4.7 Article

CFD modelling and grid uncertainty analysis of the free-falling water entry of 2D rigid bodies

期刊

APPLIED OCEAN RESEARCH
卷 115, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.apor.2021.102813

关键词

Computational fluid dynamics; Slamming; OpenFOAM; Dynamic mesh; uncertainty analysis

资金

  1. Portuguese Foundation for Science and Technology (Fundacao para a Ciencia e Tecnologia-FCT) [UIDB/UIDP/00134/2020]
  2. University of Lisbon, Instituto Superior Tecnico
  3. CENTEC

向作者/读者索取更多资源

When using OpenFOAM to simulate water impact, attention should be paid to the impact of parameter settings and uncertainty estimation methods on the results.
The open source Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD) library, OpenFOAM, is utilized to simulate the water impact of two-dimensional wedges and ship bow sections. For the free falling cases, the predicted results are validated against existing experimental data, and the parameter study is performed regarding the number of cells, time step, and width of the water domain applied in the numerical models. Grid uncertainty analysis for the CFD results is performed with a constant Courant-Friedrichs-Lewy number, to assess the consistency and accuracy of the CFD solver in solving the present problem. Three uncertainty estimation methods are compared on the peak slamming forces and pressures: Correction Factor (Cf), Factor of Safety (Fs), and Least-squares Fit (Lf) based approaches. All three of them can provide reliable uncertainty estimation for CFD simulations, as long as the right mesh configuration has been used. The variations of pressure distribution on wedge sections with various deadrise angles and initial entry velocities are analyzed. To examine the capability of the tool to predict the slamming loads for a section with roll motions two cases are simulated: one considering a free roll motion and another with constant roll angles. The predicted slamming loads are compared with the available experimental data and other numerical results.

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