Research Papers: Ocean Engineering

Rigid-Object Water-Entry Impact Dynamics: Finite-Element/Smoothed Particle Hydrodynamics Modeling and Experimental Validation

[+] Author and Article Information
Ravi Challa

School of Civil and Construction Engineering,
Oregon State University,
Corvallis, OR 97331

Solomon C. Yim

Coastal and Ocean Engineering Program,
School of Civil and Construction Engineering,
Oregon State University,
Corvallis, OR 97331

V. G. Idichandy, C. P. Vendhan

Department of Ocean Engineering,
Indian Institute of Technology Madras,
Chennai, 600036, Tamilnadu, India

Contributed by the Ocean, Offshore, and Arctic Engineering Division of ASME for publication in the JOURNAL OF OFFSHORE MECHANICS AND ARCTIC ENGINEERING. Manuscript received January 21, 2014; final manuscript received April 10, 2014; published online June 12, 2014. Assoc. Editor: Ron Riggs.

J. Offshore Mech. Arct. Eng 136(3), 031102 (Jun 12, 2014) (12 pages) Paper No: OMAE-14-1002; doi: 10.1115/1.4027454 History: Received January 21, 2014; Revised April 10, 2014

A numerical study on the dynamic response of a generic rigid water-landing object (WLO) during water impact is presented in this paper. The effect of this impact is often prominent in the design phase of the re-entry project to determine the maximum force for material strength determination to ensure structural and equipment integrity, human safety and comfort. The predictive capability of the explicit finite-element (FE) arbitrary Lagrangian-Eulerian (ALE) and smoothed particle hydrodynamics (SPH) methods of a state-of-the-art nonlinear dynamic finite-element code for simulation of coupled dynamic fluid structure interaction (FSI) responses of the splashdown event of a WLO were evaluated. The numerical predictions are first validated with experimental data for maximum impact accelerations and then used to supplement experimental drop tests to establish trends over a wide range of conditions including variations in vertical velocity, entry angle, and object weight. The numerical results show that the fully coupled FSI models can capture the water-impact response accurately for all range of drop tests considered, and the impact acceleration varies practically linearly with increase in drop height. In view of the good comparison between the experimental and numerical simulations, both models can readily be employed for parametric studies and for studying the prototype splashdown under more realistic field conditions in the oceans.

Copyright © 2014 by ASME
Your Session has timed out. Please sign back in to continue.


