record_id=11536
ISBN
9780309101042
1192 pages
web only
2005
Distribution, posting, or copying of this PDF is strictly prohibited without written permission of the National Academies Press.
Unless otherwise indicated, all materials in this PDF are copyrighted by the National Academy of Sciences.
Request reprint permission for this book
TwentyFifth Symposium on
NAVAL HYDRODYNAMICS
Wave Hydrodynamics
Propulsor Hydrodynamics
Ships and Propulsion in Ice
Hydrodynamics of Fast or Unconventional Ships
Viscous Ship Hydrodynamics
Hydrodynamics of Underwater Vehicles
Wake Dynamics
Fluid Dynamics in the Naval Context
Cavitation and Bubbly Flows
Nonlinear WaveInduced Motions and Loads
Frontier Experimental Techniques
Maneuvering
Hydrodynamics in Ship Design and Optimization
Hydrostructural Acoustics
TwentyFifth Symposium on
NAVAL HYDRODYNAMICS
Wave Hydrodynamics
Propulsor Hydrodynamics
Ships and Propulsion in Ice
Hydrodynamics of Fast or Unconventional Ships
Viscous Ship Hydrodynamics
Hydrodynamics of Underwater Vehicles
Wake Dynamics
Fluid Dynamics in the Naval Context
Cavitation and Bubbly Flows
Nonlinear WaveInduced Motions and Loads
Frontier Experimental Techniques
Maneuvering
Hydrodynamics in Ship Design and Optimization
Hydrostructural Acoustics
Sponsored Jointly by
Office of Naval Research
National Research Council, Institute for Ocean Technology, Newfoundland
Memorial University of Newfoundland
Naval Studies Board
Washington, DC 20001
NOTICE: The project that is the subject of this proceedings was approved by the Governing Board of the National
Research Council, whose members are drawn from the councils of the National Academy of Sciences, the National
Academy of Engineering, and the Institute of Medicine.
A portion of the work done to prepare this document was performed under Department of the Navy Contract N0001402I0563 issued by the Office of Naval Research under contract authority NR 201124. However, the content does not
necessarily reflect the position or the policy of the Department of the Navy or the government, and no official
endorsement should be inferred.
This work also relates to Department of the Navy Grant N000140211007 issued by the Office of Naval Research
International Field Office. The United States Government has at least a royaltyfree, nonexclusive, and irrevocable
license throughout the world for government purposes to publish, translate, reproduce, deliver, perform, and dispose of
all or any of this work, and to authorize others so to do.
Copies available from:
Naval Studies Board
National Academies
500 Fifth Street, N.W., Room WS904
Washington, DC 20001
Additional copies of this report are available from the National Academies Press, 500 Fifth Street, N.W., Lockbox 285,
Washington, DC 20055; (800) 6246242 or (202) 3343313 (in the Washington metropolitan area); Internet,
http://www.nap.edu
The proceedings are also available online at the National Academies Presss Web site at <http://www.nap.edu>.
Copyright 2005 by the National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
The National Academy of Sciences is a private, nonprofit, selfperpetuating society of distinguished scholars
engaged in scientific and engineering research, dedicated to the furtherance of science and technology and to their
use for the general welfare. Upon the authority of the charter granted to it by the Congress in 1863, the Academy
has a mandate that requires it to advise the federal government on scientific and technical matters. Dr. Bruce M.
Alberts is president of the National Academy of Sciences.
The National Academy of Engineering was established in 1964, under the charter of the National Academy of
Sciences, as a parallel organization of outstanding engineers. It is autonomous in its administration and in the
selection of its members, sharing with the National Academy of Sciences the responsibility for advising the federal
government. The National Academy of Engineering also sponsors engineering programs aimed at meeting national
needs, encourages education and research, and recognizes the superior achievements of engineers. Dr. Wm. A.
Wulf is president of the National Academy of Engineering.
The Institute of Medicine was established in 1970 by the National Academy of Sciences to secure the services of
eminent members of appropriate professions in the examination of policy matters pertaining to the health of the
public. The Institute acts under the responsibility given to the National Academy of Sciences by its congressional
charter to be an adviser to the federal government and, upon its own initiative, to identify issues of medical care,
research, and education. Dr. Harvey V. Fineberg is president of the Institute of Medicine.
The National Research Council was organized by the National Academy of Sciences in 1916 to associate the
broad community of science and technology with the Academys purposes of furthering knowledge and advising the
federal government. Functioning in accordance with general policies determined by the Academy, the Council has
become the principal operating agency of both the National Academy of Sciences and the National Academy of
Engineering in providing services to the government, the public, and the scientific and engineering communities.
The Council is administered jointly by both Academies and the Institute of Medicine. Dr. Bruce M. Alberts and Dr.
Wm. A. Wulf are chair and vice chair, respectively, of the National Research Council.
www.nationalacademies.org
Attendees at the TwentyFifth Symposium on Naval Hydrodynamics, St. Johns, Newfoundland, August 813, 2004.
MAURIZIO LANDRINI
March 2, 1963June 26, 2003
Dr. Maurizio Landrini was tragically killed in a motorcycle accident in Rome, Italy, on June 26, 2003. He is
survived by his wife Sara and son Lorenzo, who was born after the accident. Dr. Landrini was an outstanding
marine hydrodynamics researcher who had been selected as the 2003 Georg Weinblum Lecturer. He was born on
March 2, 1963, and earned his Ph.D. degree in theoretical and applied mechanics at the University of Rome. Except
for short periods as a visiting researcher at the Ocean Engineering Laboratory, University of California, Santa
Barbara, and at the Department of Marine Technology, Norwegian University of Science and Technology, he
worked his entire career at INSEAN, the Italian Ship Model Basin. Dr. Landrini had deep knowledge in numerical
and experimental techniques for freesurface waves, fluidstructure interactions, and ship hydrodynamics. He was
manager of the towing tank activities at INSEAN. He was a member of the International Ship and Offshore
Structures Congress Committee on Loads and of the International Towing Tank Conference Maneuvering
Committee. He authored or coauthored over 80 journal articles and conference papers. An enthusiastic and
innovative researcher, he was a personal friend to many in the field. He will be greatly missed in the marine
hydrodynamics community.
Foreword
Contents
OPENING REMARKS
John Leggat, CEO Defense Research and Development Canada
Stephen Lubard, Technical Director, Office of Naval Research
Axel Meisen, President and Vice Chancellor, Memorial University of Newfoundland
William Morgan, Naval Studies Board, National Research Council of the United States
Michael Reymont, National Research Council, Canada
KEYNOTE SPEAKERS
Wave Breaking
R. Leighton (General DynamicsAIS, USA), paper not available
Ships in IceA Review
S. Jones (Institute for Ocean Technology, National Research Council, Canada)
Nuclei Effects on Cavitation Inception and Noise
G. Chahine (Dynaflow, Inc., USA)
Ship Maneuverability in Shallow Water
K. Kijima (Kyushu University, Japan)
TECHNICAL SESSIONS
Wave Hydrodynamics
Numerical Simulations of Breaking Waves Around an Advancing Ship by an Unstructured NS Solver
T. Hino (National Maritime Research Institute, Japan)
Numerical Simulations of Breaking Wave Around a Wedge
R. Broglia, A. Di Mascio, and R. Muscari (INSEAN, Italian Ship Model Basin, Italy)
A BEMLevel Set Domain Decomposition for Violent TwoPhase Flows in Ship Hydrodynamics
G. Colicchio and M. Greco (INSEAN, Italian Ship Model Basin, Italy) and
O. Faltinsen (Centre for Ships and Ocean Structures, Norwegian University of Science and Technology,
Norway)
The Numerical Simulation of Ship Waves Using Cartesian Grid Methods with Adaptive Mesh Refinement
D. Dommermuth,1 M. Sussman,2 R. Beck,3 T. OShea,1 D. Wyatt,1 K. Olson,4 and P. MacNeice5 (1Science
Applications International Corporation, 2Florida State University, 3University of Michigan, 4University of
Maryland at Baltimore County, 5Drexel University, USA)
Experimental Measurements of the Surface of a Breaking Bow Wave
A. Karion, T. Fu, J. Rice, D. Walker, and D. Furey (Naval Surface Warfare Center, Carderock Division, USA)
Experimental Study of the Bow Wave of the R/V Athena I
T. Fu, A. Karion, J. Rice, and D. Walker (Naval Surface Warfare Center, Carderock Division, USA)
An Experimental Investigation of Breaking Bow Waves Simulated with a 2D+T Technique
M. Shakeri, X. Liu, S. Goll, and J. Duncan (University of Maryland, USA)
Maneuvering
Unsteady RANS Simulation of a Maneuvering Ship Hull
A. Di Mascio, R. Broglia, and R. Muscari (Istituto Nazionale per Studi ed Esperienze di Architettura Navale,
Italy) and R. Dattola (Italian Navy General Staff, Italy)
Validation of Forces, Moments and Stability Derivatives of a Maneuvering Series58 Bare Hull
C.H. Sung, B. Rhee, and I.Y. Koh (Naval Surface Warfare Center, Carderock Division, USA)
Hydrodynamics in Ship Design and Optimization
Comparison and Validation of CFD Based Local Optimization Methods for Surface Combatant Bow
E. Campana and D. Peri (INSEAN, Italian Ship Model Basin), Y. Tahara (Osaka Prefecture University, Japan),
and F. Stern (University of Iowa, USA)
Parametric Optimization of SWATHull Forms by a ViscousInviscid Free Surface Method Driven by a Differential
Evolution Algorithm
S. Brizzolara (University of Genova, Italy)
Theoretical Hull Form Optimization for Fine HigherSpeed Ships
K.S. Min Hyundai (Heavy Industries, Korea) and Y.S. Lee, S.H. Kang, and B.W. Han (Hyundai Maritime
Research Institute, Korea)
Hull Form Optimization Using a Free Surface RANSE Solver
E. Jacquin, Q. Derbanne, D. Bellvre, and S. Cordier (Bassin dessais des carnes, France), B. Alessandrini,
(Ecole Centrale de Nantes, France), and Y. Roux (KEpsilon, France)
Hydrostructural Acoustics
A PhysicsBased Simulation Methodology for Predicting Hydrofoil Singing
E. Paterson, J. Poremba, L. Peltier, and S. Hambric (Pennsylvania State University, USA)
Characterizing and Attenuating the LargeScale Oscillations Downstream of Shallow Cavities Covered by a
PerforatedLid
S. Jordan (Naval Undersea Warfare Center, Newport Division, USA)
Hull Excitation by Fluctuating and Rotating Acoustic Sources at the Propeller
O. Spivack,1 R. Kinns,2 and N. Peake1 (1University of Cambridge, United Kingdom, 2RKAcoustics, Scotland)
List of Attendees
M. Islam
Memorial University of Newfoundland
AUSTRALIA
L.J. Doctors
University of New South Wales
K. Thiagarajan
University of Western Australia
J. Xia
Australian Maritime College
J. Kennedy
Defence Research Development Canada (Atlantic)
V. Klaptocz
University of British Columbia
M. Lau
Institute for Ocean Technology, NRCC
AUSTRIA
G. Strasser
Vienna Model Basin
F. Lin
Martec Limited
P.I. Liu
Institute for Ocean Technology, NRCC
BRAZIL
J. Sales, Jr.
Cidade Universitaria
C. Moores
Department of National Defence
D.C. Murdey
National Research Council, Canada
BULGARIA
K.Yossifov
Bulgarian Ship Hydrodynamics Centre
D.J. Noble
Defence Research Development Canada (Atlantic)
B. Parsons
Institute for Ocean Technology, NRCC
CANADA
N. Bose
Memorial University of Newfoundland
S. Calisal
University of British Columbia
A. DerradjiAouat
Institute for Ocean Technology, NRCC
S. El Lababidy
Memorial University of Newfoundland
D. Hally
Defence Research Development Canada (Atlantic)
M. He
Memorial University of Newfoundland
T.C. Humphrey
Consultant
S. Jones
Institute for Ocean Technology, NRCC
J. Pawlowski
TRDC, Inc.
W. Qiu
Memorial University of Newfoundland
S. Sarkar
Memorial University of Newfoundland
D. Spencer
Oceanic Consulting Corporation
R. Taylor
Memorial University of Newfoundland
D. Vyselaar
University of British Columbia
D. Walker
Oceanic Consulting Corporation
J. Wang
Memorial University of Newfoundland
L. Lubke
SchiffbauVersuchsanstalt Potsdam
G. Watt
Defence Research Development Canada (Atlantic)
M. Mehmel
SchiffbauVersuchsanstalt Potsdam
CHINA
ISRAEL
Y.S. Wu
China Ship Scientific Research Center
G. Zilman
TelAviv University
K. Yan
China Ship Scientific Research Center
ITALY
FINLAND
G. Caprino
CETENA
T. Kukkanen
VTT Industrial Systems
S. Brizzolara
University of Genova
FRANCE
R. Broglia
Istituto Nazionale per Studi ed Esperienze di
Architettura Navale
B. Alessandrini
Ecole Centrale de Nantes
U.P. Bulgarelli
Istituto Nazionale per Studi ed Esperienze di
Architettura Navale
S. Cordier
Bassin dEssais des Carnes
E. Campana
Istituto Nazionale per Studi ed Esperienze di
Architettura Navale
P. Ferrant
Ecole Centrale de Nantes
G. Colicchio
Istituto Nazionale per Studi ed Esperienze di
Architettura Navale
E. Jacquin
Bassin dEssais des Carnes
R. Luquet
Ecole Centrale de Nantes
R. Dattola
Italian Navy
M. Visonneau
Ecole Centrale de Nantes
F. Di Felice
Istituto Nazionale per Studi ed Esperienze di
Architettura Navale
GERMANY
A. Di Mascio
Istituto Nazionale per Studi ed Esperienze di
Architettura Navale
M. AbdelMaksoud
University of Duisburg
M. Felli
Istituto Nazionale per Studi ed Esperienze di
Architettura Navale
J. Blaurock
Consultant
O. el Moctar
Germanischer Lloyd
J. Friesch
Hamburgische ShiffbauVersuchsanstalt
A. Iafrati
Istituto Nazionale per Studi ed Esperienze di
Architettura Navale
C. Lugni
Istituto Nazionale per Studi ed Esperienze di
Architettura Navale
KOREA
B.J. Chang
Hyundai Heavy Industries Co., Ltd.
F.J. Pereira
Istituto Nazionale per Studi ed Esperienze di
Architettura Navale
H.H. Chun
Pusan National University
G. Pisi
Istituto Nazionale per Studi ed Esperienze di
Architettura Navale
C.G. Kang
Korean Research Institute of Ships and Ocean
Engineering
F. Pistani
Istituto Nazionale per Studi ed Esperienze di
Architettura Navale
C.S. Lee
Chungham National University
F. Salvatore
Istituto Nazionale per Studi ed Esperienze di
Architettura Navale
M. Soave
Centro Esperienze Idrodinamiche Marina Militare
Y.S. Lee
Hyundai Heavy Industries Co., Ltd.
J.C. Park
Pusan National University
W.G. Park
Pusan National University
D.J. Yum
Hyundai Heavy Industries Co., Ltd.
JAPAN
T. Hino
National Maritime Research Institute
THE NETHERLANDS
K. Kijima
Kyushu University
H.C. Raven
Maritime Research Institute
Y. Kodama
National Maritime Research Institute
A. Masuko
IshikawajimaHarima Heavy Industries Co., Ltd.
R. Miyake
Nippon Kaiji Kyokai
NORWAY
H. Miyazaki
National Maritime Research Institute
H. Narita
Office of Naval Research, Asia
O.A. Hermundstad
Marintek
K. Holden
Marintek
Y. Tahara
Osaka Prefecture University
POLAND
N. Toki
Mitsubishi Heavy Industries, Ltd.
L. Wilczynski
Centrum Techniki Okretowej
Y. Ukon
National Maritime Research Institute
D. Broutman
Computational Physics, Inc.
RUSSIA
A. Pustoshny
Krylov Shipbuilding Research Institute
B. Campbell
Naval Surface Warfare Center, Carderock
S.L. Ceccio
University of Michigan
SWEDEN
R. Bensow
Chalmers University of Technology
M. Liefvendahl
Swedish Defence Research Agency
T. Persson
Chalmers University of Technology
W. van Berlekom
SSPA Sweden AB
I.B. Celik
University of West Virginia
G.L. Chahine
Dynaflow, Inc.
C. Chesnakas
Naval Surface Warfare Center, Carderock
J.K. Choi
Dynaflow, Inc.
D. Cusanelli
Naval Surface Warfare Center, Carderock
TAIWAN
S.K. Chou
United Ship Design and Development Center
F. DeBord
BMT Scientific Marine Services
D. Dommermuth
Science Applications International Corporation
UNITED KINGDOM
M. Atlar
University of Newcastle
J. Dreyer
Applied Research Laboratory, Pennsylvania State
University
C. Jennings
DST International
J. Duncan
University of Maryland
R. Kinns
RKAcoustics
M. Renilson
QinetiQ
J. Eaton
Applied Research Laboratory, Pennsylvania State
University
UNITED STATES
A. Engle
Naval Surface Warfare Center, Carderock
P. Atsavapranee
Naval Surface Warfare Center, Carderock
R. Etter
Naval Surface Warfare Center, Carderock
R.F. Beck
University of Michigan
T. Fu
Naval Surface Warfare Center, Carderock
R. Bishop
Naval Surface Warfare Center, Carderock
D.A. Furey
Naval Surface Warfare Center, Carderock
A. Brandt
Applied Physics Laboratory, Johns Hopkins
University
J.J. Gorski
Naval Surface Warfare Center, Carderock
C.T. Hsiao
Dynaflow, Inc.
W. Morgan
Rockville, Maryland
S. Huyer
Naval Undersea Warfare Center, Newport
T. Nguyen
Naval Surface Warfare Center, Panama City
M. Hyman
Coastal Systems Station, Panama City
E. Paterson
Applied Research Laboratory, Pennsylvania State
University
M. Irvine
Naval Surface Warfare Center, Carderock
S. Jessup
Naval Surface Warfare Center, Carderock
S. Jordan
Naval Undersea Warfare Center, Newport
R.D. Joslin
Office of Naval Research
L. Patrick Purtell
Office of Naval Research
A.M. Reed
Naval Surface Warfare Center, Carderock
J. Rice
Naval Surface Warfare Center, Carderock
J. Rottman
Science Applications International Corporation
A. Karion
Naval Surface Warfare Center, Carderock
J. Kim
American Bureau of Shipping
C. Schemm
Applied Physics Laboratory, Johns Hopkins
University
K.H. Kim
Naval Surface Warfare Center, Carderock
S. Scorpio
Applied Physics Laboratory, Johns Hopkins
University
S.E. Kim
Fluent, Inc.
J. Shan
Rutgers University
S. Kinnas
University of Texas at Austin
A. Sirviente
University of Michigan
I.Y. Koh
Naval Surface Warfare Center, Carderock
J. Slutsky
Naval Surface Warfare Center, Carderock
R. Lahey
Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute
F. Stern
University of Iowa
R. Leighton
General Dynamics
C.H. Sung
Naval Surface Warfare Center, Carderock
R.Q. Lin
Naval Surface Warfare Center, Carderock
T. Sur
Science Applications International Corporation
W.M. Lin
Science Applications International Corporation
G. Wilkie
Lockheed Martin Maritime Systems and Sensors
S. Lubard
Office of Naval Research
R. Wilson
University of Iowa
T. Michael
Naval Surface Warfare Center, Carderock
D. Wyatt
Science Applications International Corporation
C. Yang
George Mason University
S. Yim
Oregon State University
Y.L. Young
Princeton University
Recherche et dveloppement
pour la dfense Canada
Canada
Propeller Hydrodynamics
Navies have always had a requirement for high performance
propellers, and since the 1940s they have also been been
concerned with quiet propellers:
DRDC started with the hardest problems first  developing
supercavitating propellers for hydrofoil ships (1970s)
Ship Hydrodynamics
Navy ships have a requirement to operate effectively and efficiently in
extreme sea conditions
This has led to continuous improvement of methods to predict motions and
loads
2D strip theory codes have been around for decades and are still used today
Technology has moved on to 3D panel methods and time domain codes
including nonlinear effects
Submarine Hydrodynamics
As with surface ships, requirements are for submarines to
achieve effective hydrodynamic performance and
establish safe maneuvering limitation diagrams
Unlike ships, most of this effort has been undertaken by
navies
Work in this area is a complex mix of analytical and
experimental development
where flow
characteristics
representative of
extreme maneuvers
are obtained.
Welcome
To the 25th
Symposium on
Naval Hydrodynamics
Dr. Stephen Lubard
Technical Director
Wakes
Evolution of Naval
Requirements
New
Configurations
Expanded Range
Of Ship Size
USVs
Intratheater
Broad Impact on
Science and Technology Needs
New
Operating Ranges
Unprecedented
Performance
High
Speeds
Reduced
Detection
New
Technologies
Materials,
Efficiency,
Electric Ship
Smaller Craft
Unmanned Surface Vessels
High speed response craft
Ducted Propulsor
Superconducting Motor
Enabling Technologies
Computational Fluid Dynamics
Fluid Structure Simulations
Microbubble and polymer drag reduction
Materials Science
40 micron
Sintered
Metal
Flow
MICROBUBBLES
AIR
Photo of Microbubbles
CFD of Propulsor/Hull Interaction
CFD of Lifting Body Pressures
Education
Goals:
Near Term: Strengthen the
Ocean Engineering, Naval
Architecture and Marine
Engineering departments
Far Term: Recruit the
students to ensure a
strong naval engineering
community for the future
Government
National Naval
Responsibility for
Naval Engineering
Academia
Industry
BACKUPS
ARMY
10,000 tons
70 kts
Propulsion
Metrics:
Hull Forms
Metrics:
Hull Materials
Metrics:
Ride Control
Metrics:
Power Density
Efficiency
Minimize drag
(friction, form, and
wavemaking)
Stable, smooth
Controllable /
adjustable
Technologies:
Engine / Drivetrain
Mechnical drive vs.
electric drive
Propulsor choice
Technologies:
Optimize hull form
Control emersion
(dynamic lift)
Fluid drag reduction
Technologies:
Technologies:
Environmental
sensing
Algorithms
Control surfaces and
actuators
Memorial University of
Newfoundland
Axel Meisen, Ph.D., P.Eng,
President and ViceChancellor
Newfoundland
and Labrador
Canada
USA
Great Britain
Area
(k km2)
People
(M)
People per
km2
404
0.5
10,000
31.0
9,600
293.0
30
244
60.3
247
Main Industries
Traditional:
Fishing
Forestry
Iron ore mining
New:
Oil and gas
Nickel
Tourism
Knowledge
Marine Institute
St. Johns
Harlow Campus
England
Enrollments
Students
Memorial University
17,000
18,300
University of Cambridge, UK
17,300
17,000
Academic Programs
Arts
Business
Education
Engineering
Fine Arts
Human Kinetics
Maritime Studies
Medicine
Music
Nursing
Pharmacy
Science
Social Work
Technology
Terra Nova
150,000 bbd
Proven Reserves:
Oil: 2.1 B bbl Gas: 9.8 TCF
NGL: 0.4 B bbl
Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
Whiterose
100,000 bbd
Wave Tank
Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
Marine Transportation of
Compressed Natural Gas
Serpil
Kocabiyik
Claude
Daley
Neil Bose
Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
Design Evaluation
Dan Walker
Oceanic
2003 Americas
Cup Winner
Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
W
.A
us
tr
al
ia
am
br
id
ge
or
d
St
an
f
M
em
or
ia
l
$0
Memorial University
Opening Remarks
William B. Morgan, Dr. Eng. Retired
Former Head of Ship Hydromechanics Directorate
David Taylor Model Basin
Naval Surface Warfare Center, Carderock Division
Good morning, it is an honor for me to make a few opening remarks at this 25th
ONR Naval Hydrodynamics Symposium. In addition, it is always a pleasure to come to
St. Johns and visit friends at IMD (now called IOT) and Memorial University. I should,
particularly, mention Chairman David Murdey whom I first met at the 10th ITTC in
1963.
Since this is the Silver anniversary of the ONR Symposium, I thought it would
be appropriate to spend a little time looking back. About 400 scientists and engineers
attended the first symposium in 1956, which was dedicated in honor of Captain Harold E.
Saunders who was the U.S. Navy captain in charge of building the David Taylor Model
Basin. From the beginning, the US National Academy of Sciences through its National
Research Council, represented today by the Naval Studies Board, were partners with
ONR in these biennial symposia. The first two symposia were held in Washington, D.
C., but starting in 1960 the present rotation of venue was developed with the third
symposium being held in The Netherlands. From that time, the Symposium has
alternated location between the American continent and overseas.
The concept of such a symposium, I believe, was the brainchild of Marshall Tulin
who went from the David Taylor Model Basin to ONR with Phil Eisenberg in the mid1950's. Marshall formulated and developed the technical program of invited papers
which contained critical, timely surveys of various aspects of Naval Hydrodynamics.
The presenters of the surveys whom Marshall assembled were the Who's Who of that
day in hydrodynamics. Some of the presenters were: Louis MilneThomson, Sir James
Lighthill, Walter Munk, Georg Weinblum, John Wehausen, Herman Lerbs, Garrett
Birkhoff, John Parkinson, Murray Strasberg, Milton Plesset, Stanley Corrsin, George
Batchelor, among others. Fittingly, over the years the Symposium has evolved into
papers on research topics as proposed by the authors with the Keynote Lectures
becoming the survey papers. This symposium has carried on over the years as the
premier symposium on naval hydrodynamics in the world.
So what has changed over the years  not much as far as the general topics go.
