0
Research Papers: Flows in Complex Systems

Assessment of Computational Fluid Dynamic for Surface Combatant 5415 at Straight Ahead and Static Drift β = 20 deg

[+] Author and Article Information
S. Bhushan

Department of Mechanical Engineering,
Mississippi State University,
Starkville, MS 39759
e-mail: bhushan@me.msstate.edu

H. Yoon

IIHR Hydroscience and Engineering,
University of Iowa,
Iowa City, IA 52246
e-mail: hyun-se-yoon@uiowa.edu

F. Stern

IIHR Hydroscience and Engineering,
University of Iowa,
Iowa City, IA 52246
e-mail: frederick-stern@uiowa.edu

E. Guilmineau

LHEEA—UMR6598 CNRS, Centrale Nantes,
Nantes 44321, France
e-mail: Emmanuel.Guilmineau@ec-nantes.fr

M. Visonneau

LHEEA—UMR6598 CNRS, Centrale Nantes,
Nantes 44321, France
e-mail: Michel.Visonneau@ec-nantes.fr

S. L. Toxopeus

Maritime Research Institute Netherlands,
6708 PM, Wageningen, The Netherlands
e-mail: S.L.Toxopeus@marin.nl

C. Simonsen

FORCE Technology,
DK-2605 Brøndby, Denmark
e-mail: cds@force.dk

S. Aram

Naval Surface Warfare Center
Carderock Division,
West Bethesda, MD 20817
e-mail: shawn.aram@navy.mil

S-E Kim

Naval Surface Warfare Center
Carderock Division,
West Bethesda, MD 20817
e-mail: sungeun.kim@navy.mil

G. Grigoropoulos

National Technical University of Athens,
Zografou 15780, Greece
e-mail: gregory@central.ntua.gr

1Corresponding author.

Contributed by the Fluids Engineering Division of ASME for publication in the JOURNAL OF FLUIDS ENGINEERING. Manuscript received June 3, 2016; final manuscript received August 16, 2018; published online November 8, 2018. Editor: Francine Battaglia. This work is in part a work of the U.S. Government. ASME disclaims all interest in the U.S. Government's contributions.

J. Fluids Eng 141(5), 051101 (Nov 08, 2018) (26 pages) Paper No: FE-16-1346; doi: 10.1115/1.4041229 History: Received June 03, 2016; Revised August 16, 2018

Collaboration is described on assessment of computational fluid dynamics (CFD) predictions for surface combatant model 5415 at static drift β = 0 deg and 20 deg using recent tomographic particle image velocimetry (TPIV) experiments. Assessment includes N-version verification and validation to determine the confidence intervals for CFD solutions/codes, and vortex onset, progression, instability, and turbulent kinetic energy (TKE) budget analysis. The increase in β shows the following trends. Forces and moment increase quadratically/cubically, and become unsteady due to shear layer, Karman and flapping instabilities on the bow. Wave elevation becomes asymmetric; its amplitude increases, but the total wave elevation angle remains same. The vortex strength and TKE increase by about two orders of magnitude, and for large β, the primary vortices exhibit helical mode instability similar to those for delta wings. Forces and moment for both β and wave elevation for β = 0 deg are compared within 4% of the data, and are validated at 7% interval. Wave elevation for β = 20 deg, and vortex core location and velocities for both β are compared within 9% of the data, and are validated at 12% interval. The vortex strength and TKE predictions show large 70% errors and equally large scatter and are not validated. Thus, both errors and scatter need reduction. TKE budgets show transport of turbulence into the separation bubble similar to canonical cases, but pressure transport is dominant for ship flows. Improved CFD predictions require better grids and/or turbulence models. Investigations of solution-adaptive mesh refinement for better grid design and hybrid Reynolds-averaged Navier-Stokes/large eddy simulation models for improved turbulent flow predictions are highest priority.

Copyright © 2019 by ASME
Your Session has timed out. Please sign back in to continue.

