Proceedings of 10th RINA High Speed Marine Vehicles Symposium

Naples, 15-17 October 2014

Numerical evaluation (CFD) of Wake and Thrust deduction fraction

of a Warped Hard Chine Hulls Systematic Series
F. De Luca, S. Mancini, C. Pensa, G. Staiano
Universit degli Studi di Napoli Federico II

ABSTRACT: This work is strictly related with the paper " The Naples Warped Hard Chine Hulls Systematic
Series First Part: Resistance in Still Water" presented at this same Symposium.
The aim of this work is to show the results of the numerical evaluation of the hull-propeller interactions
obtained by the commercial RANSE Computational Fluid Dynamic software CD-ADAPCO Star CCM+.
In literature there is a significant lack of experimental data on wake and thrust fraction magnitude especially
regarding medium and high speed vessels. This is due to the high costs and to the reduced reliability of the
tests carried out with small models whose dimensions are constrained by the high Froude numbers. In spite of
the high model speed, the smallness of the models induces small Reynolds numbers and therefore not
negligible scale effects on propellers dynamic (laminar flow) and on wake intensity.
In this paper a numerical analysis has been performed on the parent hull of the series. In particular, three
procedures, characterized by simulations with different degree of freedom and different relations with
experimental data, have been applied. The simulations have been carried out in the speed range Fr = 0.5
1.5. This way is submitted also as an alternative to towing tank experiments on big models if these tests are
not feasible.

