00 voturi pozitive00 voturi negative

12 vizualizări9 paginiCommercial CFD codes have become common tools for evaluating hydrodynamic performance of marine components such as propellers and appendages. The codes have traditionally been limited to submerged, single-phase flow and displacement vessels. New modeling capabilities within these codes have extended their potential application to free surface problems and cavitating or ventilated flows. Mercury Marine has been evaluating the use of these codes for analyzing planing boat performance with the inclusion of appendages, propellers, tabs/interceptors, and their interactions. Validation cases and results of this investigation will be presented with recommendations for the application of these codes.

Nov 02, 2016

© © All Rights Reserved

PDF, TXT sau citiți online pe Scribd

Commercial CFD codes have become common tools for evaluating hydrodynamic performance of marine components such as propellers and appendages. The codes have traditionally been limited to submerged, single-phase flow and displacement vessels. New modeling capabilities within these codes have extended their potential application to free surface problems and cavitating or ventilated flows. Mercury Marine has been evaluating the use of these codes for analyzing planing boat performance with the inclusion of appendages, propellers, tabs/interceptors, and their interactions. Validation cases and results of this investigation will be presented with recommendations for the application of these codes.

© All Rights Reserved

12 vizualizări

00 voturi pozitive00 voturi negative

Commercial CFD codes have become common tools for evaluating hydrodynamic performance of marine components such as propellers and appendages. The codes have traditionally been limited to submerged, single-phase flow and displacement vessels. New modeling capabilities within these codes have extended their potential application to free surface problems and cavitating or ventilated flows. Mercury Marine has been evaluating the use of these codes for analyzing planing boat performance with the inclusion of appendages, propellers, tabs/interceptors, and their interactions. Validation cases and results of this investigation will be presented with recommendations for the application of these codes.

© All Rights Reserved

Sunteți pe pagina 1din 9

SYMPOSIUM

ANNAPOLIS, MARYLAND, MARCH 2010

for Planing Boats

John Scherer, S.K.R. Patil, Scott Morton, Mercury Marine, Fond du Lac, WI

ABSTRACT

Commercial CFD codes have become common tools for

evaluating hydrodynamic performance of marine

components such as propellers and appendages. The codes

have traditionally been limited to submerged, single-phase

flow and displacement vessels. New modeling capabilities

within these codes have extended their potential

application to free surface problems and cavitating or

ventilated flows. Mercury Marine has been evaluating the

use of these codes for analyzing planing boat performance

with the inclusion of appendages, propellers,

tabs/interceptors, and their interactions. Validation cases

and results of this investigation will be presented with

recommendations for the application of these codes.

J V ND .................... Advance coefficient

K Q Q N 2 D 5 ......... Torque coefficient

KT T N 2 D 4 .......... Thrust coefficient

L........................................ Boat wetted length

N ....................................... Propeller speed (rev/sec)

Q ....................................... Propeller torque

R ....................................... Resistance

T ....................................... Propeller thrust

V ....................................... Boat speed

W ...................................... Boat weight

L b ....................... Wetted length ratio

........................................ Water density

.................................. Boat trim angle (deg)

NOTATION

b ........................................ Boat chine beam

D ....................................... Propeller diameter

Fd

in the upward direction

Scherer/Patil/Morton

INTRODUCTION

This paper presents recent work at Mercury Marine using

commercial CFD software to perform marine

hydrodynamics analysis. The goal is to find situations

where CFD is an efficient way to quantify performance,

compared to traditional model testing in towing tanks and

Page 1 of 9

running three such codes, ANSYS Fluent, ANSYS CFX,

and STAR CCM+ all of which are extremely versatile and

capable products.

Recently there have been modeling enhancements to these

codes which make them more suitable for boat

hydrodynamics.

This, along with the continuing

advancement in computational power mean many types of

more advanced simulations are now available to the

commercial user.

ISOLATED COMPONENTS

Single Open Water Propeller - P5168

To develop a propeller modeling methodology the Navy

propeller P5168 was selected due to availability of water

tunnel data reported by Chesnakas and Jessup 1. There are

also previously published CFD analysis of this propeller,

including Rhee and Joshi2 and Morgut and Nobile3.

