Wilson-Haffenden Front Matter
Wilson-Haffenden Front Matter
Wilson-Haffenden Front Matter
Samual J. Wilson-Haffenden
October 2009
DECLARATION
I hereby declare that the whole of this submission is my own work and the result of my own
investigation and that, to the best of my knowledge and belief, it contains no material previously
published or written by another person, except where due reference is made in the text of the project.
I further declare that the work embodied in this project has not been accepted for the award of any
other degree or diploma in any institution, college or university, and is not being concurrently
submitted for any other degree or diploma award.
..
Samual J. Wilson-Haffenden
October 2009
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Introduction .......................................................................................................................................... 1
1.1
Background ............................................................................................................................................... 1
1.2
1.2.1
Experimental ................................................................................................................................... 3
1.2.2
1.3
2
Theory ................................................................................................................................................ 10
2.1
2.1.1
2.2
2.2.1
Fundamentals ............................................................................................................................... 13
2.2.2
2.2.3
2.2.4
2.2.5
2.2.6
2.2.7
2.2.8
Approach ............................................................................................................................................ 31
3.1
3.2
4.2
Meshing .................................................................................................................................................. 34
4.3
Modelling ................................................................................................................................................ 38
4.3.1
Boundary Conditions..................................................................................................................... 38
4.3.2
4.3.3
4.3.4
4.3.5
Grid independence........................................................................................................................ 43
ii
4.3.6
4.3.7
5.2
5.3
5.3.1
5.3.2
5.3.3
5.3.4
5.3.5
Discussion ........................................................................................................................................... 59
6.1
Results .................................................................................................................................................... 59
6.2
7.2
7.3
References .......................................................................................................................................... 68
iii
LIST OF TABLES
Table 2.1: Required y+ for Various Turbulence Models (Ranmuthugala, 2008).................................. 23
Table 3.1: Parameters of Scaled SUBOFF Model ................................................................................ 33
Table 4.1: Unstructured Mesh Advantages and Disadvantages (Quak, 2006) ..................................... 35
Table 4.2: Structured Mesh Advantages and Disadvantages (Quak, 2006) ......................................... 35
Table 4.3: Relaxation Factors (Ackerman, 2008)................................................................................. 47
Table 5.1: Calibration Factors .............................................................................................................. 55
Table 6.1: Variation of CFD with respect to EFD ................................................................................ 61
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1.1: Drag as a Function of Froude Number on the 1.1m Mullaya Model (Brady, 2007) ............ 4
Figure 1.2: Mullaya Testing Rig (Brady, 2007) ..................................................................................... 5
Figure 2.1: Drag Components for Constant Volume (Joubert, 2004) .................................................. 10
Figure 2.2: Kelvin Wave Pattern Patterns of a Point Disturbance........................................................ 12
Figure 2.3: Typical Surfaced Submarine Resistance Coefficient Curve (Burcher & Rydill, 1994) ..... 12
Figure 2.4: (a) Laminar Flow; (b) Transition Flow; (c) Turbulent Flow (White, 2007) ...................... 15
Figure 2.5: Laminar and Turbulent Flows Within a Pipe (White, 2007)............................................. 16
Figure 2.6: Velocity Distribution Near a Solid Boundary (White, 2007)............................................. 20
Figure 2.7: Boundary Layer Profile (White, 2007) .............................................................................. 22
