Airwake Characteristics of NATO-Generic Destroyer: A Numerical Study

Document Type : Regular Article

Authors

1 Yildiz Technical University, Department of Naval Architecture and Marine Engineering, 34349 Istanbul, Turkiye

2 National Defense University, Turkish Naval Academy, Department of Naval Architecture and Marine Engineering, 34942 Istanbul, Turkiye

3 Yildiz Technical University, Department of Marine Engineering, 34349 Istanbul, Turkiye

10.47176/jafm.18.1.2886

Abstract

This paper presents a numerical investigation of the air wake around a generic surface combatant ship called NATO-Generic Destroyer (NATO-GD). Naval surface combatants with flight decks must be designed taking aerodynamic concerns into account. Most of the previous studies have employed the Simple Frigate Shape (SFS) and its modified version (SFS2) to investigate the airwake. However, these generic geometries do not accurately represent modern warship designs. To address this, a modern geometry called NATO-GD proposed by the NATO Research Task Group, which represents the features of a modern destroyer, was utilized in the present work. The objective is to examine the air wake on the helicopter deck to ensure the safe operation of air vehicles such as helicopters and drones. The three-dimensional, transient airflow around the ship was solved using the unsteady Reynolds-Averaged Navier-Stokes (URANS) and Detached Eddy Simulation (DES) turbulence models. Besides, the effect of inflow was investigated by comparing uniform velocity inlet and atmospheric boundary layer (ABL) for various wind-over-deck (WOD) angles. The numerical approach was verified for the URANS turbulence model using the Grid Convergence Index (GCI) method. The numerical uncertainty was calculated with four different methods and the uncertainty was found between 1.6% and 2.1%. A detailed discussion of the flow field above the flight deck was conducted to compare the URANS and DES models fairly. It was concluded that employing the ABL profile as a boundary condition is more suitable for achieving accurate ship aerodynamics calculations. The ABL velocity profile makes a significant difference in the velocity components. According to the URANS results, these deviations are found as 8.23% in the x-component, 1.25% in the y-component and 4.89% in the z-component. The deviations were calculated using the root mean square error (RMSE) method. Furthermore, although the numerical results of the URANS and DES models were similar at some points, detailed flow field analysis is only possible with the DES results to determine safe approach patterns for air vehicles. Various wind speeds, directions, and the resulting wake structures were tested to analyze the wake behavior over the helicopter deck under different air conditions. When the wind comes from the port side with 15 degrees (R15) it wind changes the intense turbulence region and creates a low turbulence area on the starboard side while R30 wind causes small scale vortices breaking this region.

