted for three different radial sections.15% 7. CFX  VR  © 2005: Royal Institution of Naval Architects .55% 7. the panel methodology provides the velocity field over the blade because of the ideal fluid hypothesis on which this theory is based.δ10KQ[%] ACTUAL LAMINAR TURBULENT J ENVELOPE Formulation Formulation Formulation CFX5 calculation 0. in the following the CP distribution over the blade is plotted with the same legend range for the CFX5 and PROPACE results. UK ARC LENGTH REYNOLDS NUMBER . In fact.70% 5.69% 11.2.69% 7. CFX5-PROPACE COMPARISON 5. as shown in Figure 11.30% 11.21% 7.78% At J=0.200 the CP distribution obtained by the RANSE 0.27% 5.5000 7.78% 3. Marine CFD 2005: Southampton. So. the velocity distribution over the blade surface is zero for the RANSE calculation (no slip condition) and then the pressure coefficient can be estimated by the pressure field with the formulation: C P RANSE = (p − p at ) − ρ ⋅ g ⋅ h 1 ⋅ ρ ⋅ VR2 2 Otherwise.48% -1. In this operating condition.200 ARC LENGTH REYNOLDS NUMBER .28% 0. This involves a vortical phenomenon at the leading edge.δKT[%] In both these two formula.69% 3.2000 6.2000 8.75% 0.900.12% 3.67% calculation shows a typical low pressure distribution Table 7: Full Scale Arc length RN results close to the leading edge area.

UK PROPACE calculation It must be reminded that the CP color map related to the PROPACE result shows a wide zone characterized by a The CP distribution obtained by the PROPACE positive (dark green) pressure on the back. especially on the last panels on the trailing edge. in fact. the computation carried out by the panel method is affected by some numerical problems. Figure 13 Figure 12: J=0. as it can be seen in the following 2D diagram. For similar reasons. the CP distribution over the back side seems to be quite similar to the CFX5 result: from r/R = 0. leading edge extension. PROPACE © 2005: Royal Institution of Naval Architects . The to notice that in this region there is very slight difference comparison with the CFX5 results shows that in this between CFX and PROPACE results because the zero operating condition there are some problems in propeller value is indicated as the line dividing the positive (dark analysis.Marine CFD 2005: Southampton. the CP distribution at the leading edge is not exactly foreseen.700 up to r/R = 0.900. the pressure difference at the trailing edge points out some numerical problems. The effect of the presence of a vortical phenomenon. makes the pressure coefficient to be very small. The most important are the fulfilling of the Kutta-Joukowsky condition at the trailing edge and the vortical phenomena that cannot be estimated at the leading edge. Otherwise. Because of the high angle of attack of the blade sections.2. the lower zone of the blade and quite close to it for all the especially at the leading edge. but it cannot be evaluated by a potential code. green) to the negative (light green) area. It is important calculation is shown in the picture below. The CP distribution on the face confirms the numerical and consequently by the leading edge vortex starting in problems encountered in the central blade region.

as it can be differences from CFX5 results. especially in the central seen on the 2D CP diagrams. in this operating condition. UK 5. In fact. but particularly reduced. PROPACE Figure 14: J=0. CFX © 2005: Royal Institution of Naval Architects . At the trailing edge. the CP PROPACE calculation provided the following pressure distribution on the back is thinner than the previous result.200 operating condition. The blade then the CP distribution at the leading edge shows some section works with reduced angle of attack.5.1(b) J=0. The leading edge shows to zone. looking at the r/R = 0. PROPACE Figure 16: J=0. it is a viscous phenomenon that cannot be expected from a potential code application. Like in J=0.900 calculation. Figure 15: J=0. distribution. the pressure gap between back have a not negligible effect on the pressure distribution and face has a coherent behavior with the previous J over the blade surface. CP distribution. Marine CFD 2005: Southampton.5. the pressure coefficient at the trailing edge is affected by a local peak of negative pressure. Obviously. in this The separating vortex at the blade tip is also thinner and case the leading edge vortex has not been predicted and it follows the distribution of the lower CP. due to the nearness of the leading edge to the blade surface.500 CFX5 calculation PROPACE calculation As expected.5.

and this is the reason PROPACE calculation a little negative CP distribution over the face occurs close to the hub-blade intersection (Figure 18).736. In this case. The CP distribution obtained by the PROPACE calculation shows a pressure behavior over the blade very similar to the RANSE results. the blade sections work in shock-free mode. Figure 19 : J=0. The 2D CP diagrams shows that up to the blade tip. the blade section CP distributions show to work in a slight angle of attack condition. then the hydrodynamic behavior of the blade sections is not particularly affected by angle of attack. The effect of the leading edge closeness to the blade is clearly shown in r/R=0. At the trailing edge.900 CP diagram. CFX At the outer radial positions. UK Figure 18: J=0. the operating condition is quite close to the project J value. © 2005: Royal Institution of Naval Architects .736. This is the reason a little pressure peak is visible at the blade sections’ leading edge.Marine CFD 2005: Southampton. Figure 21. Figure 17 5. and a narrow high CP strip on the face.1(c) J=0.734 CFX5 calculation For J=0. the pressure distribution is affected by a local peak due to the leading edge transit.734 the CP distribution over the blade shows a very slight region characterized by a non zero angle of attack. This area is affected by a low CP distribution at the leading edge on the back side. CFX The blade sections closest to the hub seem to be affected by a slight negative angle of attack.

the investigation carried out on the viscous correction formula for the panel method allowed to point The work detailed in the present paper allowed a precise out that it is possible to reduce this accuracy lost with and detailed validation of the panel code PROPACE. The two codes have pointed out a similar behavior for the trust coefficient KT. UK Figure 20: J=0. propeller. A comparison study has been carried out referring to numerical investigations with a commercial 7. a Contract No: G3RD-CT-2002-00818 difference in a range 4-5% have been found with respect to the available experimental data. © 2005: Royal Institution of Naval Architects . PROPACE Figure 21 6. Differently the torque coefficient KQ shows different accuracy: a lost of 4-5% between RANSE and experimental. The work presented in this paper has been partly funded by the EC though the project LEADING EDGE. highly skewed propeller. whilst the accuracy decrease to 12-15% for the panel – experimental comparison. Marine CFD 2005: Southampton. A first comparison has been carried out for the prediction of leading edge and tip flow for the design of hydrodynamics coefficient in open water condition for a quiet and efficient screw propellers.736. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS RANSE solver founded by the European Project LEADING EDGE. different formulation to take into account the viscous developed at CETENA for the study of the naval main effects. CONCLUSIONS To this aim.

J. S. She studied Civil Engineering at propellers in steady flow using a surface panel the Hydraulics Department of the University of Genoa method (2nd Report: Flow Field around from which she graduated in 1999. He graduated in 2000 at the University of Aerodynamics’. Morino .4’. T.P.A.3. DTRC 90/013 May 1990 13. Hoshino. MTB195 April 1991 7. P. 2000 ICEM CFD Engineering. Cheng-I Yang. 8. Department of Naval Architecture and Marine 2. T. method’. ‘A General Theory of Paolo Becchi holds the current position of researcher at Unsteady Compressible Potential CETENA. Report CETENA 8020 © 2005: Royal Institution of Naval Architects . May 1989 Chiara Pittaluga. J. J. Cambridge University Press 12. E. Since then she is Propeller)’. ‘Analisi di sensibilità sul programma PROPACE’. H. Rep.A. P. Chen. The Society of Naval Architects of Japan. Traverso. Proceeding of the Spring Meeting. Lee. Becchi . ‘CFX-5. especially 3. ‘Hydrodynamic Analysis of researcher at CETENA. Becchi . ‘Hydrodynamics in ship design’. Since March 2002 he is working at CETENA 8420 CETENA. Proceeding of the Spring Meeting. L. Berkeley. Breslin . Abbott – A. UK 8. 3. ‘Hydrodynamics of ship propellers.T. USA. Carlton. Butterworth Heinemann 10. REFERENCES 9. He concluded Ph. www. Hydrodynamics Department. her work is mainly concerned with CFD calculations.7 Theory Manual’. MIT 1987 14. Hoshino ‘A surface panel method with a deformed wake model to analyse hydrodynamic characteristics of propellers in steady flow’. T.Marine CFD 2005: Southampton. CR-2464. ‘Hydrodinamic Analysis of calculation (panel method) and experimental test at the propellers in steady flow using a surface panel Genoa’s University. Hoshino. working in the Hydrodynamics Department of CETENA. AUTHORS’ BIOGRAPHIES 1. H. The Society of Naval Architects of Japan. Report Genoa’s University. The Society of Naval Architects and Marine Engineers 11. Ph D. Andersen.D. ‘Prediction of Propeller Blade Pressure Distribution with a Panel Method’. ‘Manuale Utente Engineering. ICEM CFD Version 4. Saunders. P.L. November 1989 6. holds the current position of 5. course in 2004 at the programma PROPACE Vers. von Doenhoff. Thesis. Traverso. NASA. Dec. ‘Marine Propellers and Propulsion’.com/cfx concerning hydrodynamic propeller analysis with CFD 4. ‘Theory of Wing Sections’ 9. ‘A Potential Based Panel Method for Analysis of Marine Propellers in Steady Flow’.ansys. T. 1974 Genoa.

numerous CFD calculations Kt propeller thrust coefficient [-] have been made of various propellers. if the effect of boundary layer development is negligible. © 2005: Royal Institution of Naval Architects . The CFD code uses the P/D propeller pitch [-] finite volume method to solve the discretised set of p static pressure [N/m2] RANS equations. Results of detailed RANS calculations of 2D profile sections are compared with experimental data for lift and drag. Use of computational fluid dynamics (CFD) In order to get better insight in the accuracy of the methods based on Reynolds Averaged Navier-Stokes calculations of a complete 3D propeller or waterjet (RANS) equations can possibly eliminate the problems impeller is it helpful to make detailed calculations of 2D of the extrapolation methods. The Netherlands SUMMARY RANS codes are often used to predict thrust and torque of propellers and waterjets. Geometries. Introduction of CFD in the profile sections first. Even analytical solutions based on irrotational flow may be useful. r radius [m] v velocity [m/s] The paper can be split into three parts. Wärtsilä Propulsion Netherlands BV / Technical University Eindhoven. It is known however that these 2. lift is predicted well. The results show quite well correlation with measurements.Marine CFD 2005: Southampton. In this paper an explanation is given for this phenomenon. Calculations of 2D profiles can be maritime world has been rather slow due to the moderate validated with experimental data available in open accuracy of the performance predictions based on RANS literature. Conclusions are formulated in the for ships has been based on model scale experiments. The prediction of thrust and torque is related to lift and drag of 2D profiles. last section. Effect of errors in profile drag prediction will be calculated for various pitch settings (equivalent to 1. This has D diameter [m] a direct consequence for the prediction of the power D drag [N] consumption and the efficiency. J advance Ratio = vship/nD [-] Kq propeller torque coefficient [-] During the last few years. First detailed CFD β blade angle [deg] analyses of 2D test sections will be presented. Analysis of the flow is made with the P power [W] commercial CFD code Star-CD. INTRODUCTION impeller blade angles). the pressure distribution. but drag is over-predicted. ducted propellers L lift force [N] and waterjet installations at Wärtsilä Propulsion n angular velocity [1/s] Netherlands. Wärtsilä Propulsion Netherlands BV. The calculations showed the general Q volume flow [m3/s] trend that torque of propellers and mixed-flow pump q 2D source strength [m2/s ] impellers was over-predicted. This is due to an error in the magnitude of the stagnation point pressure. 3D RANS calculations of the DTRC 4119 propeller and a LIPS Jets waterjet installation are presented to show the actual deviations in torque prediction. These ε drag over-prediction factor [-] calculations give an indication of the obtained accuracy νΤ turbulent viscosity [m2/s] with the current method. CALCULATIONS ON TEST SECTIONS methods do not always give accurate performance predictions. The effect of increased 2D-section drag on the total thrust and torque is evaluated for different blade angles. NOMENCLATURE A typical problem in the performance prediction with CFD is the determination of the required torque. are also suitable for validation of CFD methods. The results of the actual CFD calculations of a propeller and a waterjet will be shown For a very long time development of propulsion systems in sections 4 and 5. and it is therefore one of F force [N] the most important performance indicators. The following section will ρ density [kg/m3] address the transformation from lift and drag to thrust θ angle [rad] and torque. The Netherlands I A Oprea. UK CONSIDERATION ON DEVIATIONS IN TORQUE PREDICTION FOR PROPELLERS AND WATERJETS WITH RANS CODES N W H Bulten. which allow analytical solution of codes in the past. It has been noticed however that torque is over-predicted by 2 to 5% in most cases. Prediction of full-scale performance requires an extrapolation method. With the normal k-ε turbulence model.

The stream function for this geometry is given by [1]: q ψ = θ + vr sinθ (1) 2π where q is the strength of the source and v the uniform velocity. Marine CFD 2005: Southampton. A 2D mesh has been made consisting of three regions. (NACA0012) or in a cascade (NACA 65-410).0%. The second region is a rectangular outer region to place the boundary conditions sufficiently far © 2005: Royal Institution of Naval Architects .0. This analytical solution does not take effects of boundary layer development into account 2. which are analysed as isolated profile the flow field. According the equivalent to 5% of the width of the inlet. The maximum of 0.3 m is where θ is defined according to figure 1.1(c) Results of pressure distribution p − p0  sin θ  2 sin(2θ )  The results presented here are based on a systematic Cp = = −   +  (2) study of the effect of variation of turbulence intensity and 1  π −θ  π −θ  ρv 2   turbulent length scale. the flow is assumed to be irrotational. if algorithm. Here the three velocity components and the turbulence intensity and the turbulent length scale are prescribed. This region. A symmetry condition is used Figure 1: Streamlines along half body at the centreplane. The complete mesh and a detailed view of the geometry is used for detailed study of the flow at the mesh near the stagnation point are shown in figure 2. Figure 3 shows expectation. The first region is a thin layer around the half body to ensure a high quality mesh for the solution of the boundary layer. which is a half body test case. analytical solution.1(b) Set-up of numerical model however. stagnation point.3 m. UK Three geometries have been analysed. The length scale is set to values between 0. A sketch of the geometry and some streamlines is shown in figure 1. The turbulence intensity is varied 2 between 0. r Figure 2: Mesh of Half Body and Detailed View at θ Stagnation Point At the upstream boundary an inlet velocity condition has been applied. Calculations have been made with the standard k-ε turbulence model.1 2D HALF BODY TEST CASE 2.01 m and 0. which allows analytical solution fills the space between the first region and the outer of the pressure distribution along the surface. the non-dimensional pressure at the the comparison of a numerical analysis with the stagnation point (θ=π) is 1. On the other boundaries constant pressure conditions have been used. The resulting non- dimensional pressure distribution is calculated as: 2.5% and 2. 2.1(a) Analytical solution of pressure distribution The geometry of the half body is based on the dividing streamline. The third region is an intermediate region. The remaining two profiles are NACA Only half of the geometry is meshed due to symmetry of profiles. Coupling between mass The analytical solution of the pressure distribution along and momentum equations is achieved with the simple the surface can be calculated from the stream function. The first geometry away. which is formed when a uniform flow and a source are combined.

which profile. νT 2 9 = C 1µ 4 ⋅ ⋅ TI ⋅ l = ⋅ TI ⋅ l (3) 2. An increase of turbulence intensity or length Over-prediction of the pressure in the stagnation point scale will both give a higher turbulent viscosity. Small eddy lengths lead to larger dissipation. © 2005: Royal Institution of Naval Architects .2 -0.15 -0.5 3 at the stagnation point is clearly noticeable. It can be noted however that the cause of the error can be found in the turbulent production term 2. The error in stagnation pressure Analytical solution can be around 25% for a reasonable turbulence level at 1 CFD result the inlet.2 intensity is noticeable. The deviation at the stagnation point pressure requires a detailed analysis of stagnation point remains an error in the CFD calculation the applied turbulence model.2 NACA 0012 PROFILE v in 3 20 Calculation of the flow along a half body is of pure where νT is the turbulent viscosity. This equation is used in both k-ε as well as k-ω turbulence models. vin the inlet velocity theoretical use. The error of Turbulent viscosity at inlet/V_in the pressure coefficient found in the calculation is 19%.4 1.Marine CFD 2005: Southampton.3 0.1(d) Effect of Turbulence Model Input Parameters (see [2]). So it is to be expected that total drag of a profile represents the turbulence level: is over-predicted with a CFD method. In this section the results of calculations Figure 4 shows the results for a number of calculations of an isolated NACA0012 profile will be presented.5 1 1. which uses the standard k-ε turbulence model.0 % 1 Difference between the calculation and the exact solution 0 0. Therefore it is to be expected that Turbulence is governed by the turbulence intensity (TI) both two-equation turbulence models will show similar and the length scale l. In order to get better insight about the and Cµ a closure coefficient of the k-ε turbulence model practical implications of the inaccuracies in the flow (equal to 0.1 Angle α=180-θ [degrees] TI = 0. prediction a number of well-known NACA profiles have been analysed. of this paper.35 0.25 0 0 30 60 90 120 150 180 1. which is Explanation of the effect of the turbulence level on the neglected in the analytical solution. In Experimental data of lift and drag is available for this this figure the stagnation point pressure is plotted as profile.5 2 2.2 1.5 % TI = 2. with varying turbulence intensity and length scales. All input will result in a larger value of the pressure drag of a parameters can be combined to a single parameter. UK A clear trend of the overall inlet turbulence level on the Pressure distribution along half body stagnation point pressure is observed. The length scale is related to the behaviour.4 Cp [-] 1. The deviation of the minimum pressure is much smaller Figure 4: Stagnation Point Pressure as Function of though.5 % Figure 3: Comparison of Analytical Solution and 1.7%.6 1. Moreover a small second order effect of the variation of turbulence 1. amount of dissipation.2 Cp [-] -0.6 1.8 Stagnation point pressure 0. The relative error is 3. 0. function of the turbulence level at the inlet boundary. This is beyond the scope however. The deviation in the Turbulence Level at Inlet minimum pressure can be attributed to the development of the boundary layer along the surface.09).05 TI = 1.0 % Calculated Pressure Distribution along Half Body TI = 1.

The second type the chord length. Comparison of lift and drag for the NACA65-410 cascade shows similar trends as the isolated NACA0012 profile.2(a) Set-up of Numerical Model 2. In this way the mesh near the profile Lift and drag comparison NACA0012 is identical for all calculated conditions. © 2005: Royal Institution of Naval Architects . boundary conditions or constant pressure boundary These are the solidity and the blade angle. The comparison of A very small radius is modelled at the trailing edge of the the calculated and measured drag shows a clear offset. Calculations are made with a NACA65- domains both types will give the same results.02 0. Marine CFD 2005: Southampton. Both regions can be rotated.5 0.03 CD [-] CL [-] 0.01 0 0 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Section angle of attack [degree] Figure 6: Comparison of Measured and Calculated Lift and Drag for NACA0012 Profile 2. pressure prediction. Comparison of calculated and measured Turbulence intensity is set to 0. The first type can be used if the experimental represents the distance between two profiles in relation to data is obtained from wind tunnel tests. which is similar to the 2D measured lift and drag coefficients for the isolated half body mesh to a certain extent.2(b) Results of Lift and Drag Calculations The mesh for the numerical analysis is based on a Figure 6 shows a comparison of the calculated and structure with three regions. UK 2. Cl_exp Cl_CFD Cd_exp Cd_CFD 0.25 0. The blade angle is defined as the angle is suitable for the calculation of lift and drag in an between the profile base line and the line connecting all unbounded region. profile to have sufficient curvature for the O-grid This trend is in line with the error in the stagnation point topology. then the cascade effect should be taken into account. NACA0006 and NACA0015 profiles. This is shown in figure 7.0. calculations are made with the standard k-ε turbulence model. solidity of 1. Agreement is good for the lift over consists of an O-grid around the complete profile section. The mesh of the complete domain and the detailed view of the mesh 1 0. Cascades of types of boundary conditions can be applied: wall profiles can be described with two additional parameters. the whole range of angles of attack. At the 410 profile with a blade angle of 70 degrees and a inlet boundary a uniform velocity profile is prescribed. The solidity conditions.5% and the length scale is pressure distribution along the profile surface showed set to a small fraction of the tunnel height. Similar results are found for which has an approximately rectangular outer shape.04 around the profile is shown in figure 5. For sufficiently large numerical leading edges. The inner region NACA0012 profiles. in order to vary the angle of attack of the profile. Figure 5: Mesh of Complete Domain and Detailed View Extensive experimental data is available on tests with around NACA0012 Profile NACA 65 compressor blade profiles [3]. Around the O-grid a second region is created. All good agreement for various angles of attack.75 0.3 NACA 65-410 CASCADE If a waterjet impeller is analysed with aid of 2D sections. Tests were done with NACA 65 profiles with various camber lines and a At the upper and lower boundary of the domain two maximum thickness of 10% of the chord.

This is Measurements equivalent with a P/D range of 0.03 prediction on thrust and torque can already be noticed in 0 0.0.08 0.0.07 Over-prediction of profile drag in a CFD analysis can be expressed with a factor ε: 0. − sin β ⋅ (1 + ε ) L It can be concluded that the trend of over-prediction of Fax _ CFD cos β ⋅ = D (7) drag is applicable to both isolated as well as cascade L Fax _ exact profiles. Comparison of both diagrams also reveals a © 2005: Royal Institution of Naval Architects .2 0 -4 0 4 8 12 16 20 Angle of attack [degrees] Figure 7: Comparison of Measured and Calculated Lift and Drag for NACA65-410 Profiles in Cascade with Solidity of 1.0 and Blade Angle of 70 Degrees 2. Effect of over- 0. The Fax = cos β ⋅ L − sin β ⋅ D drag over-prediction factor is set to 10%.7 CFD_results 0.7 to 1.09 pumps are in the range of 18 to 25 degrees. On the other hand the error in tangential force remains significant for realistic values of ε (0.5 0. Besides this graphical representation is it also possible to prediction of static pressure at the stagnation point. With eqn.05 0. This angle can be derived force is very small even for a quite large over-predicted from the pitch at 0. direction.3 0.06 DCFD = Dexact (1 + ε ) (6) Cd [-] Cl [-] 0. 0.7 radius with: drag.02 figure 8. Ftan = sin β ⋅ L + cos β ⋅ D These diagrams show clearly that the effect on axial where β is the blade angle.Marine CFD 2005: Southampton.7 ⋅ π  0. This calculate the relative error in axial and tangential is due to an over estimation of the turbulence production. beta=70)  0.8 0.25.1 0. (6) substituted into eqn.2 0. 20% and 30% (4) to show the sensitivity. These forces can be D related to the lift and drag of these profiles.25) and L/D (35).01 -0. (4) the and this is apparent in commonly applied two-equation relative error of the axial force becomes: turbulence models.1   Measurements Typical values of the blade angle in waterjet mixed flow 0. Lift is predicted significantly better for both cos β ⋅ − sin β configurations. Figure 8 shows a sketch of the different forces. TRANSFORMATION FROM LIFT AND tangential direction yields: DRAG TO THRUST AND TORQUE + cos β ⋅ (1 + ε ) L Ftan _CFD sin β ⋅ Torque and thrust of a propeller or waterjet impeller are = D (8) based on the experienced tangential and axial forces Ftan _exact L sin β ⋅ + cos β acting on the blade profile sections. based on the results presented in the previous section. D where L/D is the lift over drag ratio. -0. The relative error in 3.4 0.4 CONCLUDING REMARKS Figure 8: Sketch of Forces Acting on Profile Over-prediction of drag can be related to the over.04 This factor ε can be up to about 0. The The actual relative errors in axial and tangential force are transformation of the forces is defined as: plotted in figures 9a and 9b for a blade angle of 20 and 25 degrees as function of the lift over drag ratio. UK  P  Lift and drag coefficients NACA65_410 cascade β = atan D  (5) (s/l=1.6 CFD_results 0.1 0.

1 F_ax .3 F_CFD/F_exact [-] 6% 4% 2% Figure 10: Surface Mesh of 4119 Propeller 0% (mesh has been copied for visualisation purposes only) 0 10 20 30 40 50 Upstream of the propeller an inlet boundary is applied.2 been used. Blade angle is 20 degrees Relative error in axial and tangential force for blade angle of 25 degrees 12% F_ax .Epsilon = 0. a correction factor might be an acceptable solution for this fundamental problem.1 PROPELLER F_ax . The 0 10 20 30 40 50 remainder of the domain between two blades is filled with additional hexagonal cells.Epsilon = 0.Epsilon = 0.Epsilon = 0.3 For the analysis of the flow along an open propeller the F_tan . Rotation of the propeller is implemented with the quasi- the lift over drag ratio and the relative error in drag steady Multiple Frame of Reference (MFR) method.2 10% F_ax .Epsilon = 0. This type of boundary condition Blade angle is 25 degrees enables mass fluxes through the boundary.Epsilon = 0. The surface mesh is due to Over-Prediction of Profile Drag. depending on the flow field solution near the boundary. shown in figure 10. UK clear influence of the blade angle.Epsilon = 0. F_CFD/F_exact [-] 6% 4.1 F_tan . © 2005: Royal Institution of Naval Architects . Smaller angles result turbulence model seems to be impossible.2 8% F_tan .2 10% F_ax . Due to the uniform axi- -2% symmetrical inflow is it sufficient to model only 1 L/D ratio [-] propeller blade with periodic boundaries to simulate the Figure 9a: Relative Errors in Tangential and Axial Forces flow of the complete propeller.Epsilon = 0.3 F_tan . Marine CFD 2005: Southampton. -2% where a constant uniform inflow velocity is prescribed. This specific mesh generator has been developed in order to be able to 2% mesh a large variety of different propeller geometries.Epsilon = 0. The error in tangential force remains quite large for configurations with realistic values of the blade angle. Flow around this propeller has been 8% F_tan . Relative error in axial and tangential force for blade angle of 20 degrees 4.3 investigated experimentally. Results of performance measurements and LDV are presented in [4].Epsilon = 0. Application of in a larger error in tangential force. L/D ratio [-] At the outer radius and the downstream plane of the Figure 9b: Relative Errors in Tangential and Axial numerical domain a constant pressure boundary Forces due to Over-Prediction of Profile Drag.Epsilon = 0. CFD ANALYSIS OF DTRC 4119 12% F_ax .1 well-known geometry of the DTRC 4119 propeller has F_tan . Extreme accurate predictions of required of the mesh is placed in a rotating frame of reference in torque with an error of less than 0.1 SET-UP OF NUMERICAL MODEL 4% For the generation of the mesh a semi-automated mesh generator for propellers has been used.Epsilon = 0.25% with normal k-ε this method. Close to the blade an O-grid is applied to have high 0% quality hexagonal cells in the blade boundary layer. Part prediction. condition is applied.

2 J [-] Figure 12: Comparison of Calculated and Measured Propeller Performance 5.833. 0. These forces take into account both 0.1 SET-UP NUMERICAL MODEL The mesh of the complete waterjet installation is based on two separate numerical models of the waterjet mixed- flow pump and the inlet duct.8 1 1.9) and acceptable over the allow flow over the blade tips.2 KT_EXP 10Kq_CFD 0. Comparisons with remainder of analysed conditions. This provided information about the required mesh density for the pump and the stator bowl.3 KT_CFD 0.4 0. to best efficiency point (J=0. 10Kq [-] acting on the blades. which is according to the expectations. The therefore inclusion of the tip gap cells has become trend of both Kt and Kq as function of J is reproduced default approach. thrust and In a similar way as the validation project for the waterjet torque. Propeller performance is presented in the usual non- dimensional coefficients for advance ratio. according to a certain topology. These coefficients are defined as: inlet ducts. Kq = ρ n 2D 5 The leading edge regions are meshed with a very fine Figure 12 shows the comparison of the calculated and the mesh in order to capture the suction peak accurately.1 10Kq_EXP Eta_CFD Eta_EXP 0 0 0. well within the CFD model. Both are derived from the forces Kt. measured propeller thrust and torque.2 0.4 the normal pressure forces as well as the wall shear stress forces. The channels between Torque the blades are filled with a multi-block hexagonal mesh.5 of thrust and torque. This topology is continued along the hub surface.6 Performance of the propeller is based on the evaluation 0. This tool automatically creates a multi-block mesh with Figure 11: Pressure Distribution at Suction Side at hexagonal cells. [8]). Special attention is paid to the tip clearance region. it is decided to define an ρ n 2D 4 O-grid around the impeller blades.8 Coupling between mass and momentum is established with simple algorithm.6 0. Figure 11 shows the pressure distribution on the suction side of the blades for an advance ratio J=0. calculations without tip gap showed a notable difference. Results J=0. [6]). a project has been executed for the validation v J = ad of the numerical model of the mixed-flow waterjet pump nD ([7]. 0.Marine CFD 2005: Southampton. The gap between the rotating impeller and the stationary Agreement of the propeller thrust is quite good at the seatring is filled with some layers of extrusion cells. Convergence speed is increased with an algebraic multi-grid method.7 4. For DTRC 4119 propeller performance spatial discretisation a second order method is applied. The mesh for the inlet is created with aid of the CFD waterjet inlet analysis tool.833 of the validation process of this inlet analysis tool have been presented (see [5]. The torque is over. In order Thrust Kt = (9) to create a high quality mesh. © 2005: Royal Institution of Naval Architects . CFD ANALYSIS OF LIPS JETS WATERJET INSTALLATION 5. 0. predicted.2 RESULTS OF PROPELLER ANALYSIS 0. UK For all calculations the k-ε turbulence model is used.

UK The inlet and pump mesh are connected with a non.41 13. Mass and momentum are coupled via simple algorithm and the equations are solved with a second order scheme and an algebraic multi-grid method. Figure 15 shows the required power based on the In this paper results of calculations with a constant pump waterjet performance software and the CFD results. This software provides very accurate predictions.11 13. This has the a part of the complete waterjet installation. At the side planes.2 RESULTS OF WATERJET ANALYSIS Variation in the operating condition can be obtained by variation of the ship speed or the pump revolutions for a given geometry.08 -0. First a comparison of the predicted volume flow through matching coupling method at a straight plane just the waterjet installation is made. A detailed consequence that the flow through the waterjet system is analysis of the results reveals a variation of the pressure part of the solution. Differences in flow prediction are less than 1% for all conditions. similar to Table 1 shows the calculated volume flow and the the tip gap cells. Marine CFD 2005: Southampton. The flow is determined upstream of the pump. This is due to the fact that the mixed-flow pump is an internal flow Figure 14: Pressure Distribution at Inlet Duct and machine.26 13. software (WPPS) as used at Wärtsilä Propulsion Netherlands. and it is in use for many years already. It is to be offset between prediction and CFD results can be seen expected. The final mesh of the complete by integration of the velocity at the nozzle exit plane. Figure 14 shows the static pressure distribution on atmospheric pressure is prescribed too. This phenomenon is well known in waterjet applications [9]. Rotation of the impeller is implemented via the multiple frame of reference method. whereas the propeller can be regarded as an Impeller external flow machine.23 % 35 13. At the nozzle outlet plane constant force.45 % At the inflow plane an inlet boundary condition is Table 1: Volume Flow Prediction Based on Performance applied.72 % 41 13. At the design point of the waterjet the over- the characteristics of the mixed-flow pump. This is contributed to the error in delivered thrust and the required power will decrease prediction of the stagnation point pressure.96 12.49 -0. This flow depends on the produced distribution on the different blades.54 % Figure 13: Mesh of Complete Waterjet Installation 39 13. that the prediction is 2. This is due to the head of the pump at given RPM and the total resistance strong non-uniform inflow velocity distribution to the of the inlet duct and the nozzle. V_ship Q_WPPS Q_CFD Difference [knots] [m3/s] [m3/s] [%] 31 12. The RPM and varying ship speed are presented. All numerical settings are equal to the open propeller calculations.31 -0.93 -0. This the open propeller. The CFD results can be regarded to be accurately enough for further analysis. with increasing ship speed and constant pump RPM. 5. pump.19 -0. variation of the ship speed has only little influence on the final operating point of the waterjet pump. Forces of the wall cells connected to enables inflow and outflow depending on the flow field the impeller are summarised to get the torque and axial near the boundary.19 % 37 13.4%.55 13. This controls the level of y+ values in estimated flow from the waterjet performance prediction the boundary layer. This means that all calculations are made with the k-ε turbulence model. Compared to open propellers. © 2005: Royal Institution of Naval Architects . the bottom plane and the outflow plane is a Thrust and torque are determined in the same way as for constant pressure boundary condition prescribed. which takes into account the non-uniform Prediction Software and CFD Calculations velocity distribution of the hull's boundary layer. based on simple waterjet propulsion theory and clearly. Agreement is thus very good. waterjet is shown in figure 13. Near the walls of the inlet ducting a thin layer of extrusion cells is used.

