Twenty-Third Symposium on Naval Hydrodynamics

Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.

OCR for page 553
lengths, word breaks, heading styles, and other typesetting-specific formatting, however, cannot be retained, and some typographic errors may have been accidentally inserted. Please use the print version of this publication as About this PDF file: This new digital representation of the original work has been recomposed from XML files created from the original paper book, not from the original typesetting files. Page breaks are true to the original; line NUMERICAL PREDICTION OF SCALE EFFECTS IN SHIP STERN FLOWS WITH EDDY-VISCOSITY TURBULENCE MODELS 553 Numerical Prediction of Scale Effects in Ship Stern Flows with Eddy-Viscosity Turbulence Models L.Eça (Instituto Superior Técnico, Portugal) M.Hoekstra (Maritime Research Institute, Netherlands) ABSTRACT This paper presents a numerical investigation of scale effects on ship stern flows. The most popular algebraic, one- equation and two-equation eddy-viscosity turbulence models are successfully applied to the calculation of the flow around the Mystery tanker from model up to full scale Reynolds number. It is shown that the choice of the turbulence model does have an influence on the results (notably the near-wake field), but the differences caused by changing the turbulence model tend to diminish with the increase of the Reynolds number. 1 INTRODUCTION One of the main advantages of Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD) over traditional model testing is the (potential) capability to predict Reynolds number effects on the flow field around a ship. But before this advantage can be exploited, two major tasks arise. The first is to change the potential capability to a true capability by making sure that the numerical method can cope with the extreme requirements posed by flow simulations at full scale Reynolds number. The second task is to go through the verification and validation processes. Only a few attempts to predict scale effects with CFD have been reported. One such attempt is [1], presenting results, however, which are not numerically convincing. The present authors have shown to be more successful in computing ship stern flows from model up to full scale Reynolds numbers, [2], with verification of numerical errors, [3] and [4]. Unfortunately, there are virtually no reliable experimental data available for full scale ship stern flows, so that the validation process is obstructed. The best thing to do is then to increase the level of confidence by validating at model- scale Reynolds number and showing that well-known trends for Rn increasing are systematically reproduced. In the last two decades, a huge effort has been made to validate CFD predictions at model scale Reynolds number. However, the present status is far from being completely satisfactory. Notably the accurate prediction of the axial velocity field in regions of high streamwise vorticity has proved to be difficult. Some success has been claimed for second moment closures, e.g. [5]. But if one aims at selecting a turbulence closure that is numerically robust at model and full scale Reynolds numbers, eddy-viscosity models are still the only reasonable choice. In this paper we present a numerical investigation into the prediction of scale effects with eddy-viscosity turbulence models, including algebraic, one-equation and two-equation models. Two main goals are considered: • Investigate which turbulence models are numerically robust from model up to full scale Reynolds numbers, without the need of further tuning. • Evaluate the influence of the Reynolds number on the differences between solutions obtained with different eddy- viscosity turbulence models. With achieving these goals, we expect to increase the confidence in the use of CFD at full scale Reynolds numbers, using turbulence models that have been originally developed for thin shear layers at model scale Reynolds numbers. The paper is organised in the following way: section 2 gives a brief description of the turbulence models and their numerical implementation. The results of application to the flow around the Mystery tanker at Reynolds numbers from model scale up to full scale Rn are presented and discussed in section 3. Section 4 summarizes the conclusions of the paper. the authoritative version for attribution.