There are participants from more countries today and papers on specific research
dominate. The big change has been the change in technology. Of particular note is the
use of computers for numerical calculations and development of laserbased, nonintrusive instrumentation, e.g. holography, LDV, PDV, etc. In 1956, there was only a
brief mention in one paper and in discussions of five papers of electronic computer
calculations. The only electronic computer data shown was by Stoker in a discussion
of Lighthill's paper entitled River Waves where the observed flood stages of a river
was compared to calculations performed using the UNIVAC. Also in regard to
electronic computer calculations, Saunders said in a discussion of Niedermair's paper
entitled Hydrodynamic Barriers in Ship Design, There has been a lot of talk about
electronic computers, but don't let us forget that, in general, in order to work an electronic
The early theoretical work has been the basis for the advancement in numerical
techniques and our understanding of fluid mechanics.
2.
Progress in computers has led to both improved numerical procedures and flow
measurements.
3.
There will always be a critical need to look at both numerical and experimental
data. Do they make physical sense?
4.
All the problems are not solved. Hydrodynamics is still the key to the advances in
future ships. The future is still ahead.
Thank you all for making this 25th ONR Naval Hydrodynamic Symposium a crowning
success.
National Research
Council Canada
Conseil national
de recherches Canada
Michael Raymont
9 August 2004
ABSTRACT
A historical review of the literature on the
performance of ships in ice is given from 1888 to
2004.
INTRODUCTION
The object of this paper is to provide an uptodate
(2004) review of the scientific literature on ship
performance in ice. This forms an updated version of
my previous review (Jones 1989), now 15 years old.
It considers only unclassified work in the open
literature and, unfortunately, probably gives too much
emphasis to those papers written in English. It was
not the intention to deal with the construction of, or
strength of, icebreaking ships, nor is the science of
modelling discussed in any detail.
HISTORICAL REVIEW
To 1900
Runeberg (1888/89) published the first scientific
paper on icebreakers with particular reference to the
Baltic. He discussed both continuous icebreaking
and charging and derived expressions for the
vertical pressure at the bow, the thickness of ice
broken, and the total elevation at the foreend
calculated from ship geometry for the case of
continuous icebreaking. He claimed that the results
agreed, tolerably well with the actual performance
of six ships. He recognized the importance of hullice friction on resistance, taking, without any
apparent justification, a coefficient of friction of 0.05,
as well as the role of the stem angle of the bow:
the vertical component should be as large as
possible. This is effected by making the bow very
sloping at the waterline. This is still true today.
Nothing else was published in the 19th Century.
1900 1945
Kari (1921) gave, in a brief note, some empirical
equations for determining the required power,
displacement, length, and draught of an icebreaking
(1)
(2)
(4)
dividing by h to get
R ' = C o + C1B ' N + C 2 B ' NI
(5)
and then obtained a best fit with fullscale and modelscale tests of Windclass, Raritan, M9 and M15
h
T
1.53
(6)
tan(i + )
(h
T)
against
where
T = draft of ship
w = density of water and = w  i .
By doing model tests at low speed (v=0) as well
as normal speeds he was able to isolate the velocity
dependent term, and by doing tests in presawn ice
( = 0 ) he was able to isolate the submergence term.
He was able, therefore, to determine the relative
importance of the three terms in his equation.
Enkvist (1972) also conducted detailed tests on the
strength of his model ice, described strength tests on
natural ice, and carried out a considerable number of
friction tests on his model ice and on natural ice
surfaces using a towed sled the first person to
describe such tests in any detail. In a later study,
Enkvist (1983) applied his modelscale technique of
doing tests in presawn ice and creeping speeds, to 16
fullscale tests. From these tests he obtained the
result that the breaking term at fullscale was greater
than he had previously estimated, between 40 and
80% of the total zero speed resistance, with the larger
figure applying to smaller ships. This is probably
still the most reliable published estimate of the
importance of the breaking term at fullscale. At
model scale, Poznak and Ionov (1981) showed that
for a medium size icebreaker the breaking term was
about 40% of the total ice resistance, and the friction
term about 30%.
Johansson and Mkinen (1973) applied
Enkvists method of analysis to model tests of a
parametric series of nine bulk carrier models. Their
results showed that
1. A reduction of bow angle from 82o to 20o
reduced the ice resistance by about 60%.
2. an increase in length of 38% increased the
ice resistance by about 30%. A decrease in
length of 38% decreased the ice resistance
by 10%.
3. An increase in beam of 33% increased the
ice resistance by about 40%. A decrease in
beam of 27% reduced the ice resistance by
about 36%.
They later (Virtanen et al., 1975) investigated the
effect of draft and found no effect on resistance,
within the errors of their experiment.
Edwards et al. (1972) conducted an extensive
set of fullscale and modelscale tests on a Great
Lakes icebreaker, the USCGC Mackinaw. Their full
E T = E1 + E 2 + E 3 + E 4 + E 5
(9)
(10)
(13)
(14)
(15)
increase in t
decrease in w (icefree wake fraction)
decrease in relative rotative efficiency by
disturbances to flow pattern by ice blocks
decrease in propeller efficiency for other
reasons, as discussed in the paper.
where
R ice
(16)
where
= C o + C1
v2
gB
L
h
(17)
Co = 4.25
C1 = 3.96 X 105
REFERENCES
Alexandrov, A.P. et al., 1958. The atomic icebreaker
Lenin. Proc. 2nd Int. Conf. on Peaceful Uses of
Atomic Energy, Geneva, U.N., New York, Vol. 8,
Nuclear Power Plants, Part I, p. 204219.
Baker, D., and Nishizaki, R., 1986. The MV Arctic
new bow form and model testing. Trans. SNAME,
Vol. 94, p. 5774.
Beach, C.W., Munn, A.M., and Reeves, H.E., 1895.
Strength of ice. The Technograph, Vol. 9, p.3848.
Bulat V., 1982. The effect of snow cover on ice
resistance. The Naval Architect, Nov. 1982, p.
E.253.
Carter, D., 1983. Ship resistance to continuous
motion in level ice. Transportation Development
Centre, Transport Canada, Monteal, Canada, Report
No. TP3679E.
Churcher, A., Kolomojcev, A., and Hubbard, G.,
1984. Design of the icebreaking supply ship Robert
LeMeur. Marine Technology, Vol. 21, No. 2, p. 134146.
Corlett, E.C.B., and Snaith, G.R., 1964. Some
aspects of icebreaker design. Trans. RINA, Vol. 106,
No. 4, p. 389413.
POAC 2001.
Proceedings of International
Conference on Port and Ocean Engineering under
Arctic Conditions, Ottawa, National Research
Council. Also see USCGC Healy Ice Trials 2000,
consolidated report, USCGELC0230109.
DISCUSSION
Larry J. Doctors, The University of New South
Wales, Australia
Can you please clarify what property or
properties of the ice affect the size of the pieces that
break off? How does one control the creation of the
model ice to achieve the desired result?
AUTHORS REPLY
The piece size broken by a ship in model ice
has long been debated, but there are very few data.
Research done at our institute has suggested
(Newbury, 1989) that the piece size is indeed 35
times larger than it should be when compared with
limited fullscale data that is available. However,
some of this discrepancy might be due to the fact that
a 5 cm piece at fullscale would be measured, while
the same piece at a model scale of 1:20 might be
ignored, thus skewing the statistics of the piece size.
Undoubtedly the brittleness of the model ice
has a big effect on the piece size, and most model
ices are not as brittle as they should be at model
scale.
The only variables we can adjust are
temperature, and the chemical content of the water.
The EG/AD/S model ice, which we use at IOT, and
was mentioned in my talk, is more brittle than most
other ices, but even so it is less brittle than it should
be. Ice is a remarkably brittle substance considering
how close to its melting point it exists on earth and so
finding a perfect model ice will probably remain
impossible. We have reviewed the properties of the
different model ices in Jones et al (1989).
REFERENCES
Newbury, S.N., 1989. A preliminary investigation of
model ice failure pattern and piece size generated by
an icebreaker bow form. NRC/IMD Report LM198911, 4pp.
Jones, S.J., Timco, G.W., Frederking, R., 1989. A
current view on sea ice modelling. Proceedings 22nd
ATTC, St. John's, Newfoundland, August 811, 1989,
National Research Council Canada, p. 114120.
ABSTRACT
Cavitation is a problem of interaction between nuclei
and local pressure field variations including turbulent
oscillations and large scale pressure variations.
Various types of behaviors fundamentally depend on
the relative sizes of the nuclei and the length scales of
the pressure variations as well as the relative
importance of the bubble natural period of oscillation
and the characteristic time of the field pressure
variations. Ignoring this observation and basing
cavitation inception predictions on pressure
coefficients of the flow of the pure liquid, without
account for bubble dynamics could result in significant
errors in predictions. We present here a practical
method using a multibubble Surface Averaged
Pressure (DFMultiSAP) to simulate cavitation
inception and scaling, and connect this with more
precise 3D simulations.
INTRODUCTION
Cavitation and bubble dynamics have been the
subject of extensive research since the early works
of Besant in 1859 [1] and Lord Rayleigh in 1917 [2].
Thousands of papers and articles and several books
[e.g., 310] have been devoted to the subject.
Various aspects of the bubble dynamics have been
considered at length under various assumptions
and each contribution included one or several
physical phenomena such as inertia, interface
dynamics, gas diffusion, heat transfer, bubble
deformation, bubblebubble interaction, electrical
charge effects, magnetic field effects, etc.
Unfortunately, very little of the resulting
knowledge has succeeded in crossing from the
fundamental research world to the applications
world, and it is uncommon to see bubble dynamics
analysis made or bubble dynamics computations
conducted for cavitation avoidance by the
hydrodynamics marine designer community, such
as propeller designers. This is due in part to the
failure of the scientific community to frame the
advances made in a format usable by the design
Definition(s) of Cavitation
R
Pg = PgO o .
(2)
R
The balance of pressures at the bubble wall
becomes:
3
R 2
L ( R ) =v +go o  ,
(3)
R R
where the notation PL(R) is meant to associate the
liquid pressure, PL to the bubble radius, R. An
understanding of the bubble static equilibrium can
be obtained by considering the curve; PL(R). As
illustrated in Figure 2, this curve has a minimum
below which there is no equilibrium bubble radius.
Only the left side branch of the curve corresponds
to a stable equilibrium.
1.E+05
P= Pv
Ro=1 mic
Ro=2 mic
Ro=5 mic
Ro=10 mic
Critical Values
8.E+04
6.E+04
A m b ie n t P r e s s u r e , P a .
Stable
4.E+04
2.E+04
0.E+00
2.E+04
4.E+04
Unstable
6.E+04
8.E+04
1.E+05
1
10
100
1000
Bubble Radius, m
R 3
R
1
R R d
) RR + (1 ) R = (1 + +
)
c
2
3c
c c dt
2
R ( u ub )
+
p
p
p
4
,
g
encounter
v
R
R
4
Dynamical Effects
When the pressure variations to which the
bubble is subjected are not slow compared to the
bubble response time, the nuclei cannot
instantaneously adapt to the new pressure, inertia
effects become important, and thus one needs to
consider the bubble dynamics equation. This is
the case for nuclei travelling through a rotating
machinery. The nuclei /bubbles then act as
resonators excited by the flow field temporal and
spatial variations. In the case of a vortical flow
field the strong spatial pressure gradients (in
(5)
3k
3 2 1
R0
RR + R = pv + pg 0 Pencounter +
2
R
(6)
2
1 2 4 R ( u ub )
,
+
+
R
4
R
where k is the polytropic compression law
constant.
In the SurfaceAveraged Pressure (SAP)
bubble dynamics equation, we have accounted for
a slip velocity between the bubble and the host
liquid, and for a nonuniform pressure field along
the bubble surface. In this SAP method the
definition of Pencounter as the average of the liquid
pressures over the bubble surface results in a
major improvement over the classical spherical
bubble model which uses the pressure at the
bubble center in its absence [2729]. For instance,
a bubble does not always continuously grow once
it is captured by a vortex. Instead, it is subjected
to an increase in the average pressure once it
grows and this leads to a more realistic bubble
dynamics. In general, the gas pressure, pg, is
obtained from the solution of the gas diffusion
problem and the assumption that the gas is an
ideal gas [30].
The bubble trajectory is obtained using the
following motion equation [32]
du b 3
3
= P + C D ( u u b ) u u b
4
dt
(7)
3
+CL ( u u b ) u ub + ( u ub ) R ,
R
where the drag coefficient CD is given by an
empirical equation such as that of Haberman and
Morton [31]:
24
1.38
(1 + 0.197 Reb0.63 + 2.6 104 Reb
);
CD =
Reb
(8)
2 R u ub
Reb =
.
100
101
P acoustic / P amb
102
10
3
104
105
106
0.75
0.8
0.85
0.9
0.95
1.05
/ Cpmin
The bubble behavior becomes highly nonspherical once it passes the minimum pressure
location. It elongates significantly and can
reach a length to radius ratio that can exceed 10.
The bubble then splits into two or more
daughter bubbles emitting a strong pressure
spike followed later by other strong pressure
signals when daughter bubbles collapse. Two
axial jets originating from the split and a strong
pressure signal during the formation of the jets
are observed.
Signal from
the collapse
10
5
10
0.02
0.025
0.03
0.035
Time (sec)
14000
12000
10000
8000
6000
4000
2000
0
0.75
1.25
1.5
1.75
2.25
2.5
2.75
2000
4000
6000
t (m s)
Experimental Verification
Re=2.88x106
R0=50m
=2.56
Re=2.88x106
R0=50m
=2.50
OneWay
Interaction
Re=2.88x106
R0=50m
=2.50
TwoWay
Interaction
s.
re s
r P
.
n te re s s
P
cou
E n u s ti c
o
Ac
S p h e r ic a l
S p h e r ic a l
O ne W a y
T w o W a y
0 .0 0 7
Conventional
Spherical
0 .0 0 6
M odel N o S AP
M o d e l W it h S A P
N o n  S p h e ric a l M o d e l
N o n  S p h e r ic a l M o d e l
R (m)
0 .0 0 5
0 .0 0 4
0 .0 0 3
1Way 3D
0 .0 0 2
2Way 3D
0 .0 0 1
SAP Spherical
0 .0 4
0 .0 5
0 .0 6
0 .0 7
0 .0 8
Nuclei Distribution
0 .0 9
0 .1
T im e ( s e c )
Release
Area
Re=2.88x10
l = U t
t Investigation time
R 0=50m C 0 =1m
0.008
0.007
Conventional
Spherical
0.005
8
250
1Way 3D
200
0.004
0.003
Rmax(m)
0.006
2Way 3D
SAP Spherical
0.002
0.001
0
2.4
2.5
2.6
Bubble Released
150
100
50
2.7
Cavitation no.
0
5
10
15
20
30
40
50
Tip Leakage
Vortex
Trailing Edge
Vortex
2=1/3
~ 0.6 C0
2=1/2.5
Propulsor study
The same approach as discussed above was
applied to the David Taylor Propeller 5206 [44]
shown in Figure 12. Three RANS codes have been
used by three groups to simulate numerically
cavitation inception on this propulsor [4649]. All
three codes followed the simple engineering
criterion for cavitation inception, i = c p , and
min
~ 0.3 C0
2=1/2
10
R0=20m, =10.75
R0=20m, =10.85
s/C=0
s/C=0
Cp=5.6
Cp=10.9
Cp=5.6
4
s/C=0.5
DNS 61x61 grid
DNS121x121 grid
DNS 181x181 grid
RANS
Cp
6
blow up
8
s/C=0.5
blow up
10
0.1
0.2
0.3
s/C
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
3.5
8
Cp
Axial velocity
9
3.3
Vs
Cp
3.4
3.2
10
3.1
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
s/C
0.5
0.6
0.7
Conclusions
Difficulties in considering real fluid effects
have led the user community to select a liquid
only simple engineering definition of cavitation
inception as the basis for cavitation predictions
and scaling. While this has served the community
very well for decades, advances in silencing and
detection has made such a definition unsuitable
for advanced designs.
11
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
Acknowledgment
13.
14.
15.
References
1.
2.
Besant,
W.H.
Hydrostatics
and
hydrodynamics, Cambridge University
Press, London, Art. 158, 1859.
Lord Rayleigh, On the pressure developed in
a liquid during collapse of a spherical
cavity, Phil. Mag; 34:9498, 1917.
16.
12
13
38.
39.
40.
41.
42.
43.
44.
45.
46.
14
DISCUSSION
Martin Renilson
QinetiQ, United Kingdom
Thank you for a very interesting paper. Can
you please explain what influences the frequency of
oscillation of the spherical bubble, and how this
scales?
AUTHORS REPLY
Thank you for your comment.
The
frequency of the spherical bubble is proportional to
the inverse of its radius and the square root of the
local pressure. Simplified scaling would follow from
the previous sentence. However, difficulties arise
when one has to select, in a dynamic environment,
the appropriate bubble radius, and the appropriate
pressure. The maximum bubble radius is appropriate
for one part of the spectrum, while the minimum
bubble radius is more appropriate for the collapse
phase.
DISCUSSION
Yin Lu Young
Princeton University, USA
Excellent work and presentation!
questions:
I have two
!"#
XCYZ[\ZL]6^7_4`
FCGHIJHLKMON P
_a
NEQ
R4FTSVU
N PWS1F
bcXCd a
_deZ`fgX
uCv:u1wx
yzwx{wLu67v }
$
%'&'()+* %,
3
8:9;<=
$
%/.102
>?<@ACBED
*4%5(".6(7*4%
hCijkmljLn6o7p q
pEr
osqrcklh
qtTh
INTRODUCTION
papers have dealt with its hydrodynamic force or estimation method for the force by using strip theory, slender
body theory or CFD etc.
But there is little published paper on relating with
the detail investigation for ship maneuvering characteristics in shallow water. This paper, therefore, deals with
the detail maneuvering characteristics in shallow water.
Consequently, the results based on this investigation will
be useful for ship operation and ship handling in shallow water for preventing marine disaster and for safety
of navigation.
1
Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
There are some studies about prediction of hydrodynamic forces acting on a ship hull in shallow water theoretically or experimentally. The prediction method of
hydrodynamic forces in shallow water based on slender
body theory was proposed by Nonaka et al. (Nonaka et
al., 1997). As examples of experimental study, there are
papers by Hirano et al. (Hirano et al., 1985) or Kijima
et al. (Kijima et al., 1985). Recently application of CFD
for prediction of hydrodynamic forces in shallow water
was done by Ohmori (Ohmori, 1998).
From the practical point of view, simple prediction
method is required at the initial design stage of a ship.
Therefore the author had proposed approximate formulae to estimate hydrodynamic derivatives in deep water
(Kijima and Nakiri, 1999). The approximate formulae
consist of the principal particulars and some parameters
which represents hull shape as follows,
1
Y0 = k + 1.9257 Cb B/L a ,
0
0
0
0
Yr = k + 0.052ea 0.457 + m + m x ,
Y = 1.199Cb a + 1.05,
0
0
(1)
n
o
Yrr
= 7.1256 d 1 Cb /B ,
hn
o i2
0
0
Yr = 10.443 d 1 Cb /B ea
n
o
9.374 d 1 C /B e + 1.227,
; r = 0.0
; r = 0.3125
; r = 0.50
YH
1.0
0.5
0.0
0.5
1.0
5
10
(deg)
10
(deg)
NH
0.2
0.0
0.2
5
; r = 0.0
; r = 0.3125
n
o2
N0 = k 150.668 d 1 Cb /B e0a K
n
o
23.819 d 1 Cb /B e0a K + 1.802 ,
; r = 0.50
; r = 0.70
YH
0.5
0.0
0.5
5
10
(deg)
0
Nrr
= 0.15K 0.068,
0
Nrr
= 0.4086Cb + 0.27,
n
o
0
Nr = 0.826 d 1 Cb /B e0a 0.026,
NH
0.2
(2)
0.0
where,
0.2
5
L
B
d
Cb
k
m
mx
10
(deg)
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
ship length,
ship breadth,
draft,
block coefficient,
2d/L,
ship mass,
longitudinal component of added
mass.
2
Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
ea = (1 C pa ),
B e
a
0
,
ea = q
1
1
4
(B/d)2
(3)
1 Cwa
a , =
1 C pa
1.5
1
ea L/B
Generally maneuvering characteristics changes considerably depending on the depth of water. Figure 3
shows turning circles for different water depth. These
lines in this figure were obtained by the numerical simulation by using the proposed approximate formulae, and
also they agreed completely well with measured results
in model test as shown in reference (Kijima and Nakiri,
2003). It is observed that turning circle becomes larger if
the depth of water shallows. Therefore the effect of water
depth upon precise hydrodynamic coefficients should be
taken into account when we estimate maneuvering performance by numerical simulations.
As described above, hydrodynamics forces and moment acting on a ship hull will change remarkably depending on water depth. The author had proposed the
extended formulae to estimate hydrodynamic derivatives
in shallow water based on that in deep water (Kijima and
Nakiri, 2003). When hydrodynamic derivatives in deep
water and shallow water are noted with D0 () and D0 (h)
(h = d/H : draft / water depth ratio, d : draft, H : water
depth) respectively, there are following correlation between them.
0
1) for Y0 , N0 and Yrr
)
(
1
h f (h) D()
D(h) =
(1 h)a
(4)
2) for Yr0
D(h) = (1 + a1 h + a2 h2 + a3 h3 )
D() m0 + m0x () + m0 + m0x (h)
(5)
0
0
0
0
3) for Nr0 , Y
, Yrr0 , Yr
, Nrr0 , Nr
and Nrr
D(h) = (1 + a1 h + a2 h2 + a3 h3 ) D()
4) for
(6)
x0
0
N
x, X
r, N
y, Y
y0
3
Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
The equations for surging, swaying and yawing motion of ship can be written in the following form using
coordinate systems in Figure 4 (Kijima et al, 1990),
!
L U
cos sin
U U
+ m0 + m0y r0 sin = X 0 ,
!
L U
0
0
sin + cos
m + my
U U
+ m0 + m0x r0 cos = Y 0 ,
!
L 2 U
U 0
0
0
0
r + r
= N0.
Izz + izz
U
L
L
m0 + m0x
(8)
0
0
Xuu
is resistance coefficient and Xr
can be estimated
by Hasegawas chart (Hasegawa, 1980). Hydrodynamic
derivatives for YH0 and NH0 can be estimated using equations (1) to (6).
Mathematical model for thrust produced by propeller
is expressed using thrust coefficient KT defined as function advance coefficient JP :
The superscript 0 in the equations refers to the nondimensional quantities defined by:
m
, m0x , m0y
m, m x , my
1
2
2 L d
X, Y
X ,Y = 1
,
2
2 LdU
rL
,
r0 =
U
0
Izz0 , i0zz
Izz , izz
1
2
2
2 L dU
N
N = 1
,
2
2
2 L dU
0
1
XP0 = (1 tP0 )n2 D4P KT JP / LdU 2 ,
2
KT JP = C1 + C2 JP + C3 JP2 ,
JP = U cos 1 wP / nDP ,
wP = wP0 exp(4.00P 2 ),
0P = x0P r0 ,
x0P ' 0.5,
(9)
where,
L, d
m
m x , my
:
:
:
Izz , izz
U,
r
X, Y
:
:
:
:
:
(12)
(13)
where,
(11)
0 0
0
XH0 = Xr
r sin + Xuu
cos2 ,
0
YH0 = Y0 + Yr0 r0 + Y
 + Yrr0 r0 r0
0
0
+ Yr
+ Yrr
r0 r0 ,
0
NH0 = N0 + Nr0 r0 + N
 + Nrr0 r0 r0
0
0
+ Nr
+ Nrr
r0 r0 ,
tP
tP0
:
:
n
DP
C1 , C2 , C3
wP
:
:
:
:
wP0
XR0 = (1 tR )F N0 sin ,
0
0
(14)
YR = (1 + aH )F N cos ,
0
0
0
0
NR = (xR + aH xH )F N cos ,
(10)
where,
tR
aH
x0H
:
:
:
4
Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
xR0
2 y/L
6
wR0
P
0
1 , 2
:
:
:
:
; r
;
; U/U0
;
(deg)
60
r, U/U0
=35
Time history
(deg)
1.0
40
400
20
200
0.5
0.0
0
100 time(sec)
50
Figure 5 Comparison of trajectories and time histories (Cargo ship, H/d = 1.2, = 35 )
where,
wR
Symbol; measured
Line; calculated
:
:
:
:
:
:
x/L
2
02
UR = 1 wR {1 + Cg(s)} ,
= DP /hR ,
K = (1 0.6 sin ) 1 wP / 1 wR ,
(16)
n
o
R = + 0 1 R ,
0
0
0
R = 2xR r ,
x ' 0.5,
AR
hR
KR
UR
R
C
Trajectory
=35
rudder area,
rudder height,
aspect ratio of rudder,
effective rudder inflow speed,
effective rudder inflow angle,
coefficient for starboard and port rudder,
effective wake fraction coefficient at
rudder location,
effective wake fraction coefficient at
rudder location in straight forward
motion,
propeller pitch,
toe angle of offset rudder,
flow straightening coefficient,
functions which express effect of
rudder angle on and wR0 .
x/L
Trajectory
=35
Symbol; measured
Line; calculated
2
0
2
0
; r
;
r, U/U0
Time history
6 y/L
; U/U0
;
(deg)
60
=35
(deg)
1.0
40
400
20
200
0.5
Solving equation (8) with consideration of the influence of water depth on the hydrodynamic coefficients,
ship maneuvering motion can be estimated.
