The hydrodynamic interactions during water entry are critical for the design of unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) and autonomous underwater vehicles (AUVs) operating in challenging environments. This study investigates the flow dynamics and turbulence characteristics induced by spherical bodies of varying mass impacting still water from different heights. A two-dimensional numerical framework employing the Arbitrary Lagrangian-Eulerian (ALE) approach with adaptive remeshing was used to simulate the multiphase flow during water entry. The numerical model was validated against experimental data for radial velocity profiles. Key flow parameters, including pressure distribution, normalized radial velocity, turbulent kinetic energy, and turbulent dissipation rate, were analyzed as functions of radial distance from the sphere. Spectral analysis of surface elevation and radial velocity signals revealed that increasing sphere mass led to steeper power spectral density (PSD) slopes at lower fall heights, indicating enhanced low-frequency flow activity. Conversely, higher drop heights resulted in flatter PSD slopes, suggesting a broader distribution of flow energy across frequencies. The insights gained from this study contribute to an improved understanding of impact-driven flow dynamics in multiphase systems, with applications in the design and optimization of water-entry vehicles and devices.
ChukwuemekaECAmesFKazeemRA, et al. Numerical investigation of forces and acceleration for air-sea unmanned aerial vehicle in transition. Int J Interact Des Manuf2024; 18: 6605–6624.
2.
AbdulrahimMWatkinsSSegalR, et al. Dynamic sensitivity to atmospheric turbulence of unmanned air vehicles with varying configuration. J Aircr2010; 47: 1873–1883.
3.
XuGDDuanWYWuGX.Numerical simulation of oblique water entry of an asymmetrical wedge. Ocean Eng2008; 35: 1597–1603.
4.
WangSXiangGGuedes SoaresC.Assessment of three-dimensional effects on slamming load predictions using OpenFoam. Appl Ocean Res2021; 112: 102646.
5.
SunHFaltinsenOM (2008) Asymmetric Water Entry of a Bow-Flare Ship Section with Roll Angle. In: IUTAM Symposium on Fluid-Structure Interaction in Ocean Engineering. SpringerNetherlands,Dordrecht, pp 285–296.
6.
XuGDDuanWY.Review of prediction techniques on hydrodynamic impact of ships. J Mar Sci Appl2009; 8: 204–210.
7.
De BackerGVantorreMBeelsC, et al. Experimental investigation of water impact on axisymmetric bodies. Appl Ocean Res2009; 31: 143–156.
8.
SunHWangDY.Experimental and numerical analysis of hydrodynamic impact on stiffened side of three-dimensional elastic stiffened plates. Adv Mech Eng2018; 10: 1–23.
9.
HuangLTavakoliSLiM, et al. CFD analyses on the water entry process of a freefall lifeboat. Ocean Eng2021; 232: 109115.
10.
von KarmanT. The impact on seaplane floats during landing. Natl Advis Comm Aeronaut Tech Notes1929; 321.
11.
WagnerH. Über Stoß– und Gleitvorgänge an der Oberfläche von Flüssigkeiten. ZAMM – Journal of Applied Mathematics and Mechanics / Zeitschrift für Angewandte Mathematik und Mechanik1932; 12: 193–215. https://doi.org/10.1002/zamm.19320120402
12.
CointeRArmandJL.Hydrodynamic impact analysis of a cylinder. J Offshore Mech Arctic Eng1987; 109: 237–243.
13.
KorobkinA.Analytical models of water impact. Eur J Appl Math2004; 15: 821–838.
14.
CarricaPMWilsonRVNoackRW, et al. Ship motions using single-phase level set with dynamic overset grids. Comput Fluids2007; 36: 1415–1433.
15.
CaldererAKangSSotiropoulosF.Level set immersed boundary method for coupled simulation of air/water interaction with complex floating structures. J Comput Phys2014; 277: 201–227.
16.
YuPLiHOngMC.Numerical study on the water entry of curved wedges. Ships Offshore Struct2018; 13: 885–898.
17.
ZhaoRFaltinsenO.Water entry of two-dimensional bodies. J Fluid Mech1993; 246: 593–612.
18.
BrizzolaraSCoutyNHermundstadO, et al. Comparison of experimental and numerical loads on an impacting bow section. Ships Offshore Struct2008; 3: 305–324.
19.
DattaRGuedes SoaresC.Analysis of the hydroelastic effect on a container vessel using coupled BEM–FEM method in the time domain. Ships Offshore Struct2020; 15: 393–402.
20.
FacciALPorfiriMUbertiniS.Three-dimensional water entry of a solid body: a computational study. J Fluid Struct2016; 66: 36–53.
21.
FarsiMGhadimiP.Effect of flat deck on catamaran water entry through smoothed particle hydrodynamics. Proc Inst Mech Eng M J Eng Marit Environ2016; 230: 267–280.
22.
PanciroliRAbrateSMinakG, et al. Hydroelasticity in water-entry problems: comparison between experimental and SPH results. Compos Struct2012; 94: 532–539.
23.
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.
24.
