Advertisement

Wake of a cruciform appendage on a generic submarine at 10\(^\circ \) yaw

  • S.-K. LeeEmail author
  • P. Manovski
  • C. Kumar
Original article
  • 81 Downloads

Abstract

The present model geometry is a recent iteration of the Joubert (Defence Science and Technology, Tech. Rep. TR-1920, 2006) generic conventional submarine design and is known as the “BB2”. Wind-tunnel testing of the model at 10\(^\circ \) yaw, by China-clay visualisation and by ensemble-averaged measurements using high-resolution stereoscopic particle image velocimetry, shows a similar wake flow at the model-length Reynolds numbers \(Re_\mathrm{L} = 4 \times 10^6\) and \(8 \times 10^6\). The most significant flow feature is on the model upper hull. It is a system of three co-rotating vortices produced by a cruciform appendage which consists of a vertical fin (or sail in American terminology) and two horizontal hydroplanes. Circulation is strongest from the fin tip followed by the windward hydroplane, then the leeward hydroplane. Vortex tracking shows a down-wash of the fin-tip vortex, where the wind-ward- and lee-ward-hydroplane vortices spiral in the rotation direction of the fin-tip vortex. The interpreted flow includes a U-shaped vortex line around the leeward hydroplane, where this vortex line connects the fin-tip vortex and a surface vortex on the leeward side of the fin.

Keywords

Generic submarine Wind-tunnel testing Flow visualisation Particle image velocimetry 

Notes

Acknowledgements

Model manufacturing and SPIV traverse automation by QinetiQ and the financial support by DST Maritime Division are acknowledged. Our thanks go to fellow DST colleagues and the anonymous referees for providing helpful feedback on this work.

