Analysis of Submarine with the Study of Mechanical Investigations using Borei – Class Submarine Model

Analysis of Submarine with the Study of Mechanical Investigations using Borei – Class Submarine Model

Amit Kumar Mehar

Associate Professor, Mechanical Engineering Raghu Engineering College (Autonomous) Andhra Pradesh, India

Potoju Muralidhar

Mechanical Engineering

Raghu Engineering College (Autonomous) Andhra Pradesh, India

Abstract In this current era of globalization every prosperous country in the world are wishes to develop a high technological machine-like nuclear-powered submarine, long ranging missile equipped submarines etc. To increase their navel strength and force for their countries pride. Even a highly equipped and technologically advanced submarine got damaged due to the collisions with mountain rocks, or ice bergs in ocean / sea. Sometimes these collisions lead to critical damage of parts of submarine, or injuries to soldiers. In this research work, modelling of a Borei class submarine models are done by using a modelling software, CATIA V5. Various investigations and their analysis done by using ANSYS CFD & ANYSYS Explicit Dynamics By using ANSYS the analyzed parameters are drag force, drag coefficient, lift Force, lift coefficient, deformation, total velocity, total acceleration, equivalent stress, maximum principal stress, minimum principal stress, maximum shear. stress, stress intensity, equivalent strain, maximum principal elastic strain, minimum principal elastic strain, maximum shear elastic strain, elastic strain intensity.

Keywords Borei-class submarine, CATIA, ANSYS, CFD, Explicit Dynamics, Drag, Lift, Deformation, Stress, Strain, Streamlines, Velocity, Acceleration.

INTRODUCTION:

A ship powered by atomic energy is called nuclear submarine that travels primarily under-water, but also on the surface of the ocean. previously conventional submarines used diesel engines that required air for moving on the surface of the water, and battery powered electric motors for moving beneath it. The limited lifetime of electric batteries meant that even the most advanced conventional submarine could only remain submerged for a few days at slow speed, and only a few hours at top speed. On the other hand, nuclear submarines can remain under-water for several months. This ability, combined with advanced weapons technology, makes nuclear submarines one of the most useful warships ever built. [1-3]

1. SHIP STRUCTURE AND PARTS

   A Submarine has Outer hull and inner hull which is made of different material alloys Like Hy80 or Titanium Harden steel, etc. inner hull protects the crew from the water pressure bearing down on the submarine in the outer hull provides a streamlined shape to the submarine.

   1. Trim tanks: These are in the front part and aft (rearward) sections of the submarine, which are also able to take on or release water in order to keep the submarine's weight equally distributed.

   2. Rudder: These are vertically aligned, to submarine and by moving it, the ship can be directed side-to-side.

   3. Stern planes: are horizontally aligned, so that moving them will guide the submarine's movement upward or – downward.

   4. Propeller: These powered by the steam-driven turbine and generators. The steam is created by the nuclear reactor.

   5. Nuclear Reactor: These are essentially a glorified steam engine. It's usually located in the rear portion of the submarine. The reactor is protected by a thick metal casing that weighs around 100 tons. A specially designed alloy inside this shielding further protects the radioactive fuel rods.

   6. Sonar sphere: it is located in the Front part of the submarine. Sonar helps a submarine detect other objects in the water. It works by sending out a sound wave. If this sound wave strikes an object, a portion of the sound will be echoed back to the sub.

   7. Torpedo room: is where all torpedoes are stored and loaded into torpedo tubes to prepare them for launching.

   8. Mess deck: Forward compartment: submarine's crew is housed and fed in very tight, efficient quarters called the berthing and mess deck. Usually, this area is in the middle level of the ship's forward compartment.

2. NUCLEAR SUBMARINE ATMOSPHERE Nuclear Powered Submarines is particularly suitable for vessels which need to be at sea for long periods without refueling. In Nuclear Powered Submarines are submariners live and work in an atmosphere composed of approximately 80% naturally occurring nitrogen, 19% oxygen (manufactured aboard ship), and a complex mixture of inorganic and organic contaminants. The concentrations of contaminants exist as a balance between the rates of production from human and operational activities and the rate of removal by engineering systems. The biological effects of inorganic gases, particularly carbon dioxide, have been extensively studied. Investigators are now attempting to define the composition and concentration of volatile organic compounds that accumulate during 90-day submergences. Medical studies have not conclusively shown that crewmembers incur adverse health effects from continuous exposures to the sealed atmospheres of nuclear submarines. In future, constraints on fossil fuel use in transport may bring marine nuclear propulsion into more widespread use. So far, exaggerated fears about safety have caused political restriction on port access [4-9]

3. BOREI-CLASS SUBMARINE MODEL DESIGN

   AND ANALYSIS.

