26

th
Symposium on Naval Hydrodynamics
Rome, Italy, 17-22 September 2006
Simulation of unsteady ship maneuvering
using free-surface RANS solver
E. JACQUIN, P.-E. GUILLERM, A. DROUET, P. PERDON,
(Bassin d'essais des carnes (DGA), France)
B. ALESSANDRINI, (Ecole Centrale de Nantes, France)
INTRODUCTION
Applications of RANS with free surface solvers for
naval hydrodynamics started about ten or fifteen
years ago. Those solvers show great interest since
they notably increase computations accuracy which is
mainly due to the use of non-linear free surface
conditions and viscosity in the equations. Nowadays
they are commonly used in ship-resistance
applications by almost all research institutes and few
industrial parties. More recently their field of
application extends to hull form optimization (Tahara
et al. [1], Jacquin et al. [2], Campana et al. [3]) and
first computations of ship maneuver based on Navier-
stokes simulations were also carried out on the Serie
60 ship for steady cases (Alessandrini [4]) and forced
motions (Di Mascio [5]). In the same way, in order
to extend applications of RANS solvers, Wilson and
Stern [6] [7] performed computations of forced roll
and roll decay with very accurate results compared to
experiments.
Thus, the field of application of these tools is
incredibly wide, specifically for unsteady simulations
where the model can move in all directions of a
maneuvering ship. The interest of such fully unsteady
numerical simulations for maneuvering simulations is
to naturally take into account the viscous flow around
the hull or appendages, the wake in the propeller
plane, and then non-linear effects of hull / propeller /
rudder interactions.
This paper presents the recent developments
performed at Bassin d'essais des carenes and Ecole
Centrale Nantes in order to simulate unsteady self
propelled maneuvering ship with the RANS code
ICARE.
In a first part, we briefly describe the theory and
equations used in the ICARE solver, and adaptations
performed for steady maneuvering simulations.
Validation of the solver on three different ships in
steady maneuvers is then presented : pure drift, pure
gyrating, and a combination of drift and gyrating.
Then an example of forced oscillatory unsteady
maneuvering simulation (forced sway or yaw motions
with forward speed) show the ability of the solver to
compute unsteady applications.
The second part of the paper is dedicated to the
description of the development performed for free
unsteady simulations of a self propelled maneuvering
ship : six degrees of motion capabilities, actuator disk
and moving appendages. The development and
validation of the solver is composed of successive
steps, and an application on a simplified case is
presented at this stage.
HYDRODYNAMICS: RANS WITH FREE
SURFACE SOLVER ICARE
ICARE [9][10]is a RANS with free-surface solver
developed by Ecole Centrale Nantes through French
Navy (DGA / Bassin d'essais des carenes) support.
Governing equations, turbulence model
The convective form of Reynolds Averaged Navier-
Stokes Equations is written through partial
transformation from cartesian space (x
1
,x
2
,x
3
) to
curvilinear space ) , , (
3 2 1
fitted to the hull and
the free surface at each time-step. The dependant
unknowns of the system are the free-surface
elevation, the three cartesian velocity components
(u
i
), the pressure (p) including the gravitational
effects (
3
gx ) and the turbulent kinetic energy
(
k
3
2
).
Mean momentum transport equations are written in
the moving referential attached to the hull:
0
1
) ) ( (
, , , ,
, , ,
= + +
+

q u a a u g p a
u a a f u u a u
k
j j i t
i
k ij
ij
eff k
k
j
j
k i t
i
k
i
eff
i
g
i j
i t
(1)
Where a
i
is the contravariant basis, g
ij
the
contravariant metric tensor, f
i
the control grid
functions and
i
g
u the grid velocity which lead the
displacement of the mesh. Inertia forces due to non
Galilean referential (gyration, accelerated translation)
are taken into account in the q
i
terms. In translation
case (with or without drift angle) inertia forces are
expressed as follows where U
a
is the hull velocity:
( )
( )

= =
= =
= =
0
sin
cos
3 3
,
2 2
,
1 1
q q
U
q q
U
q q
d
t a
d
t a
d

(2)
In gyration case, inertia forces must include Coriolis
and centrifugal forces:
( ) ( )
( ) ( )

= =
+ + = =
+ + = =
0
2
2
3 3
1 2 2 2
,
1 1
2 2
2 1 1 2
,
2 2
1 1
q q
u x x x x
q q
u x x x x
q q
r
r t r
r
r t r
r

(3)
Where is the hull rotation velocity and R(x
1
r
, x
2
r
)
the rotation center location.
Mass conservation is expressed as the classical
continuity equation:
0
,
=
i
j
j
i
u a (4)
Finally to close the equations set we used a classical
k turbulence model proposed by Wilcox [11],
introducing a specific dissipation rate without low
Reynolds formulation requirement. Transport
equation of turbulent kinetic energy and dissipation
rate are written as follows:

= + +
+ +
= + +
+ +
0 Pr/ ) (
) ) ( ) ( (
0 * Pr ) * (
) * ) * ( ) ( (
2
,
, , ,
,
, , ,




k g
a a f u u a
k k g
k a a f u u a k
ij
ij
t
j
j
k i t
i
k
j
t
i
g
i j
i t
ij
ij
t
j
j
k i t
i
k
j
t
i
g
i j
i t
(5)
with:

k
t
* = (6)
and:

