SNAME 2008 P

Hydrodynamics Analysis of Ships Side by Side in
Waves using AQWA and Resistance and Diffraction

Simulation over a Ship Hull
using ANSYS-CFD
Hydrodynamics Analysis of Ships Side by Side in
Waves using AQWA and Resistance and Diffraction
Simulation over a Ship Hull
using ANSYS-CFD
Franz Zdravistch, Ph.D.
Technical Account Manager
Franz Zdravistch, Ph.D.
2008 ANSYS, Inc. All rights reserved. 1 ANSYS, Inc. Proprietary
ANSYS Inc.
ANSYS Inc.
Outline Outline Outline Outline
Hydrodynamic analysis of ships side by side in Hydrodynamic analysis of ships side by side in Hydrodynamic analysis of ships side by side in Hydrodynamic analysis of ships side by side in
wave wave wave waves
Introduction to modeling ships side by side
Theoretical background of potential flow
Numerical examples and discussion
Resistance and Diffraction Simulation over a Ship Resistance and Diffraction Simulation over a Ship Resistance and Diffraction Simulation over a Ship Resistance and Diffraction Simulation over a Ship
Hull using ANSYS Hull using ANSYS Hull using ANSYS Hull using ANSYS- -- -CFD CFD CFD CFD
RANS CFD Solver: ANSYS-FLUENT
DTMB 5415 geometry description
Resistance Test case
Steady Resistance Test case
Conclusions Conclusions Conclusions Conclusions
Introduction (1)
Motivation
Offshore LNG offloading system
(M. Naciri, OMAE 2007)
Replenishment-at-sea
Operational condition
personnel and structural safety
Analysis
Relative motions,
mooring forces, etc
under wave, wind, current (forward speed)
Introduction (2)
Difficulty: Standing waves between the gap
Incident
wave
(a = 1.0m,
= -45
0
)
Causes:
Resonant fluid motion
in restricted region,
Unrealistically enlarged
Diffraction
wave
a(max)=2.2m
by ideal fluid theory.
Consequences:
Inaccurate RAO results,
Divergent in time domain
Introduction (3)
Methods for suppression of standing waves
Potential theory, boundary integration approach,
Fictitious lid elements on free-surface between gap
Rigid lid (Huijsmans et al, 2001)
Rigid lid (Huijsmans et al, 2001)
Flexible lid with defined modal shapes
(Newman, 2004)
Free surface damper lid
(Chen, 2004)
used in this case
Lid elements
Theoretical background (1)
Assumption
Ideal fluid, irrotational and incompressible
Small wave elevation
Governing equations
Laplace equation in fluid region
Body boundary condition
Far field radiation condition,
Far field radiation condition,
Seabed condition
Free surface condition
Boundary integration approach
with pulsating source Greens function,
S: wetted hull surface only
ds z y x G z y x
s
) , , ; , , (
4
1
) , , (

=
Wetted surface under water
(in blue colour)
Theoretical background (2)
Free surface damper lid
Conventional linear free surface condition
Absorbing beach in non-linear time domain
0
2
=

g z
e
Absorbing beach in non-linear time domain
Damped free surface condition on lid
), ( ) (
2
1
), (
e
e
g
Dt
D
Dt
D

+ =
= x x
x
Damping factor
Wetted hull surface with lid elements
(in blue colour)
0 ) (
2
2
= +

i
g z
Numerical calculation and
Discussions (1) Kodan Model
3.1 Kodan Model
Model test: Conventional ship with a rectangular barge (Kodan,1984)
Ship: Lpp =2.085m, d
R
=0.131m; Barge: Lpp =3.125m, d
R
=0.113m; P
L
=1.2m
Motions and forces were measured (Fn=0.0)
Principal dimensions only were known,
estimated body plans used for numerical calculation
Discussions (2) Kodan model
Damping factor effects on resonant response (standing wave)
(=0.72rad/s, =-45
0
)
Damping lid suppresses waves
Proper damping factor needed
Amplitude of diffraction wave
without suppression,
scales to 2.5m, for 1m incident
wave
=0.01
=0.1
Damping factor effects on diffraction waves (=0. 45rad/s, =-45
0
)
=0.01
=0.1
Amplitude of diffraction wave
without suppression,
Scale=1.2m, for 1m incident wave
Damping lid suppresses waves,
Wave pattern keeps unchanged,
Amplitude changes, but not big
as at standing wave frequency
Damping factor effects on wave exciting forces
0.2
0.3
0.4

A
W
R
hydro-int non-inter vlid=0.01
vlid=0.02 vlid=0.1 test(Kodan, 1984)
0.6
0.9
1.2
g

