July 3, 2023 at 9:28 pmriyanto.rSubscriber
I am trying to find the heave natural period of a simple cone using the AQWA Eigenvalue module and a free decay test. I also calculated that manually so that I could confirm that the results were matching. However, the results are all different:
*** AQWA Eigenvalue: 3.77 sec
*** AQWA Free Decay: 4.04 sec (below is my setting):
*** My eigenvalue calculation with added mass & critical damping coefficient from the .LIS file from RAO Calculation: 4.78 sec
Do you have any tips on how I can get the calculation correct? Or were any settings that I should have calculated the natural period accurately? I believe my analysis (4.78 sec), but I fear it will not be reflected in the model and would interfere with the seastate peak period I would put into the structure.
July 4, 2023 at 5:35 pmMike PettitAnsys Employee
The Natural Modes result uses the linear hydrostatic stiffness matrix at the cone's equilibrium position to find the natural periods of the system. On the other hand, in your time domain analysis the Aqwa solver calculates the nonlinear hydrostatics over the instantaneous wetted surface of the cone at each time step.
In the time domain Analysis Settings, try setting the 'Use Linear Stiffness Matrix to Calculate Hydrostatic' option to 'Yes'. This should give you a better agreement between the Natural Modes result and your estimated natural period in the time domain.
You can also try setting the 'Convolution' option to 'No', which causes the Aqwa solver to use the acceleration RAOs to calculate the radiation forces/moments (rather than a convolution integral method). This may give you a better match with your own eigenvalue calculation.
I should point out that the natural period from your original time domain analysis (with nonlinear hydrostatics and convolution method for radiation terms) should be the most accurate estimate of the real system behaviour.
I hope this helps!
July 5, 2023 at 8:33 pmriyanto.rSubscriber
Hi Mike, thank you for your clear explanation! I am surprised that AQWA can process the non-linear stiffness from the structure; I should read the documentation more deeply!
However, I have several follow-up questions:
- How can the solver get the non-linear hydrostatic stiffness above the waterline of the structure if we only included the wetted area during the hydro-diffraction analysis? I excluded the freeboard structure above the waterline (to avoid error). Is there any setting(s) that I should have included here?
- During the time-domain analysis of the no-wave decay test, how does the solver calculate the added mass & damping ratio? Is this term fixed? Therefore they read the added mass coefficient from the diffraction analysis at its respective natural period? Because added mass & damping is dependent on the wave period. I would like to know what coefficient the solver chose if no wave is included in the simulation.
July 6, 2023 at 9:26 amMike PettitAnsys Employee
No problem, I'm happy to help.
Just to clarify, Aqwa has two types of time domain solver:
- when the 'Analysis Type' is 'Irregular Wave Response with Slow Drift' or 'Slow Drift Only', the calculation includes drift forces, but only uses linear hydrostatic/incident/diffracted/radiated wave pressures;
- when the 'Analysis Type' is 'Irregular Wave Response' or 'Regular Wave Response', the calculation does not include drift forces, but the hydrostatic and incident wave pressures are calculated under the instantaneous water surface (diffracted/radiated pressures are still linear).
To answer your questions:
- Ideally you should model at least some of the structure above the waterline, unless you are only going to run a Hydrodynamic Diffraction analysis. In the diffraction calculation the solver will ignore any non-diffracting panels, so they do not make a difference to the calculation time. Otherwise, in your Hydrodynamic Response analysis the solver will assume that the cut waterplane area is constant above the cone as it becomes fully submerged.
- This is what the convolution method does for us - rather than using frequency-dependent added mass/radiation damping terms in the equation of motion, instead it calculates the acceleration impulse function matrix for the structure, then we have:
Where m is structural mass; A_inf is added mass at infinite frequency (estimated by Aqwa); X is position, X˙ is velocity, X¨ is acceleration; c is damping excluding radiation damping; K is stiffness; F is the total force; h is the acceleration impulse function, which is calculated by Aqwa from the frequency-dependent added mass/radiation damping.
If you turn off convolution, the Aqwa solver will use an RAO-based method to calculate radiation forces, then you will find that there is no damping (because you have defined no wave).
I hope this answers your questions.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
Boost Ansys Fluent Simulations with AWS
Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD) helps engineers design products in which the flow of fluid components is a significant challenge. These different use cases often require large complex models to solve on a traditional workstation. Click here to join this event to learn how to leverage Ansys Fluids on the cloud, thanks to Ansys Gateway powered by AWS.
Earth Rescue – An Ansys Online Series
The climate crisis is here. But so is the human ingenuity to fight it. Earth Rescue reveals what visionary companies are doing today to engineer radical new ideas in the fight against climate change. Click here to watch the first episode.
Subscribe to the Ansys Blog to get great new content about the power of simulation delivered right to your email on a weekly basis. With content from Ansys experts, partners and customers you will learn about product development advances, thought leadership and trends and tips to better use Ansys tools. Sign up here.
- Solver Pivot Warning in Beam Element Model
- Saving & sharing of Working project files in .wbpz format
- Understanding Force Convergence Solution Output
- User manual
- An Unknown error occurred during solution. Check the Solver Output…..
- What is the difference between bonded contact region and fixed joint
- The solver engine was unable to converge on a solution for the nonlinear problem as constrained.
- whether have the difference between using contact and target bodies
- Defining rigid body and contact
- Colors and Mesh Display
© 2023 Copyright ANSYS, Inc. All rights reserved.