Monolithic coupling of the pressure and rigid body motion equations in computational marine hydrodynamics
- 80 Downloads
In Fluid Structure Interaction (FSI) problems encountered in marine hydrodynamics, the pressure field and the velocity of the rigid body are tightly coupled. This coupling is traditionally resolved in a partitioned manner by solving the rigid body motion equations once per nonlinear correction loop, updating the position of the body and solving the fluid flow equations in the new configuration. The partitioned approach requires a large number of nonlinear iteration loops per time–step. In order to enhance the coupling, a monolithic approach is proposed in Finite Volume (FV) framework, where the pressure equation and the rigid body motion equations are solved in a single linear system. The coupling is resolved by solving the rigid body motion equations once per linear solver iteration of the pressure equation, where updated pressure field is used to calculate new forces acting on the body, and by introducing the updated rigid body boundary velocity in to the pressure equation. In this paper the monolithic coupling is validated on a simple 2D heave decay case. Additionally, the method is compared to the traditional partitioned approach (i.e. “strongly coupled” approach) in terms of computational efficiency and accuracy. The comparison is performed on a seakeeping case in regular head waves, and it shows that the monolithic approach achieves similar accuracy with fewer nonlinear correctors per time–step. Hence, significant savings in computational time can be achieved while retaining the same level of accuracy.
Keywordsmonolithic coupling pressure equation rigid body motion computational fluid dynamics marine hydrodynamics seakeeping
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
This research was sponsored by Bureau Veritas under the administration of Dr. Šime Malenica.
- Bna S, Manservisi S, Aulisa E, 2013. A multilevel domain decomposition solver for monolithic fluid-structure interaction problems. 11th International Conference of Numerical Analysis and Applied Mathematics 2013, Pts 1 and 2, Vol. 1558. Rhodes, 871–874. DOI: 10.1063/1.4825635Google Scholar
- Jasak H, 1996. Error analysis and estimation for the finite volume method with applications to fluid flows. PhD thesis, Imperial College of Science, Technology & Medicine, London.Google Scholar
- Larsson L, Stern F, Visonneau M, Hirata N, Hino T, Kim J, 2015. Tokyo 2015: A Workshop on CFD in Ship Hydrodynamics. Vol. 3, NMRI (National Maritime Research Institute), Tokyo, Japan.Google Scholar
- Vukčević V, 2016. Numerical modelling of coupled potential and viscous flow for marine applications. PhD thesis, Faculty of Mechanical Engineering and Naval Architecture, University of Zagreb.Google Scholar
- Vukčević V, Jasak H, 2015a. Seakeeping validation and verification using decomposition model based on embedded free surface method. Tokyo 2015: A Workshop on CFD in Ship Hydrodynamics.Google Scholar
- Vukčević V, Jasak H, 2015b. Validation and verification of decomposition model based on embedded free surface method for oblique wave seakeeping simulations. Tokyo 2015: A Workshop on CFD in Ship Hydrodynamics.Google Scholar
- Vukčević V, Jasak H, Gatin I, Malenica S, 2016. Seakeeping sensitivity studies using the decomposition CFD model based on the ghost fluid method. Proceedings of the 31st Symposium on Naval Hydrodynamics, Monterey.Google Scholar