Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 14

Study of Maneuverability of

Container Ship With Nonlinear


and Roll-Coupled Effects by
R. Rajita Shenoi1
Department of Ocean Engineering,
IIT Madras,
Numerical Simulations Using
Chennai 600036, India
e-mail: rajita.shenoy@gmail.com RANSE-Based Solver
P. Krishnankutty The examination of maneuvering qualities of a ship is necessary to ensure its naviga-
Professor tional safety and prediction of trajectory. The study of maneuverability of a ship is a
Mem. ASME three-step process, which involves selection of a suitable mathematical model, estimation
Department of Ocean Engineering, of the hydrodynamic derivatives occurring in the equation of motion, and simulation of
IIT Madras, the standard maneuvering tests to determine its maneuvering qualities. This paper
Chennai 600036, India reports the maneuvering studies made on a container ship model (S175). The mathemati-
e-mail: pkrishnankutty@iitm.ac.in cal model proposed by Son and Nomoto (1981, “On Coupled Motion of Steering and
Rolling of a High Speed Container Ship,” J. Soc. Nav. Arch. Jpn., 150, pp. 73–83) suita-
R. Panneer Selvam ble for the nonlinear roll-coupled steering model for high-speed container ships is con-
Professor sidered here. The hydrodynamic derivatives are determined by numerically simulating
Department of Ocean Engineering, the planar motion mechanism (PMM) tests in pure yaw and combined sway–yaw mode
IIT Madras, using an Reynolds-Averaged Navier–Stokes Equations (RANSE)-based computational
Chennai 600036, India fluid dynamics (CFD) solver. The tests are repeated with the model inclined at different
e-mail: pselvam@iitm.ac.in heel angles to obtain the roll-coupled derivatives. Standard definitive maneuvers like
turning tests at rudder angle, 35 deg and 20 deg/20 deg zig-zag maneuvers are simulated
using the numerically obtained derivatives and are compared with those obtained using
experimental values. [DOI: 10.1115/1.4032895]

Keywords: planar motion mechanism (PMM), ship maneuvering, hydrodynamic


derivatives, container ship (S175), nonlinear and roll-coupled effects

1 Introduction derivatives, which is widely used by many researchers. But these


methods are based on a similar prototype vessel definite maneu-
International Maritime Organization [1] has brought out guide-
vers and any change from conventional design could result in
lines that integrate the maneuvering requirements along with the
incorrect estimation of hydrodynamic derivatives. Also, SI
ship design process, the objective of which is to reduce marine
method suggests to have more number of derivatives as known
casualties and subsequent pollution. The maneuvering qualities of
(about 80%) to reliably predict the unknown derivatives. With the
a ship must be verified to comply with the standards at the early
emergence of CFD as a powerful tool in studying flow associated
design stage. Maneuverability study involves a three-step process
phenomena and also developments in the high-performance
consisting of selection of a suitable mathematical model, estima-
computing, the method has found application in the studies of
tion of the hydrodynamic derivatives appearing in the equations
ship hydrodynamics like resistance and propulsion, seakeeping,
of motion, and then the simulation of the standard maneuvering
and maneuvering.
tests to determine its maneuvering qualities. Selection of a mathe-
Reynolds-Averaged Navier–Stokes Equations-based CFD
matical model depends on the nature and complexity of the prob-
application in the area of ship hydrodynamics is gaining popular-
lem, which forms the first stage in the study. The model identifies
ity, and many researchers have focused their interest in its applica-
the number and type of the derivatives that need to be estimated
tion to ship maneuvering problems. The application of CFD in the
in a maneuvering study. The ways of estimation of maneuvering
field of ship maneuvering has been significant in the past two dec-
derivatives are generally experimental and numerical methods.
ades. Direct maneuvering simulation (DMS) of standard maneu-
Experimental methods using free running tests or captive model
vering tests is one of the methods used by researchers in this field
tests such as PMM and rotating arm tests are more reliable. But
to estimate the maneuvering characteristics of a vessel. In this
this method has the disadvantage of being expensive and needing
method, the standard maneuvering tests such as zig-zag and turn-
elaborate experimental facility and time. Methods based on the
ing circle tests are simulated by solving together the equations of
regression analysis give rough assessment of the hydrodynamic
motion of ship along with RANSE equations for the fluid. Xing-
derivatives. Methods based on the system identification (SI) tech-
Kaeding and Jensen [2] used DMS to perform ship maneuvers
nique are a promising method of estimation of the hydrodynamic
like turning circle and zig-zag tests to study the hull, propeller,
and rudder interaction with the ship. Carrica et al. [3] performed
1
Corresponding author. unsteady RANSE computations of standard maneuvers like turn-
Contributed by the Ocean, Offshore, and Arctic Engineering Division of ASME
for publication in the JOURNAL OF OFFSHORE MECHANICS AND ARCTIC ENGINEERING.
ing circle tests at rudder angle, d ¼ 35 deg and 20 deg/20 deg zig-
Manuscript received June 30, 2015; final manuscript received February 5, 2016; zag tests for a surface combatant vessel consisting of twin rudders
published online April 7, 2016. Assoc. Editor: Celso P. Pesce. and appendages. The reported differences between the CFD and

Journal of Offshore Mechanics and Arctic Engineering AUGUST 2016, Vol. 138 / 041801-1
C 2016 by ASME
Copyright V

