4.7 Article

Effects of varied roughness coverage area on drag in a turbulent boundary layer using numerical simulations

Journal

OCEAN ENGINEERING
Volume 287, Issue -, Pages -

Publisher

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.oceaneng.2023.115721

Keywords

Skin-friction drag; Roughness; Biofoulings; Computational fluid dynamics; Turbulent boundary layer

Ask authors/readers for more resources

In this study, turbulent boundary layer (TBL) over different area coverages of rough surfaces was investigated using computational fluid dynamics. The results show that at a 30% roughness area coverage, the flow experiences the maximum drag, but beyond this coverage, the drag gradually decreases. Further analysis reveals that a roughness frontal density of 0.15 corresponds to the 30% roughness area coverage.
Turbulent boundary layer (TBL) over various area coverages of rough surfaces have been studied via computational fluid dynamics using the steady Reynolds Averaged Navier-Stokes (RANS) technique. The rough surfaces are modelled by randomly distributed hemispheres with a 1 mm radius, covering 5%, 10%, 20%, 30%, 40%, and 50% of the wall surface area designed to represent a typical three-dimensional roughness and also replicate the biofouling growth of a ship's hull. The results of this study show the relationships between the roughness area coverage and the skin friction drag within a fully rough regime. The flow experiences maximum drag and the highest equivalent sand grain roughness height at 30% roughness area coverage. However, beyond this area coverage value, the drag gradually decreases. Further analysis indicates that the 30% roughness area coverage corresponds to a roughness frontal density of ������������= 0.15. Recent reports indicate that when ������������less than or similar to 0.15, the pressure drag to total drag ratio increases with increased roughness frontal density.

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