This article presents an investigation of water entry of two types of catamarans by smoothed particle hydrodynamics method. Constant velocity is considered for each model. For the first model, J3, water entry simulation of demi hull, wave-piercing hull and whole hull is performed. Pressure distribution and free surfaces of each test are presented. Comparison between pressure distribution of the whole hull and other parts shows a principal difference in flow regime around the bodies. Pressure coefficient of the whole body is larger than other body and has an increasing–decreasing behavior versus time. The second case study includes an INCAT model which is also simulated at a constant velocity. Pressure distribution of the INCAT model is compared against that of J3 model. Because of different geometries of the models, there are differences in their surrounding flow and pressure distributions. Mean pressure distribution and peak pressure of the J3 model are found to be greater than those of the INCAT model. Therefore, one may claim that a rounded corner body lick as INCAT model is perhaps better than a sharp body lick as J3 model.
Von KarmanT. The impact of seaplane floats during landing. NACA technical note no. 321, October1929. Washington, DC: National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics.
2.
WagnerH. Transport phenomena associated with impacts and sliding on liquid surfaces. Math Mech1932; 12(4): 193–215.
3.
ZhaoRFaltinsenOM. Water entry of two-dimensional bodies. J Fluid Mech1993; 246: 593–612.
4.
ZhaoRFaltinsenOMAarsnesJ. Water entry of arbitrary two-dimensional sections with and without flow separation. In: 21st symposium on naval hydrodynamics, Norway, 24–28 June 1997, pp.408–423. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
5.
VaryaniKGatigantiMGerigkM. Motions and slamming impact on catamaran. Ocean Eng2000; 27: 729–747.
6.
GrandeKXiaJ. Prediction of slamming occurrence on catamaran cross structures. In: Proceedings of OMAE02, 21st international conference on offshore mechanics and arctic engineering, Oslo, 23–28 June 2002, pp.525–533. New York: ASME.
7.
YanSMaQ. Numerical simulation of fully nonlinear interaction between steep waves and 2D floating bodies using the QALE-FEM method. J Comput Phys2007; 221(2): 666–692.
8.
DavisMWhelanJ. Computation of wet deck bow slam loads for catamaran arched cross sections. Ocean Eng2007; 34: 2265–2276.
9.
ZhangYZouQGreavesD. A level set immersed boundary method for water entry and exit. Commun Comput Phys2010; 8(2): 265–288.
10.
WangSSoaresCG. Slam induced loads on bow-flared sections with various roll angles. Ocean Eng2013; 67: 45–57.
11.
WangSSoaresCG. Numerical study on the water impact of 3D bodies by an explicit finite element method. Ocean Eng2014; 78: 73–88.
12.
GhadimiPDashtimaneshAFeizi ChekabMA. A numerical investigation of the water impact of an arbitrary bow section. ISH J Hydraul Eng2013; 19(3): 186–195.
13.
GhadimiPSaadatkhahADashtimaneshA. Analytical solution of wedge water entry by using Schwartz-Christoffel conformal mapping. Int J Model Simul Sci Comput2011; 2(3): 337–354.
14.
GhadimiPDashtimaneshADjeddiSR. Study of water entry of circular cylinder by using analytical and numerical solution. J Braz Soc Mech Sci2012; 34(3): 225–232.
15.
GringoldRMonaghanJ. Smoothed particle hydrodynamics: theory and application to non-spherical stars. Mon Not R Astron Soc1997; 181: 375–388.
16.
LucyL. A numerical approach to testing of the fusion process. Astron J1997; 88: 1013–1024.
17.
DalrympleRA. Using smoothed particle hydrodynamics for waves. In: 4th international Asian and Pacific Coasts conference, Nanjing, 4–5 March 2007, World Scientific Publishing, Singapore, pp. 17–28.
18.
DalrympleRAGómez-GesteiraMRogersBD. Smoothed particle hydrodynamics for water waves. In: MaQ (ed.) Advances in numerical simulation of nonlinear water waves. Singapore: World Scientific Publishing, 2009, pp.465–496.
19.
