Proceedings of ASME 2019 38th International Conference on Ocean, Offshore and Arctic Engineering
OMAE2019
CFD ANALYSIS OF A CAPTIVE BULLET ENTRY IN CALM WATER WITH AND
WITHOUT TURBULENCE
René Bettencourt Rauffus
Instituto Superior Técnico, Universidade de Lisboa
(IST-UL)
Av. Rovisco Pais 1, 1049-001 Lisboa
Portugal
Email: rene.rauffus@tecnico.ulisboa.pt
Luı́s Eça
IST-UL
Mechanical Engineering Department
Av. Rovisco Pais 1, 1049-001 Lisboa
Portugal
Email: luis.eca@ist.utl.pt
ABSTRACT
Simulations are carried out for a simplified lifeboat drop test
case, which consists of a captive axisymmetric generic lifeboat
shape (bullet), that penetrates the water surface at a constant ve-
locity and angle of attack. The quantities of interest are the body
fixed longitudinal force FX , vertical force FZ , and pitch moment
MYY .This case was previously used in a verification and valida-
tion exercise [1]. Here, a step forward in complexity is taken,
as the previous numerical model is now supplemented with the
eddy-viscosity based turbulence model k − ω SST. Both ap-
proaches are then used to simulate two different cases: Case 1
with minimal wake effects; and Case 3 with flow separation and
significant wake. The results are compared with the experimen-
tal data. The numerical uncertainty is estimated for both models.
It is seen that for Case 1 the difference between both models is
mostly within the comparison uncertainty, except for the longi-
tudinal force FX , where the turbulent flow predicts a larger force,
improving the comparison with the experiments. The loads pre-
dicted with turbulent flow stayed mostly within 6 % of the lami-
nar flow. For Case 3 small differences between both models are
found during/after the wake collapse stage. However, this differ-
ence is often within the comparison uncertainty. A reasonable
agreement is found with the experimental data, except for FZ af-
ter the bow wake collapse. The turbulent flow improves slightly
on the laminar approach regarding the agreement with the exper-
iments, however it can be argued if this difference justifies the
increased computational cost of the turbulence model.
1 Copyright
June 9-14, 2019, Glasgow, Scotland
OMAE2019-96099
António Maximiano
WavEC-Offshore Renewables
R. Dom Jerónimo Osório, 11, 1400-119 Lisboa
Portugal
Email:antonio.maximiano@wavec.org
Guilherme Vaz
Maritime Research Institute Netherlands
(MARIN)
P.O. Box 28, 6700 AA Wageningen
The Netherlands
Email: g.vaz@marin.nl
INTRODUCTION
Over the last decade, an industry wide effort to improve the
safety of the lifeboats culminated in two norms: the less stricter
“SA Code” [2] and the more restrictive “DNV-OS-E406”( [3]),
with the latter applicable to all lifeboats on the Norwegian conti-
nental shelf as of 2015. Currently, the DNV norm allows for CFD
(Computational Fluid Dynamics) to aid in the design process of
free-fall lifeboats, as a complement to model testing. Unlike the
structural analysis, which has an appendix dedicated to providing
recommendations for FEM calculations, CFD recommendations
are more limited. In paragraph 4.5.3.16 the following recom-
mendations are provided: ”The CFD method used should allow
modelling of turbulence, two-phase flow with compressible air
and the break-up of water particles. When applying CFD, con-
vergence tests shall be carried out to ensure that the fluid cells
and the temporal discretization are adequately representative of
the physical spatial and temporal scales. The computational do-
main shall be large enough to avoid reflections from boundaries
of the domain. Numerical results based on CFD should be val-
idated against benchmark model test results.”. As examples of
suitable models, the ”Volume-of-Fluid” (VoF) and smoothed par-
ticle hydrodynamics (SPH) are mentioned. [3]
The volume of fluid (VoF) approach, suitable for the
widespread finite volume methods, has been widely used for this
application [4,5,6], in which both air and water are modelled as a
single continuum fluid with physical properties varying linearly
between air and water. When using the VoF model, attention
c 2019 by ASME
must be paid to ensure a sharp transition from air to water. Ide- TABLE 1: Main particulars.
ally such transition would occur within two or three cells.
The DNV norm requires some consideration regarding tur- Quantity Abbreviation Value Unit
bulence modelling. It suggests using two equation models for Scale λ 15.77 -
free-fall lifeboats design. In this application, it is not uncommon Length L 857 mm
to find literature where it is assumed that the turbulence effects Breadth B 214 mm
are negligible. In [7], [8], [9] and [10] a two equation model with
wall functions was employed using the STAR-CCM+ code and
in [11] a minimum-dissipation turbulence LES model was used
in the ComFLOW code. In [7], for a 2D and 3D wedge drop
case, the influence of adding a turbulence model was under 3 %
in the computational results.
Regarding the validation of CFD results with experimen-
tal data, several authors have shown reasonable agreement with
model scale experiments [5, 12, 13, 4], and even with full-scale
test results [9, 4, 14]. A formal verification and validation exer-
cise (V&V), using the procedure proposed in [15], was carried
out in [1] for a simplified lifeboat drop case, where the exper-
imental, numerical and validation uncertainties were quantified
and discussed. It should be noted that only Berchiche et al. [4]
had experimental data of model drops into waves. The remaining
experiments were drops into calm water.
The objective of this work is to better understand the influ-
FIGURE 1: Definitions and sign convention. The dashed line is
ence of turbulence modelling on the global forces acting on the
the symmetry axis, θ the pitch angle, γ the angle of attack, and β
lifeboat, and identify the main challenges associated with turbu-
the velocity angle.
lence modeling in this type of flows. This work builds on the
work reported in [1], supplementing the numerical model de-
scribed therein, with the commonly used k − ω SST turbulence TABLE 2: Drop cases simulated with CFD.
model. Two different drop cases with different angles of attack
are then simulated with and without the turbulence model, and Case Velocity Pitch Angle of Attack
the results compared with available experimental data. Mag [m/s] Dir [deg] [deg] [deg]
The present paper is organized in the following manner: the 1 3.0 55 55 0
problem definition, including the variables of interest, is intro-
3 3.0 90 55 35
duced; then both CFD numerical models are discussed; the chal-
lenges posed by turbulence modelling, and the practical compro-
mises required; followed by the results obtained with and without
turbulence modelling, and comparison with experimental results;
finally a summary of the findings is made.