References

  1. 1.
    Joubert PN (2004) Some aspects of submarine design part 1: hydrodynamics. Defence Science and Technology, Australia, Technical Report TR-1622Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Joubert PN (2006) Some aspects of submarine design part 2: shape of a submarine 2026. Defence Science and Technology, Australia, Technical Report TR-1920Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Renilson M (2018) Submarine hydrodynamics, 2nd edn. Springer, BerlinCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Kumar C, Manovski P, Giacobello M (2012) Particle image velocimetry measurements on a generic submarine hull form. In: 18th Australasian fluid mechanics conference, Launceston, Australia, paper 188Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Quick H, Widjaja R, Anderson B, Woodyatt B, Snowden A, Lam S (2012) Phase I experimental testing of a generic submarine model in the DSTO low speed wind tunnel. Defence Science and Technology, Australia, Technical Note TN-1101Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Quick H, Woodyatt B (2014) Phase II experimental testing of a generic submarine model in the DSTO low speed wind tunnel. Defence Science and Technology, Australia, Technical Note TN-1274Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Jones MB, Erm LP, Valiyff A, Henbest SM (2013) Skin-friction measurements on a model submarine. Defence Science and Technology, Australia, Technical Report TR-2898Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Lee SK (2015) Topology model of the flow around a submarine hull form. Defence Science and Technology, Australia, Technical Report TR-3177Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Anderson B, Chapuis M, Erm L, Fureby C, Giacobello M, Henbest S, Jones D, Jones M, Kumar C, Liefvendahl M, Manovski P, Norrison D, Quick H, Snowden A, Valiyff A, Widjaja R, Woodyatt B (2012) Experimental and computational investigation of a generic conventional submarine hull form. In: 29th Symposium on naval hydrodynamics, Gothenburg, SwedenGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Fureby C, Anderson B, Clarke D, Erm L, Henbest S, Giacobello M, Jones D, Nguyen M, Johansson M, Jones M, Kumar C, Lee SK, Manovski P, Norrison D, Patterson K, Seil G, Woodyatt B, Zhu S (2016) Experimental and numerical study of a generic conventional submarine at \(10^\circ \) yaw. Ocean Eng 116:1–20CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Bettle MC (2014) Validating design methods for sizing submarine tailfins. In: Warship 2014: naval submarines and UUVs, Bath, UK. Reprinted by Defence Research and Development Canada, DRDC-RDDC-2014-P24Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Overpelt B, Nienhuis B, Anderson B (2015) Free running manoeuvring model tests on a modern generic SSK class submarine (BB2). In: Pacific International Maritime Conference, Sydney, AustraliaGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Bettle MC (2018) Baseline predictions of BB2 submarine hydrodynamics for the NATO AVT-301 collaborative exercise. Defence Research and Development Canada, DRDC-RDDC-2017-R200Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Conway AST, Valentinis F, Seil G (2018) Characterisation of suction effects on a submarine body operating near the free surface. In: 21st Australasian fluid mechanics conference, Adelaide, Australia, paper 766Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Kim H, Ranmuthugala D, Leong ZQ, Chin C (2018) Six-DOF simulations of an underwater vehicle undergoing straight line and steady turning manoeuvres. Ocean Eng 150:102–112CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Pook DA, Clarke DB, Jones M, Quick H, Ranmuthugala D (2018) RANS based CFD prediction of submarine hydrodynamic loads. In: 21st Australasian fluid mechanics conference, Adelaide, Australia, paper 695Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Erm LP (2003) Calibration of the flow in the extended test section of the low-speed wind tunnel at DSTO. Defence Science and Technology, Australia, Technical Report TR-1384Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Manovski P, Giacobello M, Jacquemin P (2014) Smoke flow visualisation and particle image velocimetry measurements over a generic submarine model. Defence Science and Technology, Australia, Technical Report TR-2944Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Manovski P, Jones M, Henbest S, Xue Y, Giacobello M (2018) Boundary layer measurements on a slender body using long-distance PIV. In: 21st Australasian fluid mechanics conference, Adelaide, Australia, paper 610Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Lee SK (2018) Longitudinal development of flow-separation lines on slender bodies in translation. J Fluid Mech 837:627–639MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Lee SK, Jones MB (2018) Surface pressure of inclined slender-body flows. In: 21st Australasian fluid mechanics conference, Adelaide, Australia, paper 498Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Tobak M, Peake DJ (1982) Topology of three-dimensional separated flows. Ann Rev Fluid Mech 14:61–85MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Surana A, Grunberg O, Haller G (2006) Exact theory of three-dimensional flow separation. Part 1. Steady separation. J Fluid Mech 564:57–103MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Simpson RL (2001) Junction flows. Ann Rev Fluid Mech 33:415–443CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Willert C (1997) Stereoscopic digital particle image velocimetry for application in wind tunnel flows. Meas Sci Technol 8:1465–1479CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Raffel M, Willert CE, Scarano F, Kähler CJ, Wereley ST, Kompenhans J (2018) Particle image velocimetry, 3rd edn. Springer, BerlinCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Lee SK, Giacobello M, Manovski P, Kumar C (2014) Optimising camera arrangement for stereoscopic particle image velocimetry. In: 19th Australasian fluid mechanics conference, Melbourne, Australia, paper 39Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Wieneke B (2005) Stereo-PIV using self-calibration on particle images. Exp Fluids 39:267–280CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Michaelis D, Neal DR, Wieneke B (2016) Peak-locking reduction for particle image velocimetry. Meas Sci Technol 27:104005CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Westerweel J, Scarano F (2005) Universal outlier detection for PIV data. Exp Fluids 39:1096–1100CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Xue Y, Kumar C, Lee SK, Giacobello M, Manovski P (2018) Identification of a submarine fin-tip vortex using POD analysis. In: 21st australasian fluid mechanics conference, Adelaide, Australia, paper 609Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Sciacchitano A, Wieneke B (2016) PIV uncertainty propagation. Meas Sci Technol 27:084006CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Devenport WJ, Rife MC, Liapis SI, Follin GJ (2018) The structure and development of a wing-tip vortex. J Fluid Mech 312:67–106MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Phillips WRC (1981) The turbulent trailing vortex during roll-up. J Fluid Mech 105:451–467CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Willert CE, Gharib M (1991) Digital particle image velocimetry. Exp Fluids 10:181–193CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Lawson NJ, Wu J (1997) Three-dimensional particle image velocimetry: error analysis of stereoscopic techniques. Meas Sci Technol 8:894–900CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Japan Society of Naval Architects and Ocean Engineers (JASNAOE) 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Defence Science and Technology GroupMelbourneAustralia

Personalised recommendations