A
W
R
Hydrodynamic interaction is evident <=> standing wave is due to this interaction
=0.01 gives closer results
=0.1 over-damped the wave exciting forces at standing wave frequency
0.0
0.1
0.2
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4
( **2/g)dR
F
2

/

g

0.0
0.3
0.6
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4
( **2/g)dR
F
3

/

g
Damping factor effects on ship motions
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
S
w
a
y

/

hydro-int non-inter plid=0.01
plid=0.02 plid=0.1 test(Kodan, 1984)
0.6
0.9
1.2
H
e
a
v
e

/

Hydrodynamic interaction is evident
increases, RAOs at standing wave frequency decrease
Hull viscous damping not included => =0.1 is closer because force over-damped
0
0.2
0.4
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4
( **2/g)dR
S
w
a
y

/
0
0.3
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4
( **2/g)dR
H
e
a
v
e

/
Resistance and Diffraction Simulation over
a Ship Hull: Mathematical Description
Governing equations:
( ) 0 v
t
= +
( ) ( ) ( ) + = +
p v v v
t
r r r
v
r
( )
(
(
+ I v v v
T
r r r 2

: velocity vector in the Cartesian coordinate system
The stress tensor is given by
Mass conservation:
Momentum conservation:
p: static pressure
where is molecular viscosity
( )
(
+ I v v v
3

The stress tensor is given by
where is molecular viscosity
After Reynolds averaging the above equations can be written as
( ) 0 u
x t
i
i
=
( ) ( )
j i
j
i
u u
x
u
t

(
(
|
|
\
|
=
l
l
ij
i
j
j
i
j i
x
u
x
u
x
u
x x
p

3
2
( )
j i
j
u u
x

+
the Reynolds stresses
ij
i
i
t
i
j
j
i
t j i
x
u
k
x
u
x
u
u u
|
|
\
|
+
|
|
\
|
=
3
2
' '
Interface tracking between the phases is achieved by solving a continuity
equation for the volume fraction of each one of the phases (VOF method)
RANS CFD solver: ANSYS-FLUENT
Works based on cell centered finite volume discretization
schemes
Works with structured and unstructured (tetrahedral,
prism, polyhedral) and hybrid mesh topologies
prism, polyhedral) and hybrid mesh topologies
General purpose CFD solver with many physical models
and turbulence models
DTMB 5415
DTMB 5415 : Geometry description
Conceived as a preliminary design for a Navy Surface combatant
The hull geometry includes a sonar dome and transom stern
There is a large EFD database for Model 5415 due to a current
international collaborative study on EFD/CFD and uncertainty
assessment
Reference
http://www.nmri.go.jp/cfd/cfdws05/index.html
Resistance: Computational Grid
Outle
t
Inlet
Hexahedral mesh with 1.8
Million cells
Half domain modeled to exploit
symmetry
The ship is fixed i.e. all the 6
degrees of freedom are off
Average wall Y+ is 36.5
Resistance: Problem description
Ship Length, Lpp = 5.72 m
Ship speed = 2.1 m/s (Froude Number = 0.28)
Fixed attitude
Ship moving in calm water
Resistance: Simulation setup
Turbulence models
Realizable k-e
SST k-omega
Open channel flow
Boundary Conditions
Boundary Conditions
Inlet boundary: Pressure-inlet
outlet boundary: pressure-outlet
Side, center, top and bottom: symmetry
Discretization schemes
Modified HRIC for VOF
Second order upwind for momentum and turbulence
SIMPLE pressure-velocity coupling in FLUENT
Resistance: Wave Elevation Contours
Kelvin wave pattern predicted by ANSYS-FLUENT simulation (filled contours)
Resistance: Wave Elevation Contours
Kelvin wave pattern predicted by FLUENT simulation (contour lines)
Resistance: Wave Profile and Forces
-0.005
0
0.005
0.01
Z