PROBLEM DEFINITION
A captive generic lifeboat shape (axisymmetric bullet) is
forced into the water surface at a constant velocity of 3.0 m s−1 .
The angle β between the imposed trajectory and water plane is
also prescribed. The vessel has a fixed pitch angle, θ, and an (a) Case 1 (b) Case 3
angle of attack γ. The quantities of interest are the body fixed
forces acting on the model in the X-Z plane, i.e., the longitudinal FIGURE 2: Illustration of the two cases considered.
force FX , vertical force FZ and pitch moment MYY , as defined
in Figure 1. The time is zeroed when the model first touches
NUMERICAL MODEL
the water for both the experiments and simulations. The main
dimensions of the model are given in Table 1. Flow Solver ReFRESCO
Two cases were tested: case 1, with no angle of attack, for ReFRESCO (www.refresco.org) is a community based
which a V&V study was carried out previously [1]; and case 3 open-usage CFD code for maritime applications. It solves
with a significant angle of attack. These cases are defined in multiphase (unsteady) incompressible viscous flows using the
Table 2 and shown schematically in Figure 2. Navier-Stokes equations, complemented with turbulence mod-
els, cavitation models and volume-fraction transport equations

2 Copyright

c 2019 by ASME
for different phases [16]. The equations are discretised using a
finite-volume approach with cell-centered collocated variables,
in strong-conservation form, and a pressure-correction equation
based on the SIMPLE algorithm is used to ensure mass conser-
vation [17]. Time integration is performed implicitly with first
or second-order backward schemes. At each implicit time step,
the non-linear system for velocity and pressure is linearised with
Picard’s method and a segregated approach is used.
ReFRESCO (v2.5.0) is currently being developed, verified
and its several applications validated at MARIN (in the Nether-
lands) [18, 19] in collaboration with IST (in Portugal) [20],
WavEC (Portugal) [21], and several other universities.
Mathematical Models
The impact of turbulence is investigated by comparing sim-
ulations with and without turbulence modeling. Both approaches
are here briefly described.
The turbulent approach considers that turbulence plays a
non-negligible role in this application. The Reynolds averaged
Navier-Stokes (RANS) equations are solved assuming incom-
pressible flow. Closure is achieved with the eddy viscosity based,
two equation turbulence model, k − ω SST model [22]. The re-
Boundary Conditions The problem symmetry is used
to model only half the domain, thus saving computational re-
sources. The computational domain is shown in Figure 3. A
no-slip boundary condition is applied at the bullet surface. A
symmetry boundary condition is applied both to the symmetry
plane and the opposite surface in the y direction. The hydrostatic
pressure is applied to the cylindrical curved surface, and updated
at each time step to reflect the change of depth due to the imposed
motion.
Numerical Settings The motion of the body is pre-
scribed using the moving grid technique. The NS equations
are solved in the earth fixed reference frame, and the imposed
velocity is applied to the grid as a whole, which is accounted
for in the convection terms. The second order unstructured
QUICK scheme, the ReFRICS scheme, and the first order up-
wind scheme, are used for the spatial discretization of the mo-
mentum equations, free surface equation, and the turbulence
model equations, respectively. The diffusion terms are treated
using central schemes and the time derivatives using a first order
implicit Euler scheme. The iterative convergence
q P was defined
N
per time step as L2 norm ≤ 10 , where L2 = N i=1 Res2i .
−5 1

sults obtained with this model are referred as SST results.

