See

discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at:

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/305268239

Estimation of the maneuvering

characteristics of the DTC
containership using URANS based
simulations

Conference Paper July 2016

CITATIONS READS

0 292

5 authors, including:

Shukui Liu Apostolos Papanikolaou

National Technical University of Hamburgische Schiffbau-Versuc
27 PUBLICATIONS 166 CITATIONS 369 PUBLICATIONS 1,663 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Naval Ship Design View project

EU-MOP View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Dionysia Chroni on 13 July 2016.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Maritime Technology and Engineering 3 Guedes Soares & Santos (Eds)
2016 Taylor & Francis Group, London, ISBN 978-1-138-03000-8

Estimation of the maneuvering characteristics of the DTC containership

using URANS based simulations

N. Fournarakis, A. Papanikolaou, D. Chroni, S. Liu & T. Plessas

Ship Design Laboratory, National Technical University of Athens, Greece

ABSTRACT: The objective of the presented research is to explore the capability of CFD techniques and of
numerical methods in general, in the estimation of the hydrodynamic derivatives and ultimately in the simu-
lation of the maneuvering performance. In this context, the DTC standard containership bare hull is subjected
to resistance, transverse force and yaw moment CFD calculations at various Froude Numbers and headings.
Unsteady Reynolds Averaged Navier Stokes (URANS) computations were performed using the STAR-CCM+
code. The resulting hydrodynamic derivatives are validated against results of other approaches, such as semi
empirical methods as well as the NTUASDLs panel codes (NEWDRIFT, HYBRID) and the respective results
are discussed. Resulting hydrodynamic derivatives are then used to predict the maneuvering performance of the
hull, using the NTUASDLs HYBRIDMAN, in calm water and in adverse weather conditions.

1 INTRODUCTION a hull. The evolution of computational power com-

Nowadays, maneuvering simulations are used to esti-
mate and assess the operational capabilities of a ship
during the design phase. Zigzag and turning circle
tests are, amongst others, standard IMO tests in order
to identify the compliance of a ship design with the
related design requirements. As the respective process
suggest, the maneuvering performance of the ship for a
given set of environmental loads and effects, is depen-
dent on the design characteristics of the ship. Using
a solid mathematical modeling technique (Hirano,
1980), simulators solve the equations of ship motion,
using the data set of forces and moments acting on the
ship during its course. The key advantage of this pro-
cess is the strength of the simulator to estimate the ship
performance in any arbitrary motion of the ship. How-
ever, the accurate prediction of forces and moments as
source data is fundamental for the development of a
simulation model for ship maneuvering.
Traditionally, standard Planar Motion Mechanism
(PMM) tests, Circular Motion Tests (CMT) and other
tank tests provide the necessary data, yet in a costly and
time consuming manner. Experiments on a Froude
scaled hull model, enable a deeper insight into the
hydrodynamic effects on models maneuverability.
Unfortunately, such tests are performed much later
in the design process, leading to long design cycles,
costly prototype development and late estimation of
maneuvering capabilities.
Recent advances in the field of numerical hydro-
dynamics, like (Stern, et al., 2011), (Simonsen
et al., 2012), suggest the use of Computational Fluid
Mechanics as a way to assess the hydrodynamic forces
and moments used for the maneuvering simulation of
plemented by the development of sophisticated Finite
Volume Method codes, provide promising insights
for the hydrodynamic pressure and viscous phenom-
ena occurring during a maneuvering action. Much of
the work performed so far is focused on simulating
the various PMM conditions through the modelscale
replication of basin tests like static drift, static rud-
der, pure sway or pure yaw. Their aim is to identify
the actual hydrodynamic forces and moments, which
are ultimately used to feed a mathematical maneu-
vering model based on the MMG standard. Latest
efforts (Yasukawa et al., 2015) pursue the replication of
the actual maneuvering motions, simulating zigzag,
circle tests, etc.
The milestone work of (Abkowitz, 1964) facilitated
the development of several mathematical formula-
tions in order to estimate the forces acting on a
ship during a maneuvering action, like Hirano et al.
(1980) with a 3DOF and Son and Nomoto (1981)
with a 4DOF equation model. Recently, within the
context of SIMMAN 2008 (Stern et al., 2011), the
first workshop on verification and validation of ship
maneuvering simulation methods was contacted, pre-
senting insights for the maneuvering abilities of the
KVLCC1 and KVLCC2 standard tankers, as well as
the KCS standard containership.
Recent advances in the field suggested by Ske-
jic and Faltinsen (2008) in their review paper of the
subject area, provide methods to incorporate second
order wave forces and moments in the maneuver-
ing equations as well as a two time scale model
to separate low frequency (maneuvering) from high
frequency (seakeeping) motion components. Simi-
larly, Yasukawas (2006) two time scale model used