OCR for page 553
lengths, word breaks, heading styles, and other typesetting-specific formatting, however, cannot be retained, and some typographic errors may have been accidentally inserted. Please use the print version of this publication as About this PDF file: This new digital representation of the original work has been recomposed from XML files created from the original paper book, not from the original typesetting files. Page breaks are true to the original; line NUMERICAL PREDICTION OF SCALE EFFECTS IN SHIP STERN FLOWS WITH EDDY-VISCOSITY TURBULENCE MODELS 554 2 TURBULENCE MODELS In order to cover a broad spectrum of eddy-viscosity turbulence models, we have considered the following models: • Algebraic models – Cebeci & Smith, [6], (CS) – Baldwin & Lomax [7], (BL) • One-equation models – Spalart & Allmaras, [8], (SA) – Menter, [9], (MT) • Two-equation models – k-ε models Two-layer model, [10], (KE-TL) Chien's low-Rn model, [11], (KE) – k-ω models Standard, [12], (KW) Menter, [13], (KWM) – q-ζ model, [14], (QZ) The one-equation model of Baldwin & Barth, [15], and the SST version of Menter's k-ω model, [13], were also tested. However, results of these models will not be included in the present paper. The Baldwin & Barth model showed a very poor behaviour in the initial test runs, while the SST version of Menter's k-ω does not perform better than the other k- ω models tested. It is possible to improve the quality of the predictions of ship stern flows with the one-equation and two-equation turbulence models using a simple correction to the production term of the transport equations, [16]. However, in this paper we will adopt the standard versions of the models. 2.1 Algebraic Models The two algebraic models are well-known and based on a two-layer definition of the eddy-viscosity, vt, where the eddy-viscosity is obtained from the minimum of its values in the two layers. In the inner-layer, both models use the mixing-length approach with the Van Driest damping function in the near-wall region. In the Cebeci & Smith model, the eddy-viscosity in the outer region is obtained from (1) where qe stands for the velocity at the edge of the viscous region and δ* is the displacement thickness, which is an integral parameter defined for 2-D boundary-layer flows, and γk is the intermittency factor, which is given by (2) where δ is the thickness of the viscous region. In a ship stern flow calculation, performed in a curvilinear coordinate system, (ξ, η, ζ)1 some assumptions have to be made to compute qe, δ* and γk. We determine these quantities from information along each grid line normal to the wall and the viscous layer thickness is calculated from the total head. Details on the calculation of qe, δ* and γk are given in [16]. The main advantage of the Baldwin & Lomax model over the Cebeci & Smith model is the absence of δ and δ* from the definition of the length scale in the outer region. In the Baldwin & Lomax model, (vt)0 is given by (3) where (4) Fmax is the maximum of the function (5) and ymax is the value of yn where Fmax occurs. Udif is the difference between the maximum and minimum values of q along an η grid line, |W| is the magnitude of the vorticity vector, A−=26 and is the nondimensional distance to the wall in wall coordinates. Fkleb is the equivalent of γk, and is given by the authoritative version for attribution. (6) Ccp=1.6, C2=0.25 and Ckleb=0.3. Although the calculation of Fwake and ymax seems to be straightforward, it is not. The values of these two parameters are directly related to the vorticity, which is inversely proportional to the grid line distance in the physical space. This dependency of F on the vorticity makes its numerical calculation extremely sensitive to 1ξ is a stream wise coordinate, η is a coordinate normal to the ship surface and ζ is a girthwise coordinate.