   Pressure:

   Analysis of Borei-class submarine:

   Using the CATIA Design software and prepare the Borei class submarine model.

   This Borei class submarine model was design in Catia and after modelling the submarine it is imported to ANSYS.

   In ANSYS There is two types tests are conducted on submarine

   1. ANSYS CFD Analysis

      The pressure at 500 m/s, 1000m/s, 1500m/s velocity:

      fig: 1 pressure at 500 m/s fig: 2 pressure at 1000 m/s

   2. ANSYS Explicit Dynamics

      1. ANSYS CFD Analysis

         In this research work CFD analysis done at Borei class submarine model and find the Pressure Effect, Velocity

         velocity:

         Fig: 3 pressure at 1500m/s

         Effect, Drag force, Drag Coefficient, Lift force, Lift coefficient, Streamlines, Volume Rendering, at Different velocities and compare the different at different velocities 500m/s, 1000m/s, 1500m/s. and find the results of all these parameters effect on the submarine. [10-14]

      2. ANSYS Explicit Dynamics

         In this research work Explicit Dynamics analysis done at Borei class submarine model and find the deformation, total velocity, total acceleration, equivalent stress, maximum principal stress, minimum principal stress, maximum shear. [15-17]

4. ABOUT BOREI-CLASS SUBMARINE:

The new design for this Borei class submarine carries Bulava submarine-launched ballistic missiles. Borei- class submarine was planned to launch in 2009 but due to delay of Bulava development and fitted in 2013. There is lot of failures during test launches by 2017 out of 27 tests 12 were failure Development of missiles continues.

Dimensions and displacement

Propulsion and speed

Armament

velocity effect at 500 m/s,1000m/s,1500m/s.

fig: 4 velocity at 500m/s fig: 5 velocity at 1000m/s

Fig: 6 velocity at 1500m/s

Velocity streamlines

An important concept in the study of hydrodynamics concerns the idea of streamlines. The below figure shows that velocity streamlines at 500m/s striking on the Borei- class submarine model.

Velocity streamlines at 500 m/s,1000m/s, 1500m/s

fig: 7 streamlines 500m/s fig: 8 streamlines 1000m/s

Fig: 9 streamlines 1500m/s

volume rendering

Volume rendering shows that the body Borei-class submarine. The enclosure applied on the body is suitable or not can be visualize in this volume rendering.

Volume rendering at velocity 500m/s, 1000m/s, 1500m/s

Fig: 10 volume rendering Fig: 11 volume rendering 500m/s at 1000m/s

Fig: 12 volume rendering at 1500m/s

I. Explicit Dynamics

Compression with same velocity at 8.09935 knots and same collision time 10000 s with changing fixed supports.

Deformation

fig 16.Deformation of fig 17.Deformation of top fixed supports both side fixed support

Table 1 Table 2

The deformation of the submarine analyzed at velocity of 8.09935 knots, found that deformation is independent of fixed supports

Total velocity

fig 18.Total velocity of fig 19. Total velocity of Top fixed support both side fixed support

Table 3 Table 4

The total velocity of the submarine analyzed at velocity of 8.09935 knots, found that total velocity is independent of fixed supports

Total acceleration

fig 20.Total acceleration of fig: 21. Total acceleration of top fixed support both side fixed support

Table 5 Table 6

The total acceleration of the submarine analyzed at velocity of 8.09935 knots, found that total acceleration is independent of fixed supports.

