See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/281111549

Finite Element Analysis Project Proposal for Yacht Hydrodynamic

Quantification

Technical Report · November 2015

DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.1.1130.1605

CITATIONS READS

0 962

2 authors:

Rey-Yie Abel Fong Huan-Yu Chang

North Carolina State University National Institute of Aerospace
17 PUBLICATIONS   0 CITATIONS    7 PUBLICATIONS   27 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Rey-Yie Abel Fong on 20 August 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 N CSU M AE F inite E lement A nalysis & I ts A pplication

North Carolina State University

Department of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering

Finite Element Analysis Project Proposal for Yacht

Hydrodynamic Quantification

MAE 533 Finite Element Analysis

Rey-Yie (Abel) Fong

Huan-Yu (Tony) Chang

November 16, 2014

 N CSU M AE F inite E lement A nalysis & I ts A pplication

Directory
Directory ....................................................................................................................................................................... I

Figure ..................................................................................................................................................................... II

Tables ..................................................................................................................................................................... II

1. Introduction................................................................................................................................................................... 3

2. Project Motivation ........................................................................................................................................................ 3

3. Literature Review ......................................................................................................................................................... 3

3.1 SLAMMING LOADS.............................................................................................................................................. 3

3.2 METHODOLOGIES COMPARISON ......................................................................................................................... 4

4. Engineering Assumptions ............................................................................................................................................. 4

5. Yacht Model Description .............................................................................................................................................. 5

6. Fluid Element Model Description ................................................................................................................................. 5

6.1 FREE SURFACE VERIFICATION ............................................................................................................................ 5

7. Calculation Results and Discussion .............................................................................................................................. 6

8. Project Timetable .......................................................................................................................................................... 6

9. Conclusions................................................................................................................................................................... 7

References ...................................................................................................................................................................... 8

I
 N CSU M AE F inite E lement A nalysis & I ts A pplication

Figure
Figure 2.1 Yacht Structure Design Procedures ............................................................................................................... 3

Figure 4.1 58’ Planning Yacht ........................................................................................................................................ 4

Figure 5.1 Testing Condition .......................................................................................................................................... 5

Figure 5.2 FEA Model with ALE ................................................................................................................................... 5

Figure 5.3 FEA Model with SPH ................................................................................................................................... 5

Figure 6.1 Water Column Initial Configuration ............................................................................................................. 5

Figure 6.2 Result Comparison between empirical test, ALE and SPH ........................................................................... 6

Figure 8.1 ALE Yacht Slamming with Tsai-Hill Distribution ........................................................................................ 7

Figure 8.2 SPH Yacht Slamming with Tsai-Hill Distribution ......................................................................................... 7

Tables
Table 4.1 58’ Planning Yacht Specification .................................................................................................................. 4

Table 5.1 Model Description ........................................................................................................................................ 5

Table 8.1 Project Time Table ........................................................................................................................................ 6

II
 N CSU M AE F inite E lement A nalysis & I ts A pplication

1. Introduction
This paper firstly certifies the FSI analysis procedure by validating the ALE and SPH simulation approaches
with empirical test of collapsing water column with a rigid obstacle. Then implements these approaches to
calculate slamming impact loads for a 58’ planning yacht which would be the crucial assignment to structure
design and assessment. The advantages and limitations between ALE and SPH have been discussed. With the
comparison of regular rules and class society calculations, different design strategies and tendencies have been
characterized. With the study of different calculation approaches, rules, ALE and SPH, each of them holds
their own calculation cost and precision advantages to bring into different levels of yacht structure design.

2. Project Motivation
Rules, class society and semi-empirical testing are
usually used to obtain yacht hull loads for structure
design. These approaches treat and simplify
complex wave loads in real world as hydrostatic
loads distribution which is mapped on yacht hull to
calculate structure responses for performance
assessment. Under such simplification, time
dependency factors are eliminated where loads and
material responses are independent with time where
strain rate effect for composite material and
nonlinearity interaction behavior between fluid and
structure are hardly to observe.

ALE and SPH are fluid-structure interaction

approaches which coupled the interaction between
fluid and structure to reflect real world physical
phenomenon where the description of fluid is based
on Eulerian coordinate for ALE and based on
Lagrangian for SPH. “Collapsing of water column
with an obstacle and breaking dam on a hypoelastic
baffle” had been tested as a benchmark problem to
validate modeling techniques before implement ALE
and SPH to calculate slamming impact loads and Figure 2.1 Yacht Structure Design Procedures
yacht hull structure responses under different
ditching conditions. 3. Literature Review
Slamming load distribution is the key factors to 3.1 Slamming Loads
determine hull structure design orientation
especially for high speed, light structure planning The first theoretical studies of water impact
yacht where the time dependence coupling effects of problems date back to the early twentieth century,
fluid-structure responses are more obvious than low with the classical works of Von Karman [1] and
speed displacement yacht. This paper shows an Wagner [2], which provide the background for later
application to implement ALE and SPH on yacht studies. These works were mainly concerned with
design which extends the capabilities of the the hydrodynamic forces and pressures acting during
proposed scheme of FSI to simulate fluid water entry of two-dimensional V-shaped sections,
phenomenon more properly so that engineers could typical of planning hulls.
design yacht hull structure with a clear image of By the second half of the twentieth century, several
load distribution information (Figure 2.1). more studies had been published and extended to
wider variety of 2D and 3D shapes [3].

