SPH for 3D floating bodies using variable mass particle distribution

SUMMARY A floating body with substantial heave motion is a challenging fluid–structure interaction problem for numerical simulation. In this paper we develop SPH in three dimensions to include variable particle mass distribution using an arbitrary Lagrange–Eulerian formulation with an embedded Riemann solver. A wedge or cone in initially still water is forced to move with a displacement equal to the surface elevation of a focused wave group. A two-dimensional wedge case is used to evaluate two forms of repulsive-force boundary condition on the body; the force depending on the normal distance from the object surface produced closer agreement with the experiment. For a three-dimensional heaving cone the comparison between SPH and experiment shows excellent agreement for the force and free surface for motion with low peak spectral frequencies while for a higher peak frequency the agreement is reasonable in terms of phase and magnitude, but a small discrepancy appears at the troughs in the motion. Capturing the entire three-dimensional flow field using an initially uniform particle distribution with sufficiently fine resolution requires an extremely large number of particles and consequently large computing resource. To mitigate this issue, we employ a variable mass distribution with fine resolution around the body. Using a refined mass distribution in a preselected area avoids the need for a dynamic particle refinement scheme and leads to a computational speedup of more than 600% or much improved results for a given number of particles. SPH with variable mass distribution is then applied to a single heaving-float wave energy converter, the ‘Manchester Bobber’, in extreme waves and compared with experiments in a wave tank. The SPH simulations are presented for two cases: a single degree-of-freedom system with motion restricted to the vertical direction and with general motion allowing six degrees-of-freedom. The motion predicted for the float with general motion is in much closer agreement with experimental data than the vertically constrained system. Using variable particle mass distribution is shown to produce close agreement with a computation time 20% of that required with a uniformly fine resolution. Copyright © 2012 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

[1]  Jean-Paul Vila,et al.  ON PARTICLE WEIGHTED METHODS AND SMOOTH PARTICLE HYDRODYNAMICS , 1999 .

[2]  Benedict D. Rogers,et al.  Wave body interaction in 2D using smoothed particle hydrodynamics (SPH) with variable particle mass , 2012 .

[3]  Nader A. Issa,et al.  Fluid motion generated by impact , 2003 .

[4]  Sauro Manenti,et al.  SPH simulation of a floating body forced by regular waves , 2008 .

[5]  J. Monaghan.  SPH without a Tensile Instability , 2000 .

[6]  Joe J. Monaghan,et al.  SPH particle boundary forces for arbitrary boundaries , 2009, Comput. Phys. Commun..

[7]  Benedict D. Rogers,et al.  Simulation of caisson breakwater movement using 2-D SPH , 2010 .

[8]  Holger Wendland,et al.  Piecewise polynomial, positive definite and compactly supported radial functions of minimal degree , 1995, Adv. Comput. Math..

[9]  Benedict D. Rogers,et al.  Smoothed Particle Hydrodynamics: Approximate zero‐consistent 2‐D boundary conditions and still shallow‐water tests , 2012 .

[10]  A. Colagrossi,et al.  Numerical simulation of interfacial flows by smoothed particle hydrodynamics , 2003 .

[11]  Raushania Gaifullina,et al.  The Use of Histochrome in the Complex Treatment of the Patients with Acute Coronary Syndrome with ST Segment Depression Diagnosed on ECG , 2014 .

[12]  K. R. Drake,et al.  On the hydrodynamics of bobbing cones , 2009 .

[13]  A. Evrard.  Beyond N-body: 3D cosmological gas dynamics , 1988 .

[14]  Robert A. Dalrymple,et al.  Using a Three-Dimensional Smoothed Particle Hydrodynamics Method for Wave Impact on a Tall Structure , 2004 .

[15]  G. Oger,et al.  Two-dimensional SPH simulations of wedge water entries , 2006, J. Comput. Phys..

[16]  Richard P. Nelson,et al.  Variable smoothing lengths and energy conservation in smoothed particle hydrodynamics , 1994 .

[17]  Paul Taylor,et al.  Wave Statistics for Intermediate Depth Water—NewWaves and Symmetry , 2004 .

[18]  J. Monaghan.  Smoothed particle hydrodynamics , 2005 .

[19]  Peter Stansby,et al.  Experimental Measurements of the Complex Motion of a Suspended Axisymmetric Floating Body in Regular and Near-Focused Waves , 2013 .

[20]  D. Causon,et al.  The surface gradient method for the treatment of source terms in the shallow-water equations , 2001 .

[21]  M. Lastiwka,et al.  Adaptive particle distribution for smoothed particle hydrodynamics , 2005 .

[22]  Javier Bonet,et al.  Hamiltonian formulation of the variable-h SPH equations , 2005 .

[23]  Peter Stansby,et al.  Experimental measurement of focused wave group and solitary wave overtopping , 2011 .

[24]  Peter Stansby,et al.  Limiting heave response of a wave energy device by draft adjustment with upper surface immersion , 2009 .

[25]  S. Shao,et al.  INCOMPRESSIBLE SPH METHOD FOR SIMULATING NEWTONIAN AND NON-NEWTONIAN FLOWS WITH A FREE SURFACE , 2003 .

[26]  Robert A. Dalrymple,et al.  3D SPH Simulation of large waves mitigation with a dike , 2007 .

[27]  L. Lucy.  A numerical approach to the testing of the fission hypothesis. , 1977 .

[28]  D. Graham,et al.  Comparison of incompressible and weakly-compressible SPH models for free-surface water flows , 2010 .

[29]  Robert G. Dean,et al.  Water wave mechanics for engineers and scientists , 1983 .

[30]  Benedict D. Rogers,et al.  Numerical Modeling of Water Waves with the SPH Method , 2006 .

[31]  J. Monaghan,et al.  Solitary Waves on a Cretan Beach , 1999 .

[32]  Pourya Omidvar,et al.  Wave loading on bodies in the free surface using smoothed particle hydrodynamics (SPH) , 2010 .