LiCWangCWeiY, et al. Hydrodynamic force and attitude angle characteristics of a spinning stone impacting a free surface. Phys Fluids2021; 33(12): 123309. DOI: 10.1063/5.0068968
25.
OzbulutMRamezanzadehSYildizM, et al. Modelling of wave generation in a numerical tank by SPH method. J Ocean Eng Mar Energy2020; 6: 121–136.
26.
YanGXPanGShiY, et al. Experimental and numerical investigation of water impact on air-launched AUVs. Ocean Eng2018; 167: 156–168.
27.
NaberezhnykhAIngramDAshtonI, et al. Sensitivity of turbulence parameters to tidal energy converter loads in BEM simulations. J Ocean Eng Mar Energy2024; 10: 155–174.
28.
MushtaqMShahNAMuhammadG. Advantages and disadvantages of boundary element methods for compressible fluid flow problems. J Am Sci2010; 6: 162–165.
29.
TakizawaKBazilevsYTezduyarTE.Mesh moving methods in flow computations with the space–time and arbitrary Lagrangian–Eulerian methods. J Adv Eng Comput2022; 6: 85.
30.
BazilevsYTakizawaKTezduyarTE.Computational fluid-structure interaction: methods and applications. John Wiley and Sons, 2012.
31.
GarckeHNürnbergRZhaoQ.Arbitrary Lagrangian-Eulerian finite element approximations for axisymmetric two-phase flow. Comput Math Appl2024; 155: 209–223.
32.
HirtCWAmsdenAACookJL.An arbitrary Lagrangian-Eulerian computing method for all flow speeds. J Comput Phys1974; 14: 227–253.
33.
DevolderBTrochPRauwoensP.Performance of a buoyancy-modified k-ω and k-ω SST turbulence model for simulating wave breaking under regular waves using OpenFOAM®. Coast Eng2018; 138: 49–65.
34.
SuiYNiuJYuanY, et al. An aerothermal study of influence of blockage ratio on a supersonic tube train system. J Therm Sci2022; 31: 529–540.
35.
DevolderBRauwoensPTrochP. Application of a buoyancy-modified k-ω SST turbulence model to simulate wave run-up around a monopile subjected to regular waves using OpenFOAM®. Coast Eng2017; 125: 81–94.
36.
JansenKEWhitingCHHulbertGM.A generalized-α method for integrating the filtered Navier–Stokes equations with a stabilized finite element method. Comput Methods Appl Mech Eng2000; 190: 305–319.
37.
RaushanPKPaulASinghSK, et al. Spatially-averaged turbulent flow characteristics over ribbed surface in presence of unidirectional wave over steady current. Appl Ocean Res2020; 100: 102154.
38.
SinghSKDebnathK.Regular wave and turbulent current interaction in free surface flow. J Ocean Eng Mar Energy2022; 8: 153–162.
39.
NaberezhnykhAIngramDAshtonI.Wavelet applications for turbulence characterisation of real tidal flows measured with an ADCP. Ocean Eng2023; 270: 113616.
40.
NikoraVIGoringDG.ADV Measurements of Turbulence: Can We Improve Their Interpretation?J Hydraul Eng1998; 124: 630–634.
41.
WahlTL.Analyzing ADV data using WinADV. In: Joint conference on water resource engineering and water resources planning and management 2000: building partnerships. Epub ahead of print 2004. DOI: 10.1061/40517(2000)300.
42.
LeeMLongoriaRGWilsonDE.Cavity dynamics in high-speed water entry. Phys Fluids1997; 9: 540–550.
43.
TruscottTTEppsBPBeldenJ. Water entry of projectiles. Annu Rev Fluid Mech2014; 46: 355–378.
44.
FaltinsenOM.Slamming, whipping, and springing. In: FaltinsenOM (ed.) Hydrodynamics of high-speed marine vehicles. Cambridge University Press, 2006 pp. 286–341.
45.
AristoffJMBushJWM. Water entry of small hydrophobic spheres. J Fluid Mech2009; 619: 45–78.
46.
TorrenceCCompoGP.A practical guide to wavelet analysis. Bull Am Meteorol Soc1998; 79: 61–78.
47.
NachaneDM.Time-varying spectral analysis: theory and applications. Indian Econ Rev2018; 53(1-2): 3–27.
48.
WelchP.The use of fast Fourier transform for the estimation of power spectra: a method based on time averaging over short, modified periodograms. IEEE Trans Audio Electroacoustics1967; 15: 70–73.
49.
CampagneAHassainiRRedorI, et al. Impact of dissipation on the energy spectrum of experimental turbulence of gravity surface waves. Phys Rev Fluids2018; 3: 044801.
50.
LuoMKhayyerALinP.Particle methods in ocean and coastal engineering. Appl Ocean Res2021; 114: 102734.
51.
ChallaRYimSCIdichandyVG, et al. Rigid-Body Water–Surface Impact Dynamics: Experiment and Semianalytical Approximation. ASME. J. Offshore Mech Arct Eng2014; 136(1): 011102. https://doi.org/10.1115/1.4025653