3
 N CSU M AE F inite E lement A nalysis & I ts A pplication

While these early works were breaking grounds in Empirical [23] and theoretical [24] impact loads are
terms of understanding and predicting the loads treated as a static pressure condition for yacht
exerted upon an object falling into the water, none of structure hydrodynamic design, and where as some
them produced a practical prediction method that researches [25,26] focused on impulsive pressure
could be used by designers of high-speed crafts to loads with FSI effect for structure response
determine impact pressures. As a result, in the early assessment.
1950s, Heller and Jasper set out to devise a
semi-empirical procedure for calculating pressure 4. Engineering Assumptions
loads on structural components of the hull bottom of Water viscosity is considered with frictionless slip
high-speed crafts [4]. boundary condition in tangential direction to
Since Heller and Jasper’s work originated from alleviate the computational cost. A bias density mesh
empirical tests on a single vessel (the YP-110 75-ft has been substituted with equally sized mesh around
motor torpedo boat), in the 1960s Allen and Jones the entire domain to minimize the model size
worked to validate and extend their results for a without paying attention on boundary layers.
larger number of boats with different configurations Both of ALE and SPH approaches are implemented
(e.g. surface effect ships, swaths, etc.). This gave to describe fluid behavior with the capability of fluid
rise to a new design method, published in 1978, structure interaction to authenticly simulate the real
which became the reference for most following world wave phenomenon.
design-oriented studies [5].
Qualitative behavior would be the main observing
3.2 Methodologies Comparison item with the other similar lines yacht when this one
haven’t been built. Otherwise, the main idea of this
Ashkan Rafiee [6] proposed an incompressible SPH
model is to evaluate advantages and limitations in
method with deploying pressure Poisson equation to
between to examine the extentional capacities in
satisfy incompressible constrain to simulate FSI
design with the utilization of ALE and SPH.
problems. Three challenging dam breaking cases to
subject elastic plate and obstacle under
time-dependent pressure are simulated to show good
agreements with available experimental and
numerical results.

M. Souli [ 7 ] surveyed relevant topics related to

numerical simulation of coupled fluid structure
Figure 4.1 58’ Planning Yacht
problems. Different coupling approaches including
A 58’ planning yacht (Figure 4.1) is simulated and
ALE, SPH, codes coupling and kinematic coupling
its specifications are listed on (Table 4.1).
methods. Also, algorithms including contact and
smoothing algorithm are brought into comparison. Table 4.1 58’ Planning Yacht Specification
N. Aquelet [8] used ALE methods to simulate fuel Principle Dimension
tank sloshing and explain the capabilities with Length of the hull LH 17.5 m
theoretical potential flow. Simulation results had Length of water line at mLDC LWL 14.78 m
been validated with analytical solutions by Beam of water line at mLDC BWL 4.7 m
calculating fuel slosh frequency. Chine Beam at 0.4LWL BC 4.67 m
Draft at mLDC T 0.75 m
There are more comparison studies implementing
Displacement mass mLDC 24.7 Kg
Lagrangian, Eulerian, ALE, SPH and combination of
Max. speed V 24 knots
each of them along a wide range of application
Deadrise angle at 0.4 LWL β0.4 12.2 deg.
fields such as aircraft crashing [9,10,11], bird strike
General Data
[ 12 ], soil, mine blast and civil engineering
Speed length ratio V/ LWL0.5 6.24
[ 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 ], airbag extraction [ 17 ], tube
Design category factor KDC 1.0
oscillation [18], and fuel sloshing [19,20,21,22].
Dynamic load factor nCG 2.46

4
 N CSU M AE F inite E lement A nalysis & I ts A pplication

5. Yacht Model Description density for water domain is assigned where bias
mesh is implemented for ALE and regular one for
Testing conditions (Figure 5.1) are under 24 knots SPH.
(12.3m/s) cruising speed with initial position
500mm under evenly keel displacement to simulate Table 5.1 Model Description
the situation of heave velocity inflection point as the Modeling type No. of elements Increments CPU time
initiative of wave slamming. 23,179 shell
ALE 1.38 billion 11day18hr
54,740 Eulerian
24,779 shell
SPH 2.75 billion 8day13hr
6,270 particles

