4.7 Article

Hydroelastic responses of plates with sinusoidal tubercles under perpendicularly loaded flow

期刊

OCEAN ENGINEERING
卷 219, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.oceaneng.2020.108301

关键词

Hydroelastic; Geometrical; Bio-inspired; Tubercle; Wavelength; Plate

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study examines the hydroelastic responses of bio-inspired plates with whale flipper-inspired sinusoidal tubercles under flow, revealing that the peaks of tubercles in the region are critical for developing the greatest stress. Despite experiencing high stress and deformation, the bio-inspired plates remain below failure values.
Blades furnished at their leading-edge with the whale's flipper-inspired sinusoidal tubercles have been observed to offer beneficial flow responses in the post-stall regime. Little is known, however, about their hydmelastic behaviors, especially if positioned perpendicular to the flow direction. Therefore, this work examines numerically the hydroelastic responses of bio-inspired plates with tubercles in the presence of flow perpendicular to their planar surface. Geometrical perturbations in tubercles wavelengths, lambda = 50 mm, 100 mm, 150 mm, and amplitudes, A = 5 mm, 10 mm, 15 mm are considered. Compared to flat plates as the control case, the bio-inspired plates with tubercles exhibit higher stress and deformation, in an increasing fashion with A. While experiencing the least displacement, the bio-inspired plate with the shortest wavelength suffers the highest stress. Also, restricting to the tubercles region, the peaks of tubercles have been identified as the critical part that develops the greatest stress. Nonetheless, stresses and displacements experienced by the bio-inspired plates remain below the failure values. For analysis and design conveniences, a set of general equations have been parametrically produced to represent the inclusivity of the tubercles' geometrical effects for the hydmelastic responses of the bio-inspired plates.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据