Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-dlnhk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-26T14:07:15.526Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The hydroelastic response of a surface-piercing hydrofoil in multiphase flows. Part 2. Modal parameters and generalized fluid forces

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  03 December 2019

Casey M. Harwood Open the ORCID record for Casey M. Harwood [Opens in a new window] ,
Mario Felli Open the ORCID record for Mario Felli [Opens in a new window] ,
Massimo Falchi ,
Nitin Garg ,
Steven L. Ceccio  and
Yin L. Young
Casey M. Harwood*
Affiliation:
IIHR – Hydroscience and Engineering, the University of Iowa, Iowa City, IA52246, USA
Mario Felli
Affiliation:
CNR-INM, National Research Council, Institute of Marine Engineering, Rome00128, Italy
Massimo Falchi
Affiliation:
CNR-INM, National Research Council, Institute of Marine Engineering, Rome00128, Italy
Nitin Garg
Affiliation:
Department of Mechanical Engineering, Imperial College London, LondonSW7 1AL, UK
Steven L. Ceccio
Affiliation:
Department of Naval Architecture and Marine Engineering, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI 48109, USA Department of Mechanical Engineering, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI 48109, USA Office of the Associate Dean for Research, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI 48109, USA
Yin L. Young
Affiliation:
Department of Naval Architecture and Marine Engineering, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI 48109, USA Department of Mechanical Engineering, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI 48109, USA Department of Aerospace Engineering, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI 48109, USA
*
†Email address for correspondence: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The fluid–structure interactions (FSI) of compliant lifting surfaces is complicated by free-surface and multiphase flows such as cavitation and ventilation. This paper describes the dynamic FSI response of a flexible surface-piercing hydrofoil in dry, wetted, ventilating and cavitating conditions. Experimental modal analysis is used to quantify the resonant frequencies and damping ratios of the fluid–structure system in each flow regime. The generalized hydrodynamic stiffness, fluid damping and fluid added mass are also determined as ratios to the corresponding structural modal forces. Added mass increases with increasing partial immersion of the hydrofoil and decreases in the presence of gaseous cavities. In particular, modal frequencies were observed to increase significantly in fully ventilated flow compared to fully wetted flow. The modal frequencies varied non-monotonically with speed in fully wetted flow. Gaseous cavities reduced the modal added mass and reduced the fluid disturbing force. Modal damping increases non-monotonically with increasing immersion depth. Forward speed causes the fluid damping force to increase with an approximately quadratic functional behaviour, consistent with a series expansion of the Morison equation, although damping identification became increasingly difficult at high flow speeds. The results indicate that fluid damping is greater than the associated structural damping in a quiescent liquid, and increasingly so with increasing immersion, suggesting viscous dissipation as a dominant mechanism. A preliminary investigation of modal vibration as a means of controlling the size and stability of ventilated cavities indicates that low-order modes encourage the formation of ventilation, while higher-order modes encourage the washout and elimination of ventilation.

JFM classification

Aerodynamics: Flow-structure interactions Drops and Bubbles: Cavitation Multiphase and Particle-laden Flows: Multiphase flow
Type
JFM Papers
Information
Journal of Fluid Mechanics , Volume 884 , 10 February 2020 , A3
Copyright
© 2019 Cambridge University Press