Von Karman, T., 1929, “The Impact of Seaplane Floats During Landing,” NACA TN 321, National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics, Washington, DC.
Wagner, H., 1932, “Trans. Phenomena Associated With Impacts and Sliding on Liquid Surfaces,” J. Math. Mech., 12(4), pp. 193–215.
Miloh, T., 1991, “On the Initial-Stage Slamming of a Rigid Sphere in a Vertical Water Entry,” Appl. Ocean Res., 13(1), pp. 43–48. [CrossRef]
Brooks, J. R., and Anderson, L. A., 1994, “Dynamics of a Space Module Impacting Water,” J. Spacecr. Rockets, 31(3), pp. 509–515. [CrossRef]
Zhao, R., Faltinsen, O. M., and Aarsnes, J. V., 1996, “Water Entry of Arbitrary Two-Dimensional Sections With and Without Flow Separation,” Proceedings of the 21st Symposium on Naval Hydrodynamics, National Academy Press, Washington, DC, pp. 408–423.
Faltinsen, O. M., 1999, “Water Entry of a Wedge by Hydroelastic Orthotropic Plate Theory,” J. Ship Res., 43(3), pp. 180–193.
Scolan, Y. M., and Korobkin, A. A., 2001, “Three-Dimensional Theory of Water Impact. Part 1. Inverse Wagner problem,” J. Fluid Mech., 440, pp. 293–326. [CrossRef]
Souli, M., Olovsson, L., and Do, I., 2002, “ALE and Fluid-Structure Interaction Capabilities in LS-DYNA,” 7th International LS-DYNA Users Conference.
Korobkin, A. A., and Scolan, Y. M., 2006, “Three-Dimensional Theory of Water Impact. Part 2. Linearized Wagner Problem,” J. Fluid Mech., 549, pp. 343–373. [CrossRef]
Tutt, B. A., and Taylor, A. P., 2004, “The Use of LS-DYNA to Simulate the Water Landing Characteristics of Space Vehicles,” 8th International LS-DYNA Users Conference, Dearborn, MI, May 2–4.
Melis, E. M., and Bui, K., 2002, “Characterization of Water Impact Splashdown Event of Space Shuttle Solid Rocket Booster Using LS-DYNA,” 7th International LS-DYNA Users Conference, Dearborn, MI, May 19–21.
Korobkin, A. A., 2005, “Three-Dimensional Nonlinear Theory of Water Impact,” 18th International Congress of Mechanical Engineering (COBEM), Ouro Preto, Minas Gerais, Brazil.
Seddon, C. M., and Moatamedi, M., 2006, “Review of Water Entry With Applications to Aerospace Structures,” Int. J. Impact Eng., 32, pp. 1045–1067. [CrossRef]
Wang, J. T., and Lyle, K. H., 2007, “Simulating Space Capsule Water Landing With Explicit Finite Element Method,” 48th AIAA/ASME Conference, Waikiki, HI, pp. 23–26.
Jackson, K. E., and Fuchs, Y. T., 2008, “Comparison of ALE and SPH Simulations of Vertical Drop Tests of a Composite Fuselage Section Into Water,” 10th International LS-DYNA Users Conference, Dearborn, MI, June 8–10.
Vandamme, J., Zou, Q., and Reeve, D. E., 2011, “Modeling Floating Object Entry and Exit Using Smoothed Particle Hydrodynamics,” J. Waterw., Port, Coastal, Ocean Eng., 137(5), pp. 213–224. [CrossRef]
Challa, R., Yim, S. C., Idichandy, V. G., and Vendhan, C. P., 2014, “Rigid-Body Water-Surface Impact Dynamics: Experiment and Semi-Analytical Approximation,” ASME J. Offshore Mech. Arctic Eng., 136, p. 011102. [CrossRef]
Scolan, Y. M., and Korobkin, A. A., 2012, “Hydrodynamic Impact (Wagner) Problem and Galin's Theorem,” 27th International Workshop on Water Waves and Floating Bodies, Copenhagen, Denmark.
Belytschko, T., Flanagran, D. F., and Kennedy, J. M., 1982, “Finite Element Method With User-Controlled Meshes for Fluid-Structure Interactions,” J. Comput. Methods Appl. Mech. Eng., 33, pp. 689–723. [CrossRef]
Hallquist, J. O., 1998, “LS-DYNA Theoretical Manual,” Livermore Software Technology Corporation.
Souli, M., and Benson, D. J.2010, Arbitrary Lagrangian-Eulerian and Fluid-Structure Interaction Numerical,” Wiley Publications, New York.
Dalrymple, R. A., and Rogers, B. D., 2006, “Numerical Modeling of Water Waves With the SPH Method,” Coastal Eng. J., 53(2–3), pp. 141–147. [CrossRef]
Faltinsen, O. M., 2005, Hydrodynamics of High-Speed Marine Vehicles, Cambridge University, New York.
Hirano, Y., and Miura, K., 1970, “Water Impact Accelerations of Axially Symmetric Bodies,” J. Spacecr. Rockets, 7(6), pp. 762–764. [CrossRef]
Gingold, R. A., and Monaghan, J. J., 1977, “Smoothed Particle Hydrodynamics: Theory and Application to Nonspherical Stars,” Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc., 181, pp. 375–389.
Lucy, L., 1977, “A Numerical Approach to Testing of the Fusion Process,” Astron. J., 88, pp. 1013–1024. [CrossRef]
Herault, A., Vicari, A., Negro, C., and Dalrymple, R. A., 2009, “Modeling Water Waves in the Surf Zone With GPU-SPHysics,” 4th International SPHERIC Workshop, Nantes, France, pp. 27–29.


Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 1

Overall configuration of WLO prototype (all dimensions are in mm)

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 2

(a) and (b) Elevation and top view of the FE-ALE computational mesh (top part is the air domain; bottom part is the water domain; and the rigid body in the air domain is the WLO model)

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 3

Animation images at various time steps for vertical impact

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 4

Numerical simulation response of a 5 m drop test: (a) acceleration time history

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 5

Numerical simulation response of a 5 m drop test: (b) pressure time history

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 6

Height of drop versus depth of Immersion for case-I

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 7

Plan of the SPH water domain and the WLO (number of SPH nodes: 712,000)

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 8

SPH animation images of the particle impingement at various time steps

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 9

SPH acceleration time history for a 5 m drop height

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 10

Comparison of results for maximum acceleration with ALE and SPH [weight of WLO = 2.03 kg (case-I: mechanical release)] (vertical entry/entry angle = 0 deg)

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 11

Comparison of peak impact acceleration for pitch tests using ALE and SPH methods

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 12

Comparison of results for maximum acceleration with ALE and SPH [weight of WLO = 3.5 kg (case-II: electromagnetic release)] (vertical entry/entry angle = 0 deg)

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 13

Mesh size variation versus maximum impact acceleration

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 14

Number of particles (SPH nodes) versus maximum impact acceleration

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 15

Number of CPUs versus estimated clock time for ALE and SPH test models

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 16

Clock-time ratios of SPH/ALE versus number of CPUs

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 17

Speed scaling of the performance of ALE and SPH (N1/Np)



Some tools below are only available to our subscribers or users with an online account.

Related Content

Customize your page view by dragging and repositioning the boxes below.

Related Journal Articles
Related eBook Content
Topic Collections

Sorry! You do not have access to this content. For assistance or to subscribe, please contact us:

  • TELEPHONE: 1-800-843-2763 (Toll-free in the USA)
  • EMAIL: asmedigitalcollection@asme.org
Sign In