The laminar approach assumes that inertia/pressure effects
are dominant over the viscous effects, and therefore there is no
benefit from an engineering perspective to model turbulence and
solve additional equations. The incompressible Navier-Stokes
equations are solved with no turbulence modeling. This approach
was taken in a first stage of this work, and more details can be
found in [1]. The results obtained with this model are referred as
Laminar results.
In both cases, the multiphase is addressed with the Volume
of Fluid (VoF) approach. This technique models both air and
water as a single continuum fluid, with varying density ρ and
viscosity µ, defined as

ρ = αρair + (1 − α)ρwater
µ = αµair + (1 − α)µwater

where the air volume fraction, α, is physically bounded between

0 (no air) and 1 (only air), and obtained from a convection equa-
tion

∂α
+ div(αv) = 0 (1)
∂t
FIGURE 3: Computational domain.L is the bullet length and B
is the bullet width. Reproduced from [1].
Initial Conditions The fluid is assumed to be at rest,
v=0, at t=0. The free surface initial position is set at 0.25L below
the bullet tip. The hydrostatic pressure is applied to the cells un-
derwater, and a reference pressure equal to zero elsewhere. A ve-
Contact Line Problem
locity of 3.0 m s−1 is prescribed along the selected trajectory, and
Initial simulations of the turbulent flow were carried using
kept constant throughout the simulation. When applicable, the
a variation of the coarse grid with with y+ ≤ 1, which resulted
turbulent quantities are initialized throughout the domain from a
in the air volume fraction distribution seen in Figure 4 (a). The
prescribed eddy viscosity ratio µt /µ = 0.1 and turbulent inten-
air is dragged into the water as the bullet dives, resulting in a
sity of 10 %.
nonphysical layer of air covering the bullet throughout its dive.

3 Copyright

c 2019 by ASME
 This is the result of the no slip boundary condition, which
when applied to the very small cells required to satisfy y+ ≤1,
results in extremely low relative velocities at those cells. Since
the variation of the air volume fraction, α, is exclusively due to its
convection by the velocity field (see Equation 1), the air volume
fraction near the walls remains virtually unchanged throughout
the simulation. This phenomena is commonly known as the con-
tact line problem.
accuracy, even in flows where their assumptions are not entirely
applicable. This is such a case, where none of the assumptions
needed to derive the log-law are satisfied: different pressure gra-
dients are present; laminar flow regime is present at different
stages of the dive; and flow separation is present at the stern.
Another challenge is related to the different properties of
both fluids, which result in a significant difference of y+ values,
depending on the local properties of the fluid. In this case we
opted to use as reference the y+ values for the underwater part
of flow. However, for a case where the free falling trajectory is
being calculated as a function of the aerodynamic forces, care
should be taken to ensure acceptable y+ values and near wall
treatment throughout the whole simulation. This is particularly
relevant for cases where the aerodynamic forces play a role in
determining the pitch angle at the moment of impact, which is a
key factor in the subsequent trajectory of the lifeboat.
Based on sensitivity tests, an average y+ ' 300 (see Fig-
ure 4 (c)) was chosen as the compromise between free surface
sharpness and near wall flow.

(a) y+ ≤ 1, no wall functions (WF) (b) y+ ' 60, automatic WF

(c) y+ ' 300, automatic WF
NUMERICAL SENSITIVITY
The sensitivity of the results to several numeric parameters
(domain size, free surface modelling, iterative convergence, time
step and grid convergence) was addressed previously for the lam-
inar approach in Case 1 [1]. The conclusions regarding domain
size, free surface modelling and iterative convergence sensitivity
were assumed to hold for Case 3 and the turbulence approach.
However, grid and time step convergence studies were still car-
ried out for Case 3 with both approaches, and for Case 1 with the
turbulence approach.
(d) y+ ' 600, automatic WF

FIGURE 4: Case 1 air volume fraction field (air in red) for turbu-
lent flow, with different y + values and wall functions (WF).
Two attempts to solve this issue were pursued. The first was
to use wall functions, which relax the y+ condition on the cells
near the wall, resulting in larger cells and larger velocities. The
second was to define a maximum distance to the wall, below
which the air volume fraction was not solved, but instead extrap-
olated from cells outside this distance. The latter approach was
discarded in favour of the first, due to the limited success ob-
tained, high dependency on the distance chosen, and additional
effort required for convergence.
Wall Functions
Wall functions are based on the so called log-law, which was
derived for a steady, bi-dimensional, fully turbulent flow over a
flat plate with zero pressure gradient. They allow larger near
wall cells, reducing the computational costs, at the expense of
accuracy in the near wall flow. In addition, the larger cell sizes
(y+ ' 100 vs. y+ ' 1) result in larger velocities at the first cell,
which facilitates the convection of the air volume fraction, thus
mitigating the contact line problem.
Wall functions are often used in the industry in a number
of applications, as the standard compromise between costs and
Grid and Time Step Convergence
Based on previous results [1], it was found that the solution
is more sensitive to the grid refinement than the time step size,
provided that the maximum CFL was between 3 and 0.3. There-
fore, three different grids were tested with a time step chosen
to ensure a maximum CFL number of approximately 0.4. Some
properties of the generated grids are given in Table 3 and Figure
5. The coarse grid used here is based on Grid 5 from [1], with
some minor alterations regarding grid topology.
It should be noted that the grids used in the turbulent simula-
tions are obtained from the grids used with the laminar approach.
An additional refinement layer near the hull is added to meet the
desired dimensionless wall distance (y+ ) criteria. Otherwise, the
grid remains the same.
The results obtained with the different grids are shown in
Figure 6 for Case 3. Similar trends are obtained for Case 1,
which is omitted for brevity. The maximum differences in the
loads obtained between the coarse and fine grids are under 4 %.
These differences are consistent with those found in the previous
exercise [1] using a wider range of grids for Case 1 with laminar
flow.
During the initial stage of the dive, approximately up until
105 ms, occurs the formation of the bow wake, which displaces
water and drags air. In this phase there is no significant varia-
tion in the loads with grid convergence. As the dive continues,