6. Fluid Element Model Description

A collapsing water column with a rigid obstacle
model had been tested to investigate the capabilities
of free surface numerical calculation and the contact
formulation of fluid structure interaction.
Figure 5.1 Testing Condition
The initial geometry of the water column with the
Both of ALE and SPH approaches are implemented
obstacle according to [27] is with width a=14.6 cm
to describe fluid behavior with the capability of fluid
structure interaction to authenticly simulate the real and 2a in height (Figure 6.1). The computational
world wave phenomenon. box domain is 4a width and 2a in height. The
obstacle is with width b=2.4 cm and 2b in height.
The gravity effect is considered with g  9.81 m / s 2 ,
and the influence of air is neglected. The fluid
properties of water are assigned with density
  996 kg / m3 , dynamic viscosity   0.01 Pa  s ,
reference sound speed Co  1450 m / s .

The box and obstacle are treated as rigid surfaces

assigned with contact interactions with fluid under
both of SPH and ALE formulations. Gravitational
Figure 5.2 FEA Model with ALE force is the only body force assigned on water.
Water viscosity is considered with frictionless slip
boundary condition in tangential direction to
alleviate the computational cost.

Figure 5.3 FEA Model with SPH

FEA Models with ALE and SPH are shown as
(Figure 5.2) and (Figure 5.3), and model size
statistics are listed on (Table 5.1). A similar mesh
Figure 6.1 Water Column Initial Configuration

6.1 Free Surface Verification

The comparison results with time stations are shown as (Figure 6.2), where from left to right apparently
demonstrates empirical test, ALE and SPH. In the testing result, ALE demonstrates more splashing and void

5
 N CSU M AE F inite E lement A nalysis & I ts A pplication

details than SPH under the last few stages from 0.5s to 1.0, especially at the last step, extraordinary
similarities has been observed.

At the beginning stages before touching the rigid obstacle wall, SPH shows more realistic features with water
descending at the stage of 0.1s and 0.2s, where ALE shows more inherit viscosity to adhere on the left wall to
stretch a smooth upper free surface feature. Comparison (Table 5.1) of computational cost and increments are
also examined with the same mesh density.

Figure 6.2 Result Comparison between empirical test, ALE and SPH

7. Calculation Results and Discussion

ALE and SPH calculation result are shown as (Figure 8.1) and (Figure 8.2) respectively. Tsai-Hill distribution
is also shown independently without water field to examine the stress field clearly.

Water splashing and slamming phenomenon is more severe and demonstrates more details in ALE than in
SPH. With the feasibility to split water, stress criterion is much lower at bow region in ALE. Even with the
same material constant assign in state function to describe water field which is much more viscous in SPH and
would need a certain degree of viscosity modification. The similar phenomenon is also observed in
verification problem at previous section.
Otherwise, stress criterion distributing variation is much more complicated and beyond uniformity than
expected where it is linear varying along yacht longitudinal stations.
The computational cost of SPH is at least 25% effective than ALE with similar element size where ALE
would need finer mesh to describe fluid phenomenon more realistic.

8. Project Timetable
Table 8.1 Project Time Table

6
 N CSU M AE F inite E lement A nalysis & I ts A pplication

Figure 8.1 ALE Yacht Slamming with Tsai-Hill Distribution

Figure 8.2 SPH Yacht Slamming with Tsai-Hill Distribution

9. Conclusions
Both ALE and SPH demonstrate strong capability to describe intricate FSI problems with water splashing and
slamming. A verification experiment is a must to characterize fluid behavior which would be assigned into
complex model that is hardly to verify.

The verification problem of collapsing water column with obstacle, ALE is more in good agreement than SPH
with experimental and numerical results
In yacht slamming application, the complexity of stress criterion brings the difficulties and challenge to
structure design but is also the beginning of realistic simulation and physical phenomenon clarification.