Equivalent elastic stress

1. Equivalent stress of ii. Equivalent stress of top fixed support both side fixed support

Table 7 Table 8

The equivalent stress of the submarine analyzed at velocity of 8.09935 knots, found that equivalent stress is independent of fixed supports

Maximum principal stress

1. Maximum principal stress ii. Maximum principal stress of top fixed support of both side fixed support

   Table 9 Table 10

   The maximum principal stress of the submarine analyzed at velocity of 8.09935 knots, maximum principal stress found that is independent of fixed supports

   Minimum principal stress

   1. Minimum principal stress ii. Minimum principal stress of top fixed support both side fixed support

Table 5. 11 Table 5. 12

The minimum principal stress of the submarine analyzed at velocity of 8.09935 knots, minimum principal stress found that is independent of fixed supports

Maximum shear stress

1. Maximum shear stress i. Maximum shear stress of top fixed support of both side fixed support

   Table 13 Table 14

   The maximum shear stress of the submarine analyzed at velocity of 8.09935 knots, maximum shear stress found that is independent of fixed supports

   Stress intensity

   1. Stress intensityof ii. Stress intensityof top fixed support both side fixed support

      Table 5. 15 Table 5. 16

      The stress intensity of the submarine analyzed at a velocity of 8.09935 knots, stress intensity found that is independent of fixed supports

      Equivalent elastic strain

      1. Equivalent strain of ii. Equivalent strain of top fixed support both side fixed support

Table 17 Table 18

The equivalent strain of the submarine analyzed at velocity of 8.09935 knots, found that equivalent strain is independent of fixed supports

Maximum principal elastic strain

1. Maximum principal elastic ii. Maximum principal elastic strain strain of top fixed support of both side fixed support

   Table 5. 19 Table 5. 20

   The maximum principal elastic strain of the submarine analyzed at velocity of 8.09935 knots, found that maximum principal elastic strain is independent of fixed supports Minimum principal elastic strain

   1. Minimum principal elastic ii. Minimum principal elastic strain of top fixed support strain of both side fixed support

support and increasing collision time from 10000 s to 1000000 s, found that total velocity is high compare to less collision time

Total acceleration

Table 21 Table 22

The minimum principal elastic strain of the submarine analyzed at a velocity of 8.09935 knots, found that minimum principal elastic strain is independent of fixed supports.

Maximum shear elastic strain

1. Maximum shear elastic strain ii. Maximum shear elastic strain of top fixed support of both side fixed support

   Table 23 Table 24

   The maximum shear elastic strain of the submarine analyzed at velocity of 8.09935 knots, found that maximum shear elastic strain is independent of fixed supports.

   Elastic strain intensity

   1. Elastic strain intensity of ii. Elastic strain intensity of Top fixed support both side fixed support

Table 25 Table 26

The elastic strain intensity of the submarine analyzed at velocity of 8.09935 knots, found that elastic strain intensity is independent of fixed supports.

Comparing the top fixed support at velocity 8.09935 knots with same velocity changing the fixed supports and increases the collision time from 10000 s to 1000000 s.

Deformation

Fig 22.Deformation of fig 23.Deformation of

Top fixed supports bottom fixed support

Table 27 Table 28

The deformation of the submarine analyzed at velocity of 8.09935 knots and comparing with changing the fixed support and increasing collision time from 10000 s to 1000000 s, found that deformation is high compare less collision time

Total velocity

Fig 24.Total velocity of fig 25. Total velocity

Top fixed support bottom fixed support Table 29

Table 30

The total velocity of the submarine analyzed at velocity of 8.09935 knots and comparing with changing the fixed

.

Fig 26.Total acceleration of fig 27. Total acceleration of top fixed support bottom fixed support

Table 31 Table 32

The total acceleration of the submarine analyzed at velocity of 8.09935 knots and comparing changing the fixed support and with increasing collision time from 10000 s to 1000000 s, found that total acceleration is less compare to less collision time

Equivalent elastic stress

i.Equivalent stress of ii. Equivalent stress of

top fixed support both bottom support

Table 33 Table 34

The equivalent elastic stress of the submarine analyzed at a velocity of 8.09935 knots and comparing with changing the fixed support and increasing collision time from 10000 s to 1000000 s, found that equivalent elastic stress is less compare with less collision time

Maximum principal stress

I.Maximum principal stress ii. Maximum principal stress of top fixed support of bottom fixed support

Table 35 Table 36

The maximum principal stress of the submarine analyzed at a velocity of 8.09935 knots and comparing with changing the fixed support and increasing collision time from 10000 s to 1000000 s, found that maximum principal stress is high compare with less collision time