A. Proc.W. N.0% 1.H.. 'Recent developments • Transformation of lift and drag to thrust and torque in waterjet design'. 'Systematic two-dimensional cascade tests of NACA 100.W. J. This redistribution depends on the 9.H. Bulten. Van Esch.W. UK 8. R. R. S. J. John Wiley & Sons. inflow to a waterjet pump • Calculations of the flow through a complete waterjet installation provide accurate results. J. Verbeek. L.H.W..0% 65-series compressor blades at low speeds'.5% at the design point. 1958 4. N. Bulten. London. This offset remains more and validation of CFD calculations for propellers.. D. or less constant over a large range of operating conditions.D.. 2003 Prediction Software 7.H.. On Fluid Flow Technologies. Prediction of Iulia Oprea follows a Marie Curie fellowship and she is the volume flow through the system shows located at the Propulsor Technology . CONCLUSIONS mixed-flow waterjet pump'. 12th Int. 'Design of optimal inlet Ship speed [knots] duct geometry based on vessel operational profile'. N. Emery.. Verbeek.R. Deviations can be up to 25%.. AUTHORS’ BIOGRAPHIES actual blade angle. Jessup..Hydrodynamics deviations of less than 1%. however. Bulten. Gothenburg.C. 7. 2004 however. R. and (PTH) department of Wärtsilä Propulsion Netherlands consequently power.. Italy. McDonald. J.C. 'CFD simulation of the with RANS codes with standard k-ε turbulence flow through a waterjet installation'. Waterjet Propulsion III 90. REFERENCES Power comparison 110. 'Introduction to fluid mechanics'.0% conference.H. Torque is over-predicted preparing a PhD thesis at the Technical University Eindhoven (TU/e) about the effects of non-uniform over the whole range of operating points however. NACA report 1368. New prediction software York. 9. • Open water calculations of open propellers give Norbert Bulten works at the Propulsor Technology - Hydrodynamics (PTH) department of Wärtsilä quite accurate thrust prediction at the best efficiency point of the propeller. 1997 102. 1985 107. Waterjet model. 'Controlling over-production of turbulence in two-equation models by limiting the 105.. Moore. 'Interpretation of 92. and for the provision of the performance data and the computational resources. 'Calculation of radial forces due to non-uniform entrance flow in a 6. She is working on a project about implementation 2. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The author would like to thank Wärtsilä Propulsion Netherlands for supporting the publication of this paper. A. 95... Proc. He is responsible for CFD and FEM projects for waterjets and propellers. © 2005: Royal Institution of Naval Architects . Langley Aeronautical Laboratory. N. Verbeek.G.5% 3. Bulten. Figure 15: Comparison of Required Waterjet Power Proceedings FAST 2003 conference. 'An experimental investigation of viscous aspects of propeller blade flow'.. Amsterdam. or pitch setting. Ischia. He is operational range also an acceptable accuracy in thrust prediction is found. Budapest. The major conference.W. 977-983. Proc. Bulten. R.W. N. R.5% Langley Field.. Verbeek. is over-predicted by about BV.M.P. Drag is over-predicted quite significantly Propulsion IV conference. Felix. 1989 5. Moore. 2001 30 35 40 45 50 6.5% CFD prediction 2. Conf. 2003 • Lift of 2D profiles can be predicted very accurate 8. Erwin. Fox. Herrig. pp Based on CFD Calculations and Waterjet Performance 35-41.J. 1998 influence is found in torque and only little effect is seen on thrust. B.0% Power/Power_design_point [%] anisotropy of the Reynolds normal stresses. Torque.Marine CFD 2005: Southampton.R..0% Washington. Session A2.. 97.. ASME Fluids Engineering Division Summer Meeting. PhD thesis.5% model scale test results with aid of CFD calculations'.T. RINA Waterjet Propulsion II redistributes the error in drag prediction.. Over the remainder of the Propulsion Netherlands BV. Third edition..

Since the dimensions of the test facilities in the towing tanks are not expanded δKQ torque coefficient difference (--) to consider these ship sizes. The comparison of the normalised pressure and wall-shear stress distributions at different Reynolds numbers is very helpful in understanding the reasons for the change of the thrust and torque coefficients with respect to the Reynolds number. An overview of the propeller diameters used by current container ship projects was © 2005: Royal Institution of Naval Architects . The calculated thrust and torque coefficients using the CFX-5. With the increase of the scale factor. The same is valid for the wall-shear stress.g. the diameter of the appropriate propellers becomes larger. UK INFLUENCE OF SCALE EFFECTS ON THE HYDRODYNAMIC CHARACTERISTICS OF PROPELLERS S-B Müller and M Abdel-Maksoud. the extrapolation of the results of the measurement to full-scale remains a problem which When ship sizes are increased. PROBLEM DEFINITION KT thrust coefficient (--) KT-full thrust coefficient of full-scale ship (--) In an industrial project the thrust and the torque KT-model thrust coefficient of model (--) coefficients of a propulsion system are predicted mainly n revolution per unit time (s-1) experimentally in model scale. the δP pressure difference (N m-2) problem of extrapolating the measured model results to η efficiency (--) the full-scale is intensified substantially. λ scale factor (--) CFD computational fluid dynamics (--) The progress in the area of numerical methods for CTh thrust loading coefficient (--) viscous flow computation opens new perspectives and c/D ratio of profile chord length to possibilities to gain extensive information about the propeller diameter (--) characteristics of the flow. The carrying out of open P pressure (N m-2) water tests in towing tanks is highly optimized. particularly in the case of so far has been treated insufficiently. the viscous flow around a propeller geometry was calculated for 3 different advance ratios at 6 Reynolds numbers. NOMENCLATURE provided by Mewis and Klug [1].7 program show much higher dependence on the Reynolds number than the estimated values using the ITTC-procedure. INTRODUCTION high level. This reduction in the wall-shear stress is stronger in the leading edge region. While a remarkable increase of the calculated thrust coefficient based on CFD-results takes place with a growing Reynolds number. This information dh/D hub diameter relationship (--) is very important for the correct prediction of the ITTC International Towing Tank Conference propulsion characteristics of a new design. container ships. the used scale factor δKT thrust coefficient difference (--) increases. As a P/D pitch ratio (--) consequence the costs and time required for the Rn Reynolds' number (--) experimental investigation of the hydrodynamical SST Shear Stress Transport characteristics of a propulsion system are clearly t/c profile thickness-ratio (--) minimized. University Duisburg-Essen. This is to be η-full efficiency of full-scale ship (--) attributed to the fact that the used extrapolation η-model efficiency of model (--) procedures are applied in a new range. Such J advance ratio coefficient (--) information cannot be generated experimentally or with a KQ torque coefficient (--) help of potential flow-theory based methods.Marine CFD 2005: Southampton. Germany SUMMARY To analysis the scale effects on the thrust and torque coefficients of propellers. The normalised pressure on the suction side of the propeller blade decreases when increasing the Reynolds number. The thrust and torque coefficients of the full-scale were estimated using the CFD-results and the extrapolation procedure of the International Towing Tank Conference (ITTC). KQ-full torque coefficient of full-scale ship (--) KQ-model torque coefficient of model (--) 2. e. for which only limited experience exists. the distribution of the D propeller diameter (m) wall-shear stress at the propeller blade. The improvement in the measuring technique V velocity (m s-1) makes it possible that the accuracy of the measuring data and the reliability of the measuring systems achieve a 1. the estimated increase of the thrust coefficient using the ITTC-method is very limited. However.

52 x105. water test condition. i. this increase in efficiency depends also on the is 20 D. 6 and 8. 6. condition.8 were 2. basis. largest investigated propeller diameter is 12 m. In the computation for all Reynolds the problem has been recognized by various scientists. Therefore.8]. and 3. The number of grid points is approx. the smallest (model) is 0. its length However. The thrust loading condition.6. That is also not the aim of the applied in all computations. All coefficients in the tables are included advance ratios J = 0. These corrections revolutions and direction of rotation as the propeller. The consider the influence of the Reynolds number (Rn). 0.33x105 respectively.25.e. The same data is also used as model values for applying the ITTC procedure. The dimensions of the computation number the torque coefficient decreases. This corresponds to a scale The numerical investigations were carried out for open factor (λ) of 48. 9x105. The ratio of profile chord length to propeller diameter (c/D) is 0. The included in Tables 1.8 in Figure 2. RESULTS OF THE STUDY 3. which has to be oriented towards for the Reynolds number 1.55.7 and 0. 2. the blade contour and skew to the propeller turns. The investigated propeller is a modified geometry were compared with the CFD results calculated for the of the Wageninger B-Series propeller B4. the ITTC procedure is hardly able to consider the computing domain and not only the surrounding region local flow conditions like e. The SST turbulence model was of the propeller blade. which is validated in numerous computed values of the model propeller were used as a investigations for propeller flows [3 . the x-axis of the coordinate system is the axis of rotation of profile thickness-ratio (t/c) and the pitch ratio (P/D). The investigations The computed thrust and torque coefficients as well as were carried out for the following propeller diameters: the efficiencies of the propeller for the different model: 0. the development of the procedure of the equivalent profile. which turns with the same number of and one for the torque coefficient.g. see Tables 1. In order to keep the advance ratio constant for the full-scale. in order to avoid small differences between the coefficients being lost through In the all computations the flow is considered to be fresh rounding. the whole Thus. smaller than at lower thrust loading. water at a temperature of 25 C°.9. The hub diameter relationship (dh/D) is 0. 10 and 12 m.7 and 0. UK In the standard ITTC 1978 procedure for performance A rotating coordinate system is applied in the prediction. These Reynolds numbers were The computed thrust loading coefficient (CTH) is in the range which is usually used in model tests. The ITTC procedure was applied in the study to the viscous flow around a propeller geometry was extrapolate the thrust and torque coefficients of the calculated at different Reynolds numbers.25 m. the thrust domain must be large enough to avoid the influence of coefficient of the propeller increases.1 THRUST AND TORQUE COEFFICIENTS For the investigation of the scale effects for propellers. As expected this the boundary conditions on the numerical results. the propeller. 0. 4. In the numerical computations. Marine CFD 2005: Southampton. numbers and advance ratios. The leads to an increase in the efficiency of the propeller. 0. The extrapolated values and 3. one for the thrust computation. The in the TASCflow code. (compare Tables 1 and 3) The numerical computations of the viscous flow around the propeller were carried out with the help of the The differences between the numerically estimated thrust program CFX-5.5 D. 2 propeller model to full-scale. The procedure and torque coefficients as well as the propeller implemented in CFX-5. The relevance of J = 0. with parallel inflow. The interaction effect with other blades torque coefficients show a strong dependence on the was considered by the application of a periodic boundary Reynolds number. the increase in the propeller efficiency is much The grid lines on the blade are represented in Figure 1. without rounding the numbers.8.7 by ANSYS. At a high thrust loading number of points was constant over all computations. diameter of the calculation domain was 5. The computed streamlines ITTC-procedure. 8. While with increasing Reynolds condition in space. A comparison between the calculated ratio of 0.7 for the computation of the flow efficiencies for model and full-scale at different advance in rotating systems corresponds to the existing procedure ratios are included in the Tables 4. It has a P/D full-scale case. the inflow The Reynolds numbers (Rn) of the propeller model at velocity to the propeller was varied. 2 and 3.03867. a stable convergence An example of this is the work of Meyne [2] regarding behavior could be achieved.7 is 0. The Reynolds numbers and advance ratios are contained in numerical computations were carried out for three Tables 1-3.6. only one propeller blade was regarded in the As can be seen in Tables 1-3.2948. the computed thrust and computations. full-scale: 4. two corrections are used. In the model scale advance ratios 0. The estimated results for © 2005: Royal Institution of Naval Architects .24x107 are represented for practical solutions for reasons of costs. NUMERICAL INVESTIGATION 4.55 is given in Figure 3.25 m.93 x105 both the rotation and the inflow velocity were varied. CFD results and the data of the Wageninger B-Series The profile thickness relation at the dimensionless radius propeller B4.

Figure 15 shows blade at each propeller radius. it coefficient is understandable. While the CFD results show a clear region of the leading edge. that the wall-shear stress is very high near the leading edge and the tip of the blade due to the increase of the The pressure distribution on the suction face shows a peripheral speed in a radial direction with increasing negative pressure over a large area of the propeller blade propeller radius. since the ITTC procedure must be expected that more thrust will be generated from is based on the acceptance that no. the area of the CFD results does not correspond to the results of the pressure increase on the trailing edge is much larger than ITTC procedures for extrapolation of the thrust the low pressure area on the leading edge. The increase of the wall-shear stress takes place within the pressure reduction on the propeller blade is increased root region near the leading edge . To be The wall-shear stress distribution on the suction and able to compare the pressure distribution as well as the pressure side for the model scale at the three advance wall-shear friction for different operation conditions of ratios investigated is shown in Figure 15.8 and 0. At J = 0. With an increase in the dependence of the thrust coefficient on the Reynolds Reynolds number. The largest differences occur much higher for the torque coefficient than for the thrust. The ratios between the estimated thrust and torque coefficients as well as the propeller efficiencies for The pressure distribution on the suction and on the model and full-scale data were also included in Figure 4. over the Reynolds number show very different In contrast to this. the calculated reduction of torque coefficient using the CFD method is lower than the ITTC procedure. However. That the tendency of the calculated recognizable in Figures 11-13. see Figures 8-10. J = 0.6. the pressure side of the blade. The increase in pressure takes place in an area near the trailing edge region. UK extrapolated coefficients by applying the ITTC procedure area exists on the pressure side with the exception of the can be found in the Tables 5. the efficiency determined by the CFD results is clearly much The change of pressure distribution on the pressure side higher than the corresponding values using the ITTC with respect to the Reynolds number can be seen in procedure.3 WALL-SHEAR STRESS DISTRIBUTION The pressure distribution on the suction and on the pressure side for model scale is shown in Figure 7. Therefore. This pressure increase It can be seen that the changes in the thrust coefficient is high in the root region and it decreases toward the tip. the area of the negative pressure on number.Marine CFD 2005: Southampton. function of the Reynolds number is a result of the change of the local pressure and wall-shear friction on the blade. Additionally. This area is clearly the ITTC procedure. In order to be able to quantify coefficient using the applied CFD method is much higher these differences. Due to the high values of the thrust responsible for the increase in the propeller thrust. 7 and 9. Positive pressure © 2005: Royal Institution of Naval Architects . which is shown in Figure 6. but the size of the positive and negative pressure areas changes respective Figure 5 shows that the increase in the calculated thrust to the Reynolds number. dependence of the thrust coefficient on the Reynolds number exists.8 the calculated reduction of torque on the root and the tip regions of the suction side is coefficient using the applied CFD method is much higher reduced. Detailed figures for the change of the pressure distribution for the leading and trailing edges as well as 4. tip and the root region of the blade. the pressure on the leading and the trailing edge than the results of the ITTC procedure. The scale effect distributions calculated at model scale were subtracted increases with the decrease of the thrust loading.6. 4. with the increase of the propeller loading. The highest pressure areas are located near the leading and the trailing edges. the values presented were made values of the wall-shear stress were made dimensionless dimensionless by using the local relative velocity to the by the same manner as for the pressure. The figures show the reduction the results of the CFD and the ITTC procedures are of the pressure on the suction side of the blade. or only a very small. see Figures 8-10. pressure side for the other Reynolds numbers shows 5 and 6. The absolute the propeller. it can be seen that a local with exceptions at the leading and trailing edge. coefficients estimated with the help of CFD. The from the corresponding pressure values at each Reynolds dependency of the scale effect on the thrust loading is number. the dimensionless pressure than the results of the ITTC procedure. see Figures 11-14. the determined coefficient is nearly constant in the root of the blade increases. the differences of pressure on the suction face of the blade are clearly The computed changes of the efficiencies according to higher. a pressure reduction occurs in the tendencies. near the edges of the propeller blade. Figures 8-10. When increasing the Reynolds number. While the pressure see Figure 4. Compare the results in Figure 7 for J = 0. similar tendencies as seen in Figure 7. On the contrary at is increased.2 PRESSURE DISTRIBUTION for the tip of the blade are included in order to focus on the change of the pressure at this regions due to the The dependency of the thrust and torque coefficients as a increase of the Reynolds number.

July 2002. STG-Jahrbuch. China. Canada. In order to realized due to technical complications and the expense be able to regard these differences exactly. K. as described in Figure 15. St. August 2004. 1972. which however can not be easily similar tendencies. 2000.. The decrease in the wall-shear stress on the tip region difficulties and potential from the hydrodynamic with an increasing Reynolds number is shown in Figures standpoint’. Sven-Brian Müller holds the current position of a shear stress shows in general a high reduction. K. The thrust and pressure reduction in the tip vortex core of a skew torque coefficients of the full-scale propeller were propeller in model and full scale’. © 2005: Royal Institution of Naval Architects .-J. Heinke... ‘Very large container ships.. tendencies of dependency of the results on the Reynolds 7. Meyne for the sources of edge region with an increasing Reynolds number can be literature and computer programs for the extrapolation seen clearly in Figures 19-21. ‘Calculation of the investigated propeller geometry show that different wake field of full-scale’. torque coefficients of the propeller the viscous flow STG-Jahrbuch. 25th Symposium on numbers investigated clarifies the reason for the change Naval Hydrodynamics. and Transportation Systems (IST). Special The reduction of the wall-shear stress within the leading thanks also apply to Dr. K. M. REFERENCES lower than that for the leading edge. around a propeller geometry was computed at 6 4. STG-Jahrbuch. The same tendency occurs procedures of the characteristic values of the propeller.. Sprechtag the thrust coefficients. whose completion can be of substantial use Reynolds numbers investigated at the same advance ratio. the validity of the tendencies determined Moustafa Abdel-Maksoud holds the current position of according to the CFD results is too restricted to establish the professor for hydrodynamic and ship design at the generally valid statements.. January 2003. Klug.. ducted propellers’. 2. Reynolds numbers investigated in the full scale and the September 2003. University Duisburg- Essen. 4th Numerical Towing computed using the CFX-5. Abdel-Maksoud. AUTHORS’ BIOGRAPHIES pressure on the suction face of the blade drops with increasing Reynolds number. in the range of the trailing edge. Rieck. for suppling the geometry data. Dipl-Ing. 2002. Hellwig. M. ‘Calculation of the Reynolds numbers and 3 advance ratios. The dimensionless wall. Marine CFD 2005: Southampton. The changes of the thrust and torque coefficients of the 6. H. Abdel-Maksoud. H. University Duisburg-Essen. This can be seen more clearly in the leading edge region. 24th Symposium on Naval Hydrodynamics. L. Meyne. CONCLUSIONS coefficients’. Lübke. especially scientific assistant at the Institute of Ship Technology in the trailing edge and tip regions. Blaurock. Since only one propeller geometry is investigated in this study.. 8. F. the corresponding data in the Kavitation. ITTC procedure show a very weak dependence. model are considerable. Abdel-Maksoud. Shanghai. both for shipyards and for propeller manufacturers.. SVA Potsdam. September 2001. But the reduction of the wall-shear stress within the trailing edge region is much 7.. Yet in any case the results of the dimensionless wall-shear stresses of the model scale computation show that a large need for research in this were subtracted from the appropriate results for the field exists.-J. Abdel-Maksoud. Hamburg. 1. Japan. Abdel-Maksoud. Hamburg. M. Germany. Institute of Ship Technology and Transportation Systems (IST). H.-J. In Figures 16-18 it can be observed that the dimensionless wall-shear stresses decrease with an 6. the calculated of full-scale tests. While the CFD results supply a clear increase in study of cavitation behaviour of a propeller’. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS increasing Reynolds number. procedure for the extrapolation of thrust and torque 5. The dimensionless 8. The differences in wall-shear stress between the Architecture and Ocean Engineering. John’s. M. International Symposium on Naval 22-24. Abdel-Maksoud. UK The wall-shear stress distribution on the suction and Moreover a comparison with the results of full-scale pressure side at the other Reynolds numbers shows measurement is needed.. ‘Scale effects on coefficients from the model to full-scale. J.. M.. of the thrust and torque coefficients of the propeller in dependence on the Reynolds number.7 method and the ITTC Tank Symposium. M. Heinke. K. Fukuoka. The authors wish to thank Mr. Mewis. ‘Investigation of In order to investigate the scale effects on the thrust and the viscous flow around modern propulsion systems’..–Ing. Schiffbautechnische Gesellschaft. ‘Numerical and experimental number. H.. The comparison of the dimensionless distributions of ‘Numerical and experimental investigation of the hub pressure and the wall-shear stress at the Reynolds vortex flow of a marine propeller’. Heinke. 3. ‘Investigation of the effect of the boundary layer flow and friction on the propeller thrust and torque 5.

022797472 0.684608734 2.33E+05 Nr.74E+07 0.328615931 2 10 6 1 0.70 104.52 108.140771215 0.000482 0.142187842 0.000771 0.000334 98.620329742 2.10E+08 0.695883519 1.652069705 3.8 D V n KT KQ η Rn CTH Nr.78E+07 0.022908128 0.91 106.005959 94.11E+08 0.693199106 7.000309 0. [m] [m/s] [1/s] [--] [--] [--] [--] [--] 1 12 7.24E+07 0. TABLES AND FIGURES Table 1: Operation conditions and characteristics of the investigated propeller geometry at J = 0.097630282 6 0.095906109 0.184357951 6 0.36474 Table 5: Variation of the thrust and torque coefficient based on ITTC procedure.000912 0.098905299 3 8 6.028083885 0.726352996 4.016962055 0.135054050 0.000676 0.80 104.71E+07 0.623822520 4.82907 2 10 -0.8 1 0.35 5 4 -0.68 100.097715984 0.184337761 0.000799 95.12 © 2005: Royal Institution of Naval Architects . UK 9.000854 0.000730 96.6 1 0.186423766 3 8 5.23 100.017916611 0.718827255 2.52E+05 0.097339146 0.62E+07 0.21 2 10 -0. [m] [m/s] [1/s] [--] [--] [--] [--] [--] 1 12 9.183960694 0.88E+07 0.006256 94.8 1 0.28 100.73E+07 0.028131927 0.731650765 7.028609964 0.75 3 8 -0.183462311 0.096797714 0.23 106.25 4 20 0.005041 95.000955 0.324758428 6 0.5 20 0.39193 4 6 -0.098012930 0.4 1 0.22E+07 0.614672180 1.53E+07 0.2 1 0.000739 0.49 112.82E+07 0.588555526 2.017004814 0.6 1 0.328084231 3 8 4.023016275 0.0 1 0.000520 97.176332910 0.017062785 0.49 110.23779 5 4 -0.639314261 2.028049910 0.326373476 5 4 2.25 3.626274824 7. model Reynolds’ number 3.25 3 20 0.098640153 4 6 4.317466395 Table 4: Variation of the thrust and torque coefficient based on CFD results.689665287 4.005582 95.186759582 2 10 7 1 0. model-Reynolds’ number 3.099117348 2 10 8.098259928 5 4 3.004149 96.8 1 0.57 103.000635 0.6 1 0.33E+05 0.706613653 1.182747186 0.091757117 0.08E+08 0.141405163 0.33E+05 Nr.023534848 0.2 1 0.628123195 1.327381890 4 6 3.95E+07 0.08 111.2 1 0. D δKQ δKT KQ-full / KQ-Model KT-full / KT-model η-full / η-model [m] [--] [--] [%] [%] [%] 1 12 -0.45 104.Marine CFD 2005: Southampton.185357859 5 4 2. D δKQ δKT KQ-full / KQ-model KT-full / KT-model η-full / η-model [m] [--] [--] [%] [%] [%] 1 12 -0.15 4 6 -0.028024693 0.735724161 1.181597539 0.4 1 0.82 112.70 105.022763765 0.676471304 1.017281219 0.67 106.20438 3 8 -0.4 1 0.36 102.000594 0.185984628 4 6 4.87 105.6 D V n KT KQ η Rn CTH Nr.094738651 Table 2: Operation conditions and characteristics of the investigated propeller geometry at J = 0.139754645 0.000642 96.7 D V n KT KQ η Rn CTH Nr.022842576 0.028212254 0.017145521 0.141849079 0.179794549 Table 3: Operation conditions and characteristics of the investigated propeller geometry at J = 0.87 100.31 100. [m] [m/s] [1/s] [--] [--] [--] [--] [--] 1 12 8.20E+07 0.93E+05 0.

000757 97. model Reynolds’ number 2.8 © 2005: Royal Institution of Naval Architects .000619 0.23 2 10 -0.006351 97.000348 98.60 4 6 -0.33 100.43742 Table 9: Variation of the thrust and torque coefficient based on ITTC procedure.000478 0.39 Figure 1: Numerical grid at the propeller blades Figure 2: Streamlines on the propeller blades.93E+05 Nr.28 108.000690 0.39868 5 4 -0. D δKQ δKT KQ-full / KQ-model KT-full / KT-model η-full / η-model [m] [--] [--] [%] [%] [%] 1 12 -0.000701 0.54 106.83 100.07 100.52E+05 Nr.42854 3 8 -0.000398 0.95 104.000560 0.99213 4 6 -0.000547 98.33 103.005265 98.007134 96.000627 0.80 103.49 103.15 4 6 -0.20 101.16 104.63 100. Marine CFD 2005: Southampton. D δKQ δKT KQ-full / KQ-model KT-full / KT-model η-full / η-model [m] [--] [--] [%] [%] [%] 1 12 -0.006795 96.93 2 10 -0.99 104.87579 4 6 -0.04 105.81202 Table 7: Variation of the thrust and torque coefficient based on ITTC procedure.65 Table 8: Variation of the thrust and torque coefficient based on CFD results.26 101. UK Table 6: Variation of the thrust and torque coefficient based on CFD results.12 5 4 -0. D δKQ δKT KQ-full / KQ-model KT-full / KT-model η-full / η-model [m] [--] [--] [%] [%] [%] 1 12 -0.42 100.03 108.000323 0.000764 0.23 107. model-Reynolds’ number 2.000519 0.23 100.000535 97. D δKQ δKT KQ-full / KQ-model KT-full / KT-model η-full / η-model [m] [--] [--] [%] [%] [%] 1 12 -0.70 107.95 3 8 -0.08485 5 4 -0.006414 98.06 104.84843 2 10 -0.000657 97. model Reynolds’ number 2.004701 97.000825 97.000526 0.000334 0.000608 0.48 105.61 102.000507 0.007628 98.40 102. model-Reynolds’ number 2.000585 0.000737 0.72 105.60 103.47 103.005717 97.43 102. J = 0.55 100.000771 0.34 104.56 5 4 -0.72284 2 10 -0.000360 98.64 105.000753 0.93E+05 Nr.55 103.000496 0.52E+05 Nr.40879 3 8 -0.33 106.008005 97.38 102.000813 96.000745 97.007129 98.84 100.80 100.59 3 8 -0.87 105.000669 97.04 104.000692 0.31 102.89 100.

Marine CFD 2005: Southampton. UK Figure 3: Open water test diagram Figure 4: Ratio of the full-scale KQ coefficient relative to the model in % © 2005: Royal Institution of Naval Architects .

UK Figure 5: Ratio of the full-scale KT coefficient relative to the model in % Figure 6: Ratio of the full-scale efficiency coefficient relative to the model in % © 2005: Royal Institution of Naval Architects . Marine CFD 2005: Southampton.

6 suction side pressure side Figure 7: Pressure distribution © 2005: Royal Institution of Naval Architects . J = 0. J = 0.7 suction side pressure side Rn = 2.8 suction side pressure side Rn = 2. UK Rn = 3.Marine CFD 2005: Southampton.33E+05.93E+05.52E+05. J = 0.

33E+05.95E+07 suction side pressure side Rn = 1. J = 0.11E+08 suction side pressure side Figure 8: Pressure differences relative to Rn = 3.24E+07 suction side pressure side Rn = 4. UK Rn = 1.8 © 2005: Royal Institution of Naval Architects . Marine CFD 2005: Southampton.

J = 0.Marine CFD 2005: Southampton.7 © 2005: Royal Institution of Naval Architects . UK Rn = 1.22E+07 suction side pressure side Rn = 4.10E+08 suction side pressure side Figure 9: Pressure differences relative to Rn = 2.93E+05.88E+07 suction side pressure side Rn = 1.

52E+05. J = 0.08E+08 suction side pressure side Figure 10: Pressure differences relative to Rn = 2. Marine CFD 2005: Southampton.6 © 2005: Royal Institution of Naval Architects .82E+07 suction side pressure side Rn = 1.20E+07 suction side pressure side Rn = 4. UK Rn = 1.

95E+07 leading edge trailing edge Rn = 1. J = 0.11E+08 leading edge trailing edge Figure 11: Pressure differences relative to Rn = 3. UK Rn = 1.24E+07 leading edge trailing edge Rn = 4.8 © 2005: Royal Institution of Naval Architects .33E+05.Marine CFD 2005: Southampton.

Marine CFD 2005: Southampton.88E+07 leading edge trailing edge Rn = 1. UK Rn = 1. J = 0.10E+08 leading edge trailing edge Figure 12: Pressure differences relative to Rn = 2.22E+07 leading edge trailing edge Rn = 4.93E+05.7 © 2005: Royal Institution of Naval Architects .

J = 0.82E+07 leading edge trailing edge Rn = 1.6 © 2005: Royal Institution of Naval Architects .52E+05.Marine CFD 2005: Southampton. UK Rn = 1.08E+08 leading edge trailing edge Figure 13: Pressure differences relative to Rn = 2.20E+07 leading edge trailing edge Rn = 4.

52E+05.82E+07 tip. pressure side Figure 14: Pressure differences relative to Rn = 2.08E+08 tip. suction side tip.20E+07 tip.6 © 2005: Royal Institution of Naval Architects . pressure side Rn = 4. Marine CFD 2005: Southampton. pressure side Rn = 1. J = 0. suction side tip. suction side tip. UK Rn = 1.

UK Rn = 3.6 suction side pressure side Figure 15: Wall shear stress © 2005: Royal Institution of Naval Architects . J = 0.8 suction side pressure side Rn = 2.7 suction side pressure side Rn = 2.33E+05.52E+05. J = 0. J = 0.93E+05.Marine CFD 2005: Southampton.

33E+05.8 © 2005: Royal Institution of Naval Architects . Marine CFD 2005: Southampton.11E+08 suction side pressure side Figure 16: Wall shear stress differences relative to Rn = 3.95E+07 suction side pressure side Rn = 1. UK Rn = 1.24E+07 suction side pressure side Rn = 4. J = 0.

J = 0.10E+08 suction side pressure side Figure 17: Wall shear stress differences relative to Rn = 2.22E+07 suction side pressure side Rn = 4.Marine CFD 2005: Southampton.7 © 2005: Royal Institution of Naval Architects .88E+07 suction side pressure side Rn = 1. UK Rn = 1.93E+05.

82E+07 suction side pressure side Rn = 1.52E+05.08E+08 suction side pressure side Figure 18: Wall shear stress differences relative to Rn = 2. UK Rn = 1.20E+07 suction side pressure side Rn = 4.6 © 2005: Royal Institution of Naval Architects . J = 0. Marine CFD 2005: Southampton.

95E+07 leading edge trailing edge Rn = 1.Marine CFD 2005: Southampton.24E+07 leading edge trailing edge Rn = 4.11E+08 leading edge trailing edge Figure 19: Wall shear stress differences relative to Rn = 3. UK Rn = 1. J = 0.33E+05.8 © 2005: Royal Institution of Naval Architects .

Marine CFD 2005: Southampton.93E+05.88E+07 leading edge trailing edge Rn = 1.22E+07 leading edge trailing edge Rn = 4.10E+08 leading edge trailing edge Figure 20: Wall shear stress differences relative to Rn = 2.7 © 2005: Royal Institution of Naval Architects . J = 0. UK Rn = 1.

UK Rn = 1.Marine CFD 2005: Southampton.52E+05.6 © 2005: Royal Institution of Naval Architects .08E+08 leading edge trailing edge Figure 21: Wall shear stress differences relative to Rn = 2. J = 0.20E+07 leading edge trailing edge Rn = 4.82E+07 leading edge trailing edge Rn = 1.

33E+05. pressure side Rn = 1. J = 0.24E+07 tip. pressure side Rn = 4. suction side tip.11E+08 tip. UK Rn = 1.8 © 2005: Royal Institution of Naval Architects .95E+07 tip. Marine CFD 2005: Southampton. suction side tip. suction side tip. pressure side Figure 22: Wall shear stress differences relative to Rn = 3.

suction side tip.Marine CFD 2005: Southampton. UK Rn = 1. pressure side Rn = 4. pressure side Figure 23: Wall shear stress differences relative to Rn = 2.93E+05. pressure side Rn = 1.7 © 2005: Royal Institution of Naval Architects .22E+07 tip. J = 0.88E+07 tip. suction side tip.10E+08 tip. suction side tip.

suction side tip. suction side tip. pressure side Figure 24: Wall shear stress differences relative to Rn = 2. Marine CFD 2005: Southampton. pressure side Rn = 4. UK Rn = 1. pressure side Rn = 1. suction side tip. J = 0.82E+07 tip.52E+05.6 © 2005: Royal Institution of Naval Architects .20E+07 tip.08E+08 tip.

