Computational fluid dynamics analysis on the added resistance of submarine due to Deck wetness at surface condition

Abstract

This article describes the evaluation of the wave profile of submarine at surface condition and deck flooding which occurred by the wave making pattern at the bow. Movement of ships and submarines on the free surface of calm water creates the surface wave. Because of the difference in the bow shape and freeboard height, the wave making system in ships and submarines is different. Rounded or elliptical bow shape of submarines generates a high bow wave which causes deck and bow wetness. This is because of the fact that in submarines, this situation arises a small freeboard. In submarines, Deck wetness (because of deck flooding) is a very important subject that has some remarkable consequences, such as increase in resistance and added weigh. The focus of this article is on the added frictional resistance in the deck wetness condition. The bow wave profile, deck wetness and added resistance are studied in several Froude numbers by computational fluid dynamics method. This analysis is performed for a bare hull model at two different drafts by Flow Vision (V.2.3) software based on computational fluid dynamics method and solving the Reynolds-averaged Navier–Stokes equations.

Keywords

Submarine hydrodynamic wave making bow wave deck wetness resistance

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Moonesun

Introduction of Iranian hydrodynamic series of submarines (IHSS). J Taiwan Soc Naval Archit Mar Eng 2014; 33(3): 155–162.

Moonesun

Korol

. Concepts in submarine shape design. In: Proceedings of the 16th marine industries conference (MIC2014), Iranian Association of Naval Architecture and Marine Engineering (IRANAME), Bandar Abbas, 2–5 December 2014.

Moonesun

Korol

Dalayeli

CFD analysis on the submarines bow shapes. Int J Naval Archit Ocean Eng 2015; 3: 1–16.

Moonesun

Korol

Brazhko

. CFD analysis on the equations of submarine stern shape. In: Proceedings of the 16th marine industries conference (MIC2014), Iranian Association of Naval Architecture and Marine Engineering (IRANAME), Bandar Abbas, 2–5 December 2014.

Moonesun

Korol

Tahvildarzade

. Optimum L/D for submarine shape. In: Proceedings of the 16th marine industries conference (MIC2014), Iranian Association of Naval Architecture and Marine Engineering (IRANAME), Bandar Abbas, 2–5 December 2014.

Moonesun

Korol

Tahvildarzade

. Practical scaling method for underwater hydrodynamic model test of submarine. J Korean Soc Mar Eng 2014; 38(10): 850–857.

Suman

KNS

Nageswara Rao

Das

. Hydrodynamic performance evaluation of an ellipsoidal nose for high speed underwater vehicle. Jordan J Mech Ind Eng 2010; 4(5): 641–652.

Joubert

PN.

Some aspects of submarine design. Part 1: hydrodynamics. Australian Department of Defence, 2004, http://dspace.dsto.defence.gov.au/dspace/handle/1947/3919

Joubert

PN.

Some aspects of submarine design. Part 2: shape of a submarine 2026. Australian Department of Defence, 2004, http://dspace.dsto.defence.gov.au/dspace/handle/1947/8027

10.

Burcher

Rydill

LJ.

Concept in submarine design. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press (The press syndicate of the University of Cambridge), 1998, 295 pp.

11.

Kormilitsin

Khalizev

OA.

Theory of submarine design. Saint Petersburg, Russia: Saint Petersburg State Marine Technical University, 2001, pp.185–221.

12.

Gabler

Submarine design. Bonn: Bernard & Graefe Verlag, 2000.

13.

Greiner

Underwater missile propulsion: a selection of authoritative technical and descriptive papers. Arlington, VA: Compass Publications, 1968.

14.

A Group of Authorities. Submersible vehicle systems design. Jersey City, NJ: The Society of Naval Architects and Marine Engineers, 1990.

15.

Lewis

(ed.). Principles of naval architecture: vol II—resistance. Jersey City, NJ: The Society of Naval Architects and Marine Engineers, 1988.

16.

Bertram

Practical ship hydrodynamics. Oxford: Butterworth-Heinemann, Linacre House, 2000, p.65.

17.

Molland

Turnock

Hudson

DA.

Ship resistance and propulsion. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2011, p.14.

18.

Rawson

Tupper

EC.

Basic ship theory, vol. 2. Oxford: Butterworth-Heinemann, 2001, p.685.

19.

Hoerner

SF.

Fluid dynamic drag. Brick, NJ: Hoerner Fluid Dynamics, 1965.

20.

Javadi

Manshadi

Kheradmand

. Experimental investigation of the effect of bow profiles on resistance of an underwater vehicle in free surface motion. J Mar Sci Appl 2015; 14: 53–60. DOI: 10.1007/s11804-015-1283-0.

21.

Zhang

B-j.

Shape optimization of bow bulbs with minimum wave-making resistance based on Rankine source method. J Shanghai Jiaotong Univ 2012; 17(1): 65–69.

22.

Alvarez

Bertram

Gualdesi

Hull hydrodynamic optimization of autonomous underwater vehicles operating at snorkeling depth. Ocean Eng 2009; 36(1): 105–112.

23.

Alemayehu

Boyle

Eaton

. Guided missile submarine SSG(X), SSG(X) Variant 2–44, Ocean Engineering Design Project, AOE 4065/4066, Virginia Tech Team 3, 2005, pp.11–12.

24.

Thomton

GB.

A design tool for the evaluation of atmosphere independent propulsion in submarines. Cambridge, MA: Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 1994, p.205.

25.

Sukas

Kinaci

Bal

. Computation of total resistance of ships and a submarine by a RANSE based CFD, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/267389086_Computation_of_total_resistance_of_ships_and_a_submarine_by_a_RANSE_based_CFD

26.

Jang

Park

WG.

The variation of flow field and hydrodynamic coefficients of submarine by changes of angle of attack and Yaw angle. J Soc Naval Archit Korea 2006; 43(4): 460–466.

27.

Sohn

Lee

SP.

Mathematical model for dynamics of manta-type unmanned undersea vehicle with six degrees of freedom and characteristics of manoeuvrability response. J Soc Naval Archit Korea 2006; 43(4): 399–413.