Some remarks on surface conditions of solid body plunging into water with particle method

Yokoyama, M.; Kubota, Yoshihiro; Kikuchi, Kenji; Yagawa, Genki; Mochizuki, Osamu

doi:10.1186/2213-7467-1-9

Cited by 7 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 41 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…However, the mathematical background is not sufficient. Not with standing, the numerical results seem reasonable in many cases [5]. This suggests us that we may find the mathematical background [1] [6].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 59%

Extension of Smoothed Particle Hydrodynamics (SPH), Mathematical Background of Vortex Blob Method (VBM) and Moving Particle Semi-Implicit (MPS)

Isshiki¹

2014

AJCM

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

SPH has a reasonable mathematical background. Although VBM and MPS are similar to SPH, their mathematical backgrounds seem fragile. VBM has some problems in treating the viscous diffusion of vortices but is known as a practical method for calculating viscous flows. The mathematical background of MPS is also not sufficient. Not with standing, the numerical results seem reasonable in many cases. The problem common in both VBM and MPS is that the space derivatives necessary for calculating viscous diffusion are not estimated reasonably, although the treatment of advection is mathematically correct. This paper discusses a method to estimate the above mentioned problem of how to treat the space derivatives. The numerical results show the comparison among FDM (Finite Difference Method), SPH and MPS in detail. In some cases, there are big differences among them. An extension of SPH is also given.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 59%

Extension of Smoothed Particle Hydrodynamics (SPH), Mathematical Background of Vortex Blob Method (VBM) and Moving Particle Semi-Implicit (MPS)

Isshiki¹

2014

AJCM

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In addition, we discussed in [4] the characteristics of the film flow generated at the early stages of the splash when a body impacted a water surface. We numerically studied the influence of strength on hydrophilicity in splash formation [5]. We computed the influence of hydrophilicity from the slip of flow.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Splash Formation Due to a Frog Diving into Water

Kubota¹,

Mochizuki²

2015

WJM

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Herein, we present the results of our experimental investigation of splashes formed by a frog diving into water from the ground or from a leaf and the accompanying sound generated by the impact of the frog on the water. The experiments are performed by visualizing the flow with a highspeed camera. In addition, we used physical models comprising hydrophilic bodies made from hydrogel or acrylic resin to experimentally study how hydrophilicity affects the splash. In these experiments, we use the degree of swelling to define the hydrophilicity degree. The results show that different splashes are caused by the increase in water-film velocity upon an increase in hydrophilicity. For a body with strong hydrophilicity, at a relatively high film velocity, the water film forms when the body impacts the water surface separates from the body surface. In addition, an aircavity forms when the film separates from the body. We empirically examine the relation between the hydrophilicity degree and film velocity. The results indicate that increased hydrophilicity does not reduce the splash. Therefore, we conclude that reducing of the formation of water from the biomimetic point of view is related to the shape of body.

show abstract