Downloaded From: http://offshoremechanics.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/pdfaccess.ashx?url=/data/journals/jmoeex/935201/ on 03/23/2017 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.or


experimental results were as low as 10%. Dubbioso et al. [4] per- obtained using the experimental data of hydrodynamic
formed 20 deg/20 deg zig-zag maneuvers on a twin-screw, twin- derivatives.
rudder tankerlike ship model using a general-purpose solver, and
the results are in good agreement compared with those from the
experiments. Though it is promising, the DMS method is time 2 Mathematical Model
consuming and requires large computing resources, making it
A ship maneuverability study starts with selection of an appro-
unviable for routine applications. The alternate method to numeri-
priate mathematical model, which consists of maneuvering equa-
cally study the maneuvering characteristics of a vessel is to simu-
tions of motion in the horizontal plane (i.e., surge, sway, and yaw)
late the captive model tests, such as straight line, PMM, and
with importance given to last two modes known as steering equa-
rotating arm, and to estimate the hydrodynamic derivatives using
tions. High-speed container ships are subjected to dynamic heel
an RANSE solver. These derivatives are used in the equations of
especially when the ship takes tight maneuvers. So, along with
motion to simulate the vessel trajectory to perform standard
the nonlinearity, the effect of roll must also be considered. For the
maneuvering tests. This method is more robust and computation-
present study, a nonlinear roll-coupled model for high-speed
ally less expensive, which makes it more popular among the
container ships proposed by Son and Nomoto [13] is chosen.
researchers. Ohmori [5] developed a finite-volume method for
The maneuvering equations of motion are given by the follow-
computing viscous forces around the ship for steady oblique tow-
ing equations:
ing tests, circular motion tests, and PMM tests, and the compari-
son of these results with the experiments showed a good ðm  Xu_ Þu_  ðm  Yv_ Þvr ¼ X (1)
agreement. Similar attempt was made by Nonaka et al. [6] to sim-
ulate oblique towing tests or static drift tests using a CFD code.
ðm  Yv_ Þv_ þ ðm  Xu_ Þur  Yr_ r_ ¼ Y (2)
Following the advancements in dynamic mesh generation techni-
ques, Simonsen et al. [7] used chimera grid technique with
ðIz  Nr_ Þr_ þ Nv_ v_ ¼ N (3)
RANSE-based solver to compute forces acting around the tanker
ship Esso Osaka with and without rudder conditions for static
rudder and pure drift tests. Cura-Hochbaum [8] recommended ðIx  Kp_ Þp_ ¼ K  WGMT u (4)
practices and guidelines to obtain feasible results while using
CFD-based PMM test procedures for surface ship as in unre- where X, Y, K, and N are given by
stricted waters considering only four degrees-of-freedom (DOF).
The SIMMAN-2008 maneuvering workshop stated the suitability X ¼ XðuÞ þ ð1  tÞT þ Xvr vr þ Xvv v2 þ Xrr r 2
of the application of the CFD solver together with a simpler þ Xuu u2 þ Xd sin d þ Xext (5)
system-based maneuvering model for reliable prediction of ship
maneuvering [9]. Di Mascio et al. [10] investigated the maneuver-
Y ¼ Yv v þ Yr r þ Yu u þ Yp p þ Yvvv v3 þ Yrrr r 3
ability behavior of twin-screw naval ship using RANSE-based
CFD simulations of forced PMM motions and concluded that with þ Yvvr v2 r þ Yvrr vr 2 þ Yvvu v2 u þ Yvuu vu2
the increase of the complexity of motion as in case of pure yaw or þ Yrru r 2 u þ Yruu ru2 þ Yd cos d þ Yext (6)
combined sway–yaw tests, the errors in the prediction of the
hydrodynamic derivatives increased. Sakamoto et al. [11] con-
ducted the static and dynamic simulations on a surface combatant N ¼ Nv v þ Nr r þ Nu u þ Np p þ Nvvv v3 þ Nrrr r 3
using viscous CFD solver with dynamic overset interface and con- þ Nvvr v2 r þ Nvrr vr 2 þ Nvvu v2 u þ Nvuu vu2
cluded that the use of multiple run CFD-experimental curve fitting
method provided better estimate of the nonlinear maneuvering þ Nrru r 2 u þ Nruu ru2 þ Nd cos d þ Next (7)
derivatives than using the single-run method. The study of roll
effect in maneuvering studies is confined to experimental methods K ¼ Kv v þ Kr r þ Ku u þ Kp p þ Kvvv v3 þ Krrr r 3
or SI. Eda [12] stated the significance of roll effects on the high-
speed ships from the results of captive model tests and digital sim- þ Kvvr v2 r þ Kvrr vr 2 þ Kvvu v2 u þ Kvuu vu2
ulations. Son and Nomoto [13] performed captive model tests at dif-
ferent heel angles and derived the equations of the þ Krru r 2 u þ Kruu ru2 þ Kd cos d þ Kext (8)
yaw–sway–surge–roll coupled motions. Yoon et al. [14] used SI
technique to the data of free running tests to estimate the roll- In the above equations, X and Y are forces due to motions in the
coupled hydrodynamic derivatives of a container ship. Banerjee et al. x (surge) and y (sway) directions. K and N are the moments about
[15] described the capabilities of a large amplitude horizontal PMM the x (roll, u) and z (yaw, w) directions. u and v are the linear
to determine the linear, nonlinear, and roll dependent derivatives of a velocities in x and y directions. p and r are angular velocities in x
twin-screw container vessel. Kim et al. [16] performed horizontal and z directions. u_ and v_ are linear accelerations in x and y direc-
PMM tests for two different container ship models, one with twin tions. p_ and r_ are angular accelerations in x and z directions. m is
propellers and twin rudders and the other with a single propeller and the mass and W is the weight of the ship. Ix and Iz are the mass
single rudder, to obtain hydrodynamic coefficients including the moment of inertia of the ship about x and z axes. GMT is the trans-
effects of roll. For high-speed vessels in tight maneuvers, the effect verse metacentric height of the ship. XðuÞ ¼ Xjuju juju is velocity-
of roll motion on its controllability becomes significant. dependent damping function. t is the thrust deduction factor, T is
The present paper describes the ship maneuvering studies the propeller thrust, and d is the rudder angle. Xd , Yd , Nd , and Kd
performed on a container ship model (S175) by utilizing RANSE- are derivatives of forces/moments due to rudder deflection.
based CFD solver. The method adopted is the numerical simula- Xext ;Yext ;Next , and Kext are contribution of forces/moments due to
tion of the PMM tests, and from the time history of forces and external disturbances such as bow thrusters, fins, and other
moments, we derived the yaw dependent, sway–yaw dependent, devices.
and roll-coupled hydrodynamic derivatives appearing in the The simplified derivative notation of Society of Naval Archi-
maneuvering equations of motion. The numerically estimated tects and Marine Engineers Nomenclature [17], which is used to
hydrodynamic derivatives are substituted in the maneuvering write the hydrodynamic derivatives in the equations of motion, is
equations of motion, and then, the maneuverability parameters of explained briefly as follows [18]. Ab_ represents the first-order
the vessel are evaluated from the simulated vessel trajectory of hydrodynamic derivative of force/moment, namely, A due to the
turning circle at rudder angle, d ¼ 35 deg and 20 deg/20 deg zig- linear/angular acceleration, namely, b. _ For example, Yr_ represents
zag tests. These results are compared with the similar parameters the first-order hydrodynamic derivative of sway force, Y due to

