Academia.eduAcademia.edu

Figure 11 – uploaded by Matteo Diez

See full PDFdownloadDownload figure
Table 12: Statistical analysis of slamming loads and waves from irregular wave benchmark (probe B1).

Table 12 Statistical analysis of slamming loads and waves from irregular wave benchmark (probe B1).

Related Figures (48)

Table 2: Sea states probability and spectrum parameters.
Table 2: Sea states probability and spectrum parameters.
Table 3: Irregular wave inlet boundary condition: empirical distributions vs. theory for sea state 6.
Table 3: Irregular wave inlet boundary condition: empirical distributions vs. theory for sea state 6.
Table 4: Comparison of theoretical and empirical values for Bretschneider spectrum in sea state 6.
Table 4: Comparison of theoretical and empirical values for Bretschneider spectrum in sea state 6.
Table 6: Verification and validation for calm water simulation at Fr=0.5; S; is solution of G1 or G2 and D is INSEAN EFD.
Table 6: Verification and validation for calm water simulation at Fr=0.5; S; is solution of G1 or G2 and D is INSEAN EFD.
Table 7: Calm water simulation of Delft catamaran, Fr=0.5, Re=7.14x10°.
Table 7: Calm water simulation of Delft catamaran, Fr=0.5, Re=7.14x10°.
Table 8: Verification for Delft catamaran at Fr=0.5 in regular wave at T,, H) for sea state 6. Table 9: Simulation for Delft catamaran at Fr=0.5 in regular wave at T,, H, for sea state 6.
Table 8: Verification for Delft catamaran at Fr=0.5 in regular wave at T,, H) for sea state 6. Table 9: Simulation for Delft catamaran at Fr=0.5 in regular wave at T,, H, for sea state 6.
Table 10: Relevant parameters for Delft catamaran at Fr=0.5 in regular wave at T,, Hy for sea state 6.
Table 10: Relevant parameters for Delft catamaran at Fr=0.5 in regular wave at T,, Hy for sea state 6.
Table 14: Variable regular wave (SS6): MC study for slamming loads.
Table 14: Variable regular wave (SS6): MC study for slamming loads.
Table 15: Comparison of deterministic regular wave (T), Hp) and UQ versus irregular wave benchmark.
Table 15: Comparison of deterministic regular wave (T), Hp) and UQ versus irregular wave benchmark.
Table 17: Comparison of slamming loads for deterministic regular wave (T,, Hp) and regular wave UQ versus irregula wave benchmark. Table 18: Metamodels ranking for variable regular wave and original geometry: 2D UQ for resistance,and motions
Table 17: Comparison of slamming loads for deterministic regular wave (T,, Hp) and regular wave UQ versus irregula wave benchmark. Table 18: Metamodels ranking for variable regular wave and original geometry: 2D UQ for resistance,and motions
Table 19: Variable geometry in calm water: MC study for resistance, sinkage and trim.
Table 19: Variable geometry in calm water: MC study for resistance, sinkage and trim.
Table 20: Variable geometry in deterministic regular wave (T,,H,): MC study for resistance and motions.
Table 20: Variable geometry in deterministic regular wave (T,,H,): MC study for resistance and motions.
Table 21: Variable geometry in deterministic regular wave (T,,H,): MC study for slamming loads.
Table 21: Variable geometry in deterministic regular wave (T,,H,): MC study for slamming loads.
Table 22: Variable regular wave (SS6) and geometry: MC study for resistance and motions.
Table 22: Variable regular wave (SS6) and geometry: MC study for resistance and motions.
Table 23: Variable regular wave (SS6) and geometry: MC study for slamming loads.
Table 23: Variable regular wave (SS6) and geometry: MC study for slamming loads.
Table 24: Metamodels ranking for variable geometry in calm water: 1D UQ for resistance, sinkage and trim.
Table 24: Metamodels ranking for variable geometry in calm water: 1D UQ for resistance, sinkage and trim.
‘able 25: Metamodels ranking for variable geometry in deterministic regular wave (T,,H,): 1D UQ for resistance, heave and pitch motions. Table 26: Metamodels ranking for variable regular wave and geometry: 3D UQ for resistance and motions.
‘able 25: Metamodels ranking for variable geometry in deterministic regular wave (T,,H,): 1D UQ for resistance, heave and pitch motions. Table 26: Metamodels ranking for variable regular wave and geometry: 3D UQ for resistance and motions.
Table 27: Metamodels ranking overall (average of UQ problems for resistance and motions)
Table 27: Metamodels ranking overall (average of UQ problems for resistance and motions)
Table 28: Added resistance and energy consumption at different sea states and Fr=0.5.
Table 28: Added resistance and energy consumption at different sea states and Fr=0.5.
Figure 1; Lines plan of the Delft cat. 372.
Figure 1; Lines plan of the Delft cat. 372.
Figure 4: Slamming loads; identification from pressure time-history (a); selection of pressure probe (b,c) and identification threshold (d) for current slamming studies. Max. emerging (e,f) and re-enetring (g,h) slams including pressure distribution. Figure 3: Amplitudes and periods for generic variable V(t).
Figure 4: Slamming loads; identification from pressure time-history (a); selection of pressure probe (b,c) and identification threshold (d) for current slamming studies. Max. emerging (e,f) and re-enetring (g,h) slams including pressure distribution. Figure 3: Amplitudes and periods for generic variable V(t).
Figure 5: Empirical versus theoretical CDF for (a) wave period T and (b) wave height H in sea state 6.
