CFD Analysis of a Captive Bullet Entry in Calm Water With and Without Turbulence

René Bettencourt Rauffus, A. Maximiano, L. Eça, G. Vaz
{"title":"CFD Analysis of a Captive Bullet Entry in Calm Water With and Without Turbulence","authors":"René Bettencourt Rauffus, A. Maximiano, L. Eça, G. Vaz","doi":"10.1115/omae2019-96099","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\n 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 velocity 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 validation 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 approaches 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 experimental 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 longitudinal force FX, where the turbulent flow predicts a larger force, improving the comparison with the experiments. The loads predicted with turbulent flow stayed mostly within 6 % of the laminar flow. For Case 3 small differences between both models are found during/after the wake collapse stage. However, this difference is often within the comparison uncertainty. A reasonable agreement is found with the experimental data, except for FZ after the bow wake collapse. The turbulent flow improves slightly on the laminar approach regarding the agreement with the experiments, however it can be argued if this difference justifies the increased computational cost of the turbulence model.","PeriodicalId":345141,"journal":{"name":"Volume 2: CFD and FSI","volume":"142 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2019-11-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Volume 2: CFD and FSI","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1115/omae2019-96099","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

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 velocity 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 validation 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 approaches 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 experimental 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 longitudinal force FX, where the turbulent flow predicts a larger force, improving the comparison with the experiments. The loads predicted with turbulent flow stayed mostly within 6 % of the laminar flow. For Case 3 small differences between both models are found during/after the wake collapse stage. However, this difference is often within the comparison uncertainty. A reasonable agreement is found with the experimental data, except for FZ after the bow wake collapse. The turbulent flow improves slightly on the laminar approach regarding the agreement with the experiments, however it can be argued if this difference justifies the increased computational cost of the turbulence model.
有和无湍流条件下静水中束缚弹入流CFD分析
对一种简化的救生艇落水试验案例进行了仿真,该救生艇落水试验案例由一个受约束的轴对称一般救生艇形状(子弹)组成,它以恒定的速度和攻角穿透水面。感兴趣的量是物体固定的纵向力FX,垂直力FZ和俯仰力矩MYY。此案例先前在验证和确认练习[1]中使用过。在这里,复杂性向前迈进了一步,因为现在补充了基于涡流粘度的湍流模型k -ω SST。然后使用这两种方法来模拟两种不同的情况:情况1具有最小的尾迹效应;流分离和显著尾迹的情形3。计算结果与实验数据进行了比较。对两种模式的数值不确定性进行了估计。可以看出,在Case 1中,两种模型之间的差异大部分在比较不确定度范围内,除了纵向力FX,其中湍流预测的力更大,与实验的可比性有所提高。用紊流预测的载荷大部分停留在层流的6%以内。对于情形3,两种模型在尾流崩溃阶段和之后的差异很小。然而,这种差异往往是在比较的不确定性之内。除了船首尾迹塌缩后的FZ外,与实验数据基本吻合。关于与实验的一致性,湍流在层流方法上略有改善,然而,如果这种差异证明湍流模型的计算成本增加,则可以争论。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信