041801-2 / Vol. 138, AUGUST 2016 Transactions of the ASME

Downloaded From: http://offshoremechanics.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/pdfaccess.ashx?url=/data/journals/jmoeex/935201/ on 03/23/2017 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.or


angular acceleration, r. _ Ab represents the first-order hydrodynamic
derivative of force/moment, namely, A due to the rotation or lin-
ear/rotational velocity, namely, b. Abb represents the second-order
uncoupled hydrodynamic derivative of force/moment, namely, A
due to the rotation or linear/rotational velocity, namely, b. Abc rep-
resents the second-order cross-coupled hydrodynamic derivative
of force/moment, namely, A due to the linear/rotational velocity,
namely, b and c. Abbb represents the third-order uncoupled hydro-
dynamic derivative of force/moment, namely, A due to the linear/
rotational velocity, namely, b. Abbc and Abcc represent the Abcc
third-order cross-coupled hydrodynamic derivatives of force/
moment, namely, A direction due to the rotation or linear/rota-
tional velocity, namely, b and c. Fig. 1 PMM setup
The nondimensionalizing factors for forces and moments are
0:5qL2m Um2 and 0:5qL3m Um2 , where Um is the model or flow towing tank. The phase angle between the stern and bow deter-
velocity, Lm is the ship model length, and q is the density of water. mines the different modes of operation of the PMM, namely, pure
The nondimensionalizing factors for all force/moment derivatives sway, pure yaw, and combined sway–yaw mode. Dynamometers
are estimated by substituting the factors for all variables in each placed at the stern (S) and bow (B) are used to measure the forces
term in the equations of motion and equating it to the factors of yS and yB acting on the model [19].
forces/moments. The nondimensionalizing factors for all the For the Son and Nomoto [13] model, the pure sway mode is
derivatives have been mentioned in the result tables of all numeri- used to determine the sway-dependent derivatives, namely,
0
cal simulations. Xvv ; Yv0_ ; Yv0 ; Yvvv
0
; Nv0_ ; Nv0 ; Nvvv
0
; Kv0 ; and Kvvv
0
, and also the speed-
0
The present mathematical model has 47 derivatives excluding dependent derivative, Xuu . Pure yaw mode is used to obtain the
0
rudder derivatives. There are 18 linear derivatives in the model: yaw-dependent derivatives, namely, Xrr ; Yr0_ ; Yr0 ; Yrrr
0
; Nr0_ ; Nr0 ; Nrrr
0
;
0 0 0 0
six are acceleration derivatives, namely, Xu0_ ; Yv0_ ; Yr0_ ; Nv0_ ; Nr0_ , and Kr ; and Krrr , and the speed-dependent derivatives like Xu_ ; Xuu .
Kp0_ ; 12 are first-order derivatives, namely, Yv0 ; Yp0 ; Yu0 ; Yr0 ; Nr0 ; Nv0 ; The combined sway and yaw mode is used to obtain coupled
0 0 0 0
Np0 ; Nu0 ;Kp0 ; Ku0 ; Kv0 ; and Kr0 (of these four are direct derivatives sway- and yaw-dependent derivatives, namely, Xvr ; Yvrr ; Yvvr ; Nvrr ;
0 0 0
Nvvr ; Kvrr ; and Kvvr . The roll-coupled derivatives are obtained by
Yv0 ; Nr0 ; Kp0 , and Ku0 , and others are coupled ones). The remaining
incorporating heel to ship at different modes of operation of the
29 derivatives are higher order. There are five higher-order surge PMM. Incorporating heel to the ship in pure sway mode is used
0 0 0 0 0 0
derivatives, namely, Xuu ; Xvr ; Xrr ; Xuu , and Xvv of which Xuu is for determining the hydrodynamic derivatives, Xuu 0
; Yu0 ; Yvvu
0
;
direct. There are eight higher-order sway derivatives, namely, 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Yvuu ; Nu ; Nvvu ; Nvuu ; Ku ; Kvvu ; and Kvuu , and in pure yaw mode, it
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Yvvv ; Yrrr ; Yvvr ; Yvrr ; Yvvu ; Yvuu ; Yrru , and Yruu , of which Yvvv is 0 0 0 0 0 0
is used to determine Yrru ; Yruu ; Nrru ; Nruu ; Krru ; and Kruu . The
direct. There are eight higher-order yaw derivatives, namely,
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 remaining four derivatives, Yp0 ; Np0 ; Kp0 ; and Kp0_ , are dependent on
Nrrr ; Nvvv ; Nvvr ; Nvrr ;Nvvu ; Nvuu ; Nrru , and Nruu , of which Nrrr is
roll velocity and acceleration. Since only horizontal planar motions