Minimum principal stress

I.Minimum principal stress of ii. Minimum principal stress of top fixed support bottom fixed support

Table 37 Table 38

The minimum principal stress of the submarine analyzed at a velocity of 8.09935 knots and comparing with changing the fixed support and increasing collision time from 10000 s to 1000000 s, found that minimum principal stress is low compare with less collision time

Maximum shear stress

1. Maximum shear stress of ii. Maximum shear stress of top fixed support bottom fixed support

   Table 39 Table 40

   The maximum shear stress of the submarine analyzed at a velocity of 8.09935 knots and comparing with changing the fixed support and increasing collision time from 10000 s to 1000000 s, found that maximum shear stress is low compare with less collision time

   Stress intensity

   1. Stress intensityof ii. Stress intensityof

      Top fixed support bottom fixed support

      Table 41 Table 42

      The stress intensity of the submarine analyzed at a velocity of 8.09935 knots and comparing with changing the fixed support and increasing collision time from 10000 s to 1000000 s, found that stress intensity is low compare with less collision time

      Equivalent elastic strain

      1. Equivalent strain of ii. Equivalent strain of top fixed support bottom support

Table 43 Table 44

The equivalent elastic strain of the submarine analyzed at a velocity of 8.09935 knots and comparing with changing the fixed support and increasing collision time from 10000 s to 1000000 s, found that equivalent elastic strain is high compare with less collision time

Maximum principal elastic strain

I. Maximum principal elastic ii. Maximum principal elastic strain of top fixed support strain of bottom fixed support

Table 45 Table 46

The maximum principal elastic strain of the submarine analyzed at a velocity of 8.09935 knots and comparing with changing the fixed support and increasing collision time, found that maximum principal elastic strain is high compare with less collision time

Minimum principal elastic strain

i.Minimum principal elastic ii. Minimum principal elastic strain of top fixed support strain of bottom fixed support

Table 47 Table 48

The minimum principal elastic strain of the submarine analyzed at a velocity of 8.09935 knots and comparing with changing the fixed support and increasing collision time, found that minimum principal elastic strain is high compare with less collision time

Maximum shear elastic strain

1. Maximum shear elastic strain ii. Maximum shear elastic strain of top fixed support of bottom fixed support

   Table 49 Table 50

   The maximum shear elastic strain of the submarine analyzed at a velocity of 8.09935 knots and comparing with changing the fixed support and increasing collision time from 10000 s to 1000000 s, found that maximum shear elastic strain is high compare with less collision time

   Elastic strain intensity

   1. Elastic strain intensity of ii. Elastic strain intensity of Top fixed support bottom fixed support

      Table 51 Table 52

      The elastic strain intensity of the submarine analyzed at a velocity of 8.09935 knots and comparing with changing the fixed support and increasing collision time from 10000 s to

      1000000 s, found that elastic strain intensity is high compare with less collision time

      Comparing the top fixed support at velocity 8.09935 knots with chaining the velocity at 16.1987 knots with bottom fixed support with same collision time 10000 sec.

      DEFORMATION

      Fig 28.Deformation of Fig 29.Deformation of Top fixed supports Bottom fixed support

      Table 53 Table 54

      The deformation of the submarine analyzed at velocity of 8.09935 knots and comparing with changing the fixed support and increasing the velocity to 16.1987, found that deformation is high in 16.1987 in compare to 8.09935.

      Total velocity

      fig 30 total velocity of fig 31. Total velocity of

      top fixed support bottom fixed support

      Table 55 Table 56

      The total velocity of the submarine analyzed at velocity of 8.09935 knots and comparing with changing the fixed support and increasing the velocity to 16.1987, found that total velocity is high in 16.1987 in compare to 8.09935.

      Total acceleration

      Fig 35.total acceleration of fig 36. Total acceleration of Top fixed support bottom fixed support

      Table 5. 57 Table 5. 58

      The total acceleration of the submarine analyzed at velocity of 8.09935 knots and comparing with changing the fixed support and increasing the velocity to 16.1987, found that total acceleration is high in 16.1987 in compare to 8.09935.

