Academia.eduAcademia.edu

Figure 22 – uploaded by Matteo Diez

See full PDFdownloadDownload figure
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.

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 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).
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.
‘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