1 INTRODUCTION By these reasons, for the HSC, the gap in

reliability, that typically affects the numerical
This paper tackles the problem of the evaluation of
simulations compared with the towing tests, is
the self-propulsion factors of High Speed Craft
reduced.
(HSC) to get with numerical simulations.
Due to these considerations, to date the numerical
In particular, this research refers to the
evaluation of the self-propulsion factors is
hydrodynamic sustained hulls (partially or totally)
becoming a practical procedure.
of the Naples Systematic Series studied at the
This conclusion is nowadays strengthened by a
Naval Division of the Dipartimento di Ingegneria
strong reduction of the computing costs that are
Industriale (DII) of the Universit degli Studi di
balancing the often high costs of the software.
Napoli Federico II whose first data are shown
To evaluate the feasibility of the numerical
in (De Luca & Pensa, 2014).
procedures, this study takes into consideration also
As second task, the study aims also at the
the onerousness of the simulations. With this aim,
designers, giving an instrument to complete the
three different procedures have been
performance prediction of HSC.
individualized and tested processing the parent
It is well known that the experimental tests in
hull of the series (C1 model).
towing tank are the more reliable procedures to
The results shown in the paper given the first
evaluate the self-propulsion factors of hulls (t and
reasonable information about onerousness of
w). Nevertheless, for HSC, the high speeds imply
computing and on data reliability, but only on
extreme scale factors (i.e. small models and
completion of the programmed simulations it will
propellers) and short acquisition times. Both these
be possible to generalize the conclusions here
circumstances reduce the tests reliability for the
proposed. Moreover, at the end of the numerical
small Re and for less accuracy of the measured
tests it will be possible to give a consistent set of
data.
self-propulsion factors referable to the whole
Systematic Series.
2 LITERATURE OVERVIEW
The studies briefly reminded below, have been
reported as they tackle the two principal issues of
this study: the simulation of the propeller action
and the individuation of the sailing point of the
self-propelled hull to evaluate the hull-propeller
interactions (and, throw these, the self-propulsion
factors).
In the past the computational cost of fully
resolving the flow around a propeller geometry
and hull inhibits the use of numerical simulations.
For these reasons, initially, was adopted a
simplified method with potential solver for hull
and actuator disk (AD) for propeller (Bugalski,
1997).
Now in all simulations the viscous flow around the
hull is solved by RANSE code, instead to compute
the flow around a rotating propeller there are
several methods below briefly described:
2.1 RANSE-AD
The viscous flow around the hull is solved by a
RANSE code.
The AD model substitutes the propeller blades
with an equivalent body-force (BF) distribution,
approximately distributed over the volume cut out
by the blades without resolving the geometry of
the propeller. The BF distribution is an input of the
model, therefore a priori knowledge or an
estimation of this distribution is required. This
model is attractive due to the relatively small
computational effort. There are several approaches
to established BF (Maciel & Koop, 2013):
Lifting Surface Theory (Kim et al., 2006)
(Kobayashi et al. 2005);
Vortex Lattice Method (Kimura et al. 2006)
Simplified Actuator Disk (Visonneau, 2005)
(Bugalski, 2011).
2.2 RANSE-BEMT
Also here the viscous flow around the hull is
solved by a RANSE code whereas the flow around
the propeller is solved with a Blade Element
Momentum Theory (BEMT).
The coupling between the two codes is done
through a two-way coupling: interpolation of the
propeller induced velocities from BEMT in RANSE
and imposing the total wake field from RANSE in
the BEMT method.
The propeller geometry is considered in the BEMT
calculations (Villa et al., 2012).
2.3 Full RANSE
This method, in which the flow around both ship
and propeller are solved in a RANSE code, is
performed by sliding interfaces or chimera grid for
the connection between the rotating grid block
(around the propeller), and the ship-fixed grid
(around the hull).
2.4 The utilized method
The BF propeller method used in this paper, as
reported in (CD-Adapco Star CCM+ v. 8.04
Users Manual, 2013) and called Virtual Disk
Model (VD), is in according with AD performed
by (Bugalski, 2011). This model employs a
uniform volume force distribution over the
cylindrical disk having the same position (respect
the hull) and diameter of the propeller. The
volume force varies in radial direction and the
distribution of the force components is given by
= 1 (1)
1
= (1 )+ (2)
= = (3)
where is the body force component in axial
direction, is the body force component in
tangential direction, r is the radial coordinate,
is the hub radius and the propeller tip radius.
The constants are computed as
105
= (4)
8 (3 +4 )( )
and
105
= (5)
8 (3 +4 )( )
where is the propeller thickness and T and Q are
thrust and torque respectively. The computation of
the body force components necessitates several
user inputs. A propeller performance curve needs
to be specified, which gives the dimensionless
thrust and torque fractions and the propeller
efficiency as functions of the advance ratio J
= (6)
where VA is the speed of advance of the propeller,
n the rotation rate, and the D propeller diameter.
Further inputs are the position of the propeller
within the computational domain, the direction of
the propeller rotational axis, and the direction of
rotation.
Figure 1. C1 Hull with virtual disk rappresentation
3 THE IDENTIFIED PROCEDURES
To compute the self-propulsion coefficients three
different procedures have been identified.
This paper shows the results obtained processing
the only C1 model.
3.1 First procedure
To carry out this procedure the AD, associated
with its dynamic characteristics, is positioned
under the hull without dynamic interactions apart
the variations of the pressure field under the hull
due to the propeller action.
This methodology is an iterative process between
the AD solution of the propeller and the RANSE
solution of the viscous flow around a ship, as
below shown (Figure. 2).
Figure 2. Flow chart first procedure
The 2 DOF simulations have been carried out on
towed and self-propelled hull. This procedures,
differently by the other two, identify the trim and
sinkage regardless of experimental data.
The main two shortcomings are:
the moment due to the propeller thrust on the
hull is ignored;
the towing point, in CFD simulations, is
conventional. This implies an unrealistic
moment that affects the dynamic equilibrium.
To evaluate the consequences of what above said,
it has been to remember:
the strong sensitivity of the resistance of the
hydrodynamically sustained crafts to the trim;
the difficulties to evaluate by CFD the dynamic
trim of this kind of vehicles.
Evidently, the combination of these items implies
that the shortcomings above mentioned are not
negligible.
As said, the procedure follows an iterative way
whose steps are here summarized.
1. The viscous flow around the ship is calculated
for the towing condition using the RANSE
solver.
2. The propeller characteristic is provided by
literature data (NSMB, 1978)
3. Since the effective wake (we) is not known in
the first stage, by using the nominal wake (wn)
distribution and resistance obtained from
towing calculation, the BF distribution is
calculated according to the equations in (1) (2)
(3).
4. The body force obtained from the BF is
distributed over the cells in the RANS solver
and the viscous flow around the ship with
propeller effect is solved
5. By the calculation of the RANS solver, the total
velocity (VT) is obtained. Then the we can be
calculated using the propeller induced velocity
(Vp) which is already know.
6. By using we distribution, the BF is update and
the process is returned to point 4.
The above procedure is iterative until the propeller
thrust and total resistance are converged. Finally,
self-propulsion factors and the viscous flow
around the ship with the propeller effect are
obtained.
3.1.1 Second procedure
The first procedure doesnt need a priori
information on the behaviours of the model
processed.
Whereas the second procedure has been identified
to made use of towing tests measures that are the
most reliable prediction data.
In this procedure simulations, without DOF, have
been carried out. The first runs have been
performed with fixed experimental trim, delivered
by towing tank experiences. Thereafter by iterative
method, varying the draft (i.e. displacement), the
resistance equal to that measured towing tank data
has been identified.
The aim of this approach is to determine thrust and
flow around the propeller consistent with
experimental data.
The main shortcoming of this procedure results Figure 3. NSS-C1 Model (De Luca & Pensa, 2014).
from the fixed position of the model that doesnt
take into account the trim and sinkage variation 4.2 Propeller Characteristics
due to the hull-propeller interactions. The tested propeller was chosen by the usual
Wageningen B Series procedure.
3.1.2 Third procedure
Table 1. Propeller characteristics
The third procedure overcomes the second one,
B Wageningen 5-60
taking into account the mutual interaction between
Number of blades 5
hull and propeller, in terms of trim and sinkage
Expanded Area ratio 0.60
variation.
Pitch ratio 1.30
The results of second procedure have been taken
Diameter 0.13 m
as first step of a new iterative procedure. Rotation 38.14 rps
To evaluate the new equilibrium, the 2 DOF have
been unlocked and the VD have been applied in The KT, KQ and 0 propeller curves has been
the simulation. Furthermore the thrust of the VD inserted into the AD model to carry out the BF
has been adapted consistently with the new distribution.
resistance, due to the new dynamic condition. The dimensionless thrust and torque coefficients
Also this procedure presents the same and the propeller efficiency obtained by BF
shortcomings of the first one, due to the ignored distribution with the grid size chosen show a good
mechanical interaction between propeller and hull. agreement with experimental data (Figure 4).
1.20
4 SIMULATION METHODOLOGY 1.00
4.1 Hull Geometry 0.80
The model used up for all simulations is the parent 0.60
hull of the Naples Systematic Series (C1 model)
whose main dimensions are: 0.40