259
a 6DOF motion formulation, coupling seakeeping 2.2 Maneuvering problem
motion with the second order mean drift forces, com-
In the present study, the ships motion is restricted
puted by a momentum conservation far field approach.
to three degrees of freedom (surge, sway and yaw).
In the present study, a 4DOF maneuvering model,
Herein, heel motion is disregarded; although it may has
mathematically formulated and solved within MAT-
effects during maneuvering. For this case the equations
LABs Simulink environment, developed at Ship
of motion are as follows:
Design Laboratory of National Technical University
of Athens, is used (Chroni D. et al., 2015). The nonlin-
ear maneuvering equations are formulated by applying
the Newtonian laws. Forces and moments acting on the
hull are computed using computational fluid dynam-
ics. Moreover, the resulted forces and moments during
a maneuver induced by the propeller and rudder are
taken into account, as well as, environmental forces,
such as wind and waves. The maneuvering motion
results are validated against experimental data of the
DTC hull, in calm water as well as under the influence
of winds and waves.
where, m is the ship mass, Ixx and Izz are the moments
of inertia about x and z axes, xG and zG are the center
of gravity coordinates with respect to the body fixed
2 FORMULATION OF THE MANEUVERING coordinate system (i.e. CG = [xG , 0, zG ]). u, v and r
PROBLEM are the time varying accelerations which are defined
with respect to the body fixed coordinate system. Their
2.1 Coordinate system integration in time, leads to u, v and r velocity com-
Two types of coordinate systems will be used: Fixed ponents and their double time integration expresses
systems (relative to earth) and moving systems. As ships position in the earth fixed coordinate system.
shown in Figure 1, the earth fixed, right handed X, Y, K, N represent the surge, sway, heel and yaw
coordinate system O(i,j,k) with the kaxis pointing directional components, respectively, and subscript H,
downwards, is used for the identification of the posi- R, prop and e indicates forces and moments due to
tion and orientation of the vessel, during a maneuver. hull, rudder, propeller and wind. In addition, Rx , Ry
The body fixed o(x,y,z), advances with the ships for- and Mz are the mean second order wave forces and
ward speed V and rotates with rotational speed r moments.
and it is used for the calculation of the forces and The hydrodynamic forces and moments acting on
moments which are acting on the ship during a maneu- the hull are modeled as nonlinear functions of the
ver. Another, earth fixed coordinate system is defined accelerations, the velocities and the Euler angles which
in order to express the existence of mean second order can be expressed in a series expansion of coefficients,
wave forces, which is right handed with the kaxis called hydrodynamic derivatives. Hull forces for each
pointing upwards. Finally, as shown in Figure 1, is degree of freedom in HYBRIDMAN in-house code
the rudder angle (negative for rudder to starboard) and are expressed as follows:
, and are ships heading, drift and incident wave
angles respectively.

In the present study, the hydrodynamic derivatives

were determined from CFD computations, as will be
presented in section 3.

2.3 Propulsion and resistance

There are several references (Lewis, 1989) which
provide good overviews on hull resistance forces.
In case of absence of resistance test data of the
examined vessel, the water resistance can be estimated
as follows:

Figure 1. The coordinate systems.

