Sei sulla pagina 1di 8

4th High Performance Yacht Design Conference

Auckland, 12-14 March, 2012

HYDRODYNAMIC PERFORMANCE OF
A SUBMERGED LIFTING SURFACE OPERATING AT HIGH SPEED
Romain Garo1, rgaro@stevens.edu
Len Imas2, limas@stevens.edu
Abstract. The hydrodynamics of a submerged lifting surface are investigated by studying two canonical problems using NavierStokes based CFD simulations; (i) flow past a three-dimensional lifting surface having an elliptic planform and constant cambered
foil section and (ii) flow past a two-dimensional symmetric foil section. Dependence of the resulting hydrodynamic loads on
variations in speed and angle of attack are considered under fully wetted conditions as well as conditions allowing for cavitation.
Comparisons between results obtained from numerical simulations and those from experimental measurements, taken in a
pressurized water tunnel facility, are presented.

surfaces. Specifically, solution dependence on cavitation


model type is of interest.

NOMENCLATURE
The following are the relevant parameters used in the
presentation and discussion of results.

U
c
Re

Pt
Pc
S
CL
CD
Cl
Cd

2. APPROACH
Molecular viscosity
Fluid density
Fluid velocity
Foil chord
Reynolds number = *U*c/
Cavitation number = (Pt Pc)/(0.5*U2)
Total pressure = atmospheric + hydrostatic
Cavity pressure or vapour pressure
Lifting surface projected area
3D lift coefficient = 3D lift force/(0.5*U2*S)
3D drag coefficient = 3D drag force/(0.5*U2*S)
2D lift coefficient = 2D lift force/(0.5*U2*c)
2D drag coefficient = 2D drag force/(0.5*U2*c)
free-stream angle of attack

2.1 Problem Description


Two canonical problems are investigated numerically:
1. flow past a three-dimensional lifting surface having
an elliptic planform and a constant cambered foil
section [6].
2. flow past a two-dimensional symmetric foil section
[7].
These two problems were selected on the basis of
experimental information reported adequately to the
extent that the experimental set-up may be recreated in
the numerical model and experimental measurements
compared to numerical predictions.

1. INTRODUCTION

Problem-1 experimental set-up, details of which may be


found in [6], consisted of wall-mounting an elliptic wing
planform with a NACA 2410 foil section in a pressurized
water-tunnel and performing experiments at a fixed
negative angle of attack while varying both Reynolds
number and cavitation number simultaneously to obtain
the desired flow conditions.

Understanding hydrodynamic performance of lifting


surfaces at speeds where cavitation inception may be
possible is of interest in design applications involving
control surfaces for high speed marine vehicles [1]. In
this paper, we present results from a numerical
investigation of two canonical problems, one involving a
three-dimensional lifting surface, the second, a twodimensional foil, operating under flow conditions where
cavitation is likely.

Problem-2 experimental set-up, details of which may be


found in [7], consisted of end-plating a rectangular wing
planform with a NACA 0015 foil section in a pressurized
water-tunnel and performing experiments across a range
of angles of attack while varying cavitation number at
fixed Reynolds number to obtain the desired flow
conditions.

The scope of numerical simulation research that has been


carried out in the field of high speed flows involving
lifting bodies and cavitation is substantial and covers a
broad scope of topics [2, 3]. The objective of the
numerical study being presented in this paper was to
perform an assessment of the cavitation modelling
capability in the FineMarine hydrodynamic solver [4, 5]
as applied to flows involving partially-cavitating lifting

In the numerical simulations performed, the domain


extents and boundary conditions were matched to those
reported in the experimental investigations. In the case of
the elliptic wing study, the experimental report did not

1 Research Engineer, Centre for Maritime Systems, Stevens Institute of Technology, New Jersey, US
2 Design Team Member, Emirates Team New Zealand and Associate Professor, Centre for Maritime Systems, Stevens Institute of
Technology, New Jersey, US

204

(such as those encountered around propellers). In this


study, we assessed this dependence in two problems
involving lifting surfaces and cavitation numbers
spanning regimes from partial cavitation down to
supecavitation inception.

provide complete enough information to determine


which Reynolds numbers were matched to which
cavitation numbers. As a consequence, the numerical
simulations were performed at a fixed Reynolds number,
assumed to be representative of the experimental flow
conditions, across the entire cavitation number range.

