Assessment of CFD for Surface Combatant 5415 at Straight Ahead and Static Drift B=20o

[+] Author and Article Information
Shanti Bhushan

Department of Mechanical Engineering, Mississippi State University, USA

Hyunse Yoon

IIHR Hydroscience and Engineering, University of Iowa, USA

Frederick Stern

IIHR Hydroscience and Engineering, University of Iowa, USA

E. Guilmineau

LHEEA - UMR6598CNRS/Centrale Nantes, France

Michel Visonneau

LHEEA - UMR6598CNRS/Centrale Nantes, France

Serge Toxopeus

Maritime Research Institute, Netherlands

C. Simonsen

FORCE Technology, Denmark

Shawn Aram

Naval Surface Warfare Center Carderock Division, USA

sungeun Kim

Naval Surface Warfare Center Carderock Division, USA

Gregory J. Grigoropoulos

National Technical Univ. of Athens, Greece

1Corresponding author.

ASME 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 B=0o and 20o using recent tomographic particle image velocimetry 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 ? show 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 B the primary vortices exhibit helical mode instability similar to those for delta wings. Forces and moment for both B, and wave elevation for B=0o compare within 4% of the data, and are validated at 7% interval. Wave elevation for B=20o, and vortex core location and velocities for both B compare 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 RANS/LES models for improved turbulent flow predictions are highest priority.

Section 4: U.S. Gov Employees + Reg Authors
Your Session has timed out. Please sign back in to continue.





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