260
where , S, u are the sea water density, the wetted
surface area of the hull and the ship forward speed
respectively. CT is the resistance coefficient.
However, in the present study, resistance is pre-
dicted from CFD calculations for the subjected vessel
at various Froude numbers. Then, the non dimensional
resistance force as a function of Froude number is esti-
mated as a third order polynomial function of ships
speed in x direction (body fixed system). Finally, the
resistance is imported in HYBRID MANs code, as
follows (in surge hull forces component):
Propeller force is obtained by using the following
equation:
where Z, , n, D, KT (J ) are the number of propellers,
the propeller revolution per second, the propeller
diameter and thrust coefficient, respectively. Thrust
coefficient is a function of the advance coefficient
J and it is dependent on the propeller design and
Reynolds number Rn. For, the approximation of KT (J )
the Wagenigen B series were used (Lammeren et al.,
1969) (Oosterveld, 1975).
The initial value of the propeller revolutions should
be adjusted so that the desired ship velocity is obtained
for the condition of still water and constant forward
speed (ships speed at the beginning of the maneuver).
2.4 Rudder force
The rudder force and moment acting on the ship hull
by rudder action is calculated as follows (Lewis 1989):
where , xR and zR denote the rudder angle and the x
and z directional center of normal force acting on it.
H is the ratio of the hydrodynamic force induced on
the ship hull by the rudder action and can be estimated
by the following empirical formula:
FN is the normal rudder force, which is estimated as
where AR and  are the rudder area and the aspect ratio
of the rudder respectively. aR stands for the speed and
the angle of the effective inflow into the rudder. The
effective rudder inflow speed UR can be calculated as
follows:
261
where k2 = 1.065 for the port rudder and 0.935 for the
starboard rudder.
Finally, R which is the effective inflow angle of the
rudder, is calculated as follows:
2.5 Wind force
The wind force and moment acting on the ship hull is
estimated as follows:

2
where Vres = (Vwx + u)2 + (Vwy + v) is the resul-
tant airflow velocity felt by the ship.The dimensionless
CX , CY , CN and CK coefficients are functions of ships
water profile and of relative wind angle. In HYBRID-
MAN code, these coefficients are obtained from pub-
lished, model experimental data for the specific vessel
type, which are given in tabulated form, as a function of
the relative wind angle, as presented by Blendermann
(2001).
2.6 Calculation of mean second order wave forces
The second order mean forces are calculated by either
near field method (Papanikolaou et al., 1987) or
far field method (Liu et al., 2011) using the first
order quantities calculated with potential flow method
(Papanikolaou et al., 1990). Noting that in relatively
short waves (/LPP < 0.5), it is necessary to consider
some complications of the ensuing physical problem
of the added resistance (Liu et al. 2011), (Papanikolaou
et al., 2015), (Papanikolaou et al., 1990). In the Fig-
ures 2, 3 and 4 the profiles of the mean second order
wave forces are presented (/Lbp = 0.5).
Figure 2. Mean second order sway force /Lbp = 0.5.