Haslar. UK PREDICTIONS OF THE THRUST AND TORQUE PERFORMANCE FOR TWO PROPELLER BLADES USING COMPUTATIONAL FLUID DYNAMICS K Randle and P W Bull. 1. These include: P local propeller thickness Q propeller torque • The steady and unsteady forces and moments on the R propeller radius propulsion system. CFX5 that has been flow conditions. Computational results obtained from two different methods are compared with measured data to examine the numerical sensitivity of the evaluation of the thrust and torque. UK SUMMARY Numerical computations of the flow around two typical propeller blades have been carried out and compared with the equivalent measurements obtained for open water thrust and torque performance characteristics of the two propellers. The KQ torque coefficient objectives of the programme are to develop the capability (KQ = Q/(ρn2D5)) to predict the full viscous flow around marine propulsion n propeller revolutions per second systems including cavitation and noise. r local propeller radius • The steady and unsteady flow characteristics tm maximum blade section thickness including details such as tip vortex and blade wake T propeller thrust flows. MACH0. cavitation and noise can be more detailed benchmark exercise to establish the more readily measured using a scale model in a water tunnel or appropriate method for further development.Marine CFD 2005: Southampton. This approach can potentially remove the difficulties C local propeller chord associated with the Reynolds number scaling and can D propeller diameter obtain detailed velocity and pressure distributions with fm maximum camber of blade section significantly reduced time and cost.QinetiQ Ltd. The objectives of the predictions were to examine the numerical and modelling parameters required for reliable comparison with the measured data for the complex three-dimensional turbulent flows. torque. Detailed knowledge of the fluid is an in-house RANS CFD code. INTRODUCTION The objectives of this paper are to compare Design of a propeller requires knowledge of the fluid computational results obtained using two different CFD flow around the propeller blades to enhance performance methods with measured data for the steady thrust and parameters such as thrust and torque and to reduce torque for two representative propellers. V free stream speed • The interaction between the propulsion system and ϑs projected skew angle the appendage including shafts. axial displacement of blade relative to blade generator line 2. thickness and time variations of cavitation. CFX5. The first method uses a well-established RANS based technique for propeller flows. The first method cavitation and noise. and the second method uses a commercial RANS CFD code. The two propeller blades were the standard DTRC 4119 and a more advanced skewed blade that is one of a systematic series of propellers designed at QinetiQ Haslar. ρ fluid density • Extent. • Near and far field noise. iT blade section rake. (η = (J/2π) KT/KQ) • Cavitation onset. validated for ship and submarine flows. A complementary approach is to use Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD) to predict the fluid velocity and pressure distributions by © 2005: Royal Institution of Naval Architects . This comparison has been carried out as a preliminary exercise prior to a Although the thrust. brackets. BACKGROUND J advance ratio (J = V/nD) This paper describes preliminary work carried out within KT thrust coefficient a research programme funded by the MoD at QinetiQ (KT = T/(ρn2D4)) Haslar for the analysis of different propeller designs. towing tank there are difficulties in applying results obtained for the model to the actual ship or submarine due to the change in Reynolds number. MACH0 that has been velocity and pressure distributions enables the design of validated for propeller flows and the second method is a efficient and effective propulsion systems for a range of commercial RANS CFD code. rudder and η efficiency hull. NOMENCLATURE solving the fundamental equations of motion.

3613 1.02003 0.01631 using a variety of different techniques. Such limitations do not apply to CFX5 that 0.105 0 0 0. Marine CFD 2005: Southampton.5 0.01674 0. Figure 3 shows some of the details of the surface grid produced for the standard blade.01967 The generation of a suitable grid for the application of a 0.5649 -0.975 0.1180 0.5 0.5000 0.07284 0.088 0 0 0.01474 0.4 0.320 1.02072 4. PROPELLER TEST CASES The following propeller geometries were chosen for the comparison: • Standard three bladed propeller without skew • Five bladed propeller with skew The geometric characteristics of the two blades are given in Table 1 with a graphical representation of each propeller shown in Figure 1 and Figure 2 for the two propellers respectively.2 0.6875 0.00027 0.077 0 0 0. 0.6337 1.05418 0.01248 0.0522 1. GRID GENERATION 0.925 0.01379 0.3064 7.7 0. Suitable clustering in the axial direction is used to define the The measured thrust and torque data used for comparison shape of the leading edge.9 0.000889 block containing hexahedral cells that were produced in 1.4392 1.02303 0.075 0 0 0. This skewed propeller for comparison with the CFD codes forms a surface grid that aligns to the wake from the were obtained in the Ship Tank at QinetiQ Haslar.04960 0 The in house code.2055 0.8 0.02703 0. The leading and trailing edges with the CFD codes for standard propeller is given in are extended in the upstream and downstream axial reference 1.04206 0.00423 0.3 0.03160 0.2775 1.95 0.2227 0. However.3447 1.8789 0.030330 them together to obtain the flow characteristics around 0.3971 -6.008921 0.09016 0. The grid generation Table 1: Geometric characteristics of the two propeller process uses blade section data to define a surface grid blades on the blade pressure and suction sides.025525 0.0000 -0.4610 1.4 0. trailing edge of the blade.0 cylindrical polar co-ordinates.3125 -0.0 0.8 0.5623 -0.3168 1.95 0.3625 1.1963 1.0808 0 0 0.03228 0. The measured thrust and torque data for the directions that follow the local blade pitch angles.01817 CFD method to propeller geometries can be carried out 0.02182 0.079 0 0 0.04018 0. UK 3.06960 0.0337 30.01429 0.01827 0.02027 0.014545 code that limits the type of grid generation method that 0.03321 0.5628 -10.05321 0.3348 1.0 1.4048 1. 0.0 0.5000 -0.031779 can use a wide variety of different grids and can combine 0.1407 19.028212 can be used. is a single block structured 0.2 0.02787 0.081 0 0 0. to 1.01175 compare the results obtained from two different CFD Skewed Propeller r/R C/D P/D ϑs iT/D tM/C fM/C codes it is beneficial to use the same grids in each code.1553 0.02138 0.2862 1.02606 0.4347 1.02027 0.09459 0. Figure 3: Axial surface grid for DTRC 4119 Figure 1: Standard propeller © 2005: Royal Institution of Naval Architects .3 0.03233 0.1029 23.006104 A simple ‘skewed H’ grid configuration was used for 0.7 0.018182 complex configurations.9 0.02318 Figure 2: Skewed propeller 0.4622 1.06276 0.6 0.4510 -1.003157 both propeller blades that consisted of a single structured 0.2459 1.2496 1.2089 1.000 0.6 0.5179 -10. Standard Propeller r/R C/D P/D ϑs iT/D tM/C fM/C 0.0672 26.098 0 0 0.102 0 0 0.084 0 0 0.0029 35.5390 -7.08345 0. MACH0.093 0 0 0.01045 0.01774 0.9531 0.2949 1.2759 1.

information transferred using periodic boundary conditions. A range of turbulence models is available in CFX5: • One equation models • Two equation k-ε and k-ω turbulence models • Reynolds stress models Advanced wall functions are used to define wall boundary conditions for the blade that depend upon the turbulence model. Changes reasonable grid convergence could be achieved. is based on a fully coupled time marching technique with a finite element discretisation scheme. A number of different difference schemes are available in CFX5: • Upwind • Blended • High resolution • Second order central • Second order upwind Figure 4: Representative grid surface on the radial direction The upwind and blended schemes provide very robust and stable first order discretisation but the second order high resolution. A logarithmic function is used to define the wall boundary condition on the blade surfaces. The skewed H grid generation method was used to obtain different grid resolutions of 500K. UK The surface grid is interpolated in the radial direction to The first method. 1M and 2M The effect of the hub on thrust and torque was initially hexahedral cells for the standard blade to ensure that investigated to compare with the measured data. Finally the volume grid is second order accurate central-difference scheme is used produced by interpolating in the blade-to-blade direction with additional fourth order artificial dissipation to with suitable clustering to define the boundary layer on provide numerical stability. central and upwind schemes provide improved accuracy. compressibility time marching technique with a finite The surface grid is also extended in a constant direction volume discretisation scheme for the hexahedral cells. The blade surfaces were The two CFD methods used to obtain the flow modelled with non-slip boundary conditions. 1M cells were used to obtain results for the results and as such the hub boundary condition was the skewed blade. 6. flow. A single parameters for the propeller blades have distinctly blade passage was modelled with the blade-to-blade different characteristics. The second method.Marine CFD 2005: Southampton. Only some of the grid lines are turbulence model is used to account for the turbulent displayed to improve the clarity of the picture. based on inlet velocity. MACH0. STANDARD PROPELLER GRID RESOLUTION STUDY Figure 5: Representative grid surface in the blade-to- The numerical simulations were set up with constant blade direction inflow velocity and varying the revolutions of the blade varied advance coefficient (J). CFX5. The hexahedral cells are further subdivided to form control volumes around each cell vertex. The convergence is accelerated using algebraic multi-grid techniques. modelled as free slip in the CFX5 numerical method. The exit 5. is based on a pseudo provide suitable clustering to the hub and tip of the blade. © 2005: Royal Institution of Naval Architects . Figure 4 and Figure 5 show algorithm is used to accelerate the convergence of the representative radial and blade-to-blade grid surfaces for solution to steady state. to the hub boundary condition did not significantly affect Subsequently. A to a far field boundary. NUMERICAL METHODS boundary condition was modelled as an average atmospheric pressure boundary. The Baldwin-Lomax algebraic the standard blade. The outer boundary was also modelled as a free slip. An implicit pre-processing the blade surfaces. upstream and downstream of the blade surfaces.

the The thrust and torque is obtained by integrating the figures for J=1.0x10-4 for 1M and 2M cells.6956 0.5 and J=0. This caused some solver divergence when 2.1 MACH0 0.1512 0. 0. 2M. However.5. in the design region with RMS residual mass and momentum equations and the J=0. This is likely due to the blade sections each computational cell.6877 0.1470 0.4573 CFX 500k 0. The results in Table 2 to Table 4 Figure 6 to Figure 12.833 there is good correlation with the in house code steady state thrust and torque was invariant.6790 0.833 1. Indicative This process was repeated for a range of J for each of the plots of pressure on the blade suction surface are given in three grid resolutions.1 show a much larger variation in the pressure and wall shear stress on each blade surface for pressure contours. KT J 0. and the partitioned grids were robust. Marine CFD 2005: Southampton.0280 CFX 500k 0. 0. UK The CFX5 data sets were generated for the standard direction there were high aspect cells present in the tip blade using a physical time step of 5. using the high resolution partitioned across processors.4995 0.3080 0.833 1.0295 0.3016 0. advance coefficient and numerical method. eliminated by further refinement in the radial direction to 2M cells.0112 Figure 6: Pressure contours. Details of the measured data and the MACH0 results are given in reference 1 and 2.3120 0.0288 - CFX 2M 0. All of the simulations were carried out in parallel using domain decomposition to partition the Grid independence was confirmed from 1M to 2M cells computing load across multiple processors.0106 Measured 0. due to the change in the grid resolution.285 0. Figures for J=0.0106 Table 3: Comparison of torque coefficient for the standard blade ηo J 0.0531 0. The simulations were carried out until there was convergence in the order of 3 orders of magnitude for the The results indicate that.0311 CFX 1M .833 1.034 Table 2: Comparison of thrust coefficient for the standard blade KQ J 0.4673 0.1 MACH0 0.0507 0.5.0477 0.0481 0. Each of the (MACH0) results.1511 - CFX 2M 0.5145 Measured 0.1 MACH0 0. This divergence issue was advection scheme and the k-ε turbulence model.0107 CFX 500k 0.5 0. standard blade cells in the tip region.146 0.0288 0. the commercial numerical code simulations was stopped at 300 iterations for direct (CFX5) results and with the measured data.1531 0. 0. J=0.833 detail the coefficients obtained for varying grid show consistent pressure contours with small variation resolutions. comparison. J=0.692 0.0287 0.0280 0.489 0. by investigation of the velocity and pressure distributions over the blade surface and in the wake field.4866 CFX 1M . standard blade CFX 1M .0x10-4 for 500k and region.5 0.6965 - CFX 2M 0. local angle of attack being very close to zero degrees at this advance ratio. With the method used to provide grid refinement from 500k to 1M cells in the theta © 2005: Royal Institution of Naval Architects . 500k.575 Table 4: Comparison of open water efficiency for the standard blade It was noted during the process of carrying out the grid resolution study that obtaining a robust converged solution relied upon there being fewer high aspect ratio Figure 7: Pressure contours.5 0.4839 0.0311 Measured 0.

2M.833. © 2005: Royal Institution of Naval Architects . UK Figure 8: Pressure contours. SKEWED BLADE ADVANCE RATIO STUDY From the previous study. standard blade 7. During the simulation process. over a range of advance ratio. 500k. 500k.Marine CFD 2005: Southampton. in order to obtain a converged robust and accurate solution the skewed blade was first run with the upwind differencing advection scheme option in CFX5. J=1. The same boundary conditions were set up for the skewed blade as for the standard blade.833. The simulation was restarted from the values obtained from the upwind solution using the second order. Subsequent simulations were carried out with approximately 300-400 iterations using Figure 10: Pressure contours. high- resolution scheme option. 2M. J=0. J=0. J=0. noting the reverse direction of rotation. standard blade Figure 9: Pressure contours. the number of cells required in the H-grid for grid independence was established at 1M cells. After 500 iterations the upwind scheme had reached a converged solution. J=1. standard Figure 11: Pressure contours.1.1. This two-step process was run for a series of simulations. standard blade blade Figure 12: Pressure contours. standard the upwind scheme and the high-resolution scheme blade applied for a further 500 iterations. 1M.833.

skewed blade Figure 13: Momentum and mass convergence iteration history. Marine CFD 2005: Southampton.2.2. Note the jump at 360 iterations where the numerical simulation was restarted from upwind advection solution values and continued with high-resolution advection. J=1. However. Because the normal pressure force on the blade is dominant. the tangential component has been omitted in these figures for clarity in the display of the results. skewed blade © 2005: Royal Institution of Naval Architects . UK Figure 13 and Figure 14 illustrate typical convergence time histories for residual momentum and mass and turbulence quantities respectively. Figure 15 and Figure 16 show representative time histories of the blade thrust and torque given by the normal pressure distribution on the blade surface. skewed blade Figure 15: Thrust (normal to blade) convergence iteration history. it was computed and included in the calculation of the coefficients. Figure 14: Turbulence convergence iteration history. J=1. J=1.2.

1683 0.Marine CFD 2005: Southampton. employed in this study.8 1.4 due to the flow physics.4.2 1. possibly leading to tip separation and blade cavitation. and at high value of J. 1. has yielded comparable reference 3. © 2005: Royal Institution of Naval Architects . along with the use of the k-ε model for MACH0 0.0660 0.7175 0.1812 0. The slight reduction in KT and KQ at low values of J (below J=0.6400 improved results. The robustness of Measured 0.0 1.0754 the commercial code was affected by the quality of the Table 5: Comparison of thrust coefficients for the grid.4 MACH0 0. skewed blade However there were discrepancies in both numerical KQ methods with measured data at off-design J.0561 dissimilar to MACH0 for off-design J.8 1.0263 of the blade. Table 5 to Table 7 show the calculated high resolution results for the skewed propeller.2 1. This indicates good correlation between MACH0 and CFX5. A more detailed comparison is shown in Figure 17 which compares the measured data and the numerical simulation results for the propeller coefficients across a range of J. there is a zero average and negative angle of Table 6: Comparison of torque coefficients for the attack on the many blade sections. UK These results indicate that the two numerical codes have similar results in the design region of the blade. The measured It has been demonstrated that the commercial code results and the MACH0 results were obtained from CFX5.0227 blade. results to measured data and to the results obtained from the in house code MACH0 for thrust and torque of two KT open water propeller cases. The blade section skewed blade angles of attack for J=0. in the zero thrust region Measured 0. comparing the measured 8.0781 0.6813 0.0 1. especially in the tip region.6845 0.7072 0. and CFX 0.4 These conditions. This may be J 0.0635 0.8 1.0616 It was noted during the work that the robustness of the CFX5 solver and results for steady state cases were not CFX 0.2730 0.2774 0. The error bars on either side of the measured result are indicative of 5% error as a typical value for the measurement errors. where at low J. It was again noted that the off design accuracy of the results for each of the numeric methods was not in close agreement to the measured data. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS data and numerical solutions for MACH0 and CFX5 for the J values of J=0.7143 0.0781 0.5760 0.6051 0. Improvements in the modelling of the Table 7: Comparison of open water efficiency for the physics by way of a more optimal turbulence model and skewed blade improvements in the grid geometry are expected to improve off design results. which results in an elongated ‘S’ characteristic in the measured values.5960 0. J=12.0802 0.3714 0.3534 0.0482 0.5607 turbulence are possibly not suited to steady state.0450 0. The changes in the pressure Figure 16: Torque (normal to blade) convergence field structure can be seen for each advance ratio. the blade section MACH0 0. iteration history. Figure 18 to Figure 21 show examples of the pressure distribution over the pressure and suction faces of the skewed propeller blade for varying J.6 and 1. skewed blade especially for the suction surface.0245 angle of attack is higher than the angle of stall for the CFX 0. Each figure has a different scale for the pressure.0.1665 0.0630 0. J 0.8. is not present in either of the numeric simulations. 1.6685 0.0 1.2 1.3753 0.5 are given in Figure 22 and Figure 23 ηo J 0.5501 transient calculations may lead to more comparable Measured 0.2695 0.0450 0.8).2 and 1. The pressure face is shown on the left hand side of the picture and the suction face on the right.

2 0 Kt Ship Tank Kt CFX 10 Kq CFX 10 Kq Ship Tank Efficiency Ship Tank Efficiency CFX 10 Kq MACHO Efficiency MACHO Kt MACHO -0.8 0.3 1.4 © 2005: Royal Institution of Naval Architects . Marine CFD 2005: Southampton.5 0.2 Figure 19: Pressure distribution. skewed blade Figure 18: Pressure distribution. UK 1 0.9 1. J= 1.6 KT. skewed blade.1 1. skewed blade. skewed blade. J= 1. Eta 0.5 Advance ratio (J =Va/nD) Figure 17: Comparison of non-dimensional propeller curves. J= 0.0 Figure 21: Pressure distribution.8 Figure 20: Pressure distribution.7 0.2 0. J= 1.4 0. skewed blade. 10KQ.

validation and development of CFD 40 Skew ed blade DTRC 4119 techniques in marine hydrodynamics. He graduated from the University of 10 Southampton with an MEng in Ship Science and joined QinetiQ in 2002. including a benchmark of the two numerical codes using equivalent grids and turbulence model. Stanier MJ “Numerical prediction of propeller scale effect” PhD Thesis.3 0.4 0. January. Faculty of Engineering and Applied © 2005: Royal Institution of Naval Architects . (standard and skewed blades) In this preliminary study the grid definition in the tip region was not ideal and further improvements have been made in the grid generation process. concept design. School of Engineering Sciences. Haslar Marine Technology Park. 2. He is a graduate member of r/R RINA and working towards gaining chartered status. Figure 22: Blade section angle of attack for J=0. refining the grid in all the axial. Ship Blade Section Angle Of Attack at J=0.9 1 from physical model testing. Take Tahoe. University of Southampton.8 0.5. Peter Bull holds the current position of Technical Leader (standard and skewed blades) for Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD) in the Blade Section Angle Of Attack at J=1. Haslar Marine Technology Park.Marine CFD 2005: Southampton. 40 Skew ed blade DTRC 4119 11. He is currently a member of the ITTC Resistance Committee. AUTHORS BIOGRAPHIES 30 Karl Randle is a Naval Architect in the Surface Ship Angle (º) 20 Capability Group at QinetiQ Ltd.7 0. facilitating the development of CFD methods for underwater applications.5 0. 30 Angle (º) 20 10 0 0.2 0. 9.2 0.9 1 -10 r/R Figure 23: Blade section angle of attack for J=1. He has worked on a range of projects 0 0.7 0. UK Science.6.5 0.8 0.3 0.6 0. ship trials -10 and numerical simulation. 1994. He is responsible for the application.4 0.6 Science. 2002. REFERENCES 1. Unpublished QinetiQ Report. radial and theta directions for further work and the benchmarking exercise. ACKNOWLEDGEMENT The authors wish to thank Chris Jenkins (Dstl) and the UK MoD for their continued support. Jessup SD “Propeller blade flow measurement using LDV” PhD Thesis.5 Submarine Capability Group at QinetiQ Ltd. Nevada. 3. ASME Fluid Engineering Division Summer Meeting. 10. Further work is ongoing.6 0.

recirculation zones and strong vortex fields in the wake of the bluff bodies of the superstructure block/mast that cause the smoke downwash. This highly unfavorable funnel configuration causes the exhaust smoke to exit into the wake of the bluff bodies. The aerodynamic study comprised of flow visualisation in the wind tunnel and CFD simulations of the near field smoke dispersion in the flow field that is disturbed by bluff bodies of the superstructure/mast located in the vicinity. CFD analysis has identified the large velocity gradients. Bahm cargo ships as they feature many appendages which are et.Marine CFD 2005: Southampton. This has many adverse An investigation of the behavior of exhaust smoke consequences like the sucking of the hot exhaust into the emitted from the funnel located in the wake of a bluff GT intake and the ships ventilation system apart from body assumes significance in the design superstructures temperature contamination of topside electronic on new design ships for identifying the recirculation equipment and interference of the smoke with flight zones and undertaking modifications to the topside operations. topside extremely cluttered. The evolution of the funnel shape and topside layout. Vxy Unfavorable funnel configuration and layout on the topside produce turbulence and distortion of air motion. The knowledge of the funnel exhaust behavior configuration on passenger and naval ships over the last and avoiding the problem of smoke nuisance requires hundred years and a comprehensive review of the continuous development of the topside design and fine. INTRODUCTION the funnel gases to disperse downward toward the deck more rapidly than upward. The superstructures of naval ships are wind tunnel at a relatively advanced stage of design. (V ) + (V ) 2 2 Vyz They in turn cause the exhaust smoke to exit into the y z wake of the bluff bodies. The competition for topside y and z directions on superstructure space has seen a reduced funnel size that is required to be located in the vicinity of the mast/superstructure that are Vw Ambient cross flow velocity (m/s) aerodynamically bluff bodies and results in violation of good design practices of a funnel for avoiding smoke Ve Exhaust velocity (m/s) nuisance (like increasing funnel height and avoiding the bluff bodies in the vicinity of the funnels). Closure was achieved by using the standard k-ε turbulence model. geometrically much more complex as compared to their Wind tunnel investigations of the problem have been predecessors or the counterparts in the passenger or the reported in the literature since 1940’s [2 to 11]. UK BEHAVIOUR OF SHIP FUNNEL EXHAUST IN THE WAKE OF A BLUFF BODY P R Kulkarni. which will enable the ship researchers since 1930’s has been presented in the review designer to achieve the ultimate objective of optimising paper by Kulkarni et. save costly changes performance has been investigated using scale models in later.al [12] have reported an analytical approach to the © 2005: Royal Institution of Naval Architects . thereby (Vx ) + (Vy ) 2 2 making them prone to the problem of smoke trouble. NOMENCLATURE aerodynamically bluff bodies. IIT Delhi. Vz Components of wind velocity in x. S N Singh and V Seshadri. The exhaust from the funnel was thereafter simulated using the computational code FLUENT version-6. thereby resulting in trapping of (Vx ) + (Vz ) 2 2 the exhaust into recirculation zones and cause Vxz undesirable smoke contamination on the topside operational areas. The flow visualization study of the plume trajectory was undertaken to gain an understanding of the behavior of the exhaust smoke exiting into the wake of the bluff body and to study the interaction between a bluff body wake and the ship’s exhaust. problem of smoke nuisance on ships by various tuning the design options. [1]. This paper presents an experimental and a CFD study of the funnel of a scale model of a typical naval ship. On naval ships. Vy. The CFD simulations show a very good agreement with the flow visualisation photographs. superstructure/bridge blocks etc. India SUMMARY The cluttered topside of a typical naval ship features short funnels that are located in the vicinity of taller structures that are aerodynamically bluff bodies. The downwash of the exhaust causes 1. the funnel the superstructure design and further. Traditionally. The momentum of the exhaust smoke has a major effect on the downwash. operating in the wake of a bluff body and demonstrates that CFD is a powerful tool capable of providing a means of visualising the path of the exhaust under different operating conditions very early in the design spiral of the ship.0. the need K Velocity ratio = Ve / Vw to locate weapons on topsides and the masts that house a range of sensors and the associated equipment make the Vx . thereby resulting in trapping of the exhaust into recirculation zones and cause undesirable smoke contamination on the topside operational areas. like masts.al.

Marine CFD 2005: Southampton. which yielded a large a scale model of a typical naval ship. APPROACH ADOPTED The results presented in this paper are a part of an experimental and numerical study undertaken with an aim of gaining an understanding of the flow field around the topside of naval ships and the interaction between a bluff body air wake (of the funnel and superstructure/mast) and the ship’s exhaust. were undertaken to gain an understanding of the plume trajectories from a funnel operating in the wake of the bluff body and to study the interaction between a bluff Illuninating Lamp Pitot Tube 1:50 scale model WIND Mirror superstructure Smoke Generator Smoke Generator Air from Air from blower compressor Control Valve Orifice Plate Control Valve Figure 2: Experimental setup © 2005: Royal Institution of Naval Architects . The superstructure block comprising agreement between the predicted and the experimental the bridge block plus a mast. The analysis was from CFD simulation. 2. This and performance characteristics around the ship’s configuration comprised of two funnels (a forward funnel superstructures by demonstrating a reasonably good and an aft funnel). for cruise vessels. The experimental study comprised of velocity measurements Figure: 1: Superstructure configuration [10] and flow visualisation photographs [11] of the flow around a scale model of different variants of a simplified This paper presents a CFD study of the funnel exhaust on superstructure of a generic frigate. The flow visualization studies in the wind tunnel interaction on the ship’s topside.0. The aerodynamic study the standard k-ε turbulence model along with grid comprised of flow visualisation in the wind tunnel and refinement and grid adaptation techniques The qualitative CFD simulations of the near field smoke dispersion in a and quantitative comparison [24] shows a reasonably flow field that is disturbed by the wake of bluff bodies of good agreement of the experimental data with the results the superstructure/mast in the vicinity. ferries and naval ships will be a part of the design process in foreseeable future. This data provided the physical wake of a bluff body and demonstrates that CFD is a quantities that could directly be correlated to the results powerful tool capable of visualising the trajectory of the of the numerical simulations by the CFD code FLUENT exhaust under different conditions very early in the version 6. is located ahead of the techniques were used for undertaking parametric forward funnel at an upstream distance of one funnel investigation of the exhaust smoke-superstructure height.0 to predict the flow typical topside of a generic frigate shown in Fig. which is an results [24]. 1.0. UK problem. wherein the closure was achieved by using design spiral of the ship. CFD investigations of the smoke problem on body air wake (of the superstructure/mast) and the ship’s ships and offshore structures are being reported in the exhaust. operating in the body of benchmark data. the same turbulence model and solution aerodynamically a bluff body. The exhaust from the funnel was thereafter recent publications for the past five years [13 to 25] and simulated using the computational code FLUENT the trend indicates that such CFD simulations particularly version-6. Having established the capability carried out for a 1:50 scale model funnel configuration of of the CFD code FLUENT version 6.

000 prescribed are shown in Fig. The k – ε model is probably the simplest type that is practically useful.0. Gosman [25]. k-ε turbulence model. the flow patterns around the topside do not computational domain and the boundary conditions change significantly for Reynolds numbers above 10.8 m/s and suitably choosing the wind smoke over a model superstructure in the wind tunnel is velocity. which flow visualization studies is shown in Fig. MODELLING CRITERIA AND was clamped over the model outside the wind tunnel. UK 3.al [11] shows that scaling the momentum in the near field The commercial CFD code "FLUENT" version 6. the phenomenon of interest is near field photographs of the smoke exiting from the funnel was dispersion of the jet in a disturbed flow field created by captured using the SONY DCR VX2000E digital video bluff bodies of the superstructure.75 m x 0. In case of bluff bodies such as the superstructure superstructure was modelled in GAMBIT. The video and still funnel. which allowed visualisation of the flow field over the superstructure model. the plume path is inertia dominated rather than visualization study in the wind tunnel was carried out for buoyancy dominated and hence. Simulation of the exhaust velocity at 11. In the first stage.45 m cross usually offer insufficient benefits in return for substantial section and having a length of 5 m. the flow velocity ratio (K) values of 1. Flow visualization was undertaken by injecting domain was meshed using a coarse grid to solve for the smoke along with air from two smoke generators flow pattern and plume path. This is because the effects of the turbulence flow Vw over the height of the domain inlet was set at 10 m/s phenomenon remain the same over a wide range of and the exhaust velocity Ve was varied to achieve the Reynolds number. The modelling criteria of the an iso-thermal 4. EXPERIMENTAL SETUP which illuminated the top edge of the plume and a mirror was laid horizontally on the deck of the superstructure to In the context of dispersion of exhaust plume from ship’s light up the underside of the plume. 2 and 3 respectively. extra effort required to solve them. CFD SIMULATION plume in the wind tunnel as discussed by Kulkarni et. the computational meters. The more complex models tend to The schematic arrangement of the experimental set up for better represent the effects of turbulent anisotropy. The model. The flow near field. the buoyancy forces can velocity ratios of 1 and 2 by maintaining the exhaust be ignored in the simulation. they tunnel with a test section of 0. The uniform wind speed [7]. A separate air delivery fluid flow analysis through complex geometries. The of ships. The 1:50 can be important in some applications. A 1000 W lamp Wall Wall Outlet Inlet Wall (funnel exits) Inlet Wall (Superstructure and funnel)) Figure 3: Computational Domain with boundary conditions © 2005: Royal Institution of Naval Architects .Marine CFD 2005: Southampton. In the perspex window on the side of the tunnel. closure was achieved by using the standard upstream of the model measured the free stream velocity. computational domain was dicretised using the 3D which included control valves and orifice plate flow tetrahedral mesh. However. 2. The standard k-ε turbulence model Air at ambient temperature was injected through the is a two-equation model and is well described in the funnels of the model superstructure to represent the literature and is widely used in wind engineering and for exhaust of ship’s exhaust smoke. The sidewalls of the wind tunnel test section were made of Perspex sheets. study requires only velocity ratio (K) to be matched apart based on the finite volume technique was used to study from the Reynolds number on a geometrically similar the problem in the present investigation. and the prototype to ensure kinematic similarity. provided in the pipe network upstream of the funnel exit. including scale model of the superstructure was placed in the wind turbulent dispersion and buoyancy effects. As suggested by static tube inserted into the wind tunnel test section. The system was provided for the forward and the aft funnel. done by injection of iso-thermal (unheated) air from the funnels. 3. visualisation in the wind tunnel on a scale model of the Gosman [25] reports that the available RANS (Reynolds superstructure was carried out at as high a velocity as Averaged Navier Stokes) models range from a large possible and K was maintained same in both the model number of variants of the well-known k – ε approach. where it is only the camera that was mounted on fixed tripod outside the initial plume rise phase that needs to be modelled. A standard Pitot. In the present study.

the sides of the computational bounded at the entry by this specified upstream domain. no-slip. since it is to be compared with the wind boundary. UK Centerline Plane (a) (b) Figure 4: (a) Definition of centerline plane. 2 and 3. adiabatic WALL the interaction of the external wind with the total boundary condition was applied.e. structure of the platform.679 tetrahedral cells (a) K = 1 (b) K = 2 Figure 5: Comparison of downwash on superstructure at velocity ratio of 1 and 2 (a) K = 1 (b) K = 2 Figure 6: Plume trajectory in the wake of a bluff body at velocity ratios of 1 and 2 The following boundary conditions were applied to the velocity Ve suitably chosen so as to achieve velocity computational domain (Fig. was applied. the INLET tunnel experimental data. The flow around the d) In the bottom of the domain and on the superstructure is a secondary process resulting from superstructure model. as applicable to the wind tunnel wind Vw to be 10 m/s.94. (b) Adapted and refined mesh with 9. 3) ratios (K) of 1. for a ship. the approaching natural wind. i. adiabatic WALL boundary condition was specified with a velocity of boundary condition. the INLET boundary condition was imposed for the air with the exhaust © 2005: Royal Institution of Naval Architects . the only known flow is that of condition was applied. Marine CFD 2005: Southampton. a no-slip. c) At the exit of the domain. b) At the exit of the plume. At the entry of the ambient air. the OUTLET boundary a) In general. The flow domain was e) For the exterior.