References

Gorski, J. J. , Miller, R. W. , and Coleman, R. M. , 2004, “ The Use of a RANS Code in the Design and Analysis of a Naval Combatant,” 25th Symposium on Naval Hydrodynamics, St. John's, NF, Canada, Aug. 8–13, pp. 144–159.
Larsson, L. , Stern, F. , and Visonneau, M. , 2014, Numerical Ship Hydrodynamics: An Assessment of the Gothenburg 2010 Workshop, Springer, The Netherlands, p. 318.
Stern, F. , Agdrup, K. , Kim, S. Y. , Hochbaum, A. C. , Rhee, K. P. , Quadvlieg, F. , Perdon, P. , Hino, T. , Broglia, R. , and Gorski, J. , 2011, “ Experience From SIMMAN 2008: The First Workshop on Verification and Validation of Ship Maneuvering Simulation Methods,” J. Ship Res., 55(2), pp. 135–147.
Xing, T. , Bhushan, S. , and Stern, F. , 2012, “ Unsteady Vortical Flow and Turbulent Structures for a Tanker Hull Form at Large Drift Angles,” Ocean Eng., 55, pp. 23–43. [CrossRef]
Visonneau, M. , Deng, G. B. , Guilmineau, E. , Queutey, P. , and Wackers, J. , 2016, “ Local and Global Assessment of the Flow Around the Japan Bulk Carrier With and Without Energy Saving Devices at Model and Full Scale,” 31st Symposium on Naval Hydrodynamics, Monterey, CA, Sept. 11–16.
Larsson, L. , Stern, F. , Visonneau, M. , Hino, T. , Hirata, N. , and Kim, J. , 2018, “ Tokyo 2015: A Workshop on CFD in Ship Hydrodynamics,” Workshop Proceedings, Tokyo, Dec. 2–4.
Stern, F. , and Toxopeus, S. L. , 2017, “ Sea Facet Experimental and Computational Analysis Activities on Onset and Progression of Separation—Conclusions and Future Research,” North Atlantic Treaty Organization Science & Technology Organization, Brussels, Belgium, Technical Report No. TR-AVT-183.
Yoon, H. , Longo, J. , Toda, Y. , and Stern, F. , 2015, “ Benchmark CFD Validation Data for Surface Combatant 5415 in PMM Maneuvers—Part II: Phase-Averaged Stereoscopic PIV Flow Field Measurements,” Ocean Eng., 109(15), pp. 735–750. [CrossRef]
Stern, F. , Wilson, R. V. , Coleman, H. W. , and Paterson, E. G. , 2001, “ Comprehensive Approach to Verification and Validation of CFD Simulations—Part 1: Methodology and Procedures,” ASME J. Fluids Eng., 123(4), pp. 793–802. [CrossRef]
Xing, T. , and Stern, F. , 2010, “ Factors of Safety for Richardson Extrapolation,” ASME J. Fluids Eng., 132(6), p. 061403. [CrossRef]
Eça, L. , and Hoekstra, M. , 2014, “ A Procedure for the Estimation of the Numerical Uncertainty of CFD Calculations Based on Grid Refinement Studies,” J. Comput. Phys., 262, pp. 104–130. [CrossRef]
Stern, F. , Diez, M. , Sadat-Hosseini, H. , Yoon, H. , and Quadvlieg, F. , 2017, “ Statistical Approach for Computational Fluid Dynamics State-of-the-Art Assessment: N-Version Verification and Validation,” ASME J. Verif., Validation Uncertainty Quantif., 2(3), p. 031004. [CrossRef]
Bhushan, S. , Yoon, H. , Stern, F. , Guilmineau, E. , Visonneau, M. , Toxopeus, S. , Simonsen, C. , Aram, S. , Kim, S. E. , and Grigoropoulos, G. , 2015, “ CFD Validation for Surface Combatant 5415 Straight Ahead and Static Drift 20 Degree Conditions,” IIHR—Hydroscience & Engineering, Iowa City, IA, Report No. 493. https://www.iihr.uiowa.edu/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/IIHR-Report-493-web2.pdf
Longo, J. , Shao, J. , Irvine, M. , and Stern, F. , 2007, “ Phase-Averaged PIV for the Nominal Wake of a Surface Ship in Regular Head Waves,” ASME J. Fluids Eng., 129 (5), pp. 524–540. [CrossRef]
Bhushan, S. , Carrica, P. , Yang, J. , and Stern, F. , 2011, “ Scalability and Validation Study for Large Scale Surface Combatant Computations Using CFDShip-Iowa,” Int. J. High Perform. Comput. Appl., 25(4), pp. 466–487. [CrossRef]
Huang, J. , Carrica, P. M. , and Stern, F. , 2008, “ Semi-Coupled Air/Water Immersed Boundary Approach for Curvilinear Dynamic Overset Grids With Application to Ship Hydrodynamics,” Int. J. Numer. Methods Fluids, 58(6), pp. 591–624. [CrossRef]
Vaz, G. , Jaouen, F. A. P. , and Hoekstra, M. , 2009, “ Free-Surface Viscous Flow Computations. Validation of URANS Code FRESCO,” 28th International Conference on Ocean, Offshore and Arctic Engineering (OMAE), Honolulu, HI, May 31–June 5.
Wackers, J. , Deng, G. B. , Leroyer, A. , Queutey, P. , and Visonneau, M. , 2012, “ Adaptive Grid Refinement Algorithm for Hydrodynamic Flows,” Comput. Fluids, 55, pp. 80–100. [CrossRef]