4 Copyright

c 2019 by ASME
this wake builds up along the body of the bullet, until it collapses
between 140 ms and 175 ms. Grid refinement seems to lead to-
wards a less abrupt response in the forces, both in the laminar
and turbulent approach. After the bow wake collapse, with air
entrapment and eventual escape, there is a second wake forma-
tion at the stern after 245 ms. In this section there is a visible
difference between the fine and coarse grids, with the grid re-
finement trending towards smaller magnitude loads.
Solution Verification Procedure
A description of the verification procedure, within the ver-
ification and validation (V&V) framework, can be found else-
where [23]. For the laminar approach of Case 1, the numer-
ical uncertainty for the flow quantity φ was estimated [1] us-
ing independent contributions from the time, δt, and space, δx,
discretizations, assuming the general Richardson extrapolation
form:

ε(φ) ' φi − φ0 = δx + δt = αx hpi x + αt τipt (2)

Where φi is the calculated value of the quantity of interest for

which the uncertainty is to be estimated; φ0 is the estimate of
the exact solution; αx and αt are constants to be determined;
px and pt the observed order of convergence in space and time,
respectively; hi and τi the typical spatial and time discretization
size, respectively. More details can be found in .
For the remaining simulations, the numerical uncertainty
was estimated based on a single parameter, that combines the in-
(a) General view (b) Coarse fluence of both the time, δt, and space, δx, discretizations [23].

ε(φ) ' φi − φ0 = δ = αhpi (3)

Where τi and hi are combined into a single typical size that takes
into account the formal orders of grid and time convergence. The
simulations are carried out at a constant CFL, thus preserving the
ratio of the spatial/time discretization. With this approach, the
number of the extrapolation unknown variables is reduced, thus
reducing the number of simulations required in order to estimate
(c) Medium (d) Fine
the numerical uncertainty. However, it is no longer possible to
FIGURE 5: Computational grids used in the laminar simulations. discern between the influence of the time and spatial resolution,
which is useful, should the need to reduce the estimated uncer-
tainty arise. This disadvantage is mitigated by the previous study
of Case 1, where it was observed that for a CFL number between
3 and 0.3, the solution is more sensitive to the grid refinement
than to the time step size.
TABLE 3: Properties of the generated computational grids.

Total number q
3 N1 Representative cell size [mm]
Grid Ni Model Comparison
of cells, Ni smallest free surface
The comparison between the laminar and turbulence ap-
Coarse 307,572 2.03 4 54 proaches is analogous to that used in the standard validation pro-
Medium 503,464 1.73 3 40 cedure [24]. However, instead of estimating the modelling error
Fine 2,586,671 1.00 2 25 of a given numerical model by comparing its results with experi-
ments, it estimates the modelling difference between the laminar
model and the turbulence model. The modelling difference be-
tween both models, ∆M , is given by

C − Ucmp ≤ ∆M ≤ C + Ucmp (4)

SOLUTION VERIFICATION AND MODEL COMPARISON
For each case, a solution verification procedure is followed
to estimate the numerical uncertainties for both the laminar and The comparison difference, C, is here defined as the differ-
turbulence approach, at a set of predefined time instants shown ence between the turbulence solution, SSST , and the laminar one
in Figure 7. These uncertainties are then combined to provide a SLAM .
measure of the uncertainty of the comparison between the lami-
nar and turbulence results.
C = Slam − Ssst (5)

5 Copyright
c 2019 by ASME
 (a) Case 3, laminar approach (b) Case 3, turbulence approach

FIGURE 6: Sensitivity to the grid size, with max CFL≤ 0.4. The error bars represent the numerical uncertainty.

FIGURE 7: Snapshots for turbulent flow of Case 3 at different time instants.

