Experiments in Fluids

, 54:1630 | Cite as

Evaluation of the pressure field on a rigid body entering a quiescent fluid through particle image velocimetry

Research Article


The objective of this work is to verify the accuracy of indirect pressure measurement from particle image velocimetry in water entry problems. The pressure is evaluated by solving the incompressible Navier–Stokes equations, whose kinematic components are estimated from particle image velocimetry. We focus on the water entry of a rigid wedge, for which we explore variations of the entry velocity. Experimental results are verified through comparison with well-established analytical formulations based on potential flow theory. Our findings demonstrate the feasibility of accurately reconstructing the hydrodynamic pressure field over the entire duration of the impact. Along with a thorough experimental validation of the method, we also offer insight into experimentally relevant factors, such as the maximum resolved fluid velocity and the required spatial integration area.



This work was supported by the Office of Naval Research through the Grant N00014-10-1-0988 with Dr. Y.D.S. Rajapakse as the program manager. Views expressed herein are those of the authors and not of the funding agency.


  1. Battistin D, Iafrati A (2003) Hydrodynamic loads during water entry of two-dimensional and axisymmetric bodies. J Fluids Struct 17(5):643–664CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Battley M, Allen T (2011) Servo-hydraulic system for controlled velocity water impact of marine sandwich panels. Exp Mech 52(1):95–106CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Battley M, Allen T (2012) Characterization of fluid-structure interaction for water impact of composite panels. Int J Multiphys 6(3):283–304CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Baur T, Köngeter J (1999) PIV with high temporal resolution for the determination of local pressure reductions from coherent turbulence phenomena. In: Proceedings of the 3rd international workshop on PIV. University of California-Santa Barbara, September 16–18, pp 101–106Google Scholar
  5. Bishop R, Price W, Tam P (1978) On the dynamics of slamming. Trans R Inst Nav Archit 120:259–280Google Scholar
  6. Carcaterra A, Ciappi E (2004) Hydrodynamic shock of elastic structures impacting on the water: theory and experiments. J Sound Vib 271(1–2):411–439CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Cha Y, Phan C, Porfiri M (2012) Energy exchange during slamming impact of an ionic polymer metal composite. Appl Phys Lett 101(9):094CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Charca S, Shafiq B (2009) Damage assessment due to single slamming of foam core sandwich composites. J Sandwich Struct Mater 12(1):97–112CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Charca S, Shafiq B, Just F (2009) Repeated slamming of sandwich composite panels on water. J Sandwich Struct Mater 11(5):409–424CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Chen X, Wu Y, Cui W, Jensen J (2006) Review of hydroelasticity theories for global response of marine structures. Ocean Eng 33(3–4):439–457CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Das K, Batra R (2011) Local water slamming impact on sandwich composite hulls. J Fluids Struct 27(4):523–551CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. De Backer G, Vantorre M, Beels C, De Pré J, Victor S, De Rouck J, Blommaert C, Van Paepegem W (2009) Experimental investigation of water impact on axisymmetric bodies. Appl Ocean Res 31(3):143–156CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Faltinsen O (1999) Water entry of a wedge by hydroelastic orthotropic plate theory. J Ship Res 43(3):180–193Google Scholar
  14. Faltinsen O (1990) Sea loads on ships and offshore structures. Cambridge ocean technology series. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 282–296Google Scholar
  15. Faltinsen O (1997) The effect of hydroelasticity on ship slamming. Philos Trans R Soc Math Phys Eng Sci 355(1724):575–591CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  16. Faltinsen O (2000) Hydroelastic slamming. J Mar Sci Technol 5(2):49–65CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Faltinsen O, Landrini M, Greco M (2004) Slamming in marine applications. J Eng Math 48:187–217CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  18. Fujisawa N, Tanahashi S, Srinivas K (2005) Evaluation of pressure field and fluid forces on a circular cylinder with and without rotational oscillation using velocity data from PIV measurement. Meas Sci Technol 16(4):989–996CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Fujisawa N, Nakamura Y, Matsuura F, Sato Y (2006) Pressure field evaluation in microchannel junction flows through μPIV measurement. Microfluid Nanofluid 2(5):447–453CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Garcia D (2010) Robust smoothing of gridded data in one and higher dimensions with missing values. Comput Stat Data Anal 54(4):1167–1178MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  21. Hirdaris S, Temarel P (2009) Hydroelasticity of ships: recent advances and future trends. Proc Inst Mech Eng Part M J Eng Marit Environ 223(3):305–330CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Hosokawa S, Moriyama S, Tomiyama A, Takada N (2003) PIV measurement of pressure distributions about single bubbles. J Nucl Sci Technol 40(10):754–762CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Iafrati A, Korobkin A (2008) Hydrodynamic loads during early stage of flat plate impact onto water surface. Phys Fluids 20(8):082104CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Jakobsen M, Dewhirst T, Greated C (1997) Particle image velocimetry for predictions of acceleration fields and force within fluid flows. Meas Sci Technol 8(12):1502–1516CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Jensen A, Sveen J, Grue J, Richon B, Gray C (2001) Accelerations in water waves by extended particle image velocimetry. Exp Fluids 30(5):500–510CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Kapsenberg G (2011) Slamming of ships: where are we now? Philos Trans R Soc A 369(1947):2892–919MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  27. Kat R, van Oudheusden B (2012) Instantaneous planar pressure determination from PIV in turbulent flow. Exp Fluids 52(5):1089–1106CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Keane R, Adrian R (1990) Optimization of particle image velocimeters. Part I: double pulsed systems. Meas Sci Technol 1(11):1202–1215Google Scholar