OCR for page 553
lengths, word breaks, heading styles, and other typesetting-specific formatting, however, cannot be retained, and some typographic errors may have been accidentally inserted. Please use the print version of this publication as About this PDF file: This new digital representation of the original work has been recomposed from XML files created from the original paper book, not from the original typesetting files. Page breaks are true to the original; line NUMERICAL PREDICTION OF SCALE EFFECTS IN SHIP STERN FLOWS WITH EDDY-VISCOSITY TURBULENCE MODELS 556 2.2.3 Boundary Conditions In a ship stern flow calculation we need to specify boundary conditions at the six boundaries of the domain: inlet, outlet, ship surface, ship symmetry plane, free surface2 and external boundary. The boundary conditions are specified in the same way for both one-equation turbulence models. At the ship surface the turbulent quantities are zero and symmetry conditions are applied on the free surface and at the ship's symmetry plane. At the outlet, the streamwise derivative of the turbulent quantities is assumed to be zero. Dirichlet boundary conditions are imposed for the turbulent quantities on the external boundary and are fixed by the value on the border of the inlet plane. The present calculations were performed only for the aft part of the ship; the inlet plane is located at mid-ship, and so there is already a viscous region in the inlet plane. A standard straightforward procedure was adopted to define the turbulent quantities at the inlet plane: vt is calculated with the Cebeci & Smith algebraic model and the turbulent quantities are then derived from the known eddy- viscosity. 2.3 Two-equation Models 2.3.1 Two-layer k- ε The two-layer k-ε model presented by Chen and Patel in [10] solves two transport equations in the outer flow region. In the near-wall region only the equation for the turbulence kinetic energy, k, is solved. The value of ε is derived from an algebraic length scale. The near-wall model is equivalent to the one-equation model of Wolfshtein, [17]. The eddy-viscosity is obtained from (15) and k and ε for a steady flow are obtained from the solution of the equations: (16) and (17) In the near-wall region, ε is determined from (18) with (19) and (20) The fµ function defined by the Wolfshtein one-equation model is (21) The standard k-ε constants are cµ=0.09, C1=1.44, C2=1.92, σk=1 and σε=1.3. The key feature of this two-layer model is the determination of the boundary between the inner and outer layers which is often defined by a criterion based on y−. However, with y− it is difficult to establish a criterion which is insensitive to the Reynolds number. In our approach, the inner-layer region is defined by the following criteria: The first criterion would be the natural choice to border the inner-layer region. However, in the iterative determination of the eddy-viscosity field it may lead to excessively large regions, which provoke numerical convergence problems. Therefore, we have added the second criterion which originates from the knowledge on flat plate boundary layers, where the ‘fully-turbulent' region starts at This approach does not guarantee that the fµ is close to 1 at the edge of inner-layer. Therefore, in the outer-layer the ε transport equation is solved but fµ is still obtained from (21). As in the one-equation models, (yn)*, defined by equation (11), is used in the wake to represent the distance to the wall. 2.3.2 Chien's k- ε model The low Reynolds k-ε model proposed by Chien, [11], does not distinguish between inner and outer layers and is directly applicable in the near-wall region. The eddy-viscosity is obtained from equation (15). The k and ε transport the authoritative version for attribution. equations of this model are: (22) 2In the present calculation we have used the double-model approximations and so the free surface is asymmetry plane.

OCR for page 553
lengths, word breaks, heading styles, and other typesetting-specific formatting, however, cannot be retained, and some typographic errors may have been accidentally inserted. Please use the print version of this publication as About this PDF file: This new digital representation of the original work has been recomposed from XML files created from the original paper book, not from the original typesetting files. Page breaks are true to the original; line NUMERICAL PREDICTION OF SCALE EFFECTS IN SHIP STERN FLOWS WITH EDDY-VISCOSITY TURBULENCE MODELS 558 and (36) (37) The near-wall damping functions are given by: (38) (39) (40) The model constants are 2.3.6 Boundary Conditions As in the one-equation models, boundary conditions are required for the transport equation of the turbulent quantities at the six boundaries of the computational domain of a ship stern flow calculation. At the symmetry plane of the ship and at the free surface, symmetry boundary conditions are applied to all turbulent quantities. Zero streamwise derivatives are applied at the outlet boundary. At the external boundary, we have applied Dirichlet boundary conditions. The values of the different turbulent quantities were set to obtain vt=0.01v and assuming that ω∞=U∞/L3. At the inlet plane, the turbulent quantities are fixed with a similar procedure as adopted for the one-equation models. However, in the two-equation models we need extra information because we have two turbulent quantities to define. We determine the k (or q) profiles from (41) with (42) where uτ is the friction velocity. The second turbulent quantity is obtained from k (or q) and the values of vt obtained from the Cebeci & Smith algebraic model. In the outer region, yn≥0.15δ, an Hermite cubic interpolation is used to obtain the turbulent quantities, assuming zero derivatives at the external boundary. At the ship surface, k, q and ζ are zero. In Chien's formulation of the k-ε model, ε is also zero at the wall. However, the wall boundary condition for ω asks for a few more words. According to [12], ω behaves in the vicinity of the wall as: (43) where Although almost everyone reports that the near-wall behaviour is a strong point of the model, the value of ω at the wall actually tends to infinity! Only in [12] it is recognised that the ω boundary condition at the wall may lead to numerical difficulties when fine grids are used in the near-wall region. The most popular implementation of the ω boundary condition at the wall is suggested by Menter in [13], which just fixes the wall value by (44) where ∆y1 is the distance of the first grid node to the wall. Obviously, this condition is just equation (43) multiplied by 10, and can be criticized for the following reasons: the authoritative version for attribution. 1. The factor 10 is completely arbitrary4. 2. It is based on the ω solution without viscous corrections in a region where viscous effects are dominant. 3. It is clearly grid dependent, because the distance of the first grid node to the wall appears explicitly in the definition of ωw. Two alternative wall boundary conditions are proposed by Wilcox in [12]. The first one is to calculate ω directly from equation (43) for yn<2.5 instead of solving the ω transport equation in the near-wall region. The second one is to derive ωw from the skin friction velocity using a ‘slightly rough wall' boundary condition. It has already been shown in [18] that the latter approach leads to unsatisfactory results for 3U is the undisturbed flow velocity and L is the ship length. ∞ 4Theoretically ω should be infinite.