      Equivalent elastic stress

      1. Equivalent stress of ii. Equivalent stress of

Top fixed support bottom fixed support

Table 59 Table 60

The total acceleration of the submarine analyzed at velocity of 8.09935 knots and comparing with changing the fixed support and increasing the velocity to 16.1987, found that total acceleration is low in 16.1987 in compare to 8.09935.

maximum principal stress

1. maximum principal stress of ii. Maximum principal stress of top fixed support Bottom fixed support

   Table 61 Table 62

   The maximum principal stress of the submarine analyzed at velocity of 8.09935 knots and comparing with changing the fixed support and increasing the velocity to 16.1987, found that maximum principal stress is low in 16.1987 in compare to 8.09935.

   Minimum principal stress

   1. Minimum principal stress of ii. Minimum principal stress of top fixed support bottom fixed suppot

      Table 63 Table 64

      The minimum principal stress of the submarine analyzed at velocity of 8.09935 knots and comparing with changing the fixed support and increasing the velocity to 16.1987, found that minimum principal stress is low in 16.1987 in compare to 8.09935.

      Maximum shear stress

      1. Maximum shear stress of ii. Maximum shear stress of Top fixed support bottom fixed support

         Table 65 Table 66

         The maximum shear stress of the submarine analyzed at velocity of 8.09935 knots and comparing with changing the fixed support and increasing the velocity to 16.1987, found that maximum shear stress is low in 16.1987 in compare to 8.09935.

         Stress intensity

         1. stress intensityof ii. Stress intensityof

            Top fixed support bottom fixed support

            Table 67 Table 68

            The stress intensity of the submarine analyzed at velocity of 8.09935 knots and comparing with changing the fixed support and increasing the velocity to 16.1987, found that stress intensity is low in 16.1987 in compare to 8.09935.

            Equivalent elastic strain

            1. Equivalent strain of ii. Equivalent strain of

top fixed support bottom fixed support

Table 69 Table 70

The equivalent elastic strain of the submarine analyzed at velocity of 8.09935 knots and comparing with changing the fixed support and increasing the velocity to 16.1987, found that equivalent elastic strain is high in 16.1987 in compare to 8.09935.

Maximum principal elastic strain

i. Maximum principal elastic ii. Maximum principal elastic strain of top fixed support strain of bottom fixed support

Table 71 Table 72

The maximum principal elastic strain of the submarine analyzed at velocity of 8.09935 knots and comparing with changing the fixed support and increasing the velocity to

16.1987, found that maximum principal elastic strain is high in 16.1987 in compare to 8.09935.

Minimum principal elastic strain

i.Minimum principal elastic ii. Minimum principal elastic strain of top fixed support strain of bottom support

Table 73 Table 74

The minimum principal elastic strain of the submarine analyzed at velocity of 8.09935 knots and comparing with changing the fixed support and increasing the velocity to 16.1987, found that minimum principal elastic strain is high in 16.1987 in compare to 8.09935.

Maximum shear elastic strain

i.maximum shear elastic strain ii. Maximum shear elastic strain of top fixed support of bottom fixed support

Table 75 Table 76

The maximum shear elastic strain of the submarine analyzed at velocity of 8.09935 knots and comparing with changing the fixed support and increasing the velocity to 16.1987, found that maximum shear elastic strain is high in 16.1987 in compare to 8.09935.

Elastic strain intensity

i. Elastic strain intensity of ii. Elastic strain intensity of top fixed support bottom fixed support

Table 77 Table 78

The elastic strain intensity of the submarine analyzed at velocity of 8.09935 knots and comparing with changing the fixed support and increasing the velocity to 16.1987, found that elastic strain intensity is high in 16.1987 in compare to 8.09935.

The Below tables show the Drag force along the velocities 500, 1000, 1500 at different velocities for Titanium alloy. From the table it is observed that the increasing in the velocity will leads to increase in the Drag Force of the Submarine. And drag coefficient is also increases

Drag force along the velocities of 500, 1000, 1500.

Table 79

Graph 1 Drag force

Drag Coefficient along the velocities of 500, 1000, 1500.

Table 80

Graph 2 Drag coefficient

Lift Force along the velocities of 500, 1000, 1500.