Figure 5 and 6 show turning trajectory and time histories of nondimensional yaw rate, r0 , speed reduction
ratio, U/U0 (U0 : initial speed), drift angle, , and heading angle, for a cargo ship and a coal carrier at H/d =
1.2 respectively. Each line indicate simulation result the
symbols indicate measured values. It can be said from
these comparison between numerical simulation and measured results that this approximate formulae have enough
0.0
50
0
100 time(sec)
Figure 6 Comparison of trajectories and time histories (Coal carrier, H/d = 1.2, = 35 )
5
Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
; H/d=6.0
x/L
; H/d=6.0
; H/d=1.5
x/L
; H/d=1.2
; H/d=1.5
; H/d=1.2
2
5
y/L
y/L
1.0
1.0
0.0
0.0
; H/d=6.0
; H/d=1.5
; H/d=6.0
; H/d=1.2
; H/d=1.5
; H/d=1.2
1.0
40
1.0
20
20
40
40
(deg)
20
20
40
(deg)
Figure 11 Change of advance, transfer and tactical diameter depending on water depth
these parameters.
As shown in the above, a turning advance and tactical
diameter will change as function of water depth and in
ship type in spite of same rudder execution.
It is well known that the linear terms of hydrodynamic derivatives are important parameters to evaluate
the course stability of a ship. If the linear terms of hydrodynamic derivatives satisfy the following equation, the
course stability is stable.
Y0 Nr0 + N Yr0 m0 + m0x > 0
(17)
(18)
lr
0.5
1
h(=d/H)
0.5
0.5
1
h(=d/H)
lr l
0.5
1
h(=d/H)
0.5
lr l
0.5
0.5
1
h(=d/H)
1
0
0.5
lr l
1
h(=d/H)
0.5
1
h(=d/H)
0.5
1
h(=d/H)
0.5
1
h(=d/H)
1
0
1
lr l
0.5
1
h(=d/H)
1
h(=d/H)
0.5
1
h(=d/H)
1
0
0.5
lr l
lr
1
0
1
1
0
1
0
1
0
1
h(=d/H)
1
h(=d/H)
1
0
1
h(=d/H)
0.5
l
5
0
1
0
1
1
0
1
1
h(=d/H)
5
0
lr
1
0
1
5
0
5
lr
1
0
(e) VLCC
Figure 12 Change of `r0 and `0 depending on water depth
Nonaka, N., Haraguchi, T., Nimura, T., Ueno, M., Fujiwara, T., Makino, M., Kodama, Y. and Yoshino, Y.,
Research on Flow Field around a Ship in Manoeuvring
Motion, Papers of Ship Research Institute, Vol.34,
No.5, 1997, pp.168.
Ohmori, T., A Study on Hydrodynamic Characteristics of a Maneuvering Ship in Shallow Water by a
FiniteVolume Method, Proceeding of International
Symposium and Workshop on Force Acting on a
Maneuvering Vessel (MAN98), 1998, pp.1538.
8
Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
DISCUSSION
Martin Renilson
QinetiQ, United Kingdom
I wonder if the author could comment on
scale effects in shallow water. Perhaps these would
be more severe than in deep water, and may be the
cause of some of the unusual results.
AUTHORS REPLY
Thank you for your question. On scale
effects of ship maneuvering motion in shallow water,
it seems it will be very difficult to investigate it,
especially in the full scales ship. Because, we have no
data for comparing the estimated results with
measured results in full scales ship in shallow water.
We know only a few published paper relating with
the data of full scales ship maneuvering
characteristics in shallow water.
We need to collect the data of its in shallow
water.
DISCUSSION
Jinzhu Xia
Australian Maritime College, Australia
It would be interesting if Prof. Kijima could
provide some discussion on wave effects and the
assessment of wave effects on maneuvering and
maneuvering in shallow water.
AUTHORS REPLY
Thank you very much for your discussion.
In this paper, the wave effects was not discussed, but
if you use our mathematical model, you can estimate
and consider the wave effect in ship maneuvering
motion by adding the wave force coefficients in the
mathematical model. Of course, you have to estimate
the wave drift force and wave exciting force acting
on ship hull.
ABSTRACT
This paper describes a numerical study of the
flow around a sharp wedge in both breaking and
nonbreaking regimes. The wedge is fixed on a free
slip bottom. In the numerical simulations two bow
angles and three water depths are considered; the
simulations correspond to some experimental tests
carried out by Waniewski et al. (2002) with which
comparisons are made. Froude number, based on
water depth and free stream velocity, ranges from
2.57 to 3.29, whereas Reynolds number is around
1.86 106 . The numerical method used is a solver for
steady incompressible free surface flows based on the
pseudocompressible formulation of the Reynolds Averaged Navier Stokes equations (RANSE); free surface is handled by a singlephase level set approach
(Di Mascio et al., 2004).
INTRODUCTION
This paper deals with numerical simulations of
the flow around a wedge, fixed to a free slip bottom. This kind of flow is taken as a prototype of the
flow around the bow of a ship hull moving through
the water: the main characteristic of this flow is the
presence of a surface wave which, under some circumstances, can break. Bow wave breaking is one
of the main source of air entrainment and of the so
called whitewater wake phenomena; moreover, the
dispersion of bubbles in water can have strong negative effects in terms of, for example, signature of
the ship and propeller efficiency.
Objectives of this work are the study of the bow
wave in breaking condition and the analysis of the
vorticity production due to the formation of the
water jet and to the breaking phenomena. Attention must be devoted to this aspect, as coherent
structures like the streamwise vortices produced by
GOVERNING EQUATIONS
The turbulent motion of an incompressible (constant density) viscous fluid can be described by the
Reynolds Averaged Navier Stokes equations:
uj
=0
xj
ui
uj ui
p
ij
+
+
=
t
xj
xi
xj
D F (x, y, z, t)
=0
Dt
(1)
i = 1, 2, 3.
NUMERICAL METHOD
In this section the numerical method used is recalled; for a complete description of the algorithm
the reader is referred to Di Mascio et al. (2001,
2004). When only the average steady state has to
be computed, the system of equations (1) can be
conveniently replaced by the pseudocompressible
formulation (Chorin, 1967), that reads, in integral
form:
Z
I
p dV +
ui ni dS = 0
t V
S(V)
Z
(4)
ui dV +
t V
I
[ui uj nj + pni ij nj ] dS = 0
A reference length l and velocity U have been chosen to make the equations nondimensional. In the
previous equations, ui is the ith Cartesian component of the velocity vector (in the following, the
Cartesian components of the velocity will be also
denoted with u, v, and w); p is a variable related
to the pressure P and the acceleration of gravity g
(parallel to the vertical axis z,downward oriented)
by p = P + z/F n2 , F n = U / gl being the Froude
number. Finally, ij = t (ui,j + uj,i ) is the stress
tensor, t = 1/Rn+T is the global kinematic viscosity, with Rn = U l/ the Reynolds number, the
kinematic viscosity and T the turbulent viscosity.
In the present work, the turbulent viscosity was calculated by means of the Spalart and Allmaras one
equation model (Spalart and Allmaras, 1994). In
what follows, the water depth d and the free stream
velocity U are used as reference quantities.
The problem is closed by enforcing appropriate
conditions at physical and computational boundaries. On solid walls, velocity is set to zero (whereas
no condition on the pressure is required); at the (fictitious) inflow boundary, velocity is set to the undisturbed flow value, and the pressure is extrapolated
from inside; on the contrary, the pressure is set to
zero at the outflow, whereas velocity is extrapolated
from inner points.
At the free surface, whose location is one of the
unknowns of the problem, the dynamic boundary
condition requires continuity of stresses across the
surface; if the presence of the air is neglected, the
dynamic boundary condition reads:
p = ij ni nj +
ij ni t1j = 0
+
We F n2
(3)
S(V)
~q dV +
(F~sc F~sd ) dS = 0
(5)
t Vijk
S
s
s=1
where ~q = (p, u, v, w)T is the state variables vector
for pseudocompressible flows, and F~sc and F~sd are
the convective (inviscid and pressure) and diffusive
normal fluxes at the sth interface Ss of the finite
volume Vijk . In order to obtain second order accuracy in space, convective and viscous fluxes are
computed by means of the trapezoidal rule.
The computation of the viscous fluxes requires
the value of the stress tensor at cell interfaces; for
instance, at the interface i + 12 , j, k :
um
ul
lm i+ 1 ,j,k = i+ 21 ,j,k
+
(6)
2
xl
xm i+ 1 ,j,k
(2)
ij ni t2j = 0
2
where We = U
l/ is the Weber number ( being
the density of the fluid and the surface tension
coefficient) and the surface curvature; ~n, ~t1 and ~t2
are the surface normal and two tangential unit vectors, respectively. In this work surface tension effects have been neglected. The kinematic boundary
condition states that the free surface F (x, y, z, t) = 0
Velocity gradients are computed by means of a standard second order centered finite volume approximation.
2
(7)
~qr = ~qi+1,j,k
2
minmod( ~qi+1/2 , ~qi+3/2 )
2
(8)
where:
~qi+1/2 = ~qi+1,j,k ~qi,j,k
(9)
1) = 0
+ sign()(
(12)
(11)
In the singlephase algorithm adopted only the
liquid phase of the fluid is computed; the computational domain is formally decomposed in (see figure (1)):
i+ 12 ,j,k = i,j,k +
i+ 12 ,j,k = i+1,j,k
1
if Ui,j,k
0, and similarly for i 12 ,j,k . It has been
proved by Harten et al. (1987) that this procedure
yields a second order approximation to (11). Time
advancement of equation (15) is achieved by means
of a standard twolevel multistage second order
RungeKutta scheme (Jameson et al., 1981).
For the nodes in the water region which are not
close to the surface of discontinuity (empty squares
in figure (1)), the level set function is enforced to
represent the distance from the interface when the
steady solution is attained. To this aim, the constrain  = 1 is enforced by means of an iterative
marching ENO scheme with second order accuracy;
first, the above condition is rewritten as an evolution
equation for the level set function (x, y, z, t):
+ sign()
1 = 0
(17)
t

then, by using the definition (13), the previous equation is rewritten in term of (x, y, z, t) as:
(13)
+ ~u + w = 0
(14)
t
By doing so, it is easier to assign the boundary condition for the level set function at inflow, that reduces to (x, y, z, t) = 0.
An ENO technique (similar to the one used for
the bulk flow) is used to discretize equation (14); to
this end, the equation is first rewritten in terms of
curvilinear coordinates:
+ Um
+w =0
(15)
t
m
where:
+w
~ + b = 0
t
(18)

z
b = sign()
1

(19)
w
~ = sign()
m
being the contravariant components
xi
of the velocity vector. The derivatives of the function (x, y, z, t) at cell center are approximated by
a second order finite difference formula; considering,
for instance, the (i, j, k)cell center, for the coordinate line 1 it reads:
U m = ui
= i+ 12 ,j,k i 12 ,j,k
1
1
if Ui,j,k
0, or:
(x, y, z, t) = (x, y, z, t) + z
minmod( i+ 1 , i 1 )
(16)
4
with
pi,j,k + pi1,j,k
(23)
2
where pF S is computed from the dynamic boundary
condition (2).
Once the pressure is known, the normal velocity
at (i + 12 , j, k) is computed by solving the Riemann
problem:
pi+ 12 ,j,k pw + un i+ 12 ,j,k un w = 0 (24)
pi 12 ,j,k =
i+1,j,k
FS
i,j,k
i+1/2
j+1/2
j1/2
p
being = u
n + u
2n + and where pw and un w represent the known state on the water side, computed
as in (8). The tangential velocity is simply extrapolated along the normal to the free surface, given by
/, as in the following equation (25). The remaining dynamic boundary conditions for the tangential stresses in (2) are explicitly enforced when
computing the viscous fluxes at the cell interface
i + 12 , j, k .
Outside the water region, extension velocities are
computed as:
i1/2
ui = 0
i = 1, 2, 3
(25)
holds, it means that the free surface cuts the segment Pi,j,k Pi+1,j,k at some point PF S (Pi,j,k is the
position vector that locates the i, j, k point). Then,
the portion of the segment below the free surface is:
which guarantees that (x, y, z, t) evolves as a distance function also at the points adjacent to the
free surface (full circles in figure (1); see, for the
proof, Adalsteinsson and Sethian (1999)). Since the
steady state solution is the goal of the computation,
the previous relation is substituted by an evolution
equation for the velocity components ui :
PF S Pi,j,k 
i,j,k 
=
Pi+1,j,k Pi,j,k 
i+1,j,k i,j,k 
ui
+ ui = 0
t
i,j,k i+1,j,k 0
(20)
(21)
which is solved by a second order ENO scheme analogous to the one used to solve the kinematic equation (14) and equation (18), characteristic speed being . Note that the values of the velocity, pressure and turbulent viscosity in the air phase are useless when steady state is attained, and therefore they
do not affect the formal accuracy of the numerical
scheme. Nevertheless, their estimation is of great
importance during the iterative procedure at those
points that change their physical state from air to
water, for which an initial estimate is needed.
if i,j,k < 0, the level set function having been defined as the distance from the interface. A similar
relation holds for i+1,j,k < 0, with i and i + 1 interchanged.
The computation of the residuals for the RANS
equations at those points whose neighboring cells
are not all into the water region need some attention. In fact, in these cases the numerical convective
and viscous fluxes at interfaces that separate two
cells, of which one is in the air region (as the interface i + 12 , j, k in figure (2)), must be evaluated; in
these points the proper information to compute the
correct flux are needed to retain second order accuracy. To circumvent this difficulty, the following
procedure is applied. The pressure at i + 12 , j, k is
extrapolated as:
pi+ 12 ,j,k = pi 12 ,j,k +
1
2
1
(pF S pi 12 ,j,k )
+
(26)
RESULTS
Some numerical simulations of the flow around
an infinitely long wedge have been carried out; the
problem consists in a vertical piercing wedge fixed
on the bottom (in the simulations, the bottom plate
is treated as a free slip wall). Test conditions are
reported in table (1), where d represents the draft
(22)
Run
L1
L2
L3
H1
H2
H3
13.4o
13.4o
13.4o
26.6o
26.6o
26.6o
d (cm)
6.66
7.55
9.21
6.45
7.62
9.32
U (m/s)
2.44
2.43
2.46
2.61
2.40
2.46
Fn
3.01
2.81
2.59
3.29
2.77
2.57
(which is equal to the water depth of the unperturbed flow), U is the free stream velocity, and is
the bow half angle; two different wedge angles and
three different water depths were analyzed. In the
same table, the values of the Froude number, based
on the free stream velocity and the water depth,
are reported for each conditions. The geometry and
flow field conditions under investigation correspond
to the large flume experiments made by Waniewski
et al. (2002) (tests 1l to 6l).
The physical domain is discretized by means of a
single block grid with CH topology (see figure (3)),
with a total of 144 128 128 volumes, for the
simulations with = 26.6o and 72 64 64 volumes, for = 13.4o , along streamwise, normal to
the wedge side wall, and vertical directions, respectively; points are clustered toward both the leading edge and the side wall of the wedge, whereas
an uniform distribution has been adopted along the
vertical direction. At least four grid levels were used
for multigrid acceleration. A uniform velocity field
(equal to the upstream value), zero pressure field
and a flat free surface have been considered as initial conditions. As boundary conditions, free stream
250
y (cm)
200
150
100
50
0
100
50
50
100
x (cm)
150
200
250
Z
X
Z
X
Z
X
175
175
10.0
9.0
8.0
7.0
6.0
5.0
4.0
3.0
2.0
1.0
0.0
125
75
50
25
0
50
25
0
175
175
10.0
9.0
8.0
7.0
6.0
5.0
4.0
3.0
2.0
1.0
0.0
75
50
25
0
150
100
75
50
25
0
25
25
175
175
150
100
75
50
25
0
25
150
10.0
9.0
8.0
7.0
6.0
5.0
4.0
3.0
2.0
1.0
0.0
125
25
50
21.0
18.0
15.0
12.0
9.0
6.0
3.0
0.0
3.0
125
x (cm)
100
x (cm)
75
25
125
x (cm)
100
25
150
21.0
18.0
15.0
12.0
9.0
6.0
3.0
0.0
3.0
125
21.0
18.0
15.0
12.0
9.0
6.0
3.0
0.0
3.0
125
100
x (cm)
x (cm)
100
150
x (cm)
150
75
50
25
0
25
25
50
25
20
144x128x128
72x64x64
36x32x32
18x16x16
15
15
z (cm)
z (cm)
20
10
144x128x128
72x64x64
36x32x32
18x16x16
10
0
20
0
25
z (cm)
15
z (cm)
20
15
10
10
0
20
5
15
z (cm)
z (cm)
25
10
20
15
10
15
20
y (cm)
25
30
35
40
10
Figure 10: Wedge flow: contact lines computed on four different grid levels, and for H1 (top), H2 (middle) and H3 (bottom) test cases.
5
0
10
10
20
30
r (cm)
40
50
60
70
30
L1
L2
L3
25
20
H1
H2
H3
10
x
+
+ ++ +
+
++
xxxxxx
z (cm)
z (cm)
20
15
++
x xx
xx
++++
++ +
x x
xx
0
20
2.2
2.0
1.8
1.6
1.4
1.2
1.0
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.0
10
20
30
r (cm)
40
50
60
70
z (cm)
15
Figure 11: Wedge flow: contact lines, vertical tiny line indicates the leading edge. Experimental data (Waniewski et al.,
2002): ( ) L1 run, ( ) L2 run, ( ) L3 run, ( + ) H1 run,
( ) H2 run and ( 4 ) H3 run.
10
0
20
15
z (cm)
2.5
2.0
Z*max
10
0
10
1.5
+ ++
10
1.0
0.5
0.0
2.2
2.0
1.8
1.6
1.4
1.2
1.0
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.0
15
10
15
20
y (cm)
25
30
35
40
2.2
2.0
1.8
1.6
1.4
1.2
1.0
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.0
Fr
(27)
15
Run L1
r=35 cm
5
0
Run L2
r=35 cm
50
40
30
20
10
0
10
20
30
40
50
Run L3
r=100 cm
50
40
30
20
10
0
10
20
30
40
50
5
0
5
15
Run L3
r=35 cm
15
12
9
6
3
0
3
6
9
12
15
5
0
10
15
20
25
y (cm)
30
10
z (cm)
10
5
0
5
35
10
15
20
y (cm)
25
25
20
Run H1
r=35 cm
15
10
5
0
5
20
15
5
0
5
20
10
0
5
Run H2
r=75 cm
20
15
10
5
0
5
5
0
10
15
20
y (cm)
25
30
35
Run H3
r=80 cm
20
50
40
30
20
10
0
10
20
30
40
50
10
50
40
30
20
10
0
10
20
30
40
50
15
25
Run H3
r=35 cm
50
40
30
20
10
0
10
20
30
40
50
50
40
30
20
10
0
10
20
30
40
50
10
35
15
25
Run H2
r=35 cm
30
Run H1
r=90 cm
20
50
40
30
20
10
0
10
20
30
40
50
z (cm)
z (cm)
10
z (cm)
15
z (cm)
Run L2
r=100 cm
5
15
12
9
6
3
0
3
6
9
12
15
z (cm)
50
40
30
20
10
0
10
20
30
40
50
z (cm)
z (cm)
10
z (cm)
Run L1
r=100 cm
15
15
5
10
50
40
30
20
10
0
10
20
30
40
50
15
z (cm)
z (cm)
10
15
12
9
6
3
0
3
6
9
12
15
z (cm)
15
10
5
0
5
40
10
15
20
25
y (cm)
30
35
40
45
50
11
CONCLUSIONS
A single phase level set approach for free surface viscous flows at high Reynolds number have
been used to study the flow around a sharp wedge.
Numerical simulations at two different entrance angles and three different water depths are carried out;
in agreement with available experimental data (see
(Waniewski et al., 2002) and (Waniewski, 1999)) the
waves generated by the presence of the wedge is in
breaking conditions at the higher half bow wedge angle. Threedimensional views of the breaking flow
clearly show the formation of a water jet, plunging
toward the free surface where it impacts; further
downstream a splashup region develops. Contact
lines (the profile of the wave on the wedge side wall)
compare well with experimental date for = 26.6o
and the three water depths, whereas, for = 13.4o ,
agreement is only qualitative. At present the reasons for such discrepancies are not clear; however,
the waves height being smaller for the second case,
viscous effects on the bottom could be important.
More investigation is needed in the future. Plunging jet shapes, angle and velocity of impact compare
well with experimental data provided by Waniewski
(1999). Cross sections of vorticity field at regions
where the water jet starts to form, and just after
the impact of water jet happened were presented;
similarities with experimental observation made by
GenIn
Osher, S. and Sethian, J. A. (1988). Fronts Propagating with CurvatureDependant Speed: Algorithms Based on HamiltonJacobi Formulations.
J. Comput. Phys., 79:1240.
Rouy, E. and Tourin, A. (1992).
A Viscosity Solutions Approach to ShapefromShading.
SIAM. J. Numer. Analy., 29:867884.
Spalart, P. R. and Allmaras, S. R. (1994). A One
Equation Turbulence Model for Aerodynamic
Flows. La Recherche Aerospatiale, 1:521.
Sussman, M., Smekerda, P., and Osher, S. J.
(1994). A Level Set Approach for Computing Solutions to Incompressible TwoPhase Flow.
J. Comput. Phys., 114:146159.
Waniewski, T. A. (1999). Air Entrainment by Bow
Waves. Doctoral Dissertation, California Institute
of Technology, Pasadena, CA.
Waniewski, T. A., Brennen, C. E., and Raichlen, F.
(2002). Bow Wave Dynamics. J. Ship Research,
46(1):115.
13
DISCUSSION
Larry J. Doctors
The University of New South Wales, Australia
I would like to congratulate the authors for
this very interesting paper. My question relates to
Table 1, listing the test conditions. Why werent
exactly the same values of the water depth and speed
chosen for the two different wedge half angles? It
would have been interesting to examine the linearity
(or otherwise) of the wedgeflow contact lines in
Figure 11 with respect to the wedge half angle. Since
the data is almost the same for the two angles of
13.4 and 26.6, one can see, at least approximately,
such a behavior in Figure 11.
AUTHORS REPLY
Thank you for the comment. With regard to
the choice of flow parameters, the only reason why
the water depths were not exactly the same is that we
wanted to validated the simulations against the
experimental data collected by Waniewski et al.
(2002), and therefore we used the same values as in
their channel and towing tank tests. The investigation
on the behaviour of the maximum wave height on the
side wall with the dihedral angle will be the topic of
our future research activity on wave breaking. We
agree with Dr. Doctors as to the expected linearity for
the aforementioned function.
( INSEAN, The Italian Ship Model Basin, Roma  Italy, Centre for Ships and
Ocean Structures, NTNU, Trondheim  Norway)
ABSTRACT
In many practical circumstances relevant in ship hydrodynamics, complex water flow evolutions occur, involving large deformations of the freesurface, breaking and fragmentation. The resulting watership interactions may lead to dangerous structural loads and they
can concern the safety and the stability of the vessel.
The analysis of such problems is challenging both in
terms of the capability to handle the physics involved,
and of the CPU time and memory space needed for sufficiently accurate investigations. The latter become crucial when threedimensional effects are accounted for.
Here we present a numerical study to deal with
these types of phenomena, their occurrence, evolution
and possible structural effects. The used method is based
on the Domain Decomposition (DD) philosophy where
the problem is split into subproblems, each one analyzed by the most efficient and suitable solver. In particular, a Boundary Element Method (BEM) is used in
the fluid regions where the airwater interface can be
modeled as a smooth surface and vorticity and viscosity effects are negligible. A NavierStokes (NS) solver,
coupled with a Levelset (LS) technique for capturing
the airwater interface, is applied in the fluid areas interested by breaking phenomena and vorticity generation.
Since the air evolution becomes relevant in case of air
entrainment, both liquid and gas phases are simulated
by the BEM and NSLS solvers. The most important
feature of the DD method proposed here is the presence
of an airwater interface in the exchange region between
the different solvers.
In this paper, the features of the present domain
water
Potential flow
air
Potential flow
water
Potential flow
suming that the flow is laminar. To limit the code heaviness a stretching has to be introduced both in the horizontal and vertical directions. However the stretching
cannot be particularly strong, that is
,
max
being
the outer and inner discretizamax and
tions, respectively, and a number less than two. If a
larger stretching is used, numerical problems arise connected with the solution of the Poisson equation for the
pressure. As a result, two factors exist working against
each other: the need of a sufficiently high resolution to
capture the vorticity generated during the ship rolling
and the need to resolve with a similar accuracy both the
inner region around the ship and outer areas far from
the vessel. An example of feasible stretched grid is
given in the top of figure 1 for the roll motion of a ship
crosssection (black line). The geometry and the motion
data refer to twodimensional model tests carried out recently at INSEAN. In particular, figure 1 is related to the
section 3 (American nomenclature) of the DDG41 ship
(scale factor 23.824). Despite the fact we want to study
open water conditions the domain has been truncated
for computational limits reasons. A uniform grid with
, being the crosssection
draft, is used in an inner region around the body and a
stretching
with
is introduced
elsewhere. The resulting mesh is fairly able to capture
the evolution of the vorticity shed from the ship (the
center plot of the figure gives a snapshot of the vorticity contours). But an enlarged view of the velocity field
near the lower tip of the cross section (see center plot of
figure 1) highlights the need of a much higher resolution
in the body neighbourhood. To meet this requirement
and to capture properly the behaviour of the boundary
layer we should at least consider an inner mesh with
. Due to the stretching
limits this would increase the memory space of a factor 16 and the CPU time of a factor 16x4 with respect
to the used grid. Obviously if threedimensional effects
are accounted for, the computational cost becomes substantially more expensive. On the other hand this can be
conveniently reduced by using physical considerations.