Figure 2.8: First Layer Height (ANSYS CFX, 2008) ........................................................................... 23
Figure 2.9: Block Structured Grid (Wyman, 2001) .............................................................................. 24
Figure 2.10: Chimera Grid (Wyman, 2001) ......................................................................................... 25
Figure 2.11: Unstructured Grid (Wyman, 2001) .................................................................................. 25
Figure 2.12: Hybrid Grid -Structured Left, Unstructured Right (Wyman, 2001) ................................ 26
Figure 2.13: 2D H Grid around a Cylinder (Widjaja 2009) ................................................................ 26
Figure 2.14: 2D O Grid around a Cylinder (Widjaja, 2009) ................................................................ 27
Figure 2.15: O-Grid Inside a Cylinder (Widjaja, 2009) ....................................................................... 27
Figure 2.16: 2D C Grid around a Cylinder (Widjaja, 2009) ................................................................. 28
Figure 3.1: Comparison of the Length to Diameter Ratio of Existing Submarines (Hazegray, 2009) . 31
Figure 3.2: Comparison of the Length to Diameter Ratio of Existing Submarines (Hazegray, 2009) . 32
Figure 3.3: SUBOFF (mm)................................................................................................................... 32
Figure 3.4: Test Depths ........................................................................................................................ 33
Figure 4.1: Unstructured Mesh Constructed in ANSYS CFX Mesh .................................................... 34
Figure 4.2: Structured Mesh Constructed in ANSYS ICEM ................................................................ 34
iv
vi
ACRONYMS
AIP
AMC
AUV
CFD
CFL
Courant-Friedrichs-Lewy
CWC
DARPA
DES
DSTO
DTRC
EFD
HPMM
ITTC
KCS
KRISO
LES
LMG
NASA
PEM
PIV
PMM
RANS
RMS
Root-mean-square
SHWG
SIMPLE
SMF
SSBN
SSK
SSN
SST
STP
VOF
Volume of Fluid
vii
NOMENCLATURE
Symbol
Description
(1+k)
Form Factor
Courant Number
CD
Drag Coefficient
CF
Frictional Coefficient
CP
Pressure Coefficient
CR
Residual Coefficient
CT
CV
Diameter of Submarine
D*
Non-Dimensional Submergence,
DF
Frictional Drag
DR
Residual Drag
DT
Total Drag
DV
Viscous Drag
Fr
Submergence Depth
Static Enthalpy
Kinetic Energy
Length of Submarine
L*
Non-Dimensional Length $
Pressure
)*
Re
Reynolds Number +,
Temperature
Time
.
#
&
% ('
-
.
viii
/0
Velocity Fluctuation in u
1 0
Velocity Fluctuation in v
2 0
Velocity Fluctuation in u
y+
Spacial Step
Time Step
Angle of Incidence
Dynamics Viscosity
Frictional Velocity
Kinematic Viscosity
Density
Viscous Shear
Wall Shear
Scalar
ix
:&'
9
<
8, &;
AXIS SYSTEM
Positive directions shown
Free Surface
L
H
D
Origin
rigin
Samual J. Wilson-Haffenden
ABSTRACT
It is widely understood that a deeply submerged submarine does not generate wave resistance. This
allows travel at high speeds without detection. Conventional submarines, however, are required to
travel close to the surface when snorkelling, resulting in the generation of surface waves, and thus
wave making resistance. At moderate to high speeds wave making resistance forms a significant
proportion of the total hydrodynamic resistance experienced by a vessel. This reduces the achievable
snorkeling speed of the boat, lessens overall endurance, and increases the chance of detection. To
fully understand the design and operation of conventional submarines, it is therefore important to
accurately predict the increased drag caused by a submarine travelling close to the surface.
BMT Design and Technology, the Defence Science and Technology Organisation (DSTO), and the
Australian Maritime College (AMC) have undertaken a joint project to model the DARPA SUBOFF
submarine geometry. This was done using Reynolds Averaged Naiver Stokes (RANS) Computational
Fluid Dynamics (CFD) and then validated the result using experimental fluid dynamics (EFD).
Results show that the drag due to wavemaking can make up more than 50% of the total drag at a
critical Froude Number of 0.3. Simulations were performed using a structured hexahedral mesh at
depths ranging from 1.1D* to 5.5D* below the free surface at Froude Numbers ranging from 0.1280.640. The results show that CFX is able to accurately simulate the total drag on the hull across the
range. The average discrepancy of the drag coefficient between the (EFD) and the (CFD) is 5.4%,
however discrepancies of up to 13% were noted. Findings indicate that CFX can be used as a
powerful tool in the early stages of submarine design.
Used effectively, CFD holds the potential to predict the free surface effects, the flow around the body
in close proximity to the free surface, and also allow further research to be conducted in more
complicated areas such as; a fully-appended hull form or the effects of surface waves on the
submarine.
xi