= = =
= = =
1 * ; 5 . 0 * ; 09 . 0 *
9
5
; 5 . 0 ;
40
3


(7)
Free surface conditions
Free surface boundary conditions are the kinematics
condition, the two tangential dynamic conditions and
the normal dynamic condition. Kinematics condition
coming from the continuity hypothesis expresses that
the fluid particles of free surface stay on it:
{ }
0 ) ) ( (
3
2 , 1 ) , ( , ,
= +

u h u u b h
j i j
i
g
i j
i t
(8)
where
i
b is the bi-dimensional contravariant basis
based on the discretization of free surface only.
Dynamic conditions of the free surface are given by
the continuity of strains at the free surface. If the
pressure is assumed to be constant above free surface,
normal dynamic condition is:
0 2
,
3 3
2
3
=
r
u a a a
a
gh p
i
k
k
j j i
eff

(9)
where is the surface tension coefficient (that is a
physical way to smooth free surface near the hull)
and r the free surface medium curvature radius.
Tangential dynamic conditions are simply given by a
linear combination of first order velocities
derivatives:
0
,
3
=
i
j
j
i
u g a

(10)
Discretization
General schemes are based on second order (in space
and time) implicit finite differences. Discrete
unknowns are distributed on a structured curvilinear
grid fitted to the hull and the free surface. Velocity
Cartesian components, kinetic turbulent energy and
specific dissipation rate are located on the grid nodes.
Pressure is located at the center of each volume and
free surface elevation is located on the center of free
surface interfaces.
Convective terms are computed using an upwind
second order scheme that needs a 13 nodes cell.
Diffusive terms need 7 nodes for second order
derivatives and 12 nodes to express second-order
cross derivatives while pressure gradient requires 8
nodes for each component.
Concerning the free surface, it has been shown that
the classical way using normal dynamic condition as
a Dirichlet condition on the pressure and uncoupled
kinematics equation as transport equation to compute
free surface elevation leads to problems connected to
mass conservation under free surface. An efficient
solution consists in using a fully coupled algorithm
(Alessandrini and Al.) that requires at each time the
linear solution of mean momentum equations,
continuity equation and all boundary conditions
including the free surface condition. In order to invert
this system with iterative solvers the linear system is
modified using free surface boundary conditions to
express the flux through free surface. In this case,
conditioning number decreases dramatically and fully
coupled system can be inverted by iterative
algorithms.
Resulting linear system for velocity (U) and pseudo
velocity (U
~
) components, pressure (P) and free
surface elevation (H) is written as follows
|
|
|
|
|

\
|
=
|
|
|
|
|

\
|

|
|
|
|
|

\
|
h
p
u
u
f
f
f
f
H
P
U
U
M M
M M
M M
M M M
~
11 11
11 11
11 11
11 11 11
~
0 0
0 0
0 0
0
(11)
Thus, we obtain at each time pressure forces (normal
component) and friction forces (tangential
component) summing the whole efforts calculated on
facets of the hull or of appendages.
Gyration case
From a boundary condition point of view,
computations past a ship with pure drift angle and
computations with gyration motion are very similar:
working in relative referential moving with the hull,
Coriolis and centrifugal forces have to be added as
source terms in momentum equation. This section
shows that gyration case is quite more difficult and
requires some numerical cautions.
In this relative referential, velocity field traducing
flow at rest (without hull effect) is written as follows
for the drift case:
( )
( )

=
=
=
0
sin
cos
3
2
1
u
U u
U u
r
a r
a r

(12)
and:
( )
( )

=
=
=
0
3
1 1 2
2 2 1
u
x x u
x x u
r
r r
r r

(13)
in the gyration case.
In both cases these velocity fields have to verify
momentum and continuity equations (1) and (4) with
pressure gradient and turbulent viscosity equal to
zero. For uniform velocity field (12) it is very easy to
check since convective and diffusive terms cancel.
We obtain for momentum and continuity equations,
respectively:
0 ;
3
1
=

= i
i
i
r i
r
i
r
x
u
q
t
u
(14)
For velocity field coming from gyration case it is
easy to see that the continuity equation is verified and
momentum equations give:
( )
( )
( )
( )
( )
( )
( )
( )
( )
( )
( )
( )
( )
( )
( )
( )

+
= =
+
= =
x x x x x x
q
x x x x
x x x x x x
q x x x x
r
III
r
II
t r
r r
I
t r
r
III
r
II
t r
r r
I
t r
2 2 2 2 2 2
,
1 1
2 2 2 2
,
1 1
1 1 2 1 1 2
,
2 2
1
1 1 2
,
2 2
2
2

(15)
where Coriolis (III) terms are exactly balanced by
centrifugal terms (II) for half part and convective
terms (I) for the other part.
Problems appear when these equations are
discretized. In the drift case, due to the uniformity of
velocity field, discrete momentum and continuity
equations are verified exactly. Unfortunately in the
gyration case two problems appear due to
linearization and discretization.
First issue is shown considering that discrete
derivatives of velocity field are unable to give exactly
rotation velocity:
+
|
|