The computations were carried on hexahedral grids


having hanging nodes thereby permitting a high level of
localized mesh refinement control while minimizing
mesh distortion at foil boundaries. Near foil surface
boundaries, viscous layer inflation consistent with wall
function-based turbulence model treatment was used.
The mesh generation was performed using Hexpress
[13].

For numerical simulation of problem-1, the flow


conditions were defined as follows:
o Re = 1.35E6
o = -5o
o is between 2.1 and 0.2
For numerical simulation of problem-2, the flow
conditions were defined as follows:
o Re = 9.96E6
o = 3o, 5o , 7o
o is between 1.5 and 0.36

3. RESULTS
3.1 Problem 1

Since an end-plated rectangular planform with a


NACA0015 section, spanning the entire tunnel testsection, was used in the problem-2 experiment,
numerically, this problem was solved as a twodimensional model, without a span-wise flow
component.

As a numerical verification, an angle of attack sweep was


first performed under fully-wetted, non-cavitating
conditions at a fixed Re = 1.35E6. A comparison
between FM-predicted lift coefficient and theoreticallypredicted lift coefficient for the elliptic un-twisted
planform with a NACA 2410 section is shown in Figure
1. Subsequently, simulations were run with the cavitation
models enabled. Figure 2 shows the lift coefficient for
the same elliptic planform as a function of ranging
between 2.1 and 0.2 with = -5o at Re = 1.35E6. Figure
3 shows the corresponding variation in drag coefficient.
In both figures, numerical results are shown for three
different cavitation models. The corresponding
experimentally-measured force coefficient values shown
in Figures 2 and 3 are taken from [6]. The corresponding
cavity interfaces, plotted as a function of , are shown in
Figure 4. Figure 4 shows the bottom (pressure) side of
the planform as in both the experiment and simulation,
the foil was tested upside-down, hence the is negative.

In both problems, flow conditions selected for simulation


corresponded to those for which experimental data was
given in [6.7].
2.2 Numerical Methodology
The FineMarine (FM) hydrodynamic solver [4, 5] was
used to perform the numerical simulations. This is a
finite-volume element, face-based, unsteady NavierStokes solver with RANS/DES/LES turbulence
modelling options. In the presented study, a RANS-based
SST-k turbulence model for high Reynolds number
treatment was employed. The solver uses a compressive
interface-capturing algorithm in multiphase flow
solutions involving free-surfaces. For treatment of
cavitation, three cavitation models; Kunz, Merkle, and
Sauer [8, 9, 10, 11, 12] are available. All three were
evaluated in problem-1. In problem-2, only the Sauer
model was employed.

3.2 Problem 2
A comparison between FM-predicted lift coefficient and
experimentally-measured lift coefficient values for an
end-plated rectangular planform with a NACA 0015
section is shown in Figure 5. The normalized lift
coefficient is plotted as a function of ranging between
1.5 and 0.36 with = 3o, 5o, 7o, at Re = 9.96E6. Figure 6
shows the corresponding variation in normalized drag
coefficient. In both figures, the force coefficients are
normalized by respective coefficient values obtained
under non-cavitating, operating condition at same Re and
. Shown numerical results are obtained with the Sauer
cavitation model.

The interest in understanding solution dependence on


cavitation model type stems from the fact that different
cavitation models transport equations relate cavity
growth to cavitation number differently. Kunz and
Merkle models are based on a linear relationship between
these two quantities whereas the Sauer model is based on
a square-root proportional dependence. Because under
cavitating conditions, the change in hydrodynamic loads
is cavity size dependent, accurate prediction of
hydrodynamic loads is important. As a consequence, it
may not be possible to apply a single cavitation model
systematically to super-cavitating and partially cavitating
external flows or in uniform flows and unsteady flows

Corresponding experimentally-measured normalized lift


coefficient value plots [7] are shown in the insert on the
right of Figure 5. Similarly, corresponding
experimentally-measured normalized drag coefficient
value plots [7] are shown in the insert on the right of

205

operation at borderline cavitation conditions is of


interest, accurate prediction of hydrodynamic loads is
necessary.

Figure 6. The plot of experimentally-measured


normalized drag coefficient values displays only a subset
of the cavitation number range that was explored
numerically. In both Figures 5 and 6, as a visual aid to
correlate cfd predictions to experimental measurements,
select regions corresponding to similar cavitation
numbers, are circled.

