2014
DOI: 10.4172/2169-0049.1000129
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Velocity and Density Effect on Impact Force during Water Entry of Sphere

Abstract: A careful experimental investigation has been performed to quantify the impact forces on a sphere that passes from an air region to a water region. The experiments allowed changes to a wide range of parameters, including the impact velocity, the sphere density, and surface wettability. In addition to quantifying the impact force, results have allowed a qualitative discussion of the difference in fluid flow behaviour in the vicinity of the sphere. It was found that the parameters, particularly the sphere densit… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1

Citation Types

0
1
0

Year Published

2016
2016
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
6

Relationship

0
6

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 8 publications
(1 citation statement)
references
References 10 publications
0
1
0
Order By: Relevance
“…More tools and methods are now being used to better understand the accuracy of XBT fall rates and temperature measurements. These tools include traditional side-by-side XBT and CTD comparisons (e.g., Thadathil et al, 2002;Hamon et al, 2012;Cowley et al, 2013;Cheng et al, 2018), tests in swimming pools and water tanks (e.g., Bringas and Goni, 2015), Geophysical Fluid Dynamics models (Abraham et al, 2012(Abraham et al, , 2014Gorman et al, 2014;Shepard et al, 2014), comparison with Argo and satellite altimetry data (DiNezio and , and temporal changes of biases (DiNezio and Good, 2011;Gouretski, 2012). A careful analysis of the different individual probe types is in progress (Reseghetti et al, 2018), as different probe types have different characteristics in probe design that may impact data quality.…”
Section: Data Qualitymentioning
confidence: 99%
“…More tools and methods are now being used to better understand the accuracy of XBT fall rates and temperature measurements. These tools include traditional side-by-side XBT and CTD comparisons (e.g., Thadathil et al, 2002;Hamon et al, 2012;Cowley et al, 2013;Cheng et al, 2018), tests in swimming pools and water tanks (e.g., Bringas and Goni, 2015), Geophysical Fluid Dynamics models (Abraham et al, 2012(Abraham et al, , 2014Gorman et al, 2014;Shepard et al, 2014), comparison with Argo and satellite altimetry data (DiNezio and , and temporal changes of biases (DiNezio and Good, 2011;Gouretski, 2012). A careful analysis of the different individual probe types is in progress (Reseghetti et al, 2018), as different probe types have different characteristics in probe design that may impact data quality.…”
Section: Data Qualitymentioning
confidence: 99%