\
|

|
|

\
|

x
u
x
u r r
2
1
1
1
; 0
(16)
0 ;
2
2
1
2
|

\
|

\
|

x
u
x
u r r

(17)
Where is a general discretization operator used in
the present formulation.
A solution consists in adding source terms in order to
balance convection residuals. These consistent terms
(they converge to zero when discretization step goes
to zero) are computed as follows:

|
|

\
|

+
|
|

\
|

+ =

|
|

\
|

+
|
|

\
|

+ =
q q
u
x
u
u
x
u
u
q q
u
x
u
u
x
u
u q q
r r
r
r
r
r
r r r
r
r
r
r
r r r
3 3
1
2
2
2
1
2
2 2 2
2
2
1
2
1
1
1 1 1

(18)
Second issue is due to convective terms linearization:
convective velocities are usually expressed using
previous non-linear iteration velocities and
convective terms are of course (because it is
impossible for non-linear terms) not completely
implicit. Then, solving momentum equations requires
good convergence rates on linear and non-linear
processes.
STEADY MANEUVERING VALIDATION
Even if the final aim of the present work is the
unsteady maneuvering simulation, a large effort has
been made in order to evaluate abilities of Navier-
Stokes with free-surface computations to accurately
predict average forces and moments applied on hull
for drift and gyration cases. We present in this section
examples of validation with pure drift (KVLCC2M
and HTC) and gyrating with and without drift angle
(Tanker).
All forces and moments coefficients are given with
respect to the reference axes , defined with origine at
ship mid-ship, x-axis directed forward, the y-axis to
starboard and the z-axis downward (all according to
conventions for maneuvering analysis).
KVLCC2M test case
The KVLCC2M model is 4.970m long, and was
tested at NMRI for a speed of 0.994 m/s and drift
angles from 0 to 12 by 3 steps.
Figure 1: HVLCC2M hull
Drag, sway and yaw moment coefficients for those
tests conditions are given in tables and Figures below
and are compared with experiments.
() Cx Cy Cn Cx Cy Cn
0 -0.0170 -0.0002 0.0000 -0.0176 0.0000 -0.0001
3 -0.0172 0.0122 0.0076 -0.0178 0.0126 0.0061
6 -0.0171 0.0272 0.0147 -0.0177 0.0256 0.0139
9 -0.0172 0.0481 0.0206 -0.0173 0.0455 0.0194
12 -0.0170 0.0732 0.0257 -0.0175 0.0708 0.0254
Computations Experiments MNRI
Table 1: KVLCC2M, drift cases, double flow model
() Cx Cy Cn
0 -2.9% - -
3 -3.3% -3.1% 23.4%
6 -3.7% 6.4% 5.9%
9 -0.7% 5.7% 6.1%
12 -2.7% 3.3% 1.2%
Differences (%)
Table 2: Differences between computations and model test
Tables 1 and 2 show that drag and lift coefficients
calculated with ICARE are closed to experimental
results with a gap of about 3% on drag and 5% on lift.
Moment coefficients are also relatively well
predicted, except for the smallest drift angle
corresponding to the lower values and the largest
measurement uncertainty.
Results are plotted on the Figures below.
Figure 2: C
X
, KVLCC2M
Figure 3 : C
Y
, KVLCC2M
Figure 4 : CN, KVLCC2M
Accurate and well documented flow descriptions
have been carried out during experiments, and allow
to compare capabilities of the solver to predict flow
around the hull.
Figures below present wake in propeller plane for
drift angles of 0, 6 and 12 degrees. The upper
parts of the figures show experimental results,
whereas the lower parts present the computations in
the same conditions and location.
0.1
0
.2
0.2
0.2
0
.3
0
.3
0.3
0.4
0
. 4
0
.4
0.4
0.5
0
.5
0
. 5
0.5
0.6
0.6
0.6
0.7
0
. 7
0
.7
0.7
0.8
0.8
0.8
0.8
0.9
0
.9
0
.9
0.9
0.9
Y/Lpp
Z
/
L
p
p
-0.16 -0.14 -0.12 -0.1 -0.08 -0.06 -0.04 -0.02 0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1 0.12 0.14 0.16
-0.08
-0.06
-0.04
-0.02
0
Figure 5: Axial velocity at X/L=0.4, =0
0.1
0
.2
0
.2
0
. 3
0
.3
0.3
0.4
0
.4
0
.4
0.4
0.5
0
.5
0.5
0.6
0
.6 0
.6
0.6
0
.7
0.7
0
.7
0
.7
0.8
0.8
0.8
0.8
0.9
0.9
0.9
0
.9
Y/Lpp
Z
/
L
p
p
-0.16 -0.14 -0.12 -0.1 -0.08 -0.06 -0.04 -0.02 0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1 0.12 0.14 0.16
-0.08
-0.06
-0.04
-0.02
0
Figure 6: Axial velocity at X/L=0.4, =6
0
0.1 0.1
0.2
0
.2
0
.3
0
.3
0
.3
0
.4
0
.4
0
.4
0
.5
0.5
0.5
0.6
0
.6
0
.6
0.6 0.7
0.7
0.7
0
.7
0.8
0
.8
0.8
0
.8
0.8
0
.8
0.9
0.9
0.9
0.9
Y/Lpp
Z
/
L
p
p
-0.16 -0.14 -0.12 -0.1 -0.08 -0.06 -0.04 -0.02 0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1 0.12 0.14 0.16
-0.08
-0.06
-0.04
-0.02
0
Figure 7: Axial velocity at X/L=0.4, =12
Figures below compare velocity components U, V, W
measured in the propeller plane with results of the
calculation for the 6 drift angle case.
Y/Lpp
u
/
U
0
,
v
/
U
0
,
w
/
U
0
-0.05 0 0.05 0.1
-0.2
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
Experiments6 U
Experiments6 V
Experiments6 W
Computations U
Computations V
Computations W
Figure 8: Velocity components U, V, W in the propeller
plane, =6
In the same way, following figures show pressure
coefficients on the hull for several longitudinal
sections.
Figure 9: Pressure coefficient on hull at X = -0.4, =6
Figure 10: Pressure coefficient on hull at X = 0.4, =6
Comparisons show a good match between computed
and measured pressure coefficients. Nevertheless,
magnitudes of pressure minima are slightly
underestimate.
Hamburgh test case (HTC)
The HTC model is 6.4033 long and was tested at
HSVA in the Virtue WP3 Eurpean Project. The
results presented in this sections are composed of
pure drift cases, with two different Froude numbers
of 0.132 and 0.238. The results composed of
resistance, side force and momentum coefficients are
summed up in the tables and charts below.
() Cx Cy Cn Cx Cy Cn
0 -0.0155 0.0000 0.0000 -0.0142 0.0000 0.0000
5 -0.0160 0.0208 0.0130 -0.0153 0.0198 0.0119
10 -0.0182 0.0520 0.0270 -0.0165 0.0476 0.0233
20 -0.0151 0.1471 0.0557 -0.0147 0.1335 0.0481
30 -0.0090 0.2581 0.0813 -0.0081 0.2439 0.0732
Computation Experiments
Table 3: HTC, Fn=0.132
() Cx Cy Cn
0 9.5 - -
5 4.8 4.9 9.6
10 9.9 9.3 16.0
20 2.8 10.2 15.7
30 11.0 5.8 11.0
Differences (%)
Table 4: Differences between computations and
experiments, Fn = 0.132
Figure 11: C
X
, HTC, Fn=0.132
Figure 12: C
Y
, HTC, Fn=0.132
Figure 13: C
N
, HTC, Fn=0.132
The results obtained for the second Froude number
are presented bellow.
() Cx Cy Cn Cx Cy Cn
0 -0.0169 0.0000 0.0000 -0.0141 0.0000 0.0000
5 -0.0176 0.0199 0.0134 -0.0153 0.0210 0.0124
10 -0.0192 0.0492 0.0278 -0.0168 0.0479 0.0245
20 -0.0175 0.1426 0.0572 -0.0185 0.1289 0.0468
30 -0.0210 0.2623 0.0838 -0.0175 0.2403 0.0704
Computation Experiments
Table 5: HTC, Fn=0.238
() Cx Cy Cn
0 20.0 - -
5 15.2 5.2 7.6
10 14.3 2.9 13.6
20 5.5 10.6 22.1
30 20.2 9.2 19.0
Differences (%)
Table 6: Differences between computations and
experiments, Fn = 0.238
Figure 14: C
X
, HTC, Fn=0.238
Figure 15: C
Y
, HTC, Fn=0.238
Figure 16: C
N
, HTC, Fn=0.238
The comparisons of results of the computations with
experiments show a relatively good agreement.
Nevertheless, differences are more important on this
case than on the KVLCC2M case. This is perhaps
due to free surface effects that could be neglected in
the KVLCC2M model, but not the HTC due to higher
Froude number.
Figure 17: HTC streamlines and free surface, =0

