Hostname: page-component-77c89778f8-m8s7h Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-18T12:34:11.171Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

An analytical solution for two slender bodies of revolution translating in very close proximity

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  14 June 2007

Q. X. WANG
Q. X. WANG*
Affiliation:
School of Mathematics, The University of Birmingham, Edgbaston, Birmingham B15 2TT, UK
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The irrotational flow past two slender bodies of revolution at angles of yaw, translating in parallel paths in very close proximity, is analysed by extending the classical slender body theory. The flow far away from the two bodies is shown to be a direct problem, which is represented in terms of two line sources along their longitudinal axes, at the strengths of the variation rates of their cross-section areas. The inner flow near the two bodies is reduced to the plane flow problem of the expanding (contracting) and lateral translations of two parallel circular cylinders with different radii, which is then solved analytically using conformal mapping. Consequently, an analytical flow solution has been obtained for two arbitrary slender bodies of revolution at angles of yaw translating in close proximity. The lateral forces and yaw moments acting on the two bodies are obtained in terms of integrals along the body lengths. A comparison is made among the present model for two slender bodies in close proximity, Tuck & Newman's (1974) model for two slender bodies far apart, and VSAERO (AMI)–commercial software based on potential flow theory and the boundary element method (BEM). The attraction force of the present model agrees well with the BEM result, when the clearance, h0, is within 20% of the body length, whereas the attraction force of Tuck & Newman is much smaller than the BEM result when h0 is within 30% of the body length, but approaches the latter when h0 is about half the body length. Numerical simulations are performed for the three typical manoeuvres of two bodies: (i) a body passing a stationary body, (ii) two bodies in a meeting manoeuvre (translating in opposite directions), and (iii) two bodies in a passing manoeuvre (translating in the same direction). The analysis reveals the orders of the lateral forces and yaw moments, as well as their variation trends in terms of the manoeuvre type, velocities, sizes, angles of yaw of the two bodies, and their proximity, etc. These irrotational dynamic features are expected to provide a basic understanding of this problem and will be beneficial to further numerical and experimental studies involving additional physical effects.

Type
Papers
Information
Journal of Fluid Mechanics , Volume 582 , 10 July 2007 , pp. 223 - 251
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2007