6 Copyright

c 2019 by ASME
C is analogous to the comparison error, E, used in the standard
validation terminology, used to compare the simulation result
with the experimental one.
The comparison uncertainty, Ucmp , is a measurement of the
uncertainty of the comparison difference, C, and is given by
q A good agreement with the experimental data is found, with
Ucmp = 2
Uφ, 2 the oscillations in the experimental loads attributed to the exper-
sst + Uφ, lam
Where Uφ, sst is the numerical uncertainty of the turbulent sim-
ulations, and Uφ, lam , is the numerical uncertainty of the lami-
nar simulations. Ucmp is analogous to the validation uncertainty,
Uval , in the standard V&V terminology. Since the same input pa-
rameters were prescribed for both sets of simulations, no input
parameter uncertainty is considered.
RESULTS
Case 1
The field distributions of the eddy viscosity, air volume frac-
tion, and velocity magnitude are illustrated in Figure 8 for two
different stages of the dive. The loads obtained with the lami-
nar and turbulence models, and the comparison between both, is
shown in Figure 9.
Flow field visualization The eddy viscosity is signifi-
cant in three areas: in the submerged part of the bullet; in the
vicinity of the free surface; and in the stern wake area. Neverthe-
less, the impact on the velocity field is restricted to the wake area,
or close by, as seen in the velocity magnitude plots. There is a
high velocity area below the stern present in the laminar results
that is mitigated with turbulent flow. When the bullet is com-
pletely below the water level at rest, the turbulent model shows
signs of two vortices at the stern, which are not present with lam-
inar flow. The air volume fraction shows a slightly sharper tran-
sition with the turbulent model during the mid dive phase, but
no difference can be seen between the models once the bullet is
completely below the water surface at rest.
Longitudinal force, FX . While the comparison differ-
ence is small, under 10 N, the turbulence model consistently pre-
dicts a larger force than the laminar approach. Furthermore,
between 125 ms and 245 ms the difference between both ap-
proaches, including the uncertainty bars, does not contain zero.
This suggests that the difference between both approaches is
larger that what can be attributed to the numerical uncertain-
ties. As the bullet is completely below the water surface at rest (
t ≥245 ms) and the wake in the stern is formed, larger uncertain-
ties arise.
This trend brings the turbulent flow results even closer to
the experimental results. In Case 1, the trajectory is aligned
with the symmetry axis, which minimizes any separation effects.
Therefore, the viscous forces play a relevant role in determining
the longitudinal force, and the turbulence model contributes to
the viscous force component by increasing the wall shear stress.
Nevertheless, both simulations show good agreement with the
experimental results.
Vertical force, FZ . Both the laminar and the turbulent
approaches provide a very similar result. In fact, the difference
between both models is within the numerical uncertainties ob-
served, i.e., the comparison difference (under 5 N) is less than
the overall uncertainty.
(6)
imental setup [1].
Consistent with the observations for the longitudinal force,
the larger uncertainties occur for t ≥245 ms, when the formation
of the wake at the stern develops.
Pitch moment, MYY . The difference between both mod-
els is more noticeable for the pitch moment. Here, the maximum
comparison difference is around 2 N m, with the turbulent flow
generally predicting a larger moment. Nevertheless, the differ-
ence between both models is within the uncertainty levels.
In the very early stages of the dive t ≤45 ms, the turbulent
model underpredicts the pitch moment by almost 10 %. This can
be determinant for the lifeboat trajectory in cases where its mo-
tion is being calculated as a function of the hydrodynamic forces.
There is a reasonable agreement with the experimental data,
with no noticeable improvement when using the turbulence
model instead of laminar flow.
Case 3
The field distribution of the eddy viscosity, air volume frac-
tion, and velocity magnitude are illustrated in Figure 10 for two
different stages of the dive. The loads obtained with the lami-
nar and turbulence models, and the comparison between both, is
shown in Figure 11.
Flow field visualization The eddy viscosity is signifi-
cant at the wake generated in the bow section, at the overall hull,
and the stern wake. Eventually, the influence of the eddy viscos-
ity expands to merge all those areas into one big wake with large
eddy viscosity. Similar velocity fields can be observed, partic-
ularly in the underwater section. The largest differences in the
velocity field occur at the stern wake, in the air region, where
the laminar flow predicts a larger wake than the turbulent flow
approach.
The turbulence model leads to a slightly sharper interface
between air and water mid dive. However, the largest difference
is the underprediction of the bow wake by the laminar flow, when
compared with the turbulent flow. Even in the later stages of the
dive, the turbulent approach shows a more dynamic free surface
behaviour, with more air entrained, than the laminar simulation.
The largest differences between models occur in the wake
regions, as expected. In these areas, the eddy viscosity increases
and some differences in the velocity field and air volume fraction
are visible.
Longitudinal force, FX . The comparison difference is
under 10 N. The turbulent flow exhibits a larger force than the
laminar flow up until the collapse of the bow wake, after which
7 Copyright
c 2019 by ASME
FIGURE 8: Case 1 flow field visualization of the eddy viscosity ratio (left column), velocity magnitude (center column) and air volume
fraction (right column), at 125 ms (top row) and 345 ms (bottom row). The simulation with the turbulent flow is shown by the color map,
while the laminar flow is shown by the lines. The free surface (α=0.5) is represented by a dotted black line.

(a) Laminar, turbulent, and experimental time traces. (b) Comparison difference between both numerical models (C =
Slam − Ssst ).