During the roll motion, vorticity of opposite sign is created. This may cause vortex pairs with nearly opposite
strengths that will travel far from the ship. Once away
from it, their effect on the ship pressure loads is however not significant. This means, also in the case of the
roll motion the region interested by vorticity and viscous effects relevant for the ship is rather localized near
the vessel. From an adequate distance from the vessel
on, the vorticity leaving the ship can be conveniently
neglected (dissipated numerically) and a potential flow
theory can be used to simulate the flow evolution.
/0
In this paper the developed domain decomposition strategy is detailed described, the main challenges
related with the substantial differences between the used
solvers are discussed and the proposed solutions are reported. This is made by using the twodimensional problem of a dam breaking as test case. In fact this is indirectly related to the waterondeck phenomenon (see
132
NSLS subdomain
BEM subdomain
Here a twodimensional fluid is considered, evolving in
time according to the potential flow theory. The water is
assumed unaffected by the air. This is a reasonable approximation. In fact it is meant to be applied in fluid regions where aircushioning does not occur and the free
surface can be modeled as a smooth simplyconnected
surface. Therefore one can neglect the airwater coupling and assume that the heavier fluid (water) drives
the motion of the lighter one (air). This leads to a more
efficient and yet suitable method. In this subdomain
the airwater interface is seen as a sharp surface across
which discontinuities of the tangential velocity component occur.
The problem is solved numerically by a BEM
54
54
54
5 4 6
54
7 54
/98(:<;>= ?@=*A
smoothing
air
variables
air
wate
r int
erfa
ce
water
variables
water interface should be very small. However it cannot be smaller than a threshold value, otherwise numerical instabilities arise. Typically
is a good
compromise. Special care has to be paid for the proper
smoothing of the variables inside the transition area.
This is because they are linked with each other nonlinearly through the governing equations and inconsistent smoothing can result in unphysical solutions. From
what has been said, inside the NSLS subdomain the
airwater interface is seen as a layer with finite thickness. Across it the variables slightly pass from their
definitions in water to the ones in air.
=CBEDF
To built up an efficient solution algorithm, the domaindecomposition strategy is applied both in time and in
space. The related details are described in the following
sections.
Spatial coupling
As far as the BEM can be used to study the problem
of interest, it will be applied. When applicable, this is
indeed the most efficient and accurate method to treat
freesurface flows. Let us assume a threshold time
as the time when it becomes useful to introduce the
domain decomposition strategy (for instance when the
airwater interface is going to break). From this time
instant on the domain is spatially split into two (many)
subdomains. The problem in one of these is still solved
by the BEM, while the flow evolution in the other is described by the NSLS solver (see sketch in figure 3). At
time the solution in the NSLS subdomain needs to
be initialized by the BEM. Once this is accomplished
the two methods will attack the problem in the corresponding subdomains and will transmit each other
the required information through the overlapping region
(domain decomposition). The NSLS solver gives to the
G
GH
Figure 3: Domain Decomposition Domain Composition method. Definition of the transmission region as
an overlapping area through which pressure and velocity data are exchanged. This coupling procedure has
been referred to as procedure b in Greco et al. (2002).
%
GH
GJIKGH
/K.
u,v,p
LSNS
with
5 4 065 4 7 5 4
N Q N 7 N
Q!R
S NUT MVWV QZR 5U[3\^]
X Y 4
5 4 T @V@V E;`_badjcfehgig
BEM
corr
BEM
corr
(1)
54
X
X X
BEM
water
air
Figure 4: BEM composition step. Extrapolation procedure for the generic NSLS variable (velocity compoand pressure ).
nents
5 ?ML
5 ?@L
X
Figure 5: Examples of
smoothing across the
airwater interface that could be used within Levelset
techniques. In the present study the smoothing corresponding to the dashed line has been applied.
GOIPG
G
=
X
Temporal coupling
The DDDC method has been tested by studying the water evolution subsequent to the breaking of a dam. This
is a well known problem, extensively studied for its
relevance in environmental and safety contexts. Moreover it is an interesting problem for ship hydrodynamics. The related flow is similar to the one developing
onto the ship deck during the most common type of
water shipping, as described above. To mimic the impact of the water against deck superstructures, a vertical
rigid wall is introduced downstream the initial dam and
the waterwall interactions during the impact are analyzed. This study is relevant to check the method capabilities in handling the greenwater loading.
GlkmIZG
t n> t0
BEM
tn
t n+1/2
DD
NSLS
DC
tn
DD
r
t n+1
DD
DC
DD
t n+1
corrector step
DC
t n= t
z
initial
water level
n+1
Glk Glkn^o
from
to
is achieved by performing two intermediate time integration steps with both solvers. First,
the BEM evolves from
to
and makes available the required variables at the transmission boundary.
These are properly reconstructed (domain composition)
and given to the NSLS solver. Then, the latter performs a trial time integration from
to
(predictor step) and makes available the information needed by
the potential solver. Once these have been adequately
converted (domain composition), the BEM can make its
time evolution from to
and release the final data
required by the NSLS solver. These are reconstructed
(domain composition) and used by the field solver that
can perform the final time evolution from
to
(corrector step). At this stage everything is known at
both in terms of fluid variables and geometry. One
can then perform a new integration step where the BEM
uses the data (once reconstructed) given by the NSLS
solver at the end of the previous time step.
G k G kn^oMpWq
Glk Glk
n3o
Glk Glkn3o
Glkn3o
r
D
r
NSLS
tn
st
DC
BEM
tn
t n+1
predictor step
Glk Glk
n3o
dam
vertical wall
BEM
NSLS
h
x
Sxw
Gvu r Y %
Syw
GH u r Y %
problem until
after the dam release.
Then the DDDC strategy is introduced, as shown in the
right plot of figure 7. The BEM subdomain is conveniently restricted to the left side of the tank, while the
NSLS solver is applied to study the right subdomain.
In the simulations the viscosity has been set equal to
zero. Within the dambreaking problem such parameter
matters for the local details of the flow but it is not relevant from the global point of view. Due to the chosen
value for the free surface is not steep when the DDDC
is initiated. Despite this fact the related flow conditions
imply a high sensitivity of the solution to the numerical
choices. The transmission boundary has been placed
GH
rz %
=
G u r{ %
NSLS (top plot of figure 8), numerical errors are introduced related to the discrete representation of the velocity. These grow up in time and lead to unbounded oscillations. They are avoided once the velocity field given
by the BEM is smoothed across the interface (center
plot of figure 8). However the flow evolution highlights
the occurrence of small oscillations of the airwater interface and above all an unphysical behavior of the pressure field in a region close to the water tip front (top plot
of figure 9). The latter is a memory effect of the initial
pressure given by the BEM and can be avoided by enforcing divergence free velocities across the interface,
center plot of figure 9. The oscillatory behavior of the
airwater interface nearly detectable from the solution
can be finally eliminated by shifting the smoothing area
toward the air domain (bottom plot of figure 8). In this
G u r }~
way the velocity field in the water region of the NSLS domain is more consistent with the one given by the
BEM solver. Moreover pressure and freesurface evo
Gvu r
G u r0 ~
r
s
D D
w Fr
Gvu r ? ? % ?
}
}
}Fr
p(gh)
1
NSLS
DDDC
Zhou exp.
0.5
r
s
D D
r w
vG u r ~
w
&G B D u r
w
GOB u r
r
0
1
t(gh)
1/2
s r
D D
r
}}
}r
Fr
Present investigation supplies the use of the DDDC strategy for handling complex freesurface flows involving breaking, air cushioning and impact phenomena. The efficiency properties of the method are also
confirmed. The DDDC results have been obtained by
reducing the CPU time of a factor two and the memory
space of a similar factor with respect to the full NSLS
method.
CONCLUSIONS
A Domain Decomposition Domain Composition method
has been developed to study flows with large freesurface
deformations and breaking, leading to waterwater and
waterstructure impacts and air entrainment. The method
can also handle regions with vorticity generation and
viscous effects. It is based on the use of a BEM and a
N X
, %
p = f( )
D /D t = 0
Figure 13: Strategy to account for the air compressibility in an efficient manner.
REFERENCES
an efficient and suitable method, we plan to model the
air compressibility only where necessary, that is inside
enclosed cavities (see figure 13). Elsewhere the air will
be treated still as an incompressible fluid like the water.
Therefore the Poisson equation will be solved for the air
pressure everywhere except for inside cavities. There,
the equation
(2)
NKN X X )
~ 2f
Dooley, B., A. Warncke, M. Gharib, and G. Tryggvason. Vortex ring generation due to the coalescence
of a water drop at a free surface. Experiments in Fluids 22(5), pp. 369374, 1997.
Greco, M. A Twodimensional Study of GreenWater
Loading. Ph. D. thesis, Dept. Marine Hydrodynamics,
NTNU, Trondheim, Norway, 2001.
Greco, M., O. M. Faltinsen, and M. Landrini. Water Shipping on a Vessel in Head Waves. Proceedings
24 Symposium on Naval Hydrodynamics, technical
session: Slamming, Green Water and Capsizing, pp. 1
14. Fukuoka, Japan, 2002.
2f
2f
2f
Zhou, Z. Q., J. Q. D. Kat, and B. Buchner. A nonlinear 3d approach to simulate green water dynamics
on deck. Piquet (Ed.), Proc. 7 Int. Conf. Num. Ship
Hydrod., pp. 5.11, 15. Nantes, France, 1999.
2f
DISCUSSION
Krish Thiagarajan
The University of Western Australia, Australia
The pressure impact curves shown in the
overheads are more spread out and less localized than
the pressure spikes seen in classic dam break problem
(shown in Figure 12 of the paper). Can you explain
the physical reason for the differences?
AUTHORS REPLY
DISCUSSION
Jinzhu Xia
Australian Maritime College, Australia
What is the perspective of coupling this
methodology to a seakeeping computation?
AUTHORS REPLY
The coupling, by itself, is well suitable for a
seakeeping analysis. The challenge is not in the
coupling of the two different codes, but in the
individual development of each solver, both to treat
3D flows and to allow the free motion of the body.
Abstract
Cartesiangrid methods with Adaptive Mesh Refinement
(AMR) are ideally suited for simulating the breaking of
waves, the formation of spray, and the entrainment of air
around ships. As a result of the cartesiangrid formulation, minimal input is required to describe the ships geometry. A surface panelization of the ship hull is used
as input to automatically generate a threedimensional
model. No threedimensional gridding is required. The
AMR portion of the numerical algorithm automatically
clusters grid points near the ship in regions where wave
breaking, spray formation, and air entrainment occur.
Away from the ship, where the flow is less turbulent,
the mesh is coarser. The numerical computations are implemented using parallel algorithms. Together, the ease
of input and usage, the ability to resolve complex freesurface phenomena, and the speed of the numerical algorithms provide a robust capability for simulating the
freesurface disturbances near a ship. Here, numerical
predictions, with and without AMR, are compared to experimental measurements of ships moving with constant
forward speed, including a vertical strut, the DDG 5415,
and a wedgelike geometry.
Introduction
Two different cartesiangrid methods have been developed to simulate ship waves. One technique (CLSVOF)
combines LevelSet (LS) techniques with VolumeofFluid (VOF) methods to model the freesurface interface. The second technique uses a pure VOF formulation. The CLSVOF formulation uses Adaptive Mesh
Refinement (AMR) to resolve smallscale features in the
flow. The VOF formulation uses domain decomposition
without AMR. Both methods that are described in this
paper use the same panelized geometry that is required
terms in the momentum equations are accounted for using a slopelimited, thirdorder QUICK scheme as discussed in Leonard (1997). Based on the PARAMESH
suite of codes (MacNeice, Olson, Mobarry, deFainchtein
& Packer 2000), domain decomposition is used to solve
the field equations. PARAMESH controls data communication between blocks of grid points, and also between
computer processors. PARAMESH is written in Fortran
90. PARAMESH provides AMR capability, but here we
only illustrate the NFA code using uniform grid spacing
without adaptive meshing. (An AMR capability for the
NFA code is in progress.) On the Cray T3E, message
passing is accomplished using either the Cray SHMEM
library or MPI. The CPU requirements are linearly proportional to the number of grid points and inversely proportional to the number of processors. For the NFA code,
comparisons are made to measurements of flow around
a vertical strut (Zhang & Stern 1996)and a wedgelike
geometry (Karion, WaniewskiSur, Fu, Furey, Rice &
Walker 2003).
Developed concurrently with the NFA code, another
code based on the Coupled Level set and VolumeofFluid (CLSVOF) method has been developed for modelling freesurface flows in general geometries. The
CLSVOF code uses adaptive mesh refinement to compute multiscale phenomena. Like the NFA code, the
CLSVOF code uses cartesian grid techniques to model
complex geometries. Also, like NFA, CLSVOF uses a
twophase formulation of the airwater interface. Unlike the NFA code, which is based on PARAMESH,
the CLSVOF code is based on BOXLIB, which is developed by the CCSE group at Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratories. The strategy of BOXLIB is that
highlevel adaptive gridding and parallel functions are
performed using C++ while numerical discretizations
of the NavierStokes equations are performed using a
FORTRAN code. The BOXLIB libraries take care of
all the dynamic gridding functions, whereas the user
only has to supply FORTRAN routines that operate on
fixed, uniform, rectangular grids. Please refer to the
work of Rendleman, Beckner, Lijewski, Crutchfield &
Bell (2000) for more information regarding BOXLIB.
For computation of incompressible flow on an adaptive
grid, it is not enough to insure that fluxes are matched
at coarse/fine grid boundaries. We must also compute a
composite projection step at each time step. A composite projection step insures that the pressure, velocity, and divergencefree condition, are satisfied across
coarsefine grid boundaries. For details of our adaptive
implementation, we refer the reader to Sussman (2003b)
and the references therein. CLSVOF predictions are
compared to measurements of the flow around the DDG
5415 (see http://www50.dt.navy.mil/5415/).
Formulation
Consider turbulent flow at the interface between air and
water. Let ui denote the threedimensional velocity field
as a function of space (xi ) and time (t). For an incompressible flow, the conservation of mass gives
ui
=0 .
xi
(1)
(2)
where d/dt = /t + ui /xi is a substantial derivative. Q is a subgridscale flux which can model the entrainment of gas into the liquid. Details are provided in
Dommermuth, Innis, Luth, Novikov, Schlageter & Talcott (1998).
CLSVOF and VOF formulations pose unique challenges associated with data processing of the freesurface
2
Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
1 P
1
+
(2Sij )
xi
Re xj
ij
1
2 i3 +
,
Fr
xj
= Fi
(3)
ui + uki
+
R
=
(10)
i
xi ( ) xi
xi
t
k
uk+1
=
u
+
u
+
t
R
, (11)
i
i
i
i
2
( ) xi
(5)
where = g /` and = g /` are the density and viscosity ratios between air and water. For a sharp interface,
with no mixing of air and water, H is a step function. In
practice, a mollified step function is used to provide a
smooth transition between air and water.
As discussed in Dommermuth et al. (1998), the divergence of the momentum equations (3) in combination with the conservation of mass (1) provides a Poisson
equation for the dynamic pressure:
1 P
= ,
xi xi
(6)
where is a source term. As shown in the next section, the pressure is used to project the velocity onto a
solenoidal field.
1 P
ui
=
+
R
,
(7)
i
xi (k ) xi
xi t
3
CLSVOF method
Freeslip conditions
In the CLSVOF algorithm, the position of the interface is updated through the levelset equation and the
volumeoffluid equation. After, the levelset function
and the volume fractions have been updated, we couple
the levelset function to the volume fractions as a part
of the levelset reinitialization step. The levelset reinitialization step replaces the current value of the levelset
function with the exact distance to the VOF reconstructed
interface. At the same time, the VOF reconstructed interface uses the current value of the levelset function to determine the slopes of the piecewise linear reconstructed
interface. For more details of the CLSVOF algorithm, including axisymmetric and threedimensional implementations, see Sussman & Puckett (2000).
In the finite volume approach, the irregular boundary (i.e. ship hull) is represented in terms of along
with the corresponding area fractions, A, and volume
fractions, V . V = 1 for computational elements fully
outside the body and V = 0 for computational elements
fully inside the body. Once the area and volume fractions
have been calculated, they are used in the Poisson equation for the pressure and in the projection of the velocity
onto a solenoidal field. Through the Poisson equation
and the projection operator, the component of velocity
that is normal to the ship hull is set to zero. This corresponds to imposing freeslip conditions on the hull form.
Details associated with the calculation of the area and
volume fractions are provided in Sussman & Dommermuth (2001) along with additional references.
The boundary condition on the body can also be imposed using an external force field. Based on Dommermuth et al. (1998) and Sussman & Dommermuth (2001),
the distance function representation of the body () is
used to construct a body force in the momentum equations. As constructed, the velocities of the points within
the body are forced to zero. For a body that is fixed in a
free stream, this corresponds to imposing noslip boundary conditions.
Bodyforce method
Body forces are used in the momentum equations
(see Equation 3) and the convection equation for the volume fraction (see Equation 2) to force conservation of
flux and mass. For the velocities, a parallel flow with
(u, v, w) = (1, 0, 0) is forced at the entrance and exit.
For the volume fraction, the mean surface elevation is
forced to be zero at the entrance and exit. A similar procedure is used by Iafrati et al. (2001) in their levelset
calculations of twodimensional breaking waves over a
hydrofoil. The bodyforce is prescribed as follows:
I NTERFACE C APTURING
Two methods are presented in our work for computing ship flows. Both methods use a frontcapturing
type procedure for representing the free surface separating the air and water. The first technique is based
on the VolumeofFluid (VOF) method, and the secondtechnique is based on the Coupled volumeoffluid and
levelset method (CLS).
(13)
where Fo is a force coefficient, vi = (1, 0, 0) is the desired velocity field at the entrance and exit, and T (x) is
a cosine taper that smoothly varies from one at the entrance or exit to zero inboard of the entrance or exit over
a distance Lf . The formulation for the volume fraction
is similar.
VOF method
In our VOF formulation, the free surface is reconstructed from the volume fractions using piecewise linear polynomials and the advection algorithm is operator
split. The reconstruction is based on algorithms that are
described by Gueyffier, Li, Nadim, Scardovelli & Zaleski (1999). The surface normals are estimated using
weighted central differencing of the volume fractions.
A similar algorithm is described by Pilliod & Puckett
(1997). Work is currently underway to develop a higherorder estimate of the surface normal using a leastsquares
procedure. The advection portion of the algorithm is operator split, and it is based on similar algorithms reported
in Puckett, Almgren, Bell, Marcus & Rider (1997).
Hydrostaticpressure method
At the inflow boundary, the horizontal velocity is set
equal to the freestream velocity and the normal pressure
gradient is zero. At all other side boundaries, the reduced pressure is zero and the velocity at the boundary
is extrapolated from interior grid cells. In our computations, we use the reduced pressure, Pr . We define
Pr = P ()g(z zo ), where zo is the static freesurface elevation. The resulting NavierStokes equations
4
in terms of Pr are
ui
1 Pr
(z zo ) g
ui
+ uj
=
t
xj
xi
xi
(14)
xi
and 0.8. The height of the computational domain above
the mean water line normalized by chord length is 0.2.
The last term is discretized using the same secondorder
The leading edge of the strut is located at x = 0 and the
technique used by Sussman (2003a) for the surfacetrailing
edge is located at x = 1. No flux boundary
tension term. The last term gives rise to a jump in the
conditions
are used on the centerplane of the strut (y =
reduced pressure of magnitude (z zo )(1 )g. By
0),
at
the
side
of the computational domain (y = 1.0),
forcing the reduced pressure to be zero at the walls, over
the
bottom
of
the computational domain (z = 0.8),
time, the water level at the walls relaxes to z = zo .
and the top of the domain (z = 0.2). Periodic boundary
conditions are used along the xaxis at x = 0.3725 and
I NITIAL T RANSIENTS
x = 3.6275. The threedimensional numerical simulations used 512 128 128 = 8, 388, 608 grid points
Since VOF simulations are time accurate, there can
resulting in a grid spacing along each coordinate axis of
be problems with starting transients. As shown by Wexi = 0.0078125. The time step is t = 0.00125, and
hausen (1964) and others, unsteady oscillations can oc3001 time steps have been simulated, which corresponds
cur in the wave resistance, and by implication the surto 3.75 chord lengths. The number of sub domains along
face elevations, due to starting transients. There are also
the x, y, and zaxes are respectively 32, 8, and 8.
starting transients in the buildup of separation and the
512 CRAY T3E processors have been used to perform
boundary layer on the hull, but the viscous time constants
the numerical simulations. Each time step took approxiare significantly shorter than the wave resistance. The
mately 60 seconds per time step.
oscillations in the wave resistance occur at a frequency
Figure 1 compares numerical predictions to experequivalent to Uo /g = 1/4 and decay inversely proporimental
measurements. The numerical predictions are
tional to time. The decay rate is very slow and can lead
shown on the left side of the strut, and the experimental
to solutions that oscillate for relatively long times. This
measurements are shown on the right side of the strut.
can problematic if one is trying to reach steady state and
The color contours indicate the freesurface elevation.
also wants to minimize computer time. For computaRed denotes a wave crest ( = +0.15) and blue denotes
tions presented in this paper, a step function start of the
a wave trough ( = 0.15). In general, the agreement
velocity instantaneously jumping to the freestream vebetween the numerical simulations and the experimenlocity has always been used. Step function starts are easy
tal measurements is very good. However, there are some
to initiate in the compute code, but they cause relatively
notable differences. For example, the numerical simulalarge transient oscillations. These very strong initial trantions show more finescale detail than the experimental
sients tend to weaken after the body has moved 10 body
measurements. This is because the experimental mealengths, but the weaker oscillations as predicted by Wesurements are timeaveraged and the numerical simulahausen (1964) are still present. The effects of these trantions show an instantaneous snapshot of the free surface
sients are reduced by time averaging. We note that the
at t = 3.75. We also note that unlike the numerical simoscillations due to the starting transient can be mitigated
ulations, the measuring device that had been used in the
by reducing the severity of the startup from a step funcexperiments is only capable of measuring singlevalued
tion to one that is much smoother and slower, which is
freesurface elevations. Another difference between nuan option that is currently being investigated.
merical simulations and experimental measurements occurs away from the strut where the numerical simulations
Results
show edge effects due to the smaller domain size that is
used relative to the actual experiments. Figure 1 illustrates that we are able to model the macroscale features
NACA 0024 geometry
of the flow associated with the body interacting with the
The NFA code is used to simulate the flow around a
free surface.
surfacepiercing vertical strut moving with constant forFigures 2 and 3 show details of the numerical simuward speed. The water plane sections of the strut are
5
Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
6
Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
7
Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
5415 geometry
The length, beam, and draft are respectively 5.72m,
0.388m, and 0.248m. The speed is 6.02 knots. Details
of the hull geometry,including the sinkage and trim, are
provided at http://www50.dt.navy.mil/5415/.
The length, width, and depth of the computational
domain normalized by ship length are respectively 2, 0.5,
and 0.5. The origin of our computational domain is taken
to be the point at which the unperturbed water intersects
the bow of the ship. The x coordinate at inflow is x = 0.5
and at outflow, x = 1.5. The height of the computational domain above the mean free surface normalized by
ship length is z = 0.5. Reduced pressure boundary conditions are used along the sides (y = 0.25) and back of
the computational domain (x = 1.5). The freestream
velocity is imposed at the leading edge of the computational domain (x = 0.5) with zero pressure gradient.
No flux conditions are used at the top and the bottom of
the domain (z = 0.5). The CLSVOF formulation is
used to capture the freesurface interface. AMR is used
locally near the ship hull and the free surface.
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
(e)
(f)
Figure 6: CLSVOF predictions compared to whiskerprobe measurements for the 5415. (a) x = 0.044. (b) x = 0.062. (c)
x = 0.080. (d) x = 0.098. (e) x = 0.115. (f) x = 0.133.
9
Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
resolution
coarse
medium
fine
grid points
320 128 96 = 3,932,160
480 192 144 = 13,271,040
640 256 192 = 31,457,280
resolution
coarse
medium
fine
grid spacing
0.00625
0.004166
0.003125
subdomains
20 8 6 = 960
30 12 9 = 3240
40 16 12 = 7680
processors
120
270
320
Wedge geometry
The length and draft of the wedge geometry are respectively 35 and 3.5 feet. The entrance angle is 20 degrees. The speed is 6.0 knots. The Froude number is
Fr = 0.3021. The wedge geometry has a full bow based
on the Revelle hull form, and a narrow stern, based on
the bow of the Athena hull form. This enabled the model
to be towed in two different directions to investigate the
effects of fullness on the bow wave. Details of wedge geometry and the towing experiments are provided in Karion et al. (2003).
The rms surface fluctuations for each grid resolution are shown in Figure 8. The color contours indicate
the magnitude of the freesurface fluctuations. Red denotes the maximum rms fluctuations (
= 0.011), and
blue indicates regions where there are no fluctuations.
The rms fluctuations are calculated by taking the square
root of the variance of the vertical offset where the phase
changes from air to water. The regions where phase
changes occur include droplets of fluid above the mean
position of the free surface and bubbles of air beneath
the mean position of the free surface. The statistics are
calculated from t = 4 to t = 6. A histogram analysis indicates that phase changes are dominated by smallscale fluctuations on the mean position of the free surface. This corresponds to roughening of the free surface.
The greatest fluctuations in the freesurface elevation occur along the centerline of the wedge, in the flow separation region behind the corner of the wedge, and along
the front face of the bow wave. Comparisons of coarse,
medium, and fine resolutions show that fluctuations increase as the grid resolution increases. Interestingly, the
finest resolution simulation shows that the rms fluctuations increase in extent slightly off of the center plane on
the front face of the bow wave. Based on photographs
of the experiments (Karion et al. 2003), this is a region
Three different grid resolutions are used, corresponding to coarse, medium, and fine grid resolutions.