Figure 18: HTC streamlines and free surface, =6
Figure 19: HTC streamlines and free surface, =12
Tanker
Experiments on a tanker have been carried out in the
gyration tank of Bassin d'essais des carenes in Paris.
The experimental devices allowed to perform
gyration rates from L/R = 0.2 to 1., and for each case
several drift angles from 0 to 30.
Figures below present and compare computations
with experimental data (Cx, Cy, Cn and Cn/Cy) for
Fn=0.2 and gyration rates of 0.2, 0.5 and 1.
Drift angle ()
C
x
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Experiments
Calculations
L/R = 0.2
L/R = 0.5
L/R = 1
Figure 20: Cx, Fn=0.2, L/R = 0.2, 0.5 et 1
Drift angle ()
C
y
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Experiments
Calculations
L/R = 0.2
L/R = 0.5
L/R = 1
Figure 21: Cy, Fn=0.2, L/R = 0.2, 0.5 et 1
Drift angle ()
C
n
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Experiments
Calculations
L/R = 0.2
L/R = 0.5
L/R = 1
Figure 22: Cn, Fn=0.2, L/R = 0.2, 0.5 et 1
Drift angle ()
C
n
/
C
y
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Experiments
Calculations
L/R = 0.2
L/R = 0.5
L/R = 1
Figure 23: Cn/Cy, Fn=0.2, L/R = 0.2, 0.5 et 1
Results are in relatively good agreement with
experiments. Even if coefficients are underestimated
by the computations, the trends due to gyrating rate
variations are very well predicted. Larger errors are
obtained for the most severe condition (L/R=1) where
the ship turns on his own length which creates many
large flow separations along the whole hull (see
figures hereafter).