FIGURE 9: Case 1. The left plots show the time traces for the laminar (Lam) and turbulent (SST) flows, including its numerical
uncertainties, and the experimental results (EXP). The right plots show the comparison difference, C, and its uncertainty Ucmp

8 Copyright
c 2019 by ASME
FIGURE 10: Case 3 flow field visualization of the eddy viscosity ratio (left column), velocity magnitude (center column) and air volume
fraction (right column), at 105 ms (top row) and 255 ms (bottom row). The simulation with the turbulent flow is shown by the color map,
while the laminar flow is shown by the lines. The free surface (α=0.5) is represented by a dotted black line.

(a) Laminar, turbulent, and experimental time traces. (b) Comparison difference between both numerical models (C =
Slam − Ssst ).

FIGURE 11: Case 3. The left plots show the time traces for the laminar (Lam) and turbulent (SST) flows, including its numerical
uncertainties, and the experimental results (EXP). The right plots show the comparison difference, C, and its uncertainty Ucmp

9 Copyright

c 2019 by ASME
the turbulence flow predicts a smaller force. Furthermore, be-
tween 70 ms and 140 ms the difference between both models can-
not be explained only by the comparison uncertainty. The larger
uncertainties occur after the bow wake collapse and when the
bullet is below the water surface level at rest (t ≥175 ms).
It should be noted that in the early stages of the impact, dur-
ing the bow wake formation, the relative difference between both
models reaches a peak value of 30 % at 70 ms. This can be de-
terminant for the lifeboat trajectory in cases where its motion is
being calculated as a function of the hydrodynamic forces.
When compared to the experimental results, both ap-
proaches seem to underpredict the longitudinal force during the
formation of the bow wake t ≤140 ms, and then overestimate it
after the bow wake collapse t ≥175 ms. Nevertheless, the turbu-
lence flow results seem to qualitatively follow the trend of the ex-
perimental curve better than the laminar approach, and a reason-
able agreement between simulations and experiments is found.
Vertical force, FZ . The comparison difference is under
10 N until the bow wake collapse (approx. 175 ms), after which it
ranges between 10 N and 20 N. After the bow wake collapse, the
turbulent flow underpredicts the vertical force magnitude when
compared to the laminar case.
The differences between both models seem to be signifi-
cant during the stages where the bow wake collapses (approx.
175 ms), or the stern wake begins t ≥210 ms, i.e., the differences
between both models cannot be entirely explained by the com-
parison uncertainty.
A good agreement with the experimental data is found for
both approaches up until the bow wake collapse t ≤140 ms, af-
ter which both simulations deviate significantly from the exper-
iments. Despite this poor agreement during/after the bow wake
collapse, the turbulent flow is marginally closer to the experi-
mental results.
Pitch moment, MYY . Both models show very similar
pitch moment, with the maximum comparison difference around
2 N m, which is within the comparison uncertainty, except at
140 ms. The largest difference between both models is found
during the bow wake collapse, between 140 ms and 175 ms.
There is a reasonable agreement with the experimental data,
with no noticeable improvement when assuming turbulent flow.
The oscillations in the experimental curve are assumed to be re-
lated with the experimental setup, as described in [1].
DISCUSSION
Case 1
Case 1 shows a trajectory that minimizes the wake forma-
tion, while Case 3 is a more violent impact, with wake formation
at the bow that later collapses. Therefore, it was expected that
the laminar approach performs better in Case 1 than Case 3, as
was observed in these simulations.
For Case 1, there is a small difference between both models
regarding the FZ and MYY , which is within the comparison un-
certainty. The turbulent flow predicts a larger longitudinal force
10
FX than the laminar approach, and in some cases this difference
is larger than the comparison uncertainty. This difference can be
explained by the increased viscous forces acting on the body due
to the higher shear stress predicted by the turbulent flow.
The turbulent flow shows a better agreement in FX with the
experimental results than the laminar flow. However, there is al-
ready an excellent agreement between the laminar FX and the
experimental result. Therefore, it can be argued if this small ad-
ditional accuracy justifies the increased computational costs re-
quired to solve the turbulence model for Case 1.
Case 3
The turbulence effect was expected to play a more prominent
role in Case 3, due to the larger wake and flow separation, which
should not be correctly captured with the laminar flow approach.
Some differences were observed in the flow field for turbulent
flow, such as the larger bow wake, or the more dynamic wake
collapse, as seen in the air volume fraction distribution. In fact,
the largest differences between both approaches, for all the loads,
were generally observed during/after the bow wake collapse.
Both simulations show reasonable agreement with the ex-
perimental data for FX and MYY . However, for FZ a reasonable