1. Total Velocity

   Graph 5 Deformation

   TOP SUPPORT (max time)	BOTTOM SUPPORT (max time)
   3.2390E-02	3.3291E-02
   613.07	6274.6

   TOP SUPPORT (max time)	BOTTOM SUPPORT (max time)
   3.2390E-02	3.3291E-02
   613.07	6274.6

   Table 84

   Table 81

   Graph 3 Lift coefficient

   Lift Coefficient along the velocities of 500, 1000, 1500.

   	velocity
   	500	1000	1500
   Lift COEFF	-501516	-2004120	-3816134

   Table 82

   Graph 4 Lift coefficient

   In this research the blow tables show the deformations and velocities and accelerations and stress, strains and shows the changes of the occurs on the submarine. In this research we did this compression between changed the Fixed supports with same velocities and increasing the collision time.

   Total Deformation

   TOP SUPPORT (max time)	BOTTOM SUPPORT (max time)
   3.2390E-02	3.3291E-02
   37.391	168.5

   Table 83

   Graph 6 Time vs velocity

   (Top vs bottom supports) Total velocity

   Total Acceleration

   TOP SUPPORT (max time)	BOTTOM SUPPORT (max time)
   3.2390E-02	3.3291E-02
   15184	1.41E+05

   Table 85

   Graph 7 Time vs velocity

   (Top vs bottom supports) Total acceleration

   Equivalent Elastic Stress

   TOP SUPPORT (max time)	BOTTOM SUPPORT (max time)
   3.2390E-02	3.3291E-02
   17.802	9.2819

   Table 86

   Graph 8 Time vs velocity

   (Top vs bottom supports) Equivalent elastic stress

   Maximum principle stress

   TOP SUPPORT (max time)	BOTTOM SUPPORT (max time)
   3.2390E-02	3.3291E-02
   4.5418	4.0823

   Table 87

   Graph 9 Time vs velocity

   (Top vs bottom supports) Maximum principle Stress

   Minimum Principle Stress

   TOP SUPPORT (max time)	BOTTOM SUPPORT (max time)
   3.2390E-02	3.3291E-02
   1.035	0.75162

   Table 88

   Graph 10 Time vs velocity (Top vs bottom supports) Minimum principle stress

   Maximum Shear Stress

   TOP SUPPORT (max time)	BOTTOM SUPPORT (max time)
   3.2390E-02	3.3291E-02
   9.1588	4.8786

   Table 89

   Graph 11 Time vs velocity (Top vs bottom supports) Maximum shear stress

   Stress Intensity

   TOP SUPPORT (max time)	BOTTOM SUPPORT (max time)
   3.2390E-02	3.3291E-02
   18.318	9.7572

   Table 90

   Graph 12 Time vs velocity

   (Top vs bottom supports) Stress intensity

   Equivalent Elastic Strain

   TOP SUPPORT (max time)	BOTTOM SUPPORT (max time)
   3.2390E-02	3.3291E-02
   0.13397	0.58765

   Table 91

   Graph 13(Time vs velocity (Top vs bottom supports) Equivalent elastic strain

   Maximum Principle Elastic Strain

   TOP SUPPORT (max time)	BOTTOM SUPPORT (max time)
   3.2390E-02	3.3291E-02
   9.60E-02	0.67854

   Table 92

   Graph 14 Time vs velocity (Top vs bottom supports) Maximum principle elastic strain

   Minimum Principle Elastic Strain

   TOP SUPPORT (max time)	BOTTOM SUPPORT (max time)
   3.2390E-02	3.3291E-02
   9.52E-02	2.00E-03

   Table 93

   Graph 15 Time vs velocity (Top vs bottom supports) Minimum principle elastic

   Maximum Shear Elastic Strain

   Graph 18 Time vs velocity (Top vs bottom supports) Total deformation

   Total Velocity

   TOP SUPPORT (max time)	BOTTOM SUPPORT (max time)
   3.2390E-02	3.3291E-02

   TOP SUPPORT (max time)	BOTTOM SUPPORT (max time)
   3.2390E-02	3.3291E-02

   0.16484

   Table 94

   0.70747

   TOP SUPPORT	BOTTOM SUPPORT
   8.09935 knots	16.1987 knots

   TOP SUPPORT	BOTTOM SUPPORT
   8.09935 knots	16.1987 knots

   613.07

   Table 97

   7693.1

   Graph 16 Time vs velocity (Top vs bottom supports) Maximum shear elastic strain

   Elastic Strain Intensity

   TOP SUPPORT (max time)	BOTTOM SUPPORT (max time)
   3.2390E-02	3.3291E-02
   0.16484	0.70747

