2D axisymmetric and 3D CFD simulations of flow over the benchmark DARPA SUBOFF submarine model - presented by Mr. H. Rahul Krishna and Dr. Manoj T. Issac and Prof. Dr. D. D. Ebenezer

2D axisymmetric and 3D CFD simulations of flow over the benchmark DARPA SUBOFF submarine model

H. Rahul Krishna, Manoj T. Issac and Dr. D. D. Ebenezer

Prof. Dr. D. D. EbenezerMr. H. Rahul KrishnaDr. Manoj T. Issac
Slide at 44:59
Results - Verification &
x/L = 0.904
Validation
Radial
Level - 3: Radial and axial velocity profiles
Radial
Vr / Uref
Vr/ Uref
Axial
2D and 3D CFD results are in good
Axial
Ux / Uref
Ux / Uref
agreement with experimental results12
Location of Velocity Profiles
-0.5
-0.5
Normalized Velocity (v. / Uref '
Uref
Normalized Velocity (v./Uref,u ref / Uref)
x/L=0.956
x/L = 0.978
DARPA SUBOFF BARE HULL
Radial
Radial
Vr/ Uref
Vr/ Uref
Axial
Axial
Ux / Uref
ux/ Uref
Location
0.904
0.927
0.956
0.978
-0.5
-0.5
Normalized Velocity
Normalized Velocity
*Experimental Wind Tunnel Test Results of DARPA SUBOFF referred from Ref 12.
Present study - 2D axisymmetric
12. T. Huang and H. L. Liu, "Measurements of flows over an axisymmetric body with various appendages in a wind
Present study - 3D
tunnel: The DARPA SUBOFF experimental program," 1994, pp. 321-337.
Exp. values from DTRC
Department of Ship Technology
Cochin University of Science and Technology - CUSAT
1
References
  • 1.
    https://trid.trb.org/view/449663
Share slide
Summary (AI generated)

Now, this is the third level of verification and validation. Here, we take velocity into consideration and study the velocity distribution in detail. To do this, we select four different locations on the seven side of data pass SUBOFF, namely A, B, C, ABC, and D, which we refer to as OAOBOCO and ODO measured from the origin of the data pass SUBOFF. We then create a line probe at these locations to analyze the radial and axial velocity Phys.

To compare our results, we use both the 2D axis symmetric and 3D CFD results of the present study and compare them with the explorer obtained from DTRC from the internal. The DTRC internal results are shown in the reference tool. On the right-hand side, you can see four different plots, each corresponding to a different location. In each plot, the red curve represents the present 2D axis symmetric simulation, the dotted black curve represents the present 3D less research, and the field circle represents the experimental roses from 3D D R C.

On the Y axis of each plot, we have the normalized radius, and on the X axis, we have the normalized velocity where V R corresponds to radial velocity and U X corresponds to axial velocity. We see that the 2D axis symmetric and 3D CFD results are in very good agreement with the experimental research from DTRC, and the 2D axis symmetric and 3D CFD research are also in agreement with each other.

Thus, we have completed all three levels of verification and validation, marking the accuracy and reliability of the 2D axis symmetric results when compared to the 3D CFD simulation. If the flow is axis symmetric and the body is axis symmetric, 2D axis symmetry simulation can become a better alternative or 3D simulations.

Moving on to some of the important research findings, before that, we must see an overview of the comparison between the 2D axis symmetric and the 3D CFD simulation. We maintained a very low value of five wall plus in both the 2D axis symmetric and 3D CFD simulations, with a value of 50 for the 2D axis symmetric.