5(a). 6(b) and 7(b)) shows a very good prediction by CFD. 4(b). The was carefully post processed for analysis and the results qualitative comparison between the flow visualisation by are presented in the subsequent sections. 6(a) and 7(a)) and at K = 2 (Fig. The regions of interest in the VISUALISATION STUDIES current study are the wake of the bluff bodies located on the deck such as the superstructure/mast blocks and the The photographs from flow visualisation study are funnel. However. 7. adaptation with the criterion that the maximum cell volume change should be less than 50%. The smoke does exhibit a The solution from the previous (coarse) mesh was tendency to get sucked into the wake of the mast as mapped on to this new (adapted) mesh and the captured in the photograph shown in Fig. 2 is shown in Fig.Marine CFD 2005: Southampton. 6 (b). Close-up photograph fluid. default settings recommended in FLUENT for such 5(b). CFD simulation and the flow visualisation photographs from wind tunnel studies at K = 1 (Fig. the flow and heat transfer 5. it was further refined using volume bends backwards from the vertical. At K = 1. with wake region and avoid the downwash as seen in Fig. These flow features using the parameters of of the trajectory of the plume in the wake of the bluff pressure and velocity was used to adapt the grid. and block and comes down on the deck as shown in Fig. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION adequate resolution of all the separated flow structures so that the detailed flow characteristics can be calculated in 5. The bending of the plume as well as its trajectory as visualised from the pathlines from CFD © 2005: Royal Institution of Naval Architects . The calculations were the momentum is sufficient to enable it to overcome the carried out using UPWIND (first order) algorithm.2 COMPARISON BETWEEN FLOW were decoupled (i.1 OBSERVATIONS FROM FLOW the region of interest. UK (a) K = 1 (b) K = 2 (c) K = 3 (d) K = 4 Figure 7: Pathlines of plume trajectory from CFD simulation at velocity ratios of 1. 2. The immediately downstream of the superstructure/mast wakes in the flow represent a total pressure deficit. 5 and 6. it is observed that the was used to adapt the grid with an aim of efficiently smoke gets trapped in the strong recirculation zone reducing the numerical error in the digital solution. calculations. 3 and 4 The key requirement of the numerical grid is the 5. jets are identifiable by a region of relatively high-velocity thus exhibiting a severe downwash. there are no temperature dependent VISUALISATION PHOTOGRAPHS AND properties or buoyancy forces) and the equations were CFD STUDIES solved for iso-thermal flow by turning ‘off’ the energy equation to yield a converged flow field solution. One such The trajectory of the exhaust smoke as K is increased to adapted grid on the centerline plane is shown in Fig. 6(a)) shows that that the plume path improve the mesh. To body at K = 1 (Fig. Since the thermal gradients were not considered in the analysis. 5(b). The The visualisations of the plume trajectory in the form of solution converged to a normalized residual level of 10-6 pathlines from CFD simulation are shown in Fig. calculations were re-started. Solution-adaptive refinement feature of FLUENT presented in Fig.e.

3 ANALYSIS OF THE FLOW FIELD BY CFD the vertical. 6(a) and the smoke from the forward funnel defined in Fig.‘Q’ bend backwards from the vertical towards the mast as at a height of 0. UK simulation at K = 1 and 2 (Fig. The superstructure and the tall mast shield the smoke from the free stream airflow and therefore. The pathlines were the mast in the region of pressure deficit. Smoke and pathlines of the trajectory of the exhaust from the from the forward funnel is emitted right into this wake of funnels for flow visualisation. The flow visualization photographs (Fig. 7(a) & (b)) compares very The air stream around the forward funnel is disturbed due well with the flow visualisation photographs. Vxz. The flow around the pressure zone in the wake therefore causes the smoke to superstructure was analysed in the horizontal plane .9 h (‘h’ is the height of the funnel) seen in Fig. 11 and the centerline plane defined in Fig. 5(a). 8. These to the presence of the superstructure and the mast agreements confirm that the CFD code using the standard upstream of the funnel. transverse planes (numbered 1 to 4) experiences severe downwash at K = 1 as seen in Fig. Marine CFD 2005: Southampton. defined in Fig. the mast. and Vxy to study the flow structure mast to form a low-pressure zone in its wake. The results of the CFD analysis are presented using the there is significant aerodynamic blockage caused by the vector plots of Vyz.9h Figure 8: Definition of plane ‘Q’ (a) (b) Figure 9: Vector plot of Vxy on plane ‘Q’ at K = 1 © 2005: Royal Institution of Naval Architects . Therefore. The low- released from the funnel exit. 4(a) Q 0. 5(a) and 6(a)) show that that the plume bends backwards from 5. the forward funnel k-ε turbulence model can predict the flow and emits the smoke into the wake of the superstructure and performance characteristics reasonably well.

at increasing downstream distance. the jet rises freely up to the height of the mast. The second pair of vortices the forward funnel to be sucked into this region as is due to the presence of the superstructure block. 6(a) and 6(b)). This is confirmed from the plot of pathlines (Fig. The vortices are very strong in the region 9(b) clearly shows the interaction of the mast wake with immediately behind the bluff body (planes 1 and 2) as the forward funnel. These vortices cause a located between the forward funnel and the significant recirculation zone in the wake of the superstructure/mast block (Fig. as seen in and hence. indicate the presence of two counter rotating and the location of the vortices.9) Vxz at (Fig. centerline plane (Fig. The forward funnel. 11: Definition of planes 1. 11). Downstream of the vortices behind the superstructure/mast block. 3 and 4 The vector plots of Vxy for K = 1 in plane ‘Q’ (Fig. the vector plots in planes 3 and 4. the eddies and the vortices shed by the pair of the vortices is attributed to the mast and is present mast bring the smoke down and cause the exhaust from up to the height of the mast. as presence of the bluff bodies (the superstructure/mast indicated by the vector plot of Vyz in plane 3 and 4 (Fig. However. two pairs of superstructure/mast block as well as the funnel. 2. as seen in planes 2. UK Fig. 12 (b) vortices are found behind the forward funnel as well. block) as well as the funnels is evident in the vector plot 12(c) and (d)). as well as the vector plots of Vyz at planes 1. 10). The wake-affected region due to the shown in Fig. 10: Vector plot of Vxz on centerline plane at K = 1 Vw = 10 m/s 1 2 3 4 Fig. 2. 3 and 4 (Fig. indicating that the bluff body shape affects the size and (b)). observed. 10. As the symmetrical contra-rotating vortices behind the smoke is emitted right into this recirculation zone in the superstructure/mast block are seen (Fig. The observed during the flow visualisation studies (Fig. An to (d)) only one pair of the contra-rotating vortices is enlarged view of these vortices of Vxy in plane ‘Q’ in Fig. the of Vxz in the centerline plane of the superstructure shown vortices appear to dissipate and become weak. 12 (a) and (b) respectively. The vector plot of Vxz in the centerline plane of the wake of the superstructure/mast located upstream (Fig. 3 and 4 (Fig. 10) also shows that the wake of the mast shields the of the forward funnel is observed to influence the flow exhaust jet of the forward funnel from the free stream structure downstream of the aft funnel as well. At plane-1 vortices in the wake region. 12(a)). The effect in Fig. 7(a) and (b)) as well as the flow visualisation photographs The vector plots of Vxy at plane ‘Q’ (Fig. These vortices behind the superstructure/mast coincides with the shape of the superstructure/mast block also explain the phenomenon of the plume bending © 2005: Royal Institution of Naval Architects . 12) explains the presence of the mast upstream of the funnel causes process of shielding and the flow structure immediately blockage in the air stream and shedding of eddies and downstream of the superstructure/mast block. 5(a) region of strong intensity of these two pair of vortices and 6(a)).Marine CFD 2005: Southampton. The first wake of the mast. 12) thus confirm that the Analysis of the vector plot of Vyz (Fig. 9(a) block.

the momentum is sufficient to enable it to overcome the The trajectory of the exhaust smoke as K is increased to wake region. as vertical path after exit. aerodynamic blockage and shields the smoke from the the momentum of the smoke is not sufficient to free stream airflow. captured in the photograph shown in Fig. However. 2 is shown in Fig. and as a result. 6 (b). The increased momentum at K = 2 along with the fact that the tall mast provides an (a) Plane-1 (b) Plane-2 (c) Plane-3 (d) Plane-4 Figure 12: Vector plot of Vyz at K = 1 on planes 1. at K = 1. Marine CFD 2005: Southampton. the plume continues to have a overcome its trapping in the wake. 5(b). 5(a). 6(a)). 3 and 4 © 2005: Royal Institution of Naval Architects . The smoke does exhibit a seen in Fig. Further. 2. UK backwards from the vertical (Fig. there is a severe downwash and the tendency to get sucked into the wake of the mast as smoke comes down on the deck.

1946. IIT Delhi. 5(a)). D MC CULLUM. UK Fig. the shortfalls in design and to find efficient means to increased momentum of the plume is able to overcome eliminate them. INS Shivaji. NOLAN ROBERT W.D. not occur.Marine CFD 2005: Southampton. At K = 1. Jan contributor of the downwash. pp the wake of the bluff bodies on the topside of the ship. RINA. OWER E. strong vortex fields. the exhaust the investigation of modern naval ships with cannot overcome its trapping in the wake and thereafter. MICHAEL K JOHNS. interaction on the naval ships. 8. BAHAM GARY J. Simplified Superstructure of a Ship”. though there is a tendency for the smoke to be sucked in. features of the exhaust smoke-superstructure 2.pp 245-272 CFD at velocity ratios of 1 and 2 shows a very good agreement. region without significant downwash. 1959. Application of Fluid Dynamics in the Safe Design of Topsides and © 2005: Royal Institution of Naval Architects . CONCLUSIONS Institute of Marine Engineers (London). “Wind Tunnel Studies to b) The flow behind the bluff bodies on topside of a ship Obviate the Problem of Unwarranted Rise in Air like the superstructure block/mast is charecterised by Intake Temperatures of Gas Turbines in INS Delhi of large velocity gradients. 1950. OWER E. SINGH SN. 42-82 particularly those in the vicinity of the funnel and further. SESHADRI V. Naval the CFD code using the standard k-ε turbulence Engineers Journal. Institute of Marine Engineers gases enables it to overcome the effect of low pressure (London). it is the momentum of SNAME. Institute of Marine Engineers (London). “Design of Stacks to Minimise necessary to overcome the strong recirculation zone in Smoke Nuisance”. “Stack Design are located in the vicinity of taller structures that are Technology for Naval and Merchant Ships”. The plume escapes the wake later stage. accepted which causes the smoke to come down. SESHADRI V. pp168-175 c) The location as well as the size of the bluff body 10. KULKARNI PR. “A it generates a vortex trail that depends on the shape Study of the Problem of Ingress of Exhaust Smoke into of the bluff body and the extent of its streamlining. London. SINGH SN. HOLDO AE. pp 109-138 a) The qualitative comparison between the flow 6. Trans SNAME Vol. Applied Mechanics Department. 7(b). May 1989. “Funnel Design and Smoke the increased upward momentum of the funnel exhaust Abatement”. 7 presents a CFD study of the effect of the f) This study further goes on to show that CFD is a momentum of the plume on the behavior of the exhaust powerful tool capable of predicting the larger scale emitted in the wake of a bluff body at velocity ratios of 1. 6(b)) and the pathlines in Fig. Proc. Vol. “The Airwake of a DD 963 Class Destroyer”. Conditions onboard Offshore Structures”. THIRD A. Trans. confirms that the increasing momentum of the exhaust is 2. Vol 85. SESHADRI V. Fig. SINGH SN. At velocity ratio 11. of Int. 1962. “Stack Design to Avoid Smoke the wake region. “Study at K= 3 and 4 (Fig.” Trans SNAME. thus ensuring that the downwash does Nuisance. communicated to e) In case of the exhaust smoke– superstructure IJME. Vol 1. as indicated by 7. by ASNE for publication in Naval Engineers Journal d) A velocity ratio of at least 2 should be maintained to edition of 2005 avoid the problem of downwash. the GT Intakes in Naval Ships”.. Further. KULKARNI PR. 3 and 4. trans aerodynamically bluff bodies. Trans. This can be done very early in the the eddies and vortices in the wake of the design spiral. RINA. flow visualisation from path lines obtained from Vol. “Modelling Helicopter Landing nuisance problem. thus avoiding costly modifications at a superstructure/mast block. 6. 7(c) & (d)) shows that there is of Smoke Nuisance Problem on Ships – A Review” absolutely no trapping of the smoke or downwash. Vol 62. Superstructure Interaction on Naval Ships”. these agreements confirm that 7. The analysis of the flow 2000 structure downstream of the bluff body indicates that 9. 1952. 1977. SINGH SN. At K = 2. SESHADRI V. Further increase in momentum 1. “Superstructure Design in Relation to the Descent of Funnel Smoke”. greater than 2. BURGE CH. which is particularly advantageous for momentum of the exhaust is insufficient. 6 (a) & 7(a) show that if the interaction. This communicated to IJME. VAL HEALEY J. “Flow upstream of the funnel results in the funnel ejecting Visualisation Studies of Exhaust Smoke- the exhaust gases into a strong recirculation zone.” Trans. 60. 3. 2005. recirculation zones and Project 15”. complex topside layouts and allows the detection of results in a severe downwash (Fig.G. Engineer The strength of these trailing vortices is a major Officers Conference. India. SESHADRI V. pp 119 region produced by the wind blowing around the mast in 4. pp 566-594. wherein short funnels 12. KULKARNI PR. OWER E. SINGH SN. pp 36-42. 5. model can predict the flow and performance characteristics reasonably well. pp 324-349 the exhaust that decides the behavior of the smoke 13. REFERENCES the photograph from flow visualisation (Fig. THIRD AD. Lonavala. London. 72. KULKARNI PR. 54. “Funnel Design and Smoke visualisation photographs in the wind tunnel and the Plume. ACKER H. the increased momentum ensures that “Experimental Study of the Flow Field Over the smoke stays well clear of the deck.

Tech. pp 451-465. GOSMAN AD. He is an Aeronautical Engineer with an M. Institute of Applied Mechanics. Institute of Marine Engineers. Fluent. “CFD Prediction of Exhaust various administrative positions including that of Head. SANDBERG “Unstructured Handling & Transportation. 2003.. RAMAMURTI R. “Simulation of LPD Airwake by Navier- Delhi. KIM Y. Computational Fluid Dynamics. SCOTT GATCHELL. 24. 81 (1999). SMITH AG. Department of Applied Mechanics at Indian Institute of Technology. J of Aircraft 32/6. Successful Validation”. With over 31 Mechanics. Years of experience in teaching and R&D. EL MOCTAR. College of Engineering. 2005 25. Application of Fluid Dynamics in the Safe Prof. “Simulation of DD-963 Ship Airwake by Architecture from University College London. ASNE. TAI TC. Indian Institute of Technology. Hamburg.Seshadri is Professor in the Department of Applied Mechanics. 23. SESHADRI V. Applied Mechanics Department and Deputy Director Application of Fluid Dynamics in the Safe Design of (Admn) at the Institute. in Naval 14. pp 1007-1017. Ship Airwake Simulated by Multizone Navier-Stokes Aerodynamics and Computational Fluid Dynamics. 1995. in BERTRAM. Internal Flows. Inc. Ship Dynamics.D. “Developments in CFD for Industrial and Environmental Applications in Wind Engineering”. 26. PR Kulkarni belongs to the Corps of Naval Constructors of the Indian Navy and is presently Faculty at the Naval Construction Wing. pp also served onboard various Indian Naval Ships and the 1399-1401. Development and Calibration of Engineers. He is a graduate of Mechanical Engineering from the Naval © 2005: Royal Institution of Naval Architects . He is a Mechanical Engineer with ScM. No. KULKARNI PR. Symposium on Naval Hydrodynamics. 21st Symposium on Naval Hydrodynamics presently perusing his doctoral research titled “An (2001). TOFFOLETTO R. & Industrial. Aerodynamics. SN Singh is Professor in the Department of Design of Topsides and Superstructures. Shanghai. “CFD: Design Interaction on Naval Ships” for the award of a PhD. Prof.pp 56-61 Fluid Devices. Biofluid Mechanics and Ship Grids for Ship Unsteady Airwake on the LPD-17: A Aerodynamics. Two Phase Flows. Marine Engineers. “Computation of Fluid Dynamics. 24th Instrumentation and Ship Aerodynamics. GEBRA JM. SINGH SN.A. Ship Hydrodynamics. FLUENT INDIA. Delhi. Towing in Fluid Engineering from IIT-Delhi. pp 940- 949. REDDY KR. JIN E. “Comparison of CFD Simulation of Exhaust Smoke- Superstructure Interaction on a Ship with Experimental Data”. J of Computers & Fluids. London. His fields of interest include Warship 15. Singapore. AUTHORS’ BIOGRAPHIES Cdr. 2002. W. Coal Ash 21. 1997. with a PG Diploma in Naval London. TAI TC. Naval Dockyards. Singapore. 29 (2000). V BERTRAM. pp 37-48 Delhi with over 21 Years experience in teaching and 17. RADOSAVLJEVIC D. Fall. 2004 9. EL MOCTAR. (Naval Platform Technology Seminar). pp 71-77 Construction from IIT Delhi and M.Sc. “A CFD based parametric Study on the Smoke Behavior of a typical Merchant Ship”. Institute of Marine Pipeline Engineering. Marine CFD 2005: Southampton. VOLKER R&D.53. Plumes and Interaction with Superstructures”. and Ph. NPTS 05. 1997. He is Solution”. “Effect of Ship Motion on DD-963 Ship Design. 4th Num. Indian Institute of Technology 19. 22. PRADS’01. He has Navier-Stokes Method”. TAYLOR K. 2001 are Fluid Mechanics. Flow Viscous Flow around Fast Ship Superstructures”. His areas of interest Tank Symposium. pp 21-39.V. His areas of specialisation are Topsides and Superstructures. J of Wind Eng. London. Aerodynamic Study of Exhaust Smoke-Superstructure 16. JONES KRW. 6th Asian Congress of Fluid degrees from Brown University. 1995. Stokes Method ”. Naval Engineers Journal. 114. U. TAI TC. Computational 18.D. 2001. “Fluent V-6. YOON J. pp 459-465. 4. Flows around Ship Superstructures”. he has held 20. Assessment Case Studies in Offshore and Marine Industries”. UK Superstructures (1997). “RANSE Simulations for Aerodynamic Aeronautical Engineering from IIT-Kanpur and a Ph.S.0 Users Guide”. “Numerical Simulation of Ship Airwake”. pp 41.C.

Dupuis [8] used a 3-dimensinal CFD model and ships (Section 5).g. [11. 12] flow distortion at anemometer sites on ships. In situ measurements used to validate the CFD reports include wind speed and direction. Potential flow models simulate Charles Darwin. [6. In all cases the Several thousand merchant ships are recruited to the ship geometries were very detailed. M J Yelland and R W Pascal. Quantifying this bias is presence of research ships (Section 4. With the in studying the airflow over a typical tanker/bulk carrier increase in computing power more realistic flow models (Figure 3). The current work focuses on studying the general flow pattern over ship’s superstructures with particular attention to the correction of wind speed measurements made from fixed anemometers. Figure 1: The airflow directly over the bow of the RRS dimensional ship model.Marine CFD 2005: Southampton. Three-dimensional CFD studies of the mean airflow over various research ships and a generic tanker/bulk carrier have been performed.2 will describe the work of Moat et al. Nevertheless. Popinet et al. UK SUMMARY Wind speed measurements obtained from ship-mounted anemometers are biased by the distortion of the airflow around the ship's hull and superstructure. Results from surface temperature. satellite validation to minimise the effects of flow distortion in wind speed and for climate change studies. [9] used the © 2005: Royal Institution of Naval Architects . The problems associated with simulating the have recently been used. flow separation. cloud cover and sea state. e. Yelland et al. The results of these studies will be used to distortion at anemometer sites on a number of research make recommendations for locating anemometers on ships. Southampton Oceanography Centre. Even for anemometers in well-exposed locations on research ships the wind speed may be biased by about 10 %. air and sea simulations will be described in Section 3. UK A F Molland. features of a real flow. INTRODUCTION Large Eddy Simulation code GERRIS [10] to study the unsteady flow around the R/V Tangaroa. World Meteorological Organisation (WMO) Voluntary Observing Ship (VOS) programme to report the This paper will describe the CFD code VECTIS (Section meteorological conditions at the ocean surface. Anemometers located above the bridge of tankers/bulk carriers may not be as well exposed and could be accelerated by over 10 % or decelerated by 100 %. Kahma and Leppäranta [5] applied potential flow theory to model the flow over a 2. These 2). Wind previous flow simulations over the RRS Charles Darwin speed measurements obtained from anemometers on (Figure 1) and RRS Discovery (Figure 2) will be used to these ships are biased by the distortion of the airflow by highlight the changes in wind speed created by the the ships hull and superstructure. 4]. predicted wind speed increases of about 20 % at the main mast site on the RV L’Atalant. University of Southampton. The bias in the wind speed measurements is highly dependent upon anemometer position and ship shape. Computational fluid dynamics (CFD) has been employed to correct the wind speed measurements obtained from foremast platform research ships [5 to 10]. 2] or over the aft deck of warships for landing helicopters [3. CFD results are compared to in situ wind speed measurements made from a number of anemometers above the bridge of the research ship RRS Charles Darwin. 1. These wind speed measurements are used both in numerical weather prediction and in climate studies and need to be known as accurately as possible. The shade of the velocity vectors the flow of an ideal fluid and do not reproduce many represents the speed of the flow. Previous studies have measurements. their study gave the first insight into the magnitude of the Section 4. UK THE EFFECT OF SHIP SHAPE AND ANEMOMETER LOCATION ON WIND SPEED MEASUREMENTS OBTAINED FROM SHIPS B I Moat.3.1). In addition important for accurate wind speed measurements needed recommendations will be made on locating anemometers for ocean/atmosphere model forcing. The CFD-predicted wind speeds agreed with those measured to within 4 %. been carried out to investigate flow over ship superstructures in respect of smoke dispersion [1. This paper presents results from CFD models used to quantify and correct airflow distortion effects. airflows over a container ship will be discussed in dimensional CFD code VECTIS to predict the airflow Section 4. 7] used the 3.

The y+ Figure 2: As Figure 1. Therefore the standard k ~ ε [14] and RNG k ~ ε [15] turbulence closure models were used to approximate the turbulence. The finite volume code VECTIS is second order accurate. u* . The digitised plans are then converted into a 3-dimensional geometry using the pre. A computational open ocean conditions. z. 300 m wide and 150 m high for a U zN = ln  (1) ship of 90 m in length. The wind speed profile. domain is defined around the geometry with the ship in varied logarithmically with height. The exact shapes of the geometries are preserved in the mesh generation process. For using three times the number of cells used in the early complicated geometries typical meshes of 500. For flows u*  z  directly over the bow (head to wind) typical domain sizes are 600 m in length. The benefit of using VECTIS over other commercial This provides a platform on which flow simulations codes is the speed at which the mesh can be created. The wind speed profile can be defined from VECTIS is based on a regular Cartesian mesh within Eq. For the simulations of flow over the simplified tanker (Figure 3) anemometers may be located close to the bridge top. The friction which the number of cells can be increased in regions of velocity. characteristic wall co-ordinate for the boundary layer. 7]. The creation of the were defined as atmospheric boundary layers typical of geometry can take up to 2 weeks. was calculated using: interest. and equivalent neutral stability conditions. but for a flow over the simplified The detailed ship geometries are created from digitised tanker geometry. UK solid surfaces were sub-divided to increase the mesh resolution. The computational cells close to the © 2005: Royal Institution of Naval Architects . kv is the von Kármán In general the ratio of the frontal area of the ship to the constant (0. The area of the inlet provides a blockage by the ship of less subscripts 10 and N refer to a height above the sea than 1 %. 2.000 cells computations can be run in less than 2 weeks. number of computational cells used in the simulations dimensional Reynolds Averaged Navier-Stokes solver varied from 200. such as anemometer locations.4) and z 0 is the roughness length. Marine CFD 2005: Southampton. 2-dimsional ship plans. not accurate simulations of the turbulence structure. The width of the domain can kv  z 0  increase to over 1000 m for flows over the ship’s beam. Therefore the boundary layers were accurately resolved foremast platform to model the complex flow above the bridge. surface of 10 m. The software package [13]. Early simulations were originally designed to study the fluid flow within engines. but for a flow over the RRS value varied between 35 and 300. stern Eason [16] showed that the RNG model was generally as accurate as higher order turbulence models in studying bow the mean airflow over bluff body cubes. The size of the domain is dependent upon the using: ship size and its orientation to the flow. HPC facility at the Southampton Oceanography Centre. 1 by calculating values of u* and z 0 .000. and was defined the centre. the code has successfully been used since weeks to converge. ‘Law of the wall’ u*2 = C D10N U10N 2 (2) functions were used to describe the thin boundary layers close to surfaces. COMPUTATIONAL METHOD All VECTIS simulations presented were 3-dimensional and steady state. as the anemometer locations are at a great enough distance from the solid walls ( ≈ 2 m) to not be affected by the thin boundary layer formation. Current simulations are run on the 1993 to model the airflow over many research ships [6. The VECTIS studies are only intended to reproduce the steady state mean flow characteristics. can be created in less than an hour.000 to 600. U ZN . Figure 3: As Figure 1. VECTIS is a commercial three. run on an SGI Indigo UNIX workstation and took up to 4 Nevertheless. where y + is the Discovery. No attempt was made to accurately The CFD simulations were performed using the VECTIS model the flow within the unsteady wake regions. and around sharp edges. where u* is the friction velocity. The inlet wind speed profiles for the research ship studies processing software FEMGEN [17]. The problems associated with regular Cartesian grids and properly resolving the thin boundary layers close to complex geometries was not an issue for the research ship studies.

All heights were normalised by the height flow over a typical VOS.063U10N (3) z/H<0. The ideal for studying bluff body flows when the wind is VECTIS simulations are based on a minimum mesh blowing on to either beam. which was reasonably close to the maximum [18]: observed in the wind tunnel.61+ 0. The mesh size stated compared to the VECTIS result in Figure 5. 1 and 2 and using a measurement height of 10 m and RNG k~eps specifying the required wind speed at 10 m. A HS sonic was located on the foremast based on the channel height. Both are wind tunnel studies of the flow 0 -0. was findings showed that there were possible changes in wind Re =4 × 104. was Re =105. anemometers. 0.02H above the cube.5 over surface mounted cubes and were obtained from the normalised wind speed European Research Community on Flow. Boundary 0. The RNG k ~ ε scaling the geometry. Comparisons of VECTIS SPEED DATA simulations using the standard k ~ ε and RNG k ~ ε turbulence closure models are made with the wind tunnel Wind speed measurements were obtained using measurements. 4 Vector cup anemometers and a k ~ ε closure model closely simulates the shape of the © 2005: Royal Institution of Naval Architects .2 COMPARISONS WITH IN SITU WIND Anemometer (LDA). work described in [24].5 0 0.2 TUNNEL DATA 0.1 COMPARISONS WITH PREVIOUS WIND 0.5 0 0. ship (Figure 3) were performed using various mesh densities.12. The ship was equipped with 7 VECTIS results in Figure 4. a 0 -0. The first case is a Figure 5: A comparison of VECTIS with the wind tunnel fully developed channel flow [21] and the second is a measurements of [22]. The flow in the decelerated region counter to the mean flow direction at heights of 1000C D10N = 0. In all cases the wind speed profiles were anemometers above the bridge of the RRS Charles normalised by the inlet wind speed. < 2 % between the RNG k ~ ε and very extensive with only four measurements between the standard k ~ ε turbulence closure schemes.3 k~eps height. z/H Eq. A temporary 6 m mast equipped with an R2 Sonic anemometer.04H. Although not a true representation of the flow direction.2 is predicted well. z 0 . The shape of the wind speed turbulence closure scheme reproduces the flow pattern in profile has the largest influence (4 %) on the wind speed the decelerated region well. The was scaled by the bridge top to deck height.5 compressible solution was always specified since it produces a more stable solution [19]. the ship’s structure makes it of the surface mounted cube. H. and < 3 % in cube top and height of z/H=0. turbulence closure schemes. Even decelerated though the CFD solutions were modelled at sufficiently low wind speeds so that density changes are minimal. the flow field above the ship’s bridge are presented in Measurements of the velocity above the cube are [20] and will be summarised here. used in the study. z/H RNG k~eps 3. The Reynolds number. geometry size and The second test case was the comparison with the inlet wind speed profiles. The Reynolds number. H. UK where C D10N is the drag coefficient which varies with accelerated flow region and predicts a maximum increase wind speed and is defined by an empirical bulk formula of 35 %. above the bridge. The channel flow of Martinuzzi and Tropea [21] was Wind speed data were obtained for 58 days between May reproduced using VECTIS and are compared to the and July 2002. Both sets of measurements were made using a two component Laser Doppler 3. 1 accelerated The roughness length. Unfortunately the measurements were not speed of < 1 % using minimum cell sizes between 0. was calculated by combining wind tunnel k~eps hieght.5 1 1. boundary layer flow [22].Marine CFD 2005: Southampton. VALIDATION OF CFD 0. This is a summary of the density of 0.018H and 0.5 layer profiles and uniform wind speed profiles at typical wind speeds of 7 ms-1 were used in the simulations. The RNG platform. The results for the changes in boundary layer flow over a surface mounted cube [22]. normalised wind speed Figure 4: A comparison of VECTIS results with the wind VECTIS simulations of the flow over a typical merchant tunnel measurements of [21]. based on the cube height.5 1 1.1 decelerated accelerated Two test cases were used to validate the VECTIS flow simulations.4 wind tunnel 3. A negative Darwin (Figure 1) during the SCIPIO cruise [23] in the normalised velocity indicates a flow counter to the mean Indian Ocean. Turbulence and Combustion (ERCOFTAC) database.

15 wind speed bias (%) 10 PORT STARBOARD The normalised wind speed profile measured above the 5 bridge of the ship for a flow directly over the port beam 0 is compared to CFD results in Figure 6.81 ×10 7 to 1. For -0. the area measurements made from well-exposed anemometers is under investigation.5 % for winds below 20 ms-1) and the VECTIS simulations of the airflow have been performed Vector cup anemometers (1 %. 21 Hz and 0.2 0 0. The post-cruise R2 sonic VECTIS simulations of the air flow over research ships calibration suggested a 2 % overestimate of the wind were performed using a full-scale ship with Reynolds speed for relative wind directions over either beam. Anemometers on research ships measurements at 20 Hz. Even so wind speed data collected from Pre.4 -0.1 Hz. To correct for the effects of airflow presented in Figure 7. Canadian.2 1. beam respectively.7 % were applied to the HS sonic in situ position relative to the ship superstructure and the wind speed data for flows over the port and starboard platform it is located on. Marine CFD 2005: Southampton.17 ×10 8 . R2 different ships and even data from different instruments sonic and Windmaster sonic were performed to examine on the same ship have disagreed. are normalised by the free stream. The numbers varying between 6. i. Other anemometer of the RRS Charles Darwin were performed. British. z/H 0. the distortion at the HS anemometer site CFD simulations of wind speed measurements can be biased high by up to the airflow over both beams of a detailed representation 7 % and biased low by up to 9 %.6 -25 -90 -60 -30 0 30 60 90 0. or undistorted. and Windmaster sonics output 3-component wind speed French and German) [7]. In contrast the foremast on the RRS Charles Darwin is close to a block like superstructure (Figure 1). Corrections locations may be biased to a greater extent due to their of 7. Wind speed at the anemometer sites by this instrument. the RRS Discovery (Figure 2) has a streamlined normalised wind speed shape with the foremast platform located well away from the bridge superstructure. decelerated by a few percent. based correction was applied to the wind speed data measured on the ship length.4 0. it was the best-exposed instrument and it was located on the An example of the wind speed bias present in foremast. speed measurements above the bridge because. VECTIS CFD models any change in the accuracy of the instrumentation during have successfully been used to correct for this [6. the R2 4.5 relative wind direction (degrees) decelerated region height.3 % and 3.2 0. The instrument accuracy was: the HS sonic anemometer (< ±1 % for winds below 45 ms-1). wind from the CFD simulations at a large distance abeam of speed was required in order to quantify the biases in the the anemometer location. UK Windmaster sonic anemometer was located above the 4. important to achieve an absolute bias from the free The HS anemometer was used to normalise the wind stream when boundary layer profiles are used. CFD RESULTS bridge top.8 1 1. © 2005: Royal Institution of Naval Architects . This is obtained An estimate of the free stream. 0. Both profiles -5 predict a deceleration in wind speed close to the bridge -10 top and the accelerated region above.and post-cruise calibrations of the HS sonic. or undisturbed.2 0. typically on a foremast in the bows of the ship. well away from the bridge top. The post-cruise HS and Windmaster this work will be summarised here.05 ms-1). calibrations showed there was no change in their calibration during the cruise. For these instrument positions.6 0. In general there is -15 CHARLES DARWIN good agreement (4 % or better) between the two profiles.1 accelerated flow The shape of a research ship has a large effect on the 0 amount the airflow is distorted at anemometer sites. 7] and the experiment. R2 over 11 research ships (American. -20 RRS DISCOVERY 0. The wind speed measurements Figure 6: Comparison of CFD and in situ wind speed at anemometer sites located on this platform are only measurements (adapted from Moat [24]). are usually located outside of wake regions and in well- The Vector cup anemometers were sampled at 0. ± 0. Consequently these wind speed measurements are decelerated by up to 9 %.1 Hz respectively. This is measured wind speed for flows directly over either beam.4 instance.4 0.1 RESEARCH SHIPS sonic anemometer (<1 % rms). exposed locations. typically 250m or more. wind speed at the height of the anemometer.e. The HS. the Windmaster sonic anemometer (1.3 CFD Figure 7: Wind speed bias at well-exposed foremast in situ anemometer sites on two research ships.

providing that there are no deck cranes present. Firstly. flow visualisation studies were performed in a Moat [11] found that the large upwind obstacle of the wind tunnel to understand the complexity of the flow to containers influenced the downstream flow above the be modelled (Figure 8). The flow is from left models can be used to examine the effects of airflow to right. In addition.5 bow-on flow over a simplified representation of a tanker/bulk carrier (Figure 3) model of 170 m was studied.6 0.2 0. block. 47 metadata [25] the results from CFD of a simplified tanker/bulk carrier. block to the tanker geometry in order to represent the containers loaded forwards of the deck house block. describe the principal dimensions of a tanker and bulk 2. The mean 0. it is unknown what effect the model was placed in the low speed section of the irregular loading of the containers will have on the Southampton 2.2 0 0.9 27. z/H larger sample of ships. ideally on a bridge top.2) can be decelerated by several thousand ships participating in the VOS up to 100 % and may even reverse in direction. Above programme making it unrealistic to study each individual this decelerated region the wind speeds are accelerated ship and the variation in ship type. The decelerated region increases in depth with distance from Anemometers on research ships and VOS should be the upwind leading edge and did not reattach to the located as high as possible above the deck. Moat [11] showed 1.3 CONTAINER SHIPS Table 1: The dimensions of a simple representation of a A container ship geometry was made by adding an extra tanker geometry of overall length of 170 m. the same 1 model can describe their principal dimensions.2 TANKERS AND BULK CARRIERS bridge top to deck height. These relationships are very similar to those 2 decelerated flow found more recently by Kent et al.5 19.Marine CFD 2005: Southampton. The airflow in front of platforms is generally decelerated. This is due to the bridge top (at heights of z/H<0. (m) (m) (m) (m) (m) 13.5 that tankers and bulk carriers were similar in shape and. A scaled 1:46 generic tanker bridge.2 dimensions of the ship are shown in Table 1.5 5. [11] to wind speed at a height of z/H=2. The 0 -0. therefore. With the recent inclusion of these ship parameters in the WMO Figure 8: A wind tunnel study of the flow over the bridge Publication No. UK The results of these VECTIS studies have been taken into CFD studies were performed over the same 1:46 scale account in the design of the new UK research ship the tanker model (Figure 3). foremast in the bows of the ship.4 13. At deck airflow across them and consequently the flow above the level a vortex was formed in front of the deck house bridge. size and shape.3 4.5. This will be the subject of future work. normalised wind speed Bridge Bridge Bridge Freeboard Breadth Figure 9: A vertical profile of the normalised wind speed to deck to sea length above the bridge of the tanker (adapted from [12]). [25] using a much height. © 2005: Royal Institution of Naval Architects .13 m by 1. flow distortion on wind speed measurements obtained Wind speeds from anemometers placed close to the from anemometers located on VOS. Previous studies suggest that instruments should be located at a distance of over three mast diameters from cylindrical masts and spars [26]. If the anemometer is to be located above the bridge of the ship.52 m wind tunnel. In addition. anemometers located on platforms should be sited above the platform rather than in front [12]. distortion on the wind speed reports from anemometers on tankers and bulk carriers.4 0.3 back from the leading edge of the bridge is shown in Figure 9. Above the bridge top the air separated at the sharp leading edge and created a recirculation region close to 5. H VOS vary a great deal in size and type and until recently the anemometer positions were unknown.8 1 1. A normalised wind speed RRS James Cook. The wind speed was normalised by the free stream wind speed simulated from Little work has been undertaken to quantify the effect of a second VECTIS simulation with no model present. A by over 10 % and return to within 2 % of the free stream simple linear model was developed by Moat et al. where H is the 4. APPLICATION OF RESULTS the bridge top with accelerated air above. profile at a distance of x/H=0. it should be placed as high as possible above the front edge.5 carrier.