   Table 95

   Graph 17 Time vs velocity (Top vs bottom supports) Elastic strain intensity

   In this research the blow tables show the deformations and velocities and accelerations and stress, strains and shows the changes of the occurs on the submarine. In this research we did this compression between changed the Fixed supports with changed the velocities and increasing the collision time. Total Deformation

   TOP SUPPORT	BOTTOM SUPPORT
   8.09935 knots	16.1987 knots
   37.391	128.64

   Table 96

   Graph 19 Time vs velocity (Top vs bottom supports) Total velocity

   6.20 Total Acceleration

   TOP SUPPORT	BOTTOM SUPPORT
   8.09935 knots	16.1987 knots
   15184	1.44E+09

   Table 98

   Graph 20 Time vs velocity (Top vs bottom supports) Total acceleration

   Equivalent Elastic Stress

   TOP SUPPORT	BOTTOM SUPPORT
   8.09935 knots	16.1987 knots
   17.802	3.6118

   Table 99

   Graph 21 Time vs velocity (Top vs bottom supports) Equivalent elastic stress

   Maximum Elastic Stress

   TOP SUPPORT	BOTTOM SUPPORT
   8.09935 knots	16.1987 knots
   4.5418	2.9065

   Table 100

   Graph 22 Time vs velocity (Top vs bottom supports) maximum Principle stress

   Minimum Principle Stress

   TOP SUPPORT	BOTTOM SUPPORT
   8.09935 knots	16.1987 knots
   1.035	0.44647

   Table 101

   Graph 23 Time vs velocity (Top vs bottom supports) Minimum principle stress

   Maximum Shear Stress

   TOP SUPPORT	BOTTOM SUPPORT
   8.09935 knots	16.1987 knots
   9.1588	2.0816

   Table 102

   Time vs Velocity different fixed supports

   Graph 24 Time vs velocity (Top vs bottom supports) Maximum shear stress

   Stress Intensity

   TOP SUPPORT	BOTTOM SUPPORT
   8.09935 knots	16.1987 knots
   18.318	4.1632

   Table 103

   Graph 25 Time vs velocity (Top vs bottom supports) Stress intensity

   6.26 Equivalent Elastic Strain

   TOP SUPPORT	BOTTOM SUPPORT
   8.09935 knots	16.1987 knots
   0.13397	1.5166

   Table 104

   Graph 26 Time vs velocity (Top vs bottom supports) Equivalent elastic strain

   Maximum Principle Elastic Strain

   TOP SUPPORT	BOTTOM SUPPORT
   8.09935 knots	16.1987 knots
   9.60E-02	1.3162

   Table 105

   Graph 27 Time vs velocity (Top vs bottom supports) maximum principle elastic strain

   Minimum Principle Elastic Strain

   TOP SUPPORT	BOTTOM SUPPORT
   8.09935 knots	16.1987 knots
   9.52E-02	3.05E-04

   Table 106

   Graph 28 Time vs velocity (Top vs bottom supports) minimum principle

   Maximum Shear Elastic Strain

   TOP SUPPORT	BOTTOM SUPPORT
   8.09935 knots	16.1987 knots
   0.16484	2.038

   Table 107

   Graph 29 Time vs velocity (Top vs bottom supports) maximum shear elastic strain

   Elastic Strain Intensity

   TOP SUPPORT	BOTTOM SUPPORT
   8.09935 knots	16.1987 knots
   0.16484	2.038

   Table 108

   Graph 30 Time vs velocity (Top vs bottom supports) Elastic strain intensity

   CONCLUSION

   It is observed that when submarine collision test with some object in under water with a velocity the deformations and stress and strain which are occurred on submarine and find the drag and lift on the submarine.

   In this research work of Computational Fluid Dynamics, the Drag force and drag coefficient, is gradually increases when the velocities are increases from 500 to 1500, Lift coefficient and lift force is decreasing when the velocity increases from 500 to 1500.