7
 N CSU M AE F inite E lement A nalysis & I ts A pplication

References
[1] Von Karman T., “The impact of seaplane floats during landing,” NACA TN321, National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics,
Washington, USA, October, 1929.
[2] Wagner H.,”Uber stoß- und gleitvorgänge an der oberfläche von flüssigkeiten, ”Phenomena associated with impacts and sliding
on liquid surfaces, Zeitschrift für Angewandte, Mathematik und Mechanik, Vol. 12, pp. 193–215, 1932.
[3] Seddon C.M. and Moatamedi M., “Review of water entry with applications to aerospace structures,” International Journal of
Impact Engineering, Volume 32, Issue 7, pp. 1045-1067, July, 2006.
[4] Heller, S. and Jasper, N., “On the Structural Design of Planing Craft,” Transactions of the Royal Institution of Naval Architects,
Vol. 103, pp. 49-65, 1961.
[5] Allen, R. & Jones, R., “A Simplified Method for Determining Structural Design Limit Pressures on High Performance Marine
Vehicles,” AIAA/SNAME Advanced Marine Vehicle Conference, 1978.
[6] Ashkan Rafiee, KrishP. Thiagarajan, “An SPH projection method for simulating fluid-hypoelastic structure interaction,”
Comput.Methods Appl. Mech. Engrg., 198, 2785-2795, 2009.
[7] M. Souli, “ALE and fluid structure interaction,” Materials Science Forum, Vols. 465-466, pp. 143-150, 2004.
[8] N. Aquelet, M. Souli, “A new ALE formulation for sloshing analysis,” Structural Engineering and Mechanics, Vol. 16, No. 4,
2003.
[9] R.Ortiz, “Structural Loading of a Complete Aircraft under Realistic Crash Conditions: Generation of a Load Database for
Passenger Safety and Innovation Design,” 24th International Congress of the Aeronautical Sciences, 2004.
[10]Karen E. Jackson, “Comparison of ALE and SPH Simulations of Vertical Drop Tests of a Composite Fuselage Section into
Water,” 10th International LS-DYNA Users Conference, 2009.
[11]Carmine Capone, “Numerical Simulation of Fluid-Structure Interaction comparing SPH and ALE Approaches,” University of
Naples “Federico II”, Naples, Italy, 80125.
[12]ALExander A. Ryabov, “Fan Blade Bird Strike Analysis Using Lagrangian, SPH and ALE Approaches,” 6th European LS-DYNA
Users’ Conference, 2006.
[13]Cezary Bojanowski, “Comparison of Lagrangian, SPH and MM-ALE Approaches for Modeling Large Deformations in Soil,”
11th International LS-DYNA Users Conference, 2010.
[14]Genevieve Toussaint, “Comparison of ALE and SPH Methods for Simulating Mine Blast Effect on Structures,” Defence
Research and Development Canada, 2010.
[15]Ronald F. Kulak, “Modeling of Cone Penetration Test Using SPH and MM-ALE Approaches,” 8th European LS-DYNA Users
Conference, Strasbourg , 2011.
[16]X. Quan, “Numerical Simulation of Structural Deformation under hock and Impact Loads Using a Coupled Multi-Solver
Approach,” 5th Asia-Pacific Conference on Shock and Impact Loads on Structures, Hunan, China, 2003.
[17]A. Haufe, “Fluid-Structure-Interaction Effects in Airbag Out-of-Position Load Cases: An introduction to the ALE Framework in
LS-DYNA,” 5th European LS-DYNA Users Conference, 2005.
[18]Sang-Hyun Lee, “Modeling if the Material Properties and Fluid-Structure Interaction on the Traumatic Rupture of Aorta,” Center
for Applied Biomechanics, University of Virginia, United States, Paper Number 05-0390.
[19]Matej Vesenjak, “Simulation of Fuel Sloshing: Comparative Study,” LS-DYNA Anwenderforum, Bamberg, 2004.
[20]Mr. G.C. Koli, “Simulation of Fluid Sloshing in a Tank,” Proceeding of the World Congress on Engineering, Vol. II, London, UK,
2010.
[21]Jean Ma, Mohammad Usman, “Modeling of Fuel Sloshing Phenomena Considering Solid-Fluid Interaction,” 8th International
LS-DYNA Users Conference, 2002.
[22]Guorong Yan, Subhash Rakheja, “Fluid Structure Interaction Induced by Liquid Slosh in Partly Filled Road Tankers,” Wprld
Academy of Science, Engineering and Technology, 2010.
[23]ABS, “Guide for Slamming Loads and Strength Assessment for Vessels,” American Bureau of Shipping, ABS Plaza, Houston,
USA, 2011.
[24]J. C. Card, “Hydrodynamic Impact on Displacement Ship Hull, An Assessment of the State of the Art,” Ship Structure
Committee, 1995.
[25]ISSC Committee V.8, “Sailing Yacht Design,” 17th International Ship and Offshore Structures Congress, Vol. 2, Seoul, Korea,
2009.
[26]ISSC Committee V.7, “Impulsive Pressure Loading and Response Assessment,” 17th International Ship and Offshore Structures
Congress, Vol. 2, Seoul, Korea, 2009.
[27]S.Koshizuka, Y.Oka, H.Tamako, “A Particle Method for Calculating Splashing of Incompressible Viscous Fuid,” Int. Conf. Math.
Comput. 2, pp. 1514–1521, 1995.

View publication stats