Guilmineau, E. , Deng, G. B. , Leroyer, A. , Queutey, P. , Visonneau, M. , and Wackers, J. , 2017, “ Assessment of Hybrid RANS-LES Formulations for Flow Simulation Around the Ahmed Body,” VII European Congress on Computational Methods in Applied Sciences and Engineering, M. Papadrakakis, V. Papadopoulos, G. Stefanou, V. Plevris eds., Crete Island, Greece, June 5–10.
Kim, S. E. , Rhee, B. J. , and Miller, R. W. , 2014, “ Anatomy of Turbulent Flow Around DARPA SUBOFF Body in a Turning Maneuver Using High-Fidelity RANS Computations,” Int. Shipbuild. Prog., 60(1), pp. 207–231.
Menter, F. R. , 1994, “ Two-Equation Eddy-Viscosity Turbulence Models for Engineering Applications,” AIAA J., 32(8), pp. 1598–1605. [CrossRef]
Spalart, P. , 2009, “ Detached Eddy Simulation,” Annu. Rev. Fluid Mech., 41(1), pp. 181–202. [CrossRef]
Menter, F. R. , Kuntz, M. , and Langtry, R. , 2003, “ Ten Years of Industrial Experience With the SST Turbulence Model,” Turbul. Heat Mass Transfer 4, K. Hanjalic, Y. Nagano, and M. Tummers, eds., Begell House, Inc., pp. 625–632. http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.460.2814&rep=rep1&type=pdf
Longo, J. , and Stern, F. , 2002, “ Effects of Drift Angle on Model Ship Flow,” Exp. Fluids, 32(5), pp. 558–569. [CrossRef]
Stern, F. , Longo, J. , Zhang, Z. J. , and Subramani, A. K. , 1996, “ Detailed Bow-Flow Data and CFD for a Series 60 CB = 0.6 Ship Model for Froude Number 0.316,” J. Ship Res., 40(3), pp. 193–199. https://trid.trb.org/view/480701
Olivieri, A. , Pistani, F. , Avanzini, G. , Stern, F. , and Penna, R. , 2001, “ Tank Experiments of Resistance, Sinkage and Trim, Boundary Layer, Wake and Free Surface Flow Around a Naval Combatant INSEAN 2340 Model,” IIHR, Report, No. 421.
Surana, A. , Grunberg, O. , and Haller, G. , 2006, “ Exact Theory of Three-Dimensional Flow Separation—Part I: Steady Separation,” J. Fluid Mech., 564, pp. 57–103. [CrossRef]
Simpson, R. L. , 1996, “ Aspects of Turbulent Boundary Layer Separation,” Prog. Aerosp. Sci., 32(5), pp. 457–521. [CrossRef]
Delery, J. M. , Legendre, R. , and Werle, H. , 2001, “ Toward the Elucidation of Three-Dimensional Separation,” Annu. Rev. Fluid Mech., 33(1), pp. 129–154. [CrossRef]
Wilson, R. V. , Carrica, P. M. , and Stern, F. , 2006, “ URANS Simulations for a High-Speed Transom Stern Ship With Breaking Waves,” Int. J. Comput. Fluid Dyn., 20(2), pp. 105–125. [CrossRef]
Zhang, Z. J. , and Stern, F. , 1996, “ Free-Surface Wave-Induced Separation,” ASME J. Fluids. Eng., 118(3), pp. 546–554. [CrossRef]
Egolf, T. A. , Wake, B. , and Berezin, C. , 2000, “ Recent Rotor Wake Simulation and Modeling Studies at United Technologies Corporation,” AIAA Paper No. AIAA-2000-0115.
Bhushan, S. , Xing, T. , Visonneau, M. , Wackers, J. , Deng, G. , Stern, F. , and Larsson, L. , 2014, “ Chapter 7: Post Workshop Computations and Analysis for KVLCC2 and 5415,” Numerical Ship Hydrodynamics: An Assessment of the Gothenburg 2010 Workshop, L., Larsson , F. Stern , and M. Visonneau , eds., Springer, Dordrecht, The Netherlands.
Bhushan, S. , Xing, T. , and Stern, F. , 2012, “ Vortical Structures and Instability Analysis for Athena Wetted Transom Flow With Full-Scale Validation,” ASME J. Fluids Eng., 134(3), p. 031201. [CrossRef]
Gallaire, F. , and Chomaz, J. M. , 2003, “ Mode Selection in Swirling Jet Experiments: A Linear Stability Analysis,” J. Fluid Mech., 494, pp. 223–253. [CrossRef]
Nelson, R. C. , and Pelletier, A. , 2003, “ The Unsteady Aerodynamics of Slender Wings and Aircraft Undergoing Large Amplitude Maneuvers,” Prog. Aerosp. Sci., 39(2–3), pp. 185–248. [CrossRef]
Gursul, I. , 2009, “ Unsteady Aspects of Leading-Edge Vortices,” Report No. NATO-RTO-TR-AVT-080.
Greenwell, D. I. , 2009, “ Engineering Models of Delta Wing Vortex Breakdown and Its Effect on Aerodynamic Characteristics,” Report No. NATO-RTO-TR-AVT-080.
Spall, R. E. , Gatski, T. B. , and Grosch, C. E. , 1987, “ A Criterion for Vortex Breakdown,” Phys. Fluids, 30(11), pp. 3434–3440. [CrossRef]
Gursul, I. , 1994, “ Unsteady Flow Phenomena Over Delta Wings at High Angle of Attack,” AIAA J., 32(2), pp. 225–231. [CrossRef]
Xing, T. , Kandasamy, M. , and Stern, F. , 2007, “ Unsteady Free-Surface Wave-Induced Separation: Analysis of Turbulent Structures Using Detached Eddy Simulation and Single-Phase Level Set,” J. Turbul., 8(44), pp. 1–35.
Panagiotou, P. , Sideridis, A. , Yakinthos, K. , and Goula, A. , 2015, “ Turbulence Kinetic Energy Balance in the Wake of a Sharp-Edged Highly Swept Delta Wing,” Flow, Turbul. Combust., 25(1), pp. 121–142. [CrossRef]