direct. There are eight higher-order roll-coupled derivatives,
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 are considered in the present study, these derivatives cannot be
namely, Kvvv ; Krrr ; Kvvr ; Kvrr ; Kvvu ; Kvuu ; Krru , and Kruu .
obtained as they consist of motion in vertical plane. Moreover, sen-
This mathematical model is a modular one that considers the sitivity analysis conducted on the container ship using the mathe-
elements of ship such as hull, rudder, and propeller as separate matical model showed that these derivatives are having insignificant
module and expresses the rudder and propeller terms independ- effect on the maneuvering characteristics of the vessel [20].
ently. The rudder and propeller derivatives and parameters The 20 sway-dependent derivatives occurring in the maneuver-
appearing in the equations of motion are determined using empiri- ing equations of motion are found out by conducting the PMM
cal expressions, as mentioned in Ref. [13]. A bare hull form of the tests in pure sway mode of operation, and the roll-coupled sway
ship is considered for the study. The principal particulars of the derivatives are found out using the pure sway mode incorporated
container ship S175 considered here are given in Table 1. with static heel angles. The numerical simulation of the pure sway
mode as well as pure sway mode incorporating heel was per-
3 Numerical Simulation formed and described in detail in Ref. [21].
The present paper involves the numerical estimation of the
3.1 PMM Tests. PMM test is an experimental captive model remaining 23 hydrodynamic derivatives in the mathematical
test performed to determine velocity- and acceleration-dependent model, which are dependent on yaw, roll-coupled yaw, and com-
hydrodynamic derivatives occurring in the maneuvering equations bined sway and yaw. The estimation of the hydrodynamic deriva-
of motion. The schematic setup of the PMM is shown in Fig. 1. tives numerically for PMM modes of operation, namely, pure
The PMM has two oscillators, each at the bow (B) and stern (S) yaw, pure yaw with roll effects, and combined sway–yaw, is
sides of the model, equidistant about midlength of the model. explained in detail in Secs. 3.2, 3.4, and 3.5. The coordinate sys-
These are independently oscillated in the transverse direction at tem used for dynamic PMM tests is as shown in Fig. 2. Both the
prescribed motion amplitude, yoa, frequency, xo, and phase differ- earth-fixed coordinate system (xo, yo, zo) and ship-fixed coordinate
ence between the oscillators, 2e, while the model moves down the system (x, y, z) are right-handed coordinate system.
towing tank at a constant velocity along the centerline of the
Table 1 Principal particulars of the container ship (S175)
3.2 Pure Yaw Mode. The pure yaw mode of PMM is used
Particulars Ship Model (scale 1:36) for determining the yaw-dependent hydrodynamic derivatives in
the mathematical model. In this case, a phase angle exists between
Length between perpendiculars, LBP (m) 175 4.86 the oscillators so that the model experiences an oscillation in pure
Length over all, LOA (m) 178 4.94
yaw at the prescribed frequency of oscillation. The phase angle
Beam, B (m) 25.4 0.705
Draft at the fore end, T f (m) 8.0 0.22 between the fore and aft oscillators, 2e, must satisfy the condition
Draft at the aft end, T a (m) 9.0 0.25 given by the expression, tan e ¼ ðdxo =2Um Þ. The model when
Mean draft, T m (m) 8.5 0.236 towed down the tank with the above phase angle between the
Depth, D (m) 11.0 0.305 oscillators results in a situation where the centerline of the model
is always tangent to its path so that the transverse component of

Journal of Offshore Mechanics and Arctic Engineering AUGUST 2016, Vol. 138 / 041801-3

Downloaded From: http://offshoremechanics.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/pdfaccess.ashx?url=/data/journals/jmoeex/935201/ on 03/23/2017 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.or


Fig. 2 Earth-fixed and ship-fixed coordinate system

model hull form of the container ship S175 is shown in Fig. 4.