OCR for page 553
lengths, word breaks, heading styles, and other typesetting-specific formatting, however, cannot be retained, and some typographic errors may have been accidentally inserted. Please use the print version of this publication as About this PDF file: This new digital representation of the original work has been recomposed from XML files created from the original paper book, not from the original typesetting files. Page breaks are true to the original; line NUMERICAL PREDICTION OF SCALE EFFECTS IN SHIP STERN FLOWS WITH EDDY-VISCOSITY TURBULENCE MODELS 559 the skin friction coefficient for the flow on a flat plate. Therefore, only the first option is left to avoid the use of a grid- dependent boundary condition. In this paper we shall compare two alternatives: i) adopt equation (43) with Nω including viscous corrections to define the near-wall values of ω, BC1; and ii) obtain ω at the wall from equation (44), BC2. 3 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION 3.1 General All calculations were carried out with the computer code PARNASSOS, [19], which solves the Reynolds Averaged Navier-Stokes equations in their complete form [20]. The test case in this paper is the flow around the Dyne (Mystery) tanker which has earlier been subject of comparative computations in the Gothenburg and Tokyo Workshops, [21] and [22]. Two main reasons justify this choice: the flow is sufficiently complex to test the accuracy of the turbulence models, and, in particular, it exhibits, at least at model scale Reynolds number, the so-called ‘hook shape' of the isolines of the axial velocity at the end of the stern, as a result of the existence of strong bilge vortices. A detailed numerical verification study has been performed with PARNASSOS for this test case, both at model scale Reynolds number, [3], and full scale Reynolds number, [4], which permits the selection of a grid with sufficient resolution. In the present study, five different Reynolds numbers have been considered: 5×106, 2×107, 108, 5×108 and 2×109, with the Reynolds number defined by A Cartesian coordinate system is introduced with the x axis along the undisturbed stream, the z axis vertical positive pointing upwards and y completing a right-hand system. The origin of the coordinate system is located on the forward perpendicular at the ship symmetry plane on the keel line. All the variables presented are made non-dimensional using U∞ and L as the velocity and length reference scales. The computational domain covers only the flow field near the stern. The inlet and outlet plane are x constant planes. The inlet plane is located at x=0.5L and the outlet plane at x=1.25L. The external boundary is an elliptical cylinder, given by: The remaining boundaries are the free surface, plane z=0.056L, the symmetry plane of the ship, y=0, and the hull surface. The volume grids were created with a proprietary elliptic PDE grid generator, based on the GRAPE approach [23]. The number of grid nodes in the streamwise and girthwise direction is the same for the five Reynolds numbers: Nξ=161 and Nζ=41. The number of grid nodes in the normal direction, Nη, increases with Rn. Nη=81 for the lowest Rn and 10 grid lines are added each time Rn is increased, which leads to Nη=121 for Rn=2×109. The grid line spacing in the normal direction is defined by one-dimensional stretching functions, which are tuned to obtain a maximum value of y− at the first layer of grid nodes away from the ship surface of approximately 0.5. Five significant flow parameters were selected to compare the different numerical solutions: • Friction resistance coefficient, • Pressure resistance coefficient, • Wake fraction, Wf: • Maximum cross-stream velocity at x=0.989L, (Vw)max, with • Minimum axial velocity component in the flow field, The maximum cross-stream velocity at x=0.989L is related to the bilge vortex intensity and identifies the existence of streamwise flow separation. The integrals included in the definitions of and Wf are evaluated with Gaussian quadrature rules assuming a bi-linear variation of the unknowns between the grid nodes. The area Ω for the calculation of the wake fraction is the propeller disc, which has been located at x=0.989L with the axis of the propeller at z=0.0166L; the disc radius is R=0.015L, while a zero hub radius has been assumed. the authoritative version for attribution.