Figures

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 1

5415 geometry and TPIV measurement locations (green planes) for (a) β = 0 deg and (b) β = 20 deg. The hull is shown at sinkage σ = 0 and trim τ = 0 deg. Grid topology used in the simulations are shown at x = 0.4: (c) β = 0 deg and (d) β = 20 deg. LES zone in S2 for (e) β = 0 deg and (f) β = 20 deg. Inset figure shows the LES zone contour at x = 0.6. Regions flooded in red are LES zone and those in blue are URANS zone.

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 2

Wave-elevation contours obtained using: (a) experiment and (b) S3 for β = 0 deg; (c) experiment and (d) S4 for β = 20 deg. (e) Wave elevation pattern predicted by solution #2 (using level set) and S4 and S6 (both using VoF) at x = 0.1 shows the differences in wave breaking pattern on the leeward sonar dome.

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 3

Iso-surfaces of Q = 50 colored by relative helicity for β = 0 deg. Subplots show results obtained from (a) experiment, (b) S2, (c) S2 (zoomed in view), (d) S3, (e) S4, and (f) S6. S4 and S5 also reported SDTEV, which are not visible in the plots.

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 4

Zoomed-in view of sonar dome shows SDV flow separation predicted by S1 for β = 0 deg. (a) Iso-surface of Q = 100 shows SDV separation, and (b) surface streamline shows onset of SDV. Both plots (a) and (b) are colored using pressure. (c) Contours of wall shear stress distribution of div(τw) along with surface streamline.

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 5

Axial variation of flow variables in SDV (left column) and FBKV (right column) cores obtained using S1 through S4, and mean code with PE¯ bars are compared with experimental data with UD bars for β = 0 deg. The SDV onset at x = 0.0635 and FBKV onset at x = 0.107 are shown in the radial location (R) subplot using the star symbol.