A rendering of the propeller can be seen in Figure 1. The

model is five bladed, has a diameter of 403 mm and design

advance coefficient of 1.27.

Several meshes were run as part of a sensitivity study and

the mesh shown in Figure 2 was chosen as a good

compromise between calculation speed and solution

accuracy. The volume mesh has 0.5M polyhedral cells

with prism layers on the blade surfaces. Run time for one

operating point on a cluster of 4 processors is 40 minutes.

Rotational periodicity was not used in this analysis since

this approach will be carried into non-axisymmetric

simulations.

polyhedral cell mesh

3. Thrust and torque are nominally within 10% of test

except at the highest J value. Since normal operation will

be at J values near, or below, peak efficiency this is

acceptable to us. In general CFD seems to over-predict

propeller thrust and torque. Results within 5% are

achievable using periodicity (only meshing one blade) and

using something like 2M cells.

1.0

KT- Test

0.9

KT-CFD

10KQ-Test

0.8

10KQ-CFD

Efficiency-Test

0.7

In particular, the ability to model the free surface (airwater interface), cavitation, and motion provide new

opportunities for vessel simulation. This paper presents an

array of analyses progressing from individual component

to multi-component models with a large degree of

interaction.

Wherever possible, validation data is

provided. Some analysis are more exploratory in nature.

As much detail as possible is provided while being

considerate of the proprietary nature of some of the

designs.

Efficiency-CFD

0.6

0.5

0.4

0.3

0.2

0.1

0.0

0.9

1.0

1.1

1.2

1.3

1.4

1.5

1.6

Scherer/Patil/Morton

Gearcase

The use of CFD for fully wetted marine appendages is well

accepted. A more difficult situation exists when the

appendage pierces the water surface such as in an outboard

or sterndrive gearcase. In this situation the free surface

must be modeled to get realistic pressures on the external

surfaces, and hence hydrodynamic forces. The free

surface modeling capabilities of commercial CFD codes

has progressed to the point where they are now viable for

this task.

Page 2 of 9

gearcase are presented here. Full scale testing and CFD

both reveal a drag coefficient of about 0.040 based on side

projected area. Lift and side-force are obtained from the

CFD calculation as well.

Cavitation is predicted reasonably well.

Figure 4

compares the calculated and observed cavitation patterns

on an outboard gearcase at 70 mph. In the photo the

gearcase is running elevated so that the free surface is

down near the top of the torpedo whereas the CFD solution

has the gearcase fully submerged. There is, however,

cavitation visible on the shoulder of the torpedo in the

photo that matches up well with the calculations.

using both ANSYSs CFX package and STAR CCM+.

These codes implement an efficient rigid body motion

method where the hull is in a rotating cylinder that

provides pitch motion. As the solution progresses, the free

surface is shifted vertically relative to the mesh to control

heave and crosses transparently through the rotating

cylinder. The mesh regions and detail of the mesh near the

hull can be seen in Figure 6 and Figure 7.

Half-symmetry is taken advantage of with a typical mesh

for a well resolved free surface being 2M cells. Run time

is typically 10-20 hrs per operating point on 16 processors

so that a sweep over the speed range can be conducted in a

week. Coarser meshes of .25-.5M cells are useful for

studying component interactions or transient effects at

reduced accuracy.

underwater photo for an outboard gearcase at 70 mph

Planing Hull

Computational analysis of planing hulls requires modeling

the free surface and its interaction with the hull. This

capability is relatively recent in commercial CFD codes

and has become more user friendly in the latest

revisions. It is now possible to do free-running analysis

including rigid-body motion with multiple degrees of

freedom. Here we are primarily interested in solving for

resistance, pitch and heave for straight ahead running.

analysis with bare hull towing tank test data (test underway

in Figure 5). The hull chosen is a typical recreational

cruiser powered by pod drives.

Scherer/Patil/Morton

Page 3 of 9

7.0

6.0

(deg)

5.0

4.0

3.0

Tow Tank

CFD

2.0

free surface and interface between rotating and stationary

domains

Figure 8 through Figure 11. The agreement is generally

very good.