OCR for page 553
lengths, word breaks, heading styles, and other typesetting-specific formatting, however, cannot be retained, and some typographic errors may have been accidentally inserted. Please use the print version of this publication as About this PDF file: This new digital representation of the original work has been recomposed from XML files created from the original paper book, not from the original typesetting files. Page breaks are true to the original; line NUMERICAL PREDICTION OF SCALE EFFECTS IN SHIP STERN FLOWS WITH EDDY-VISCOSITY TURBULENCE MODELS 560 3.2 Wall Boundary Condition for To investigate the influence of the numerical implementation of the wall boundary condition of ω, we have calculated the flow at Rn=5×106 with Menter's version of the k-ω model with the two options considered: BC1, which obtains ω from the theoretical value for y−<2.5 and BC2, which is based on an ad hoc definition of a finite value at the wall. Table 1 presents the five selected flow quantities and the mean and maximum values of vt obtained with BC1 and BC2. Table 1: Comparison of solutions obtained with Menter's k-ω model using different implementations of the ω wall boundary condition. Variable BC1 BC2 1.944 1.612 0.911 0.878 0.609 0.565 Wf 0.343 0.365 (Vw)max −0.075 −0.076 (vt)med×104 0.265 0.257 4 (vt)max×10 1.582 1.504 The differences obtained between the two solutions are certainly not negligible. As one might expect, the friction resistance coefficient, exhibits the largest difference. However, the limiting streamlines of both calculations, which are depicted in figure 1, are similar. Figure 1: Limiting streamlines for Menter's k-ω model with different wall boundary conditions. At the propeller plane, x=0.989L, there are significant differences between the isolines of the axial velocity, as shown in figure 2. With BC1 the speed is definitely lower in the inner wake than with BC2. Figure 2: Axial velocity isolines at x=0.989L for Menter's k-ω model with different wall boundary conditions. These results show that the flow prediction is clearly dependent on the numerical implementation of the ω wall boundary condition. They suggest that the ω behaviour at the wall can hardly be seen as a strong point of the k-ω models. From the results it is not clear which is the best choice, BC1 or BC2, however, as discussed above, the results of BC2 are inherently grid-dependent. Therefore, we will adopt BC1 for the remaining calculations with the k-ω models. 3.3 Scaling Effects the authoritative version for attribution. The results of the five selected flow quantities and the maximum value of vt are given in table 2 for the five Reynolds numbers and for the various turbulence models tested. ∆ stands for the maximum difference between the predictions of the different turbulence models at a given Reynolds number. The differences between predictions with different turbulence models come out as appreciable at model scale Reynolds number but tend to diminish with the increase of the Reynolds number. An exception is found in the maximum cross-stream velocity at the propeller plane; it is the only one of the selected flow variables which does not change monotonically with the Reynolds number. Figure 3 presents the friction resistance coefficients given in table 2. We have tried to compare the results with two friction lines, the ITTC line,