Figure 24: Free surface and streamlines, L/R=0.5, drift angle 0, 10 and 20 from top to bottom
UNSTEADY FORCED MOTION
Prior to six degrees of freedom free running
maneuvering simulations, computations with forced
ship motion were carried out. Experiments will be
carried out in the VIRTUE European project, and are
not yet available. Nevertheless, the computations
allow to check the ability of the solver to compute
unsteady computations.
Forced sway and yaw oscillatory motions were
computed, and ship trajectory are presented in the
following figures.
Figure 25 : Forced oscillatory sway motion
Figure 26 : Forced oscillatory yaw motion
For the forced oscillatory sway motions, amplitude is
equal to 0.25 Lpp, and period is equal to 10 seconds.
For the forced oscillatory yaw motion, amplitude of
motion is 15, and period is equal to 32 seconds.
Forces coefficients associated to ship motion are
presented on figures 27 to 32, using solid line for
forces, and dot lines for ship motion.
Forced oscillatory sway motion
T
C
x
T
R
y
60 70 80 90
-0.2
-0.1
0
0.1
0.2
Figure 27: Cx, Oscillatory sway motion, T=10s
T
C
y
T
R
y
60 70 80 90
-0.2
-0.1
0
0.1
0.2
Figure 28: Cy, Oscillatory sway motion, T=10s
T
C
y
T
R
y
60 70 80 90
-0.2
-0.1
0
0.1
0.2
Figure 29: Cn, Oscillatory sway motion, T=10s
Forced oscillatory sway motion
T
C
x
R
O
z
50 100
-15
-10
-5
0
5
10
15
Figure 30: Cx, Oscillatory yaw motion, T=32s
T
C
y
R
O
z
50 100
-15
-10
-5
0
5
10
15
Figure 31: Cy, Oscillatory yaw motion, T=32s
T
C
n
R
O
z
50 100
-15
-10
-5
0
5
10
15
Figure 32: Cn, Oscillatory yaw motion, T=32s
Forces curves present irregular shapes due to wake
effects or flow separations. Further analysis will be
performed with experimental results. The next figures
show iso-velocity and free surface elevation for three
ship positions during forced sway motion.
Figure 33: Iso-velocity, forced sway motions
Figure 34: Free surface elevations, forced sway motions
DEVELOPMENT OF FREE MANOEUVRING
CAPABILITIES
The first part of this paper presented ICARE solver
and its validation on steady and unsteady forced
maneuvers of ship. In order to extend the capabilities
of the solver for free running unsteady maneuvers,
three modules where added and are shortly presented:
six degrees of motion capabilities, moving
appendages, and propulsion with actuator disk. The
end of this part presents an application of free
maneuvering ship on a simplified case, performed to
evaluate the feasibility of such computations.
SIX DEGREES OF FREEDOM SHIP MOTION
General presentation
In order to compute unsteady maneuvers of ship, the
solver must be able to compute the motions of the
ship under forces computed at each time step. This is
done by solving the standard Eulers law in the body
fixed coordinate frame centered on G. The six
components of ship velocity and position are then
obtained, and allow to move the ship by moving the
grid, whereas the velocity are used for boundary
conditions on the hull.
Coordinate frame system
Navier-Stokes equations are solved in the fixed
general axis center on 0 (R
0
). This coordinate frame is
Galilean, so acceleration terms of the fluid in the
Navier-Stokes equations do not have to be taken into
account, and then reduce the complexity of the
problem to solve.
The Eulers laws are solved in the body fixed
coordinate frame center on G (R
G
).
Figure 35 : Fixed reference and body fixed axis
Figure 36 : Decomposition of the rotation of the ship
The rotation matrix used to transform coordinates
from the fixed coordinate frame to the body fixed
coordinate frame is defined by:
( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( )
( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( )
( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( )(
(
(

+ +
+

c c c s s s c s s c s c
s c s s s c c c s s s c
s c s c c
P
R R
3
Motion equations
The ship motion equations are written using the
Eulers law:
/
/ /
G R
R G R R
dV
m V F
dt

| |
+ =
|
\
r
r r
r
( )
( )
/
R
R R R R G R
d
I I M
dt

+ =
r
r
r r
where
m is the mass of the ship
R
I is the inertial matrix of the ship
R G
V
/
r
is the velocity vector of the center of gravity
R

r
is the angular velocity vector
R
F
/
r
is the total forces acting the ship
(hydrodynamic, gravitational and external forces)
R G
M
/
r
is the total momentum acting on the ship
Assuming that the integration scheme has the
following form (general multi-step methods) :
( ) ( )
p
1 1
0
,
n n i n i
i
v v C f t v
+ +
=
= +

,
Where :
i
C are coefficients of implicit or explicit multi-step
methods
is the time step
1 n
v
+
is the unknown velocity components at time
step n+1
n
v is the known velocity components at time step n
Euler laws can then be written in the following form :
MV F =
r r
With :
m
m
m
M
Ixx Ixy Ixz
Iyx Iyy Iyz
Izx Izy Izz
(
(
(
(
=
(
(
(
(