National the angle of the ship to the wind. B. I. J. Tech. the foremast to reduce its influence on the upstream airflow.. submitted to of viscous flow around fast ship superstructures’. ‘CFD model estimates of the airflow over Anemometers on ships should be positioned as high as research ships and the impact on momentum flux possible above the deck and if possible located in the measurements’.6.. ‘CFD code validation superstructure. and STEVENS. of Geophys. MOCTAR. B. of should be streamlined or located as far as possible from Atmos. If possible. C. SMITH. YOON.. Measurements from Research Council Canada. 21 (10). 459 – 465.. POPINET. anemometers above the bridge can be biased high by PASCAL. REFERENCES 12. C. MOAT. Geophysica. Practical design of ships and other in situ wind speed measurements have determined that floating structures. ’An overview of the airflow Hosum (Woods Whole Oceanographic Institution. and LEPPÄRANTA.. J. i.. and BERRY. M.. W. different superstructure design has shown that a block. ideally above the front edge of the bridge. 1511-1526. V. D. MOAT. bulk carriers is defined by flow separation at the upwind 17(1-2). J. 2003. O.. of Climatology.. GUERIN. ‘The GERRIS flow solver.. J. 1575-1589 pp. ‘Computation ships: part II: application of model results’. WEILL A. CHENEY.. For anemometers located outside the wake of upstream obstacles the results agreed to within 3. P. can significantly effect 9. ship airwake by Navier-Stokes method. J. KAHMA. and ZAN S. be biased by about 10 %. 10. I.. C. and MOLLAND.. 7. Release 0. PASCAL. the wind speed measurements.. 1477-1499.. W. 7. like superstructure.W.sourceforge. of Aircraft. over 10 %. UK 6. JIN. J. W. M.. 68-77. 155-165. 2002. LTR-A-035. leading edge.. ‘Simulation of DD-963 4 % (or better). 1995. CONCLUSIONS 2. 28(7). M.. doi: 10.. ‘Impact of flow distortion corrections on turbulent fluxes estimated by the inertial dissipation The design of a ship will affect the amount the airflow is method during the FETCH experiment on R/V distorted. I. A comparison of two research ships with L’Atalante’. of Phys. close to anemometers located on the foremast in the bow of the ship. DRENNAN. 24th the J. 2001. C. 1981. W-C Cui and G-J Zhou CFD is a valid research tool to investigate the mean air (Ed. and Ocean. Symposium on Naval Hydrodynamics. B. 5. Tech.. 1999. with a decelerated region close to the bridge top.) Elsevier Science Ltd. 32 pp. Institute for Aerospace well-exposed anemometers on research ships may only Research. YELLAND. and BERTRAM. F. 8064. Res. MOAT. T. or low by up to 100 %. Predicting and ‘Wind stress measurements from the open ocean correcting the bias in wind speed measurements reported corrected for airflow distortion by the ship’. from fixed anemometers located on merchant ships Oceanogr. E. Accepted by the for Partial Funding throughout this project. TAYLOR P. 19(10).. 2005. Freely available at http://gfs. GRABER. 8. J. CLOCHE.. E. should be located as high and as far forewards as NACASS. TAI. HAUSER.. it is ‘Experimental and numerical study of the turbulence recommended that the superstructure of research ships characteristics of airflow around a research vessel’.. Japan. M. S. J. J. and (Meteorological Service of Canada) and Dr. D. bows of the ship.1029/2001JC001075. S. Canada. POPINET S. ‘Quantifying the airflow distortion over merchant 1. program AER-TP2 simple frigate shape’. ‘On errors The mean flow above the bridge of typical tankers and in wind speed observations on R/V Aranda’. H. USA) distortion at anemometer sites on ships’. and Ocean. PASCAL. K. R. T.. flow over ships. M. © 2005: Royal Institution of Naval Architects . C. of Atmos. R. B. K. A. M. MOAT. It is not recommended to locate 2002. K.. Wind speed measurements made from 6. B.. anemometers directly in front of platforms or structures.. J. M. 32(6). of Atmos.net/ . Fukuoka. F. J. Y-S Wu. Wind speed measurements from anemometers on ships can be biased by the presence of the ships hull and 4. 1998. and KIM Y. 108(C3). The size of the bias is dependent upon the data and flow topology for the technical co-operation anemometer position and the relative wind direction.e. I. Marine CFD 2005: Southampton. participating in the VOS programme will be the subject of future work. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS 2003 The authors would like to thank Val Swail 11.. and CARICO.. 2004. ‘A CFD based parametric study of the smoke behaviour of a typical Comparisons with independent wind tunnel data and with merchant ship’. HUTCHINGS J..0. DUPUIS H.. and Ocean. 1399-1401. YELLAND. and possible. Anemometers above the bridge of a merchant ship 8. Int. D. YELLAND. Tech. YELLAND. R.. J. I. A. Report No. Dave MOLLAND. and CORNELL V..

‘Development of Margaret Yelland holds the current position of Senior turbulence models for shear flows by a double expansion Scientific Officer at the Southampton Oceanography technique’. 24... 709-726. B. A4(7). 598 pp. UK. L. D.. UK. J. She has overall responsibility for the project.. V.. 2005. 2004. Professor of Ship Design at the School of Engineering Sciences... and Ind. Physics of Fluids. UK 13. T. C. ‘RRS Charles Darwin Cruise 141. WOOD. ‘FEMGV User manual’.. 19. 1992. 205-215. and SPALDING D.. YAKHOT. C. and Ocean. C. Thesis. 1967. 1510-1520. Soc. B. 578 pp.. Ricardo SUDA.. I. Tech. 219 pp. 1995. ‘The flow around surface-mounted. 21. 163 pp. 665-674. Femsys Ltd. ORSZAG. ‘Experimental velocity measurements for CFD validation’.. J. Southampton Oceanography Centre. 17. Southampton. 3. E.. Robin Pascal is an Engineer at the Southampton Oceanography Centre. 16. 22. G. in Appl Mech. at the Southampton Oceanography Centre. NEW. Carrol. Leicester. 1992.. S. and TROPEA. E. 41. YELLAND. B. and BELCHER. Shoreham-by-Sea. RICARDO. KENT. B. 269 – 289 pp. and BERRY. of Fluids Eng. E. submitted to the J. 58. and Ocean. J. 10.. 48. Personal communication.Marine CFD 2005: Southampton.. I. 2000. Anthony Molland holds the current position of University of Nottingham. D. 1st June – 11th July 2002 Satellite Calibration and Interior Physics of the Indian Ocean: SCIPIO’. UK. PhD. M. M. E. 23. 2003. ‘Quantifying the effects of airflow distortion on anemometer wind speed measurements from merchant ships’ PhD. 115. G.. of Atmos. 20. J. Centre. S. 1993. UK.. S. University of Southampton. WOODRUFF. LAUNDER. 1980. MOAT. of Atmos. Aero. F. © 2005: Royal Institution of Naval Architects . B. G. MINSON. A. Computer Ben Moat holds the current position of Research Fellow Meth. and Dynamics (Release 3. His responsibilities include 18...8) user manual’. UK. UK. EASON. I. and SPEZIALE.. SMITH. 1974. He is responsible for the CFD ship modelling... AUTHORS’ BIOGRAPHIES 14. S. SELA.. 9. OLSSON. United Kingdom.. Ricardo Consulting Engineers. Bull. GATSKI. Amer. 15. SOC Cruise Report No. 25. FEMSYS. ‘WMO publication of metadata and an assessment of observation heights in ICOADS’. J. UK. University of Southampton.. of Phys. MARTINUZZI. Ocean. of Wind Eng. measurements. ‘Accuracy of wind measurements on towers Consulting Engineers Ltd. A.. Meteor. THANGAM. 85-92. S. ’Improved Turbulence models for Computational Wind Engineering. MOAT. and stacks’. A... UK. ‘Wind stress and heat flux over the the implementation of ship based meteorological Ocean in gale force winds’. 2005. J. C.. B. ‘VECTIS Computational Fluid 26.. and Eng. ‘The numerical computation of turbulent flows’. R. D. R. GILL. 2002. prismatic obstacles placed in a fully developed channel flow’. and CO-AUTHORS. submitted to the J. Thesis. and MOLLAND. ‘Quantifying the airflow distortion over merchant ships: part I: validation of CFD model’. Tech. J. 2003. A.

com Neil Southall Burness Corlett .psu.ac.soton.arl.it Norbert Bulten Wärtsilä.uk Sayyed-Maysam Mousaviraad Petropars Ltd.Three Quays (IOM) Ltd.uk Paolo Becchi CETENA.it Jun Zang University of Oxford. UK AUTHOR’S CONTACT DETAILS Michel Visonneau Richard Underhill Charge de Recherche CNRS-HDR.Marine CFD 2005. Italy paolo.com Sven-Brian Müller University of Duisburg-Essen.visonneau@ec-nantes.moat@soc.uk James Dreyer Ben Moat Penn State University. USA Southampton Oceanography Centre.fr r. the Netherlands Norbert.ac.ernet.q.uk Qiuxin Gao University of Strathclyde.uni-duisburg.Haslar. UK jjd@wt.de Peter Bull QinetiQ . UK mousaviraad@yahoo.underhill@fnc.village.. Iran mousaviraad@yahoo. India prk@am.co. UK pwbull@qinetiq.edu ben.iitd. France Frazer-Nash Consultancy. Germany mueller@nav..in © 2005: The Royal Institution of Naval Architects . UK michel.Bulten@wartsila.com Cmdr P R Kulkarni IIT Delhi. Southampton.becchi@cetena.ac.zang@eng. UK gao. Italy sydac@tn.x@strath.com Calogero Falletta Ship-Yacht Designers & Consultants.ox. UK jun.

March 30-31.Recent Achievements within the European Union Project EFFORT M. Nantes. UK M. Visonneau Marine CFD 2005 . Visonneau presented by P. Introduction The EFFORT EU project Workpackage 3 “CFD developments” Free-surface full-scale computations Turbulence modelling Force coefficients Conclusions A Step towards the Numerical Simulation of Viscous Flows around Ships at Full Scale . FRANCE Marine CFD 2005. RINA. 2005 . Queutey Laboratoire de Mécanique des Fluides-CNRS UMR 6598 Ecole Centrale de Nantes.Southampton.

Visonneau Marine CFD 2005 . Introduction The EFFORT EU project Workpackage 3 “CFD developments” Free-surface full-scale computations Turbulence modelling Force coefficients Conclusions Introduction The EFFORT EU project The partners of Workpackage 3 “CFD developments” Free-surface full-scale computations Turbulence modelling at full scale Force coefficients Conclusions M.

Visonneau Marine CFD 2005 . Introduction The EFFORT EU project Workpackage 3 “CFD developments” Free-surface full-scale computations Turbulence modelling Force coefficients Conclusions Introduction The EFFORT EU project The partners of Workpackage 3 “CFD developments” Free-surface full-scale computations Turbulence modelling at full scale Force coefficients Conclusions M.

Visonneau Marine CFD 2005 . Introduction The EFFORT EU project Workpackage 3 “CFD developments” Free-surface full-scale computations Turbulence modelling Force coefficients Conclusions Introduction The EFFORT EU project The partners of Workpackage 3 “CFD developments” Free-surface full-scale computations Turbulence modelling at full scale Force coefficients Conclusions M.

Visonneau Marine CFD 2005 . Introduction The EFFORT EU project Workpackage 3 “CFD developments” Free-surface full-scale computations Turbulence modelling Force coefficients Conclusions Introduction The EFFORT EU project The partners of Workpackage 3 “CFD developments” Free-surface full-scale computations Turbulence modelling at full scale Force coefficients Conclusions M.

Introduction The EFFORT EU project Workpackage 3 “CFD developments” Free-surface full-scale computations Turbulence modelling Force coefficients Conclusions Introduction The EFFORT EU project The partners of Workpackage 3 “CFD developments” Free-surface full-scale computations Turbulence modelling at full scale Force coefficients Conclusions M. Visonneau Marine CFD 2005 .

Visonneau Marine CFD 2005 . Introduction The EFFORT EU project Workpackage 3 “CFD developments” Free-surface full-scale computations Turbulence modelling Force coefficients Conclusions Introduction The EFFORT EU project The partners of Workpackage 3 “CFD developments” Free-surface full-scale computations Turbulence modelling at full scale Force coefficients Conclusions M.

Introduction The EFFORT EU project Workpackage 3 “CFD developments” Why CFD for ship flows ? Free-surface full-scale computations The consortium Turbulence modelling Force coefficients Conclusions Hydrodynamic aspects play an important role in the quality of a ship Hull form design is controlled by resistance (evaluation of global forces) and powering performance (analysis of local flow field in front of the propeller) Viscous flow computations for full-scale ship are inhibited by: Uncertainty about the proper physical modelling Difficult accessibility of full-scale experimental data Numerical difficulties associated with the use of very high aspect ratio grids M. Visonneau Marine CFD 2005 .

Visonneau Marine CFD 2005 . Introduction The EFFORT EU project Workpackage 3 “CFD developments” Why CFD for ship flows ? Free-surface full-scale computations The consortium Turbulence modelling Force coefficients Conclusions Goals of EFFORT European Full Scale FlOw Research and Technology Project funded within the 5th Framework GROWTH Program Refinement and validation of CFD methods for ship flows at full scale Evaluation of the free-surface. wake field and hull/propeller interaction Development of full-scale experimental measurement campaigns Validations of full-scale flow field predictions Computations of additional industrial configurations provided by the industrial sponsors of EFFORT M.

Visonneau Marine CFD 2005 . HUT. Rolls Royce Kamewa. CTH. Introduction The EFFORT EU project Workpackage 3 “CFD developments” Why CFD for ship flows ? Free-surface full-scale computations The consortium Turbulence modelling Force coefficients Conclusions The partners in EFFORT The consortium 3 technical centers: MARIN (project manager). HSVA. Van Voorden Gieterij BV 1 classification society: Lloyd’s Register M. NTUA. CTO 5 universities: ECN/CNRS. Maritime University of Szczecin 5 industrial partners: BEC. Kvaerner Masa Yards. IHC Holland NV.

Introduction The EFFORT EU project Workpackage 3 “CFD developments” Free-surface full-scale computations Goals of WP3 Turbulence modelling Force coefficients Conclusions Goals of the Workpackage 3 “CFD developments” Questions addressed in WP3 “CFD developments” What are the free-surface effects at model and full scale ? Turbulence modelling plays a decisive role at model scale. Visonneau Marine CFD 2005 . What is the situation at full scale ? Representation of the propeller action on the flow is needed for comparisons with total wake measurements Organisation of an internal workshop to compare and validate the respective simulation tools developped by each partner M.

Introduction The EFFORT EU project Workpackage 3 “CFD developments” Free-surface full-scale computations Goals of WP3 Turbulence modelling Force coefficients Conclusions Goals of the Workpackage 3 “CFD developments” Questions addressed in WP3 “CFD developments” What are the free-surface effects at model and full scale ? Turbulence modelling plays a decisive role at model scale. What is the situation at full scale ? Representation of the propeller action on the flow is needed for comparisons with total wake measurements Organisation of an internal workshop to compare and validate the respective simulation tools developped by each partner M. Visonneau Marine CFD 2005 .

Visonneau Marine CFD 2005 . What is the situation at full scale ? Representation of the propeller action on the flow is needed for comparisons with total wake measurements Organisation of an internal workshop to compare and validate the respective simulation tools developped by each partner M. Introduction The EFFORT EU project Workpackage 3 “CFD developments” Free-surface full-scale computations Goals of WP3 Turbulence modelling Force coefficients Conclusions Goals of the Workpackage 3 “CFD developments” Questions addressed in WP3 “CFD developments” What are the free-surface effects at model and full scale ? Turbulence modelling plays a decisive role at model scale.

What is the situation at full scale ? Representation of the propeller action on the flow is needed for comparisons with total wake measurements Organisation of an internal workshop to compare and validate the respective simulation tools developped by each partner M. Visonneau Marine CFD 2005 . Introduction The EFFORT EU project Workpackage 3 “CFD developments” Free-surface full-scale computations Goals of WP3 Turbulence modelling Force coefficients Conclusions Goals of the Workpackage 3 “CFD developments” Questions addressed in WP3 “CFD developments” What are the free-surface effects at model and full scale ? Turbulence modelling plays a decisive role at model scale.

Introduction The EFFORT EU project Workpackage 3 “CFD developments” Free-surface full-scale computations Goals of WP3 Turbulence modelling Force coefficients Conclusions Partners in WP3 Contributors and CFD tools Organization Code Notes CHALMERS CHAPMAN NS code (no FS) CNRS ISIS NS code (FS capturing) HSVA COMETa NS code (FS capturing) HUT FINFLO NS code (FS fitting) MARIN RAPID NLP code MARIN PARNASSOS NS code (fixed FS) NTUA PARALOS NS code (FS fitting) a Commercial code M. Visonneau Marine CFD 2005 .

609 ms−1 0.221 M.221 Full scale 55.66 m2 0. Introduction The EFFORT EU project Workpackage 3 “CFD developments” Description of the testcase Free-surface full-scale computations The various computational strategies Turbulence modelling Global view of the free-surface Force coefficients Conclusions The research vessel Nawigator XXI Characteristics of model and full scale computations Type Length Wetted Draft Speed Fr surface Model scale 5.093 ms−1 0.5155 m 6. Visonneau Marine CFD 2005 .315 m 1.15 m 5.155 m 666 m2 3.

Introduction The EFFORT EU project Workpackage 3 “CFD developments” Description of the testcase Free-surface full-scale computations The various computational strategies Turbulence modelling Global view of the free-surface Force coefficients Conclusions A wide spectrum of computational strategies ! Marin and CTH use a composite approach :inviscid + viscous wo coupling NTUA and HUT use a free-surface fitting methodology HSVA and ECN/CNRS prefer a free-surface capturing technique. Visonneau Marine CFD 2005 . M.

Introduction The EFFORT EU project Workpackage 3 “CFD developments” Description of the testcase Free-surface full-scale computations The various computational strategies Turbulence modelling Global view of the free-surface Force coefficients Conclusions Free-surface and wall streamlines (from CNRS) Model scale Full scale M. Visonneau Marine CFD 2005 .

016 0.000 0.10 -0. full scale (bottom) Bow waves Stern waves ζ/LPP ζ/LPP -0.004 0.014 0.022 MSC 0.008 0.00 X/LPP X/LPP M.010 0.95 1.02 Y/LPP Y/LPP 0.15 -0.004 -0.012 0.012 0.016 0.018 0.90 0.020 0.008 0.006 -0.002 0.022 -0.05 -0.06 0.02 0.004 -0.00 1.006 0. Visonneau Marine CFD 2005 .04 MSC 0.05 0.018 0.000 0.00 -0.02 -0.04 0.002 0.002 0.014 0.06 0.20 -0.00 0.02 -0.04 FSC -0.002 0.006 -0.006 0.04 FSC -0. Introduction The EFFORT EU project Workpackage 3 “CFD developments” Description of the testcase Free-surface full-scale computations The various computational strategies Turbulence modelling Global view of the free-surface Force coefficients Conclusions Local view of free-surface elevation (from CNRS) Model scale (top) vs.020 0.004 0.010 0.

Introduction The EFFORT EU project Workpackage 3 “CFD developments” Description of the testcase Free-surface full-scale computations The various computational strategies Turbulence modelling Global view of the free-surface Force coefficients Conclusions Local view of free-surface elevation (from CNRS) 3D view : breaking bow wave M. Visonneau Marine CFD 2005 .

Introduction The EFFORT EU project Workpackage 3 “CFD developments” Description of the testcase Free-surface full-scale computations The various computational strategies Turbulence modelling Global view of the free-surface Force coefficients Conclusions Comparisons of solutions from WP3 partners Free-surface capturing strategies Wave elevations HSVA Wave elevations CNRS -0.9 1.4 0.5 -0.7 0.3 -0.1 1.8 0.3 40 40 30 30 Y Y 20 20 10 10 0 0 -60 -40 -20 0 20 -60 -40 -20 0 20 HSVA : FS : K-w SST : 12 knots X CNRS : FS : K-w SST : 12 knots X M.4 0.3 -0. Visonneau Marine CFD 2005 .1 0.3 0.0 0.6 0.2 0.0 1.2 -0.3 0.1 0.5 -0.9 1.3 -0.1 1.4 -0.6 0.0 1.7 0.5 0.8 0.1 0.2 -0.5 0.4 -0.2 1.0 0.1 0.2 0.2 1.

Visonneau Marine CFD 2005 .7 0.9 1.2 0.2 0. Introduction The EFFORT EU project Workpackage 3 “CFD developments” Description of the testcase Free-surface full-scale computations The various computational strategies Turbulence modelling Global view of the free-surface Force coefficients Conclusions Comparisons of solutions from WP3 partners Free-surface fitting strategies Wave elevations HUT Wave elevations NTUA -0.2 -0.4 0.6 0.0 0.3 40 40 30 30 Y Y 20 20 10 10 0 0 -60 -40 -20 0 20 -60 -40 -20 0 20 HUT : FS : K-w SST : 12 knots X NTUA : FS : K-ε : 12 knots X M.8 0.0 1.1 1.4 -0.1 0.3 -0.5 -0.3 0.0 1.2 1.7 0.3 -0.4 0.4 -0.3 0.5 0.1 0.1 0.8 0.9 1.3 -0.2 -0.0 0.1 0.2 1.1 1.5 -0.6 0.5 0.

3 -0.4 0. Introduction The EFFORT EU project Workpackage 3 “CFD developments” Description of the testcase Free-surface full-scale computations The various computational strategies Turbulence modelling Global view of the free-surface Force coefficients Conclusions Comparisons of solutions from WP3 partners Composite approach : MARIN Wave elevations -0.4 -0.2 -0.6 0.5 -0.2 1.0 1. Visonneau Marine CFD 2005 .9 1.5 0.1 0.0 0.7 0.1 1.8 0.1 0.3 40 30 Y 20 10 0 -60 -40 -20 0 20 MARIN : FS : K-w SST : 12 knots X M.2 0.3 0.

6 -60 -40 -20 0 12 knots : Wave cut Y=6m X M.4 -0.6 CNRS HSVA MARIN 0.2 Z 0 -0. Visonneau Marine CFD 2005 . Introduction The EFFORT EU project Workpackage 3 “CFD developments” Description of the testcase Free-surface full-scale computations The various computational strategies Turbulence modelling Global view of the free-surface Force coefficients Conclusions Comparisons of solutions from WP3 partners Wave cut at Y = 6m Global comparison of the free-surface elevation 0.2 -0.4 HUT NTUA 0.

the turbulence closure is decisive for the reliability of the prediction of the wake field. the role played by turbulence closures is unclear. Introduction The EFFORT EU project Workpackage 3 “CFD developments” The context Free-surface full-scale computations Nawigator XXI: wake field Turbulence modelling San Michaelis: wake field Force coefficients Conclusions Turbulence modelling at full scale What is known about the role played by turbulence ? At model scale. Turbulence anisotropy provides a source of longitudinal vorticity which leads to a much better agreement of computations with the flow measurements. At full scale. M. Isotropic eddy-viscosity based closures provide a far less vortical flow than non-isotropic closures like EASM or RSTM. Visonneau Marine CFD 2005 .

HUT (k − ω SST) vs. CNRS (k − ω SST) M. Visonneau Marine CFD 2005 . Introduction The EFFORT EU project Workpackage 3 “CFD developments” The context Free-surface full-scale computations Nawigator XXI: wake field Turbulence modelling San Michaelis: wake field Force coefficients Conclusions Comparison of computations at full scale .6m .Nawigator XXI Full-scale flow at X = 1.

) vs. Visonneau Marine CFD 2005 .6m . Introduction The EFFORT EU project Workpackage 3 “CFD developments” The context Free-surface full-scale computations Nawigator XXI: wake field Turbulence modelling San Michaelis: wake field Force coefficients Conclusions Comparison of computations at full scale . CNRS(k − ω SST) M.Nawigator XXI Full-scale flow at X = 1.MARIN (Menter 1eq.

CNRS (k − ω SST) M.NTUA (k − ε) vs.Nawigator XXI Full-scale flow at X = 1.6m . Introduction The EFFORT EU project Workpackage 3 “CFD developments” The context Free-surface full-scale computations Nawigator XXI: wake field Turbulence modelling San Michaelis: wake field Force coefficients Conclusions Comparison of computations at full scale . Visonneau Marine CFD 2005 .

6m EASM vs k − ω SST closures - Nawigator XXI Large influence of turbulence closures on the wake field even at full scale ! (computations from CNRS) M. Visonneau Marine CFD 2005 . Introduction The EFFORT EU project Workpackage 3 “CFD developments” The context Free-surface full-scale computations Nawigator XXI: wake field Turbulence modelling San Michaelis: wake field Force coefficients Conclusions Full-scale flow at X = 1.

Visonneau Marine CFD 2005 .Full-scale flow . Introduction The EFFORT EU project Workpackage 3 “CFD developments” The context Free-surface full-scale computations Nawigator XXI: wake field Turbulence modelling San Michaelis: wake field Force coefficients Conclusions Comparison of computations from CNRS with measurements at full scale (propeller plane) San Michaelis .k − ω SST closure vs measurements M.

Full-scale flow . Visonneau Marine CFD 2005 . Introduction The EFFORT EU project Workpackage 3 “CFD developments” The context Free-surface full-scale computations Nawigator XXI: wake field Turbulence modelling San Michaelis: wake field Force coefficients Conclusions Comparison of computations from CNRS with measurements at full scale (propeller plane) San Michaelis .EASM closure vs measurements M.

Measurements vs. RSTM closure M. Visonneau Marine CFD 2005 . Introduction The EFFORT EU project Workpackage 3 “CFD developments” The context Free-surface full-scale computations Nawigator XXI: wake field Turbulence modelling San Michaelis: wake field Force coefficients Conclusions Comparison of computations from CNRS with measurements at full scale (propeller plane) San Michaelis .Full-scale flow .

Visonneau Marine CFD 2005 . Introduction The EFFORT EU project Workpackage 3 “CFD developments” Free-surface full-scale computations Turbulence modelling Force coefficients Conclusions Force coefficients (x1000) Double model flow M.

Visonneau Marine CFD 2005 . Introduction The EFFORT EU project Workpackage 3 “CFD developments” Free-surface full-scale computations Turbulence modelling Force coefficients Conclusions Force coefficients (x1000) Free surface flow M.

which is in contradiction with the results obtained during the last Gothenburg 2000 workshop on the KVLCC2 ship. turbulence anisotropy should be accounted for to get a reliable prediction of the flow in front of the propeller. M. Even at full-scale. Introduction The EFFORT EU project Workpackage 3 “CFD developments” Free-surface full-scale computations Turbulence modelling Force coefficients Conclusions Conclusions Full-scale flows are not dramatically more difficult to compute than model-scale flows. The role of the turbulence modeling has been reinforced by these computations. Visonneau Marine CFD 2005 . Reynolds number influence on the free-surface deformation appears confined to stern waves.

The role of the turbulence modeling has been reinforced by these computations. Introduction The EFFORT EU project Workpackage 3 “CFD developments” Free-surface full-scale computations Turbulence modelling Force coefficients Conclusions Conclusions Full-scale flows are not dramatically more difficult to compute than model-scale flows. Even at full-scale. which is in contradiction with the results obtained during the last Gothenburg 2000 workshop on the KVLCC2 ship. M. turbulence anisotropy should be accounted for to get a reliable prediction of the flow in front of the propeller. Visonneau Marine CFD 2005 . Reynolds number influence on the free-surface deformation appears confined to stern waves.

which is in contradiction with the results obtained during the last Gothenburg 2000 workshop on the KVLCC2 ship. Reynolds number influence on the free-surface deformation appears confined to stern waves. Visonneau Marine CFD 2005 . Introduction The EFFORT EU project Workpackage 3 “CFD developments” Free-surface full-scale computations Turbulence modelling Force coefficients Conclusions Conclusions Full-scale flows are not dramatically more difficult to compute than model-scale flows. Even at full-scale. turbulence anisotropy should be accounted for to get a reliable prediction of the flow in front of the propeller. The role of the turbulence modeling has been reinforced by these computations. M.

Reynolds number influence on the free-surface deformation appears confined to stern waves. The role of the turbulence modeling has been reinforced by these computations. turbulence anisotropy should be accounted for to get a reliable prediction of the flow in front of the propeller. Introduction The EFFORT EU project Workpackage 3 “CFD developments” Free-surface full-scale computations Turbulence modelling Force coefficients Conclusions Conclusions Full-scale flows are not dramatically more difficult to compute than model-scale flows. M. which is in contradiction with the results obtained during the last Gothenburg 2000 workshop on the KVLCC2 ship. Visonneau Marine CFD 2005 . Even at full-scale.

BASIN – Development of a Practical Boundary Element Code for Hydrodynamic Analysis Burness Corlett – Three Quays (IOM) Ltd. Marine Expert Services .

The Primary Problem • A software tool for accurate analysis and prediction of large amplitude ship motions in 6 degrees of freedom and • A tool that is suitable for use in a general marine consultancy environment .

Secondary Requirements • “Efficient” software running on accessible equipment • Flexibility for a variety of applications • Practicality for use by non-specialists • Integration with our other software .

The Solution = BASIN Boundary-element Analysis for Seakeeping Investigation .