Figure 3. Mean second order surge force /Lbp = 0.5.
Figure 4. Mean second order yaw moment /Lbp = 0.5.
3 HYDRODYNAMIC FORCES AND MOMENTS
COMPUTATION USING CFD
The CFD computations presented herein are supposed
to replace tank test conditions used traditionally to esti-
mate the required bare hull forces and moments used
in the maneuvering simulation method.
3.1 Governing equations
The governing equations for the case studied are the
NavierStokes equations for an incompressible and
laminar flow of a Newtonian fluid. Using a compact
form and Einsteins notation the equations are written:
where ui represent the components of the velocity vec-
tor, p is the fluid pressure and ij the components of the
262
viscous stress tensor. In order to simplify the solution
of the system of equations, by removing all fluctua-
tions arising from turbulence, an averaging process at
a time scale larger than the largest scale of turbulence,
is followed.
Practically, the velocity components may be
expressed as the sum of a mean term ui and an instan-
taneous deviation term ui
and then, the system of
equations rewrites in the following form:
Equation 13 is the basis for Reynolds Aver-
aged NavierStokes (RANS) computational methods,
where turbulence fluctuations are removed below a
certain turbulence length scale. However, due to the
final term of Equation 13 which represent the so-called
Reynolds stresses, the introduction of a turbulence
model is required in order to resolve the correlation
symmetric tensor arising from the velocity fluctuation
components.
Boussinesqs eddy viscosity assumption stated that
the Reynolds stresses may be approximated from
the rate of strain tensor Sij , as in the case of vis-
cous stresses, by substituting molecular viscosity
with its turbulence equivalent, turbulent viscosity T .
Rewriting the final term of equation 13, using the
Boussinesqs assumption, we have:
where T is the turbulent viscosity, Sij the fluid strain
tensor and k the turbulence kinetic energy per unit
mass.
Amongst the various models to calculate the value
of turbulent viscosity, in the frame of the current
research, the two equation NASAs realizable k tur-
bulence model is used (Shih et al., 1997), which is
based on Jones and Launder (1972) standard k
model. According to the model, the eddy viscosity is:
where C is a function of mean strain and rotation rates
whereas is the kinetic energy rate of dissipation.
Complementing the RANS equations, the fluid
mass conservation is described by the continuity
equation:
Typically, in order to resolve the free surface phe-
nomena, either interface tracking or interface captur-
ing techniques may be used. Each method chosen has
certain advantages, however in the present research the
Volume of Fluid (VOF) interface capturing technique
is used. According to the method, the fraction of water
and air is calculated in each volume cell, solving the
following equation for the entire grid:

where ui are the components of the velocity field

and c is the volume fraction of water in the cell
which varies from 0 to 1, full of air to full of water,
respectively.

3.2 Computational method used

The CFD computations performed in the context Figure 5. The computational domain.
of the present research used the Reynolds Aver-
aged NavierStokes (RANS) solver STAR-CCM+
from CDAdapco (CDAdapco). The code solves the
RANS and continuity integral equations on an unstruc-
tured mesh using the Finite Volume technique. For
the case studied, even though it could theoretically be
solved using the steady RANS equations and model-
ing, the Volume Of Fluid technique implemented by
STAR-CCM+ is far more robust when solving the
unsteady equations for such a problem type. Thus, Figure 6. The DTC hull mesh.
the Unsteady RANS equations have been used herein,
where the timestep, iterative convergence and over-
all simulation time have been selected to achieve
a converged steady solution. A second order Euler
difference temporal discretization scheme was used.
Spatial discretization was performed using second
order schemes for both convective and viscous terms.
The SIMPLE method was used by the solver, coupling
pressures and fluid velocities, while the RANS stress
tensor closure was achieved using a realizable k tur-
bulence model, using an all Y+ wall treatment that is
capable to treat the flow near the wall depending on
theY+ value achieved by the respective mesh and flow
conditions. Figure 7. The near field mesh.
In order to analyze the resulting forces and
moments, two coordinate systems were used: an earth
fixed inertial reference coordinate system and a COG
ship fixed coordinate system.All ship motions and hull the inlet of the fluid flow, describing the inlet velocity
forces and moments are calculated with reference to as well as the volume fractions of the corresponding
the ship fixed frame. For the case studied, the ship is fluid phases.
considered free to move in heave and pitch, while all The sides are located two ship lengths from the hull.
other ship motion DOFs are constrained. On the sides, Neumman symmetry conditions are used,
ensuring the field gradient continuity on the sides.
3.3 Computational domain The outlet is located three ship lengths from the hull.
A Dirichlet pressure condition is used at the outlet,
The computational domain presented in Figure 5 was ensuring zero gradients of velocity and volume frac-
developed using the STAR-CCM+ meshing tools. The tion of fluids, as well as the continuity of hydrostatic
mesh is dominated by hexahedral cells, while near the pressure.
hull, the cells are polyhedral as a result of the trimming Bottom and top sides are located one and half a
to follow the hull lines. In order to resolve the bound- ship length from the hull, respectively. Top and bottom
ary layer flow (Simonsen et al., 2012) and the near sides are considered as inlets with similar boundary
field viscous phenomena, a number of prism layers are conditions.
attached on the hull wall, where a noslip condition is The resulting hull mesh is presented in Figure 6,
applied. while the near field meshing is presented in Figure 7.
Typical boundary conditions for the subject case are The standard DTC hull was modeled using a scale
used. The inlet boundary is located two ship lengths 1:80 and thus, its main particulars are presented in
in front of the ship. A Dirichlet condition is used at Table 1.