agreement is found until the bow wake collapse t ≤140 ms, af-
ter which both simulations deviate significantly from the experi-
ments. Nevertheless, the agreement with experimental data is is
slightly better in turbulent flow for FX and FZ .
To a lesser extent than for Case 1, it can also be argued from
an engineering point of view, if the small differences between
both approaches justify the additional computational cost of the
turbulence modelling.
Although there is a small absolute difference in the global
loads between both approaches, there is a high relative difference
in the early stages of impact. This difference can be relevant for
cases where the motion is being calculated as a function of the
loads acting on the vessel, as the early stages of the dive can
impact the lifeboat trajectory.
LIMITATIONS AND IMPROVEMENTS
Case 3 represented a more vigorous impact with greater an-
gle of attack. Consequently, flow separation and wake effects are
a significant part of the physics involved in the problem. Thus,
from a fundamental point of view, applying wall functions be-
comes even more questionable. Moreover, a bluff-body wake
can be greatly influenced by the boundary layer separation point
and flow regime (laminar vs. turbulent), for which wall function
boundary conditions are also too simplistic. The effect of the
turbulence model is likely limited by the usage of wall functions,
which in turn are used to avoid the contact line problem. The
possibility of solving the near wall flow, avoiding the wall func-
tions without facing the contact line problem, should be further
explored.
These results were obtained with the eddy viscosity type,
two-equations k − ω SST model turbulence model [22]. While
some simulations were carried out with another turbulence model
within the same framework (K-kL model), and no significant dif-
ferences were found, it is possible that other turbulence models
Copyright
c 2019 by ASME
within the RANS framework or otherwise show a different be-
haviour.
Furthermore, the grid refinements used for both the laminar
and turbulent flow were the same. It is possible that a grid refine-
ment that is acceptable for the laminar approach is too coarse for
the turbulence model to perform.
CONCLUSIONS
Two simplified cases of lifeboat drops with constant
velocity were simulated with and without turbulence model.
In the turbulent flow approach, wall functions were used as
a compromise to avoid the contact line problem encountered
when solving the boundary layer. Three different grids were
used to estimate the numerical uncertainties of each model, and
the global loads acting on the vessel were compared for both
models. Experimental results are presented for reference. The
following concluding remarks are made based on the presented
results:
Wall functions are used as a compromise to prevent the
contact-line problem, where the bullet would penetrate the
surface and remain enveloped by a thin sheet of air for an
unrealistically long duration.
Case 1, where wake effects are less relevant, showed no
significant difference for the vertical force FZ and pitch moment
MYY between the laminar and turbulent simulations, i.e., the dif-
ferences are smaller than the comparison uncertainty. However,
the turbulent flow consistently predicts a larger longitudinal
force FX than the laminar approach, presumably due to the
increased wall shear stress.
Case 1 showed a good agreement between the laminar
simulations and the experimental data for FZ and MYY , and
an excellent agreement for FX . The turbulence model does
not improve on this situation, except for the longitudinal force
FX . However, since the agreement with laminar flow is already
excellent, it can be argued if the additional accuracy justifies the
increased computational cost of the turbulence model.
Case 3 is defined by a violent impact with flow separation
and wake effects. Some differences are observed between the
laminar and turbulent simulations, in particular during/after
the bow wake collapse. However, the difference found at
the selected time instants is generally within the comparison
uncertainty.
Case 3 showed a reasonable agreement between the laminar
flow and the experimental data for FX and MYY . A reasonable
agreement is also found for FZ up until the bow wake collapse,
after which both simulations deviate significantly from the
experiments. The turbulence model seems to improve slightly on
the experimental comparison for FX and FZ , however the same
argument can be made regarding the small additional accuracy
versus increased computational costs.
Based on these results, the effects of the turbulence model
seems limited, and the differences to the laminar approach
11
are often within the comparison uncertainty. While this is not
surprising for Case 1, it is somewhat unexpected for Case 3
where significant flow separation and large wakes occur. It
is possible that the usage of wall functions is restricting the
capacity of the turbulence model to capture these flow features,
thus approximating the results from both models. Further
research can focus on how to solve the near wall flow without
facing the contact line problem, thus avoiding the use of wall
functions and improving the turbulence model capacity to tackle
