English Polish
Akademia Morska w Szczecinie

DSpace Home

DSpace/Manakin Repository

Show simple item record

Author Nazemian, Amin
Affiliation Amirkabir University of Technology, Dept. of Maritime Engineering Hafez Ave, No 424, P.O. Box 15875-4413, Tehran, Iran
E-mail anazemian@aut.ac.ir
Author Ghadimi, Parviz
Affiliation Amirkabir University of Technology, Dept. of Maritime Engineering Hafez Ave, No 424, P.O. Box 15875-4413, Tehran, Iran
E-mail pghadimi@aut.ac.ir
Author Ghadimi, Aliakbar
Affiliation Amirkabir University of Technology, Dept. of Maritime Engineering Hafez Ave, No 424, P.O. Box 15875-4413, Tehran, Iran
ISSN printed 1733-8670
URI https://repository.am.szczecin.pl/handle/123456789/2713
Abstract Hydrofoils are utilized as instruments to improve the hydrodynamic performance of marine equipment. In this paper, the motion of a 2D NACA0012 hydrofoil advancing in water near the free surface was simulated, and a mesh morphing-adjoint based optimizer was used to maximize its lift-to-drag ratio. Ansys-Fluent was used as a CFD solver, and a mesh-morphing tool was used as a geometry reconstruction tool. Furthermore, the Adjoint solver was applied to evaluate the sensitivities of the objective function to all solution variables. Defined control points around the geometry are design variables that move in an appropriate direction through shape sensitivity. The computational results were validated against available experimental data and published numerical findings. Subsequently, different hydrodynamic characteristics of the optimized hydrofoil were compared to those of the original model at different angles of attack of 3, 3.5, 4, 4.5, 5, 5.5, 6, and 6.5°, and optimized shapes were determined. It was observed that the shape of the optimized hydrofoil was totally dependent on the angle of attack, which produced different lift-to-drag ratios. It is also seen that among higher angles of attack at which improvement in the L/D ratio became steady, the drag coefficient was the lowest at 5°. Therefore, it can be concluded that the appropriate angle of attack for a hydrofoil installation on the ship hull is 5°. Further investigation was conducted concerning the evolution of shape optimization, sensitivity analysis, free surface elevation, flow characteristics, and hydrodynamic performance of the hydrofoil at a 5° angle of attack.
Publisher Scientific Journals Maritime University of Szczecin, Zeszyty Naukowe Akademia Morska w Szczecinie
Keywords NACA0012 hydrofoil
Keywords free surface
Keywords lift-to-drag ratio
Keywords Ansys-Fluent
Keywords mesh morphing
Keywords adjoint solver
Title Shape optimization of a submerged 2D hydrofoil and improvement of its lift-to-drag ratio using CFDbased mesh morphing-adjoint algorithm
Type Original scientific article
  1. Anderson, W.K. & Venkatakrishnan, V. (1999) Aerodynamic design optimization on unstructured grids with a continuous adjoint formulation. Computers & Fluids 28(4–5), pp. 443–480, doi: 10.1016/S0045-7930(98)00041-3.
  2. Bai, K.J. & Han, J.H, (1994) A localized finite element method for the non-linear steady waves due to a two-dimensional hydrofoil. Journal of Ship Research 38 (01), pp. 42– 51, doi: 10.5957/jsr.1994.38.1.42.
  3. Biancolini, M.E. (2017) Fast Radial Basis Functions for Engineering Applications. Springer, Cham.
  4. Biancolini, M.E., Cella, U., Travostino, G. & Mancini, M. (2013) Shaping up – Mesh morphing reduces the time required to optimize an aircraft wing. ANSYS Advantage Magazine VII, 1.
  5. Blasi, P.D., Romano, G.P., Felice, F.D. & Lalli, F. (2000) Experimental study of breaking wave flow field past a submerged hydrofoil by LDV. International Journal of Offshore and Polar Engineering 10(4), pp. 263–269.
  6. Bonfiglio, L., Perdikarisa, P., Brizzolara, S. & Karniadakis, G.E. (2018) Multi-fidelity optimization of super-cavitating hydrofoils. Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering 332, pp. 63–85, doi: 10.1016/j. cma.2017.12.009
  7. Bourgoyne, D.A. (2003) Flow over a hydrofoil with trailing edge vortex shedding at high Reynolds number. Ph.D. Thesis, Mechanical Engineering, University of Michigan.
  8. Carcaterra, A., Dessi, D. & Mastroddi, F. (2005) Hydrofoil vibration induced by a random flow: A stochastic perturbation approach. Journal of Sound and Vibration 283 (1–2), pp. 401–432, doi: 10.1016/j.jsv.2004.04.040.
  9. Daskovsky, M. (2000) The hydrofoil in surface proximity, theory and experiment. Ocean Engineering 27 (10), pp. 1129–1159, doi: 10.1016/S0029-8018(99)00032-3.
  10. Ducoin, A., Astolfi, J.A., Deniset, F. & Sigrist, J.-F. (2009) Computational and experimental investigation of flow over a transient pitching hydrofoil. European Journal of Mechanics – B/Fluids 28 (6), pp. 728–743, doi: 10.1016/j. euromechflu.2009.06.001.
  11. Duncan, J.H. (1983) The breaking and non-breaking wave resistance of a two-dimensional hydrofoil. Journal of Fluid Mechanics 126 (1), pp. 507–520, doi: 10.1017/ S0022112083000294.