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 6

Cross plane vortex core predictions for β = 0 deg at x = 0.2. (Top row) Contour of axial vorticity, contour lines of Q, grid lines, and cross-plane analysis Y-Y and Z-Z lines. Volume plots showing 3D structures of the SDV and FBKV flow variables obtained the experimental data (left), S1 (2nd column) and S2 (3rd column). Subplots on the (right) are compared with y-y and z-z profiles of the flow variables in the SDV core predicted by S1 and S2 with the experimental data. For y-y line, the −ve radial location is toward the center plane. For z-z line, the −ve radial location is away from the hull.

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 7

Iso-surfaces of Q = 100 colored by relative helicity for β = 20 deg. Subplots show results obtained using: (a) experiment, (b) S2, (c) S4, and (d) S6.

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 8

S2 predictions on leeward sonar dome surface for β = 20 deg showing: (a) mean flow iso-surfaces of Q = 1000 colored by relative helicity. The points P1 to P9 correspond to the probe points on the hull for the FFT analysis. (b) Mean flow surface streamlines and root-mean-square of the surface pressure (PRMS). The streamline patterns identified by subscript LW-FSV, BSB, and SBV correspond to leeward free-surface vortex, sonar dome separation bubble, and leeward sonar dome bubble vortex, respectively. (c) Instantaneous flow predictions on the leeward sonar dome surface at z = −0.04 plane showing shear layer instability associated with sonar dome bubble separation.

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 9

Axial variation of flow variables in SDTV (left column) and BKTV (right column) cores obtained using S1 through S4, and mean code with PE¯ bars is compared with experimental data with UD bars for β = 20 deg. The SDTV onset at x = 0.077 and BKTV onset at x = 0.4 are shown in radial location (R) subplot.

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 10

Cross plane vortex core prediction for SDTV for β = 20 deg at x = 0.2. (Top row) Contour of axial vorticity, grid, and cross-plane analysis YY and ZZ lines. Volume plots showing 3D structures of the SDTV flow variables obtained the experimental data (left), S1 (2nd column), and S2 (3rd column). Subplots on the (right) are compared with y-y and z-z profiles of the flow variables in the SDTV core predicted by S1 and S2 with the experimental data. For y-y line, the −ve radial location is toward the center plane. For z-z line, the −ve radial location is away from the hull.

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 11

Contours of (a) axial velocity and crossflow streamlines, and (b) TKE at x = 0.6 for β = 0 deg. Subplots show: experimental data (left); S1 (middle), and S2 (right).

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 12

Contours of (a) axial velocity and crossflow streamlines, and (b) TKE at x = 0.4 for β = 20 deg. Subplots show: experimental data (left), S2 (middle), and S6 (right).

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 13

Unsteady analysis locations for (a) SDTV and (b) BKTV. Variation of (c) dimensionless frequency and (d) product of frequency and distance from helical instability onset (DS) for SDTV and BKTV. The predictions are compared with KVLCC2 [4] and delta wing [40] results.

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 14

Contours of TKE budget terms in the LW-SDB on z = −0.04 plane, marked in Fig. 8(a). Contour plots show: (a) URANS/LES regions, where regions flooded in red are LES zone and those in blue are URANS zone, (b) modeled and (c) resolved TKE. TKE budget terms (d) production, (e) dissipation, (f) convection, (g) turbulent transport, and (h) pressure transport. The black lines show the mean flow streamline.

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 15

TKE budget along SDTV core on z = −0.0475 plane, marked in Fig. 13(a). Contour plots show: (a) URANS/LES regions, where regions flooded in red are LES zone and those in blue are URANS zone, (b) modeled and (c) resolved TKE. TKE budget terms: (d) production, (e) dissipation, (f) convection, (g) turbulent transport, and (h) pressure transport. The black lines show the Q = 500 and 1000 contours.

Tables

Errata

Some tools below are only available to our subscribers or users with an online account.

Related Content

Customize your page view by dragging and repositioning the boxes below.

Related Journal Articles
Related eBook Content
Topic Collections

Sorry! You do not have access to this content. For assistance or to subscribe, please contact us:

  • TELEPHONE: 1-800-843-2763 (Toll-free in the USA)
  • EMAIL: asmedigitalcollection@asme.org
Sign In