flow separation and large wakes.
Nevertheless, it was observed that the turbulence model has
an impact on the early stages of the dive, which can be determi-
nant for cases where the lifeboat motion is being calculated as a
function of the loads acting on the vessel.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The authors are grateful to Equinor ASA for permission to
publish the experimental data.
REFERENCES
[1] Maximiano, A., Vaz, G., and Scharnke, J., 2017. “CFD Verifi-
cation and Validation Study for a Captive Bullet Entry in Calm
Water”. In ASME 2017 36th International Conference on Ocean,
Offshore and Arctic Engineering, American Society of Mechani-
cal Engineers.
[2] IMO Publishing. Life-Saving Appliances. 2017 edition, Interna-
tional Martime Organization.
[3] DNVGL-ST-E406. Design of free-fall lifeboats. 2016 edition,
DNV-GL.
[4] Berchiche, N., Östman, A., Hermundstad, O. A., and Reinholdt-
sen, S.-A., 2015. “Experimental validation of CFD simulations
of free-fall lifeboat launches in regular waves”. Ship Technology
Research, 62(3), pp. 148–158.
[5] Mørch, H., Enger, S., Peric, M., and Schreck, E., 2008. “Simula-
tion of lifeboat launching under storm conditions”. In CFD Marin
& CD-Adapco, 6th International Conference on CFD in Oil & Gas,
Metallurgical and Process Industries, SINTEF/NTNU, Trondheim,
Norway.
[6] Mørch, H. J., Peric, M., Schreck, E., el Moctar, O., and Zorn,
T., 2009. “Simulation of flow and motion of lifeboats”. In
ASME 2009 28th International Conference on Ocean, Offshore
and Arctic Engineering, American Society of Mechanical Engi-
neers, pp. 595–605.
[7] Johannessen, S. R., 2012. “Use of CFD to study hydrodynamic
loads on free-fall lifeboats in the impact phase.: A verification and
validation study.”. Master’s thesis, Institutt for marin teknikk.
[8] Netland, V., 2017. “Hydrodynamic effects relevant for free-falling
lifeboats in wave conditions”. Master’s thesis, NTNU.
[9] Tregde, V., 2015. “Compressible air effects in cfd simulations of
free fall lifeboat drop”. In ASME 2015 34th International Confer-
ence on Ocean, Offshore and Arctic Engineering, American Soci-
ety of Mechanical Engineers, pp. V002T08A018–V002T08A018.
[10] Svendsen, A. G., 2017. “Hydrodynamic effects regarding free-fall
lifeboat for compressible air in CFD simulations”. Master’s thesis,
NTNU.
[11] Veldman, A. E., Seubers, H., van der Plas, P., and Helder, J., 2017.
“Free-surface flow simulations with interactively moving bodies”.
Copyright
c 2019 by ASME
 In ASME 2017 36th International Conference on Ocean, Offshore
and Arctic Engineering, American Society of Mechanical Engi-
neers, pp. V002T08A002–V002T08A002.
[12] van der Plas, P., Veldman, A. E., Seubers, H., Helder, J., and Lam,
K.-W., 2018. “Adaptive grid refinement for two-phase offshore
applications”.
[13] Bae, D.-M., Zakki, A., Kim, H.-S., and Kim, J.-G., 2010. “Estima-
tion of acceleration response of freefall lifeboat using fsi analysis
technique of ls-dyna code”. Journal of the Society of Naval Archi-
tects of Korea, 47(5), pp. 681–688.
[14] Ma, Z., Qian, L., Martinez-Ferrer, P., Causon, D., Mingham, C.,
and Bai, W., 2018. “An overset mesh based multiphase flow solver
for water entry problems”. Computers & Fluids.
[15] Eça, L., Hoekstra, M., and Vaz, G., 2015. “Verification of solutions
in unsteady flows”. In ASME V&V Conference, Las Vegas, USA,
May.
[16] Vaz, G., Jaouen, F., and Hoekstra, M., 2009. “Free-Surface Vis-
cous Flow Computations. Validation of URANS Code F RE SC O”.
In Proceedings of OMAE2009, Honolulu, Hawaii, USA, June.
[17] Klaij, C. M., and Vuik, C., 2013. “SIMPLE-type Precondition-
ers for Cell-Centered, Colocated Finite Volume Discretization of
Incompressible Reynolds-Averaged NavierStokes Equations”. In-
ternational Journal for Numerical Methods in Fluids, 71(7),
pp. 830–849.
12
[18] Eça, L., and Hoekstra, M., 2012. “Verification and validation for
marine applications of cfd”. In 29th Symposium on Naval Hydro-
dynamics (ONR), Gothenburg,Sweden, August.
[19] Koop, A., Klaij, C., and Vaz, G., 2011. “Viscous-Flow Calcula-
tions For Model And Full-Scale Current Loads On Typical Off-
shore Structures”. In Proceedings of ECCOMAS MARINE 2011,
Lisbon, Portugal, September.
[20] Muralha, J., Eça, L., Maximiano, A., and Vaz, G., 2018. “Vali-
dation Exercises for a Free Falling Wedge into Calm Water”. In
Proceedings of OMAE2018, Madrid, Spain, June.
[21] Maximiano, A., Vaz, G., and Scharnke, J., 2017. “CFD Verifica-
tion and Validation study for a captive bullet entry in calm water”.
In Proceedings of OMAE2017, Trondheim, Norway, June.
[22] F.Menter, J.C.Ferreira, T.Esch, and B.Konno, 2003. “The SST Tur-
bulence Model with Improved Wall Treatment for Heat Transfer
Predictions in Gas Turbines”. In Proceedings of the International
Gas Turbine Congress 2003 Tokyo November 2-7, 2003, TS-059.
[23] Eça, L., Hoekstra, M., and Vaz, G., 2015. “Verification of So-
lutions in Unsteady Flows”. ASME V&V Conference, Las Vegas,
USA, May.
[24] American Society of Mechanical Engineers, 2009. Standard for
Verification and Validation in Computational Fluid Dynamics and
Heat Transfer. Tech. Rep. ASME V&V 20-2009, The American
Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME).
Copyright
c 2019 by ASME