The fluid domain is selected based on the International Towing
Tank Conference (ITTC) [22] standards. This standard gives a
range of values for different dimensions of the fluid domain. For
dynamic simulations, the upper limits of this standard are used. It
extends 4 Lm (Lm is the ship model length ¼ 4.84 m) aft of the
model, 2 Lm forward of the model, 3 Lm on port and starboard
sides, and 1 Lm below the bottom. To keep the near-wall mesh
around the ship model intact and to avoid mesh failure at sharp
corners, an inner domain of cylindrical shape with radius 3 m and
depth 2.6 m encompassing the model and fluid around its close
proximity is created as shown in Fig. 5. Unstructured trimmed
hexahedral cell shape-based core mesh with prismatic near-wall
layers is generated using the CFD tool. The boundary conditions
Fig. 3 Path and orientation of model in pure yaw mode are velocity inlet, pressure outlet with a pressure value corre-
sponding to hydrostatic pressure of fluid column for outlet, wall
with no slip for the hull, and wall with slip for side, bottom, and
top boundaries according to the ITTC regulations [22]. The inlet
velocity of flow is taken as 1.0 m/s. The physical model and solver
settings used for all the numerical simulations are in three-
dimensional domain; flow model used is implicit unsteady with a
segregated (predictor–corrector) solver, and the solution algorithm
is semi-implicit method for pressure linked equations (SIMPLE).
Fig. 4 Container ship (S175) model Second-order upwind spatial and first-order temporal discretiza-
tion schemes are used. In order to predict the forces and moments
the resultant velocity, Um, is zero. The model kinematic parame- acting on the hull, a turbulent model that can accurately capture
ters for this mode are given by the equations as shown in Fig. 3. the near-wall physics is necessary. CFD studies such as grid-
The hull form is geometrically modeled in a commercial soft- independency study, domain-dependency study, and turbulence
R
ware, ANSYS ICEM CFDV, and imported to the RANSE-based CFD model study are conducted to select optimum conditions for
R
solver STAR-CCMþV for meshing and analysis. The geometric dynamic simulation in pure yaw mode. The turbulence model

Fig. 5 Meshed fluid domain with boundaries labeled for dynamic simulation

041801-4 / Vol. 138, AUGUST 2016 Transactions of the ASME

Downloaded From: http://offshoremechanics.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/pdfaccess.ashx?url=/data/journals/jmoeex/935201/ on 03/23/2017 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.or


Fig. 6 Time history of force/moments for dynamic simulation in pure yaw mode

used in the present study is shear stress transport (Menter) k–x, which is a supercomputing facility available at Indian Institute of
which is widely used in similar studies by other researchers [7]. Technology, Madras. The simulations are executed in parallel on
Though Reynolds stress models could be a better choice while eight Intel E5-2670 8 C 2.6 GHz processors of the supercluster.
considering prediction of complex flow phenomena, these models An average simulation time of 24 hrs is observed for one oscilla-
are less robust and computationally expensive [8]. All the yþ tion cycle for dynamic PMM modes.
near-wall treatment is used for all the simulation, which uses the
blended wall law (yþ < 5), if the mesh is fine enough, and if the 3.2.1 Results and Discussion. The forces and moments are
mesh is coarse enough (yþ > 30), the wall law is equivalent to a computed with respect to the ship-fixed coordinate system in surge,
logarithmic profile. The free surface modeling is done using mul- sway, and yaw directions. The forces and moment time-history plots
tiphase flow model with the volume of fluid method, which cap- in 4DOF are obtained by performing dynamic (PMM) simulations
tures the movement of the interface between the fluid phases. The in pure yaw mode. It has been observed that the time history of the
high-resolution interface capturing convective discretization hydrodynamic forces has initial one to two cycles in the transient
scheme is used to track the air water interface. The time step is region [23], and hence, it is advisable to analyze the third or subse-
carefully chosen for the simulations and is based on solution sta- quent cycle to derive the hydrodynamic derivatives. This cycle of
bility as well as the grid motion per time step. Though an implicit force history is represented with a Fourier series. Equating this to
method of solution is used, time steps should be small enough so the right-hand side of the equations of motion (Eqs. (5)–(8)), expres-
that they do no lead to mesh failure during mesh motions for dif- sion for the derivatives is derived in terms of Fourier coefficients.
ferent modes. A convergence criterion of residual drop by order Subsequent evaluation and substitution of these coefficients in the
of 103 for internal iterations is chosen. The solution is termed above derived expressions yield the value for the respective hydro-
converged when there is a repetitive pattern for the forces and dynamic derivatives. The results reported here are those from the
moments on the ship hull over the oscillation cycles. The fluid- third cycle and are shown in Fig. 6.
domain dimensions, boundary conditions, and solver settings cho- The numerically obtained hydrodynamic derivatives are nondi-
sen for the simulations are the same as that used for the pure sway mensionalized using appropriate factors (Table 2) and compared
mode in dynamic simulations [21]. The meshed body along with
the specified boundary conditions is shown in Fig. 5. The cell
count of these meshes is approximately 2.62  106. Table 2 Hydrodynamic derivative results from dynamic simu-
The dynamic ship motion in pure yaw mode is numerically simu- lation in pure yaw mode
lated by assigning appropriate yaw rotation rate with respect to the
Nondimensionalized Numerical
ship-fixed coordinate system. A motion along the sway direction of hydrodynamic Nondimensionalization Experimental (present
the fluid domain with respect to the earth-fixed coordinate system is derivatives factor [20] CFD)
also given additionally, so that the ship maintains its centerline tan-
0
gent to the path. To accomplish the motions involved in dynamic sim- Xu_ 0:5qL3m 0.000238 0.0000072
ulation, a morphing procedure is utilized, which redistributes the 0
Xuu 0:5qL2m 0.000423 0.000758
mesh vertices at each time step to accommodate the motion of the 0
Xrr 0:5qL4m 0.0002 0.000065
ship. The motion is assigned to the ship model and inner cylindrical 0
Yr_ 0:5qL4m 0.000353 0.000012
domain by defining a translational velocity superimposed with angu- 0
Yr 0:5qL3m Um 0.00242 0.0025
lar velocity, which is expressed in terms of predefined field functions 0