   Using explicit dynamics the collision test did on the submarine with the velocity of 8.09935(15kmph) knots with variable fixed supports of both top and bottom supports and only top fixed support and collision time is same(10000 s), and found that there is no change in deformations, velocities, accelerations, Equivalent stress, maximum principal stress, minimum principal stress, stress intensity, Equivalent elastic strain, maximum principal elastic strain, minimum principal elastic strain, maximum shear elastic strain, strain intensity There is No effect on submarine with changing the fixed support.

   Due to that we compare that submarine collision test with velocity (8.09935 Knots) and compare with top fixed support and bottom fixed support and increasing collision time (time from 10000 s to 1000000 s) the Total Deformation and Total velocity also increases but acceleration decreases. In stress we found Equivalent stress, minimum principal stress, stress intensity is same, but the maximum principal stress is increased. In strains we found Equivalent elastic strain, maximum principal elastic strain, minimum principal elastic strain, maximum shear elastic strain, strain intensity all strains are high compared to previous collision time.

   When we compare this collision test with changing the velocity from 8.09935 knots to 16.1987 knots with bottom fixed support with collision time(10000 s) the deformations, velocities and accelerations are high compared to the 15kmph and in the stress we found equivalent stress, maximum principal stress, minimum principal stress, stress intensity all are low compared to the 8.09935 knots speed collision. In strains we found Equivalent elastic strain, maximum principal elastic strain, minimum principal elastic strain, maximum shear elastic strain, strain intensity all strains are high compare to 8.09935 knots.

   REFERENCE:

   1. Malcolm J. Smitha, Tom Macadamb and John R. MacKaya 2014, Integrated modelling, design and analysis of submarine structures.

   2. Khairul Ala, Tapabrata Ray and Sreenatha G. Anavatti 2013,

      Design and construction of an autonomous underwater vehicle

   3. Tomislav ABALJA, Ivo SENJANOVI, Neven HADI, structural design of a typhoon class submarine

   4. Mark C. Bettle a, Andrew G. Gerber a, George D. Watt b 2009 Unsteady analysis of the six DOF motion of a buoyantly rising submarine

   5. ADITYA CHIVATE, SAURABH KHUJE, SHUBHAM VINCHURKAR, ANUJIT DAFLE, 2018, design and optimization of an underwater vessel for speed augmentation using CFD

   6. A. Vali, B. Saranjam and R. Kamali, 2018 Experimental and Numerical Study of a Submarine and Propeller Behaviors in Submergence and Surface Conditions

   7. K. Jaswanth, B. Geeta Chandra Sekhar, R.Vara Prasad, Flow and Crash Analysis of an F-16 Aircraft Using ANSYS

   8. Douglas R. Knight, Donald V. Tappan, Jeffry S. Bowman, Hugh J.

      O Neil and S.M. Gordon, 1989, Submarine atmospheres

   9. M. N. Norwooda and R. S. Dowb, 2012, Dynamic analysis of ship structures

   10. Mohammad Moonesun, Yuri Mikhailovich Korol, Hosein Dalayeli, 2015, CFD Analysis on the Bare Hull Form of Submarines for Minimizing the Resistance

   11. M. Moonesun Y.M. Korol and A. Brazhko 2015 CFD analysis on the equations of submarine stern shape

   12. Mohammad Moonesun, Yuri Mikhailovich Korol, Valeri A Nikrasov, Alexander Ursalov, Anna Brajhko, 2016

       CFD Analysis of the bow shapes of submarines

   13. Mohammad Monesun, Mehran javidi, pejman charmdooz & karol uri Mikhailovich, 2013 CFD analysis of the bow shapes of submarines

   14. G. Dubbioso, R. Broglia, S. Zaghi, 2016 CFD analysis of turning abilities of a submarine model

   15. Gita Marina Ahadyanti, Wasis Dwi Aryawan, and Muhamad Fyan Dinggi, 2017, Submerged resistance analysis of mini submarine using computational fluid dynamics

   16. Suman Kar, D.G. Sarangdhar & G.S. Chopra, Analyses of ship structures using Ansys

   17. Jeong-Hoon Song, Patrick Lea, and Jay Oswald, 2013, Explicit Dynamic Finite Element Method for Predicting Implosion/Explosion Induced Failure of Shell Structures