Evaluation of Local Flow Predictions

Chapter

Abstract

In this Chapter, the computations performed by all the contributors are analyzed from the point of view of the local flow analysis in order to assess the level of agreement between computations and local flow measurements and identify the sources of errors. Pure resistance with or without free-surface, hull/propeller coupling, wave diffraction or roll decay configurations are reviewed in detail. One observes a general improvement of the agreement between simulations and measurements and a strong consistency of the simulations, compared to the previous editions of this workshop. When a reasonably fine grid is employed, similar turbulence models provide similar results, independently of the code used, which illustrates the state of maturity of modern CFD methodologies. For resistance and hull/propeller coupling configurations, a detailed comparison of the best statistical turbulence models and LES or hybrid LES turbulence closures, introduced for the first time in this workshop, is conducted to identify their respective impact on local flow simulations.

Keywords

Turbulence Model Large Eddy Simulation Reynolds Stress Longitudinal Vortex Turbulence Anisotropy 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Notes

Acknowledgements

The author would like to thank Professor Lars Larsson, Professor Fred Stern and his team from the University of Iowa for their advices concerning this Chapter. Professor Shanti Bhushan (presently at Mississipi State University) should also be thanked for his personal contribution to the analysis of the test cases 3.5 and 3.6.

References

  1. Bhushan S, Michael T, Yang J, Carrica P, Stern F (2010) Fixed sinkage and trim bare hull 5415 using CFDSHIP-IOWA. In: Gothenburg 2010: a workshop on CFD in ship hydrodynamics, Gothenburg, SwedenGoogle Scholar
  2. Bingjie G, Steen S (2010) Added resistance of A VLCC in short waves. Proceedings of the 29th international conference on ocean, offshore and Arctic engineering, OMAE 2010Google Scholar
  3. Deng G, Queutey P, Visonneau M (2005) Three-dimensional flow computation with Reynolds stress and algebraic stress models. In W Rodi, M Mulas (eds) Engineering turbulence modeling and experiments Vol 6, pp 389–398CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Eça L, Vaz G, Hoekstra M (2010) Code verification, solution verification and validation in RANS solvers. Proceedings of ASME 29th international conference OMAE2010, Shanghai, ChinaGoogle Scholar
  5. Hino T (ed) (2005) Proceedings of CFD workshop Tokyo 2005. NMRI report 2005Google Scholar
  6. Irvine M, Longo J, Stern F (2004) Towing tank tests for surface combatant for free roll decay and coupled pitch and heave motions. Proceedings 25th ONR symposium on naval hydrodynamics, St Johns, CanadaGoogle Scholar
  7. Kim WJ, Van DH, Kim DH (2001) Measurement of flows around modern commercial ship models. Exp Fluids 31:567–578CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Lee S-J, Kim H-R, Kim W-J, Van S-H (2003) Wind tunnel tests on flow characteristics of the KRISO 3,600 TEU containership and 300 K VLCC double-deck ship models. J Ship Res 47(1):24–38Google Scholar
  9. Longo J, Shao J, Irvine M, Stern F (2007) Phase-averaged PIV for the nominal wake of a surface ship in regular head waves. ASME J Fluids Eng 129:524–540CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Olivieri A, Pistani F, Avanaini A, Stern F, Penna R (2001) Towing tank experiments of resistance, sinkage and trim, boundary layer, wake, and free surface flow around a naval combatant INSEAN 2340 model. Iowa Institute of Hydraulic Research, The University of Iowa, IIHR Report No. 421Google Scholar
  11. Simonsen C, Otzen J, Stern F (2008) EFD and CFD for KCS heaving and pitching in regular head waves. Proceedings 27th Symposium Naval Hydrodynamics, Seoul, KoreaGoogle Scholar
  12. Van SH, Kim WJ, Yim DH, Kim GT, Lee CJ, Eom JY (1998a) Flow measurement around a 300 K VLCC model. Proceedings of the annual spring meeting, SNAK, Ulsan, pp 185–188Google Scholar
  13. Van SH, Kim WJ, Yim GT, Kim DH, Lee CJ (1998b) Experimental investigation of the flow characteristics around practical hull forms. Proceedings 3rd Osaka colloquium on advanced CFD applications to ship flow and hull form design, Osaka, JapanGoogle Scholar
  14. Xing T, Carrica P, Stern F (2010) Large-scale RANS and DDES computations of KVLCC2 at drift angle 0 degree. In: Gothenburg 2010: a workshop on CFD in ship hydrodynamics, Gothenburg, SwedenGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.CNRS/Centrale NantesNantesFrance

Personalised recommendations