Figure 5: Empirical versus theoretical CDF for (a) wave period T and (b) wave height H in sea state 6.
Figure 8: RAOs for AR (a,b), AC; (c,d), as function of encounter frequency f, and non- dimensional wavelength 1/L.
Figure 8: RAOs for AR (a,b), AC; (c,d), as function of encounter frequency f, and non- dimensional wavelength 1/L.
‘igure 9: RAOs for non dimensional heave z/L (a,b), and pitch 6 (c,d), as function of encounter frequency f, and non- dimensional wavelength //L.
‘igure 9: RAOs for non dimensional heave z/L (a,b), and pitch 6 (c,d), as function of encounter frequency f, and non- dimensional wavelength //L.
Figure 10: Phase for non dimensional heave z/L (a,b), and pitch 6 (c,d), as function of encounter frequency f, and non- dimensional wavelength //L.
Figure 10: Phase for non dimensional heave z/L (a,b), and pitch 6 (c,d), as function of encounter frequency f, and non- dimensional wavelength //L.
Figure 11: Energy spectrum of inlet boundary condition for sea state 6: (b) from raw FFT and (c) using best-fit.
Figure 11: Energy spectrum of inlet boundary condition for sea state 6: (b) from raw FFT and (c) using best-fit.
Figure 13: FET of force X (a) non-dimensional pitch z/L (b) and pitch 6 (c) in sea state 6, at Fr=0.5.
Figure 13: FET of force X (a) non-dimensional pitch z/L (b) and pitch 6 (c) in sea state 6, at Fr=0.5.
Figure 15: Comparison of time history PDF for irregular wave benchmark and variable regular wave UQ. Empirical anc Normal density functions are shown: (a) force X, (b) heave 2/L, (c) pitch 6.
Figure 15: Comparison of time history PDF for irregular wave benchmark and variable regular wave UQ. Empirical anc Normal density functions are shown: (a) force X, (b) heave 2/L, (c) pitch 6.
Figure 16: 2D UQ for variable regular wave: PDF of (a) force mean, mean-crossing amplitude for heave (b) and pitch (c) motions. Empirical distributions are compared with Normal (time mean) and Gamma (amplitudes).
Figure 16: 2D UQ for variable regular wave: PDF of (a) force mean, mean-crossing amplitude for heave (b) and pitch (c) motions. Empirical distributions are compared with Normal (time mean) and Gamma (amplitudes).
‘igure 21: 1D UQ for variable geometry in calm water: PDF of (a) total resistance coefficient, (b) sinkage and (c) trim. Empirical distributions are compared with Beta.
‘igure 21: 1D UQ for variable geometry in calm water: PDF of (a) total resistance coefficient, (b) sinkage and (c) trim. Empirical distributions are compared with Beta.
Figure 19: 2D UQ forvariable regular wave: PDF of (a) emerging pressure jump and (b) re-entering pressure jump. Empirical distributions are compared with Gamma. ‘igure 18: UQ items; first and second harmonics amplitude of force coefficient X versus wave period and height (a,b) and versus encounter frequency and wave amplitude (c,d). Polyharmonic spline (k=2) is used to get contours. Black dots are MCMC items.
Figure 19: 2D UQ forvariable regular wave: PDF of (a) emerging pressure jump and (b) re-entering pressure jump. Empirical distributions are compared with Gamma. ‘igure 18: UQ items; first and second harmonics amplitude of force coefficient X versus wave period and height (a,b) and versus encounter frequency and wave amplitude (c,d). Polyharmonic spline (k=2) is used to get contours. Black dots are MCMC items.
Figure 20: Geometric UQ: upper bound geometry for first KLE direction, (a) side [yellow], (b) bow and (c) stern views [dotted]; in green the original geometry.
Figure 20: Geometric UQ: upper bound geometry for first KLE direction, (a) side [yellow], (b) bow and (c) stern views [dotted]; in green the original geometry.
figure 22: 1D UQ for variable geometry in deterministic regular wave: PDF of (a) force mean, mean-crossing amplitude for heave (b) and pitch (c) motions. Empirical distributions are compared with Beta.
figure 22: 1D UQ for variable geometry in deterministic regular wave: PDF of (a) force mean, mean-crossing amplitude for heave (b) and pitch (c) motions. Empirical distributions are compared with Beta.
gure 24; 3D UQ for variable regular wave and geometry: PDF of (a) force mean, mean- crossing amplitude for heave (b) and pitch (c) motions. Empirical distributions are compared with Normal (time mean) and Gamma (amplitudes). Figure 23: 1D UQ forvariable geometry in deterministic regular wave: PDF of (a) emerging pressure jump and (b) re- entering pressure jump. Empirical distributions are compared with Beta.
gure 24; 3D UQ for variable regular wave and geometry: PDF of (a) force mean, mean- crossing amplitude for heave (b) and pitch (c) motions. Empirical distributions are compared with Normal (time mean) and Gamma (amplitudes). Figure 23: 1D UQ forvariable geometry in deterministic regular wave: PDF of (a) emerging pressure jump and (b) re- entering pressure jump. Empirical distributions are compared with Beta.
igure 25: 3D UQ for variable regular wave and geometry: PDF of (a) emerging pressure jump and (b) re-entering pressure jump. Empirical distributions are compared with Gamma.
igure 25: 3D UQ for variable regular wave and geometry: PDF of (a) emerging pressure jump and (b) re-entering pressure jump. Empirical distributions are compared with Gamma.
Related topics:
EngineeringOcean EngineeringNaval EngineeringNaval ArchitectureDecision Making Under UncertaintyUncertainty QuantificationShip Design
580 California St., Suite 400
San Francisco, CA, 94104
© 2025 Academia. All rights reserved