Business Justification • Lack of suitable software at an affordable price in the market place • Control of the specification and development path • Control of timing of resource commitment • Ability to exploit parts of the code for other in-house applications • Potential for developing wider knowledge within the organisation during development • Potential for development of new consultancy business areas • Potential for development as a product .

construct a solution from a sum of source (σ) and doublet (µ) distributions placed on each boundary: . Ф. inviscid. irrotational away from boundaries • Fluid motion is described by a velocity potential. Methodology • Potential flow – incompressible. which satisfies Laplace’s equation: • Following Green’s theorem.

Methodology • Euler-Lagrange time stepping – solve the fixed problem at each timestep. then integrated over the vessel . then track points according to boundary conditions: • Pressure is found on each panel.

Implementation • Vessel geometry in NURBS form is imported via IGES/STEP • Panel method is used to approximate the distribution of sources and doublets on each surface • Matrix solution is found via multi-threaded direct solver or Multipole method • Free surface is updated using fully-nonlinear boundary conditions • Vessel is moved according to calculated forces and moments .

Dynamic Meshing • Each vessel. free surface and tank walls are automatically re-meshed to the dynamic waterline at every timestep • Dynamic waterlines found using NURBS intersection routines • Meshing gets very complicated for large-amplitude motions • Meshing is computationally intensive. and the scheme used must be as efficient as possible .

Dynamic Meshing – the procedure .

Dynamic Meshing – the procedure .

Dynamic Meshing – the procedure .

Dynamic Meshing – the procedure .

Dynamic Meshing – the procedure .

Dynamic Meshing – the procedure .

damping zones on free surface • Damping zones absorb differences between actual wave height/potential and reference values • Set reference values to zero for absorbing beaches • Set reference values to analytical solutions for absorbing wavemakers . Wave Generation and Absorption • Combined method –source terms on tank walls.

Typical damping zones for a six-degree-of- freedom seakeeping analysis .

Current Status • Most functionality is in place for 6DOF motions in oblique irregular waves – re-meshing. • Testing of method for ship motions in irregular head seas is well underway • Roll damping is modelled using empirical equivalent linear damping • Some work is needed to make the method more ‘user-friendly’ . wave generation/absorption etc.

Under development • Green water effects • Non-linear roll damping model • Multihulls • Ship motions in short-crested seas • Manoeuvring in waves • Lifting surfaces • Bilge vortex shedding .

Problem areas • Runtime – needs optimisation • Free surface instability – need to suppress both ‘real’ and numerical instabilities • Re-meshing – difficult to make this 100% reliable for very extreme motions .

Series 60 Wavemaking .

Wave contours for the Series 60 at Fr. 0.316 .

.

3 .Head seas motions for the SL7. Fr. 0.

0.Head seas motions for the SL7. Fr.3 .

Head seas motions for the SL7. 0. Fr.3 .

Fr. 0.0 . λ/L = 1.25 .Head seas motions for the S175.

Head seas motions for the S175.2 . 0. Fr.25. λ/L = 1.

Head seas motions for the S175, Fr. 0.25 , λ/L =
1.4

S175, irregular head seas, 6.1m Hs, Fr 0.25

S175, irregular head seas, 4.2m Hs, Fr 0.25

S175, irregular head seas, 6.1m Hs, Fr 0.25 -
animation

How are we doing?

• It has taken longer than we had hoped
– Conflict with other commitments
– Limitations of internal resources
– Problems with integration of third party code
• Opportunities have been missed because of the
delay
but
• Close to having a readily usable consultancy tool
available
• Some use of the code has been used in anger,
albeit on a limited basis
• Significant improvements in development of other
software packages and their integration
• Some other spin-off benefits already starting to be
realised

Burness Corlett – Three Quays (IOM) Ltd.
Marine Expert Services

BEHAVIOUR OF
SHIP FUNNEL EXHAUST
IN THE
WAKE OF A BLUFF BODY

Cdr. PR Kulkarni
Prof. SN Singh
Prof. V Seshadri
Indian Institute of Technology - Delhi

Dubious Exhaust Emission Performance

Evolution of ship’s superstructure

Lusitania (1907) Aquitania (1913)

Titanic (1911) QE-2 (1969)

Nordic Empress (1979) Viking Serenade (1985)

Evolution of topside of naval ships

(1884) Emden (1901)

Dreadnaught (1904) Lion (1914)

Hood (1924) Clemencau (1934)

King George (1941) Delhi (1999)

Reduced funnel size on modern naval ships

Unfavorable funnel configuration

Manifestation of Smoke Nuisance Problem

Temperature contours IR Signature

Exhaust smoke-superstructure interaction

Flow Visualisation

Exhaust smoke-superstructure interaction

Flow Visualisation

Experiments

Exhaust smoke-superstructure interaction Flow Visualisation Experiments CFD Simulation .

Exhaust smoke-superstructure interaction Flow Visualisation Experiments CFD Simulation Validation .

Exhaust smoke-superstructure interaction Flow Visualisation Experiments CFD Simulation Validation Parametric Investigation .

5 different superstructure configurations .4 Velocity Ratio’s (Ve/Vw) .Parametric Investigation Parametric investigation of 140 cases carried out by varying: .7 yaw angles .

Simplified Superstructure Configuration .

the plume path is inertia dominated rather than buoyancy dominated. In the near field. .Scaling Criteria The phenomenon of interest is near field dispersion of jet in the disturbed flow field created by bluff bodies of the superstructure.

.Scaling Criteria Three similarities need to be ensured between the model and the prototype in order to establish complete correspondence between laboratory experiments and full scale plumes. Geometric Similarity Scale model Kinematic Similarity Velocity Ratio (K) : Ve/Vw Dynamic Similarity Reynolds No.

Experimental setup .

Experimental setup Air from blower Air from blower .

Experimental setup Air from blower Air from blower .

Experimental setup Pitot Tube WIND Air from blower Air from blower .

Experimental setup Pitot Tube WIND Air from blower Air from blower Orifice plate .

Experimental setup Pitot Tube WIND Smoke generator Smoke generator Air from blower Air from blower Orifice plate .

Experimental setup Illuminating Lamp Pitot Tube WIND Smoke generator Smoke generator Air from blower Air from blower Orifice plate .

CFD Simulation FLUENT GAMBIT Select Solver Set up Select Turb. Model Geometry Specify Operating Conditions Meshing of Boundary Conditions Geometry Specify Convergence Accuracy Specify BC Solve Equations by Iterations .

Computational Domain Wall Outlet Wall Inlet (funnel exits) Wall Inlet Wall (Superstructure and funnel)) .

Grid Adaptation Tetrahedral cells Total Pressure Velocity Magnitude .

Grid Adaptation 8.11.61.037 cells Total Pressure Velocity Magnitude .219 cells 4.

Grid Adaptation .

Observations from Flow Visualisation K=1 .

Observations from Flow Visualisation K=1 .

Observations from Flow Visualisation K=2 .

Observations from Flow Visualisation K=1 K=2 .

Comparison of flow visualisation K=1 .

Comparison of flow visualisation K=2 .

Comparison of flow visualisation K=1 K=2 .

Planes chosen for analysis Horizontal Plane Q Vxy 0.9h 0.9 h Transverse Planes Vyz 1 2 3 4 Centerline Plane Vxz .

Flow Structure .9hh 0.vortices behind bluff body Horizontal Plane Vxy Q 0.9 .

2 .Flow Structure Transverse Planes Vyz 1 2 3 4 (a) Plane .1 (b) Plane .

4 .3 (b) Plane .Flow Structure Transverse Planes Vyz 1 2 3 4 (a) Plane .

Flow Structure Centerline Plane Vxz .

Recirculation zone in wake of bluff body .

Effect of momentum (a) K = 1 (b) K = 2 (c) K = 3 (d) K = 4 .

which confirm that closure using standard k-ε turbulence model can predict the flow and performance characteristics reasonably well. .Conclusions • The qualitative comparison between flow visualisation from wind tunnel studies & CFD simulation at K = 1 &2 show very good agreement.

which confirm that closure using standard k-ε turbulence model can predict the flow and performance characteristics reasonably well.Conclusions • The qualitative comparison between flow visualisation from wind tunnel studies & CFD simulation at K = 1 &2 show very good agreement. . recirculation zones and strong vortex fields. • The flow behind the bluff bodies like the superstructure block/mast is charecterised by large velocity gradients.

• The flow behind the bluff bodies like the superstructure block/mast is charecterised by large velocity gradients. • They generate a vortex trail that depends on the shape of the bluff body and the degree of its streamlining. which confirm that closure using standard k-ε turbulence model can predict the flow and performance characteristics reasonably well. recirculation zones and strong vortex fields. .Conclusions • The qualitative comparison between flow visualisation from wind tunnel studies & CFD simulation at K = 1 &2 show very good agreement.

Conclusions • The strength of these trailing vortices is a major contributor of downwash. .

Conclusions • The strength of these trailing vortices is a major contributor of downwash. At velocity ratio greater than 2 . the increased momentum ensures that the smoke stays well clear of the deck. . • A velocity ratio of at least 2 should be maintained to avoid the problem of downwash.

• A velocity ratio of at least 2 should be maintained to avoid the problem of downwash. • In case of the exhaust smoke– superstructure interaction on the naval ships.Conclusions • The strength of these trailing vortices is a major contributor of downwash. wherein short funnels are located in the vicinity of taller structures that are aerodynamically bluff bodies. the increased momentum ensures that the smoke stays well clear of the deck. . At velocity ratio greater than 2 . it is the momentum of the exhaust that decides the behavior of the smoke nuisance problem.

a capability that did not exist before. .Conclusions • The study has further shown that CFD is a powerful tool capable of predicting the larger scale features of the exhaust smoke- superstructure interaction on ships. without making recourse to wind tunnel testing.

which shall enable – Rank the relative merits of different superstructure configurations – Assess suitability for air operations – Provide inputs for flight simulators – allow the detection and shortfalls in design and to find efficient means to eliminate them .Conclusions • CFD shall allow the designer of modern naval ships with complex topside layouts to factor the smoke nuisance problem very early into the design spiral.

Delhi . V Seshadri Indian Institute of Technology . BEHAVIOUR OF SHIP FUNNEL EXHAUST IN THE WAKE OF A BLUFF BODY Cdr. SN Singh Prof. PR Kulkarni Prof.

Dreyer Southampton. USA 30 March 2005 . ARL/PSU.ARL Penn State Blade Shaping for Off-Design Performance: Cavitation & Efficiency in Two-Dimensional Cascades RINA Marine CFD 2005 James J. UK Computational Mechanics Div.

ARL Penn State Acknowledgements • Office of Naval Research (Tom Calvert and Lynn Petersen) • Professor Luigi Martinelli of Princeton University .

ARL Penn State Outline • Background • Motivation • Objective • Approach • Results • Summary & Conclusion .

advanced thruster technology development program • Primary focus on (in order of interest) motors.ARL Penn State Background • 2002-2004: ONR-sponsored. and hydrodynamics • Hydrodynamics: Develop & demonstrate a shape optimization tool to insert into our existing design environment to improve the cavitation performance of candidates in off-design operation . acoustics. materials.

incidence-driven surface cavitation – Cavitation is a significant source of broad-band noise • Formal optimization of blade sections has the potential to create thruster designs more resistant to cavitation in adverse conditions .ARL Penn State Motivation • Thrusters spend much of their operational life in off-design conditions • An advanced thruster is likely to be rim-driven • A likely form of incipient cavitation for a rim-driven thruster is leading-edge.

5 1 R 0.] 2 CFD modeling] 1.ARL Penn State Objective • Insert a systematic consideration of off-design surface cavitation performance into an existing design system Preliminary Streamline Curvature Mean Streamline Blade Stacking Detailed Design (SCM) (MSM) (STK) Design [trade-off [WT. etc.5 0 Section Shape -0.5 Optimization -1 0 1 X • Demonstrate the approach in three phases: – Two-dimensional Cartesian frame-of-reference – Rotating quasi-three-dimensional frame-of-reference – Experimental verification . TT testing studies.

) Floor is due to benign suction Objective: face pressure distribution For a given blade section.0 sides blade section 7. a. c.0 Cavitating Cavitating a. LE pressure-side surface 0. formation of LE suction peaks decrease the steepness of b.0 NACA 65410 (a. if possible.0 b.0 1.) 6. increase the width of the Steep sides are due to the floor and.0 c. & c.0 Non-cavitating σ 4.) Computed cavitation surrounded by steep bucket for a NACA 65410 8.0 5. 2.ARL Penn State Objective • Pathology of a cavitation “bucket” At right: “Floor” of bucket (b.0 3. LE suction-side surface -10 -9 -8 -7 -6 -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 α (deg. Suction-side traveling bubble the sides .

2. NP that minimize the composite cost function. F ) Design variables: Normal movement of surface mesh points [ND = O(100)] Operating points: In this work. NP = 1. bi . I = ∑ n =1 cn I n (w n . or 3 . depending on the scenario. if possible.ARL Penn State Approach • Use a multi-objective approach to delay the formation of suction peaks at off-design conditions and. minimize the impact on section efficiency • Multi-point Optimization Problem Statement: Determine the N D design variables.

i. ψ n . F ) k n =1 and the tilde denotes smoothing and attenuation . ~k δ b = −α k G k NP where G = ∑ cn G (w n ..ARL Penn State Approach • Use a simple gradient-based approach for the solution of the optimization problem where the gradient is determined from the solution of the adjoint problem.e.

 0 for ξ − ξ min C > δ  p .ARL Penn State Approach • Cavitation Cost Function: Reduction of Problematic Suction Peaks I= ∫ Bb 1 2 ( p − p d ) 2 ds ∂ ∂ pd − εˆ pd = p ∂ξ ∂ξ ε ⋅ ∂ 2 pa ∂ 2 pa for ξ − ξ min C ≤ δ  ∂s 2 ∂s 2 εˆ =  p min C p stag pt.

this is analogous to maximizing thrust at fixed power for a thruster .ARL Penn State Approach • Efficiency Cost Function Minimization of Axial Force I = ∫ τ xx S x + τ xy S y dξ Bc 1  ∂u i ∂u j   τ ij = − pδ ij +  + Re  ∂x j ∂x i   When combined with a fixed transverse force.

ARL Penn State Approach • A constant transverse or lift force is maintained at the design condition throughout the design iterations by a straightforward stagger angle adjustment −1  ∂Cl  β =β k k −1 +   δ Cl  ∂β  ∂Cl where is continuously updated throughout the design ∂β .

s B.s NP Adjoint AdjointField FieldSolution Solution NI Gradient GradientCalculation Calculation SMOOTH & ATTENUATE Blade BladeShape ShapeChange Change Domain Re-meshing Final Domain Re-meshing FinalDesign Design .C.C.ARL Penn State Approach • Shape Optimization: Design Cycle Schematic Candidate Blade Section Flow FlowField FieldSolution Solution STAGGER ADJUST (n = 1) Adjoint AdjointB.

5 0.8 0.2 1.0 Cp Cp -0.0 0.4 0.6 0.6 0.0 0.0 -1.8 x SYN103I SYN103I 0.0 0.2 -1.8 Cp 0.8 BASELINE 1.ARL Penn State Results • CASE 1: Optimize a 30° stagger cascade of NACA 65410 hydrofoils (p/c = 1) for improved cavitation performance over a +/.5 0.5° incidence range 1.6 0.5 1.0 0.0 α 28 30 32 34 36 38 40 42 44 46 48 0.4 0.5 -1.2 0.0 0.4 0.6 SYN103I 1.0 0.0 σ 0.5 SUCTION PEAKS 0.4 0.6 -0.4 0.2 0.0 0.8 x x .2 0.5 -0.

80 -0.08 0.20 -0.50 -0.30 ∆β • Constant CL at α = 35° is -0.10 0.15 -0.22 condition -0.04 0.18 • Slight increase in σi is 0.00 0.30 • Design condition used only for 40 σ lift constraint -0.20 observed at the design 0.02 1.0 .90 0.00 -0.12 • Off-design spread in σi is ∆β CL σ 0.24 0. C2 = 1.25 1.40 0.ARL Penn State Results • CASE 1: Optimization History for 50 Design Iterations 35 35 CL σ NP = 3: 30 CL C1 = 0.14 reduced significantly in 50 0.0 .10 -0.70 -0.10 maintained by stagger angle -0.20 adjustment (∆β) 1.0 σ 1.00 0 10 20 30 40 50 NDES .06 1. C3 = 1.05 0.40 30 40 CL 0.60 -0.16 design cycles 0.

8 1.2 0.0 x SECTION DESIGN CYC: 0 SECTION DESIGN CYC: 0 C p DESIGN CYC: 0 C p DESIGN CYC: 0 SECTION DESIGN CYC: 50 SECTION DESIGN CYC: 50 0.0 α = 40° : Cp.5 1.0 x x .6 0.639 -0.0 SYN103I SYN103I 0.4 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 SYN103I 0.5 SECTION DESIGN CYC: 50 C p DESIGN CYC: 50 T C p DESIGN CYC: 50 α = 35° HIGH INCIDENCE: 0.5 C3 = 0.6 0.8 1.552→ σ → 0.ARL Penn State Results • CASE 1: Hydrofoil Pressure Distributions & Section Shapes SECTION DESIGN CYC: 0 C p DESIGN CYC: 0 DESIGN: 0.0 0. CTp C2 = 0.105 → σ → 0.2 0. CTp C1 = 0.4 0.603 -1.5 C p DESIGN CYC: 50 T C p DESIGN CYC: 50 0.2 0.0 0.0 Design point used -0.6 0.225 → σ → 0.0 Cp.8 1.5 only to fix CL 1.977 0.5 -1.5 -0.0 α = 30° : 0.0 -1.5 C p DESIGN CYC: 50 T C DESIGN CYC: 50 p LOW INCIDENCE: 0. CTp Cp.

6 0.0 optimization had the desired 1.2 hydrofoil offers ~3° greater 1.ARL Penn State Results • CASE 1: Cavitation Bucket 2.4 • A slight increase in the level of the floor of the bucket is 0.0 incidence range for cavitation 0.2 evident α 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 40 42 44 .4 • At a given σ the optimized σ 1.6 Design Points cavitation bucket 1.8 free operation for the same transverse force 0.4 2.2 NACA 65410 • The 3-operating-point shape 3-POINT OPTIMIZED 2.8 effect of broadening the 1.

0 x • Gain in efficiency at the expense of the generation of a LE suction peak .600 0.609 1.10 CL.0 0.605 0.30 -0.40 0.0 0.602 0.610 SECTION DESIGN CYC: 0 1.2 0.20 0.60 -0.60 SECTION DESIGN CYC:100 -0.70 0.10 0.50 Cp DESIGN CYC:100 0.11 -1.08 1.604 CD ∆β 0.50 0.6 0. CD Cp 1.0 0.4 0.5 0.20 -0.70 Cp DESIGN CYC: 0 0.07 1.90 CL -0.80 0.607 CL 1.0 1.603 η 0.601 0.606 1.30 0.10 SYN103I 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 NDES 0.ARL Penn State Results • CASE 2: Single point optimization of the same 30° stagger cascade of NACA 65410 hydrofoils for efficiency improvement NP = 1: C1 = 1.00 0.8 1.5 -0.0 ∆β η 0.09 0.608 CD η≡ 1.40 0.

6024 0.15 0.6042 0.80 0.65 -0.6024 -0.200 -0. C2 = 1.120 0.70 ∆β 0.0 0.55 0.90 1.200 -0.30 -0.75 0.6022 -1.6028 -0.00 0.0 .80 -0.30 0.60 0.20 0.25 0. CD 35 σ ∆β ∆β η η σ σ 0.45 0.6028 -0.160 -0.70 -0.160 -0.80 -0.90 0.0 .6038 0.0 CL.70 0.00 0.10 0.20 0.6042 0.140 -0.60 0.50 -0.6046 -0. C2 = 1.00 0.6026 -0.40 0.0/1.60 0.60 1.080 1.180 -0.30 0.90 0.6044 0.100 0.6036 35 CL 0. CD CL.10 0.6032 35 η 0.060 1.6044 0.50 0.00 0.70 0.90 0.6032 35 CD 0.6046 -0.10 0.10 0.20 0.6034 0.75 35 σ -0.20 0.00 0.50 1.180 -0.6040 -0.6038 0.060 1.85 0.15 -0.85 -0.50 0.6026 0.05 0.40 1.0 NP = 2: C1 = 5.40 1.10 35 CL -0.90 35 CD 5.70 35 η -0.140 40 σ -0.60 1.90 1.6034 0.6030 -0.00 1.40 0.080 1.25 0.05 0.6040 -0.70 0.6036 0.95 0.80 0.ARL Penn State Results • CASE 3: Combined cavitation/efficiency optimization for the 30° stagger NACA 65410 cascade over a +5° incidence range NP = 2: C1 = 0.55 -0.20 0.80 0.60 -0.120 0.65 0.0 +5° cavitation only 0° efficiency & +5° cavitation 0.6030 40 σ -0.50 1.20 0.00 0.95 -0.30 -0.10 0.45 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 NDES NDES • In general: Direct trade-off between efficiency & cavitation (at least for a well-designed starting point) .0/1.00 1.80 ∆β -0.6022 -1.50 0.100 0.

5 -0.0 0 -0. the design point lies in the center of the floor of the cavitation bucket & the extent of the floor is set by the range of conditions considered in the design .5 Cl NACA 0010 1.25 -20 -15 -10 -5 0 5 10 15 -20 -15 -10 -5 0 5 10 15 α α • The design flow angle does not lie near the bottom of the cavitation bucket for the baseline NACA 0010 • For the optimized hydrofoil.0 3 0.5 C l 0010 Optimized Cd NACA 0010 C d 0010 Optimized σ NACA 0010 7 0.00 σ 0010 Optimized 7 0.15 2 2 -0.15 -0. C2 = 1.20 1 1 -1.0 6 1.0 σ NACA 65410 σ NACA 0010 1.05 -0.20 -0.25 -1.5 -0.5° Cl NACA 65410 Cd NACA 65410 C l NACA 0010 C d NACA 0010 NP = 3: C1 = 1.00 1.5 -0.0 6 -0.ARL Penn State Results • CASE 4: Shape optimization of a 3. C3 = 1.5° stagger cascade of NACA 0010 hydrofoils for improved cavitation performance over +/.0 .0 .10 4 4 Cd Cd Cl Cl σ σ 0.5 0.05 5 5 0.10 -0.0 3 -0.0 0 -0.

7 0.4 0.0 0.7 NACA 65410 NACA 0010 0.5 NACA 0010 Cp Optimal Cp 0.ARL Penn State Results • CASE 4: Hydrofoil Loading & Section Shapes Baseline NACA 0010 vs.0 0.5 0.2 0.3 0.5 0.0 0.1 -1.4 x/c x/c • All three hydrofoils yield equivalent loading at this condition •The NACA 65410 and optimized 0010 display no suction peaks •The optimized 0010 gives the broadest cavitation bucket of the three O(5°-7°) .0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.5 Optimal 0. Baseline NACA 0010 at α = 2° 1.4 0.4 -0.2 0. 65410 at α = 2° Optimized vs.2 -0.4 -0.4 -0.5 0.0 y/c y/c Cp Cp 0.6 NACA 65410 C p 0.5 0.1 0.0 -0.2 0.3 0.6 NACA 0010 Cp NACA 0010 0.2 -0.0 -1.

ARL Penn State Results • CASE 5: Shape Optimization of a 0° incidence NACA 65410 hydrofoil for cavitation Rec = 2.5 but the experiment was done on an isolated blade in test section of width 2.5c .2x106 • The purpose of this exercise is to provide a case for experimental verification • Note that the optimization was done on a cascade configuration with p/c = 2.

6 1.9 0. C3 = 1.45 → 0.61/0.5 0.0 σ Design 0.0 -1.0 1. C2 = 1.7 0.0055 -1.5 0.5 0.5 1.8 0.6 0.0057 0.5 Optimized Cp 1.0 0.2 0.0054 0.2 0.2 High-incidence 0.92/0.4 -0.0060 Cd Design 1.5 σ High-incidence NACA 65410 σ Low-incidence 0. 10% increase in Cd .0 0.0 .4 NDES x/c • The design condition is used only to constrain the transverse loading • Goal was to be as aggressive as possible on cavitation: σ spread: 1.4 y/c Cd Cp σ 1.6 Optimized 0.3 -0.0 0.0 0.1 0.7 1.4 0.2 0.56 .0056 0.0058 0.4 0 10 20 30 40 50 -0.3 0.1 0.0059 NACA 65410 Cp 1.0 .ARL Penn State Results • CASE 5: Optimization History & Hydrofoil Loading and Section Shapes NP = 3: C1 = 0.

ARL Penn State Results • CASE 5: Hydrofoil Lift Baseline NACA 65410 & Optimized Section Performance: • All simulations were predictions Comparison of 2D RANS with Measurements • Some 3D effects from end wall BL were predicted Baseline (2D RANS) 1. the lift was measure with -10 -9 -8 -7 -6 -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 α 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 a load cell (OPTM) and integration of the measured surface pressure .5 Baseline-3D corr.5 • Experimentally.0 measurements show the baseline and optimized hydrofoils give the same performance over the range of α -0. and inflow boundary location Cl • HOWEVER: Both the predictions and 0.0 Optimal (2D RANS) Baseline C p • Post-mortem analysis showed some Optimized Cp Optimized load cell interaction between blade suction surface 0.

0 Optimized optimized over the floor of the bucket and 5.0 for negative incidence angles • Simulations somewhat over-predict σ for σ 4.ARL Penn State Results • CASE 5: Cavitation Bucket • Overall very good correlation between Baseline NACA 65410 & Optimized Section Performance: Comparison of 2D RANS with Measurements visual cavitation inception calls and 8.0 predictions using suction peak criterion Baseline (2D RANS) 7.0 positive incidence angles for both 3.0 • There is more scatter in the calls for 1.0 positive angles 0.0 Optimal (2D RANS) • Agreement is excellent for baseline and Baseline 6.0 -10 -9 -8 -7 -6 -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 • The ∆ between baseline and optimized α appears to be fairly well-predicted over the range of α .0 hydrofoils 2.

5 -3.2 0.6 0.5 0.5 -0.2 0.4 -0.6 0.0 -3.2 0.0 1.0 -0.5 -0.2 0.0 0.0 α = 0.4 -0.0 -1.0 -0.0 0.0 0. In-tunnel: Optimized.5 -1.0 LOWER -2.5 0.4 -0.0 0.0 0.4 UPPER Cp Cp Cp y y y -1.4 0.4 deg.0 -4.0 0.2 0.5 0.5 Measured Cp Measured Cp -3.5 0.0 0. In-tunnel: Baseline NACA 65410. LOWER Cp Measured Cp -2.5 -3.5 LOWER Cp -2.5 0.84 deg.34 deg.0 1.0 -4.0 -3.4 x x x Optimized Optimized.4 -0.0 -3.5 0.2 α = 5.5 LOWER UPPER LOWER α = -5. LOWER Cp -2.0 1.65 deg.2 LOWER Cp LOWER Cp 0.4 -0.4 -1.0 0.0 1.0 LOWER Cp α = 0.0 0.4 deg.5 -0.4 x x x . -2.4 -0.0 0.2 0. UPPER Cp 0.5 -1.0 -3.5 0.0 -0.0 -0.0 -3. UPPER Cp -2.6 0.5 -2.5 0.0 -4.0 -4. UPPER Cp -2.4 -0.4 0.4 -0.0 0.5 0.0 UPPER Cp -2.ARL Penn State Results • CASE 5: Pressure Distributions NACA 65410 Baseline NACA 65410.0 0.5 UPPER -1.0 -1.2 Measured Cp -2.6 0.6 0.4 UPPER Cp Cp Cp y y UPPER y -1.0 0.4 -0.0 -3.2 -2.2 0.0 0.5 -3.1 deg.0 -4.2 α = 5.0 0.2 0.0 UPPER Cp -2.5 0.0 0.0 -1.2 0.5 0.2 0.0 0. In-tunnel: Optimized.5 0.4 0.4 -0.5 -0.0 0. In-tunnel: Comparison of 2D RANS with Measurements Comparison of 2D RANS with Measurements Comparison of 2D RANS with Measurements 1.5 -1.2 Measured Cp Measured Cp -3. In-tunnel: Comparison of 2D RANS with Measurements Comparison of 2D RANS with Measurements Comparison of 2D RANS with Measurements 1.5 LOWER UPPER LOWER LOWER UPPER Cp α = -5.5 -1.0 -1.0 -4.2 0.5 -3.6 0. In-tunnel: Baseline NACA 65410.0 0.2 0.

ARL Penn State Summary & Conclusion • Formulated & demonstrated a robust & computationally inexpensive approach to shape optimization of blade sections for cavitation & efficiency improvement over a range of operating conditions in a cascade configuration – Formulation based on a steepest descent approach where the composite gradient is determined from the solution of the appropriate adjoint problem – Demonstrated on: • Multi-point cavitation-only • Efficiency only • Multi-point combined cavitation/efficiency • Off-design starting point – 100 design iterations with 3 operating points + lift constraint using RANS modeling requires ~96 min on Intel Xeon (2.8 GHz) .

ARL Penn State Summary & Conclusion • Experimental verification of the approach on an “isolated” NACA hydrofoil section – Very good correlation between observed and predicted cavitation inception (surface-type) – The ∆ in cavitation performance between the baseline and optimized sections was well-predicted • As a result of this work. quasi-three-dimensional coordinates – Existing thruster: • Start-up and cross-flow conditions • Potential for >100 ft improvement in cavitation inception at Bollard condition – SYN103I-Q3D is compatible with design environment . the methodology has been extended to rotating.

2005 Propulsor Technology .03.Hydrodynamics Wärtsilä Propulsion Netherlands © Wärtsilä . Consideration on deviations in torque prediction Norbert Bulten 31.

Topics z Introduction „ CFD analyses on propulsion systems: special attention for pressure distributions and cavitation margins z CFD analyses of 2D test cases „ half body „ NACA profiles z CFD analysis of waterjet system „ validation of waterjet inlet CFD model „ validation of mixed-flow pump CFD model „ comparison CFD prediction with actual waterjet performance z Conclusions © Wärtsilä 2 .

CFD analyses of propulsion systems at WPNL Tunnel Thrusters © Wärtsilä 3 .

CFD analyses of propulsion systems at WPNL Ducted Propellers Waterjets Special attention to pressure distribution and margins against cavitation © Wärtsilä 4 .

Validation of pressure distribution with 2D test cases z Test case with analytical solution of pressure distribution „ geometry based on stream function of source and uniform flow: UNIFORM FLOW q ψ= θ + vr sinθ SOURCE 2π „ analytical solution of pressure distribution:  sinθ  2  sin(2θ )  Cp = −   +   π − θ   π − θ    © Wärtsilä 5 .

2 Analytical solution 1 CFD result 0.2 ERROR 3% 0 0 30 60 90 120 150 180 -0. Accuracy of overall pressure prediction Pressure distribution along half body 1.2 -0.6 ERROR 19% 0.4 -0.8 0.6 Angle theta [degree] Error maximum pressure = 19% Error minimum pressure = 3% © Wärtsilä 6 .4 Cp [-] 0.

75 Cd_CFD 0.03 Cd [-] Cl [-] 0.04 Cl_exp Cl_CFD Cd_exp 0.02 0.5 0.25 0. Lift / drag results of 2D NACA0012 profile Lift and drag comparison NACA0012 1 0.01 0 0 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Section angle of attack [degree] Comparison of CFD results with literature © Wärtsilä 8 .

due to error in stagnation pressure prediction. Concluding remarks on 2D calculations z Pressure distribution is calculated quite accurate over most of chord length. z Lift prediction of NACA profile is accurate. z Clear deviation of pressure prediction in stagnation point. z Drag prediction is rather poor. © Wärtsilä 9 .

Working principle of waterjet z Thrust is based on: ∆V m F = m .Q .(V j − V i ) ∆t vj vi VOLUME FLOW THROUGH SYSTEM IS GOVERNING TOTAL THRUST © Wärtsilä 10 .a = m . = .∆ V ∆t ∆t m T = .(V j − V i ) = ρ .

Validation of separate CFD models z Waterjet inlet on model scale „ pressure distribution along ramp „ cavitation inception pressure at cutwater „ velocity distribution upstream of impeller z Mixed-flow pump on model scale „ head curve „ pump efficiency z Complete waterjet on full scale „ flow prediction © Wärtsilä 11 .

Waterjet inlet duct CFD analyses ← LOW IVR ↑ ← HIGH IVR → v ship Inlet Velocity Ratio IVR = v pump © Wärtsilä 12 .

2 INLET ROOF GEOMETRY -0.5 0.3 Cp_121 0.2 Cp_150 Cp_187 Cp_219 Cp [-] 0.1 -0.3 Distance along roof [mm] Pressure along ramp for 4 IVR conditions © Wärtsilä 13 .4 0.1 Cpm 121 Cpm 150 Cpm 187 0 Cpm 219 Geom 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 -0. Comparison of pressure measurements with CFD results Comparison CFD and experiments pressure at ramp 0.