available in the CFD tool. The PMM oscillation frequency is chosen Yrrr 0:5qL5m =Um 0.00177 0.0013
0
such that the nondimensionalized frequency, x0o ðx0o ¼ xo ðLm =Um ÞÞ, Nr_ 0:5qL5m 0.000419 0.00044
0
lies in the range of 2–4 [23] and based on the calculations is taken as Nr 0:5qL4m Um 0.00222 0.0022
0
0.9448 rad s1 with a sway amplitude of 0.3 m. The yaw rate (r) is Nrrr 0:5qL6m =Um 0.00229 0.00097
found to be 0.145 rad s1 as per the equation in Fig. 3.
0
Kr 0:5qL4m Um 0.000063 0.000024
R
All the simulations in the present work are run on the VIRGOV 0
Krrr 0:5qL6m =Um 0.000046 0.000025
supercluster of the high-performance computing environment,

Journal of Offshore Mechanics and Arctic Engineering AUGUST 2016, Vol. 138 / 041801-5

Downloaded From: http://offshoremechanics.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/pdfaccess.ashx?url=/data/journals/jmoeex/935201/ on 03/23/2017 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.or


0
Table 3 Xuu results from different methods of numerical simulation

Method of determination

Pure sway [16] Pure yaw Static tests

Nondimensionalized hydrodynamic derivatives Experimental [20] Value Error (%) Value Error (%) Value Error (%)
0
X uu 0.00042 0.00078 84.6 0.00075 79.4 0.00049 16

pure yaw mode deviates more compared to the experimental one


(Table 3). Hence, an alternative method to determine this particu-
0
lar derivative has been tried. Xuu is a second-order surge deriva-
tive that depends on the forward speed, u. Resistance tests
conducted numerically at different speeds with the ship oriented
at zero drift angle, i.e., ship’s longitudinal axis in line with the
centerline of the ship, give the variation of forces with respect to
the speed. The model configuration for the resistance tests is
shown in Fig. 7.
Static simulations are conducted for ship held at drift angle,
b ¼ 0 deg and at different inlet velocities. The fluid domain is
selected based on the ITTC [22] standards. This standard gives a
Fig. 7 Model configuration in resistance test range of values for different dimensions of the fluid domain. For
static simulations, the upper limits of this standard are used. It
with the experimental data [13] as shown in Table 2. The deriva- extends 2Lm from the aft, 1Lm from the bow, 1.5Lm from each of
tives which have high impact on the maneuvering characteristics port and starboard sides, and 1Lm each from the keel to bottom
of the ship [20] in pure yaw mode are namely, Nr0_ ; Nr0 ; Yr0 ; Yr0_ ; Xuu
0
, sides, where Lm ¼ LBP. Unstructured trimmed hexahedral cell
0
and Nrrr . Of these six derivatives, three of them have been pre- shape-based core mesh with prismatic near-wall layers is gener-
dicted with a high level of accuracy, namely, Nr0_ ; Nr0 , and Yr0 . ated using the CFD tool. The boundary conditions are velocity
Though the values of the remaining hydrodynamic derivatives inlet, pressure outlet with a pressure value corresponding to
deviate more from the experimental values, the sensitivity analy- hydrostatic pressure of fluid column for outlet, wall with no slip
sis shows that they have less effect on ship maneuvering charac- for the hull, and wall with slip for side, bottom, and top
teristics. Moreover, the numerically obtained higher-order boundaries according to the ITTC regulations [22]. The fluid do-
derivatives deviate more from those obtained from the experi- main, physical model, and solver settings used for the numerical
ments, and similar trends have been reported in literature [11]. simulations are same as that used for static simulation of static
drift tests [21]. The meshed body along with the specified bound-
3.3 Estimation of X 0uu From Static Simulation. The sensi- ary conditions specified is shown in Fig. 8. Separate simulations
0 with ship oriented at b ¼ 0 deg are generated with different speeds
tivity analysis shows that the derivative, Xuu , has high influence
on the advance, transfer, and tactical diameter parameter of the at velocity inlet, namely, 0.5 m s1, 0.75 m s1, 1 m s1, and
turning circle tests [20]. It has been observed that this derivative 1.5 m s1. The cell count of these meshes is approximately
numerically estimated from the dynamic tests in pure sway or 0.97  106.