The details with respect to grid resolution are provided in
Table 1. The finest resolution is twice that of the coarsest.
The finest grid resolution is 0.003125 ship lengths. This
would correspond to 31cm for a 100m ship. In order to
resolve largescale features associated with spray formation and air entrainment, we believe that grid resolutions
less than 10cm are required. Details of the domain decomposition are provided in Table 2, and the cpu time
per time step for each grid resolution are provided in Table 3. Based on these two tables, it can be shown that
the cpu time scales linearly with respect to the number of
grid points and the number of processors. The numerical
simulations have been run for 3001 time steps. The time
step for each simulation is t = 0.002.
10
The mean freesurface elevation for each grid resolution compared to laboratory measurements are shown
in Figure 9. Numerical predictions are plotted in the top
portion of each graph. Quantitative Visualization (QViz)
measurements are plotted in the bottom portion of each
graph. QViz uses a laser sheet to illuminate the free
surface. A video camera is used to capture snapshots,
which are then digitally processed. Additional details
of the QViz measurements are provided in Karion et al.
(2003). The color contours indicate the freesurface elevation. Red denotes a wave crest ( = +0.035), and
blue denotes a wave trough ( = 0.035). As before,
the mean position of the free surface is calculated from
the volume fraction averaged over time from t = 4
to t = 6. For these figures, 0.687 x 0.284
and 0.21 y 0.21. The correlation coefficients
between the measurements and the predictions for the
coarse, medium, and fine simulations are respectively
0.951, 0.954, and 0.957. Since the QViz instrument measures from the top down, we also consider the correlation
between the experimental data and the predictions of the
mean plus the rms fluctuations. In this case, the correlations improve to 0.950, 0.958, and 0.960 for respectively
the coarse, medium, and fine simulations.
Conclusions
With sufficient resolution, interface capturing methods
are capable of modelling the formation of spray and
the entrainment of air. Based on comparisons to other
VOF formulations that are not reported here, secondorderaccurate formulations such as those used in the
NFA and CLSVOF codes are desirable because firstorder schemes tend to inhibit wave breaking. A major benefit of our cartesiangrid formulations relative to
bodyfitted formulations is that secondorder VOF formulations are easier to develop.
secondorder VOF formulation, a key issue is mass conservation and surface reconstruction along boundaries
where grid resolution changes. Various methods are
also being investigated to reduce initial transients. One
method slowly ramps up the freestream velocity, which
is similar to how a towingtank carriage operates. We are
also continuing development of techniques for processing VOF datasets to improve understanding and modelling of wave breaking.
Acknowledgements
This research is supported by ONR under contract numbers N0001404C0097 and N0001402C0432. Dr.
Patrick Purtell is the program manager. The second author is supported in part by the NSF Division of Mathematical Sciences under award number DMS 0108672
with Thomas Fogwell as program manager and by ONR
under contract number N0001402C0543 with Judah
Goldwasser as program manager. The numerical simulations have been performed on the Cray T3E at the U.S.
Army Engineering Research and Development Center.
Figure 9: Comparisons to QViz Measurements for Wedge Geometry. (a) Coarse. (b) Medium (c) Fine.
References
Colella, P., Graves, D., Modiano, D., Puckett, E., & Sussman,
M., An embedded boundary / volume of fluid method
for freesurface flows in irregular geometries,
Proceedings of FEDSM99, 3rd ASME/JSME Joint
Fluids Engineering Conference, 1999.
Dommermuth, D., Innis, G., Luth, T., Novikov, E., Schlageter,
E., & Talcott, J., Numerical simulation of bow waves,
Proceedings of the 22nd Symposium on Naval
Hydrodynamics, Washington, D.C., 1998, pp. 508521.
Goldstein, D., Handler, R., & Sirovich, L., Modeling a noslip
boundary with an external force field, J. Comp. Phys.,
Vol. 105, 1993, pp. 354366.
Gueyffier, D., Li, J., Nadim, A., Scardovelli, R., & Zaleski, S.,
Volumeoffluid interface tracking with smoothed
surface stress methods for threedimensional flows, J.
Comp. Phys., Vol. 152, 1999, pp. 423456.
Iafrati, A., Olivieri, A., Pistani, F., & Campana, E., Numerical
and experimental study of the wave breaking generated
by a submerged hydrofoil, Proceedings of the 23rd
Symposium on Naval Hydrodynamics, Nantes, France,
2001, pp. 746761.
Karion, A., WaniewskiSur, T., Fu, T., Furey, D., Rice, J., &
Walker, D., Experimental study of the bow wave of a
large towed wedge, Proceedings of the 8th International
Conference on Numerical Ship Hydrodynamics, Busan,
Korea, 2003.
12
Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
13
Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
DISCUSSION
Joseph Gorski
Naval Surface Warfare Center, Carderock Division,
USA
The Cartesian based grid strategy the
authors present looks very attractive both from the
ability to quickly generate grids as well as the
improved accuracy possible for computing the free
surface.
Since no additional gridding beyond
potential flow methods is required have the authors
investigated how well the approach works for
predicting the boundary layer flow near a ship, which
can influence the wave field at the stern?
Also,
have the authors made a direct comparison of the two
methods, VOF and CLSVOF, or have any indication
that one may be better than the other?
AUTHORS REPLY
Thank you Joe for your comments.
As
formulated, our Cartesian grid method will not
resolve boundary layers along the hull. At the stem,
where turbulent break up is apt to occur, we would
have to incorporate a model into our formulation.
However, at the stern where there is a clean
separation, our formulation is adequate.
We are
currently in the process of comparing the merits of
VOF and CLSVOF.
DISCUSSION
Alessandro Iafrati
Istituto Nazionale per Studi ed Esperienze di
Architettura Navale, Italy
First of all, the authors should be
congratulated on producing such large amount of
results. I have two questions. The first one concerns
the entrance and exit boundary conditions: the model
you adopted to enforce a parallel uniform flow with
zero free surface elevation at entrance and exit looks
rather efficient. I wonder if you could give more
details about it. My second question concerns the
comparison between numerical and experimental
results shown on figures 1 and 2 of your paper: timeaveraged experimental measurements display
longitudinal striations which are not so evident from
the numerical results. Maybe, this is because the
latter are just instantaneous snapshot. Did you try to
establish the same comparison by using timeaveraged free surface profiles also for the numerical
data?
AUTHORS REPLY
Thank you Alessandro for your comments.
We force a uniform stream at the entrance and exit.
The xcomponent of velocity is set equal to negative
one, and the y and zcomponents of velocity are set
equal to zero. The freesurface elevation is set equal
to its stillwater level. The nature of the forcing is
very similar to the forcing that you have formulated
in your own research studies as noted in our paper.
In regard to our comparisons with experiments, we
have discussed this matter with experimentalists who
indicate that the capacitance wave probes that were
used in the experiments are prone to drift. This may
explain the striations that are observed in the
experiments.
DISCUSSION
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Kelli Hendrickson
Massachusetts Institute of Technology, USA
Firstly, I would like to thank the authors for
their work. All of them have contributed greatly to
the field of numerical Naval Hydrodynamics and this
work is an example of their continuing effort to delve
into the complex nature of even simulating high
Froude number flows about surface ships, much less
improve our understanding of the phenomena of
wave breaking, spray formation and air entrainment.
I have questions regarding both the
numerical method and comparisons with
experiments, so please bear with me if they appear
too detailed for this venue.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
AUTHORS REPLY
Thank you Kelli for your comments. We
address your questions point by point.
DISCUSSION
Stephen Scorpio
Johns Hopkins University, USA
I would like to thank the authors for an
excellent paper. What are your ideas for validating
the fine scale structure (e.g. ejection of water
droplets, air entrainment and free surface
fluctuations) predicted by your model?
AUTHORS REPLY
Thank you Steve for your comments. A
range of instruments are currently being developed to
capture the finescale structure that is present in ship
flows. In addition, different methods for processing
existing datasets are also being developed to capture
unsteady effects.
a)
Figure 3: The R/V Athena I traveling at +10 m/s.
details for the R/V Athena are listed in Table 1.
More
information
can
be
found
at
www.code50.nswccd.navy.mil.
b)
Figure 1: a) Breaking wave over a submerged
hydrofoil, U=2.6m/s, chord=1.8m, depth of
submergence =1.8m, b) Flow behind the DDG67,
USS Cole, U=10.3m/s.
a)
b)
Figure 2: Images of the bow wave of the DDG67
USS Cole at 20 knots, a) bow on and b) side view.
Note the fluid sheet curl over characteristic of a
plunging breaker.
Length Overall
50.3 m
Length Waterline
47.0 m
Extreme Beam
7.3 m
Draft
3.2 m
Propulsion
Twin screw,
Twin diesel (low speed)
Gas Turbine, (high
speed)
Speed
Camera 1
Camera 3
Spatial
Reference
Camera 2
a)
Camera 3
Spatial
Reference
Laser Sheet
Camera 2
Camera 1
b)
Figure 4: Image of the QViz setup showing the 3
cameras and the spatial reference.
SPEED
Speed (m/s)
6.5
6.0
5.5
5.0
4.5
40.0
60.0
80.0
100.0
Time (sec)
120.0
ROLL
Roll (deg)
4.0
2.0
0.0
2.0
4.0
40.0
60.0
120.0
PITCH
2.0
Pitch (deg)
80.0
100.0
Time (sec)
1.0
0.0
1.0
2.0
40.0
60.0
80.0
100.0
Time (sec)
120.0
Heading (deg)
HEADING
360
330
300
270
240
210
180
40.0
60.0
80.0
100.0
Time (sec)
120.0
a)
b)
c)
d)
c)
e)
Figure 7: Successive QViz images t =1/30th second, U=4.6 m/s and x=5.9 m from the bow stem.
RESULTS
A sample of successive frames with the extracted
edge superimposed in red, for U=4.6 m/s at an axial
location 5.9 m from the bow stem are shown in
Figure 7. Note the wave crest amplitude changes by
approximately 0.15 m in ~ 1/6th of a second. To
characterize this unsteadiness of the freesurface
profiles, the mean and the standard deviation for each
speed and location were computed. Figure 8 shows
these mean profiles in red and the standard deviation
in blue for speeds of 4.6, 5.4, and 6.2 m/s at the same
axial location and the same general heading
As noted above 1800 individual profiles
were collected per run. At least two runs were
performed for each speed and axial position.
Comparing mean freesurface profiles for the same
location, for two separate runs, it was observed that
two mean profiles were very similar. The most
obvious difference was a slight amplitude offset, due
to a slight difference in speed. This difference was
much smaller than the unsteady fluctuations of the
instantaneous profile, where the difference between
runs was approximately 2 cm and the range of the
unsteady fluctuations was around 15 cm, so the large
fluctuations are not due to the way the ship is
operated, i.e. variations in speed or ship motions
while recording a data set.
Though the ambient conditions were very
calm, with only a slight wind chop from a 3.5 to 5.5
m/s breeze, there is still a great deal of fluctuation in
the freesurface elevation. Data for a given speed
was acquired at two headings, roughly equivalent to
head and following sea conditions. The effect of
heading on the breaking bow wave can be seen in
Figure 9. Figure 9 shows the average freesurface
profile for an axial position 5.3 m aft of the bow stem
for two successive runs at opposite headings. The
shape of the profile is markedly different. One can
see that on the southward run (red, heading = 255
deg.), which would be nominally a head seas
condition, the wave is smaller and the peak of the
profile is farther from the ship, than is the northbound
case (blue, heading = 65 deg.)). This difference is
not due to the direction of the swell, because there
was minimal swell present, but mostly due to the fact
that the wind direction is slightly off of the ships
track. The wind came out of nominally 30 degrees.
The QViz instrumentation was mounted on the port
side of the ship. So the system would then be on the
windward side on northbound runs and on the
leeward side during southbound runs. The slight
difference in speed through the water, due to the
currents in the bay should also be noted. This effect
a) U=6.2 m/s
b) U=5.4 m/s
c) U=4.6 m/s
Figure 8: Mean surface profiles (red) and standard
deviation (blue) for a) 6.2 m/s, b) 5.4 m/s, and c) 4.6
m/s, at an axial position 5.9 m aft of the bow stem.
DISCUSSION
Figures 8 shows that the standard deviation in
amplitude of the profiles is only weekly dependent
upon speed. The magnitude of the variability was on
the order of 0.15 m. Because the magnitude of the
fluctuations was for a large part independent of speed
that would lead one to believe that ambient
conditions may be causing this variability. Looking
at the tail ends of the profiles away from the crest of
the bow wave the range of fluctuations is on the order
of 0.1 m. This is similar to the difference seen in
Figure 9. It may very well be that the wind chop
present was on the order of 0.1 m in amplitude and a
great deal of the variability present is due to the wind.
A more systematic assessment of the ambient seas
surface conditions has not been made to date. Video
and analysis of portions of the images further from
the ship would also help in characterizing the
ambient seas.
The objective of the test was to obtain
detailed freesurface measurements of the bow wave
of a fullscale ship. Data was taken in as calm as
possible field conditions to allow for comparison to
tow tank data.
Looking more closely at the
differences between field and tow tank conditions,
Figure 11 shows the timeaveraged wave profile for
the Athena and for a large wedge model towed at the
same speed (4.6 m/s) and nominally the same axial
position. The wedge model is large (5 ft draft, 7 ft
max beam) and flared with a 20degree entry angle,
making it generally similar to the R/V Athena. A
detailed description of the geometry is found in
Karion et al (2003). Figure 11 shows that the
DISCUSSION
Dane M. Hendrix
Naval Surface Warfare Center, Carderock Division,
USA
The difficulty in obtaining these detailed
measurements in the field for conditions that are of
practical interest and over extents likely to be helpful
to modellers is tremendous. I would like to thank the
authors for a very interesting paper and encourage
them to continue to examine the details of this data to
improve our understanding of the factors that control
the characteristics of breaking wave flows.
One question I have concerns the rather
dramatic difference due to ships heading shown in
Figure 9. I note that the ship speed and the wind
speed are roughly equal and that your heading is
nearly down wind. Do you think it likely that the
down wind pass is a condition where the ship is
moving in phase with the wind generated waves?
There might be a steady wave pattern around the ship
that is dependent on this particular condition and may
account for the difference in the average wave profile
observed.
AUTHORS REPLY
This is certainly possible and something we
will be looking at as we get further into the analysis.
The wind generated waves were minimal due to the
small fetch in the bay, but nonetheless, there was an
observable wind generated chop.
DISCUSSION
Dane M. Hendrix
Naval Surface Warfare Center, Carderock Division,
USA
My
second
question
concerns
a
characteristic of the flow that you may not have yet
had time to analyze in detail. In Figure 11, you show
that the average profile is much more variable for the
atsea test than for the tow tank large bow wedge.
How would you compare the surface roughness of
the bow wave observed on Athena and on the large
bow wedge at the same speed at an instant in time?
AUTHORS REPLY
We have begun to look more in depth at the
rms fluctuations of the freesurface elevations
between the atsea and tow tank data. We are
planning to compare the roughness spectra from the
two tests. We do observe increased variability in the
DISCUSSION
Stephen M. Scorpio
Johns Hopkins University, USA
Does QViz require the presence of droplets
or bubbles to visualize the free surface?
AUTHORS REPLY
QViz does not require droplets or bubbles,
but it does require sufficient surface roughness to
spectrally scatter enough light that the surface can be
detected from the recorded images. This has not
been an issue in the field, but it does require the QViz
images be recorded at night. In the lab, we use
fluorescing dye to mark the freesurface when there
is insufficient scattering.
DISCUSSION
Patrick Purtell
Office of Naval Research, USA
What is the effect of surface roughness since
the fluctuations occur both in the tank and at sea?
AUTHORS REPLY
The surface roughness observed in the tank
is associated with the turbulence from the breaking
bow wave and some residual disturbance from the
previous run. The surface roughness seen in the field
is due to both the breaking wave turbulence and with
ambient roughness from wind driven chop and
ambient waves. We have made fullscale laboratory
measurements of the small scale roughness generated
by wind and see a significant increase in spectral
content at the wavenumbers associated with surface
roughness. The surface roughness does not seem to
alter the time averaged wave fields, but we will
continue our analysis and attempt to quantify or at
least identify the affects of the ambient conditions on
bow wave breaking.
DISCUSSION
Richard Lahey, Jr.
Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, USA
Is it not possible to also measure the
velocity, turbulence and void fraction fields using
existing instrumentation (e.g., ). These type of salt
water data are badly needed by modelers.
AUTHORS REPLY
It is certainly possible to measure velocity,
turbulence and void fraction with existing
instrumentation at least at discreet points. Velocity
and turbulence can be measured with Acoustic
Doppler Velocimetry (ADV) probes in the lower void
fraction regions. And Eric Terrill at the Scripps
Institution on Oceanography, UCSD, did make void
fraction measurements of the transom flow region
during the May 2004, Athena effort, and Mory
Gharib, of the California Institute of Technology also
measured bubble size and velocity distributions. So
while it is certainly possible to measure velocity,
turbulence, and void fraction to go along with the
freesurface elevation and surface roughness, we
have not yet attempted to obtain a detailed
comprehensive salt water data set of all these
quantities for the same breaking wave feature. That
canonical data set is indeed one of the goals of the
field work and the authors do thank the modelers for
their encouragement and support.
DISCUSSION
Leonard Imas
Stevens Institute of Technology, USA
This paper describes a study in which fullscale wave breaking around a surface ship was
investigated. What makes this work unique is that
very little fullscale data on this phenomenon is
available in published literature. Congratulations
should be extended to the authors for undertaking an
experiment of this magnitude, especially one where
quantitative
measurements
were
obtained
successfully. A few comments on the discussion
presented in the paper:
1) On page 1, the authors present the different
speeds at which Athena was run vs. those at
which the wedge experiment was run. While
some of these are the same, in terms of scaling
they represent different Froude, Reynolds, and
Weber number combinations. It would have been
more useful to make these comparison using
these nondimensional parameters (using draft as
the length scale) rather than absolute speeds.
AUTHORS REPLY
The intent was to focus on the field
measurements and only make initial observational
comments on the comparison of the data to the wedge
experiment data. We will indeed carry out the kind of
specific analysis Len mentions. In fact, the draft at
the bow of the R/V Athena I is only 1.55m which is
very close to one of the three wedge drafts (1.5m,
1.1m, and 0.6m), so direct comparison and scaled
comparisons can be made.
DISCUSSION
Leonard Imas
Stevens Institute of Technology, USA
2) On page 4, there is a discussion regarding
characterization of near surface currents. It
should be noted that this is not a trivial task due
to the unsteady nature of Gulf of Mexico surface
currents near the freesurface. Much work has
been carried out in investigating this subject by
the offshore petroleum industry in the framework of VIV problems.
AUTHORS REPLY
This has indeed been more complicated than
first anticipated. The data was taken in St. Andrews
DISCUSSION
Tricia Waniewski Sur
Science Applications International Corporation, USA
DISCUSSION
1.
3.
AUTHORS REPLY
AUTHORS REPLY
This has been done and is in the final
version of the paper.
DISCUSSION
Tricia Waniewski Sur
Science Applications International Corporation, USA
2.
AUTHORS REPLY
The primary difference in the appearance is
the stability of the white bubbly region in saltwater.
This is due to differences in surface tension. The
smaller bubble size certainly contributes to the
bubble stability, but the visual differences I am
referring to are not differences in the appearance of
the white water regions, but the fact there are larger
areas of whitewater due to the differences in surface
tension.
ABSTRACT
CFD (Computational Fluid Dynamics) methods for
solving Reynolds Averaged NavierStokes equations
are being used as a design tool in various fields of fluid
engineering. However, there remain many problems
which are not easily analyzed by standard CFD methods. Wave breaking which often appears in free surface
flows around an advancing ship is one of such examples. Its simulations are difficult because of the underlying complicated physics such as interface topology change, airwater interaction or energy dissipation.
Yet, analysis of wave breaking is of great importance
in ship hydrodynamics, since the wave breaking resistance plays a significant role in propulsive performance
of a certain class of ships. Therefore, it is desirable that
CFD methods for ship design have capability to simulate breaking waves. In this paper, the capability of the
uptodate unstructured NavierStokes method which
is under development at National Maritime Research
Institute, Japan is examined for breaking wave simulations around a ship model. The method employs an
interface capturing scheme for free surface treatment
and it is expected that it can cope with large deformation of free surface shape.
INTRODUCTION
CFD (Computational Fluid Dynamics) methods
have reached the stage in which they are used as a design tool in various fluid engineering fields. However,
there remain many problems which are not easily analyzed by standard CFD methods.
Wave breaking often appears in free surface flows
around an advancing ship is one of such examples. Its
simulation is difficult due to the underlying complicated physics such as interface topology change, twophase flow interaction or energy dissipation. Analysis
of wave breaking, on the other hand, is of great importance in ship hydrodynamics, since wave breaking
resistance plays a significant role in propulsive performance of a certain class of ships. Therefore, it is desirable that CFD methods for ship design have capability
to simulate breaking waves.
In this paper, the capability of the uptodate CFD
method which is under development at National Maritime Research Institute, Japan is examined by the
NUMERICAL PROCEDURE
Flow Solver
The flow solver used in this study is called SURF
(Solution algorithm for Unstructured RaNS with
FVM). It is under development toward a practical ship
design tool. The governing equations are the threedimensional Reynolds averaged NavierStokes equations for incompressible flows. In order to couple pressure with a velocity field, artificial compressibility is
introduced into the continuity equation with expense
of time accuracy, which means that the present formulation is for a steady state solution. The final form can
be written as follows:
q (e ev ) (f f v ) (g g v )
+
+
+
=0
t
x
y
z
(1)
and
q = [ p u v w ]T
In the above expressions all the variables are made dimensionless using the reference density 0 , velocity
U0 and length L 0 . Pressure p is modified as
p = p +
z
F2
where p is
the original pressure and F is the Froude
number, U/ gL0 , with z being the vertical coordinate. By this modification of pressure, the gravitational acceleration term can be dropped from the zmomentum equations. The velocity components in the
(x, y, z) direction is expressed as (u, v, w).
The inviscid fluxes e, f and g are defined as
u
v
w
u2 + p
vu
wu
e=
uv , f = v 2 + p , g = wv
w2 + p
uw
vw
0
0
0
xx
v
xy v zx
ev =
xy , f = yy , g = yz
zx
yz
zz
where
ij = (
DH
H
H
H
H
=
+u
+v
+w
=0
Dt
t
x
y
z
(2)
in water
>0
=0
on the interface
(3)
<0
in air
1
ui
uj
+ t )(
+
)
R
xj
xi
=
+u
+v
+w
=0
Dt
t
x
y
z
(4)
if d > 1
1
d
if d 1
=
(5)
1
if d < 1
Thus, the level set function is localized within the
bandwidth 21 from the interface. The transport equation (4) is also modified as
+ C() u
+v
+w
= 0 (6)
t
x
y
z
where C() is the cutoff function defined as
C() =
( )2 (2 + 3 )
2
2
1
3
)
2
1
if  1
if 1 <  2
if  < 2
(7)
from the cell centered values with the second order accuracy in the physical space. The gradient of at the
cell center used in the extrapolation above is obtained
by the least squares method. Furthermore, when a cell
face is quadrilateral, the face is divided into two triangles and the one point quadrature is used for each
triangle, which guarantees the second order accuracy
in the physical space. The time integration is carried
out by the Euler backward scheme as in the same way
as for the momentum equations.
In order to avoid reflection of free surface waves in
the outer boundaries of a computational domain, the
wave damping method (Hino, 1999) is used.
There is a singular behavior of the interface in the
region close to a solid wall. The noslip condition imposed on a solid wall prevents the interface movement
there, while the interface in the outer region moves due
to the fluid motion. It causes the unphysical large deformation of near a solid wall. The extrapolation
approach is employed here to remove this problem, in
which the value of for the cells close to the wall is
extrapolated from the outer cell. The selection of outer
cells on unstructured grids also needs special attention
(Hino, 1999).
The reinitialization of the level set is an important
step in the level set method, since the level set function
is no longer a distance function after the convection.
The reinitialization process can be done using the partial differential equation as in Sussman et al, 1994 or
Peng et al, 1999.
Flow Variable Extrapolation
i
+ C(i )
(i+j)/2 U(i+j)/2 = 0
t
j
Since most of ship hydrodynamics applications require a flow field of water region only, onephase flow
approach is used, i.e., flow variables in the air region are extrapolated from a water region in such a
way that the dynamic condition on free surface boundary is satisfied. This method also has an advantage that it is not necessary to cope with large density difference between air and water. At this point,
the present method differs from the original level set
method(Sussman et al, 1994) where twophase flow
approach is employed.
The dynamic free surface conditions can be approximated by the following two conditions. First, the velocity gradients normal to the free surface are zero.
Second, the pressure on the free surface is equal to atmospheric pressure. In order to satisfy the first condition, the velocity components are extrapolated in
the direction normal to the interface. Following the
localized level set method (Peng et al, 1999), this is
achieved by solving the following equation in the air
(8)
where
U(i+j)/2 ui Sx,(i+j)/2 + vi Sy,(i+j)/2 + wi Sz,(i+j)/2
Vi is the cell volume and j is the neighbor cells of the
cell i. The subscript (i + j)/2 denotes the cell face
between the cells i and j and (S x , Sy , Sz ) are the area
vectors of the cell face. Special care should be taken
in the construction of the flux (i+j)/2 U(i+j)/2 . When
the flow is uniform and parallel to the flat interface,
the flat interface should be preserved. To achieve this,
(i+j)/2 , the value of on the cell face, is extrapolated
Free Surface
 i 
C
A
 j 
J
q = 0

(9)
h
on the free surface
F2
(10)
(zc /F 2 )(i  + j ) pj i 
j 
where
zc =
y/L
0.15000
0.15000
0.15000
0.14935
0.14694
0.14166
0.13346
0.12223
0.10771
0.089610
0.067359
0.037416
0.00000
A ship model used is called SRIBBM (Ship Research Institute Blunt Bow Model) which is designed
for investigation of wave breaking around a blunt
bow of simple geometry. Flow field measurements
for this model have been carried out at Ship Research Institute (currently, National Maritime Research
Institute)(Hinatsu et al, 2001). Fig.2 shows the geometry of the model whose length, width and draft are
2.0m, 0.6m and 0.6m, respectively. The waterline
shape is a semicircle of radius r/L = 0.15 at the
bow followed by a parallel part of a half ship length
and a smooth curve to the sternend. Waterline coordinates are shown in Table 1. The hull shape is wallsided down to z/L = 0.15 and the remaining part
is a lowerhalf of a body of revolution with the profile
being same as the waterline.