  12. Filippov, S.I. (2001) Flow past a submerged hydrofoil. Fluid Dynamics 36(3), pp. 489–496, doi: 10.1023/A:1019200 521581.
  13. Garg, N., Kenway, G.K.W., Lyu, Z., Martins, J.R.R.A. & Young, Y.L. (2015) High-fidelity hydrodynamic shape optimization of a 3-D hydrofoil. Journal of Ship Research 59 (4), pp. 209–226, doi: 10.5957/jsr.2015.59.4.209.
  14. Garg, N., Kenway, G.K.W., Martins, J.R.R.A. & Young, Y.L. (2017) High-fidelity multipoint hydrostructural optimization of a 3-D hydrofoil. Journal of Fluids and Structures 71, pp. 15–39, doi: 10.1016/j.jfluidstructs.2017.02.001.
  15. Guo, Z., Lin, Z., Yang, Q. & Li, X. (2012) Research of Combined Control Scheme for Fast Catamaran Motion Control Using T-foils and Interceptors. International Journal of Intelligent Engineering & Systems 5 (2)
  16. Hay, A. & Visonneau, M. (2005) Computation of free-surface flows with local mesh adaptation. International Journal for Numerical Methods in Fluids 49 (7), pp. 785–816.
  17. He, P., Martins, J.R.R.A., Mader, C.A. & Maki, K. (2019) Aerothermal optimization of a ribbed U-bend cooling channel using the adjoint method. International Journal of Heat and Mass Transfer 140, pp. 152–172.
  18. Jameson, A., Martinelli, L. & Pierce, N.A. (1998) Optimum aerodynamic design using the Navier–Stokes equations. Theoretical and Computational Fluid Dynamics 10 (1), pp. 213–237, doi: 10.1007/s001620050060.
  19. Kouh, J.-S., Lin, T.J. & Chau, S.-W. (2002) Performance analysis of two-dimensional hydrofoil under free surface. Journal of National Taiwan University 86.
  20. Muñoz-Paniagua, J., Garcia, J. & Crespo, A. (2015) Aerodynamic Optimization of the Nose Shape of a Train Using the Adjoint Method. Journal of Applied Fluid Mechanics 8 (3), pp. 601–612, doi: 10.18869/acadpub.jafm.67.222.22632.
  21. Nazemian, A. & Ghadimi, P. (2020a) Shape optimization of a hydrofoil with leadingedge protuberances using full factorial sweep sampling and an RBF surrogate model. Scientific Journals of the Maritime University of Szczecin, Zeszyty Naukowe Akademii Morskiej w Szczecinie 62 (134), pp. 116–123, doi: 10.17402/426.
  22. Nazemian, A. & Ghadimi, P. (2020b) Shape optimization of trimaran ship hull using CFD-based simulation and adjoint solver. Ships and Offshore Structures, doi: 10.1080/17445302.2020.1827807.
  23. Nazemian, A. & Ghadimi, P. (2021) Automated CFD-based optimization of inverted bow shape of a trimaran ship: An applicable and efficient optimization platform. Scientia Iranica 28 (5 B), pp. 2751–2768.
  24. Othmer, C. (2014) Adjoint methods for car aerodynamics. Journal of Mathematics in Industry 4 (6), 6, doi: 10.1186/2190-5983-4-6.
  25. Petrone, G., Hill, D.C. & Biancolini, M.E. (2014) Track by Track Robust Optimization of a F1 Front Wing using Adjoint Solutions and Radial Basis Functions. 44th AIAA Fluid Dynamics Conference, Atlanta, Georgia (USA).
  26. Raza, N., Mehmood, I., Rafuddin, H., Bilal, S. & Rafque, M. (2013) Numerical simulation of free surface effect on moving hydrofoil near free surface. 10th International Bhurban Conference on Applied Sciences & Technology (IBCAST), Islamabad, Pakistan.
  27. RBF (2022) RBF-Morph™, Webinars and Q&A [Online] Available from: http://www.rbf-morph.com, [Accessed: January 02, 2022].
  28. Rhee, S.H., Kim, S.-E., Ahn, H., Oh, J. & Kim, H. (2003) Analysis of a jet-controlled high-lift hydrofoil with a flap. Ocean Engineering 30,16, pp. 2117–2136, doi: 10.1016/ S0029-8018(03)00071-4.
  29. Sacher, M., Durand, M., Berrini, É., Hauville, F., Duvigneau, R., Le Maître, O. & Astolfi, J.A. (2018) Flexible hydrofoil optimization for the 35th America’s Cup with constrained EGO method. Ocean Engineering 157, pp. 62–72.
  30. Wang, D.X. & He, L. (2010) Adjoint aerodynamic design optimization for blades in multistage turbomachines – Part I: Methodology and verification. Journal of Turbomachinery 132 (2), 021011, doi: 10.1115/1.3072498.
  31. Wang, X., Song, B., Wang, P. & Sun, C. (2017) Hydrofoil optimization of underwater glider using Free-Form Deformation and surrogate-based optimization. International Journal of Naval Architecture and Ocean Engineering 10 (6), pp. 730–740, doi: 10.1016/j.ijnaoe.2017.12.005.
  32. Zanette, J., Imbault, D. & Tourabi, A. (2010) A design methodology for cross flow water turbines. Renewable Energy 35 (5), pp. 997–1009, doi: 10.1016/j.renene.2009.09.014.
  33. Zhang, J., Yang, S. & Liu, J. (2018) Numerical investigation of a novel device for bubble generation to reduce ship drag. International Journal of Naval Architecture and Ocean Engineering 10 (5), pp. 629–643.
ISSN on-line 2392-0378
Language English
Funding No data
Figures 21
Tables 2
DOI 10.17402/506
Published 2022-06-30
Accepted 2022-02-06
Recieved 2021-11-12

Files in this item

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record

Search repository

Advanced Search


My Account

RSS Feeds