1.0

0.0

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

Fd

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.0

hull resistance is quite close to the test data with the largest

error at higher speeds. It is thought that spray drag, which

is not captured well with the CFD free surface models, is

the cause. Smaller meshes are less accurate but are useful

for reducing computation time for transient or complex

problems.

Trim angle is plotted in Figure 9. The agreement between

CFD and test values is quite good although trim is slightly

over-predicted by CFD at higher speeds.

A comparison underwater view of the wetted surfaces in

the test and CFD models can be seen in Figure 10. Wetted

keel length is predicted very well at all speeds, while

wetted chine length is slightly over-predicted as can be

seen in Figure 11.

These results, and the work of other researchers4, provide

confidence that planing hull performance can be accurately

predicted with CFD.

0.25

CFD at 40 mph full scale speed

0.20

3.5

R/W

0.15

3.0

0.10

Tow Tank

2.5

0.55M Cells, No Prisms

0.05

2.0

1.5

0.00

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

Fd

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.0

1.0

k, Test

k, CFD

0.5

c, Test

c, CFD

0.0

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

Fd

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.0

between test and CFD (1.9M Cells)

Scherer/Patil/Morton

Page 4 of 9

INTERACTION EXAMPLES

CR Open Water Propeller

Many current drive systems of interest involve the use of

counter-rotating (CR) propellers. These propellers can

have significant interactions between front and rear

propeller blades. An analysis was performed on the

propeller set seen in Figure 12 to develop a methodology

for CR propellers in general.

MRF (moving reference frame), and unsteady. The steady

MRF mode runs much faster since only a steady state

solution is found, but it relies on circumferential averaging

of fluid variables at the interface between the front and

rear propellers.

In unsteady mode, blade-to-blade

interactions are captured as the flow field from the forward

propeller is convected through the sliding interface

between propellers and the two propellers can interact with

each other. Run time to quasi-steady state is about 5 hours

on 8 processors per operating point.

A comparison of the propeller performance in steady MRF

and unsteady modes is shown in Figure 14. The unsteady

thrust and torque, averaged over one revolution, are higher

than the steady values, indicating there are significant

interaction effects between the propellers that must be

included if accurate results are desired. Based on the open

water single propeller validation case, these results are

expected to be accurate to within 10%.

Figure 12.

analysis

modeling. The cavitation models are relatively new to

CFD and we have not done a systematic validation of the

model, but the general cavity size and locations appear to

be as expected. With these models turned on, the vapor

fraction is tracked throughout the flow-field as it interacts

with the pressure field. The resulting characteristic curves,

including cavitation, for = 0.81, can be found compared

to the unsteady non-cavitating results, in Figure 15.

The cavitating thrust and torque are below the noncavitating values but drop off drastically below J = 1.1.

We know, from boat testing, that this is roughly correct.

2.0

KT-Transient

KT-Steady

KQ-Transient

KQ-Steady

Efficiency-Transient

Efficiency-Steady

1.8

1.6

1.4

1.2

1.0

0.8

0.6

0.4

0.2

0.0

0.7

0.8

0.9

1.0

1.1

1.2

1.3

1.4

1.5

1.6

characteristics

Rota

Mesh

As shown

individual

respective

embedded

sliding mesh zones which rotate at their

speeds and directions.

These zones are

in a larger flow domain. The mesh has 1M

Scherer/Patil/Morton

Page 5 of 9

2.0

1.4

1.6

1.15

KT

KT-Cavitating

KQ

KQ-Cavitating

Efficiency

Efficiency-Cavitating

1.8

1.2

1.0

0.8

0.6

0.4

0.2

Rear - Thrust

Front - Thrust

Front - Torque

Rear - Torque

1.10

1.05

1.00

0.95

0.90

0.85

0.0

0.7

0.8

0.9

1.0

1.1

1.2

1.3

1.4

1.5

1.6

30

60

90

and on the individual blades. Figure 16 shows the net lift

and side-force components on the combined propeller

system (front and rear propellers together) as a fraction of

total thrust. These forces are about 5% of mean thrust

with seven interactions per revolution. It is important to

note that over one rotation, both propellers rotate so that

the blade interactions happen twice as fast as if only one

propeller was moving.

