Upload
druce
View
100
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
DESCRIPTION
Experimental and CFD investigations into slamming of small, high speed craft. Dominic Hudson , Simon Lewis, Stephen Turnock ONR Hull slamming workshop, Caltech 17-18 th February 2009. Background. Work in support of Design of High Performance Craft from a Human Factors Perspective - PowerPoint PPT Presentation
Citation preview
Experimental and CFD investigations into slamming of small, high speed craft
Dominic Hudson, Simon Lewis, Stephen Turnock
ONR Hull slamming workshop, Caltech17-18th February 2009
Background• Work in support of
Design of High Performance Craft from a Human Factors Perspective
• This involves:
• Model and full scale testing• Measurements of muscle fatigue and
heart rate on passengers on board
• Prediction of motions of high speed craft
• Suspension seat design
Heart rate and Oxygen consumption
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
1 11 21 31 41 51 61 71 81 91 101 111Time (minutes)
Perc
enta
ge m
axim
al H
eart
rate
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
45%
Perc
enta
ge V
O 2max
heart rate VO2
Outline• Methods for prediction of planing craft
motions• Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD) to
predict vertical motion• Improvements to CFD - boundary layer
flow• Wedge impact experiment• Conclusions and future work
Prediction of motions• Potential flow theory
– Advantages:• Simple• Computationally efficient
– Disadvantages:• Difficulties modelling more complex shapes
• Computational Fluid Dynamics– Advantages:
• Potential for accurate results– Disadvantages
• Complex setup • Computationally expensive
2D CFD - wedge impact• Computational fluid dynamics method using
– RANS equations (ANSYS CFX 11)• Transient simulation• Equations of motion solved at each timestep• Initial investigations used published
experimental data for validation
Results - wedge impact
CFD Improvements• Boundary layer development on an
impulsively started flat plate– mesh size, domain size, turbulence
model, and first cell distance from the wall
Bow section motion• Experiments conducted
at MARINTEK• Test parameters
• Water entry velocity 2.44m/s• Mass: 261kg
• Measured pressures, accelerations and forces
CFD simulation
Inflow boundary
Symmetry planeOutflow boundary condition
Smooth wall, no slip condition
0.8m
0.4m
CFD Parameters
• Using Ansys CFX v11.0• Finest mesh: 30000 cells• First element situated 2*10-5m from the
wall• Turbulence model used is k-omega• Y+ value at the wall is 0.6• Inhomogeneous multiphase model• Motions are calculated through user
defined functions in Matlab for each timestep
Results - visualisation• Images of flow
Results – pressure (1)
Predicted and experimental pressure (transducers P1 and P2)
-5000
0
5000
10000
15000
20000
25000
30000
35000
-0.02 0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1
Time (s)
Pres
sure
(Pa)
P1 pressure predictionP1 experimentP2 Pressure predictionP2 experiment
Results – pressure (2)
Predicted and experimental pressure (transducers P3 and P4)
0
5000
10000
15000
20000
25000
30000
35000
-0.02 0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1
Time (s)
Pres
sure
(Pa)
P3 Pressure predictionP3 experimentP4 Pressure predictionP4 experiment
Experimental testing• Rig designed to investigate free-falling
wedge– Provide detailed validation data – Include uncertainty analysis– Improve understanding
• Synchronised high speed video, pressure and acceleration data
• Pressure, acceleration sampled at 10kHz • Mass and drop height varied
Comparison of sample rates
Drop test rig
Results – experimental (1)
Pressure N/m2
8.8ms after impact
-5000
0
5000
10000
15000
20000
25000
30000
0 50 100 150 200 250 300
15ms after impact
-5000
0
5000
10000
15000
20000
25000
30000
0 50 100 150 200 250 300
21.6ms after impact
-5000
0
5000
10000
15000
20000
25000
30000
0 50 100 150 200 250 300
30.9ms after impact
-5000
0
5000
10000
15000
20000
25000
30000
0 50 100 150 200 250 300
42.8ms after impact
-5000
0
5000
10000
15000
20000
25000
30000
0 50 100 150 200 250 300
57.1ms after impact
-5000
0
5000
10000
15000
20000
25000
30000
0 50 100 150 200 250 300
Horizontal distance from wedge apex (mm)
P6 P5 P4 P3 P2 P1
Results – experimental (2)
Results - uncertainty
0.005 0.01 0.015 0.02 0.025 0.03 0.035 0.04 0.045 0.05
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
x 104
Time (s)
Pre
ssur
e (P
a)Comparison of different methods of calculating error
StatisticalSystematic
Results - repeatability
Outcomes of experiment
• Synchronisation of measurements enhances understanding of impact.
• Images allow comparison between CFD and experiment.
Determining point of impact
- Accelerometer responds to impact at 2.5 msafter apex enters water- Video indicates distance travelled approx. 1cm
- Position sensor agrees with video
Future work - motionsPotential Flow
solverusing strip theory
Computational Fluid Dynamics
Hybrid model
3D CFD mesh (Azcueta,2002)
• The hybrid approach is used to improve the accuracy of the numerical predictions.
Future work - general
• Use ‘flexible’ wedge – measure structural responses– Strain gauges, thermo-elastic stress analysis?,
digital image correlation?• Effect of hull features on flow – deadrise, spray
rails, hull shape, RIB collars• Inclined wedge entry – heeled conditions• Use high-speed video to investigate spray
characteristics• Modify rig for forced wedge entry/exit
Conclusions• Experimental study provides good data for
validation of wedge impact.• Improvements to CFD predictions for highly
non-linear flows such as water impact.• Hybrid approach can be used to improve the
accuracy of high speed craft motions prediction.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
x 10-3
-4000
-2000
0
2000
4000
6000
8000
10000
12000
Time (s)
Pre
ssur
e (P
a)
0.005s
P1
0.005667s0.00533s0.006s0.006333s0.006667s0.007s0.007333s0.007667s0.008s
Questions
?Thank you for your attention.