A Detailed Look into the 2017 SNAME OC-8 Comparative Wind Load Study

Kevin Berto, David P. Hodapp, J. Falzarano
{"title":"A Detailed Look into the 2017 SNAME OC-8 Comparative Wind Load Study","authors":"Kevin Berto, David P. Hodapp, J. Falzarano","doi":"10.4043/29289-MS","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\n This paper documents the results from the 2017 Society of Naval Architects and Marine Engineers (SNAME) OC-8 Panel Comparative Wind Load Study. Initial unpublished results were presented at a one-day panel at the 2017 SNAME Maritime Convention; however, the final results are brought together for the first time in this paper.\n A blind, comparative study was organized through the SNAME OC-8 Panel in 2017 to assess the relative accuracy and repeatability of existing wind load estimation methods. Twenty-five companies and organizations throughout the world participated in this study, which encompassed three available wind load estimation methods: empirical building block procedures, wind tunnel testing, and Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD). To permit an ‘apples-to-apples’ comparison, the same representative semisubmersible design was used by all participants, including a single physical model shipped consecutively to each of the five wind tunnel facilities participating in the study.\n The most significant finding from the study is the remarkably low variability in wind tunnel and CFD results relative to the empirical building block method incorporated in the U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), classification rules, and industry codes for stability calculations. Moreover, only wind tunnel and CFD results were able to accurately quantify the contribution of a lifting force and its effect on the overturning moment. The lessons learned from the comparative study will be incorporated into a long-awaited revision to SNAME's wind tunnel testing guideline, and has inspired the development of a new industry guideline which will broadly address wind load estimation methods in design, including the use of CFD throughout the design spiral.","PeriodicalId":11149,"journal":{"name":"Day 1 Mon, May 06, 2019","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2019-04-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Day 1 Mon, May 06, 2019","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4043/29289-MS","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

This paper documents the results from the 2017 Society of Naval Architects and Marine Engineers (SNAME) OC-8 Panel Comparative Wind Load Study. Initial unpublished results were presented at a one-day panel at the 2017 SNAME Maritime Convention; however, the final results are brought together for the first time in this paper. A blind, comparative study was organized through the SNAME OC-8 Panel in 2017 to assess the relative accuracy and repeatability of existing wind load estimation methods. Twenty-five companies and organizations throughout the world participated in this study, which encompassed three available wind load estimation methods: empirical building block procedures, wind tunnel testing, and Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD). To permit an ‘apples-to-apples’ comparison, the same representative semisubmersible design was used by all participants, including a single physical model shipped consecutively to each of the five wind tunnel facilities participating in the study. The most significant finding from the study is the remarkably low variability in wind tunnel and CFD results relative to the empirical building block method incorporated in the U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), classification rules, and industry codes for stability calculations. Moreover, only wind tunnel and CFD results were able to accurately quantify the contribution of a lifting force and its effect on the overturning moment. The lessons learned from the comparative study will be incorporated into a long-awaited revision to SNAME's wind tunnel testing guideline, and has inspired the development of a new industry guideline which will broadly address wind load estimation methods in design, including the use of CFD throughout the design spiral.
2017年SNAME OC-8比较风荷载研究详情
本文记录了2017年海军建筑师和海洋工程师协会(SNAME) OC-8面板比较风荷载研究的结果。初步未发表的结果在2017年SNAME海事公约的一个为期一天的小组会议上进行了介绍;然而,最终的结果在本文中是第一次汇集在一起。2017年,通过SNAME OC-8 Panel组织了一项盲比较研究,以评估现有风负荷估计方法的相对准确性和可重复性。全球25家公司和组织参与了这项研究,其中包括三种可用的风荷载估计方法:经验构建块程序、风洞测试和计算流体动力学(CFD)。为了进行“同类比较”,所有参与者都使用了相同的代表性半潜式设计,包括一个连续运送到参与研究的五个风洞设施中的单个物理模型。该研究最重要的发现是,与美国联邦法规(CFR)、分类规则和稳定性计算行业规范中采用的经验构建块方法相比,风洞和CFD结果的可变性非常低。此外,只有风洞和CFD结果才能准确量化升力的贡献及其对倾覆力矩的影响。从比较研究中获得的经验教训将被纳入期待已久的SNAME风洞测试指南的修订中,并激发了新的行业指南的发展,该指南将广泛解决设计中的风荷载估计方法,包括在整个设计过程中使用CFD。
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