,
Vectors components are defined by :
1 n n
i i i
V v v
+
=
( ) ( ) ( )
0
.
p
j j j
i j i
j
F C f V i
=
| |
= |
|
\

r r
r
Where i from 1 to 3 refers to x, y and z forces
coordinates, and I from 4 to 6 refers to momentum
coordinates.
Velocity components V
r
are calculated by solving
the linear system. Positions of the ship are then
directly integration from ship velocities.
Choice of integration scheme
Even if ship motion integration seems to be an easy
task, important numerical difficulties arrive in
application for unsteady RANS simulation.
In the field of hydrodynamic, ship motion integration
is used for example in sea-keeping for time domain
simulations. Majority of solvers use a 4
th
order
explicit Runge-kutta scheme, associated with
relatively small time steps (at least 50 iterations per
period of motion). A second point is that the forces
are decomposed in different terms, with an explicit
knowledge of added mass terms. Those terms are
then transferred to the left hand side of the equation
of motion, and integrated with the mass of the ship.
The transposition to RANS code leads to two
important difficulties :
Time step is highly time consuming and can
not be reduce drastically for practical
applications.
Added mass terms are part of the forces
computed by the solver, and can not be
explicitly known. Those terms are then
integrated in the right hand side of the
equation of motion, and have a very bad
impact on the stability of integration
scheme.
Several integration schemes have then been tested on
a simplified equation of ship heave motion, with a
added mass term in the right hand side.
1
a
Hyd
m k
z F z z
m m m
| |
= = +
|
\
&& &&
With initial condition :
0 0
( ) z t z =
Where :
m mass of the ship
k hydrostatic stiffness
a
m added mass terms
Euler implicit and explicit schemes, implicit and
explicit multi-step methods, and predictor/corrector
methods were tested. Example of resolution is shown
for two selected integration schemes.
The first is the classical Euler scheme, explicit for
velocity integration, and implicit for position
integration.
1
1 1
n n n
n n n
z z h f
z z h z
+
+ +
= +

= +

& &
&
The second scheme is a predictor corrector scheme,
based on explicit and implicit second order multi-step
methods (Adams Baschfrd and Adams Moulton
methods)
Predictor step :
1 1
1 1
3 1
2 2
1 1
2 2
n n n n
n n n n
z z h f f
z z h z z
+
+ +
| |
= +
|
\

| |

= + +
|

\
& &
& &
Corrector step :
1 1
1 1
1 1
2 2
1 1
2 2
n n n n
n n n n
z z h f f
z z h z z
+ +
+ +
| |
= + +
|
\

| |

= + +
|

\
& &
& &
The results show that with the same number of time
step per period (50 time step), both integrations
schemes give an accurate prediction of the motion.
But if added mass is added in the right hand side of
the equation of motion, only the predictor/corrector
integration scheme is stable. Unfortunately, this
stability is not obtained with added mass greater than
1.5 time the ship mass.
t
Z
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5
-0.001
-0.0005
0
0.0005
0.001
0.0015
Euler Ma = 0 x M
Euler Ma = 1 x M
Analytic solution
Figure 37 : Stability of Euler integration scheme
t
Z
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
-0.001
-0.0005
0
0.0005
0.001
0.0015
Predictor/corrector 2nd order Ma = 0 x M
Predictor/corrector 2nd order Ma = 1 x M
Analytic solution
Figure 38 : Stability of second order predictor
corrector integration scheme
MOVING APPENDAGES CAPABILITIES
In order to simulate practical ship maneuvering
(zigzag for example), rotating appendages must be
taken into account during the simulations.
Two different techniques have been developed:
spring network analogy to deform the mesh around
the appendages and mesh interpolation of pre-
computed meshes at several rudder angles.
Whereas grid interpolation is relatively easy, the use
of spring networks is more complicated and is shortly
presented in this section.
Spring network method
The principle of this method is to grid segments as a
spring network, so that fixed displacement of the
boundaries (appendages) propagate to the whole grid,
and avoid mesh overlapping within reasonable limits.
First methods were only based on compression
springs (Batina [12]) and have been improved with
the addition of torsion springs (Farhat [13] [14])
allowing the increase of method abilities and then the
magnitude of feasible deformations.
The domain is divided into three parts according to
conditions applied on it:
0 m p
= + +
(22)
Figure 39: Boundaries definition
Nodes displacements are imposed on the moving
boundaries (m). If
i
D
uur
is the displacement of point I
we obtain:
{ } ,
i i m
d D i =
uur uur
(23)
On the domain boundary nodes displacement is null
which means:
{ }
0
0,
i
d i =
uur r
(24)
Finally we define boundary projection where nodes
have to stay on surface. For instance this law is
applied on mesh nodes of the hull located near
moving appendages. This condition is written:
{ }
. 0,
p
i p
d n i

=
uur
r
(25)
Figure 40: Compression springs
Considering two neighboring points Mi and Mj being
part of mesh, given
ij
e
uur
vector carried by the MiMj
segment, the segment MiMj length is defined with
ij ij ij ij
l e e e = =
uur uur uur
.
Thus we are able to determine the associated unitary
vector
ij
ij
ij
e
i
l
=
uur
ur
.
Writing
i
d
uur
and
j
d
uur
as the respective displacement
of Mi and Mj. So the compression or extension of a
segment is defined with
( ) j i ij
d d i
uur uur ur
. The following
formula gives us the force at Mi point exerted by Mj:
( ) ( )
lin
ij ij j i ij ij
f k d d i i =
uuur
uur uur ur ur
Spring stiffness is classically chosen as the inverse
ratio of the segment length, so that the shorter nodes
distances give the stiffer spring:
1
ij
ij
k
l
=
Static balance of efforts at Mi point is written:
Nb voisins
1
0
lin
ij
j
f
=
=