  29. Khabakhpasheva T, Korobkin A (2013) Elastic wedge impact onto a liquid surface: Wagner’s solution and approximate models. J Fluids Struct 36:32–49CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Korobkin A (2004) Analytical models of water impact. Eur J Appl Math 15(6):821–838MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  31. Korobkin A (2006) Second-order Wagner theory of wave impact. J Eng Math 58(1–4):121–139MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Korobkin A, Parau E, VandenBroeck J (2011) The mathematical challenges and modelling of hydroelasticity. Philos Trans R Soc A 369(1947):2803–2812MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  33. Lewis S, Hudson D, Turnock S, Taunton D (2010) Impact of a free-falling wedge with water: synchronized visualization, pressure and acceleration measurements. Fluid Dyn Res 42(3):035509CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Liu X, Katz J (2006) Instantaneous pressure and material acceleration measurements using a four-exposure PIV system. Exp Fluids 41(2):227–240CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Lu C, He Y, Wu G (2000) Coupled analysis of nonlinear interaction between fluid and structure during impact. J Fluids Struct 14:127–146CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Luo H, Wang H, Guedes Soares C (2012) Numerical and experimental study of hydrodynamic impact and elastic response of one free-drop wedge with stiffened panels. Ocean Eng 40(1):1–14CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Mei X, Liu Y, Yue D (1999) On the water impact of general two-dimensional sections. Appl Ocean Res 21(1):1–15CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Murai Y, Nakada T, Suzuki T, Yamamoto F (2007) Particle tracking velocimetry applied to estimate the pressure field around a Savonius turbine. Meas Sci Technol 18(8):2491–2503CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Nila A, Vanlanduit S, Vepa S, Van Paepegem W (2013) A PIV-based method for estimating slamming loads during water entry of rigid bodies. Meas Sci Technol 24(4):045303CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Panciroli R, Abrate S, Minak G, Zucchelli A (2012) Hydroelasticity in water-entry problems: comparison between experimental and SPH results. Compos Struct 94(2):532–539CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Panciroli R, Abrate S, Minak G (2013) Dynamic response of flexible wedges entering the water. Compos Struct 99(1):163–171CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Panciroli R (2013a) Hydroelastic impacts of deformable wedges. In: Solid mechanics and its applications, vol 192, pp 1–45. doi:  10.1007/978-94-007-5329-7_1. http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?eid=2-s2.0-84884845182&partnerID=40&md5=9d6bd9060991a46ee45d10ea8902bc65
  43. Panciroli R (2013b) Water entry of flexible wedges: some issues on the FSI phenomena. Appl Ocean Res 39(1):72–74CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Peseux B, Gornet L, Donguy B (2005) Hydrodynamic impact: numerical and experimental investigations. J Fluids Struct 21(3):277–303CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Qin Q, Wang T (2009) A theoretical analysis of the dynamic response of metallic sandwich beam under impulsive loading. Eur J Mech A Solids 28(5):1014–1025MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  46. Qin Z, Batra R (2009) Local slamming impact of sandwich composite hulls. Int J Solids Struct 46(10):2011–2035CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  47. Raffel M, Willert C, Wereley S and Kompenhans J (2007) Particle image velocimetry. Springer, BerlinGoogle Scholar
  48. Scarano F, Riethmuller M (1999) Iterative multigrid approach in PIV image processing with discrete window offset. Exp Fluids 26(6):513–523CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Scarano F, Riethmuller M (2000) Advances in iterative multigrid PIV image processing. Exp Fluids 29(7):S051–S060CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Seddon C, Moatamedi M (2006) Review of water entry with applications to aerospace structures. Int J Impact Eng 32(7):1045–1067CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Silva M, Ravichandran G (2011) Stress field evolution under mechanically simulated hull slamming conditions. Exp Mech 52(1):107–116CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Stenius I, Rosén A, Kuttenkeuler J (2011) Hydroelastic interaction in panel-water impacts of high-speed craft. Ocean Eng 38(2–3):371–381CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Suryadi A, Obi S (2011) The estimation of pressure on the surface of a flapping rigid plate by stereo PIV. Exp Fluids 51(5):1403–1416CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Tassin A, Jacques N, El Malki Alaoui A, Nême A, Leblé B (2010) Assessment and comparison of several analytical models of water impact. Int J Multiphys 4(2):125–140CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Thielicke W, Stamhuis EJ (2010) PIVlab – time-resolved digital particle image velocimetry tool for matlab. http://PIVlab.blogspot.com
  56. Tveitnes T, Fairlie-Clarke A, Varyani K (2008) An experimental investigation into the constant velocity water entry of wedge-shaped sections. Ocean Eng 35(14–15):1463–1478CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Van Oudheusden B (2013) PIV-based pressure measurement. Meas Sci Technol 24(3):032001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Von Karman T (1929) The impact on seaplane floats, during landing. NACA-TN-321Google Scholar
  59. Wagner H (1932) Uber stoss-und gleitvorgange an der oberflache von flussigkeiten. ZAMM Zeitschrift fur Angewandte Mathematik und Mechanik 12(4):193–215CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Zhao R, Faltinsen O (1993) Water entry of two-dimensional bodies. J Fluid Mech 246:593–612CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Mechanical and Aerospace EngineeringPolytechnic Institute of New York UniversityBrooklynUSA

Personalised recommendations