/

L
p
p
EXP SST RKE
-0.005
0
0.005
0.01
0.015
0.02
Z

/

L
p
p
EXP SST RKE
-0.01
-0.5 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5
X / Lpp
-0.01
-0.5 -0.25 0 0.25 0.5
X / Lpp
Expt. SST RKE
[N] [N] % diff. [N] % diff.
Total Drag 45.08 43.90 2.6 42.45 5.8
Viscous Drag 30.69 30.99 0.9 29.90 2.5
Wave profile along y/Lpp = 0.172 plane
Wave profile along the hull
Diffraction: Computational Grid
Hexahedral mesh with 3 Million cells
Half domain modeled to exploit
symmetry
Damping zone to apply numerical
beach condition
Outlet
Damping zone
Inlet
beach condition
Constant mesh size in the flow
direction from inlet to the bow, to
preserve the incoming wave form
The ship is fixed all the 6 degrees of
freedom are off
Inlet
Diffraction: Problem description
Ship Length, Lpp = 3.048 m
Ship speed = 1.53 m/s (Froude Number = 0.28)
Fixed attitude, moving into incoming head sea waves
Wave length = 4.572 m
Wave height = 0.018 m
Resulting encounter period, T
e
= 1.088 sec
Resulting encounter velocity, V
e
= 4.2 m/s
Diffraction: Boundary Conditions
( ) [ ]
( )
( )
n n ny nx
n
n
n
n n
t y k x k
h k
h z k
A
v
u

+
|
|
\
| +
=
|
|
\
|
=
cos
sin
cos
cosh
cosh
1
( ) [ ]
( )
( )
n n ny nx
n
n n
t y k x k
h k
h z k
A w +
+
=
sin
cosh
sinh
Incoming wave boundary condition
( )
n n ny nx
n
n
n
n
h k
=
cosh
1
cos k k
x
= sin k k
y
=
where the wave numbers in x-y directions are:
h: calm water tank depth
A: wave amplitude
: wave heading
: wave frequency
Reference: Kim, M.H., Niedzwecki, J.M., Roesset, J.M., Park, J.C., Hong, S.Y., and Tavassoli,
A., Fully Nonlinear Multidirectional Waves by a 3-D Viscous Numerical Wave Tank, ASME J.
Offshore Mecahnics and Arctic Eng., Vol. 123, August 2001
Diffraction: Simulation Setup
SST k-omega turbulence model
Open channel flow
Boundary Conditions
Inlet boundary: Pressure-inlet
outlet boundary: pressure-outlet
Wave bc: through user defined function (udf)
Numerical beach condition at the outlet: through udf
Discretization schemes
Modified HRIC for VOF
Second order upwind for momentum and turbulence
First order time accuracy
SIMPLE pressure-velocity coupling in FLUENT
Diffraction: Wave Elevation Contours
Incoming waves
Waves dampened due to
numerical beach condition
Ship hull
Wave elevation contours coloured by wave height, seen from top view
Diffraction: Wave elevation contours
Wave elevation contours coloured by wave height, diffracted waves
Wave pattern along the ship hull, with transparent free-surface
Experiment
ANSYS-FLUENT
Diffraction: Forces & moment
0
0.002
0.004
0.006
0.008
0.01
0.012
C
d
EXP CFD
-0.1
-0.08
-0.06
-0.04
-0.02
0
0.02
0.04
C
h
EXP CFD
-0.002
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3
t / Te
Drag Force coefficient (Cd)
Heave Force coefficient (Ch)
Moment coefficient (Cm)
-0.1
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3
t / Te
-0.02
-0.015
-0.01
-0.005
0
0.005
0.01
0.015
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3
t / T
e
C
m
EXP CFD
Conclusions (1)
Side-by-side ships floating in waves
Standing wave (resonant response of fluid in restrict region)
exists;
Its amplitude needs to be damped if using potential theory
Free surface damping lid method is an applicable/reliable
Free surface damping lid method is an applicable/reliable
approach;
Damping factor on lid is about 0.01, but more experimental data
needed.
Conclusions (2)
The RANS CFD solver ANSYS-FLUENT is used to validate resistance and
diffraction tests
The resistance simulation was performed using SST k-w and Realizable k-e
turbulence models and the SST model found to give better results
The resistance drag predictions were of the order of 0.9% to 5.8% error
The diffraction simulation results show good qualitative comparison in
terms of the wave elevation contours
The diffraction force predictions show phase difference and error in the
peak force predictions, one of the reasons for the discrepancy could be
first order time accuracy
Overall results show good comparison with the experimental data for a
real life application
Conclusions (3)
Both AQWA and ANSYS-CFD provide useful and
complementary design information
AQWA simulations much faster than CFD. Allows for preliminary
evaluation of larger number of design options
CFD simulations provide more detailed physics, including viscous
effects
Currently working on integrating AQWA-Suite and
ANSYS-CFD:
Couple potential flow and viscous effects (where needed) for increased
accuracy and efficiency
Use a unified environment (Workbench) for case set up, execution and
post-processing

SNAME 2008 P

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

SNAME 2008 P

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Hydrodynamics Analysis of Ships Side by Side in

Waves using AQWA and Resistance and Diffraction

You might also like