Keywords

Main Subjects

References

Abu-Zidan, Y., Mendis, P., & Gunawardena, T. (2020). Impact of atmospheric boundary layer inhomogeneity in CFD simulations of tall buildings. Heliyon, 6(7), e04274. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2020.e04274
Cindori, M., Čajić, P., Džijan, I., Juretić, F., & Kozmar, H. (2022). A comparison of major steady RANS approaches to engineering ABL simulations. Journal of Wind Engineering and Industrial Aerodynamics, 221, 104867. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jweia.2021.104867
Bardera, R.; Matias, J. C.; García-Magariño, A. Experimental validation of aerodynamic computational results in the aft-deck of a simplified frigate shape (SFS2). A: MARINE VIII. MARINE VIII: proceedings of the VIII International Conference on Computational Methods in Marine Engineering. CIMNE, 2019, p. 405-416. ISBN 978-84-949194-3-5
Blocken, B., Stathopoulos, T., & Carmeliet, J. (2007). CFD simulation of the atmospheric boundary layer: Wall function problems. Atmospheric Environment, 41(2), 238–252. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.atmosenv.2006.08.019
Bogstad, M. C., Habashi, W. G., Akel, I., Ait-Ali-Yahia, D., Giannias, N., & Longo, V. (2002). Computational-fluid-dynamics based advanced ship-airwake database for helicopter flight simulators. Journal of Aircraft, 39(5), 830–838. https://doi.org/10.2514/2.3003
Celik, I. B., Ghia, U., Roache, P. J., Freitas, C. J., & Raad, P. E. (2008). Procedure for estimation and reporting of uncertainty due to discretization in CFD applications. Journal of Fluids Engineering, 130(7). https://doi.org/10.1115/1.2960953
Cook, N. J. (1997). The Deaves and Harris ABL model applied to heterogeneous terrain. Journal of Wind Engineering and Industrial Aerodynamics, 66(3), 197–214. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0167-6105(97)00034-2
Cosner, R., Oberkampf, B., Rumsey, C., Rahaim, C., & Shih, T. (2006). AIAA committee on standards for computational fluid dynamics: status and plans. 44th AIAA Aerospace Sciences Meeting and Exhibit. American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics. https://doi.org/10.2514/6.2006-889
Dogrul, A. (2022). Numerical prediction of scale effects on the propulsion performance of JOUBERT BB2 submarine. Brodogradnja : Teorija i Praksa Brodogradnje i Pomorske Tehnike, 73(2), 17–42. https://doi.org/10.21278/brod73202
Dooley, G. M., Krebill, A. F., Martin, J. E., Buchholz, J. H. J., & Carrica, P. M. (2020a). Structure of a Ship Airwake at Multiple Scales. AIAA Journal, 58(5), 2005–2013. https://doi.org/10.2514/1.J058994
Dooley, G., Ezequiel Martin, J., Buchholz, J. H. J., & Carrica, P. M. (2020b). Ship airwakes in waves and motions and effects on helicopter operation. Computers & Fluids, 208, 104627. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compfluid.2020.104627
Epps, B. (2017, January 9). Review of vortex identification methods. 55th AIAA Aerospace Sciences Meeting. https://doi.org/10.2514/6.2017-0989
Forrest, J. S., & Owen, I. (2010). An investigation of ship airwakes using detached-eddy simulation. Computers & Fluids, 39(4), 656–673. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compfluid.2009.11.002
Gnanamanickam, E. P., Zhang, Z., Seth, D., & Leishman, J. G. (2020, June 15). Structure of the ship airwake in a simulated atmospheric boundary layer. AIAA Aviation 2020 Forum. Aiaa Aviation 2020 Forum, Virtual Event. https://doi.org/10.2514/6.2020-2702
Gritskevich, M. S., Garbaruk, A. V., Schütze, J., & Menter, F. R. (2012). Development of DDES and IDDES formulations for the k-ω shear stress transport model. Flow, Turbulence and Combustion, 88(3), 431–449. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10494-011-9378-4
ITTC. (2014). 7.5-03-01-01 uncertainty analysis in CFD, verification and validation methodology and procedures. ITTC - Recommended Procedures and Guidelines.
Jeong, J., & Hussain, F. (1995). On the identification of a vortex. Journal of Fluid Mechanics, 285, 69–94. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0022112095000462
Li, T., Wang, Y. B., Zhao, N., & Qin, N. (2020). An investigation of ship airwake over the frigate afterbody. International Journal of Modern Physics B, 34(14n16), 2040069. https://doi.org/10.1142/S021797922040069X