0.20
LWL 2.39 m
L/B 3.45 0.00
106.1 kg 0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50
LCG/LP 0.379 KT 10*KQ
T 13.2 deg 0 KT (BFPM)
0.50 22.3 deg 10KQ (BFPM) 0 (BFPM)

The following figure shows the transversal and the Figure 4 Propeller curves comparison between experimental
longitudinal sections of the model. data and AD Method
4.3 Numerical Setup 5 RESULTS
The computations are performed with the RANSE This work has produced the first data on the self-
solver Star CCM+ from CD-Adapco. propulsion coefficients of the parent hull of the
To solve the time-marching equations, an implicit NSS. Nevertheless, the main task of this first part
solver has been used to find the field of all of the study has been the evaluation of the above
hydrodynamic unknown quantities, in conjunction explained three procedures characterized by
with a iterative solver to solve each time step. The different level of computational complexity and
software uses a Semi Implicit Method for Pressure practical easiness.
Linked Equations to conjugate pressure field and The data obtained are shown in the next figure.
velocity field, and a Algebraic Multi-Grid solver
to accelerate the convergence of the solution.
The free surface is modelled with the two phase
volume of fluid technique (VoF). A segregated
flow solver approach is used for all simulations.
The Reynolds stress problem is solved by means
of K-Omega SST turbulence model.
The unstructured mesh were used for the
computations. An example of the unstructured
grids topology used in the calculations is plotted in
Figure 5.