FerrariA. SPH simulation of a free surface flow over a sharp crested weir. Adv Water Resour2010; 33(3): 270–276.
20.
Gómez-GesteiraMCerqueiroDCrespoC. Green water overtopping analyzed with a SPH model. Ocean Eng2005; 32(2): 223–238.
21.
Gómez-GesteiraMDalrympleRA. Using a 3D SPH method for wave impact on a tall structure. J Waterw Port C Div2004; 130(2): 63–69.
22.
Gómez-GesteiraMRogersBDDalrympleRA. State of the art of classical SPH for free surface flows. J Hydraul Res2010; 48: 6–27.
RogersBDDalrympleRAStansbyPK. SPH modeling of floating bodies in the surf zone. In: Proceedings of the 31st international conference coastal engineering, Hamburg, 31 August–5 September 2008, pp.204–215. Singapore: World Scientific Publishing.
25.
OgerGDoringMAlessandriniB. Two-dimensional SPH simulations of wedge water entries. J Comput Phys2006; 213: 803–822.
26.
OgerGTouzéDLAlessandriniB. A new parallelized 3D SPH model: resolution of water entry problems and scalability study. ERCOFTAC Bull2008; 76: 35–38.
27.
GongKLiuHWangBL. Water entry of a wedge based on SPH model with an improved boundary treatment. J Hydrodyn2009; 21(6): 750–757.
28.
VepaKSVan NuffelDVan PaepegemW. Pressure predictions during water entry of a 2D rigid cylinder using SPH method. In: 26th international workshop on water waves and floating bodies (IWWWFB), Athens, 17–20 April 2011, pp.197–200.
29.
VandammeJZouQReeveDE. Modeling floating object entry and exit using smoothed particle hydrodynamics. J Waterw Port C Div2011; 137(5): 213–224.
30.
VeenDGourlayT. A combined strip theory and smoothed particle hydrodynamics approach for estimating slamming loads on a ship in head seas. Ocean Eng2012; 43: 64–71.
31.
GhadimiPFarsiMDashtimaneshA. Study of various numerical aspects of 3D-SPH for simulation of the dam break problem. J Braz Soc Mech Sci2012; 34(4): 486–491.
32.
GhadimiPDashtimaneshAFarsiM. Investigation of free surface flow generated by a planing flat plate using smoothed particle hydrodynamics method and FLOW3D simulations. Proc IMechE, Part M: J Engineering for the Maritime Environment2013; 227(2): 125–135.
33.
DashtimaneshAGhadimiP. A three dimensional SPH model for detail study of free surface deformation just behind a rectangular planing hull. J Braz Soc Mech Sci2013; 35(4): 369–380.
34.
DashtimaneshAGhadimiP. SPS turbulent modeling of high speed transom stern flow. Brodogradnja2014; 65(1): 1–16.
35.
MonaghanJJ. Smoothed particle hydrodynamics. Annu Rev Astron Astr1992; 30: 543–574.
36.
LoEYMShaoS. Simulation of near-shore solitary wave mechanics by an incompressible SPH method. Appl Ocean Res2002; 24: 275–286.
37.
GotohHShaoSMemitaT. SPH-LES model for numerical investigation of wave interaction with partially immersed breakwater. Coast Eng J2004; 46(1): 39–63.
38.
IssaR.
Numerical assessment of the smoothed particle hydrodynamics grid-less method for incompressible flows and its extension to turbulent flows. PhD Thesis, University of Manchester Institute of Science and Technology, UMIST, Manchester, 2004.
39.
PopeSB.
Turbulent flows. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000.
40.
ColagrossiALandriniM. Numerical simulation of interfacial flows by smoothed particle hydrodynamics. J Comput Phys2003; 191: 448–475.
CrespoAGómez-GesteiraMDalrympleRA. Boundary conditions generated by dynamic particles in SPH methods. Comput Mater Con2007; 5: 173–184.
43.
TveitnesTFairlie-ClarkeACVaryaniK. An experimental investigation into the constant velocity water entry of wedge-shaped sections. Ocean Eng2008; 35: 1463–1478.