Major, D., Schmitz, S., Shipman, J. D., Bin, J., & Polsky, S. (2023, June 12). Assessment of numerical methods for ship airwake simulations with unsteady atmospheric boundary-layer effects. AIAA AVIATION 2023 Forum. AIAA AVIATION 2023 Forum, San Diego, CA and Online. https://doi.org/10.2514/6.2023-3692
Menter, F. R. (1994). Two-equation eddy-viscosity turbulence models for engineering applications. AIAA Journal, 32(8), 1598–1605. https://doi.org/10.2514/3.12149
Menter, F. R. (2009). Review of the shear-stress transport turbulence model experience from an industrial perspective. International Journal of Computational Fluid Dynamics, 23(4), 305–316. https://doi.org/10.1080/10618560902773387
Nisham, A., Terziev, M., Tezdogan, T., Beard, T., & Incecik, A. (2021). Prediction of the aerodynamic behaviour of a full-scale naval ship in head waves using Detached Eddy Simulation. Ocean Engineering, 222, 108583. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.oceaneng.2021.108583
Owen, I., Lee, R., Wall, A., & Fernandez, N. (2021). The NATO generic destroyer – a shared geometry for collaborative research into modelling and simulation of shipboard helicopter launch and recovery. Ocean Engineering, 228, 108428. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.oceaneng.2020.108428
Owen, I., Scott, P., & White, M. (2014). The effect of ship size on the flying qualities of maritime helicopters. In the American Helicopter Society 70th Annual Forum, Montreal, Quebec, Canada.
Reddy, K. R., Toffoletto, R., & Jones, K. R. W. (2000). Numerical simulation of ship airwake. Computers & Fluids, 29(4), 451–465. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0045-7930(99)00033-X
Ren, X., Su, H., Yu, H. H., & Yan, Z. (2022). Wall-modeled large eddy simulation and detached eddy simulation of wall-mounted separated flow via OpenFOAM. Aerospace, 9(12), 12. https://doi.org/10.3390/aerospace9120759
Richards, P. J., & Hoxey, R. P. (1993). Appropriate boundary conditions for computational wind engineering models using the k-ϵ turbulence model. Journal of Wind Engineering and Industrial Aerodynamics, 46–47, 145–153. https://doi.org/10.1016/0167-6105(93)90124-7
Richardson, L. F. (1911). The approximate arithmetical solution by finite differences of physical problems involving differential equations, with an application to the stresses in a masonry dam. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series A, Containing Papers of a Mathematical or Physical Character, 210, 307–357.
Roache, P. J. (1998). Verification of codes and calculations. AIAA Journal, 36(5), 696–702. https://doi.org/10.2514/2.457
Rosenfeld, N., Kimmel, K., & Sydney, A. J. (2015, January 5). Investigation of ship topside modeling practices for wind tunnel experiments. 53rd AIAA Aerospace Sciences Meeting. 53rd AIAA Aerospace Sciences Meeting, Kissimmee, Florida. https://doi.org/10.2514/6.2015-0245
Sarı, S., Dogrul, A., & Bayraktar, S. (2022). The aerodynamic wind loads of a naval surface combatant in model scale. New Technologies, Development and Application V, Isak Karabegović, Ahmed Kovačević, Sadko Mandžuka, Editor, Springer Nature.
Seth, D., Zhang, Z., Gnanamanickam, E. P., & Leishman, J. G. (2020, June 15). Time-resolved PIV measurements of a ship airwake in a simulated atmospheric boundary layer. AIAA Aviation 2020 Forum. AIAA Aviation 2020 Forum, Virtual Event. https://doi.org/10.2514/6.2020-2701
Setiawan, H., Kevin, Philip, J., & Monty, J. P. (2022). Turbulence characteristics of the ship air-wake with two different topside arrangements and inflow conditions. Ocean Engineering, 260, 111931. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.oceaneng.2022.111931
Sezen, S., Delen, C., Dogrul, A., & Atlar, M. (2021). An investigation of scale effects on the self-propulsion characteristics of a submarine. Applied Ocean Research, 113, 102728. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apor.2021.102728
Sezen, S., Dogrul, A., Delen, C., & Bal, S. (2018). Investigation of self-propulsion of DARPA Suboff by RANS method. Ocean Engineering, 150, 258–271. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.oceaneng.2017.12.051
Shi, Y., Li, G., Su, D., & Xu, G. (2020). Numerical investigation on the ship/multi-helicopter dynamic interface. Aerospace Science and Technology, 106, 106175. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ast.2020.106175