Figure 4 Mesh around hull

The main simulation parameters are presented in

Table 2.
Table 2 Numerical simulation properties
Property
Type of mesh Trimmed Figure 6 Self-propulsive coefficients
Base Size (m) 0.1125
No. of cells 1855777 Observing the results, it is possible to summarize
Boundary physics some considerations.
Inlet Velocity inlet condition All three procedures tested have delivered
Outlet Pressure outlet condition
results in a range of values in accord with
Bottom/Top Velocity inlet condition
Side Symmetry condition literature data (Hadler J.B., 1966).
Hull Wall with no-slip condition With regard to the thrust fraction t, there is a
Symmetry plane Along centreline of the hull substantial equivalence between results of the
Solver settings first and third procedure. This equivalence
Convection Term 2st order shows that it is not extremely relevant the
Temporal
1st order variation of RT, trim and sinkage on the self-
Discretization
Time-step (s) 0.01 propulsion coefficients;
Iteration per t.s. 10 Differently, remembering that the second
Turbulence Model K-Omega SST procedure has been carried out at fixed trim, it
is deducible by the different trend of this
 procedure, that relationship between the Figure 10 and 11 show the intensities of the wakes
interactions propeller-hull and the dynamic trim evaluated in the sections 10% of disk diameter
(through the variation of the pressure away, forward the AD. This data has been obtained
distribution) have a significant influence on the applying the second procedure.
t fraction. This is due to the variation of the
pressure resistance that is proportional to the
trim.
As regards both the wake coefficients, nominal
and effective, it is evident the substantial
equivalence of the three procedures. This seems
to confirm that the wake is dependent only on
the relative position of the propeller respect the
hull (besides the speed).
The abovementioned higher influence of the trim
variation (towed vs self-propelled hull) respect the
accuracy of the trim evaluation, is confirmed by
the Figure 7. Here it is highlighted the differences
of the towed hull data (obtained with first and third
procedure) and the significant similarity between
the two procedures respect the increments of trim
due to the propeller actions.
Synthetizing: different trim evaluated on towed
model but comparable trim variation due to the
thrust, implies the comparable thrust fractions
above shown.
Figure 8 and 9, show the streamlines of the
nominal and effective wakes obtained simulating
the model in towing and self-propelled conditions
respectively. Data here shown has been obtained
by the first procedure.
The comparison between the two wake shows the
higher rotationality of the flow under the disk Figure 7 Dynamic trim with and without VD
action and the more fair streamlines characterizing
the higher speed.
 First procedure Nominal Wake First procedure Effective Wake

3 m/s 3 m/s

7 m/s 7 m/s
Figure 8. towed hull streamlines across propeller disk Figure 9. self-propelled hull streamlines across propeller disk

