Advertisement

Parametric analysis on hydroelastic behaviors of hydrofoils and propellers using a strongly coupled finite element/panel method

  • Jiasheng LiEmail author
  • Yegao QuEmail author
  • Zhenguo Zhang
  • Hongxing HuaEmail author
Original article
  • 15 Downloads

Abstract

This paper analyzed the hydroelastic behaviors of hydrofoils and marine propellers immersed in incompressible, inviscid and irrotational fluids. Strongly coupled fluid–structure interaction analyses were performed using a three-dimensional (3-D) potential-based panel method in conjunction with a 3-D finite element method. The present method is developed for hydroelastic analyses of geometrically complex-shaped propeller blades, and the application of the method to the hydroelastic problems of hydrofoils is straightforward. The parameters dominating the added-mass and -damping matrices of the hydrofoils and propellers are examined. The effects of the translational motion of the hydrofoil and the rotational motion of the propeller on the added-mass and -damping matrices are compared based on different non-penetration boundary conditions and distributions of the inflow velocity. It is found that for hydroelastic analyses of propellers, the reduced frequency, i.e., the ratio of excitation frequency to rotational frequency, is a key parameter for determining the added-mass and -damping matrices of the propellers. The effect of the advance ratio on the added-mass and -damping matrices of the propeller blade depends upon the ratio of excitation frequency to rotational frequency. For hydrofoils, the added-damping matrix is significantly affected by the ratio of the excitation frequency multiplied by chord length and divided by axial inflow velocity.

Keywords

Fluid–structure interaction Hydroelastic responses Propeller Hydrofoil Added mass/damping 

Notes

Acknowledgements

This work was supported by National Natural Science Foundation of China (Grant Nos. 51839005, 11602138, 51579109 and 51479079).