263
 Table 2. PMM static drift non-dim forces and moments.

X

Drift
angle v
20 kts 16 kts 6 kts

0 0.000 6.14E04 6.39E04 6.62E04

5 0.087 6.51E04 6.94E04 6.95E04
10 0.174 6.56E04 6.71E04 7.20E04
15 0.259 8.49E04 7.78E04 7.58E04
20 0.342 9.99E04 9.30E04 8.14E04

Y

Drift
angle v 20 kts 16 kts 6 kts

0 0.000 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00

5 0.087 4.75E04 5.36E04 5.38E04
10 0.174 1.46E03 1.54E03 1.50E03
15 0.259 2.87E03 2.87E03 2.15E03
Figure 8. Wave contours ate various drift angles, at 20 kts. 20 0.342 4.73E03 4.60E03 4.08E03

N

Table 1. DTC model particulars.
Drift
angle v
20 kts 16 kts 6 kts
Lbp 5.577 m
Lwl 5.684 m
0 0.000 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00
Bwl 0.801
5 0.087 3.67E04 3.70E04 3.54E04
T 0.228 m
10 0.174 7.25E04 7.03E04 6.79E04
15 0.259 1.20E03 1.14E03 1.07E03
20 0.342 1.75E03 1.65E03 1.33E03

3.4 Verification and validation of results

CFD analysis is a laborious task, yet often the pro- Table 3. CMT non-dim forces and moments.
cess results to either poor stability or poor accuracy.


Both require care and attention in order to exploit the Y N

respective results. When it comes to verification, grid
sensitivity, i.e. the perturbation of the results when R 15.5 kts 6 kts 15.5 kts 6 kts
assuming a slight change on grid sizing, is of major
importance. 50 4.52E04 6.81E05 7.28E04 1.27E04
40 7.24E04 7.81E05 1.15E03 1.62E04
According to ITTC (2002), an uncertainty analy- 30 1.09E03 9.93E05 1.63E03 2.27E04
sis is required to verify and validate CFD results. In 20 1.49E03 1.59E04 2.76E03 3.78E04
order to perform such an analysis, three distinct values
for each studied parameter are required and therefore,
three different grid sizes have been used, namely a
695 K cell coarse (No. 3), a 1.2 M medium (No. 2)
and a 2.5 M fine grid (No. 1) to provide three solu- non-dimensionalized with the appropriate factors for
tion sets. However, a systematic grid refinement is not the forces and moments respectively
possible when using an unstructured grid, since the PMM static drift analysis was performed for three
refinement areas are not explicitly controlled. In order different ship speeds, namely 20 kts, 16 kts and 6 kts,
to overcome this challenge, a grid base size has been in order to evaluate how the viscous phenomena affect
used and all grid areas have been defined according to the calculated hydrodynamic derivative values. Drift
this size. angle ranged from 0 to 20 degrees. Furthermore, CMT
Refinement is performed by limiting the grid base analysis was performed at two different ship speeds,
size using a refinement factor of r2G = 2, as suggested namely 15.5 kts and 6 kts with a rotating radius varying
by ITTC (2002). For the different grid sizes, in order to from 20 to 50 meters at model scale.
subsequently estimate the hydrodynamic derivatives, Following the ITTC process, a parameter and iter-
the longitudinal X-force, the transverse Y-force and ative convergence study is required, with systematic
the yaw moment N around the vertical axis Z with refinement ceteris paribus. Such an analysis was
reference at mid-ship, were computed. performed and the respective results validated the
The results from the CFD PMM static drift analy- accuracy of the CFD findings. However, the further
sis are presented in Table 2, while for the CMT tests analysis of this process is neglected within the context
are presented in Table 3. Forces and moments are of this research.