Shipman, J. D., & Bin, J. (2021.). Atmospheric boundary layer turbulence simulation for ship airwake CFD applications. AIAA Aviation 2021 Forum. american institute of aeronautics and astronautics. https://doi.org/10.2514/6.2021-2481
Shukla, S., Singh, S. N., Sinha, S. S., & Vijayakumar, R. (2021). Comparative assessment of URANS, SAS and DES turbulence modeling in the predictions of massively separated ship airwake characteristics. Ocean Engineering, 229, 108954. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.oceaneng.2021.108954
Spalart, P. R. (2001). Young-person’s guide to detached-eddy simulation grids (NASA/CR-2001-211032).
Su, D., Xu, G., Huang, S., & Shi, Y. (2019). Numerical investigation of rotor loads of a shipborne coaxial-rotor helicopter during a vertical landing based on moving overset mesh method. Engineering Applications of Computational Fluid Mechanics, 13(1), 309–326. https://doi.org/10.1080/19942060.2019.1585390
Taymourtash, N., Zanotti, A., Gibertini, G., & Quaranta, G. (2022). Unsteady load assessment of a scaled-helicopter model in a ship airwake. Aerospace Science and Technology, 107583. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ast.2022.107583
Thornhill, E., Wall, A., McTavish, S., & Lee, R. (2020). Ship anemometer bias management. Ocean Engineering, 216, 107843. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.oceaneng.2020.107843
Travin, A., Shur, M., Strelets, M., & Spalart, P. (2000). Detached-eddy simulations past a circular cylinder. Flow, Turbulence and Combustion, 63(1), 293–313. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1009901401183
Wall, A., Thornhill, E., Barber, H., McTavish, S., & Lee, R. (2022). Experimental investigations into the effect of at-sea conditions on ship airwake characteristics. Journal of Wind Engineering and Industrial Aerodynamics, 223, 104933. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jweia.2022.104933
Watson, N. A., White, M., & Owen, I. (2019, June 17). Experimental validation of the unsteady CFD-generated airwake of the HMS queen elizabeth aircraft carrier. AIAA Aviation 2019 Forum. AIAA Aviation 2019 Forum, Dallas, Texas, USA. https://doi.org/10.2514/6.2019-3029
Wilcox, D. C. (2006). Turbulence modeling for CFD (3rd edition). DCW Industries.
Wilcox, D. C. (2008). Formulation of the k-w turbulence model revisited. AIAA Journal, 46(11), 2823–2838. https://doi.org/10.2514/1.36541
Xing, T., & Stern, F. (2010). Factors of safety for richardson extrapolation. Journal of Fluids Engineering, 132(6). https://doi.org/10.1115/1.4001771
Yuan, W., Lee, R., & Wall, A. (2016, September 23). Combined numerical and experimental simulations of unsteady ship airwakes. 30th Congress of the International Council of the Aeronautical Sciences, Daejeon, Korea.
Yuan, W., Wall, A., & Lee, R. (2018). Combined numerical and experimental simulations of unsteady ship airwakes. Computers & Fluids, 172, 29–53. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compfluid.2018.06.006
Zamiri, A., & Chung, J. T. (2023). Numerical evaluation of wind direction effects on the turbulence aerodynamics of a ship airwake. Ocean Engineering, 284, 115104. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.oceaneng.2023.115104
Zhang, D. (2017). Comparison of various turbulence models for unsteady flow around a finite circular cylinder at Re=20000. Journal of Physics: Conference Series, 910(1), 012027. https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/910/1/012027
Zheng, W., Yan, C., Liu, H., & Luo, D. (2016). Comparative assessment of SAS and DES turbulence modeling for massively separated flows. Acta Mechanica Sinica, 32(1), 12–21. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10409-015-0505-7
Zhu, N., Zhang, Z., Gnanamanickam, E., & Gordon Leishman, J. (2023, January 23). Effects of a Simulated Atmospheric Boundary Layer on Ship Airwakes. AIAA Scitech 2023 Forum. https://doi.org/10.2514/6.2023-0470
Zhu, N., Zhang, Z., Gnanamanickam, E., & Leishman, J. G. (2022, January 3). Dynamics of large-scale flow structures within ship airwakes. AIAA Scitech 2022 Forum. https://doi.org/10.2514/6.2022-2532
Journal of Applied Fluid Mechanics
Volume 18, Issue 1 - Serial Number 93
January 2025
Pages 112-130

Files

History

  • Received: 30 May 2024
  • Revised: 30 July 2024
  • Accepted: 26 August 2024
  • Available online: 06 November 2024

Share

How to cite

Statistics