Thrust and torque variation over one revolution are shown

in Figure 17. The variation is quite small being roughly

2% of the mean. When individual blades on the front and

rear propellers are considered, the variation is much larger

as shown in Figure 18. These forces are 10% of their

individual average values.

1.15

1.10

1.05

1.00

0.95

0.90

0.85

0

30

60

90

Rear Blade - Thrust

Rear Blade - Torque

rear propellers

0.15

Net Lift

Net Sideforce

0.10

(Value)/(Average Thrust)

= 1.2

(Value)/(Average Value)

analysis. For cavitating flow, = 0.81

Angular Position (deg)

Propeller/Pod/Hull Interaction

One of the most exciting prospects for CFD is to use it to

understand complex interactions between components.

One such system is a pod propulsion system installed in a

tunnel on a planing boat. An attempt has been made here

to analyze this system using CFD with some

simplifications. For this analysis, boat speed is set at 35

mph and the trim angle is fixed at 4.5 degrees.

0.05

0.00

-0.05

-0.10

-0.15

30

60

90

Angular Position (deg)

Figure 16. Net lift and side-force on propeller set over one

rotation as a fraction of average thrust.

Scherer/Patil/Morton

fix the hull at an estimated pitch and heave position with a

solid slip wall at the undisturbed free surface location. The

underwater geometry for this model is shown in Figure 19.

In order to provide room for the propeller slip stream to

develop, the computational domain is extended aft, behind

the transom, as shown in Figure 20. The static pressure at

the domain outlet is set to zero. This means there will be

some error in the pressure distribution on the planing

surface caused by improper boundary conditions near the

perimeter.

However, this simplification significantly

reduces the run time for the solutions and allows many

Page 6 of 9

evaluating the relative influence of features like tunnel

angle and propeller loading, this is deemed a reasonable

compromise.

can be mined for results of interest. Some of these are

reported here.

Figure 19.

propellers

shown in Figure 22. For comparison, the open water data

is provided. In general, the thrust, torque, and efficiency

are higher than in the open water case. This makes sense

considering the advance coefficients are based on boat

speed for all cases and that the local speed at the propeller

is somewhat reduced by the influence of the hull and pod.

polyhedral cells. A cut through the mesh near the pod

system is shown in Figure 21. This mesh size was chosen

to provide mesh density near the propeller, similar to the

open-water analysis with 0.5M cells. This is a fully

unsteady solution with results captured at 3 deg increments

of propeller rotation. Solution time per operating point is

about 6 hours on 8 processors which includes several

revolutions to establish the flow field, followed by another

revolution to capture data.

Scherer/Patil/Morton

1.0

0.20

0.9

0.18

0.8

0.16

0.7

0.14

0.6

0.12

0.5

0.10

0.4

0.08

0.3

0.06

0.2

0.04

0.1

0.02

0.0

KQ, KFz

KT, Efficiency

dimensional flow field, there are significant forces

generated other than thrust and torque. One such force is

the normal propeller force, Fz, plotted in Figure 22, which

will influence the running trim angle of the boat. Because

it is normal to the propeller shaft, this force does not

include the vertical component of thrust, which also

produces trimming moments on the boat. From Figure 22

it can be seen that for the relatively mild shaft angles used

here, the normal force components ranges from 5-10% of

the thrust. These values are consistent with the theory for

propellers on inclined shafts.

0.00

0.7

0.8

KT: 0 Deg

Eff. 0 Deg

KQ: 0 Deg

KFz: 0 Deg

0.9

1.0

KT: 3 Deg

Eff. 3 Deg

KQ: 3 Deg

KFz: 3 Deg

1.1

J

1.2

KT: 6 Deg

Eff. 6 Deg

KQ: 6 Deg

KFz: 6 Deg

1.3

1.4

1.5

Eff. Open Water

KQ: Open Water

tunnel/shaft angles (averaged over one rotation)

Page 7 of 9

65% around the mean, and torque varying 50%. This

is an important finding for blade structural design.

1.4

Force/(Avg Thrust), Moment/(Avg Torque)

examined versus blade rotation angle. In Figure 23

individual blade thrust and torque are plotted versus

angular position. The variation is much greater than in the

open water case since now there is a strut wake and

inclined flow involved.