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Abramson, H. N. 1969 Hydroelasticity: a review of hydrofoil flutter. Appl. Mech. Rev. 22 (2), 115–121.Google Scholar
Abramson, H. N. & Chu, W. H. 1959 A discussion of the flutter of submerged hydrofoils. J. Ship Res. 3 (2), 5–13.Google Scholar
Adhikari, S. 2006 Damping modelling using generalized proportional damping. J. Sound Vib. 293 (1–2), 156–170.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Akcabay, D. T., Chae, E. J., Young, Y. L., Ducoin, A. & Astolfi, J. A. 2014 Cavity induced vibration of flexible hydrofoils. J. Fluids Struct. 49, 463–484.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Akcabay, D. T. & Young, Y. L. 2014 Influence of cavitation on the hydroelastic stability of hydrofoils. J. Fluids Struct. 49 (0), 170–185.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Akcabay, D. T. & Young, Y. L. 2015 Parametric excitations and lock-in of flexible hydrofoils in two-phase flows. J. Fluids Struct. 57, 344–356.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Benaouicha, M. & Astolfi, J.-A. 2012 Analysis of added mass in cavitating flow. J. Fluids Struct. 31, 30–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bert, C. W. 1973 Material damping. J. Sound Vib. 29 (2), 129–153.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Besch, P. K. & Liu, Y.1971 Flutter and divergence characteristics of four low mass ratio hydrofoils. Tech. Rep. 3410. Naval Ship Research and Development Center, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
Besch, P. K. & Liu, Y. N.1973 Bending flutter and torsional flutter of flexible hydrofoil struts. Tech. Rep. 4012. Naval Ship Research and Development Center, Washington, DC.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Besch, P. K. & Liu, Y. N.1974 Hydroelastic design of subcavitating and cavitating hydrofoil strut systems. Tech. Rep. 4257. Naval Ship Research and Development Center, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
Blake, W. K. 1972 On the damping of transverse motion of free-free beams in dense, stagnant fluids. In The Shock and Vibration Bulletin – Part 4: Isolation, Damping, Prediction Experimental Techniques, vol. 42, pp. 41–56. The Shock and Vibration Information Center.Google Scholar
Blake, W. K. & Maga, J. 1975 On the flow-excited vibrations of cantilever struts in water. I. Flow-induced damping and vibration. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 57 (3), 610.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bucher, I. & Ewins, D. J. 2001 Modal analysis and testing of rotating structures. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. A 359, 1778.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Caughey, T. K. & O’Kelly, M. E. J. 1965 Classical normal modes in damped linear dynamic systems. J. Appl. Mech. 32 (3), 583.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chae, E. J.2015 Dynamic response and stability of flexible hydrofoils in incompressible and viscous flow. PhD thesis, University of Michigan, Department of Naval Architecture and Marine Engineering.Google Scholar
Chae, E. J., Akcabay, D. T., Lelong, A. A., Jacques, A. & Young, Y. L. 2016 Numerical and experimental investigation of natural flow-induced vibrations of flexible hydrofoils. Phys. Fluids 28 (7), 075102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chae, E. J., Akcabay, D. T. & Young, Y. L. 2013 Dynamic response and stability of a flapping foil in a dense and viscous fluid. Phys. Fluids 25 (10), 104106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chae, E. J., Akcabay, D. T. & Young, Y. L. 2017 Influence of flow-induced bend–twist coupling on the natural vibration responses of flexible hydrofoils. J. Fluids Struct. 69, 323–340.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chakrabarti, S. K. 2002 The Theory and Practice of Hydrodynamics and Vibration. World Scientific.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Crandall, S. H. 1970 The role of damping in vibration theory. J. Sound Vib. 11 (1), 3–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
De La Torre, O., Escaler, X., Egusquiza, E. & Farhat, M. 2013 Experimental investigation of added mass effects on a hydrofoil under cavitation conditions. J. Fluids Struct. 39, 173–187.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
De La Torre, O., Escaler, X., Egusquiza, E. & Farhat, M. 2015 Experimental mode shape determination of a cantilevered hydrofoil under different flow conditions. Proc. Inst. Mech. Engrs C: J. Mech. Engng Sci. 230 (19), 3408–3419.Google Scholar
Dehkharqani, A. S., Aidanpää, J.-O., Engström, F. & Cervantes, M. J. 2019 A review of available methods for the assessment of fluid added mass, damping, and stiffness with an emphasis on hydraulic turbines. Appl. Mech. Rev. 70 (5), 050801.Google Scholar