Fig.3 shows the views of the computational grid.
Since the geometry is simple, the grid is generated as
a structured grid of OO topology and the data structure is converted into the unstructured grid format. The
number of cells are 128 68 80 in the streamwise,
girth and normal directions. The grid points are clustered to the body surface and are densely distributed
in the interface region. A solution domain is on the
port side of the ship assuming symmetry of flow field
and its size is 2 x 4, 2.5 y 0 and
2.2 z 0.3, while a ship is placed at 0 x 1.
The averaged spacing adjacent to the solid wall is
3.16 106 .
As a flow condition, Froude number and Reynolds
number, based on a ship length, are set 0.3834 and
i zj + j zi
i  + j 
0.4
0.3
0.2
y/L
0.1
0.0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.00
0.25
0.50
x/L
0.75
1.00
Waterline
0.4
0.3
0.2
z/L
0.1
and wave contours between experiment and simulation. In these figures, it is observed that general features of a wave field have been captured by the present
computation. Bow wave forms an arclike shape. It
is followed by the steep trough behind it. The second
wave crest is present slightly aft of a midship. However, there are some differences in the details of wave
configurations. A bow wave in the picture shows a turbulent surface due to spilling beaker, while a free surface shape in the computation is smooth except for the
small hump ahead of a bow. The grid resolution may
not be sufficient enough to capture breaking and/or
smallscale turbulent motions. Furthermore, the preset
steady state solution method cannot simulate unsteady
flows properly. The second wave crest in the experiment is breaking with air bubbles, which is also beyond
the capability of the present code which employs onephase flow approach. However, the computed wave
front of the second crest shows discontinuity, which
indicates wave breaking.
The same trend is seen in the comparison of wave
profiles along a ship hull shown in Fig.7. From the
foreend to the bottom of wave trough, the simulated
wave profile agrees very well with the measured one,
where wave breaking is not present. The second wave
crest with strong breaking is not simulated well, although the weak discontinuity of a free surface shape
can be observed. The computed wave crest height is
smaller than that in the experiment. Note that in the experiment this region is a mixture of water and air as can
be seen in Fig.5, while in the computation flow field is
0.0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.00
0.25
0.50
x/L
0.75
1.00
Profile
Figure 2: Geometry of ship model.
3.4 106 , which corresponds to the experimental condition.
Flow Field Solution
Computation continued up to 3,000 iteration steps
with the CFL number of 5. At this stage, the resistance
and the number of cells within water still show fluctuations with the iteration step. Since the actual flow field
is unsteady due to strong wave breaking, it is reasonable that the present steady state solution method failed
to get convergence. In the following, the snapshot flow
data at 3,000th step is analyzed to examine the capability of the present method. Time accurate simulation
is underway and the result will be presented in the presentation.
Fig.4 shows hull surface pressure and velocity vectors on a center plane together with wave profile.
Figs.5 and 6 shows the comparison of wave patterns
Measured
Y/L
0.25
0.25
0.5
0.25
0.5
0.75
X/L
Computed
h/L
Measured
Computed
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
X/L
Experiment
Z
Y
Simulation
Figure 5: Comparison of wave patterns.
0.4
0.05
0.2
z/L
0.0
Plane A
0.05
0.2
Plane B
r/L
0.1
0.4
0.25
0.15
0.00
0.25
x/L
0.50
0.75
1.00
0.2
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.2
0.1
Z/L
0.1
0.2
0.3
0
0.25
0.5
0.75
X/L
Measured
CONCLUDING REMARKS
The capability of the uptodate CFD method which
is under development at National Maritime Research
Institute has been examined by the comparison of computed and measured flow field data for a ship model
with a blunt bow.
In general, wave breaking is not simulated well
by the present method, although the simulated flow
field agrees reasonably well with the experimental one
where wave breaking is not present and the breaking in
the midship region is captured to some extent.
Poor grid resolution in the interface region may be
one reason for this discrepancy. However, there seem
to be more subtle limitations in the present method
for simulating breaking waves . Steadystate solution methods like the present method may not simulate
breaking waves which are essentially unsteady. Twophase flow approach may be necessary for simulations
of strong wave breaking. Especially if the air trap plays
0.2
0.1
Z/L
0.1
0.2
0.3
0
0.25
0.5
0.75
X/L
Computed
Figure 9: Comparison of pressure distribution on a
ship hull. Contour interval Cp is 0.1.
in Fig.10 are compared in Figs.11 and 12. On the
center plane (Plane A), the wave profile in the experiment is less steep than in the computation and the
PLANE A
0.12
0.1
0.08
Z/L
0.06
0.04
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
0.02
0
0.02
0.3
0.2
0.1
X/L
Measured
0.12
REFERENCES
0.1
0.08
Z/L
0.06
0.04
0.02
0
0.02
0.3
0.2
0.1
X/L
Computed
Sussman, M., Smereka, P. and Osher, S., A Level Set Approach for Computing Solutions to Incompressible TwoPhase Flow, J. Comput. Phys., Vol.114, 1994, pp.146159.
Z/L
0.1
Hino, T., A 3D Unstructured Grid Method for Incompressible Viscous Flows, J. of the Soc. Naval Archit.
Japan, Vol.182, 1977, pp.9 15.
0.05
0.2
0.1
R/L
Measured
Z/L
0.1
Spalart, P.R. and Allmaras, S.R., A OneEquation Turbulence Model for Aerodynamic Flows, La Recherche
Aerospatiale, No.1, 1994, pp.5 21.
0.05
0.2
0.1
R/L
Computed
DISCUSSION
Arthur Reed
Naval Surface Warfare Center, Carderock Division,
USA
The author notes discrepancies between the
waves ahead of the bow by computation and
measurement. I note that the computations fail to
capture the stagnation flow ahead of the bow. This is
seen in the experiments as a predominantly vertical
flow on the centerline immediately ahead of the bow.
Stagnation flow is a steady phenomena that should be
captured by the computations, even with a simple
free surface breaking code. An examination of why
the stagnation flow is not captured might help to
resolve the differences between the computations and
experiments.
AUTHORS REPLY
Fig. A1 shows the computed streamlines in
the center plane in front of the bow. The present
computation captures the feature of the stagnation
flow although the computed stagnation point is
higher than the experimental one. In Fig.A2, the
front views of the surface pressure distributions are
compared between the computation and the
measurement. Again, the high (stagnation) pressure
zone in the computation is located higher than in the
measurement. This difference is most likely due to
the poor grid resolution in the vertical direction,
although the verification is needed.
0.08
Z/L
0.06
0.04
0.1
0.05
X/L
Measured
Computed
0.04
Z/L
0.02
0
0.02
0.04
0.06
0.08
0.1
0.12
0.2
0.1
0.1
0.2
X/L
I NTRODUCTION
Bow wave dynamics have been the subject of analytical,
experimental,
and numerical
research
in
the
past
(including
Ogilvie (1972), Miyata and Inui (1984), Wyatt (2000),
Roth, et al. (1999),
Waniewski, et al. (2002),
and
others).
At present, a large variety of computational methods exists for modeling freesurface flows near surface ships (Wyatt (2000),
Sussman and Dommermuth (2001), and many others).
As numerical methods have grown more sophisticated,
developers have begun to attempt to model the breaking
bow wave. Experimental data in this breaking region
is needed for validation of these advanced numerical
techniques. While previous experiments have also investigated bow waves (Ogilvie (1972), Roth, et al. (1999),
Miyata and Inui (1984), Waniewski, et al. (2002)), most
were conducted with smaller models and did not exhibit
Figure 1: Diagram of wedge model with dimensions (in meters). The fine bow is on the right in the figure, and the full bow
on the left.
D (m)
0.6
0.6
1.1
1.1
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
U (m/s)
2.0
2.9
2.6
3.9
2.0
3.1
3.9
4.6
Fr
0.8
1.2
0.8
1.2
0.5
0.8
1.0
1.2
was towed with the fine bow forward, and for the second
part, the model was mounted in the opposite direction
(with the full bow forward). Thus, measurements of the
free surface were made for both configurations. Figure 2
shows an example of the bow wave generated by the full
bow (in the photograph, the model is running from left to
right).
The run conditions are summarized in Table 1
for the fine bow and Table 2 for the full bow. In the
tables, D represents the draft (the immersion depth of the
model, measured from the free surface at zero velocity),
U the towing velocity, and Fr the Froude number. The
Froude number is defined as follows:
U
Fr = ,
gD
D (m)
1.1
1.1
1.1
(1)
U (m/s)
1.7
2.6
3.1
Fr
0.5
0.8
1.0
Digital images from the video camera were collected at 30 frames per second using a National Instruments framegrabber board and a personal computer. An
image analysis program was developed at NSWCCD
using National Instruments LabView software with the
Image Processing (Vision) toolbox using builtin edgedetection routines to extract the surface profile information. For the present analysis, the breaking region of
each image was analyzed separately, and the resulting
water line determined as a function of time. The image size was 640480 pixels, covering a viewing area
of approximately 1.51.2 meters. Thus the lowest possible uncertainty (approximately 1 pixel) was equal to
0.25 cm. Distortion due to camera placement and viewing angle was corrected using an image of a calibration
grid with equally spaced points and a calibration algorithm in National Instruments LabView IMAQ Vision
software package. The largest error in the system was
introduced by the camera placement and the calibration
method. For example, error in the calibration would result if the grid was not held perfectly square and at the
correct distance relative to the camera. It is estimated
that the total error on the freesurface elevations is 1cm.
However, this is an error affecting the determination of
the absolute location of the free surface. The relative
error in the freesurface measurement from one frame
to the next (affecting the fluctuations of the surface presented here) is much lower, estimated to be at the pixel
error value of 0.25 cm. Future effort to reduce the error
on these types of measurements is focusing on placing
the cameras on automated panandtilt units, so that their
orientation is exactly known, and the calibrations can be
performed in a more controlled environment.
The images collected in this experiment were
taken with an interlaced camera, so that each image was
acquired in two fields, 1/60 of a second apart in time. In
an interlaced image, the first field is composed of the odd
pixel lines and the second the even. For the current analysis, these fields were separated to minimize the blurring
of the moving surface (the shutter speed of the camera
was also at 1/60 second). The effective vertical resolution for each image was thus halved to 240 pixels, and
the number of images doubled. The LabView software
used to perform this separation of the interlaced fields
simply interpolated to regenerate the intermediate pixels. Thus, at each location, the two seconds of data at 30
frames per second, each composed of two fields, resulted
in 120 images for analysis.
An example of an image that has been analyzed
in this way is shown in Figure 4. The red line superimposed on the surface of the wave is the edge that has been
0.6
Fine Bow Wave Profile, D = 1.5 m, FrD = 1.0, U = 3.9 m/s (7.5 kt), X = 2.6 m
0.4
0.26
0.2
z (m)
0.25
0
0.24
z (m)
0.2
0.23
0.4
0.22
0.6
0.2
0.2
0.4
0.6
y (m)
0.8
1.2
0.21
1.4
0.2
0.7
0.75
0.8
y (m)
0.85
0.9
0.95
R ESULTS
D = 1.5 m Fr = 1.0
Surface Fluctuations
The Quantitative Visualization (QViz) data was used to
determine the variation of the free surface with time.
Two seconds of data images were collected at each fixed
laser sheet location; these were analyzed to determine the
fluctuation of the free surface. Surface fluctuations were
determined only on the breaking region of the bow wave;
that is, in the region beginning where the bow sheet first
impinged back onto the free surface. In this area, the
laser light sheet was scattered very effectively due to the
turbulent, multiphase nature of the flow. Therefore, the
region analyzed was that where the image was clearly
and significantly brighter than the surrounding background. The image was thresholded at a high pixel value
that differed based on the condition, but was usually at
an approximate value of 200 out of 255, and then the
edgedetection algorithm was executed to find the topmost edge. Because this region had high contrast levels,
the image processing revealed relatively accurate measurements of the free surface. The nonbreaking parts of
the free surface, although previously analyzed in a mean
fashion (Karion, et al. (2003)), were not clear enough for
a framebyframe analysis.
0.015
0.01
0.005
raw data
smoothed data
0
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
x (meters from stem)
2.5
0.03
0.025
RMS (m)
0.02
0.015
0.01
0.005
0
0
0.5
Fr
1.5
0.1
0.08
RMS / Zmax
0.06
0.04
0.02
0
0
0.5
FrD
1.5
10
Power density
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
wavenumber (rad / m)
in length, usually ten centimeters or less. The straightsided bow with its rounded leading edge produced a wide
breaking wave, as contrasted with the narrow, plunging
breaker of the fine bow. The reflection of the laser sheet
off of the wide breaking region of the wave provided a
freesurface profile that was long enough to allow for
performing the FFT (see Figure 4).
The resulting wavenumber spectra are shown in
Figure 9 for two different speeds (2.6 m/s and 3.1 m/s)
at two different locations (0.5 m and 0.75 m from the
stem). The draft is 1.1 meters. The wavenumber results
show that the power spectrum at the higher wavenumbers, or shorter wavelengths, does not vary significantly
with Froude number. This result is consistent with
results shown for a twodimensional spilling breaker
by Walker, et al. (1996). It appears that the two cases
at higher speeds have slightly more energy at lower
wavenumbers than the two cases at lower speeds. However, this phenomenon would need to be studied experimentally in more detail in the future to make a firm conclusion. These somewhat limited results do support the
conclusions of Walker, et al. (1996), however.
Extent of Breaking
The extent of breaking occuring in the bow wave for each
condition was determined from the QViz images. Essentially, for each image, the region in which the laser
reflected very brightly off of the surface was defined as
the breaking area. This was the area in which the laser
reflected off of the multiple airwater interfaces of the
wave. Although this determination is somewhat subjective, it was found that there was a very clear contrast in
Figure 10: Contour plot of freesurface height with the location of breaking superimposed in black. This run is for the fine
bow, and has D = 1.5 m, U = 3.9 m/s (7.5 kt) and Fr = 1.0.
the images between this region and the rest of the free
surface, and effort was made to be consistent. This was
the same region that was used for the surface fluctuation
and surface roughness analyses described above.
Figures 10 and 11 show contour plots of the free
surface with the breaking area, as defined above, superimposed in black, for the fine bow and full bow, respectively. It should be noted here that the contour plots were
also generated using the same laser sheet data, but analyzed in a different manner (see Karion, et al. (2003) for
more contour plots and details regarding this analysis).
The mean width of the breaking region in the direction perpendicular to the hull (i.e., in the plane of the
laser sheet) for the fine bow is shown in Figure 12 as a
function of draft Froude number. Figure 13 includes the
values for the full bow on the same plot, with a new scale.
The breaking width has been normalized by the characteristic length for the wave, U 2 /g. This normalization relates the width of breaking to the wavelength, (2)U 2 /g.
Figure 12 illustrates that the extent of breaking does increase with increasing Froude number, even when normalized, indicating that the fraction of the wavelength
that exhibits rough breaking on the surface is not constant. Figure 13 shows that the hull shape makes a very
significant difference, as the width of the breaking region is much larger for the full bow than for the fine bow.
The extent of breaking for the full bow seems to decrease
from Fr = 0.8 to Fr = 1.0. This may be at least partially
due to a transition in the form of the wave between these
two conditions. The bow wave transitions from a spilling
breaker that breaks violently ahead of the stem (for Fr =
0.8) to a plunging breaker that begins breaking behind
the stem, once the bow sheet impinges on the free surface (for Fr = 1.0).
0.9
0.8
breaking
/ (U /g)
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
0
0.5
FrD
1.5
Figure 13: Width of the breaking region for the fine and full
bow, normalized by U 2 /g, as a function of draft Froude number.
Figure 11: Contour plot of freesurface height with the location of breaking superimposed in black. This run is for the full
bow, and has D = 1.1 m, U = 2.6 m/s (5 kt) and Fr = 0.8.
0.15
0.1
breaking
/ (U2/g)
0.05
0
0
0.5
Fr
1.5
Figure 12: Width of the breaking region for the fine bow, normalized by U 2 /g, as a function of draft Froude number.
C ONCLUSIONS
Data from lasersheet visualization of the bow wave of a
large towed wedge has been analyzed with the goal of understanding features of the turbulent surface of the breaking wave. The large size of the model was necessary to
produce a wave large enough to exhibit characteristics
of waves in the field, such as spray and bubble generation and turbulent, multiphase breaking. The model was
towed at three different drafts, various speeds, and with
two different bow shapes, yielding a unique data set for
comparison with computations.
Three different results are presented that will
aid researchers modeling breaking bow waves. The magnitude of the freesurface fluctuations is presented, serving as a measure related to the turbulent energy of breaking. The surface roughness on the face of the breaking
wave is presented for cases in which the wave was wide
enough to enable a spectrum analysis. The wavenumber
information supports previous work in this area, although
not enough of the data was able to be analyzed to be conclusive. Lastly, the area and location where breaking occurs is shown; the extent of the breaking, normalized by
U 2 /g, increases with draft Froude number and is significantly larger for the straightsided (full) bow than the
flared (fine) bow. The data and conclusions here can be
used to aid in the development of breaking models in the
future.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This research is supported by ONR under contract numbers N0001403WX20225 and N0001403WX20728. Dr.
DISCUSSION
Trish Sur
Science Applications International Corporation, USA
I would like to ask the following questions.
AUTHORS REPLY
1.
AUTHORS REPLY
There are two reasons that data is missing
from the contour maps in Figures 10 and 11. The
first is that the light was shadowed behind the crest of
the wave, keeping the camera from viewing the area
behind the wave crest. The breaking regions were at
the wave crest and were not affected by this
shadowing. The second, the outboard limit to the
measurement area, does however apply to the
breaking areas as well. As the measurement system
and camera moves aft, the crest of the wave moved
out of the cameras field of view.
Visual
observations indicate that often by this point the
rough breaking had dissipated and was spread out
over a wide area, but it is possible that some breaking
roughness was there and not measured. It is not clear
how the breaking regions aft and outboard of the
measurement area would affect the characteristics of
the free surface fluctuations. Figure 6 illustrates that
there is no clear trend in the fluctuations as a function
of distance downstream of the stem. Therefore, there
is no reason to believe that the characteristics of the
breaking region outside the measurement region is
different from those of the region measured (at least
within our accuracy).
DISCUSSION
AUTHORS REPLY
I am not aware of anyone developing
breaking models based on our data (although there
are others who have developed their own models
based on acceleration or slope). However, there are
plans to use this data and other towtank data to
generate a breaking model at NSWC Carderock.
REFERENCES
Karion, A., Sur, T. Waniewski, Fu, T.C., Furey,
D.A., Rice, J.R., and Walker, D.C., Experimental
Study of the Bow Wave of a Large Towed Wedge,
Proc. 8th International Conference on Numerical Ship
Hydrodynamics, 2003.
Trish Sur
Science Applications International Corporation, USA
2.
DISCUSSION
Stephen M. Scorpio
Johns Hopkins University, USA
I would like to thank the authors for making
progress on a challenging measurement. Would it be
possible to make a quantitative comparison with
Walkers 2D breaking wave measurements by
measuring surface fluctuations normal to the
breaking wave crest? Walker suggested a model
spectrum where the spectral rolloff was related to
the width of the turbulent plume. Does your data
support this hypothesis?
AUTHORS REPLY
We do not believe it is possible to use the
data from this experiment to quantify the
wavenumber spectrum in the direction perpendicular
to the breaking wave crest. The laser sheet was
oriented perpendicular to the hull itself, and thus the
instantaneous wave profiles are only known in this
direction. Sequential x positions were one inch apart
and could not be used to reconstruct a continuous
surface in any arbitrary direction.
(The second part of this question is
answered in our reply to Dr. Ericsons second
discussion question.)
DISCUSSION
Richard Leighton
General Dynamics, USA
What ancillary measurements were made?
To expand on that, for validation purposes, there are
more robust measurements for comparison. For
example, the pressure along a transverse cut on the
hull. Without a robust and independent baseline
measurement, the detailed comparisons are suspect.
AUTHORS REPLY
Unfortunately, there were no additional
measurements made during this experiment other
than those reported in the given paper and in Karion
et al. (2003). These include laser sheet wave height
data and highspeed video of spray droplets as well as
extensive video.
REFERENCES
Karion, A., Sur, T., etc. 8th International Symposium
on Numerical Hydrodynamics, September 2003.
DISCUSSION
AUTHORS REPLY
Leonard Imas
Stevens Institute of Technology, USA
DISCUSSION
Leonard Imas
Stevens Institute of Technology, USA
3) Regarding Figure 5 (pg. 4), would any additional
information be evident if these results are plotted
as a 3D surface where the axes are z, y, Fr?
Namely, is the behavior selfsimilar?
AUTHORS REPLY
The wave profiles at a given position are
different enough that a 3D surface plot would not be
appropriate.. However, the following two figures
each show three wave profiles (with standard
deviation bands) at the same position. The first
figure shows profiles at the same Froude number, but
different drafts, and the second shows profiles at
three different Froude numbers but the same draft.
All are quite different.
DISCUSSION
Leonard Imas
Stevens Institute of Technology, USA
2) On page 4, in Figure 5, the standard deviation
curves which are shown are actually timeaveraged. It would be of interest to see how
these curves appear frame by frame over the two
second period for the different Froude numbers
at which the model was tested. Namely, how
much information is removed by performing this
averaging?
AUTHORS REPLY
Unfortunately, the data set from this
experiment only allowed for a wavenumber analysis
of the full bow data at two Froude numbers, 0.8 and
1.0. The figure below illustrates the average wave
number spectrum for each case (averaged over x
location). The figure further illustrates that the
curves differ in the low wavenumber region, but it is
unclear how this effect might change at a different
Froude number condition.
2
10
Fr = 0.8
Fr = 1.0
Power density
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
wavenumber (rad / m)
DISCUSSION
Leonard Imas
Stevens Institute of Technology, USA
5) As the authors point out, surface fluctuations are
important as a measure related to turbulence
energy in breaking. Using this measured quantity
for CFD code validation should prove useful as at
present time, there is limited understanding
about the accuracy of uRANS and LES turbulence
models performance in the breaking wave zone.
6) The surface roughness measurements presented
in Figure 9 essentially indicate that the breaking
wave region is spectrally broadbanded. It would
be useful to produce this curve for a broader
range of Froude numbers, both above and below
1.0. Namely, do the differences in the curves
become larger or smaller at lower wavenumbers?
DISCUSSION
Eric A. Ericson
Johns Hopkins
Laboratory, USA
University
Applied
Physics
AUTHORS REPLY
1) The authors believe that the bow sheet exists for
all the breaking conditions of the fine bow. That
is, the breaking wave generated by the fine bow
was a plunging breaker, characterized by a bow
sheet riding up the side of the hull, overturning,
and impinging back on the free surface. The
current paper only addresses conditions in which
the bow wave was breaking. There were
certainly experimental conditions that did not
exhibit the bow sheet, but they are not
considered to be breaking for the purpose of this
paper, because whitewater was not observed in
the laser sheet. The full bow, in contrast, did not
always exhibit a bow sheet because the bow
wave was sometimes more of a spilling wave
than a plunging wave with a clear bow sheet.
ABSTRACT
The purpose of this experimental study is to explore
the physics, surface profiles, flow fields, and bubble
distributions in breaking bow waves of highspeed
ships.
These laboratory experiments must be
performed at relatively large scale and in salt water to
insure that the bubble size distributions are similar to
those in full scale ships. In order create these large
waves, a twodimensional deformable wave maker is
being used. The profile of the wave maker at each
instant in time (t) is set to match the vertical section of
a ship model at a streamwise location that is a distance
Ut from the stem, where U is the ship model speed.
The wave maker has a draft of 0.91 m and an
equivalent full beam of 2.83 m. It is capable of speeds
that simulate 30 knots full scale speed for a ship with a
drafttolength ratio of 23.11. The wave maker and
the wave tank are built to be used with salt water. In
this paper, measurements of the profiles of the
breaking bow wave in fresh water are presented for
two cases with equivalent full scale ship speeds of 20
and 25 knots.
INTRODUCTION
Breaking bow waves in the flow around highspeed
ships are of great practical and scientific interest. The
primary goal of the current experiments is to explore
the dynamics of air entrainment by breaking bow
waves and to provide information on the bubble
populations and velocity fields created by these
breakers at positions as far downstream as the stern of
a 3D ship model. In these experiments, two major
issues must be taken into account in order to achieve
realistic bubble populations. First, the breaking bow
waves must be large enough to make the effect of
surface tension small relative to the available kinetic
energy thus allowing the creation of small bubbles,
similar to those created in the large waves of full scale
ships. In order to generate large waves, the ship model
length Fr = U /
Experimental Details
The experiments are being carried out in a wave tank
that is 14.80 m long, 1.15 m wide, and 2.20 m deep
with a water depth of 1.83 m. The 2D+T wave maker
was built to simulate the 5415 model that was used in
tests at the Naval Underwater Warfare Center,
Carderock. (Other ship profiles can be simulated as
well by modifying the computer control software.)