OCR for page 553
lengths, word breaks, heading styles, and other typesetting-specific formatting, however, cannot be retained, and some typographic errors may have been accidentally inserted. Please use the print version of this publication as About this PDF file: This new digital representation of the original work has been recomposed from XML files created from the original paper book, not from the original typesetting files. Page breaks are true to the original; line NUMERICAL PREDICTION OF SCALE EFFECTS IN SHIP STERN FLOWS WITH EDDY-VISCOSITY TURBULENCE MODELS 561 Table 2: Comparison of solutions obtained with the several turbulence models at different Reynolds numbers. Variable Rn CS SA MT KE-TL KE QZ KW KWM ∆ 5×106 1.573 1.816 1.606 1.561 1.598 1.445 1.939 1.944 0.499 2×107 1.269 1.469 1.335 1.280 1.315 1.197 1.546 1.547 0.350 108 1.022 1.177 1.098 1.059 1.082 0.988 1.213 1.221 0.233 5×108 0.846 0.965 0.916 0.885 0.900 0.824 0.981 0.983 0.141 2×109 0.732 0.825 0.791 0.767 0.776 0.713 0.841 0.843 0.130 5×106 0.598 0.788 0.741 0.713 0.687 0.655 0.923 0.911 0.325 2×107 0.527 0.720 0.648 0.638 0.645 0.614 0.829 0.817 0.320 108 0.466 0.649 0.583 0.580 0.604 0.589 0.744 0.732 0.278 5×108 0.423 0.605 0.547 0.543 0.570 0.575 0.690 0.675 0.267 2×109 0.402 0.578 0.535 0.542 0.565 0.570 0.648 0.638 0.236 5×106 0.528 0.632 0.619 0.563 0.576 0.532 0.616 0.609 0.104 Wf 2×107 0.462 0.547 0.535 0.493 0.512 0.479 0.532 0.530 0.085 108 0.397 0.452 0.454 0.421 0.437 0.415 0.451 0.449 0.057 5×108 0.347 0.393 0.393 0.369 0.380 0.365 0.384 0.386 0.046 2×109 0.315 0.352 0.353 0.334 0.341 0.330 0.345 0.345 0.038 5×106 0.209 0.280 0.290 0.287 0.266 0.263 0.347 0.343 0.138 (Vw)max 2×107 0.199 0.301 0.289 0.286 0.284 0.271 0.378 0.367 0.179 108 0.203 0.302 0.276 0.262 0.284 0.268 0.396 0.377 0.193 5×108 0.206 0.294 0.252 0.229 0.256 0.244 0.395 0.369 0.189 2×109 0.208 0.263 0.228 0.227 0.229 0.228 0.336 0.331 0.128 5×106 −0.012 −0.059 −0.068 −0.028 −0.015 −0.007 −0.075 −0.075 0.063 2×107 −0.004 −0.055 −0.040 −0.007 −0.016 −0.011 −0.065 −0.064 0.061 108 0.000 −0.035 −0.001 0.000 −0.001 0.000 −0.041 −0.041 0.041 5×108 0.000 −0.005 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 −0.027 −0.034 0.034 2×109 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 (vt)max ×104 5×106 2.327 1.627 1.259 1.113 1.095 1.046 1.492 1.582 1.281 2×107 1.979 1.338 1.026 0.927 0.965 0.889 1.318 1.361 1.090 108 1.647 1.093 0.845 0.798 0.823 0.742 0.931 1.141 0.905 5×108 1.374 0.917 0.711 0.660 0.708 0.603 0.763 0.862 0.800 2×109 1.173 0.780 0.626 0.556 0.586 0.505 0.700 0.756 0.668 and the Schoenherr line, Since our computation domain covers the aft half of the hull only, we have estimated the equivalent plate friction of the aftbody as where Sw is the wetted surface of the ship included in the computational domain, which is assumed to be half of the total wetted surface. The predictions of all the turbulence models exhibit the correct trend with the increase of the Reynolds number, but there is a clear difference in slope. As a further relevant result, we have plotted the mean wake fraction, Wf, as a function of the Reynolds number in figure 4. It is interesting to note that in both figures 3 and 4 there is good agreement between the SA model and the two k- ω models, KW and KWM. The calculated limiting streamlines at Rn=5×106, Rn=108 and Rn=2×109 are illustrated in figures 5 to 7 for the models CS, SA, MT, KW, KWM and KE. As in the previous results, the differences between the predictions of the various turbulence models tend to diminish with the increase of Rn. Once more, the the authoritative version for attribution.