uuur
r
Or with previous relations:
Nb voisins Nb voisins
1 1
. .
t t
ij ij ij i ij ij ij j
j j
k i i d k i i d
= =
| |
= |
|
\

ur ur uur ur ur uur
Nodes displacements are computed by solving the
linear system either with an iterative method that
propagates displacements or with a direct method that
inverts the matrix constituted with previous terms.
The use of compression springs doesnt avoid nodes
to go on opposite faces, and are limited in practice to
rotations of about 10 degrees. A cure is to introduce
in the previous system torsion springs between two
neighboring segments.
Figure 41: Torsion springs
The spring stiffness is then chosen so that it increases
when the angle between two segments tends to zero
or pi, with for example
) ( sin
1
2 ijk
i
ijk
i
C

=
.
Writing that displacements of points i, j, k makes
angles variations in the triangle ijk which allow to
determine moment created by the torsion spring at i.
Linking angles variations to points i, j, k
displacements we obtain a set of equations similar
with the one obtain previously, but more complex,
and solve with the same method.
M
i
M
j
M
k
ijk
i
C
M
k
M
j
M
i
M
i
M
j
ij
e
uur

0
The method sketch applied on appendages rotation is
described below. Some projection steps are required
in order to guarantee the hull geometry and
intersections quality between hull and appendages.
Figure 42 : Sketch of the spring method applied on the
appendage rotation
Figures below show an example of the spring method
applied on a rudder rotation. This method is applied
to a 3D mesh around a rudder. Amplitudes are
respectively 0 and 15 degrees and the method used
conserve the mesh quality required for the flow
solver.

Figure 43: Example of 3D unsteady deformation of the
mesh for rotating rudder
SIMULATION OF AN SELF-PROPELLED SHIP
WITH AN ACTUATOR DISC
Using Navier-Stokes computations to predict the real
maneuvering ship behavior is fully achieved only if
the propeller is taken into account in the simulations.
We have to consider here the interactions of the
propeller with the hull and appendages. The hull drag
usually increases because of the pressure field
modification and also appendages drag since they are
located in the propeller flow.
Several approaches can then be considered. The first
one consists in directly modeling the propeller in the
computation with its own mesh. The propeller
rotation is taken into account with the rotation of the
mesh in a cylinder. These computations are one of the
aim of the numerical naval hydrodynamics but needs
a huge mesh density and so very long CPU time. The
second approach, which has been developed in the
present work, consists in simulating the propeller
effect on the flow with an external forces in mean
momentum equations. This solution called actuator
disc method allows to get, in a way more or less
complex, suction and wake effects induced by the
propeller and with a reduced CPU time.
Actuator disc method
The method presented here is based on an explicit
distribution of forces, i.e. the force distribution is
imposed without coupling the up-flow [15]. For given
value of RPM, and then K
T
and K
Q
coming from
open water curves, we obtain a force distribution in
the propeller disk with axial and tangential
repartitions respectively defined by:
* *
1 r r A f
r r
= and
( )
b b
r r r
r r
A f
+

=
*
* *
1
1

The non-dimensional radius of the propeller r
*
and of
the boss r
b
are respectively defined by:
r
r
r
r
b
b

=
1
*
and
p
b
b
R
R
r =
At that step the force distribution is only defined as a
function of the propeller radius. Amplitudes of radial
A
r
and tangential A

forces are then computed writing

that the integrations of forces and of moments on the
propeller disc are respectively equal to thrust and
propeller torque.
Calculation of stiffness for
compression and torsion
springs
Constitution of the matrix KX=B
Computation of the linear system
Rotation of appendage mesh points
Projection of points on hull
Projection of points on hull
2
2 2
0
0
p
m
R
x dx
r
R x
T L U f dxrd dr