264
 Table 4. The DTC bare hull hydrodynamic derivatives
(105 ).

X
u 610 Y
u N
u

X
uu 1740 Y
uu N
uu
X
uuu 1060 Y
uuu N
uuu
X
v 50 Y
v 970 N
v 350
X
vv 150 Y
vv 3290 N
vv 580
X
vvv 400 Y
vvv 11400 N
vvv 1310
X
r Y
r 90 N
r 170
X
rr Y
rr 340 N
rr 1340
X
rrr Y
rrr 830 N
rrr 2390

Figure 9. The non-dimensional X force vs the non-
dimensional vertical ship speed.
Figure 10. The non-dimensional Y force vs the non-
dimensional vertical ship speed.
non-dimensional forces and moments at higher drift
angles, a matter that may be attributed to the contribu-
tion of free surface phenomena as well as the viscous
phenomena observed at higher Froude numbers.
In order to estimate the ship maneuvering behav-
ior, the mathematical model used requires the bare
hull hydrodynamic derivatives. Using the data from
non-dimensional forces and moments coming from the
numerical simulations, the hydrodynamic derivatives
of the hull are calculated. These data are assumed to
replace the experimental data that could be measured
during a full set of costly towing tank campaigns. The
predicted hydrodynamic derivatives are presented in
Table 4. However, only the static drift and the rotating
arm tank tests were simulated with the CFD solver and
thus, the hydrodynamic derivatives set does not inl-
cude the coupling terms (Y
rv , Y
vr , etc.). Therefore, the
simulated maneuvering motion is performed without
the above coupling terms, assuming that their effect is
herein limited; it will be elaborated in planned future
CFD investigations of the authors.

4 IMPLEMENTED CODE

The above outlined method has been practically imple-

Figure 11. The non-dimensional N moment vs the vertical
ship speed.
Production runs performed, identified the values
for the non-dimensional forces and moments required
as inputs for the simulation models. At the following
figures, a comparison is made between the CFD cal-
culated data from PMM static drift analyses, at the
various drift angles and rotating radius, respectively,
for the case of 6 kts.
From the results obtain, a good agreement between
the CFD and the EFD data from MARINTEK
(Sprenger F. et al., 2015) is observed, especially at
the 6kts speed. Increased speed leads to improved
mented by coupling NTUA-SDLs 3D seakeeping
codes (NEWDRIFT, HYBRID) with a newly devel-
oped code to simulate the maneuverability of ships,
i.e. HYBRID MAN.
The new code has been developed in MATLABs
Simulink environment. As shown in Figure 12 the
maneuvering module enables the time domain simula-
tion of different maneuvering scenarios, as specified
by IMO, taking in addition into consideration the
influence of external forces due to wind and waves.
Each examined hull is subjected to virtual tank tests
by using Star-CCM+ commercial code. From the
resulted forces and moments acting on the hull, the
non-dimensional hydrodynamic coefficients are cal-
culated in order to be imported in HYBRID MAN
maneuvering code. Hydrodynamic components of the
hull, i.e. added masses, as well as the mean second
order wave loads are being calculated by the sea-
keeping module. For each time step, depending of the
vessel position and orientation with respect to the earth
fixed coordinate system, the mean second order wave

265
Figure 12. Flow chart of the maneuvering simulation
procedure.
Figure 13. Calculated turning circle trajectory compared
Table 5. Principal particulars of the DTC hull. with experimental data.

