4.7 Article

CFD Aided Ship Design and Helicopter Operation

Journal

Publisher

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/jmse10091304

Keywords

ship airwakes; CFD; Ship-Helicopter Operational Limits; flight simulation

Funding

  1. Government of Canada

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This study presents a Canadian in-house ship airwake simulation capability combining various testing methods and tools. It discusses the challenges, current capabilities, and limitations of the approach, as well as the gaps and barriers in industry adoption.
In support of Canadian industrial and defence ship design and offshore helicopter operations, a series of Ship-Helicopter Operational Limits Analysis and Simulation (SHOLAS) projects are being conducted at the National Research Council Canada (NRC) in collaboration with Defence Research and Development Canada (DRDC). This study presents a brief overview of a Canadian in-house ship airwake simulation capability combining in-house high-fidelity wind-tunnel tests, full-scale sea trials, high-order computational fluid dynamics (CFD) tools, and realistic engineering-oriented flight simulators. This paper reports challenges and lessons learned during the course of the study, discusses the current capabilities and limitations of the CFD tools and the infrastructure required, and evaluates the gaps and barriers in industry adoption by focusing on how they could be overcome based on our current practice. After validating the CFD results of an updated version of a simplified frigate shape (SFS2) and the real-world Canadian Patrol Frigate (CPF), which are in reasonable agreement with the available in-house wind-tunnel and sea-trial data, the developed approach was recently applied to the design of an undisclosed Canadian ship. Among other applications, CFD airwake results were used with confidence as input to produce representative airwake features in industrial high-fidelity piloted flight simulators.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available