Unfortunately, it is not possible to simulate the bow
bulb in the 2D+T experiments so this feature was
removed from the wave maker profile sequence. The
beam to draft ratio of the 5415 model is 3.11 and the
length to draft ratio is 23.11. The draft of the 2D+T
wave maker is 0.91 m. Thus, the equivalent beam and
length of the 3D model simulated by the 2D+T wave
maker are 2.82 m and 21.03 m, respectively.
A schematic drawing of the wave maker is shown in
Figure 3. The wave maker is powered by four
servomotors, which drive four vertically oriented
shafts. Each shaft drives a toothed pulley, which drives
a tube via a rackandpinionlike system. The drive
tubes, in turn, drive horizontally oriented drive plates
Wave board
Servo motors
Keel bar
Figure 4. A photograph of the wave maker in the fully
extended position (midships).
In order to examine the accuracy of the wave maker,
two measurements are shown in Figure 5 and 6. Both
measurements were done at a full scale equivalent ship
speed of 25 knots, Fr= 0.346. The wave maker motion
lasts 2.25 seconds at this equivalent speed. Figure 5
is a plot of the measured horizontal position of each
drive tube versus time along with the desired position
data for each tube taken from horizontal cuts of the
hull of the 5415 model. The drive tube position data
was measured with the linear position sensors used for
feedback for the wave maker control system (see
Figure 3). Note that measured and desired data are in
very close agreement. Figure 6 is a plot of the shape of
the wave board at various times and the shape of the
5415 hull profiles at the corresponding streamwise
positions along the length of the model. The wave
board position measurements were taken from
photographs the wave maker during its extension.
Note the excellent agreement between the two sets of
data with the exception of the bottom of the first
profile where the top of the bulbous bow can be seen in
the 5415 profile data.
Position
sensors
60
Offset (inches)
50
40
30
20
10
0
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
Highspeed movie
camera
Mirror
Laser ligh
sheet
Profiles near
Mid ship
Carriage moves
with top drive plate
60
50
z(in)
40
1.82 m
30
Water
mixed with
fluorescene
dye
20
10
10
20
30
y(in)
40
50
60
Figure 7.
apparatus.
1.15 m
Results
A sequence of six photographs from a single run with
the wave maker is shown in Figures 8 (a) through 8 (f).
The sequence covers the first 452 ms of the
experimental run. This run has an equivalent full scale
ship speed of 25 knots (Fr = 0.346) and is completed in
2.25 s. The image widths are about 50 cm. In Figure 8
(a), the wave maker has just started to move and the
water surface is nearly flat. The wave board is vertical
at the left side of the image. The bright nearly
horizontal line on the left at the bottom of the image is
the intersection of the light sheet and the water surface.
After 20 ms (Figure 8 (b) the water surface has begun
to rise up the wave board. At t=144 ms, Figure 8 (c),
the water surface has risen much further up the wave
board and a jet directed horizontally to the right is
Figure 8 (e). t = 400 ms. Air can be seen in the jet tip.
20
18
16
Contact line height (cm)
Figure 8 (f). t= 452 ms. The jet begins contact with the
front face of the wave.
Data from image sequences such as the one from
which the samples were taken for Figure 8 are being
processed to obtain the history of the wave crest
profile. A sample data set is shown in Figure 9. The
plot contains about 100 profiles from a run with a 2.25second duration. The time between profiles is 4 ms. It
can be seen that the water surface rises quickly up the
wave board and flattens across the top at about the
same time that a horizontally moving jet is formed.
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.2
Time (seconds)
Figure 10. Contact line height versus time for 2.8second run.
30
Conclusion
25
20
15
10
5
0
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.2
Time (seconds)
Figure 11. Contact line height versus time for 2.25second run.
Another interesting quantity is the horizontal speed of
the jet as shown in Figure 12. Data for both the 2.8second run and the 2.25second run are shown in the
figure along with the velocity of the top drive tube
which is located 15.24 cm above the undisturbed water
level. The velocities are nondimensionalized by the
maximum velocity of the top drive tube ( U max ) in
Reference
1.8
Channel 1 velocity, 20 knots
Jet horizontal velocity, 20 knots
Channel 1 velocity, 25 knots
Jet horizontal velocity, 25 knots
1.6
1.4
Velocity/U
1max
1.2
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
20
40
60
Time*U1max (inches)
80
100
120
DISCUSSION
Alan Brandt
Johns Hopkins University, USA
Is there an expected scale to the intermittent
fingering noticeable at the leading edge of the
spilling breakers? A scale could be associated with
the eddy structure in the turbulent region.
AUTHORS REPLY
We are planning to rotate the laser light
sheet and camera by 90 degrees about a vertical axis
so that we can measure the surface structures along
the cross stream length of the jet. We agree that there
will probably be a relationship between the dominant
length scale of these surface structures and the length
scales of the turbulent velocity field in cross stream
planes, at least just after jet impact with the front
wave face. However, we are not sure that the PIV
measurements that are planned for the underlying
flow will be sufficient to determine the turbulent
length scales in the cross stream plane. In any case,
we will attempt to address this issue.
DISCUSSION
Richard Lahey, Jr.
Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, USA
To make good local void fraction
measurements one can use a rake of tubes with quick
closing ball valves at either end. At a given time all
valves are closed capturing the local air volume (i.e.,
void fractions). This device works well in high void
fractions where optical devices wont work. The
authors are encouraged to investigate the use of these
devices.
AUTHORS REPLY
Thank you for your interesting suggestion.
We will explore the possibility of this measurement
technique. Though we can see the advantages of this
measurement technique in statistically stationary twophase flows, we will need to address difficulties
caused by the fact that in the breaking wave the highvoid fraction zone is in a region of space that is
initially above the mean water level in the tank and
the highvoid fraction zone is moving rapidly in
laboratory coordinates.
INTRODUCTION
Interest in sprays arises from many practical applications related to power, propulsion, heat exchange,
and material processing. There are also natural occurrences of sprays. A recent review of the science and
technology of droplets and sprays may be found in Sirignano (1999). Experimental investigations have been and
continue to be useful for exploring the physics of spray
generation and evolution. Dai et al. (1997) studied turbulent primary breakup of annular wall jets and correlated drop sizes at the onset of turbulent primary breakup
by equating the surface energy required to form a drop
to the kinetic energy of an eddy of corresponding size.
Sarpkaya and Merrill (1999) also focused on the physics
of ligament and drop formation at the free surface of liquid wall jets, flowing over smooth and sandroughened
plates. They found that the root mean square value of
v 0 was quite close to the initial ligament ejection velocity, thereby relating the ligaments to the internal structure of the flow. Turbulent breakup of the liquid sheet is
widely accepted as the main source of spray generation;
however, it should be noted that some groups observed
instabilities in the liquid sheet which also contribute to
spray droplet generation (see, for example, Shroff and
Liepmann (1997)).
Not only do the highspeed images provide detailed records of fullscale bow wave break up into spray
droplets, but image processing yielded a quantitative
characterization of the spray including droplet sizes and
velocities. Variations in spray droplet size and velocity
with ship Froude number and with distance aft of the forward perpendicular were observed. It was also observed
that the bow wave and spray generation were quite unsteady even for the mildest sea state conditions. Correlations between the pitch angle in a shipfixed coordinate
system and the spray sheet elevation showed that the ship
motion relative to the incoming waves is a key parameter
in determining the extent of the bow spray sheet.
Figure 1: Photographs of the bow flow at twenty knots at two different scales: the USS Cole (left) and David Taylor Model Basin
model 5415 (right).
IMAGE PROCESSING
Both the tuffcam and the highspeed video were used to
make measurements of bow spray characteristics. The
tuffcam video was used to estimate elevations of the bow
wave/spray sheet by scaling the image from distinctive
markings on the R/V Roger Revelle ship hull. These
videos also highlight the unsteady nature of the bow
wave due to the atsea conditions. The highspeed image
sequences were processed using custom software written
in MATLAB (The MathWorks, Inc.) together with the
Signal Processing and Image Processing toolboxes. The
key imageprocessing steps for the calibration and spray
droplet images are presented, and a discussion of the error associated with these techniques follows.
Figure 3: Forward looking view of a typical deployment of the SAIC camera boom and highspeed video camera aboard the R/V
Roger Revelle (left). Aft looking view of a deployment with a large outboard offset (right).
Figure 4: Part of a typical raw image sequence (eight frames out of 2,176) from the highspeed video camera of the spray droplets
generated by bow wave break up. The sequence reads from the left to the right and from the top to the bottom; the elapsed time in
between successive frames is 0.4 seconds. The field of view of the camera was approximately 26.5 cm (H) by 24.8 cm (V).
The secondary mechanism of bow spray generation is the impact of the bow wave jet on the free surface, and the amount of spray droplet generation (and
air entrainment) depend quite critically on the degree of
breakup of the bow wave jet before impact. The free
surface itself is disturbed and may be rough and foamy.
After the primary impact, there may be additional impacts similar to a skipping stone, but these produce fewer
droplets. Finally, droplets may also be produced by
droplet splitting and by bubbles bursting at the free surface.
Quantitative Results
Image processing of the highspeed videos yielded quantitative results; the following sets of figures present examples of typical results from processing a single run as
well as groups of related runs. The first set of figures,
Figures 6, 7, and 8, show typical results from processing a single run, SAIC run 72 where the ship forward
speed was 6.2 m/s (12 knots). In addition to the results
shown here, the image processing programs also calculate velocity direction, droplet eccentricity, and droplet
sizevelocity maps. For this run, the camera was located
at (x, y, z) = (2.20, 6.62, 4.47) meters, with respect
3.5
3
1000*probability function
350
300
250
200
150
4
5
time (s)
1.5
0.5
800
900
1000
Figure 6 presents the number of droplets per image as a function of time and demonstrates the unsteady
nature of the bow spray. Figure 7 shows the numerical
frequency (probability density function) of the apparent
spray droplet diameter. The number of droplets is normalized such that the area under the curve connecting
the data points is equal to one. Recall from the Image
Processing section
that the apparent droplet diameter is
p
defined as 2 area/. A total of 148,410 droplets were
counted. The bin size for these distributions was 1 mm;
for example, the fraction of spray droplets with an apparent diameter between 2 and 3 mm is represented by the
filled circle at 2.5 mm on the abscissa. The mean spray
droplet apparent diameter for this run was 5.3 mm. Based
on spray droplet distributions reported in the literature
(see, for example, Sarpkaya and Merrill (2001) and Sallam et al. (1999)), a more Gaussianshaped distribution
was expected. The shape of these size distributions indicate that there are probably a number of smaller droplets
that could not be captured with a highspeed video camera having a resolution of 512 by 480 pixels.
1
1.5
apparent droplet diameter (cm)
200
2.5
0.5
100
probability function
1.5
0
0
50
0
0
0.5
100
0
0
2.5
2.5
Figure 7: A typical bow spray numerical frequency distribution of the apparent spray droplet diameter for SAIC run 72.
The ship forward speed was 6.2 m/s (12 knots). The mean value
of this distribution is 5.3 mm.
Figure 8 shows the numerical frequency (probability density function) of the spray droplet velocity for
the same run as is presented in Figure 7. It is extremely
important to note that the velocities reported here were
measured in the focal plane of the camera. Although the
spray droplets also move in and out of the focal plane,
6
6
5.5
RUN 72
RUN 71
4.5
RUN 79
RUN 77
RUN 78
RUN 75
RUN 74
3.5
RUN 80
RUN 73
RUN 76
3
RUN 81
2.5
0
3
4
distance aft of FP (m)
Figure 10: Mean spray droplet apparent diameter as a function of distance aft of the forward perpendicular (FP) for runs
7181 (black). The average diameter for all of the runs at a
given location is also shown (red). The error bars on the mean
values indicate upper and lower bounds based on spray droplet
position within the image depth of field.
The correlation results are summarized in Figure 11 for SAIC runs 7779. Figure 11 show the number
of droplets identified in each highspeed video image as a
function of time; the highspeed video runs begin at zero
seconds. In addition, about sixty seconds of pitch angle
data is also shown where positive pitch angle values indicate bow down motion. Finally, a sixty second interval
of the bow spray elevation as measured from the tuffcam video was added. Each frame from this video was
stamped with the GPS time code and was used to synchronize the measurements. Both the pitch angle and the
spray elevation data is periodic; furthermore, bow down
6
5.5
5
4.5
4
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1.1
0.8
0.9
1.1
4
3
2
1
0
0.4
Frd
Figure 9: Mean spray droplet apparent diameter (top) and velocity (bottom) as a function of Froude number based on ship draft,
F rd . In both figures, the error bars on the mean values indicate upper and lower bounds based on spray droplet position within the
image depth of field. Linear curve fits are shown by the dotted lines.
run
47, 48, 53
54, 56, 57
6062, 64, 66, 6972
75
working distance
(m)
5.94
5.21
6.91
3.84
near edge
(m)
5.79
5.10
6.71
3.77
far edge
(m)
6.10
5.32
7.12
3.90
depth of field
(cm)
31
22
41
13
max.
(mm)
5.23
5.06
5.24
5.15
min.
(mm)
4.97
4.84
4.94
4.98
Table 1: Spray droplet size error bounds based on location within the depth of field for a given working distance.
CONCLUSIONS
Increases in the distance aft of the forward perpendicular along the bow wave appear to cause the
mean spray droplet apparent diameter to decrease.
FUTURE RESEARCH
Future directions for this work include both field experiments and numerical modelling efforts.
Field Experiments
Additional field experiments were conducted on the R/V
Athena in Panama City, FL in October 2003 and are
planned for May 2004. Table 2 presents a comparison of geometric characteristics for a DDG51, the R/V
Roger Revelle, and the R/V Athena. Highspeed video
of the bow spray was recorded. These experiments provided an opportunity to collect calm water data for a
fullscale naval combatant and to improve the highspeed
video system according to the suggestions described in
the Conclusions section. The calm water conditions are
important for several reasons. First, experimental measurements are more repeatable in calm, protected water than in the open ocean. Second, current prediction
methodologies for breaking waves (computational fluid
dynamics and scaled modelscale data) are limited to
steady conditions; therefore, calm water fullscale data
is required for their validation and further development.
Bow Spray
This experimental work provides a detailed description
of the breakup of the bow wave into spray droplets at
9
Length (m)
Beam (m)
Lengthbeam ratio
Block coefficient
Prismatic coefficient
Bow half angle (deg.)
Flare angle (deg.)
DDG51
142 (waterline)
18.0 (waterline)
7.9
0.521
0.627
10
1020
R/V Athena
47.0
7.0
6.9
0.47
0.641
10
1025
picted in Figure 13. At the time this model was developed, suitable experimental data was not available for its
validation.
There are some numerical models documented
in the literature which are related to the bow spray problem; however, they cannot be directly applied. Modelling the generation and evolution of large quantities of
droplets over a wide range of scales requires specialized
procedures. For example, the approach that Sussman and
Dommermuth (2001) used for studying spray sheets is
only suitable for microscale analysis of droplets; it is
not possible to model the flow around an entire ship with
such detail. Numerical models for spray droplet breakup
computations such as the Taylor Analogy Breakup model
(ORourke and Amsden, 1987) and the surface wave
instability model (Reitz, 1987) are also too detailed.
Complementary to the numerical simulations are simpler approaches. Sellens and Brzustowski (1985) used
the maximum entropy formalism to predict the drop
size distribution in a spray resulting from the breakup of
a liquid sheet, but the average droplet size must already
be known. Novikov and Dommermuth (1997) presented
a statistical description of droplets in a turbulent spray
connected with the description of turbulent dissipation.
Formulas for characteristic droplet sizes and corresponding probability distributions are obtained; however, these
contain unknown constants that can only be determined
empirically.
Figure 13: Bow wave (blue) of surface ship model 5415 (gray)
with envelope of spray sheet (white) as calculated by previous
SAIC bow spray model.
Numerical Modelling
As a result of this experimental work, there is a unique
collection of bow spray measurements for different geometric and flow conditions that will be helpful in bow
spray model development and validation. The development of an empirical spray model that will interface with
an existing base flow code has been initiated by Dr. Sur
at SAIC. Several years ago, a bow spray model was developed at SAIC as part of an ongoing effort in computational ship hydrodynamics. It used the bow wave
predicted by Numerical Flow Analysis (NFA), a mature
LargeEddy Simulation (LES) code written by Dr. Douglas Dommermuth of SAIC, for surface ship model 5415.
Spray source points were located along the contact line
of this bow wave along the ship and then along the cusp
of the overturning bow wave. A size distribution similar
to that presented by Novikov and Dommermuth (1997)
was assigned to the spray droplets and they were ejected
from the source points with velocities related to the base
flow velocity. The spray droplets were tracked as they
interacted with an approximate solution for the air flow
around the ship. The results of the calculation are de
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This research is supported by the Office of Naval
Research under contract numbers N0001497C0345,
N0001401C0295, N0001402C0283, and N00014030105. Dr. L. Patrick Purtell is the program manager.
The authors also wish to acknowledge Mr. John Kuhn
of SAIC, Dr. Eric Terrill , Ms. Lisa Lelli, and Professor
Ken Melville of the Scripps Institution of Oceanography,
and Dr. Thomas Fu, Mr. Billy Boston, and Mr. Martin
Sheehan all of the Naval Surface Warfare Center, Carderock Division for their contributions to this work.
10
REFERENCES
Dai, Z., Hsiang, L.P., and Faeth, G., Spray Formation at the
Free Surface of Turbulent Bow Sheets, Proceedings of
the TwentyFirst Symposium on Naval Hydrodynamics,
Office of Naval Research, 1997, pp. 490505.
Edson, J.B., Hinton, A.A, Prada, K.E., Hare, J.E., and Fairall,
C.E., Direct Covariance Flux Estimates from Mobile
Platforms at Sea, American Meteorological Society,
1998, pp. 547562.
Kaiser, J.A.C, Garrett, W.D., Ramberg, S.E., Peltzer, R.D., and
Andrews, M.D., WAKEX 86; A Ship Wake/Films
Exploratory Experiment, NRL Memorandum Report
6270, 1988, Naval Research Laboratory.
ORourke, P. J. and Amsden, A. A., The TAB Method for
Numerical Calculation of Spray Droplet Breakup,
Society of Automotive Engineers, paper number 872089,
1987.
Novikov, E.A. and Dommermuth, D.G., Distribution of
droplets in a turbulent spray, Phys. Rev. E, Vol. 56,
No. 5, 1997, pp. 54795482.
Ratcliffe, T., Boston, W.S. and Sheehan, M., Photographic
Visualization of the Surface Wave Field and Boundary
Layer Surrounding the Research Vessel, R/V
REVELLE, NSWCCD50TR2003/003, March 2003,
Naval Surface Warfare Center, Carderock Division, West
Bethesda, MD.
Reitz, R.D., Modelling Atomization Processes in
HighPressure Vaporizing Sprays,
Atomization and Sprays Tech., Vol. 3, 1987, pp.
309337.
Sallam, K.A., Dai, Z., and Faeth, G. M., Breakup of
Turbulent Liquid Jets in Still Gases,
Proc. AIAA Fluid Dynamics Conference, AIAA paper
number 993759, June 1999.
Sarpkaya, T., and Merrill, C.F., Spray formation at the free
surface of liquid wall jets, Proceedings of the TwentySecond Symposium on Naval Hydrodynamics, Office of
Naval Research, 1999, pp. 796808.
Sellens, R.W. and Brzustowski, T.A., A Prediction of the
Drop Size Distribution in a Spray from First Principles,
Atomization and Spray Technology, Vol. 1, 1985,
pp. 89102.
Shroff, S. and Liepmann, D., Spray Generation over Curved
Surfaces, In Proceedings of the Fluids Engineering
Division Summer Meeting, American Society of
Mechanical Engineers, 1997.
Sirignano, W. Fluid Dynamics and Transport of Droplets and
Sprays, Cambridge University Press, 1999.
Sussman, M. and Dommermuth, D.G., The numerical
11
100
20
10
10
20
2
40
30
100
50
0
30
20
10
10
20
2
40
30
100
50
0
30
20
10
10
20
pitch (deg)
0
30
pitch (deg)
200
pitch (deg)
number of droplets
number of droplets
number of droplets
5
40
30
time (s)
Figure 11: SAIC highspeed video run 77 (top), 78 (middle) and 79 (bottom). The blue line indicates the number of droplets per
highspeed video image; the highspeed video runs begin at time zero seconds. The green line indicates the pitch angle where
a positive value represents bow down motion. Finally, the red line indicates the elevation of the spray sheet measured from the
tuffcam video.
amplitude
6000
4000
2000
0
30
20
10
10
20
30
20
10
10
20
30
20
10
10
20
30
amplitude
5000
4000
3000
2000
1000
30
amplitude
6000
5000
4000
3000
2000
30
time (s)
Figure 12: Crosscorrelations of the pitch angle (where a positive value represents bow down motion) and the bow spray elevation
for SAIC highspeed video run 77 (top), 78 (middle) and 79 (bottom).
12
DISCUSSION
Alan Brandt
Johns Hopkins University, USA
A significant fraction of the bow sheet does
not form droplets. Is it not important to also account
for this in the measurements at modelscale?
AUTHORS REPLY
In the field tests on the R/V Revelle and R/V
Athena and also in the model scale (i.e. bow wedge,
see Karion et al., 2004) tests, there is a portion of the
bow sheet that does not break up into droplets that is
visible in the highspeed video camera field of view.
In each highspeed video image, this portion of the
bow sheet is filtered out so that it does not register as
a large droplet and affect the droplet size
distributions. It would be of interest to quantitatively
characterize this portion of the bow sheet,
particularly the surface roughnesses; however, this
has not been a focus of our work.
DISCUSSION
DISCUSSION
Thomas C. Fu
Naval Surface Warfare Center, Carderock Division,
USA
1.
AUTHORS REPLY
The correlation with ship motion focused on
the relationship between the maximum elevations of
the spray sheet with pitch angle. In the model, the
initial ejection velocity for the spray droplets will be
provided by the base flow code. If the full threedimensional velocity of the spray droplets could be
measured (perhaps by using multiple synched highspeed video cameras), then these measurements could
be used to validate the velocity prediction by the base
flow code.
Thomas C. Fu
Naval Surface Warfare Center, Carderock Division,
USA
3.
AUTHORS REPLY
Preliminary image processing of the R/V
Athena data revealed mean droplet sizes that were
smaller than those from the R/V Revelle data. This
difference is likely due to the deployment of a higher
resolution highspeed video camera on the R/V
Athena. General trends such as mean droplet size
decreasing with ship forward speed and mean droplet
velocity increasing with ship forward speed appear to
be consistent, though additional image processing of
the R/V Athena is required.
DISCUSSION
DISCUSSION
Thomas C. Fu
Naval Surface Warfare Center, Carderock Division,
USA
Thomas C. Fu
Naval Surface Warfare Center, Carderock Division,
USA
4.
2.
AUTHORS REPLY
AUTHORS REPLY
The spray model is actually semiempirical; the droplet size distribution is based on a
theoretical droplet size distribution by a turbulent
breakup mechanism (Novikov and Dommermuth,
1997). It is not yet possible to run a physicsbased
calculation like Dommermuths (1999) twodimensional spray sheet breakup due to grid
resolution limitations.
040513
25th Symposium on Naval Hydrodynamics
St. Johns, Newfoundland and Labrador, CANADA, 813 August 2004
ABSTRACT
This paper presents the results of a research
project on the theoretical design of transcavitating
propellers (TCP) for highspeed and highpowered
ships with shallow draft.
Extensive experimental
evaluation was carried out on these propeller models
working in a uniform flow and behind a complete ship
model of twinscrew large fast ferry. Ten propellers
were designed to generate the necessary thrust under
the operating condition between subcavitation and
supercavitation.
First of all, this paper describes a theoretical
design method for TCPs, developed from the NMRI
supercavitating propeller design method. The present
method employs two kinds of combinations with
supercavitating and noncavitating blade sections to
design a hybrid propeller. In this paper, six propellers
including conventional propellers were designed at
30.6kt and four propellers were designed at 35.0kt
under each normal operating rate condition. In each
case, the design of the propellers was made not only by
current methods but also by a newly developed method
which can theoretically control sheet cavitation over
the propeller blades using a couple of high
performance blade sections, so as to satisfy a given
thrust with maximum efficiency. Extensive evaluation
in cavitation open water tests shows that the designed
TCPs had higher efficiency than the CPs under the
severer cavitating condition.
Secondly, this paper introduces a method to
evaluate the propeller efficiency working behind a ship
model under transcavitating (TC) conditions for a
given propeller, thrust load coefficient. Using this
evaluation method, extensive experimental evaluation
of TCPs was made in the NMRI (SRI) Large
Cavitation Tunnel with respect to the propeller thrust,
propeller efficiency, pressure fluctuations and erosion.
For the 30.6kt case, conventional propellers still kept
in the same level of efficiency and pressure
INTRODUCTION
In these days, high speed ships, for example,
Ro/Ro ferries, become faster and bigger. Since high
speed and/or highly loaded propellers cannot evade
cavitation, a new type of propeller is needed, which
can generate the necessary thrust under the operating
condition between subcavitation and supercavitation.
Under this condition, most of the suction side of the
propeller blades is covered with cavitation and
significant thrust breakdown is revealed, if a subcavitating propeller (NonCavitating Propeller, CP)
with aerofoil (NC) sections is used under this
condition. Most of the propeller blade (near the tip) is
supercavitated and the rest of the blade (near the root)
is partially cavitated. This is called the transCavitating (TC) condition. Under this condition the
efficiency of this type of a propeller becomes
tremendously worse. Propeller designers have to give
up their propeller design by a normal design method.