Fig. 8 Meshed fluid domain with boundaries labeled for static simulation

041801-6 / Vol. 138, AUGUST 2016 Transactions of the ASME

Downloaded From: http://offshoremechanics.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/pdfaccess.ashx?url=/data/journals/jmoeex/935201/ on 03/23/2017 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.or


Fig. 9 Surge force–time history at different forward speeds

that mentioned in Sec. 3.2. The force and moment time-history


plots in the surge, sway, yaw, and roll directions obtained for each
heel angle of the model are shown in Fig. 11.
3.4.1 Estimation of the Coupled Derivatives—Y 0ruu ; N 0ruu ;
and K 0ruu . Adopting the Fourier series method for determining
the hydrodynamic derivatives, the first-order yaw velocity-
dependent derivatives, namely, Yr , Nr , and Kr , are determined at
each heel angle. The derivatives are nondimensionalized using
appropriate factors as mentioned in Table 2 and plotted against
the heel angle shown in Fig. 12. The points are fitted with a
second-order polynomial curve. The fitted equations of force/
moment curves are differentiated twice, and the coefficients are
compared with the corresponding terms in the third-order Taylor
series expansion of the equations of motion [24] to obtain the
derivatives. The comparison of the numerically obtained three
Fig. 10 Variation of surge force with forward speed in static hydrodynamic derivatives is compared with the experimental
simulation results and is shown in Table 4. The deviations of these third-
0
order roll-coupled derivatives are high except for Nruu , but sensi-
tivity studies [20] show that they have only small effect on ship
maneuvering.
3.3.1 Results and Discussion. The forces are computed with
respect to the ship-fixed coordinate system in surge direction for 3.4.2 Estimation of the Derivatives—X0uu ; Y 0u ; N 0u ; and K 0u .
every speed (Fig. 9). A mean value of the numerically simulated Estimation of the above pure roll-dependent hydrodynamic deriv-
force data is calculated over the time interval in which the results atives is achieved by noting the surge and sway force and yaw and
are stabilized. The surge force X obtained is plotted against the roll moment values in the stabilized cycle (third cycle is used
speed, u. The data points in the graph (Fig. 10) are fitted with a here) at which the yaw rate (r) becomes zero. It is expected that at
second-order polynomial curve. The fitted equations of the curve this position, where r ¼ 0, the only effect is due to heel or static
are differentiated twice and equated to the corresponding roll angle. This procedure is repeated for different heel angles and
coefficients of the speed-dependent terms of the third-order Taylor forces, and moments at r ¼ 0 for each heel angle are noted. The
series expansion of the equations of motion [24] to obtain Xuu . force and moment plots superimposed with the yaw rate plots at
The derivative is nondimensionalized by the factor 0:5qL2m , and roll angle u ¼ 10 deg are shown in Fig. 13.
the value is compared with that obtained from the experiments The values of forces and moments at zero yaw rate are taken
0
[13] and presented in Table 3. The percentage deviation of Xuu after two cycles of operation. These forces and moments are non-
from the experimental result has come down to 16%. This devi- dimensionalized using appropriate factors (0:5qL2m Um2 for force
ation is less compared to the results obtained from dynamic simu- and 0:5qL3m Um2 for moment) and plotted against heel angle. The
lations. Hence the result obtained from static simulation is more points are fitted with second-order polynomial curve in case of
reliable and is used for trajectory simulations. surge and straight line in case of sway, yaw, and roll as the
0
surge derivative (Xuu ) is second-order and other derivatives
0 0 0
(Yu ; Nu ; Ku ) are of first-order. The force/moment curves are dif-
3.4 Pure Yaw With Roll. The roll-dependent derivatives in ferentiated, and the coefficients are compared with the corre-
the equations of motion that can be determined from the pure yaw sponding terms in the third-order Taylor series expansion of the
0 0 0 0 0 0
mode of operation are Yruu ; Yrru ; Nruu ; Nrru ; Kruu ; and Krru equations of motion [24] to obtain the derivatives. The plots along
(Eqs. (5)–(8)). To determine these derivatives, separate meshes with fitted curves are shown in Fig. 14. The values of these hydro-
are generated for heel angle, u ¼ 0 deg to 10 deg, in steps of dynamic derivatives are compared with the experimental ones and
2 deg. The cell count of these meshes is approximately shown in Table 5. Though the percentage deviations are high for
2.63  106. The fluid-domain dimensions, boundary conditions, all these roll-coupled derivatives, the sensitivity analysis indicates
and solver settings chosen for the simulations are the same as that their low effect on the ship maneuvering parameters [20].
used for the pure yaw mode in dynamic simulations (Sec. 3.2).
The model in heeled position and the fluid domain surrounding it 3.4.3 Estimation of the Coupled Derivatives—Y 0rru ; N 0rru ;
(inner domain) are subject to oscillations in pure yaw mode. The and K 0rru . Pure yaw tests including the roll at different yaw rates
kinematic motion parameters for this mode of motion are same as are performed to estimate the higher-order yaw–roll coupled

Journal of Offshore Mechanics and Arctic Engineering AUGUST 2016, Vol. 138 / 041801-7

Downloaded From: http://offshoremechanics.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/pdfaccess.ashx?url=/data/journals/jmoeex/935201/ on 03/23/2017 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.or


Fig. 11 Time history of force/moments for dynamic simulation in pure yaw at different heel
angles