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

REFERENCES

Becker, L. E., Koehler, S. A. & Stone, H. A. 2003 On self-propulsion of micro-machines at low Reynolds number: Purcell's three-link swimmer. J. Fluid Mech. 490, 15–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chen, X. N., Sharma, S. D. & Stuntz, N. 2003 Zero wave resistance for ships moving in shallow channels at supercritical speeds. Part 2. Improved theory and model experiment. J. Fluid Mech. 478, 111–124.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cohen, S. B. & Beck, R. F. 1983 Experimental and theoretical hydrodynamic forces on a mathematical model in confined water. J. Ship Res. 27, 75–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dand, I. W. 1981 Some measurements of interaction between ship models passing on parallel courses. National Maritime Institute, Rep. R108.Google Scholar
Faltinsen, O. M., Newman, J. N. & Vinje, T. 1995 Nonlinear-wave loads on a slender vertical cylinder. J. Fluid Mech. 289, 179–198.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fang, M. C. & Chen, G. R. 2002 On three-dimensional solutions of drift forces and moments between two ships in waves. J. Ship Res. 46 (4), 280–288.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fontaine, E., Faltinsen, O. M. & Cointe, R. 2000 New insight into the generation of ship bow waves. J. Fluid Mech. 421, 15–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Guo, Z. & Chwang, A. T. 1992 On the planar translation of two bodies in a uniform flow. J. Ship Res. 36 (1), 38–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kevorkian, J. & Cole, J. D. 1985 Perturbation Methods in Applied Mechanics. Springer.Google Scholar
Kikuchi, K., Maeda, & Yanagizawa, T. M. 1996 Numerical simulation of the phenomena due to the passing-by of two bodies using the unsteady boundary element method. Intl J. Numer. Meth. Fluids 23 (5), 445–454.3.0.CO;2-N>CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Korsmeyer, F. T., Lee, C. H. & Newman, J. N. 1993 Computation of ship interaction in restricted waters. J. Ship Res. 37 (4), 298–306.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Landweber, L., Chwang, A. T. & Guo, Z. 1991 Interaction between two bodies translating in an inviscid fluid. J. Ship Res. 35 (1), 1–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lighthill, M. J. 1960 Note on the swimming of slender fish. J. Fluid Mech. 9, 305.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Liu, J. L. 2004 Computations of two passing-by high-speed trains by a relaxation overset-grid algorithm. Intl J. Numer. Meth. Fluids 44 (12), 1299–1315.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Maskew, B. 1987 Program VSAERO theory document. NASA CR-4023.Google Scholar
Milne-Thomson, L. M. 1968 Theoretical Hydrodynamics. MacMillan, London.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Miloh, T. & Hauptman, A. 1980 Large-amplitude motion of an elongated body in shallow-water. J. Ship. Res. 24 (4), 256–270.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Munk, M. M. 1924 The aerodynamic forces on airship hulls. NACA Rep. 184.Google Scholar
Nathman, J. K. & Matarrese, M. 2004 Hybrid grid (structured and unstructured) calculations with a potential-based panel method. AIAA Paper 2004–4836.Google Scholar
Newman, J. N. 1965 The force and moment on a slender body of revolution moving near a wall. Naval Ship R. & D. Centre Rep. 2127.Google Scholar
Newman, J. N. & Wu, T. Y. 1973 A generalized slender-body theory for fish-like form. J. Fluid Mech. 57, 673–697.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Saltzman, E. J. & Fisher, D. F. 1970 Some turbulent boundary-layer measurements obtained from the forebody of an airplane at Mach numbers up to 1.72. NASA TN D-5838.Google Scholar
Schlichting, H. 1979 Boundary-Layer Theory. McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
Sellier, A. 1997 A general and formal slender-body theory in the non-lifting case. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. A 453, 1733–1751.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
SSPA 1985 Model tests performed for CAOF PANAMA Canal Project. SSPA Rep. 3062. Swedish State Maritime Centre, Goteborg.Google Scholar
Tuck, E. O. 1978 Hydrodynamic problems of ships in restricted water. Annu. Rev. Fluid Mech. 10, 33–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tuck, E. O. 1980 A Nonlinear Unsteady one-dimensional theory for wings in extreme ground effect. J. Fluid Mech. 98, 33–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tuck, E. O. & Newman, J. N. 1974 Hydrodynamic interactions between ships. Proc. 10th Symp. Naval Hydr., pp. 35–70. Cambridge, Mass. Proceedings, Office of Naval Research, Washington, D.C.Google Scholar
Van Dyke, M. D. 1959 Second-order theory-axisymmetric flow. Tech. Rep. NASA R-47.Google Scholar
Van Dyke, M. D., 1975 Perturbation Methods in Fluid Mechanics. 2nd Edn. The Parabolic Press, Stanford, California.Google Scholar
Vantorre, M., Laforce, E. & Verzhbitskaya, E. 2001 Model test based formulations of ship-ship interaction force for simulation purpose. Proc. 28th Annual General Meeting of Intl Maritime Simulation Forum (IMSF) (Genova, Italy).Google Scholar
Wang, Q. X. 2004 Interaction of two circular cylinders in inviscid fluid. Phys. Fluids 16 (12), 4412–4425.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wang, Q. X. 2005 Analyses of a slender body moving near a curved-ground. Phys. Fluids 17 (9), 097102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weihs, D. 2004 The hydrodynamics of dolphin drafting. J. Biol. 3 (2), 1–5.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Yang, S. A. & Luh, P. A. 1998 A numerical simulation of hydrodynamic forces of ground-effect problem using Lagrange's equation of motion. Intl J. Numer. Meth. Fluids 26 (6), 725–747.3.0.CO;2-3>CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yeung, R. W. & Hwang, W. Y. 1977 Nearfield hydrodynamics and interactions of ships in shallow water. J. Hydronautics 11 (4), 128–135.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yeung, R. W. & Tan, W. T. 1980 Hydrodynamic interactions of ships with fixed obstacles. J. Ship Res. 24 (1), 50–59.Google Scholar