Then, the transcavitating propeller (TCP) with a
hybrid concept is expected to be one of the possible
candidates
In order to design a highly efficient propeller
under such a condition, Yim invented the TCP (Yim,
1998, Vorus, 1988). The propeller blade is divided
into two or three domains by the borderline or the
intermediate region (domain C) as shown in Fig. 1.
040513
040513
sections their blade width is determined as large as
possible to get the optimum performance.
Near Tip
NC Section
SC Section
Combination I
NACA 16
SRJN
Combination II
UTNC
UTSC
040513
the conventional propellers (CPs) and the transcavitating propellers (TCPs) are called CP and HP,
respectively. Usually the thrust load coefficient art
35.0 kt should be higher than that at 30.6 kt. In order
to clearly demonstrate the effect of cavitation number
on the design results, however, the thrust load
coefficient was kept to 0.728 throughout the present
propeller design. Except the conventional propeller of
CP1, other propellers were designed as the propeller
working in the starboard side.
All of the propellers were designed for those
turning outwards, based on the selfpropulsion tests
performed at the NMRI 400m towing tank. The
designed advance coefficients for some TCPs (HP5, 6,
7) were modified with taking account of the tangential
wake in the propeller plane.
THEIR
Design Condition
The present design method was applied for the
TCPs equipped to twinscrew large highspeed ferries
with twin rudders whose design speeds are 30.6 and
35.0 kt. The principal particulars of the ship model,
NMRI M.S. No.610 are given in Table 2. The
working conditions for the designed propellers at the
normal operating rate (NCR) are given in Table 3.
key
LPP
LDWL
B
DCAV
d
CB
CP
unit
m
m
m
m
m

7.000
7.233
1.089
0.389
0.272
0.500
0.556
CP1
This propeller as shown in Fig. 2 was designed
using the existing camber lines and pitch distribution
of which controllable pitch propeller offered good
results (Toyama, 1996).
The blade thickness
distribution was determined with satisfying the
requirement of the NK rule. At the design condition
in a uniform flow, this propeller was fully cavitated
with thrust breakdown as shown in Fig. 2 but the
propeller efficiency is in a reasonable level.
CP1~3
HP4
HP1~3
30.6
1.371
0.916
0.240
HP5
HP6
HP7
0.732
0.153
0.935
0.250
35.0
1.048
0.935
0.250
0.728
CP1
CP2
M.P.No. (NMRI)
411/
412
413
Diameter [mm]
Boss Ratio
Pitch Ratio
Exp. Area Ratio
Proj. Area Ratio
Rake at Tip [mm]
Skew at Tip
Blade Number
Blade
Section
Rot. Direction
Material
CPBlade 3
431
HP1
HP2
HP3
HP4
HP5
HP6
HP7
433
432
434
444
445
446
447
1.478
0.625
0.506
1.506
0.630
0.507
1.088
0.584
0.504
1.410
0.779
0.636
SRJN
NACA
SRJN
NACA
Right
SRJN
NACA
UTSC
UTNC
1.475
0.731
0.600
1.479
0.731
0.600
1.412
0.731
0.605
1.292
0.637
0.521
1.447
0.580
0.468
NACA
MAU
Mod.
NACA
R/L
UTSC
UTNC
SRJN
NACA
194.4
0.30
1.282
0.634
0.518
0
35.54
4
UTSC
UTNC
Aluminum (Anodized)
040513
040513
HP2
This propeller as shown in Fig. 10 was designed
based on the Lerbs optimum circulation distribution.
The SRJN sections were used from the tip to 0.7R
where the optimum SRJN sections could be adopted,
while the NACA 16 sections were employed from 0.5R
to the root, using the pitch distribution of CP1.
Between 0.5R and 0.7R, the blade sections were
generated by the interpolation. At 0.7R, the chord
length was increased to obtain the smooth blade
contour and the thickness at the trailing edge was
reduced because of the excessive strength and smooth
radial connection at the trailing edge.
From the experiment in a uniform flow of the
cavitation tunnel, the measured thrust was 6.0%
higher than the target one in the design. The
discrepancy in the thrust, that is, over pitch is due to
the simple and direct adoption of the NC sections of
CP1. Longer sheet cavitation occurs outside 0.65R,
while partial cavitation is observed inside of 0.6R as
the expectations as shown in Fig. 10.
1.6
1.4
H/DP
HP3
This propeller as shown in Fig. 11 was designed,
referring to the open water test on HP1 in the
cavitation tunnel. The offsets of HP3 were generated
by fairing the geometrical shape of HP1. The pitch
outside of 0.9R was increased to stimulate sheet
cavitation because of less sheet cavitation in this
region of HP1. In the intermediate region, the fairing
was made to remove the wavy geometrical shape.
Although the measured thrust is 7.9% higher
than the target, the former is 2.8% higher than the
prediction by SCVLM3 in the design. The measured
CP1
CP2
CP3
HP1
HP2
HP3
HP4
HP5
HP6
HP7
1.2
1.0
0.8
0.6
0.2
0.4
0.6
r/RO
0.8
1.0
040513
HP5
HP5 propeller as shown in Fig. 13 was designed
by the same way in HP4 but including the tangential
component of wake distribution at the propeller plane.
It amount to 5% of the incoming uniform flow at 0.7R
of the propeller. The design condition on the advance
and the thrust coefficients was modified and they were
increased 2.1% and 4.2%, respectively.
In order to enhance the propeller efficiency and
to design the cavity thickness at each radial position as
thin as possible, the analytical computation was
employed to determine the optimum pitch distribution
iteratively. Thus, not only the thrust but also torque
can be designed within 3% accuracy with the help of
the analytical tool. The measured thrust agrees with
the target value but sheet cavitation partly occurs at
0.7R and around the tip. The observed patterns are
different from the prediction as shown in Fig. 13
.
040513
040513
040513
Wake Distribution
The wake distribution was measured by a fourrake
fivehole NPL type pitot tube in the No.2 working
section of the cavitation tunnel. The measured results
on the starboard side are shown in Fig. 21. Before the
wake measurement in the cavitation tunnel, the wake
distribution was measured at the towing tank at Froude
number FN=0.370, using the same apparatus and
measuring system as those in the cavitation tunnel.
Comparing two wake measurements, they are almost
the similar to each other but the axial wake in the
cavitation tunnel is relatively steeper than that in the
towing tank totally. It can be said that the present
experiment should offer more strict evaluation on the
cavitation performance.
10
040513
CP1(30.6kt)
CP2(30.6kt)
CP3(30.6kt)
64
HP1(30.6kt)
B[%]
HP2(30.6kt)
62
HP3(30.6kt)
CP1(35.0kt)
CP3(35.0kt)
60
HP4(35.0kt)
HP5(35.0kt)
58
HP6(35.0kt)
HP7(35.0kt)
56
(a) CP1
(b) CP3
(c) HP3
Fig. 23 Cavitation of CP1, CP3 and HP3 Working
behind Ship Hull under MCR Condition (VS=31.0kt)
Cavitation patterns are shown in Fig. 23, on CP1,
CP3 and HP3 under the MCR condition (CT=0.728,
V=1.336), stable cavitation was observed on CP2
and HP2, while unstable streak and/or bubble
cavitation were found on CP1, CP3 and HP3, in
spite of artificial nuclei seeding. Sheet cavitation on
CP3 was suppressed under the present condition as
expected.
On the tip vortex cavitation (TVC), those of CP3
and HP1 were thinner, those of CP2 and HP3 were
almost equivalent and that of CP3 was thicker than
11
040513
CP1(30.6kt)
CP2(30.6kt)
1.05
CP3(30.6kt)
HP1(30.6kt)
Eta_R
1.00
HP2(30.6kt)
HP3(30.6kt)
0.95
CP3(35.0kt)
HP4(35.0kt)
0.90
HP5(35.0kt)
HP6(35.0kt)
0.85
HP7(35.0kt)
(a) HP5
0.80
(b) CP3
Fig. 24 Cavitation of CP1, CP3 and HP2 Working
behind Ship Hull under MCR Condition
(VS=35.5kt)
Comparison of Propeller Efficiency between Open
Water and Behind Conditions
The ratio of the propeller efficiency behind the
ship model to that in the cavitating open water is
shown in Fig. 25 for two cases. The relative rotative
propeller efficiencies of the designed propellers except
CP3 in 35.0kt case became 5~7% lower than those in
the cavitation open water test except CP2 for two
cases. Since the existing towing tank tests indicate
that this efficiency of twin screw propeller is 0.95~1.0
in NC conditions, almost the same results were
obtained in the behind cavitation tests under the TC
condition.
On the other hand, CP3 showed the completely
different tendency of the propeller performance from
other propellers due to less and unstable sheet
cavitation in nonuniform flows brought by unsteady
cavitation and Reynolds effects.
12
040513
CP1(31.0kt)
CP2(31.0kt)
CP3(31.0kt)
HP1(31.0kt)
HP2(31.0kt)
HP3(31.0kt)
CP1(35.5kt)
CP3(35.5kt)
HP4(35.5kt)
HP5(35.5kt)
HP6(35.5kt)
HP7(35.5kt)
1.3
1.2
1.1
1.0
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
70.0
HP3
CP1
65.0
HP2
CP3
Good
60.0
HP1
CP2
Bad
55.0
0.0
50.0
100.0
150.0
65.0
HP7
60.0
CP3
HP5
HP6
HP4
Good
CP1
55.0
Bad
50.0
0.0
50.0
100.0
150.0
13
040513
ACKNOULEDGEMENT
1.
BIBLIOGRAPHIC REFERENCES
CLOSING REMARKS
2.
3.
4.
5.
14
040513
15
DISCUSSION
Stephane Cordier
Bassin dessais des Carnes, France
In the propeller series, the diameter D is
kept constant when rpm is increased in some cases:
(HP1, 3, 6). These propellers generate higher
pressure fluctuations, which is expected but also
better efficiency. Can you comment on the choice of
D associated with the different rpm?
AUTHORS REPLY
In the propeller design, the designed
propeller diameter was restricted to be less than 5.0
m due to the shallow draft of the present twin screw
highspeed ferry. Then there are no choices of larger
diameter in the present propeller design. The
difference in the propeller revolution rate of HP1
and HP3 corresponds to unexpected error due in the
theoretical propeller design, the amount of thrust
breakdown due to the design concept or inclusion of
the tangential wake in the design condition, while
that of HP6 depends on the design requirement of
the higher propeller revolution rate.
DISCUSSION
Roger Kinns
RK Acoustics, UK
Variations in cavitation patterns between the
different propeller designs suggest that there may be
large variations in broadband noise. The consequent
vibration can be very annoying and dominate
components at blade rate and its multiples. Has this
been considered in the study?
AUTHORS REPLY
In the present study, cavitation noise emitted
by TransCavitating Propeller (TCPs) was measured,
whose data were not included in this paper.
Rougly speaking, the respective sound
pressure levels generated by TCPs including CP1
increase 610 dB at frequency corresponding to first
blade rate and 20 dB at the frequency above 10 kHz,
comparing with that under noncavitating condition.
The sound pressure level of CP3 was the lowest at
the first blade rate but larger than other TCPs at
multiples, while that of CP1 is the lowest in the
frequency of 110 kHz.
In general, a cavitation controlled propeller
often offers low pressure amplitude at the first blade
rate but higher one at the higher order of the blade
rates.
DISCUSSION
Manfred Mehmel
SchiffbauVersuchsanstelt Potsdam, Germany
Many thanks for your fine presentation.
You mentioned pressure amplitudes and made a
comparison on the base of CP1. My question, can
you give me the total pressure amplitude to get an
idea about the pressure pulses?
AUTHORS REPLY
The present propeller design was made for a
fast twinscrewed ship with very shallow draft. It
was expected that the propeller designed by a
conventional method for this ship, that is, CP1,
surely causes thrust breakdown and high pressure
fluctuations. The press fluctuation amplitudes at the
first blade rate of CP1, HP1 and CP3 are predicted
15, 12 and 11 kPa at the ship sped of 30.6 kt by the
present CT identity method. The pressure amplitudes
of the second and higher blade rates are about 5% of
the first blade rate and negligible, especially for the
hybrid propellers.
At 35 kt, the pressure amplitudes of HP7,
CP3 and CP1 are evaluated 11, 16.5 and 15 kPa.
The pressure amplitude level is unacceptable for the
ship builders and ship owners. The ship hull form to
reduce the effective horse power and to increase tip
clearance should be improved. In the present project,
the reduction of pressure amplitude due to air
injection along the hull surface above the propeller
blade was tested. The reduction rate is proportional
to the air injection volume. The pressure amplitudes
became around 30% of those without air injection
and acceptable level.
REFERENCE
Ukon, Y., et. al., Reduction of Pressure Fluctuations
Induced by Cavitating Propellers due to Air Injection
through the Hull at the Stern of a Ship, Trans. of the
WestJapan Society of Naval Architects, Vol. 99,
(2000.3), pp. 3342
v v 2
P 3 / 2, x x n / R 2n
v v
v v
v v
u( x, t) = v(x, t ) +
n (x x n )
v v 3
4 x x n
(1)
P(a,z) is the incomplete gamma function with limits P
= 0 at z = 0 and P = 1 as z . For a = 3/2 and z =
x2 , where x is real, P(a,z) is given in terms of the error
function:
P ( 3 / 2, x ) = erf ( x)
2
2xe x
(2)
1/ 2
n
v v 2
2
3 / 2 3 exp( x x n / R n )
Rn
N
v v
( x, t) = P 3 / 2, xv vx 2 / R 2
n
n
v v
n =1
n (x x n )
v v 3
4 x x n
(3)
The vorticity in (3) is divergence free. If the vorticity
is known at the control points, a matrix equation needs
to be developed to solve for the element amplitudes.
The induced velocity due to a set of vortex
filaments with core radius, n , length, l n ,
,
circulation, , and unit circulation unit vector,
n
v v
N filaments
v v
n l n (x x n )
n (
u ( x, t) =
r /n )
v
v
3
4
n =1
x xn
(4)
(r / n ) = (1 (1
3 r 3 ( r / n ) 3
)e
)
2 3n
(5)
v v
r = (x x n )
n
As in the method described by Bernard, only
the vortex stretching and advection term will be
included, so the evolution of vorticity may be
approximated as:
v
v v v
v
v
+ u = ( )u
t
(6)
(l n n ) t+ t = (l n n )t
(7)
v v v
v v v v
v
1 ( x ) (x x )
1 ( x )(x x )
u ( x) =
dS +
dS
4 S vx xv 3
4 S vx xv 3
=
{ n B n + n B n }
N
U
18.7
n =1
(8)
y, u y
v
The boundary condition at points x m on the surface is:
v
v
v
v
v
u elements( x m ) + u stator( x m ) + U = 0
(10)
v
v
Here, u elements( x m ) is the induced velocity due to all
v
v
vortex elements in the field and u stator( x m ) is the
induced velocity due to the stator.
Vortex Lattice Calculations:
Since the stators produce lift, the surface and
shed wake vorticity will produce an induced velocity.
This is treated as a mean effect. Instead of shedding
the vorticity in the form of filaments every time step
(one possible approach), it was decided to conduct a
separate calculation solving for the flow past a stator
using a vortex lattice method. The modified propulsor
unsteady flow (PUF) code (see Kerwin (1978, 1986),
Huyer and Snarski (2002)) was used for these
computations. The flow field was solved and induced
velocities were comp uted on a fixed grid.
An
interpolation routine was then used to compute the
induced velocity at any point in the field due to the
stators.
The unsteady velocity at a given point in the
field is therefore a summation of the velocities due to
1) Freestream velocity; 2) Hull near wall vorticity; 3)
Stator vortex lattice; 4) Hull boundary layer vorticity
due to filaments and blobs; and 5) Stator boundary
layer shed vorticity using vortex filaments.
n
s
= surface normal
, u
x, u x
0o
90o
v 0.1
u'
1.0
ux
0.0
0.25
(a)
(a)
MEAN AXIAL VELOCITY
Uinf = 29.3 m/sec, J = 2.343
0.14
r/Rprop=0.39
r/Rprop=0.57
r/Rprop=0.65
r/Rprop=0.82
0.6
r/Rprop=0.98
r/Rprop=1.15
0.4
r/Rprop=1.32
0.2
0.12
0.8
ux /Ui n f
TURBULENT INTENSITY
Uinf = 29.3 m/sec, J = 2.343
0.1
r/Rprop=0.39
r/Rprop=0.57
0.08
r/Rprop=0.65
r/Rprop=0.82
r/Rprop=0.98
0.06
r/Rprop=1.15
r/Rprop=1.32
0.04
0.02
0
0
0
20
40
60
80
Theta (deg)
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
Theta (deg)
(b)
(b)
Inflow Measurements:
Inflow measurements were conducted for
various freestream velocities with nondimensional
results at 29 m/sec used for model calibration and
validation.
Velocities were chosen so that the
boundary layer thickness in air at 36.6 m/sec was the
same as that for equivalent Reynolds numbers in water
(20.57 m/sec). At the end of the cylindrical UUV
section (before the afterbody), the Reynolds number
was approximately 120 million and the measured
boundary layer thickness was approximately 4.3 cm.
The inwater boundary layer thickness was
approximately 5% less than inair measurements.
1.4
1.2
Tangential
1
Axial
r/R prop
Radial
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
Experiments
Vortex Lattice Soln.
Vortex Lattice Soln.
0.1
0.3
0.5
0.7
ux , ur or u (r)/U inf
hub
0.9
1.1
Axial Velocity
0.0
Hull Surface
Inflow Plane
Computational Outflow
Rake
Plane
Experiments
ur
0.8
Axial
0.6
0.4
0.2
Radial
0
0
20
40
60
80
100
0.2
Tangential
0.4
Circumferential Angle
Axial
0.6
0.4
Radial
0.2
0
0
0.4
40
60
80
100
Tangential
Simulation
Experiments
ur
Circumferential Angle
RESULTS:
Mean Velocity Comparisons
Figures 9, 10 and 11 show circumferential
distributions of axial, radial and tangential velocity at
r/Rprop = 0.39 (closest to the surface), 0.65 (middle of
the boundary layer) and 0.9 (outer boundary layer
under the influence of the tip vortex). For these and all
cases, comparisons are made in the local (x, r, )
coordinate system. The plots are shown from position
angles between 0 and 100 deg encompassing two
stators. For r/Rprop = 0.39, the axial velocity displays a
clear drop in velocity due to the stator wake.
Simulations slightly underpredict by 5% the magnitude
of the velocity decrease and demonstrate overshoots
not seen in the experimental data. This is likely due to
the lack of resolution of the boundary layer vorticity
shed from the stator. Aside from this, the simulated
axial velocity predicts the measured velocity between
the stator wakes to within 2%. The simulated radial
velocity distribution appears to follow the measured
distribution, but is offset by a value of 0.02.
Simulations of the tangential component do a better job
20
0.2
0.8
Axial
0.6
0.4
Radial
0.2
0
0
0.2
0.4
20
40
60
80
100
Tangential
Circumferential Angle
Simulation
Experiments
ur
1.2
Tangential
1
r/R prop
Axial
Radial
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0.1
Experiments
Computations
R/Rprop
0.3
0.5
0.7
ux, u r or u (r)/Uinf
hub
0.9
0.09
rms Turbulence / U inf
1.4
VELOCITY PROFILES
Between Stators
0.08
0.07
Computations
Experiments
0.06
0.05
0.04
0.03
0.02
hub
0.01
0
0.3
0.5
0.7
0.9
r/R prop
1.1
1.3
0.09
0.08
0.07
Computations
Experiments
0.06
0.05
0.04
0.08
0.09
rms Turbulence / U inf
AXIAL TURBULENCE
r/Rprop =0.73
0.1
0.1
0.03
0.07
0.06
0.05
0.04
0.03
0.02
Simulation
0.01
0.02
hub
0.01
Experiments
0
0
20
0
0.3
0.5
0.7
0.9
r/R prop
1.1
1.3
60
80
100
0.09
1.E04
0.08
0.07
Computations
Experiments
0.06
Computations
Experiments
1.E05
Power (u/Uinf)^2
40
Circumferential Angle
0.05
0.04
0.03
1.E06
1.E07
1.E08
0.02
hub
1.E09
0.01
20
40
60
80
100
120
Frequency/Shaft Rate
0.3
0.5
0.7
0.9
r/R prop
1.1
1.3
1.E04
Computations
Experiments
Power (u/Uinf)^2
1.E05
1.E06
1.E07
1.E08
1.E09
1.E10
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
Frequency/Shaft Rate
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS:
This work was funded by the NUWC Internal
Research Program, Mr. Richard Philips, program
manager and the Office of Naval Research under
Contract N0001402WX20474, Dr. Kam Ng, program
manager. The experimental data used for comparisons
was collected during SISUP experiments, supervised
by Dr. John Muench for his thesis work and funded by
the Office of Naval Research under Dr. Patrick Purtell.
REFERENCES:
Bernard, P.S., Dimas, A.A., Collins, J.P., Turbulent
Flow Modeling Using a Fast, Parallel, Vortex Tube and
Sheet Method, European Series in Applied and
Industrial Mathematics, Vortex Flows and elated
Numerical Methods III, ed. Gagnon, Y., Cottet, G.H,
Dritschel, D.G., Ghoniem, A.F., Meiburg, E., Vol. 7,
pp 4655, 1999 (http://www.emath.fr/proc/Vol.7/)
DISCUSSION
Stephane Cordier
Bassin dessais des Carnes
In the paper, the vortex filament intensities
are tuned to one geometry. How would this
method be applied when experimental data is not
available for a new geometry? Do the authors have
examples of this method applied based on a
computed (RANSE or LES) flow?
AUTHORS REPLY
It is correct that the results presented in this
paper were calibrated for a particular SISUP
geometry. Experimental mean 3D velocity and
turbulence data were used in this process at a given
upstream plane. It would actually be easier to utilize
CFD data to calibrate the model for a generic
geometry, but, at present, we have no examples to
present. As long as mean and rms velocities are
computed, this information can be used to calibrate
the model.
Right now, this method is being
transitioned to a 6.2 program where turbulent inflow
into a propulsor will be computed. Unlike the SISUP
cases presented where experimental data were used,
the inflow velocity data is computational using a
RANS formulation. Mean velocities and turbulent
intensity will be used to calibrate a model to predict
the broadband unsteady hydrodynamic blade forces
and pressures. We will present these results in the
future as the calculations progress.
DISCUSSION
Joseph R. Gavin
General Dynamics Electric Boat Division, USA
ABSTRACT
An assessment is made of the fidelity of
computational fluid dynamics (CFD) prediction of a
turbulent wingtip vortex. Efficacy of a featureadaptive local mesh refinement is showcased to
resolve steep gradients in the flowfield along the tipvortex. The impact of turbulence modeling is
evaluated using several popular eddyviscosity
models and a Reynoldsstress transport model. The
results indicate that, with a judicious combination of
computational mesh with adequate resolution, highorder spatial discretization and advanced turbulence
models, one can predict the tipvortex flow with a
commendable accuracy.
INTRODUCTION
Turbulent flow around lifting surfaces such
as propeller blades, rudders, and hydrofoils has long
been a topic of both fundamental and practical
interest in naval applications for their ubiquity around
naval vessels and significant impact on various
aspects of hydrodynamic performance. Despite the
long history of deployment and designers vested
interest, the task of numerically predicting turbulent
flows around lifting surface flows remains a difficult
one.
There are several challenges to be dealt with
before one can predict the subject flow accurately.
First, one has to overcome the sheer numerical
difficulty of resolving large gradients of the flowfields in the boundary layer on lifting surfaces and
the tightly braided vortices emanating from the tip.
One difficulty constantly encountered in real
applications is that there are many such regions
needing highresolution simultaneously. When there
is a need to trace the tipvortices over a long distance,
as is often the case when tracking trailing vortices in
the wakes of aircrafts, the difficulty is even more
acute.
Eddyviscosity models
We selected three most popular eddyviscosity models for this study. In view of its
popularity in the aerospace and the ship
hydrodynamics communities, the oneequation model
of Spalart and Allmaras (1994) (SA hereafter) was
selected. We adopted the modification proposed by
DaclesMariani et al. (1995, 1996) to suppress the
unduly large buildup of eddyviscosity in the vortex
(1)
# of cells
385K cells
1.04M cells
2.3M cells
Remarks
coarsest mesh
globally refined
globally refined
Mesh IV
1.38M cells
locally refined
Q=
(2)
48"
137.55"
1 2
S2
2
37.3"
55.2"
32"
BOUNDARY CONDITIONS
Some of the earlier numerical studies
(DaclesMariani et al., 1995) used the experimental
data to specify the boundary conditions (Dirichlet)
not only on the inlet but also on the outlet boundary.
However, the practice of using a Dirichlettype
boundary condition on the outlet  generally not
known a priori  is questionable both mathematically
and practically.
In the present study, the freestream velocity
was specified at the upstream inlet boundary for the
sake of simplicity, which was deemed justifiable as
our focus is on the region away from the tunnel wall.
The exit boundary is modeled as a pressure outlet on
which an areaaveraged static pressure is specified.
The velocity on the pressure outlet is linearly
extrapolated from the adjacent interior cells in such a
way that the overall continuity (mass conservation) is
satisfied. Other solution variables are extrapolated in
a similar manner.
On the tunnel wall and the wing surface, we
adopted a generalized wallfunction approach (Fluent
Inc., 2003) that invokes proper walllaws depending
on the y+ value to provide the wall boundary
conditions for the momentum and the turbulence
equations, thus being applicable to the entire inner
layer including the viscous sublayer, buffer zone,
and logarithmic layer.
RESULTS