Di Napoli, I. M., Young, Y. L., Ceccio, S. L. & Harwood, C. M. 2019 Design and benchmarking of a low-cost shape sensing spar for in situ measurement of deflections in slender lifting surfaces in complex multiphase flows. Smart Mater. Struct. 28 (5), 055038.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ducoin, A., Andre, J. & Sigrist, J.-F. 2012 An experimental analysis of fluid structure interaction on a flexible hydrofoil in various flow regimes including cavitating flow. Eur. J. Mech. (B/Fluids) 36 (0), 63–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ducoin, A., Young, Y. L. & Sigrist, J. F. 2010 Hydroelastic responses of a flexible hydrofoil in turbulent, cavitating flow. In American Society of Mechanical Engineers, Fluids Engineering Division (Publication) Fedsm, Montreal, QC, Canada, vol. 3, pp. 493–502.Google Scholar
Ewins, D. J. 2000 Modal Testing: Theory, Practice, and Application. Research Studies Press.Google Scholar
Faltinsen, O. M. 2005 Hydrodynamics of High-speed Marine Vehicles. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Fu, Y. & Price, W. G. 1987 Interactions between a partially or totally immersed vibrating cantilever plate and the surrounding fluid. J. Sound Vib. 118 (3), 495–513.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grubbs, F. E. 1969 Procedures for detecting outlying observations in samples. Technometrics 11 (1), 1–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harwood, C.2016 The hydrodynamic and hydroelastic responses of rigid and flexible surface-piercing hydrofoils in multi-phase flows. PhD thesis, University of Michigan, Department of Naval Architecture and Marine Engineering.Google Scholar
Harwood, C., Felli, M., Falchi, M., Ceccio, S. & Young, Y. 2019 The hydroelastic response of a surface-piercing hydrofoil in multi-phase flows. Part 1. Passive hydroelasticity. J. Fluid Mech. 881, 313–364.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harwood, C. M., Stankovich, A. J., Young, Y. L. & Ceccio, S. L. 2016a Combined experimental and numerical study of the free vibration of surface-piercing struts. In Proceedings of the International Symposium on Transport Phenomena and Dynamics of Rotating Machinery, Honolulu. University of Lille.Google Scholar
Harwood, C. M., Ward, J. C., Felli, M., Falchi, M., Ceccio, S. L. & Young, Y. L. 2017 Experimental measurements and inverse modeling of the dynamic loads and vibration characteristics of a surface-piercing hydrofoil. In Proceedings of the Fifth International Symposium on Marine Propulsors, Espoo, Finland, pp. 823–831. VTT Technical Research Center of Finland Ltd.Google Scholar
Harwood, C. M., Ward, J. C., Young, Y. L. & Ceccio, S. L. 2016b Experimental investigation of the hydro-elastic response of a flexible surface-piercing hydrofoil in multi-phase flow. In Proceedings of the 31st Symposium on Naval Hydrodynamics, Monterey. Stanford University.Google Scholar
Harwood, C. M., Young, Y. L. & Ceccio, S. L. 2016c Ventilated cavities on a surface-piercing hydrofoil at moderate froude numbers: cavity formation, elimination and stability. J. Fluid Mech. 800, 5–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Henry, C. J., Dugundji, J. & Ashley, H. 1959 Aeroelastic stability of lifting surfaces in high-density fluids. J. Ship Res. 3 (1), 10–21.Google Scholar
Hilborne, D. V.1958 The hydroelastic stability of struts. Tech. Rep. 3172. Ministry of Aviation.Google Scholar
Kaplan, P. & Lehman, A. F. 1966 An experimental study of hydroelastic instabilities of finite span hydrofoils under cavitating conditions. AIAA J. Aircraft 3 (3), 262–269.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lelong, A., Guiffant, P. & Astolfi, J. A. 2017 An experimental analysis of the structural response of flexible lightweight hydrofoils in cavitating flow. J. Fluids Engng 140 (2), 021116.Google Scholar
Lindholm, U. S., Kana, D. D., Chu, W. & Abramson, H. N. 1965 Elastic vibration characteristics of cantilever plates in water. J. Ship Res. 9 (2), 11–22.Google Scholar
Ma, F. & Caughey, T. K. 1995 Analysis of linear nonconservative vibrations. J. Appl. Mech. 62 (3), 685.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McCroskey, W. J., Carr, L. W. & McAlister, K. W. 1976 Dynamic stall experiments on oscillating airfoils. AIAA J. 14 (1), 57–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McCroskey, W. J., McAlister, K. W., Carr, L. W. & Pucci, S. L.1982 An experimental study of dynamic stall on advanced airfoil sections. Volume 1. Summary of the experiment. Tech. Mem. 84245. National Aeronautics and Space Administration, Washington DC.Google Scholar
McCroskey, W. J., McAlister, K. W., Carr, L. W., Pucci, S. L., Lambert, O. & Indergrand, R. F. 1981 Dynamic stall on advanced airfoil sections. J. Am. Helicopter Soc. 26 (3), 40–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Morison, J. R., Johnson, J. W. & Schaaf, S. A. 1950 The force exerted by surface waves on piles. J. Petrol. Technol. 2 (05), 149–154.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Motley, M. R., Liu, Z. & Young, Y. L. 2009 Utilizing fluid–structure interactions to improve energy efficiency of composite marine propellers in specially varying wake. Compos. Struct. 90 (3), 304–313.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Newman, J. N. 2017 Marine Hydrodynamics, 40th Anniversary Edition, 2nd edn. MIT Press (Original work published in 1977).Google Scholar
Pearce, B. W., Brandner, P. A., Garg, N., Young, Y. L., Phillips, A. W. & Clarke, D. B. 2017 The influence of bend–twist coupling on the dynamic response of cavitating composite hydrofoils. In Proceedings of the Fifth International Symposium on Marine Propulsors, Espoo, vol. 3, pp. 803–812. VTT Technical Research Center of Finland Ltd.Google Scholar