4 IVR [-] Cavitation inception line © Wärtsilä 14 .8 2 2.2 2.2 1. Comparison of cavitation inception experiments with CFD results Cavitation Inception comparison 6 5 4 Sigma_Vtunnel [-] 3 2 CFD calculations 1 Measurements 0 1 1.4 1.6 1.

Comparison of velocity measurements with CFD results Velocity distribution (medium IVR) © Wärtsilä 15 .

Comparison of velocity measurements with CFD results Velocity distribution (high IVR) © Wärtsilä 16 .

no rotor-stator interaction „ source term for body forces due to rotation „ relative quick method z Fully transient with moving mesh „ mesh moves with sliding interface at each time step „ CPU intensive calculation © Wärtsilä 17 . Numerical solution methods for rotating impellers z Quasi-steady with multiple frames of reference (MFR) „ fixed mesh.

Mixed-flow pump CFD analyses Pressure distribution of mixed-flow pump © Wärtsilä 18 .

Comparison of pump performance measurements with CFD results Pump performance 160% 140% 120% Relative head H/Href [%] 100% 80% 60% 40% CFD_head EXP_head 20% CFD_efficiency EXP_efficiency 0% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% 110% 120% Relative volume flow Q/Qref [%] Relative pump head and efficiency © Wärtsilä 19 .

Analysis of complete system z Combination of inlet and pump CFD models z Comparison with traditional waterjet performance prediction software „ volume flow through system „ thrust „ power © Wärtsilä 20 .

CFD model of waterjet Mesh of inlet + pump Approx. 1.1 M cells Calculations are made with constant pump RPM and varying ship speed © Wärtsilä 21 .

54 % 43 13.41 13.19 % 39 13.45 % © Wärtsilä 22 .11 13.49 -0.19 -0.31 -0.08 -0.93 -0.55 13.23 % 35 13.96 12. Comparison with performance prediction software Volume flow through system: V_ship Q_predict Q_CFD Difference 3 3 [knots] [m /s] [m /s] [%] 31 12.72 % 47 13.26 13.

Determination of thrust z Thrust based on „ direct integration of forces on waterjet structure „ direct integration of forces on complete numerical domain (with compensation for flat plate drag) © Wärtsilä 23 .

numerical domain 110% Thrust_CFD/T_design [-] 105% 100% 95% 90% 85% 80% 30 32 34 36 38 40 42 44 46 48 50 Ship speed [knots] © Wärtsilä 24 .waterjet structure CFD results . Thrust of waterjet Thrust comparison 120% Prediction software 115% CFD results .

5% 90. Power of waterjet Power comparison 110.0% 92.5% CFD calculation Power/Power_design_point [%] 105.5% 95.5% 100.0% prediction software 107.0% 97.0% 30 32 34 36 38 40 42 44 46 48 50 Ship speed [knots] © Wärtsilä 25 .0% 102.

Correlation between lift / drag and torque Effect of overprediction of drag on torque Thrust V_in Additional torque Addition drag © Wärtsilä 26 .

© Wärtsilä 27 . and consequently power. is over-predicted with a few percent. This off-set is due to error in stagnation point pressure distribution. z Thrust prediction is quite accurate over a large range of operating conditions. Conclusions z CFD methods can be used to analyse propulsion systems (propellers and waterjets) within acceptable time scales. z Torque. z Calculation of pressure distribution shows good results.

University Duisburg-Essen MARINE CFD 2005 RINA – The Royal Institution of Naval Architects 31. Sven-Brian Müller and Moustafa Abdel-Maksoud] 1 . März 2005 Influence of Scale Effects on the Hydrodynamic Characteristics of Propellers © Copyright [IST.Influence of Scale Effects on the Hydrodynamic Characteristics of Propellers Sven-Brian Müller and Moustafa Abdel-Maksoud Institute of Ship Technology and Transportation Systems (IST).

Summary Influence of Scale Effects on the Hydrodynamic Characteristics of Propellers © Copyright [IST. Results 6.Overview 1. Introduction 2. Problem definition 3. Calculation method 5. Numerical investigation 4. Sven-Brian Müller and Moustafa Abdel-Maksoud] 2 .

Sven-Brian Müller and Moustafa Abdel-Maksoud] 3 . Introduction • Increase of the applied scale factor because of the limited dimensions of test facilities in the towing tanks • Extrapolation problem of the thrust and torque coefficient from model test results to the full-scale • Availability of extensive information about the characteristics of the propeller flow by applying CFD methods Example: Wall shear stress distribution on the propeller blade Propeller diameter of current container ship projects Reference: Mewis and Klug Influence of Scale Effects on the Hydrodynamic Characteristics of Propellers © Copyright [IST.1.

Ratio thickness/cord length and pitch ratio • Thus the ITTC procedure is hardly able to consider the local flow conditions Influence of Scale Effects on the Hydrodynamic Characteristics of Propellers © Copyright [IST. Problem Definition Industrial project • Experimental determination of the thrust and torque coefficients of a propulsion system at model scale • Optimisation of the test procedure • Use of modern measuring technique • Extrapolation of the measurement results to the full-scale • Extrapolation according to the ITTC procedure 1978: the prediction includes a correction for the thrust and for the torque coefficients • These corrections consider the influence of: Reynolds’ number. Sven-Brian Müller and Moustafa Abdel-Maksoud] 4 .2.

Problem Definition Final stage of a project Competition between different designs of the propeller manufacturers Risk Because of extrapolation inaccuracies from model to full-scale a design may be selected. Sven-Brian Müller and Moustafa Abdel-Maksoud] 5 .2. which does not represent the best solution for the full-scale Result High scientific and economic interest about the extrapolation method for propeller manufacturers and shipyards Influence of Scale Effects on the Hydrodynamic Characteristics of Propellers © Copyright [IST.

6. Fresh water 25 C° Dmodel = 0. 0.8 • Computations of the flow around one blade • Consideration of the interaction effect with other blades by application of a periodic boundary condition in space Influence of Scale Effects on the Hydrodynamic Characteristics of Propellers © Copyright [IST.9 .2948. AE/A0 = 0. dh/D = 0.25 m. 10. 6.7. c0. i. Numerical Investigation Investigated propeller geometry Z=4.3. with parallel inflow J = 0.03867. 12 m Computation properties • Open water test condition. Sven-Brian Müller and Moustafa Abdel-Maksoud] 6 . P/D = 0. 0.7/D = 0. (t/c)0. Dfull-scale = 4.e.55.7 = 0. 8.25.

Numerical Investigation Dimensions of the calculated area Diameter: 5. Sven-Brian Müller and Moustafa Abdel-Maksoud] 7 .3.5 D Length: 20 D Area of propeller blades Influence of Scale Effects on the Hydrodynamic Characteristics of Propellers © Copyright [IST.

Sven-Brian Müller and Moustafa Abdel-Maksoud] 8 . Numerical investigation Numerical grid: approx.3. 9x105 grid points per blade Influence of Scale Effects on the Hydrodynamic Characteristics of Propellers © Copyright [IST.

4.7 • Finite volume method • Turbulence model SST • Rotating and stationary coordinate systems • Discretisation scheme of second order • Multi-grid technology • Structured and unstructured computing grid • Local refinement and multi-block technology Influence of Scale Effects on the Hydrodynamic Characteristics of Propellers © Copyright [IST. Sven-Brian Müller and Moustafa Abdel-Maksoud] 9 . Calculation method CFX-5.

Sven-Brian Müller and Moustafa Abdel-Maksoud] 10 .5. Results Open water test diagramm Influence of Scale Effects on the Hydrodynamic Characteristics of Propellers © Copyright [IST.

Results Ratio of the full-scale KQ coefficient relative to the model Influence of Scale Effects on the Hydrodynamic Characteristics of Propellers © Copyright [IST.5. Universität Duisburg-Essen] © Copyright [IST. Sven-Brian Müller and Moustafa Abdel-Maksoud] 11 .

Sven-Brian Müller and Moustafa Abdel-Maksoud] 12 . Universität Duisburg-Essen] © Copyright [IST. Results Ratio of the full-scale KT coefficient relative to the model Influence of Scale Effects on the Hydrodynamic Characteristics of Propellers © Copyright [IST.5.

Results Ratio of the full-scale efficiency coefficient relative to the model Influence of Scale Effects on the Hydrodynamic Characteristics of Propellers © Copyright [IST.5. Universität Duisburg-Essen] © Copyright [IST. Sven-Brian Müller and Moustafa Abdel-Maksoud] 13 .

Sven-Brian Müller and Moustafa Abdel-Maksoud] 14 .model Rn = 3. Results Pressure distribution .33E+05 J = 0.5.6 Influence of Scale Effects on the Hydrodynamic Characteristics of Propellers © Copyright [IST.52E+05 J = 0.8 suction side pressure side Rn = 2.

Results Pressure differences relative to Rn = 3.8 Rn = 1.33E+05. J = 0.24E+07 suction side pressure side Rn = 1.11E+08 Influence of Scale Effects on the Hydrodynamic Characteristics of Propellers © Copyright [IST. Sven-Brian Müller and Moustafa Abdel-Maksoud] 15 .5.

J = 0. Sven-Brian Müller and Moustafa Abdel-Maksoud] 16 .08E+08 Influence of Scale Effects on the Hydrodynamic Characteristics of Propellers © Copyright [IST. Results Pressure differences relative to Rn = 2.5.52E+05.6 Rn = 1.20E+07 suction side pressure side Rn = 1.

33E+05. Results Pressure differences relative to Rn = 3.24E+07 leading edge trailing edge Rn = 1. Sven-Brian Müller and Moustafa Abdel-Maksoud] 17 . J = 0.8 Rn = 1.5.11E+08 Influence of Scale Effects on the Hydrodynamic Characteristics of Propellers © Copyright [IST.

08E+08 Influence of Scale Effects on the Hydrodynamic Characteristics of Propellers © Copyright [IST.6 Rn = 1. J = 0.20E+07 leading edge trailing edge Rn = 1.52E+05. Results Pressure differences relative to Rn = 2. Sven-Brian Müller and Moustafa Abdel-Maksoud] 18 .5.

5.8 suction side pressure side Rn = 2. Sven-Brian Müller and Moustafa Abdel-Maksoud] 19 .model Rn = 3.6 Influence of Scale Effects on the Hydrodynamic Characteristics of Propellers © Copyright [IST.33E+05 J = 0.52E+05 J = 0. Results Wall shear stress .

11E+08 Influence of Scale Effects on the Hydrodynamic Characteristics of Propellers © Copyright [IST. Results Wall shear stress differences relative to Rn = 3.8 Rn = 1. Sven-Brian Müller and Moustafa Abdel-Maksoud] 20 .5. J = 0.33E+05.24E+07 suction side pressure side Rn = 1.

J = 0.5. Sven-Brian Müller and Moustafa Abdel-Maksoud] 21 .52E+05. Results Wall shear stress differences relative to Rn = 2.08E+08 Influence of Scale Effects on the Hydrodynamic Characteristics of Propellers © Copyright [IST.6 Rn = 1.20E+07 suction side pressure side Rn = 1.

8 Rn = 1. Sven-Brian Müller and Moustafa Abdel-Maksoud] 22 .11E+08 Influence of Scale Effects on the Hydrodynamic Characteristics of Propellers © Copyright [IST. J = 0.5.33E+05. Results Wall shear stress differences relative to Rn = 3.24E+07 leading edge trailing edge Rn = 1.

Results Wall shear stress differences relative to Rn = 2.52E+05. Sven-Brian Müller and Moustafa Abdel-Maksoud] 23 .5.6 Rn = 1.08E+08 Influence of Scale Effects on the Hydrodynamic Characteristics of Propellers © Copyright [IST. J = 0.20E+07 leading edge trailing edge Rn = 1.

CFD results: high dependence. Summary • Investigation of the viscous flow around a propeller geometry at 6 Reynolds‘ numbers and 3 advance ratios • Computation of the full-scale data using CFD results and the ITTC procedure With increase of the Reynolds‘ number: • Dependence of the thrust coefficient: .ITTC results: limited dependence • Reduction of the pressure coefficient on the suction side • General high reduction of the dimensionless wall shear stress.6. Sven-Brian Müller and Moustafa Abdel-Maksoud] 24 . especially on the leading edge and tip regions Influence of Scale Effects on the Hydrodynamic Characteristics of Propellers © Copyright [IST. clear increase .

please contact! Sven-Brian Müller Tel: 0049-203-379-1167 Mueller@nav. Sven-Brian Müller and Moustafa Abdel-Maksoud] 25 .uni-duisburg.uni-duisburg.de Influence of Scale Effects on the Hydrodynamic Characteristics of Propellers © Copyright [IST.de Moustafa Abdel-Maksoud Tel: 0049-203-379-2539 Maksoud@nav.Thank you for your attention! If you have questions.

d’Aste. Paolo BECCHI Ing.it Tel: 0039 010 599 5480 Tel: 0039 010 599 5478 . Chiara PITTALUGA paolo.Southampton Southampton(UK) (UK) CETENA CETENA Italian Italian Ship Ship Research Research Centre Centre HYDRODYNAMIC HYDRODYNAMICDepartment Department Via ViaIppolito Ippolitod’Aste.becchi@cetena.it chiara.pittaluga@cetena.-16121 16121Genova Genova Comparison Comparison between between RANSE RANSE calculations calculations and and panel panel method method results results for for the the hydrodynamic hydrodynamic analysis analysis of of marine marine propellers propellers Ing. 2005. MARINE MARINE CFD CFD 2005 2005 30 -31 March 30-31 March2005.55.

Southampton (UK) 2 . List List of of Contents Contents PROPELLER GEOMETRY CFD tools and computation settings PANEL tool : PROPACE z Panel Method Sensitivity Analysis z Panel Grid settings z Viscous Correction Formulation z Kutta-Joukowsky Condition RANSE tool : CFX5 z Settings z Domain Decomposition z Propeller mesh z Solver settings VALIDATION z Comparison of Experimental Data and Numerical Results z Viscous Correction Formulation results z CFX5 – PROPACE Comparison CONCLUSIONS Monday. 18 April 2005 MARINE CFD 2005 .

(Finland) 8 WARTSILA Propulsion Netherlands BV (The Netherlands) 8 HSVA.A.A (Italia) 8 HUT.p. Hamburgische Schiffbau-Versuchsanstalt GmbH (Germany) 8 NLR Stichting Nationaal Lucht.A. Technical University of Denmark (Denmark) 8 CHALMERS University of Technology (Sweden) 8 FLOWTECH International AB (Sweden) 8 IZAR Construccciones Navales S. Ship Design and Research Centre (Poland) Monday. (Italy) 8 CTO . European Project :: LEADING European Project LEADING EDGE EDGE Prediction of leading edge and tip flow for the design of quiet and efficient screw propellers 8 MARIN (The Netherlands) 8 SSPA (Sweden) 8 DTU. (Spain) 8 VTT. 18 April 2005 MARINE CFD 2005 .p. Helsinki University of Technology (Finland) 8 FINCANTIERI –Cantieri Navali Italiani S.Southampton (UK) 3 . Technical Research Centre of Finland.en Ruimtevaartlaboratorium (The Netherlands) 8 SINTEF Applied Mathematics (Norway) 8 CETENA S.

321 •• Number Number of of blades: blades: 44 •• Rotational Rotational Speed: Speed: 14 14 HzHz •• Maximum Maximum Skew:Skew: 27 27°° •• AE/AO: AE/AO: 0. 18 April 2005 MARINE CFD 2005 .design pitch.233 Propeller diameter: 0. PROPELLER Geometry PROPELLER Geometry Main Main propeller propeller geometry geometry data data in model scale in model scale •• Propeller diameter: 0.729 0. Monday.321 0.Southampton (UK) SUMMARY 4 . off-design pitch.233 m m •• Boss/diameter: Boss/diameter: 0.729 The The propeller propeller was was analysed analysed at at an an off .

MAIN MAIN CHARACTERISTICS CHARACTERISTICS •• Program Program based based onon aa potential potential flow flow model model •• Viscous Viscous effects effects evaluated evaluated by by an an empirical empirical formulation formulation •• All All the the blades blades are are considered considered in in the the computation computation (no(no key-blade key-blade approach) approach) •• Steady Steady version version available available Future Future implementations implementations •• Unsteady Unsteady version version (to (to be be tested) tested) •• Sheet Sheet cavitation cavitation model model (to (to be be tested) tested) •• Induced Induced pressure pressure analysis analysis (in (in progress) progress) Monday. CFD tools and computation settings Panel Panel Method Method PROPACE PROPACE PROPACE PROPACE is is aa software software code code for for the the hydrodynamic hydrodynamic analysis analysis ofof marine marine propellers. 18 April 2005 MARINE CFD 2005 . developed developed by by CETENA CETENA since since 90’s.Southampton (UK) SUMMARY 5 . 90’s. propellers.

45 SPANWISE points MKC .KT KT results results MKC MKC -. CFD tools and computation settings Panel Panel Method Method Sensitivity Sensitivity Analysis Analysis Sensitivity Sensitivity Analysis Analysis -.MKC KT 30 30 32 32 34 34 36 36 38 38 40 40 42 42 44 44 46 46 48 48 50 50 Chordwise Chordwise Direction Direction Panel Panel Number Number Monday.45 SPANWISE points KTKT MKC MKC -.35 35 SPANWISE SPANWISE points pointsKT KT MKC MKC -. 18 April 2005 MARINE CFD 2005 .30 MKC 30 SPANWISE SPANWISE points points KT KT MKC -.40 40 SPANWISE SPANWISE points pointsKT KT MKC .Southampton (UK) SUMMARY 6 .50 50 SPANWISE SPANWISE points points KT KT KT KT exp exp Experimental Experimental KT KT value value MKC KT -.

The panel grid configuration was set in order to to provide provide the the higher higher defined defined geometrical geometrical discretization: discretization: HUB HUB CONFIGURATION CONFIGURATION BLADE BLADE PANEL PANEL GRID GRID Hub Hub zone 1: zone 1: Number Number of Points in: of Points in: Length Length [m]: [m]: 0.0583 Number Number of of sections: sections: 25 25 Monday. The panel grid configuration was set in order Based on the Sensitivity Analysis.1166 0.0583 Spanwise direction Spanwise direction COSIN COSIN Number of sections: 25 Number of sections: 25 Chordwise Chordwise direction direction COSIN COSIN Hub Hub zone zone 3: 3: Length Length [m]: [m]: depending depending onon the the blade blade WAKE WAKE CONFIGURATION CONFIGURATION root root section section length length in in axial axial Number Number of of sections sections in in direction direction axial axial direction: direction: 200 200 Number of sections: 25 Number of sections: 25 Wake Wake Pitch Pitch COSTANT COSTANT Hub Hub zone zone 4: 4: Wake Wake contraction contraction model model No No Contraction Contraction Length Length [m]: [m]: 0. CFD tools and computation settings Panel Panel Grid Grid settings settings Based on the Sensitivity Analysis.Southampton (UK) SUMMARY 7 . 18 April 2005 MARINE CFD 2005 .0583 0.1166 Spanwise Spanwise direction direction 35 35 Number Number of of sections: sections: 25 25 Chordwise Chordwise direction direction 50 50 Hub Hub zone zone 2: 2: Points Points distribution distribution law: law: Length [m]: Length [m]: 0.1166 0.1166 Number Number of of sections: sections: 25 25 Hub Hub zone zone 5: 5: Length [m]: Length [m]: 0.0583 0.

.jj ⋅⋅Sin  2 T tan Arctan 2 ii.j means the area of each blade panel.Southampton (UK) SUMMARY 8 .jj ⋅⋅SSii.j is the the drag drag coefficient coefficient evaluated evaluated by by aa semi-empirical semi-empirical formulation formulation as as follows… follows… Monday.jj ⋅⋅Cos ⋅⋅(ζζ ⋅⋅R R) ζζ == 2 Q tan Arctan 2 ii. C Di.jj ⋅⋅SSii.jj 2  π ⋅ ζ ⋅  π ⋅ ζ ⋅ D  D 11   PP(ζζ)  rr QFF == ∑ ⋅⋅ρρ⋅⋅V VRR 2 ⋅⋅C CosArc CDDii.j means the area of each blade panel. 18 April 2005 MARINE CFD 2005 ..jj 2  π ⋅ ζ ⋅  π ⋅ ζ ⋅ D  D R R where where S Si..j is i. CDi.. CFD tools and computation settings Viscous Viscous Correction Correction Formulation Formulation The The thrust thrust and and torque torque coefficient coefficient are are estimated estimated by by the the potential potential and and friction friction contributions: contributions: K == K −− K K K K TT TOT TOT TT POT POT TT FRIC FRIC K TOT = KQQTOT =K POT + KQQ POT +KKQQFRIC FRIC TTFRIC Q QFRIC FRIC = =ZZ⋅⋅ FRIC = =ZZ⋅⋅ K FRIC K FRIC KTT FRIC KQQFRIC ρρ⋅⋅nn22 ⋅⋅D D4 4 ρρ⋅⋅nn22 ⋅⋅D D5 5 The The total total friction friction contributions contributions are are evaluated evaluated by by the the sum sum of of the the single single friction friction contribution contribution of of each each panel panel on on the the blade: blade: 11   PP(ζζ)  TFF == ∑ ⋅⋅ρρ⋅⋅V VRR 2 ⋅⋅C SinArc CDDii...

ForFor this this work. 18 April 2005 MARINE CFD 2005 . work. the the calculation calculation was was performed performed with with the the MKC. The The difference difference concerns concerns the the value value of of the the doublets doublets that that aa panel panel method method needs needs to to consider consider on on the the blade blade wake. but but itit has has aa lower lower stability stability due due to to the the fact fact that. the the solver solver tries tries to to minimize minimize aa numerical numerical problem problem andand then then the the solution solution can can be be affected affected by by aa non non physical physical optimisation. that. N pp D φ + W ( ∆ φ) = S jj==11 m==11 m jj==11   jj The The IKC IKC introduces correction ∆W introduces aa correction ∆W aimed aimed to to provide provide the the minimum minimum pressure pressure difference difference at at the the trailing trailing edge. (∆φ)ww = ( ) Wake Wake doublet doublet formulations: formulations: r r MKC : φuu − φll φ − φ + U ∞∞ ⋅ rtete (∆φ)ww = ( ) r r IKC : φ − φ + U ∞∞ ⋅ rtete + (∆W )ww uu ll Linear Linear equation equation system: system: N N  ∂φ  Npp N NWW Npp ∑ ijij jj ∑ imim mm ∑ ijij ∂n  .2. edge. in in this this case.K. (IKC). optimisation. case. i = 1.Southampton (UK) SUMMARY 9 . wake. Monday. MKC. CFD tools and computation settings Kutta -Joukowsky Condition Kutta-Joukowsky Condition The The PROPACE PROPACE solver solver can can be be set set with with two two different different Kutta-Joukowsky Kutta-Joukowsky condition condition models: models: the the Morino Morino Kutta Kutta Condition Condition (MKC) (MKC) andand the the Iterative Iterative Kutta Kutta Condition Condition (IKC).

7 5.Southampton (UK) SUMMARY 10 . CFD tools and computation settings RANSE RANSE Method Method :: CFX CFX 5.0D undisturbed velocity • Periodic boundary condition (non 1:1matching) • Domain skew 270° • Blade section employed for the periodic surface generation up to 0.0D undisturbed velocity • Outflow at 4.7 SOLVER: SOLVER: CFX CFX v5.7 v5.7 finite finite volume volume RANSE RANSE solver solver GRIDDER: GRIDDER: ICEM ICEM CFD-hexa CFD-hexa structured structured multiblock multiblock mesh mesh generator generator Open water => steady calculation 1 blade Rotating reference frame B. 18 April 2005 MARINE CFD 2005 .9 Monday.C.0D zero of 1st pressure derivative • Far-field at 5. • Inflow at 2.

CFD tools and computation settings RANSE RANSE Method Method Multiple Frame of Reference System (MFR): 8 the Rotating Reference Frame is applied to the fluid domain close to the propeller blade in order to add additional terms compared to those in the inertial system 8 A Frozen Rotor algorithm with a GGI interface guarantees the conservation of the fluid properties at the domain connection OUTER domain Domain Decomposition : ¾ structured multiblock ¾ 2 independent sub-domain ¾ 1.Southampton (UK) SUMMARY 11 . 18 April 2005 MARINE CFD 2005 .130.000 nodes INNER domain Monday.

Southampton (UK) SUMMARY 12 . 18 April 2005 MARINE CFD 2005 .000 nodes H Grid ( 6 main block) O Grid (5 main block) around the blade Monday. CFD tools and computation settings Domain Domain Decomposition Decomposition OUTER domain INNER domain INNER sub-domain : 830.

Southampton (UK) SUMMARY 13 . 18 April 2005 MARINE CFD 2005 . CFD tools and computation settings Domain Domain Decomposition Decomposition OUTER domain INNER domain OUTER sub-domain : 200.000 nodes H Grid ( 5 main block) O Grid (3 main block around the interface) Monday.

.

System ¾ Spatial discretisation Finite-volume colloc.Southampton (UK) SUMMARY 15 . ¾ y+ (5 ¸ 55) ¾ Convergence iterations 3100. 0. : Second ¾ Pressure-velocity CouplingFully coupled ¾ Turbulence Model Two-equations. K-e ¾ Wall function Wall function 3000 iteration 2° order scheme ¾ without press. 0) [m s-1] Monday. : Second ¾ Diffusion Terms Discr Upwind ¾ Order of acc. CFD tools and computation settings Solver Solver settings settings NUMERICAL METHOD ¾ Velocity formulation Absolute velocity dependent ¾ MFR Multi Frame Ref. ¾ Residual RMS < 10-6 ¾ multi-grid algorithm AMGW ¾ Initial Value undisturbed velocity ( Va.grad. 18 April 2005 MARINE CFD 2005 . ¾ Convection Terms Discr Upwind stnd ¾ Order of acc.

Validation Validation Monday.Southampton (UK) 16 . 18 April 2005 MARINE CFD 2005 .

.

50% Monday.81% 6.5 1.736 4.14% 4.03% 3.2 0.40% 4.88% 0.12% 2.14% 0.32% 0.18% 3.80% 10KQ J Exp 2 / Exp 1 Cet / Exp 1 Cet / Exp2 0.736 1.35% 2.73% 0.00% 3.2 0.5 1.15% 4.28% 0.15% 2.36% 6. 18 April 2005 MARINE CFD 2005 . VALIDATION Comparison Comparison of of experimental experimental data data and and RANSE RANSE results results KT J Cet / Exp 1 Exp 2 / Exp 1 Cet / Exp2 0.Southampton (UK) SUMMARY 18 .

Southampton (UK) SUMMARY 19 . VALIDATION Viscous Viscous Correction Correction Formulation Formulation For For confidentiality confidentiality reasons. •• “LAMINAR”: “LAMINAR”: concerns concerns aa formulation formulation involving involving aa friction friction coefficient coefficient (CF) (CF) depending depending on on the the Reynolds Reynolds number number inin laminar laminar condition. code. condition. 18 April 2005 MARINE CFD 2005 . •• “ENVELOPE”: “ENVELOPE”: concernsconcerns aa formulation formulation involving involving where where thethe friction friction coefficient coefficient (CF) (CF) is is the the maximum maximum between between the the laminar laminar and and the the turbulent turbulent condition. •• “TURBULENT”: “TURBULENT”: concerns concerns aa formulation formulation involving involving aa friction friction coefficient coefficient (CF) (CF) depending depending on on the the Reynolds Reynolds number number inin turbulent turbulent condition. the the detailed detailed formulations formulations cannot cannot be be published. condition. but but they they are are indicated indicated by by the the following following notations: notations: •• “ACTUAL”: “ACTUAL”: concerns concerns the the formulation formulation actually actually implemented implemented in in the the PROPACE PROPACE code. published. reasons. condition. Monday.

VALIDATION Propace Propace MODEL MODEL scale scale results results Monday.Southampton (UK) SUMMARY 20 . 18 April 2005 MARINE CFD 2005 .

VALIDATION Propace Propace MODEL MODEL scale scale results results Monday.Southampton (UK) SUMMARY 21 . 18 April 2005 MARINE CFD 2005 .

18 April 2005 MARINE CFD 2005 .Southampton (UK) SUMMARY 22 . VALIDATION Propace Propace FULL FULL scale scale results results Monday.

VALIDATION Propace Propace FULL FULL scale scale results results Monday.Southampton (UK) SUMMARY 23 . 18 April 2005 MARINE CFD 2005 .

.

.

.

40 0.20 0.50 0.00 x/C x/C Monday.734 J=0.10 -0.50 p − p0 -0.90 0.90 -0.80 0.734 -.10 0.20 -0.50 0.10 0.30 0.40 -0.80 2 -0.Southampton (UK) SUMMARY 27 .00 1.30 -0.90 0.00 -0.80 -0.20 0.60 CP = 1 -0.00 0.70 0.00 0.60 0. 18 April 2005 MARINE CFD 2005 .50 -0.20 -0.60 0.70 0.70 -0.40 -0.90 1.60 -0.00 0.10 -0.30 0.600 r/R=0.00 0.00 J=0.70 ⋅ ρ ⋅ VR 2 -0.50 0.10 -CP -CP 0.r/R=0.70 0.60 0.30 0.80 0.70 0.90 0.40 0.600 0.20 0.90 -1.10 0.30 0.50 0.60 0.80 0.40 0. CFX5 – PROPACE COMPARISON CFX5 CFX5 PROPACE PROPACE (BACK) PROPACE (BACK) PROPACE (FACE) (FACE) 1.00 -1.30 -0.80 0.20 0.40 0.00 1.

00 0.40 0.70 1 -0.00 1.70 0.90 0.00 0.r/R=0.20 0.80 0.90 0.50 0.50 -0.734 J=0.20 -0.80 -0.10 -0.50 0.30 -0.10 0.40 0.70 ⋅ ρ ⋅ VR 2 -0.80 0.20 0.80 0.70 0.700 1.10 -CP -CP 0.00 0.10 0.60 -0.00 J=0.60 0.40 0.30 0.10 -0.80 0.40 0.70 0. CFX5 – PROPACE COMPARISON CFX5 CFX5 PROPACE PROPACE (BACK) PROPACE (BACK) PROPACE (FACE) (FACE) 1.700 r/R=0.00 -0.50 p − p0 -0.90 -0.90 -1.40 -0.30 0.10 0.60 0.00 x/C Monday.60 0. 18 April 2005 MARINE CFD 2005 .00 0.60 0.20 0.90 0.Southampton (UK) SUMMARY 28 .60 CP = -0.20 0.50 0.50 0.20 -0.30 0.00 0.734 -.40 -0.00 -1.80 2 -0.30 0.30 -0.90 1.70 0.

00 -1.30 0.00 0.00 -0.80 0.20 0.00 1.60 0.50 0.60 CP = -0.90 0.10 0.60 -0.30 0.r/R=0.734 J=0.734 -.90 1.90 0.80 2 -0.60 0.50 p − p0 -0.Southampton (UK) SUMMARY 29 .70 0.10 0.90 0.00 0.30 0.10 -0.80 -0.60 0.30 -0.40 0.40 -0.80 0.70 1 -0. CFX5 – PROPACE COMPARISON CFX5 CFX5 PROPACE PROPACE (BACK) PROPACE (BACK) PROPACE (FACE) (FACE) 1.40 0.50 0.20 -0.10 -CP -CP 0.70 0.20 0.00 0.30 0.50 0.10 -0.00 0.50 -0.20 0.20 0.60 0.00 x/C Monday.800 1.10 0.00 0.90 -1.70 0. 18 April 2005 MARINE CFD 2005 .70 0.40 0.90 -0.800 r/R=0.40 0.50 0.30 -0.80 0.40 -0.00 J=0.80 0.20 -0.70 ⋅ ρ ⋅ VR 2 -0.

20 0. CFX5 – PROPACE COMPARISON CFX5 CFX5 PROPACE PROPACE (BACK) PROPACE (BACK) PROPACE (FACE) (FACE) 1.60 0.10 0.00 -1.80 0.70 0.30 0.50 0.20 0.50 p − p0 -0.00 0.60 CP = -0.70 0.00 -0.90 -0.50 0.00 0.Southampton (UK) SUMMARY 30 .90 0.50 0.00 x/C Monday.20 0.40 0.60 0.40 0.40 -0.10 0.734 -.30 0.10 -0. 18 April 2005 MARINE CFD 2005 .00 0.70 0.40 0.10 -CP -CP 0.90 -1.900 r/R=0.60 0.30 -0.40 0.10 0.30 0.90 0.80 2 -0.50 0.80 -0.20 -0.70 0.734 J=0.20 0.10 -0.80 0.90 1.70 1 -0.80 0.40 -0.r/R=0.60 0.60 -0.50 -0.00 1.30 0.90 0.00 0.30 -0.70 ⋅ ρ ⋅ VR 2 -0.900 1.00 J=0.80 0.20 -0.00 0.

.

.

.

