search.noResults

search.searching

saml.title
dataCollection.invalidEmail
note.createNoteMessage

search.noResults

search.searching

orderForm.title

orderForm.productCode
orderForm.description
orderForm.quantity
orderForm.itemPrice
orderForm.price
orderForm.totalPrice
orderForm.deliveryDetails.billingAddress
orderForm.deliveryDetails.deliveryAddress
orderForm.noItems
Wave-in-deck and vapour pocket model tests


Fresh insight into impact load assessment has been gained following two BreaKin JIPs and the IMBOL project, which is a continuation of the SLING programme.


Scale 25, atmospheric


 Wave-in-deck impact event in atmospheric condition (left) and depressurised condition (right), measured at scale 25 in MARIN’s Depressurised Wave Basin


Scale 25, depressurised


Scale 50, atmospheric Figure 1: Observations based on high-speed video images


BreaKin and BreaKin CFD JIP During the BreaKin JIP (2016-2018) wave-in-deck model tests were carried out in MARIN’s Depressurised Wave Basin (DWB) at two scales (25 and 50), and in atmospheric and depressurised conditions. The objective of the JIP was to get more insight into the scale effects involved in wave-in-deck model tests and to take the first steps towards linking wave kinematics with measured impact loads.


In the ongoing follow-up project, the BreaKin CFD JIP (2020-2023), the model test results are being further analysed and compared to ComFLOW simulations.


Jule Scharnke & Rodrigo Ezeta


j.scharnke@marin.nl 18 report


Based on the preliminary results, two major observations have been made:


• The depressurisation of the testing facility results in a change in gas-to-liquid density ratio and due to this, in a change in air flow between the incoming wave and the deck box. This causes a change of wave shape. For the wave cases tested at scale 25, this resulted in an increase of measured horizontal global impact loads in depressurised conditions compared to atmospheric conditions.


• The unscaled surface tension results in changes of the free surface instabilities between the tests carried out at scale 25 vs scale 50. As a result, higher global horizontal deck loads are measured at scale 50.


The two observations based on high-speed video images are illustrated in figure 1.


Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24  |  Page 25  |  Page 26  |  Page 27  |  Page 28