Model scale = 63.65

L 5.684 Ship length [m]

B 0.801 Ship breadth [m]
T 0.228 Mean draft [m]
Cb 0.661 Block coefficient
m 672.7 Ship mass [kg]
Sw 5.534 Wetted surface [m2 ]

Propeller information

D 0.14 Propeller diameter [m]

Z 5 Number of blades
P/D 0.959 Propeller pitch ratio
Ae/Ao 0.8

forces and moments are calculated by interpolation Figure 14. Port and starboard turning circles for DTC hull,
calculated via HYBRID MAN.
from pre-calculated response surfaces.

The helm rate of the rudder is 2.25 /s in full scale. The

5 NUMERICAL RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
propeller revolutions were initially set to attain ships
speed in calm water.
The DTC standard container hull (El Moctar et al,
In Figure 13, the calculated trajectory results are
2012) has been selected as a validation example of
compared with model experimental data disposed by
the maneuvering numerical simulations. The principal
MARINTEK in the frame of the SHOPERA project
particulars of the vessel are presented in the table 5
(Sprenger F. et al., 2012). Moreover, in Figure 14
above.
the turning circle trajectories, both for both port and
Port and starboard turning circle tests were per-
starboard rudder angles (35 deg), are presented.
formed in calm water, in waves and with wind.
The tested conditions, such as vessels speed, wind
direction and speed, and the wave characteristics are
presented at the beginning of each case study. The 5.2 Turning circle test in waves
numerical results are compared with experimental data
which were conducted in MARINTEK (Sprenger F., In this test, DTC hull is subjected to the turning circle
2015). maneuver in the presence of waves. The initial ship
velocity is again equal to 6 knots (full scale) and the
rudder angle is set to 35 degrees after a phase in
5.1 Turning circle test in calm water
procedure. The propeller revolutions are initially set up
In the turning circle test, the initial ship velocity is to achieve the initial ship speed. The incident waves are
equal to 6 knots (full scale) and the rudder angle is set regular, with a wave height of 2 m, and 12.5 sec period.
to 35 degrees after the end of a phase in procedure. The initial encounter angle is 0 (head waves).