References

  1. 1.
    Seeley CE, Coutu A, Monette C, Nennemann B, Marmont H (2013) Determination of hydrofoil damping due to fluid structure interaction using MFC actuators. In: 54th AIAA/ASME/ASCE/AHS/ASC Struct Struct Dyn Mater Conf, Boston, Massachusetts, pp 1–12.  https://doi.org/10.2514/6.2013-1910
  2. 2.
    Monette C, Nennemann B, Seeley C, Coutu A, Marmont H (2014) Hydro-dynamic damping theory in flowing water. In: 27th IAHR Symp Hydraul Mach Syst Montréal, QC, Canada.  https://doi.org/10.1088/1755-1315/22/3/032044
  3. 3.
    La Torre OD, Escaler X, Egusquiza E, Farhat M (2013) Experimental investigation of added mass effects on a hydrofoil under cavitation conditions. J Fluids Struct 39:173–187.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jfluidstructs.2013.01.008 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Chae EJ, Akcabay DT, Lelong A, Astolfi JA, Young YL (2016) Numerical and experimental investigation of natural flow-induced vibrations of flexible hydrofoils. Phys Fluids 28:104–108.  https://doi.org/10.1063/1.4954785 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Lelong A, Guiffant P, Andr J (2016) An experimental analysis of the structural response of flexible lightweight hydrofoils in various flow conditions. In: Int Symp Transp Phenom Dyn Rotating Mach., Hawaii, Honolulu, pp 1–9Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Liu X, Zhou L, Escaler X, Wang Z, Luo Y, La Torre OD (2017) Numerical simulation of added mass effects on a hydrofoil in cavitating flow using acoustic fluid–structure interaction. J Fluids Eng 139:1–8.  https://doi.org/10.1115/1.4035113 Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Cao W, Xu H, Ren H, Wang C (2015) Numerical study on characteristics of 3D cavitating hydrofoil. In: Int. Conf. Energy Mater Manuf Eng, pp 4–10Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Astolfi JA, Lelong A, Bot P, Marchand JB (2015) Experimental analysis of hydroelastic response of flexible hydrofoils. In: 5th High Perform. Yacht Des. Conf., Auckland, pp 10–12Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Martio J, Sánchez-Caja A, Siikonen T (2015) Evaluation of propeller virtual mass and damping coefficients by URANS-method. In: Int Symp Mar PropulsorsGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Hutchison S, Steen S, Sanghani A (2013) Numerical investigation of ducted propeller added mass. In: Third Int. Symp. Mar. Propulsors, Launceston, Tasmania, Australia, pp 69–77Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Gaschler M, Abdel-Maksoud M (2014) Computation of hydrodynamic mass and damping coefficients for a cavitating marine propeller flow using a panel method. J Fluids Struct 49:574–593.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jfluidstructs.2014.06.001 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Mao Y, Young YL (2016) Influence of skew on the added mass and damping characteristics of marine propellers. Ocean Eng 121:437–452.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.oceaneng.2016.05.046 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    MacPherson DM, Puleo VR, Packard MB (2007) Estimation of entrained water added mass properties for vibration analysis. Soc Nav Archit Mar Eng. pp 1–11Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Martio J, Sánchez-Caja A, Siikonen T (2017) Open and ducted propeller virtual mass and damping coefficients by URANS-method in straight and oblique flow. Ocean Eng 130:92–102.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.oceaneng.2016.11.068 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Van Esch BPM, Van Hooijdonk JJA, Bulten NWH (2013) Quantification of hydrodynamic forces due to torsional and axial vibrations in ship propellers. In: Proc ASME 2013 Fluids Eng Div Summer Meet, Incline Village, Nevada, USAGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Yari E, Ghassemi H (2016) Boundary element method applied to added mass coefficient calculation of the skewed marine propellers. Polish Marit Res 23:25–31.  https://doi.org/10.1515/pomr-2016-0017 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Young YL (2007) Time-dependent hydroelastic analysis of cavitating propulsors. J Fluids Struct 23:269–295.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jfluidstructs.2006.09.003 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Young YL (2008) Fluid–structure interaction analysis of flexible composite marine propellers. J Fluids Struct 24:799–818.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jfluidstructs.2007.12.010 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Kuo J, Vorus W (1985) Propeller blade dynamic stress. In: Tenth Sh. Technol Res Symp, Norfolk, pp 39–69Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Tsushima H, Sevik M (1973) Dynamic response of marine propellers to nonuniform flowfields. J Hydronaut 7:71–77CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Lee H, Song M, Suh J, Chang B (2014) Hydro-elastic analysis of marine propellers based on a BEM-FEM coupled FSI algorithm. Int J Nav Archit Ocean Eng 6:562–577.  https://doi.org/10.2478/IJNAOE-2013-0198 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Maljaars PJ, Kaminski ML (2015) Hydro-elastic analysis of flexible propellers: an overview. In: Fourth Int. Symp. Mar. Propulsors, Austin, Texas, USAGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Neugebauer J, Abdel-Maksoud M, Braun M (2008) Fluid–structure interaction of propellers. IUTAM Symp Fluid Struct Interact Ocean Eng 8:191–204CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Lin HJ, Tsai JF (2008) Analysis of underwater free vibrations of a composite propeller blade. J Reinf Plast Compos 27:447–458.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0731684407082539 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    He XD, Hong Y, Wang RG (2012) Hydroelastic optimisation of a composite marine propeller in a non-uniform wake. Ocean Eng 39:14–23.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.oceaneng.2011.10.007 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Suo Z, Guo R (1996) Hydroelasticity of rotating bodies—theory and application. Mar Struct 9:631–646.  https://doi.org/10.1016/0951-8339(95)00010-0 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Li J, Qu Y, Hua H (2017) Hydroelastic analysis of underwater rotating elastic marine propellers by using a coupled BEM-FEM algorithm. Ocean Eng 146:178–191.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.oceaneng.2017.09.028 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Li J, Rao Z, Su J, Qu Y, Hua H (2018) A numerical method for predicting the hydroelastic response of marine propellers. Appl Ocean Res 74:188–204.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apor.2018.02.012 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Qu F, Chen J, Sun D, Bai J, Yan C (2019) A new all-speed flux scheme for the Euler equations. Comput Math Appl 77(4):1216–1231.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.camwa.2018.11.004 MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Morino L, Kuo C-C (1974) Subsonic potential aerodynamic for complex configurations: a general theory. AIAA J 12:191–197CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Theodorsen T (1935) General theory of aerodynamic instability and the mechanism of flutter. NACA Tech Rep 496Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Kerwin JE, Lee C-S (1978) Prediction of steady and unsteady marine propeller performance by numerical lifting-surface theory. SNAME Trans 86:218–253Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Greeley DS, Kerwin JE (1982) Numerical methods for propeller design and analysis in steady flow. SNAME Trans 90:415–453Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Liefvendahl M, Troëng C (2011) Computation of cycle-to-cycle variation in blade load for a submarine propeller, using LES. In: Second Int Symp Mar Propulsors, Hamburg, GermanyGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Japan Society of Naval Architects and Ocean Engineers (JASNAOE) 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of Naval Architecture and Ocean EngineeringHuazhong University of Science and TechnologyWuhanPeople’s Republic of China
  2. 2.State Key Laboratory of Mechanical System and Vibration, School of Mechanical EngineeringShanghai Jiao Tong UniversityShanghaiPeople’s Republic of China
  3. 3.Collaborative Innovation Center for Advanced Ship and Deep-Sea Exploration (CISSE)Shanghai Jiao Tong UniversityShanghaiPeople’s Republic of China

Personalised recommendations