4. DISCUSSION

The corresponding flow visualization is consistent with


numerical results and experimental video footage,
showing a growing partial cavity until supercavitation
mode is reached where the cavity length exceeds the
chord of the lifting surface, thereby enveloping it entirely
in a vapour bubble.

4.1 Problem 1

4.2 Problem 2

The numerical simulations resolve the CL vs.


behaviour
consistently
with
that
observed
experimentally. Specifically, a nearly constant CL is
maintained until cavitation numbers decreases below 1 at
which point the lift coefficient increases. This increase
occurs due to hydrodynamic streamlining as a result of
the cavitation bubble altering the effective camber of the
foil section. Subsequent to this increase, there is a rapid,
approximately linear, drop-off in CL with decreasing
cavitation number. The drop-off occurs due to the
boundary layer flow-separation induced by the growing
cavitation bubble.

Again, the numerical simulations resolve the CL vs.


behaviour consistently with that observed experimentally
across the range studied. Specifically, at a fixed lower
, a nearly constant CL is maintained until cavitation
numbers decreases below 1 at which point the lift
coefficient increases slightly. This increase occurs due to
hydrodynamic streamlining as a result of the cavitation
bubble altering the effective camber of the foil section
without separating the boundary layer. Subsequent to this
increase, there is a rapid, approximately linear, drop-off
in CL with decreasing cavitation number. The drop-off
occurs due to the boundary layer flow-separation induced
by the growing cavitation bubble. As increases, the
slight CL amplification, with decreasing , due to
hydrodynamic camber change disappears, and CL
decreases monotonically. As decreases toward
supercavitation range, both the numerical and
experimental CL results at all analyzed exhibit a crossover point.

Similarly, the numerical simulations resolve the CD vs.


behaviour consistently with that observed experimentally
up to a cavitation number of around 0.4 at which point
the two sets of results deviate with the numerical
predictions indicating a decrease in drag as
supercavitating regime is approached whereas the
experimental measurements indicate a monotonic drag
rise.

Similarly, the numerical simulations resolve the CD vs.


behaviour consistently with that shown experimentally. It
is worthwhile to point out that with increasing and
decreasing , the problem-2 CD results, numerical and
experimental [7] exhibit a maximum and then start to
decrease as drag reduction due to supercavitation is
realized. While numerical and experimental CFD results
in problem-1 disagree at the low range, the trend
exhibited by numerical results in problem-1 agrees
qualitatively with both sets of data shown in problem-2.

Numerically, this deviation was analyzed further by


performing several grid and numerical sensitivity studies.
However, no changes in predictions were found. The
difference in the experimental and numerical results at
low cavitation numbers may be due to whether or not
(with decreasing ) cavity remains stable as it covers
more of the lifting surface (which would lead to a drag
decrease) vs. cavity becoming unstable as it covers more
lifting surface (which would lead to a monotonic drag
rise only). Numerically, this may be dependent on type of
turbulence model employed in the simulations and
warrants further investigation with a DES-based
turbulence model. Experimentally, there is reported
uncertainty regarding the onset flow conditions [6].
Namely, the used in the test and the fact that Re was
not constant and was varied together with can
influence cavity stability.

5. CONCLUSIONS
Results from a numerical investigation of two canonical
problems, one involving a three-dimensional lifting
surface, the second, a two-dimensional foil, operating
under flow conditions where cavitation is likely, were
presented. Comparisons to experimental measurements
for the same canonical problems were made. Solution
dependence on cavitation model type was assessed. The
results from this investigation provided a guideline to
further systematic analysis of lifting surfaces operating
near or at partially cavitating conditions.

Comparing experimental and numerical results at same


flow conditions, but using different cavitation models,
the Sauer model which is based on a square-root
proportional dependence between and cavity growth
appears to do best. Between models, result differences
are on the O(1%) in CL and O(10%) in CD. While such
differences may be viewed as trivial, if lifting surface

206

Acknowledgements

cavitation, in 3rd International Symposium on


Cavitation, Grenoble, France, 1998.

This investigation was made possible by Emirates Team


New Zealand. Authors would like to thank Scott Graham
and Hal Youngren of Emirates Team New Zealand for
their suggestions and also thank G. Deng, M. Visonneau,
and P. Queutey of Ecole Centrale de Nantes and the
Numeca Technical Support Team for their assistance.