+
=

and:
2
3 2
0
0
p
m
R
x dx
R x
Q LU rf dxrd dr

+
=

The force distribution is computed at each node of the
propeller disc mesh. The volume used is then the
volume of a fictive cell around the considered node
and bounded by the center of neighboring cells.
The figure bellow present an example of forces
distribution in the propeller disc.
Figure 44: Forces distribution in the propeller disc
The effect of this actuator disc in the flow around a ship
combatant is presented in the next figure.
Figure 45: Self-propelled ship, streamlines
and iso-velocity
UNSTEADY MANEUVERING APPLICATIONS
The first unsteady applications are presented in this
section and concern the turning of a series 60.
Experiments were carried out in the oceanic tank at
Krilov Institute in 1994 [16] for Bassin d'essais des
carnes. Future computations carried out in the same
conditions will allow to evaluate the accuracy of
numerical results obtained.
At first, unsteady simulations have been performed
by prescribing a force equivalent to the force on the
rudder when turned. That force is assumed constant.
Then, in a second time, computations were performed
with a real rudder at a specific angle directly meshed.
The six degrees of freedom of the ship are free, which
means that the ship finds its own balance under
effects of inertia, hydrodynamics and external forces.
The boat speed is introduced by a constant force
applied at propeller location so that ship speed is the
same as the one obtained in experiments. Future
simulations will integrate ship propulsion using an
actuator disk in order to get more realistic propeller
effects and speed loss during turning.
Figures below show the rudder turning influence on
flow. We can see in particular at rudder end the
vortex created between intrados and extrados.
Figure 46: Flow around rudder at 0 and 10
Figures below show free surface elevation and
streamlines around hull during turning.
Figure 47: Free surface and streamlines around series 60
Under effect of rudder incidence and moment created
around vertical axis the ship has then a circular
trajectory that is shown on the next figure where
several ship positions have been drawn. These first
computations show a similar behavior with
maneuvering ship, with the prediction of snap-roll
phase when rudder is turned, and speed decrease
when ship is turning.
Figure 48: Unsteady RANS computations of Series 60
gyration circle obtained with force at rudder location
CONCLUSIONS
Initially developed to predict drag resistance, Navier-
Stokes with free-surface solvers extend nowadays
their applications to seakeeping and maneuverability.
This paper shows an example applications in the field
of maneuverability for steady cases, forced motions
and attempt of free maneuvering ship. The ultimate
aim of those developments is to directly compute the
whole unsteady movement including interactions
between propellers, hull and appendages. More
specifically, three points have been studied. The first
one was the ability to predict accurately the ship
dynamics with six degrees of freedom only subject to
forces and moments computed by the solver. The
second point was to simulate the rudder turning
during ship maneuvering. And the last point was the
ability to simulate self propulsion of ship, taking into
account propeller effects in the flow.
First unsteady calculations have been made on a
Series 60 ship with a five degrees turned rudder. Ship
is then driven by a constant force imposing the initial
speed before turning. Next we will focus on
comparison between numerical results and
experiments, taking into account the propeller.
Even if the first results presented in this paper have
been obtained for a simplified case, they show the
abilities of such approachs, able to take into account
complex interactions between hull, appendages and
propeller when hull is in incidence or in turning.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The work presented in this paper was sponsored by
DGA/SPN under PEA 1999 and 2004 projects.
Applications of forced motions and free running ship
have been supported by the European Project
VIRTUE grant 516201.
REFERENCES
[1] Y. Tahara, E. Paterson, F. Stern, Y.
Himeno,, Flow- and Wave-Field Optimisation of
Surface Combatants Using CFD-Based Optimization
Methods , 23
th
Symposium on Naval
Hydrodynamics, Val de Reuil, France, Septembre
2000.
[2] E. Jacquin, Q. Derbanne, D. Bellevre, S.
Cordier, B. Alessandrini, Y. Roux, Hull Form
Optimization Using A Free Surface RANS Solver,
25
th
Symposium on Naval Hydrodynamics, St Johns,
Newfoundland and Labrador, Canada, Aot 2004.
[3] E. F. Campana, D. Peri, Y. Tahara, F. Stern,
Comparison and Validation of CFD Based Local
Optimization Methods for Surface Combatant Bow,
25
th
Symposium on Naval Hydrodynamics, St Johns,
Newfoundland and Labrador, Canada, Aot 2004.
[4] B. Alessandrini, G. Delhommeau, Viscous free
surface flow past a ship in drift and in rotating
motion, Proceedings of 22th Symposium on Naval
Hydrodynamics, Washington, aot 1998
[5] A. Di Mascio, R. Broglia, R. Muscari,
Unsteady RANS Simulation of a Manoeuvring Ship
Hull, 25
th
Symposium on Naval Hydrodynamics, St
Johns, Newfoundland and Labrador, Canada, Aot
2004.
[6] R. Wilson, F. Stern, Unsteady RANS
Simulation of a Surface Combatant with Roll
Motion, 24
th
Symposium on Naval Hydrodynamics,
Fukuoka, Japon, Juillet 2002.
[7] R. Wilson, P. Carrica, F. Stern, Unsteady
RANS method for ship motions with application to
roll for a surfacecombatant, Computers and Fluids
2006, Vol. 35, pp. 501-524.
[9] B. Alessandrini, G. Delhommeau, Simulation
of three-dimensional unsteady viscous free surface
flow around a ship model, International Journal for
Numerical Methods in Fluids, vol 19, pp 321-342,
1994
[10] B. Alessandrini, G. Delhommeau, A fully
coupled Navier-Stokes solver for calculations of
turbulent incompressible free surface flow past a ship
hull, International Journal for Numerical Methods
in Fluid, vol 29, pp 125-142, 1999
[11] D. C. Wilcox, Multiscale model for turbulent
flows, AIAA Journal, Vol 26, pp. 1211-1320,
November 1988.
[12] J.T. Batina, Unsteady Euler airfoil solutions
using unstructured dynamic meshes, AIAA Paper n
89-0150, AIAA 27
th
Aerospace Sciences Meeting,
Reno, NV, USA (1989)
[13] C. Farhat, C. Degand, B. Koobu, M.
Lesoinne, Torsional springs for two-dimensional
dynamic unstructured fluid meshes , Computational
Methods Appl. Mech. Engrg, 1998 (231-245)
[14] C. Degand, C. Farhat, A three-dimensional
torsional spring analogy method for unstructured
dynamic meshes , Computers and Structures 2002
(305-316)
[15] F. Stern, H.T. Kim, V.C Patel, H.V. Chen, A
viscous flox approach to the computation of propeller
hull interaction, Journal of Ship research, Vol 32,
n4, 1988, pp. 246-262
[16] Free running tests in calm water and in waves
on Ship Model of Series 60, Krylov Shipbuilding
Research Institue, St Petersburg 1994.