0 valutazioniIl 0% ha trovato utile questo documento (0 voti)

36 visualizzazioni8 pagineHydrodynamic of a Submerged Lifting Surface Operating at High Speed

Mar 15, 2015

© © All Rights Reserved

PDF, TXT o leggi online da Scribd

Hydrodynamic of a Submerged Lifting Surface Operating at High Speed

© All Rights Reserved

0 valutazioniIl 0% ha trovato utile questo documento (0 voti)

36 visualizzazioni8 pagineHydrodynamic of a Submerged Lifting Surface Operating at High Speed

© All Rights Reserved

Sei sulla pagina 1di 8

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.

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

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

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.

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.

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.

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

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

study, we assessed this dependence in two problems

involving lifting surfaces and cavitation numbers

spanning regimes from partial cavitation down to

supecavitation inception.

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.

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].

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

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.

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.

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.

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

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

interest, accurate prediction of hydrodynamic loads is

necessary.

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

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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, Grenoble, France, 1998.

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.

Comparison of mass transfer models for the

numerical prediction of sheet cavitation around a

hydrofoil, International Journal of Multiphase Flow,

2011.

References

1.

2.

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.

Speed Marine Vehicles, Cambridge University Press,

United Kingdom.

Validation of high Reynolds number, unsteady

multi-phase cfd modeling for naval applications, in

23rd Symposium on Naval Hydrodynamics, Val de

Reuil, France, 2000..

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.

(2011), The Hydrodynamics of Cavitating Flows,

Backbone Publishing Company, New Jersey, USA.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

208

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

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.

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