9.

10. M. Morgut, E. Nobile, and I. Bilus, (2011),


Comparison of mass transfer models for the
numerical prediction of sheet cavitation around a
hydrofoil, International Journal of Multiphase Flow,
2011.

References
1.

2.

I. Senocak and W. Shyy, (2004), Interfacial


dynamics-based modeling of turbulent cavitating
flows, part-1: Model development and steady-state
computations, International journal for numerical
methods in Fluids, vol. 44, no. 9, pp. 975-995.

Faltinsen, O. M., (2005), Hydrodynamics of High


Speed Marine Vehicles, Cambridge University Press,
United Kingdom.

11. J. Lindau, R. Kunz, and H. Gibeling (2000),


Validation of high Reynolds number, unsteady
multi-phase cfd modeling for naval applications, in
23rd Symposium on Naval Hydrodynamics, Val de
Reuil, France, 2000..

Masure, I. B., Tulin, M. P., editors, (2002),


Supercavitating Flows, RTO Lecture Series 005,
RTO-EN-010, AC/323(AVT-058)TP/45, F-92201
NEUILLY-SUR-SEINE
CEDEX,
FRANCE
http://ftp.rta.nato.int/public//PubFullText/RTO/EN/R
TO-EN-010///EN-010-$$TOC.pdf

3.

Terentiev, A. G., Kirschner, I.N., Uhlman, J.S.,


(2011), The Hydrodynamics of Cavitating Flows,
Backbone Publishing Company, New Jersey, USA.

12. R. Kunz, D. Boger, D. Stinebring, T. Chyczewski, J.


Lindau, H. Gibeling, S. Venkateswaran, and T.
Govindan (2000), A preconditioned Navier-Stokes
method for two-phase flows with application to
cavitation prediction, Computers & Fluids, vol. 29,
no. 8, pp. 849-875.

4.

http://www.numeca.com/index.php?id=finemarine

13. http://www.numeca.com/index.php?id=29

5.

(a) Visonneau, M., Queutey, P., (2007), An


Interface Capturing Method For Free Surface
Hydrodynamic Flows, Journal of Computers and
Fluids, vol. 36, no. 9, pp. 1481-1510.
(b) Wackers, J., Deng, G., Leroyer, A., Queutey, P.,
Visonneau, M., (2012), Adaptive Grid Refinement
For Hydrodynamic Flows, Journal of Computers
and Fluids, vol. 55, pp. 85-100.

6.

Savineau, C.,
Paschkewitz, J., (1994),
Experimental and Analytical Investigation of A
Cavitating Hydrofoil: The Trifoiler As A Case
Study, In the Report of New England Section,
Society of Naval Architects and Marine Engineers,
MIT
Marine
Hydrodynamics
Laboratory,
Cambridge, Massachusetts, USA.

7.

Amromin, E., Hansberger, J., Wang, H., Wosnik,


M., Arndt, R., (2003), Investigation of a Low-Drag,
Partially Cavitating Hydrofoil, In the Proceedings
of the 5th International Symposium on Cavitation,
Osaka, Japan.

8.

C. Merkle, J. Feng, and P. Buelow, (1998),


Computational modeling of the dynamics of sheet

207

Figure 1. Comparison between lift coefficient predicted by FM and theoretical lift coefficient for the problem-1
elliptic planform.

Figure 2. Problem 1 comparison between experimentally-measured and numerically-predicted lift coefficient


across a cavitation number range at fixed angle of attack and fixed Reynolds number.

208

Figure 3. Problem 1 comparison between experimentally-measured and numerically-predicted drag coefficient


across a cavitation number range at fixed angle of attack and fixed Reynolds number.

209

=2.05

=0.575

=0.905

=0.334

=0.737

=0.215
Figure 4. Plots of the cavity interface corresponding to
cavity fraction = 0.5. Problem 1 solution shown,
obtained using the Sauer cavitation model.
.

=0.680

210

Figure 5. Problem 2 comparison between experimentally-measured and numerically-predicted normalized lift


coefficient across a cavitation number range at three fixed angles of attack and fixed Reynolds number. Measured
values are shown in insert on the right.

Figure 6. Problem 2 comparison between experimentally-measured and numerically-predicted normalized drag


coefficient across a cavitation number range at three fixed angles of attack and fixed Reynolds number. Measured
values are shown in insert on the right.

211