Second procedure Nominal Wake Second procedure Effective Wake

5 m/s 5 m/s

6 m/s 6 m/s

7 m/s 7 m/s
Figure10. Visualization of wake coefficient on disk forward Figure 11 Visualization of wake coefficient on disk forward
to the propeller position towed hull to the propeller position self-propelled hull
6. CONCLUSIONS AND FUTURE WORKS De Luca, F., Pensa, C., (2014) The Naples Warped Hard
Chine Hulls Systematic Series First Part: Resistance in
The three proposed procedures allow the Still Water, proceedings of 10th High Speed Marine Vehicles
evaluation of wake and thrust coefficients. HSMV 2014. Naples, Italy.
The first procedure gives a way to predict self- Hadler, J.B., (1966) The Prediction of Power Performance
propulsion coefficients without any experimental on Planing Craft, Transaction of SNAME January 1966
data. pagg. 564-610, New York, USA.
The second procedure provides a simple way to Maciel, P., Koop, A., (2013) Modelling Thruster-Hull
predict self-propulsions coefficient. In this Interaction With CFD Proceedings of the ASME 2013 32th
procedure the experimental results have been used International Conference on Ocean, Offshore and Arctic
Engineering OMAE 2013. Nantes, France
to increase the reliability of numerical evaluation.
The third procedure is an evolution of the second Kim, J., Kim, K.S., Kim, G.D., Park, I.R. and Van. S.H.,
one, it allows a more accurate evaluation of (2006) Hybrid RANS and Potential Based Numerical
Simulation of Self Propulsion test for a Practical Ship,
coefficients taking into account a more realistic proceedings of ICHD 2006. Ischia, Italy.
dynamic interaction hull-propeller.
Kobayashi H., Hino T., Hinatsu M., (2005) Flow
Comparing the results of the three procedures it Simulation around Ship Hulls with Appendages in Towed
would seem, regarding the evaluation of the wake, and Self-Propelled Conditions, proceedings of Numerical
that the results are quite independent on the Towing Tank Symposium NUTTS 2005. Varna, Bulgaria.
methodology applied. Consequently, the choice of Peric, M., Ferziger, J.H., (2002) Computational Methods
the procedure will depend on the available for Fluid Dynamics, Springer, 3rd edition.
computing power: the first procedure is the
Villa, D., Gaggero, S., and Brizzolara, S., (2012) Ship Self
heaviest from the computing point of view Propulsion with different CFD methods: from actuator disk
whereas is the more easy for the operator. to viscous inviscid unsteady coupled solvers, proceedings of
The second methodology is lighter in computing 10th International Conference on Hydrodynamics 2012. St.
but needs iterative and not automatic procedure. Petersburg, Russia
The third methodology has produced equivalent Visonneau, M., Queutey, P., Deng, G.B., (2005) EFFORT
results requiring a double and more complex Work Package 4- ECN-CNRS Report, Internal report for EU
iterative procedure and, consequently, it seem not project: G3RD-CT-2002-00810-European Full Scale Flow
Reserch & Technology, 5th Framework Program, Nantes,
appreciable. France.
It has to be noted that the lack of automatism in
the iterative procedure is due to the steady model NSMB, (1978) Wageningen B Screw Series: Report n
W13011-1-RD. Wageningen, The Netherlands.
of the AD. Reasonably, this limitation could be
overcome by an unsteady model of the propeller.
Regarding the thrust fraction t, the main Symbology and Abbreviations
conclusion is the strong influence of the results on
the trim variation due to the propeller action. AD Actuator Disk
Consequently the fixed trim procedure (the second BF Body Force
one) have to be avoid. BEMT Blade Element Momentum Theory
DOF Degree of Freedom
It has been remembered that only the first
0 Propeller efficiency
methodology work regardless experimental data Fn Froude Number
whereas the other procedures need trim and HSC High Speed Craft
resistance value of reference. KT Thrust propeller coefficient
The generalization of these considerations have to KQ Torque propeller coefficient
be validated by the programmed tests on the other NSS Naples Systematic Series
models of the NSS. Rn Reynolds Number
t Thrust deduction fraction
VA Advance Velocity
VP Propeller Induced Velocity
7. REFERENCES VT Total Velocity
VD Virtual Disk
Bugalski., T., (1997) Modern Methods for Investigation of
VoF Volume of Fluid
Hull-Propeller Interaction Phenomena using CFD,
wn Nominal wake fraction
proceedings of NAV 1997. Sorrento, Italy.
we Effective wake fraction
Bugalski., T., (2011) Study on Numerical Prediction of
Effective Wake Field, proceedings of Numerical Towing
Tank Symposium NUTTS 2011. Southampton, UK..
CD-Adapco, (2013) Star CCM+ v. 8.04 Users Manual.