20 -0.70 0.20 0.20 -0.50 0.80 0.80 0.30 0.20 0.00 1.60 -0.80 -0.30 -0.00 0.90 -1.60 0. CFX5 – PROPACE COMPARISON CFX5 CFX5 PROPACE PROPACE (BACK) PROPACE (BACK) PROPACE (FACE) (FACE) 1.10 -CP -CP 0.30 0.40 0.500 J=0.Southampton (UK) SUMMARY 34 . 18 April 2005 MARINE CFD 2005 .600 0.80 0.10 0.00 J=0.30 0.500 -.60 0.60 0.30 0.30 -0.70 0.r/R=0.40 0.20 0.70 0.50 p − p0 -0.20 0.70 ⋅ ρ ⋅ VR 2 -0.600 r/R=0.00 -0.10 0.60 0.70 -0.70 0.80 2 -0.50 0.10 -0.10 -0.00 0.40 -0.80 0.40 0.00 0.60 CP = 1 -0.90 0.90 0.40 -0.00 x/C x/C Monday.00 0.50 0.10 0.00 -1.50 0.90 1.90 0.00 1.90 -0.40 0.50 -0.

60 0.90 0.10 -CP -CP 0.70 0.70 0.20 0.60 -0.60 0.40 0.50 -0.30 -0.50 p − p0 -0.00 0.60 CP = 1 -0.30 -0.50 0.30 0.30 0.90 0. CFX5 – PROPACE COMPARISON CFX5 CFX5 PROPACE PROPACE (BACK) PROPACE (BACK) PROPACE (FACE) (FACE) 1.00 -1.00 0.90 1.Southampton (UK) SUMMARY 35 .80 0.40 0.10 -0.60 0.00 -0.80 0.50 0.80 -0.10 -0.20 -0.70 0.20 0.70 -0.r/R=0.00 0.60 0. 18 April 2005 MARINE CFD 2005 .90 0.50 0.90 -0.20 -0.700 r/R=0.30 0.40 -0.90 -1.70 0.30 0.80 0.00 1.40 0.00 x/C x/C Monday.00 1.70 ⋅ ρ ⋅ VR 2 -0.10 0.20 0.00 J=0.80 2 -0.10 0.80 0.20 0.500 J=0.700 0.40 0.00 0.40 -0.50 0.10 0.500 -.

40 -0.80 0.70 1 -0.70 0.800 1.00 0.60 0.10 -0.70 0.60 0.00 1.30 0.00 0.70 0.90 0.80 0.80 0.90 1.50 0.20 0.50 0.500 -.Southampton (UK) SUMMARY 36 .r/R=0.800 r/R=0.10 0.70 0.00 -1.80 -0.60 -0.20 0.20 0.20 0.00 -0.30 0. CFX5 – PROPACE COMPARISON CFX5 CFX5 PROPACE PROPACE (BACK) PROPACE (BACK) PROPACE (FACE) (FACE) 1.30 -0.10 0.30 0.50 p − p0 -0.10 0.500 J=0. 18 April 2005 MARINE CFD 2005 .40 0.90 -0.80 0.90 0.00 x/C Monday.00 J=0.10 -0.20 -0.10 -CP -CP 0.90 0.60 CP = -0.40 0.00 0.40 0.30 0.80 2 -0.00 0.90 -1.50 0.40 0.60 0.70 ⋅ ρ ⋅ VR 2 -0.60 0.40 -0.20 -0.50 0.50 -0.30 -0.00 0.

10 0.10 0.60 CP = -0.40 0.90 0.50 0.20 0.20 0.40 0.50 0.60 0.00 0.60 0.30 0.30 0.00 x/C Monday.50 p − p0 -0.40 -0.r/R=0.80 -0.80 0.70 0.90 -1.00 -0.40 -0.90 -0.60 0.10 -CP -CP 0.30 -0.40 0.80 0. 18 April 2005 MARINE CFD 2005 .500 -.00 1.90 0.00 0.00 0.10 -0.30 0.50 0.500 J=0.80 0.10 0.20 0.70 0.20 0.70 0.900 r/R=0.70 0.80 0.70 ⋅ ρ ⋅ VR 2 -0.40 0.00 -1.50 0.90 1.30 0.90 0.00 0.60 -0.30 -0.20 -0.60 0. CFX5 – PROPACE COMPARISON CFX5 CFX5 PROPACE PROPACE (BACK) PROPACE (BACK) PROPACE (FACE) (FACE) 1.10 -0.80 2 -0.00 0.900 1.Southampton (UK) SUMMARY 37 .70 1 -0.00 J=0.50 -0.20 -0.

.

Southampton (UK) SUMMARY 39 . CFX5 – PROPACE COMPARISON Pressure Pressure distribution distribution over over the the blade blade Monday. 18 April 2005 MARINE CFD 2005 .

.

20 0.80 0.30 0.50 0.00 0.10 0.200 -.90 -1.70 ⋅ ρ ⋅ VR 2 -0.00 1.50 p − p0 -0.90 1.10 -0.00 -0.30 0.600 r/R=0.50 0.00 0.60 0.30 -0.Southampton (UK) SUMMARY 41 .30 0.50 -0.00 0.90 0.20 0.80 0.10 0.20 0.80 2 -0.70 0.80 0.90 -0.40 0.90 0.00 x/C Monday.r/R=0.70 0.200 J=0.70 0.40 0.90 0.00 -1.40 0.60 0.10 -0.40 -0.40 -0.20 0.20 -0.70 -0.60 -0.50 0.00 J=0.30 0.80 0.10 -CP -CP 0.60 0.600 1.00 0.60 CP = 1 -0.60 0.30 -0.80 -0.10 0.00 0. CFX5 – PROPACE COMPARISON CFX5 CFX5 PROPACE PROPACE (BACK) PROPACE (BACK) PROPACE (FACE) (FACE) 1. 18 April 2005 MARINE CFD 2005 .70 0.20 -0.40 0.50 0.

80 0.50 0.200 -.30 -0.90 -0.50 0.30 -0.90 0.700 r/R=0.00 J=0.80 0.70 0.80 0.20 0.00 -1.40 0.00 1.80 -0.50 0.00 -0.00 x/C Monday.Southampton (UK) SUMMARY 42 .50 p − p0 -0.80 0.10 0.60 0.00 0.30 0.50 -0.70 ⋅ ρ ⋅ VR 2 -0.10 -0.50 0. 18 April 2005 MARINE CFD 2005 .40 -0.90 -1.10 0.10 -CP -CP 0.60 0.r/R=0.20 -0.00 0.90 0.40 0.00 0.40 0.20 0.10 -0.60 0.90 0.30 0.60 CP = 1 -0.10 0.80 2 -0.60 -0.20 -0.70 0.40 -0.200 J=0.90 1. CFX5 – PROPACE COMPARISON CFX5 CFX5 PROPACE PROPACE (BACK) PROPACE (BACK) PROPACE (FACE) (FACE) 1.60 0.70 -0.700 1.70 0.30 0.20 0.20 0.00 0.70 0.30 0.40 0.00 0.

70 0.40 -0.00 0.70 0.00 0.00 0.20 -0.10 0.800 0.80 0.80 0.Southampton (UK) SUMMARY 43 .50 0.70 0.00 -0.50 0.50 0.50 0.90 0.r/R=0. CFX5 – PROPACE COMPARISON CFX5 CFX5 PROPACE PROPACE (BACK) PROPACE (BACK) PROPACE (FACE) (FACE) 1.60 0.10 -0.10 0.90 -0.80 2 -0.40 0.00 0.00 x/C Monday.40 0.10 0.200 J=0.200 -.90 -1.800 r/R=0.30 0.00 -1.50 -0. 18 April 2005 MARINE CFD 2005 .40 0.00 1.50 p − p0 -0.60 0.90 1.70 -0.20 -0.30 0.60 CP = 1 -0.40 -0.70 ⋅ ρ ⋅ VR 2 -0.10 -CP -CP 0.30 -0.20 0.20 0.60 -0.00 J=0.60 0.80 0.80 0.90 0.40 0.20 0.30 -0.60 0.80 -0.30 0.10 -0.30 0.20 0.70 0.90 0.00 1.

200 J=0.30 -0.30 0.90 1.900 1.80 0.900 r/R=0.20 0.80 0.20 -0.40 0.200 -. CFX5 – PROPACE COMPARISON CFX5 CFX5 PROPACE PROPACE (BACK) PROPACE (BACK) PROPACE (FACE) (FACE) 1.80 0.50 -0.70 1 -0.00 0.10 -CP -CP 0.80 2 -0.70 0.80 0.90 -0.60 0.00 -0.50 0.70 0.50 0.70 0.30 -0.r/R=0.10 0.60 -0.60 0.00 x/C Monday.60 0.Southampton (UK) SUMMARY 44 .50 0.00 0.90 0.00 0.40 0.60 0.40 -0.00 0.80 -0.20 0.70 0.10 -0.50 0.10 -0.20 0.70 ⋅ ρ ⋅ VR 2 -0.00 -1.60 CP = -0.40 0.40 0. 18 April 2005 MARINE CFD 2005 .10 0.00 1.20 -0.90 0.00 0.90 0.30 0.50 p − p0 -0.40 -0.90 -1.30 0.20 0.30 0.00 J=0.10 0.

a difference in a range 4-5% have been found with respect to the available experimental data. Differently the torque coefficient KQ shows different accuracy: a lost of 4-5% between RANSE and experimental. CONCLUSIONS CONCLUSIONS The two codes have pointed out a similar behavior for the trust coefficient KT. To this aim. whilst the accuracy decrease to 12-15% for the panel – experimental comparison.Southampton (UK) 45 . 18 April 2005 MARINE CFD 2005 . the investigation carried out on the viscous correction formula for the panel method allowed to point out that it is possible to reduce this accuracy lost with different formulation to take into account the viscous effects. Monday.

Thank you for your attention The End INDEX .

. Sadr (Petropars Ltd. MARINE CFD 2005 30-31 March 2005. M. IRAN) 1 . H. UK NUMERICAL SIMULATION OF FREE SURFACE WAVE INDUCED SEPARATION S. Southampton University. Mousaviraad. M. S. Sadathosseini. H.

. IRAN „ Numerical Modeling „ Results „ Concluding remarks Marine CFD 2005. Outline „ Introduction „ Previous Studies Petropars „ Computational Method Ltd. Southampton University. UK 2 . 30-31 March 2005.

wake Marine CFD 2005. UK 3 .. Southampton University. because of wave making. Petropars Ltd. Introduction Hydrodynamics of surface piercing bodies involves wave effects. IRAN “Free surface wave induced separation” is separation solely due to wave induced effects. and/or incident waves. and platform stability. March 2005. 30-31 signatures. wave breaking. The problem is very important in ocean and marine engineering with regard to ship performance.

Petropars Ltd. shape effects are studied. vorticity. VOF method for free surface Marine CFD 2005. UK 4 . along with the already formidable subject of three dimensional boundary layer separation. turbulence. Southampton University. 30-31 modeling. IRAN Numerical modeling: lower cost and higher level of producible data. Present study: numerical simulation of free surface wave induced separation.. Introduction Complexities: free surface deformations. Also. March 2005.

Southampton University. „ Computational Method IRAN „ Numerical Modeling „ Results „ Concluding remarks Marine CFD 2005. UK 5 . 30-31 March 2005. Outline „ Introduction „ Previous Studies Petropars Ltd..

UK 6 . IRAN ¾It was also studied by Stern et al. Previous Studies (1) ¾The wave induced separation was first identified by Chow (1967) who performed experimental study using vertical (surface piercing) and horizontal foils.. (1989) using a surface piercing flat plate with attached wave generating upstream horizontal submerged foil (foil- Marine CFD plate model). 2005. Southampton University. Petropars Ltd. 30-31 March 2005.

grossly over/under predicted for the laminar/turbulent IRAN solutions. Previous Studies (2) ¾Choi and Stern (1993) performed laminar and turbulent CFD calculations. 2005. ¾Zhang and Stern (1996) studied the problem through RANS simulation with exact nonlinear kinematic and Marine CFD approximate dynamic free surface boundary conditions. the extent of separation region was Petropars Ltd. In comparison to the experimental data.. UK 7 . Southampton University. 30-31 March 2005.

(2001) provided detailed experimental data documentation of the wave elevations and surface pressures for surface piercing NACA0024 hydrofoil. Southampton University. UK 8 . but with different foil geometry. Marine CFD 2005. 30-31 March 2005. (1997) performed experimental study of free surface wave induced separation.. Petropars Ltd. Previous Studies (3) ¾Pogozelski et al. IRAN ¾Metcalf et al.

„ Computational Method IRAN „ Numerical Modeling „ Results „ Concluding remarks Marine CFD 2005.. 30-31 March 2005. Outline „ Introduction „ Previous Studies Petropars Ltd. UK 9 . Southampton University.

with the experimental results. numerical calculations used surface tracking methods. UK 10 . Marine CFD As a result. since all previous Southampton University. 30-31 March 2005.. the present study shows better agreement 2005. volume of fluid (VOF) which takes the effect of outer air into consideration and solves RANS equations simultaneously for both water and air. Petropars Ltd. Computational Method RANS (Reynolds Averaged Navier Stokes) simulation using RSM (Reynolds Stress Model) for turbulent modeling. IRAN Free surface modeling: an interface capturing method.

∇α w = 0 Marine CFD 2005. Southampton University. Computational Method In VOF method. This equation has the following form: ∂α w r + v . IRAN equation for the volume fraction of water. an additional transport equation is solved for the volume fraction of water in each cell. UK 11 .. 30-31 ∂t March 2005. Petropars It is accomplished by the solution of a continuity Ltd.

viscosity) are also computed in this manner. the volume fraction of air will be computed based on the following constraint: Petropars αw + αa = 1 Ltd. is given by: ρ = α w ρw + α a ρa Marine CFD 2005..g. UK All other properties (e.. Computational Method The volume fraction equation will not be solved for air. 30-31 March 2005. 12 . Southampton University. IRAN The properties appearing in the transport equations are determined by the presence of the component phases in each control volume. for example. The density in each cell.

IRAN „ Numerical Modeling „ Results „ Concluding remarks Marine CFD 2005. 30-31 March 2005. UK 13 .. Outline „ Introduction „ Previous Studies Petropars „ Computational Method Ltd. Southampton University.

. IRAN This is a simplified geometry that has insignificant separation at large depths. Fr= (0. University.. with reference to the Marine CFD 2005. and a maximum thickness of 29 cm.55) and the March 2005. 1. a span of 1. 0.37. Numerical Modeling The first model is a NACA0024 foil having a chord length of 1.26) × 10 6. Three conditions are simulated. Southampton corresponding Re= (0.52.5 m (in water).e. i.19. 0. thus making an ideal geometry by isolating the wave induced separation. Petropars Ltd. UK 14 . 30-31 experimental data.822. 2.2 m.

2005.2 m (equal to the foil chord length). Having a diameter of 1. IRAN Since the geometries are symmetrical. Petropars Ltd. UK 15 . The cells near free surface in both air and water fields are designed to be very small (2 mm height) to Marine CFD catch accurate water deformation results. it is intended to evaluate the shape effects on the wave induced separation. only half domains which consist of 215000 hexahedral structured cells are solved.. Numerical Modeling The second test case is a circular cylinder. Southampton University. 30-31 March 2005.

UK 16 . 30-31 March 2005.. Outline „ Introduction „ Previous Studies Petropars „ Computational Method Ltd. Southampton University. IRAN „ Numerical Modeling „ Results „ Concluding remarks Marine CFD 2005.

19 Marine CFD 2005. and the wave effects are limited to depths very close to the UK free surface. 30-31 March 2005. 17 . the flow recovers to 2D at about Z=-30cm. Results Petropars Ltd. Therefore. the separation region is very small.. Southampton University. At this Froude number. X-wall shear stress contours IRAN on the foil for Fr=0.

37 Marine CFD 2005. 30-31 March 2005.32.. Southampton University. Results Petropars Ltd. 18 . X-wall shear stress contours IRAN on the foil for Fr=0. extend to about Z=-1 m. and the separation in free surface area starts at about UK X/L=0. The wave effects become strong.

30-31 The wave effects become even stronger and extend to March 2005.37.56. X-wall shear stress contours IRAN on the foil for Fr=0. and the separation in free surface area occurs at about X/L=0. University.55 Marine CFD 2005. Southampton about Z=-1.15 m. 19 . UK The separation region is smaller than that of Fr=0. Results Petropars Ltd..

Results Petropars Ltd. 20 .67 University. 30-31 Separation point at free surface: X/L=0. UK The separation pattern is dominated by the shape effects.86 March 2005. X-wall shear stress contours IRAN on the circular cylinder for Fr=0. Southampton Separation point at large depths: X/L=0.19 Marine CFD 2005. and the free surface wave effects only delay the separation..

the separation pattern is 2005. and free surface wave induced Southampton University. but almost the same as those of the hydrofoil. Froude dependent. The shape effects only slightly UK delay the separation point. 21 . respectively. IRAN Separation points at free surface: X/L=0.55 Petropars Ltd.64. separation is dominant. 30-31 March 2005. which are very different from those of large depths.4 and X/L=0.37 and Fr=0. Marine CFD At these high Froude numbers.. Results X-wall shear stress contours on the circular cylinder for Fr=0.

and numerical -0. Southampton at low Froude numbers.1 IRAN results -0.05 and comparison Z(m) 0 Petropars with experimental -0.2 0. indicating that the effects of air are not significant March 2005. UK The bow wave peak is about 1.15 0 0. 30-31 Stern. Results 0.6 0.05 Ltd.19 X/L The wave profile is similar to that of a typical ship..6 percent of L.8 1 for Fr=0. The results are nearly as accurate as those of Zhang & Marine CFD 2005. University.15 Wave profile 0.1 Experiment [Zhang &Stern] Numerical [Zhang &Stern] Present Simulation along the foil 0.4 0. 22 .

Southampton University.4 0.1 0 0.5 0.9 1 X/L The free surface waves are dominated by the strong Marine CFD pressure distribution of bluff body. Results 0.3 0.1 Wave profile 0.8 0.05 Ltd.6 0.6 percent of L.19 -0.2 0.7 0.1 0. 30-31 March 2005. IRAN for Fr=0.05 along the z(m) 0 Petropars circular cylinder -0. 2005. The bow wave peak is about 6.. UK 23 .

30-31 March 2005.05 Z(m) 0 -0. 0.1 for Fr=0.15 0.15 0. 24 . which suggests the significance of the air effects at Southampton University.8 1 for Fr=0.05 Wave profile -0.6 0.2 0.1 along the foil -0.4 0.1 Experiment [Zhang &Stern] Numerical [Zhang &Stern] Present Simulation Results 0.37 X/L 0. data.55 are 6 and 12 percent of L..2 0.37 and Fr=0.15 0 0. 0.05 along the foil -0. higher Froude numbers.05 Wave profile Z(m) IRAN 0 -0.55 -0.8 1 X/L Marine CFD The present modeling agrees better with the experimental 2005. respectively. UK The bow wave peak for Fr=0.4 0.6 0.15 0 0.1 Experiment [Zhang &Stern] Numerical [Zhang &Stern] Petropars Present Simulation Ltd.

.8 0. Southampton University.9 1 X/L Petropars Ltd. The bow wave peak for Fr=0.5 0.1 0.3 0.1 0 0.55 0 0.2 0.6 0.5 0.1 0.37 -0.1 -0.8 0.3 for Fr=0.1 0.55 are 9 and UK 18 percent of L. 30-31 March 2005. Results 0.3 0.05 for Fr=0.37 and Fr=0.4 0.3 0.1 Wave profile z(m) 0 along the circular -0.6 0.2 cylinder -0.4 0.05 Wave profile z(m) along the circular 0 cylinder -0. respectively. which are much greater than those of the foil.7 0. 25 .9 1 Marine CFD X/L 2005.2 0.7 0. IRAN 0.2 0.

University.1 Ltd.19.05 Petropars at different -0.55 Comparison of the 0. Froude numbers -0.6 0. Results 0. 26 .15 0 0. the wave pattern is similar to that of ships. and the wave pattern is Marine CFD 2005.1 Fr=0. For Fr=0. the wave steepness is larger.19 Fr=0. 30-31 relatively flat in the separation region.15 0. the March 2005. and distortion of the free surface in the separation region. the bow wave becomes more significant..37 Fr=0. For Fr=0.4 0. Southampton free surface has an even more complicated wave system. wave steepness.55.2 0.05 wave profiles Z(m) 0 of the hydrofoil -0. UK with increase in bow wave peak.37.8 1 IRAN X/L For Fr=0.

4 0. Results 0. For Fr=0. the wave steepness.37 2005.3 0 0.5 0.2 numbers -0.1 Ltd. and the distortion UK in the separation region become larger with Froude. and Fr=0.7 0. Southampton University. 27 . 30-31 March 2005.1 0..55 Comparison of the 0.19. the wave patterns are Froude dependent. IRAN different Froude -0. the free surface elevations are affected by Marine CFD the strong pressure distribution of the body.3 0.9 1 x For Fr=0. The wave height.2 Fr=0.6 0.2 0.1 wave profiles of the z(m) 0 Petropars circular cylinder at -0.8 0.37 Fr=0.19 Fr=0.3 0.55.

-0.1 0.8 0. the wave pattern of the Marine CFD foil is similar to that of ships. mainly affected by the high 2005.19 0 0.2 0..1 between the wave 0.19 Comparison 0.5 0.9 1 X/L The shape effects are dominant. and the wave pattern of the Southampton University. Results (Shape Effects Investigation) Fr=0. circular cylinder is affected by the strong pressure UK distribution of the blunt shaped body. 30-31 March 2005. 28 .6 0. pressure stagnation point.4 0.1 at Fr=0.05 Circular Cylinder NACA0024 profiles of the z(m) 0 Petropars foil and the circular Ltd.7 0.3 0.05 IRAN cylinder -0.

Results (Shape Effects Investigation)
Fr=0.37
0.15
Comparison Circular Cylinder NACA0024
0.1
between the wave
0.05
profiles of the

z(m)
Petropars foil and the circular 0

Ltd.,
IRAN cylinder -0.05

at Fr=0.37 -0.1
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1

X/L

The wave pattern, i.e. the wave steepness and the trend
Marine CFD of the wave elevations, is Froude dependent. However,
2005, 30-31
March 2005, the bow wave peak and the distortions in the separation
Southampton
University, region are larger for the circular cylinder, because of its
UK
blunt shape.

29

Results (Shape Effects Investigation)
Fr=0.55
Comparison 0.3

Circular Cylinder NACA0024
0.2
between the wave 0.1

profiles of the

z(m)
0

Petropars foil and the circular -0.1
Ltd., -0.2
IRAN cylinder -0.3
at Fr=0.55 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
X/L

Although the primary pattern of the wave remains Froude
Marine CFD dependent, the shape effects seem to become stronger;
2005, 30-31
March 2005, the wave steepness, the wave height, and the distortions
Southampton
University, in the separation region are more significantly affected
UK
by the shape effects.

30

Circular Cylinder NACA0024

Frictional Pressure Total Frictional Pressure Total
0.015
0.3

Variations of Drag Coefficients
Variations of Drag Coefficients
0.25
0.01

Results 0.2

0.15

0.1

0.05
0.005

0
0

-0.05 -0.005
0.19 0.37 0.55 0.19 0.37 0.55
Fr Fr

Variations of drag coefficients Variations of drag coefficients
versus Fr for the versus Fr for the
circular cylinder hydrofoil
Petropars
Ltd.,
IRAN All values are subtracted from the corresponding values
for Fr=0.19.
As Fr increases, the pressure drag coefficient increases
due to the effects of the bow wave. The frictional drag
Marine CFD coefficient, on the other hand, decreases as Fr increases
2005, 30-31
March 2005, from 0.19 to 0.37 and then increases a little as Fr
Southampton
University, increases further to 0.55, which is consistent with the size
UK
of the separation region.

31

Results (Wave Breaking)

Petropars
Ltd.,
IRAN

Marine CFD
2005, 30-31 The phenomenon is extremely complicated due to the
March 2005,
Southampton effects of unsteadiness, turbulence, and air trapping. The
University,
UK present simulation was able to cope with these difficulties;
nevertheless further developments are needed to explain
the details of the problem. 32

Outline
„ Introduction
„ Previous Studies
Petropars
Ltd.,
„ Computational Method
IRAN
„ Numerical Modeling
„ Results
„ Concluding Remarks
Marine CFD
2005, 30-31
March 2005,
Southampton
University,
UK

33

Concluding Remarks
9The drag coefficients, the free surface waves, and the
separation patterns are all Froude dependent.

Petropars 9The bow wave peak increases with Fr.
Ltd.,
IRAN
9The separation region increases as Fr increases from
small (0.19) to medium (0.37), and then decreases as Fr
increases further to high (0.55).
Marine CFD
2005, 30-31 9Associated with the wave pattern, the pressure drag
March 2005,
Southampton coefficient increases with Fr. The frictional drag
University,
UK coefficient decreases and then increases with Fr in
agreement with the separation region.
34

Concluding Remarks

9The effects of air on the accuracy of the numerical
modeling are very significant, especially for medium and
Petropars high Fr.
Ltd.,
IRAN
9At very low Fr, wave induced separation is not strong,
and shape effects dominate the flow and separation regime.

9At higher Fr, the wave effects become very significant,
Marine CFD
2005, 30-31 and govern the primary pattern of the separation.
March 2005,
Southampton
University,
UK

35

Concluding Remarks
9The depthwise extent of the separation, despite of its
streamwise extent, is highly affected by the shape effects.

Petropars 9The distortions of the wave pattern in the separation and
Ltd.,
IRAN wake regions are shape dependent.

9At very high Fr, the flow becomes unsteady, and the
waves arise and break down periodically. Numerical
simulation is possible only with robust free surface and
Marine CFD
2005, 30-31 turbulence modeling techniques and fine grids.
March 2005,
Southampton
University,
UK

36

Concluding Remarks
9The present numerical model is useful both in taking
insight into the complicated problem of free surface wave
induced separation, and in providing an implement of
Petropars
Ltd.,
design and optimization for ocean engineering applications.
IRAN

9 The next steps are to:

9Evaluate the performance of turbulence models.
Marine CFD
9Study the effects of Reynolds number.
2005, 30-31
March 2005,
9Assess the critical Fr, at which the wave breaking
Southampton
University,
flow begins.
UK

37

Questions?

Petropars
Ltd.,
IRAN

Thank You for Your Attention
Marine CFD
2005, 30-31
March 2005,
Southampton
University,
UK

38

CFD’2005 • Southampton • March 30, 2005

Numerical simulation of yaw effect

Quixin Gao
Vladimir Shigunov
Dracos Vassalos

Department of Naval Architecture
and Marine Engineering
Universities of Strathclyde and Glasgow

Presentation outline
Quixin Gao • Vladimir Shigunov • Dracos Vassalos
Numerical simulation of yaw effect

• Introduction

• Mathematical model

• Test cases

• Validation

• Attitude effects

• Yaw effects

• Conclusions

Introduction
Quixin Gao • Vladimir Shigunov • Dracos Vassalos
Numerical simulation of yaw effect

The traditional method currently used by towing tanks
for ship manoeuvrability predictions is based on

• calculation of hydrodynamic derivatives of forces and
moments with respect to the individual degrees of freedom

• These derivatives are then used in manoeuvrability
simulation programs to evaluate ship performance in
real manoeuvres for design purposes

• using potential flow simulation methods • or regression formula Potential methods can only be used in manoeuvrability calculations with additional care because of strong viscous effects Experimentally based predictions are expensive and can be applied only to the type of hulls they were obtained for In this study. numerical solution of RANS equations was used to predict force and flow field around Series 60 ship model under steady oblique motion . Introduction Quixin Gao • Vladimir Shigunov • Dracos Vassalos Numerical simulation of yaw effect The hydrodynamic derivatives are calculated • from experiments.

Objectives Quixin Gao • Vladimir Shigunov • Dracos Vassalos Numerical simulation of yaw effect • To validate the accuracy of RANSE approach for steady sway motion • To evaluate the attitude effects • To study yaw effects .

048 m Series-60 model • Patel. Previous work Quixin Gao • Vladimir Shigunov • Dracos Vassalos Numerical simulation of yaw effect • Longo and Stern (1997) towing tank experiments of yaw effect on ship flow for a 3. Ju and Lew (1990) one of first numerical studies into asymmetric effect * neglected free surface effect * only stern part of model was included in the simulation • Cura Hochbaum (1998) numerical simulation for steady drift motion * free surface and ship attitude effects were not considered in the calculation • Alessandrini and Delhommeau (1998) calculated viscous free surface flows past Series-60 in steady sway motion and steady circulation * ship attitude effects were excluded .

Mathematical Model Quixin Gao • Vladimir Shigunov • Dracos Vassalos Numerical simulation of yaw effect Governing Equations • continuity equation: r ∇ ⋅V = 0 • momentum equations: r rr r ∂ ( ρV ) / ∂t + ∇ ⋅ ( ρVV ) = ρ g − ∇P + ∇ ⋅τ • turbulence model: r ∂ ( ρ k ) / ∂t + ∇ ⋅ ( ρVk ) = P − ρε + ∇ ⋅ [( µ + µt / σ k )∇k ] r ∂ ( ρε ) / ∂t + ∇ ⋅ ( ρV ε ) = C1 Pε / k − C2 ρε 2 / k + ∇ ⋅ [( µ + µt / σ ε )∇ε ] • mass conservation – transport of water volume fraction r ∂rw / ∂t + ∇ ⋅ (rwV ) = 0 .

316 • The computational cases are listed below . Validation of Numerical Model Quixin Gao • Vladimir Shigunov • Dracos Vassalos Numerical simulation of yaw effect Test case: • Series-60 hull form • numerical study * of free surface effect * attitude change effect * and yaw angle effect on ship hydrodynamics • in all test cases. Froude number was 0.

316 10 no no no 0. Validation of Numerical Model Quixin Gao • Vladimir Shigunov • Dracos Vassalos Numerical simulation of yaw effect Froude yaw angle sinkage trim heel number 0.316 2.316 10 double model 0.5 yes yes yes 0.316 5 yes yes yes 0.316 7.316 10 yes yes yes 0.5 yes yes yes .

Validation of Numerical Model Quixin Gao • Vladimir Shigunov • Dracos Vassalos Numerical simulation of yaw effect Grid • several three-dimensional grids were generated • the total cell numbers about 400000 • based on the uncertainty study of resistance calculations 0 Z -2 2 0 Y -2 0 2 -2 4 6 X 8 10 .

star 0.01 0 0.2 x/L .01 0 -0.4 0.04 measured.02 0.03 computed. port computed. Validation of Numerical Model Quixin Gao • Vladimir Shigunov • Dracos Vassalos Numerical simulation of yaw effect Wave profile (restrained condition.6 0. no attitude change): ζ /L 0.8 1 1.2 0. port measured. star 0.

0224 17 0.0101 0 0 0 0.5 1 1. Validation of Numerical Model Quixin Gao • Vladimir Shigunov • Dracos Vassalos Numerical simulation of yaw effect Wave Pattern (restrained condition.5 X/L X/L measurement calculation .0021 7 0.0183 15 0.0143 11 0.0020 3 -0.5 0 0.0102 0.0143 13 0.0060 1 -0.0224 15 0.5 9 0.0101 1 -0.0265 19 0.0102 11 0.0062 7 0.0183 13 0.0060 3 -0.0265 17 0.5 0.0021 Y/L Y/L 5 -0.5 1 1.0020 5 -0. no attitude change): 1 1 Level z Level z 19 0.0062 9 0.

04 z 0.05 y .08 -0.91 0.74 0.79 -0.05 0 0.96 3 0.96 (hydrostatic attitude) 0.02 U 1 1.87 • calculation 4 0 -0.91 0.1 -0.83 0.07 -0.05 0 0.0 0 -0.96 0.00 -0.01 • calculation -0.06 0.04 z 0. Validation of Numerical Model Quixin Gao • Vladimir Shigunov • Dracos Vassalos 1.74 (trim.01 Velocity field at x/L = 0.05 y 1.00 7 -0.01 0 6 -0.07 me 003  01 Feb 2005  title -0.08 -0.05 0.00 0.05 0.91 9 0.05 y 1.74 0.04 z 0.79 z • measurement -0.08 -0.02 -0.0 Numerical simulation of yaw effect 0 -0.0 0 -0. heel and sinkage corresponding -0.87 -0.83 0.70 -0.83 0.05 0.05 0 0.79 -0.87 -0.07 -0.70 -0.06 (hydrostatic attitude) -0.70 to the running attitude) -0.02 U 1.03 0.03 U 1.03 0.06 -0.

04 0.06 0.72 (hydrostatic attitude) -0.85 z 0.05 y 0 1.05 y .9 0 1.02 U 0.72 to the running attitude) -0.58 0.65 0.02 U 0.92 -0.65 0.0 -0.99 0. heel and sinkage corresponding -0.78 0.51 Frame 003  01 Feb 2005  title -0.51 -0.85 z 0.72 0.51 -0.05 0 0.0 -0.92 (trim.05 0 0. Validation of Numerical Model Quixin Gao • Vladimir Shigunov • Dracos Vassalos Numerical simulation of yaw effect Velocity field at x/L = 0.06 0.06 0.78 0.58 0.85 z 0.05 0 0.04 0.99 0.04 0.58 0.0 • calculation -0.05 y 0 1.99 0.08 -0.02 U 0.65 (hydrostatic attitude) -0.08 0.08