OCR for page 553
About this PDF file: This new digital representation of the original work has been recomposed from XML files created from the original paper book, not from the original typesetting files. Page breaks are true to the original; line lengths, word breaks, heading styles, and other typesetting-specific formatting, however, cannot be retained, and some typographic errors may have been accidentally inserted. Please use the print version of this publication as the authoritative version for attribution. at Rn=5×106. x=0.989L obtained Figure 6: Axial velocity isolines at at x=0.989L obtained at Rn=108. Figure 7: Axial velocity isolines NUMERICAL PREDICTION OF SCALE EFFECTS IN SHIP STERN FLOWS WITH EDDY-VISCOSITY TURBULENCE MODELS 564

OCR for page 553
About this PDF file: This new digital representation of the original work has been recomposed from XML files created from the original paper book, not from the original typesetting files. Page breaks are true to the original; line lengths, word breaks, heading styles, and other typesetting-specific formatting, however, cannot be retained, and some typographic errors may have been accidentally inserted. Please use the print version of this publication as the authoritative version for attribution. at Rn=2×109. x=0.989L obtained Figure 8: Axial velocity isolines at Rn=5×106. Figure 9: Transverse velocity field at x=0.989L obtained at NUMERICAL PREDICTION OF SCALE EFFECTS IN SHIP STERN FLOWS WITH EDDY-VISCOSITY TURBULENCE MODELS 565

OCR for page 553
About this PDF file: This new digital representation of the original work has been recomposed from XML files created from the original paper book, not from the original typesetting files. Page breaks are true to the original; line lengths, word breaks, heading styles, and other typesetting-specific formatting, however, cannot be retained, and some typographic errors may have been accidentally inserted. Please use the print version of this publication as the authoritative version for attribution. Rn=108. Figure 10: Transverse velocity field at x=0.989L obtained at Rn=2×109. Figure 11: Transverse velocity field at x=0.989L obtained at NUMERICAL PREDICTION OF SCALE EFFECTS IN SHIP STERN FLOWS WITH EDDY-VISCOSITY TURBULENCE MODELS 566

Table of Contents

Front Matter R1-R19

Modern Seakeeping Computations for Ships 1-45

Forces, Moment and Wave Pattern for Naval Combatant in Regular Head Waves 46-65

New Green-Function Method to Predict Wave-Induced Ship Motions and Loads 66-81

Validation of Time-Domain Prediction of Motion, Sea Load, and Hull Pressure of a Frigate in Regular Waves 82-97

Ship motions and loads in large waves 98-111

Prediction of Vertical-Plane Wave Loading and Ship Responses in High Seas 112-125

Basic Studies of Water on Deck 126-142

Second Order Waves Generated by Ship Motions 143-156

Prediction of Nonlinear Motions of High-speed Vessels in Oblique Waves 157-170

Optimizing Turbulence Generation for Controlling Pressure Recovery in Submarine Launchways 171-180

HULL DESIGN by CAD/CFD SIMULATION 181-190

Steady-State Hydrodynamics of High-Speed Vessels with a Transom Stern 191-205

Practical CFD Applications to Design of a Wave Cancellation Multihull Ship 206-222

Simulation of Ship Maneuvers Using Recursive Neural Networks 223-242

Flow- and Wave-Field Optimization of Surface Combatants Using CFD-Based Optimization Methods 243-261

MARINE PROPULSOR NOISE INVESTIGATIONS IN THE HYDROACOUSTIC WATER TUNNEL "G.T.H." 262-283

Propulsor Design Using Clebsch Formulation 284-300

Unsteady Flow Quantities on Two-Dimensional Foils: Experimental and Numerical Results 301-313

Hydrofoil Turbulent Boundary Layer Separation at High Reynolds Numbers 314-329

Pressure Fluctuation on Finite Flat Plate above Wing in Sinusoidal Gust 330-341

Control of the Turbulent Wake of an Appended Streamlined Body 342-354

Investigation of Global and Local Flow Details by a Fully Three-dimensional Seakeeping Method 355-367