Peeters, B., Van der Auweraer, H., Guillaume, P. & Leuridan, J. 2004 The polymax frequency-domain method: a new standard for modal parameter estimation? Shock Vib. 11 (3–4), 395–409.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Phillips, A. W., Cairns, R., Davis, C., Norman, P., Brandner, P. A., Pearce, B. W. & Young, Y. L. 2017 Effect of material design parameters on the forced vibration response of composite hydrofoils in air and in water. In Proceedings of the Fifth International Symposium on Marine Propulsors, Espoo, Finland, pp. 813–822. VTT Technical Research Center of Finland Ltd.Google Scholar
Rayleigh, Lord 1877 The Theory of Sound. Dover.Google Scholar
Reese, M. C.2010 Vibration and damping of hydrofoils in uniform flow. Master thesis, Pennsylvania State University.Google Scholar
Richardson, M. H. & Formenti, D. L. 1982 Parameter estimation from frequency response measurements using rational fraction polynomials. In Proceedings of the International Modal Analysis Conference, Orlando, pp. 167–182.Google Scholar
Rodriguez, O.2012 Influence of cavitation on the dynamic response of hydrofoils. PhD thesis, Technical University of Catalonia.Google Scholar
Rothblum, R. S., Mayer, D. A. & Wilburn, G. M.1969 Ventilation, cavitation and other characteristics of high speed surface-piercing strut. Tech. Rep. 3023. Naval Ship Research and Development Center, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
Shoelson, B.2011 Deleteoutliers. MATLAB Central File Exchange.Google Scholar
Song, C. S. & Almo, J.1967 An experimental study of the hydroelastic instability of supercavitating hydrofoils. Tech. Rep. 89. St. Anthony Falls Hydraulic Laboratory.Google Scholar
Song, C. S.1969 Vibration of cavitating hydrofoils. Tech. Rep. 111. St. Anthony Falls Hydraulic Laboratory.Google Scholar
Soroka, W. W. 1949 Note on the relations between viscous and structural damping coefficients. J. Aero. Sci. 16 (7), 409–410.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Swales, P. D., Wright, A. J., McGregor, R. C. & Rothblum, R. 1974 Mechanism of ventilation inception on surface piercing foils. J. Mech. Engng Sci. 16 (1), 18–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Taylor, G. T. 1065 The instability of liquid surfaces when accelerated in a direction perpendicuar to their planes. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. A 201, 192–196.Google Scholar
Theodorsen, T.1935 General theory of aerodynamic instability and the mechanism of flutter. Tech. Rep. 496. National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics.Google Scholar
Wagner, H. 1925 über Die Entstehung Des Dynamischen Auftriebes Von Tragflügeln, VDI-Verl, Berlin.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ward, J., Harwood, C. & Young, Y. L. 2018 Inverse method for hydrodynamic load reconstruction on a flexible surface-piercing hydrofoil in multi-phase flow. J. Fluids Struct. 77, 58–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ward, J. C., Harwood, C. M. & Young, Y. L. 2016 Inverse method for determination of the in situ hydrodynamic load distribution in multi-phase flow. In Proceedings of the 31st Symposium on Naval Hydrodynamics, Monterey, CA. Stanford University.Google Scholar
Woolston, D. S. & Castile, G. E.1951 Some effects of variations in several parameters including fluid density on the flutter speed of light uniform cantilever wings. Tech. Rep. 2558.Google Scholar
Young, Y. L. 2010 Dynamic hydroelastic scaling of self-adaptive composite marine rotors. Compos. Struct. 92 (1), 97–106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Young, Y. L., Baker, J. W. & Motley, M. R. 2010 Reliability-based design and optimization of adaptive marine structures. Compos. Struct. 92 (2), 244–253.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Young, Y. L., Garg, N., Brandner, P. A., Pearce, B. W., Butler, D., Clarke, D. & Phillips, A. W. 2018a Load-dependent bend–twist coupling effects on the steady-state hydroelastic response of composite hydrofoils. Compos. Struct. 189, 398–418.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Young, Y. L., Garg, N., Brandner, P. A., Pearce, B. W., Butler, D., Clarke, D. & Phillips, A. W. 2018b Material bend–twist coupling effects on cavitating response of composite hydrofoils. In 10th International Cavitation Symposium, Baltimore, pp. 690–695. ASME.Google Scholar
Young, Y. L., Harwood, C. M., Miguel, M., Francisco, Ward, Jacob, C. & Ceccio, S. L. 2017 Ventilation of lifting bodies: review of the physics and discussion of scaling effects. Appl. Mech. Rev. 69 (1), 010801.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Young, Y. L., Yoon, H., Wright, T. & Harwood, C. 2018c The effect of waves and ventilation on the dynamic response of a surface-piercing hydrofoil. In 32nd Symposium on Naval Hydrodynamics, Hamburg. Hamburg University of Technology.Google Scholar
Supplementary material: File

Harwood et al. supplementary material

Harwood et al. supplementary material

Download Harwood et al. supplementary material(File)
File 32.9 KB