1.8

0.6

Thrust

Lift

60

90

Sideforce

Torque

Pitching Moment

Yaw Moment

0.4

0.2

0.0

-0.2

-0.4

30

1.4

running on the pod/hull system.

Propeller centered

coordinate system

Front blade behind strut

1.0

0.8

0.4

0.2

0

30

60

Relative Angular Position (deg)

vs. angular position when running on the pod/hull system.

Note the angular position when each blade is oriented

vertically behind the gearcase strut.

of interest. Some understanding of this effect can be

gained by comparing hull lift with the tunnel at 3 and 6

degrees with the hull lift with the tunnel at 0 degrees.

Using data shown in Figure 26 (green curves with circle

symbols) and subtracting the lift contributions from the

propellers and pods, the hull lift is obtained.

For this particular tunnel geometry, the effect of tunnel

angle on the hull can be characterized by a lift coefficient

based on propeller disc area of 0.18/deg applied 1.4

propeller diameters ahead of the transom.

L/W, Rnet/W

since the out-of-phase contributions from individual blades

are combined. Figure 24 shows all six forces and moments

for the front propeller and Figure 25 shows these for the

rear propeller.

1.4

1.2

1.0

1.5

1.50

1.0

1.25

0.5

1.00

0.0

0.75

L/W: 0 Deg

L/W: 3 Deg

L/W: 6 Deg

Rnet/W: 0 Deg

Rnet/W: 3 Deg

Rnet/W: 6 Deg

M/(Wb): 0 Deg

M/(Wb): 3 Deg

M/(Wb): 6 Deg

0.8

Thrust

0.6

Lift

Sideforce

Torque

Pitching Moment

Yaw Moment

-0.5

0.4

0.50

-1.0

0.2

0.25

0.7

0.0

M/(W*b)

1.2

0.8

0.6

1.0

-0.6

Rear Prop, Blade 1 -Thrust

Front Prop, Blade 1 - Torque

Rear Prop, Blade 1 - Torque

1.6

1.2

0.8

0.9

1.0

1.1

1.2

1.3

1.4

1.5

1.6

vs. propeller advance coefficient. Normalized by weight.

When resistance = 0, the boat is at steady state

-0.2

-0.4

-0.6

0

30

60

90

120

150

180 210

240

270

300 330

360

running on the pod/hull system.

Propeller centered

coordinate system.

Scherer/Patil/Morton

Page 8 of 9

1.4

1.2

1.0

L/W

0.8

Hull: 0 Deg

Hull: 3 Deg

Hull: 6 Deg

Gearcase: 0 Deg

Gearcase: 3 Deg

Gearcase: 6 Deg

Prop: 0 Deg

Prop: 3 Deg

Prop: 6 Deg

0.6

0.4

0.2

0.0

0.7

0.8

0.9

1.0

1.1

1.2

1.3

1.4

1.5

1.6

versus advance coefficient. Normalized by boat weight.

CONCLUSIONS

Many capabilities exist within current commercially

available CFD codes that are useful for analyzing

powerboat performance. Robust free surface (multiphase)

and cavitation models are particularly helpful recent

additions. Fairly modest computer clusters can now

provide results for complex geometries, component

interactions, and unsteady behavior.

REFERENCES

1

Characterization of Propeller Tip Flow, Proc. 22nd

Symposium on Naval Hydrodynamics, Washington, D.C.,

1998.

2

Rhee, S. H. and Joshi, S., CFD Validation for a Marine

Propeller Using an Unstructured Mesh Based RANS

Method, Fluent, Inc. Technical Note TN213, September

2003.

3

Morgut, M. and Nobile, E., Comparison of HexaStructured and Hybrid-Unstructured Meshing Approaches

for Numerical Prediction of the Flow Around Marine

Propellers, First International Symposium on Marine

Propulsors, Trondheim, Norway, June 2009.

4

and Mega Yacht Design, Design, Construction and

Operation of Super and Mega Yachts Conference, April

2009, Genova, Italy.

Scherer/Patil/Morton

Page 9 of 9

## Mult mai mult decât documente.

Descoperiți tot ce are Scribd de oferit, inclusiv cărți și cărți audio de la editori majori.

Anulați oricând.