Prediction of Wave Pressure and Loads on Actual Ships by the Enhanced Unifed Theory 368-384

Frequency Domain Numerical and Experimental Investigation of Forward Speed Radiation by Ships 385-401

INTERNATIONAL COLLABORATION ON BENCHMARK CFD VALIDATION DATA FOR SURFACE COMBATANT DTMB MODEL 5415 402-422

Validation of High Reynolds Number, Unsteady Multi-Phase CFD Modeling for Naval Applications 423-440

Free Surface Viscous Flow Computation Around A Transom Stern Ship By Chimera Overlapping Scheme 441-456

ANTI-ROLL TANK SIMULATIONS WITH A VOLUME OF FLUID (VOF) BASED NAVIER-STOKES SOLVER 457-473

Validation of Tab Assisted Control Surface Computation 474-484

Experimental And Numerical Investigation Of The Flow Around The Appendices Of A Whitbread 60 Sailing Yacht 485-492

Propeller Wake Analysis by Means of PIV 493-510

Experimental and Numerical Investigation of the Unsteady Flow around a Propeller 511-526

Simulation of Incompressible Viscous Flow Around a Ducted Propeller Using a RANS Equation Solver 527-539

On Submerged Stagnation Points and Bow Vortices Generation 540-552

Numerical Prediction of Scale Effects in Ship Stern Flows with Eddy-Viscosity Turbulence Models 553-568

The Experimental and Numerical Study of Flow Structure and Water Noise Caused by Roughness of the Body 569-578

Large-Eddy Simulations of Turbulent Wake Flows 579-598

Instability of Partial Cavitation: A Numerical/Experimental Approach 599-615

An Unsteady Three-Dimensional Euler Solver Coupled with a Cavitating Propeller Analysis Method 616-638

On the Flow Structure, Tip Leakage Cavitation Inception and Associated Noise 639-653

An Experimental Investigation of Cavitation Inception and Development of Partial Sheet Cavities on Two - Dimensional 654-669

Modeling 3D unsteady sheet cavities using a coupled UnRANS-BEM code 670-686

Ship Wake Detectability in the Ocean Turbulent Environment 687-703

An Experimental and Computational Study of the Effects of Propulsion on the Free-Surface Flow Astern of Model 5415 704-712

Breaking Waves in the Ocean and around Ships 713-745

Numerical and Experimental Study of the Wave Breaking Generated by a Submerged Hydrofoil 746-761

The Numerical Simulation of Ship Waves Using Cartesian Grid Methods 762-779

Radiation Loads on a Cylinder Oscillating in Pycnocline 780-791

Wave Resistance Computations - A Comparison of Different Approaches 792-804

Computation of Nonlinear Turbulent Free Surface Flows Using the Parallel Uncle Code 805-819

Submarine manoeuvrability assessment using Computational Fluid Dynamic tools 820-832

Simulation of UUV Recovery Hydrodynamics 833-847

Reynolds-Averaged Modeling of High-Froude-Number Free-Surface Jets 848-862

On Roll Hydrodynamics of Cylinders Fitted with Bilge Keels 863-881

Combining Accuracy and Effciency with Robustness in Ship Stern Flow Computation 882-896

An Unstructured Multielement Solution Algorithm for Complex Geometry Hydrodynamic Simulations 897-909

Ship Stern Flow Calculations on Overlapping Composite Grids 910-926

Study on the Prediction of Flow Characteristics Around a Ship Hull 927-940

Analysis of Turbulence Free-Surface Flow around Hulls in Shallow Water Channel by a Level-set Method 941-956

A Design Tool for High Speed Ferries Washes 957-967

Flow Around Ships Sailing in Shallow Water - Experimental and Numerical Results 968-982

Ship Stability Study in the Coastal Region: New Coastal Wave Model Coupled with a Dynamic Stability Model 983-992

Waves and Forces Caused by Oscillation of a Floating Body Determined through a Unified Nonlinear Shallow-Water Theory 993-1005