266

Figure 15. Calculated turning circle trajectory in waves,
compared with experimental data.
A comparison between calculated and experimental
data is presented in Figure 15.
6 CONCLUSIONS
The conducted research study and the presented
numerical simulation results for the DTC standard
containership have shown that, the employed theoret-
ical and numerical approaches to the determination of
the maneuvering equation components are satisfactory
and the overall agreement of the obtained theoretical/
numerical results with corresponding experimental
data very good, even though some coupling terms
in the equations of motion were not included in the
hydrodynamic derivatives set. The same conclusion
is generally valid for the simulated turning circle
maneuvering trajectories, even though the effect of
waves on the trajectories is less satisfactorily cap-
tured with increasing simulation time. The reason for
this deviation is being investigated and will be elab-
orated in future publications of the herein presented
research work.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The work presented in this paper is supported by
the Collaborative Project (Grant Agreement num-
ber 605221) SHOPERA (Energy Efficient Safe SHip
OPERAtion) cofunded by the Research DG of
the European Commission within the RTD activ-
ities of the FP7 Thematic Priority Transport/FP7-
SST-2013-RTD-1/Activity 7.2.4 Improving Safety and
Security/SST.2013.4-1: Ships in operation. The Euro-
pean Community and the authors shall not in any way
be liable or responsible for the use of any knowledge,
information or data of the present paper, or of the con-
sequences thereof. The views expressed in this paper
are those of the authors and do not necessary reflect
the views and policies of the European Community.
267
REFERENCES
Abkowitz, M. (1964). Lectures on Ship Hydrodynamics
Steering and Manoeuvrability, Report No HY-5, Hydro-Og
Laboratorium, Lyngby, Denmark.
Blendermann, W. (2001). Probabilistic and spectral mod-
elling of the wind loads on ships. Technische Univ.
Hamburg, Harburg.
Carlton, J. (2007). Marine Propellers and propulsion. USA:
Elsevier.
CDAdapco (n.d.). Retrieved from Star CCM+: www.cd
adapco.com
Chroni, D., Liu, S., Plessas, T., & Papanikolaou, A. (2014).
Ship maneuvering in waves: Background and validation
of simulation software (HYBRID_MAN). Technical Report
of Ship Design Laboratory, National Technical University
of Athens.
Chroni, D., Liu, S., Plessas, T., Papanikolaou, A. (2015). Sim-
ulation of the maneuvering behavior of ships under the
influence of enviromental forces, IMAM 2015, Croatia.
Hirano, M. (1980). On the calculation method of ship maneu-
vering motion at initial design phase (in Japanese).
Journal of the Society of Naval Architects of Japan 59,
pp. 7181.
International Towing Tank Conference (ITTC). (2002).
Uncertainty Analysis in CFD: Verification and Vali-
dation Methodology and Procedures. Quality Manual
7.5-03-01-01.
International Towing Tank Conference (ITTC) (2011).
Guideline on Use of RANS tools for Manoeuvring Predic-
tion, Recommended Procedures and Guidelines Manual,
7.5-03-04-01.
Jones, W., & Launder, B. (1972). The prediction of laminar-
ization with a twoequation model of turbulence. Journal
of Heat and Mass Transfer, pp. 301304.
Lammeren, A., Mannen, & Oosterveld. (1969). The
Wagenigen B-screw series. Monograph, SNAME.
Lewis, E. V. (1989). Principles of Naval Arctitecture Vol
III: Motion in waves and controllability. Jersey City, NJ:
SNAME.
Liu S., Papanikolaou, A., & Zaraphonitis, G. (2011). Pre-
diction of added resistance of ships in waves. Ocean
Engineering, pp. 641650.
Moctar, O., Shigunov, V., & Zorn, T. (2012). Duisburg Test
Case: Post Panamax Container Ship for Benchmarknig.
Ship Technology Research Vol.5 No.3.
Oosterveld, O. (1975). Further Computer Analysed Data of
the Wagenigen B-srew Series. ISP.
Papanikolaou, A., & Zaraphonitis, G. (2015). Practical
approach to the added resistance of a ship in short waves.
Proceedings of the 25th International Offshore and Polar
Engineering Conference KONA- USA.
Papanikolaou, A., Zaraphonitis, G., & Schellin, T. (1990).
On a 3D method for the evaluation of motions and loads
of ships with forward speed in waves. Proceedings of 5th
International Congress on Marine Technology.
Shih, T., Zhu, J., & Lumley, J. (1997). A realizable Reynolds
Stress Algebraic Equation Model. NASA Lewis Research
Center.
Simonsen, C., Otzen, J., Klimt, C., & Larsen, N. (2012,
August 2631). Maneuvering predictions on the early
design phase using CFD generated PMM data. 29th
Symposium on Naval Hydrodynamics.
Skejic, R., & Faltinsen, O. (2008, August). A unified seakeep-
ing and maneuvering analysis of ships in regular waves.
Journal of Marine Science and Technology, pp. 371394.
Son, K., & Nomoto (Sprenger, Maron, Delefotrtie, &
Hochbaum, 2015), K. (1981). On the coupled motion
 of steering and rolling of a high-speed container ship.
Journal of Society of Naval Architects 150.
Sprenger, F., Maron, A., Delefotrtie, G., & Hochbaum, A.
(2015). Mid Term Review of Tank Test Results. SHOPERA
(Grant Agreement number 605221).
Stern, F., Agdrup, K., Kim, S., Hochbaum, A., Rhee, K.,
Quadvlieg, F., Gorski, J. (2011, June). Experience from
SIMMAN 2008 The First Workshop on Verification
268
View publication stats
and Validation of Ship Maneuvering Simulation Methods.
Journal of Ship Research, pp. 135147.
Yasukawa, H. (2006). Simulations of ship maneuvering in
waves. Journal of the Japan Society of Naval Architects
and Ocean Engineers.
Yasukawa, H., & Yoshimura, Y. (2015). Introduction of MMG
standard method for ship maneuvering predictions. J Mar
Sci Technol.