0 0 0
Fig. 12 Plots to determine Yr uu ; Nr uu ; and Kr uu

0 0 0
derivatives, namely, Yrru ; Nrru , and Krru . Two different values of
yaw rate, 0.12 rad/s and 0.17 rad/s, are chosen for performing the
simulations which are based on the yaw rate(r) equation given in Table 4
0 0
Experimental and numerical values of Yr uu , Nr uu , and
Fig. 3. Separate meshes are generated for heel angle, u ¼ 0 deg to 0
Kr uu
10 deg, in steps of 2 deg. The fluid-domain dimensions,
boundary conditions, and solver settings chosen for the simula- Nondimensionalized Experimental Numerical
tions are the same as that used for the pure yaw mode in dynamic hydrodynamic derivatives [20] (present CFD)
simulations (Sec. 3.2). The motion parameters are calculated as 0
per the yaw rate considered for each set of simulation. The model Yruu 0.001368 0.0147
0
in a heeled position and the fluid domain surrounding it (inner Nruu 0.00242 0.0029
0
domain) are subject to oscillations in pure yaw mode. Twelve Kruu 0.000036 0.0002
meshes (six heel angles for each yaw rate and two yaw rates

041801-8 / Vol. 138, AUGUST 2016 Transactions of the ASME

Downloaded From: http://offshoremechanics.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/pdfaccess.ashx?url=/data/journals/jmoeex/935201/ on 03/23/2017 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.or


Fig. 13 Force and moment, and yaw rate time history for heel angle, u 5 210 deg

0 0 0 0
Fig. 14 Plots to determine Xuu ; Yu ; Nu ; and Ku from pure yaw with roll simulations

considered) are generated and used for the CFD analysis. The cell
0 0
Table 5 Experimental and numerical values of Xuu ; Yu ; Nu ; and
0
count of these meshes is approximately 2.63  106.
The hydrodynamic derivatives Yu0 ; Nu0 , and Ku0 are obtained
0
Ku
from each set of simulations at different yaw rates. The procedure
Nondimensionalized Experimental Numerical for obtaining the hydrodynamic derivatives is as mentioned in
hydrodynamic derivatives [20] (present CFD) Sec. 3.4.2. The values of forces and moments at zero yaw rate
0
after two cycles of operation are taken at each heel angle. These
Xuu 0.0002 0.0008 forces and moments are nondimensionalized using appropriate
0
Yu 0.00006 0.0006 factors and plotted against heel angles as shown in Fig. 15. The
0
Nu 0.00014 0.0003 points are fitted with straight line in case of sway, yaw, and roll to
Ku
0
0.000021 0.0007 obtain the hydrodynamic derivatives, Yu0 ; Nu0 , and Ku0 . The fitted
equations of the force/moment curves are differentiated once, and

Journal of Offshore Mechanics and Arctic Engineering AUGUST 2016, Vol. 138 / 041801-9

Downloaded From: http://offshoremechanics.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/pdfaccess.ashx?url=/data/journals/jmoeex/935201/ on 03/23/2017 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.or


0 0 0 0
Fig. 15 Plots to determine Xuu ; Yu ; Nu ; and Ku from pure yaw with roll simulations at different yaw rates

0 0 0
Fig. 16 Plots to determine Yrr u , Nrr u , and Krr u

0 0
Table 6 Experimental and numerical values of Yrr u , Nrr u , and
0
Krr u

Nondimensionalized Experimental Numerical


hydrodynamic derivatives [20] (present CFD)
0
Yrru 0.009325 0.0403
0
Nrru 0.003859 0.022
0
Krru 0.000243 0.0007

the coefficients are compared with the corresponding terms in the


third-order Taylor series expansion of the equations of motion
[24] to obtain the derivatives.
Two sets of values of Yu0 ; Nu0 , and Ku0 are obtained from the
coefficients of the fitted equations (Fig. 15) from simulations at Fig. 17 Path and orientation of model in combined sway–yaw
two different yaw rates. These results along with the values mode
obtained from pure yaw with roll simulations mentioned in
Sec. 3.4.2 are plotted against nondimensionalized yaw rate, r’
(r 0 ¼ rðLm =Um Þ), as shown in Fig. 16. The discrete values are fit-
chosen are same as that mentioned in Sec. 3.2. The dynamic ship
ted with second-order polynomial curve. The force/moment
motion in combined sway–yaw mode is numerically simulated by
curves are differentiated twice, and the coefficients are compared
assigning a yaw rate and a sway velocity to the ship model. To ac-
with the corresponding terms in the third-order Taylor series
complish the motions involved in dynamic simulation, the morph-
expansion of the equations of motion [24] to obtain the deriva-
0 0 0 ing procedure is utilized. The motion is assigned to the ship model
tives, Yrru , Nrru , and Krru (Table 6).
and inner cylindrical domain by defining a translational velocity
superimposed with an angular velocity, which is expressed in
3.5 Combined Sway–Yaw Mode. The combined sway–yaw terms of predefined field functions available in the CFD tool. The
mode of PMM is used for determining the sway- and yaw- PMM oscillation frequency is taken as 0.9448 rad s1 as per the
dependent hydrodynamic derivatives in the mathematical model. standards [23] with a sway amplitude of 0.3 m. The yaw rate (r) is
In this mode, the ship is subjected to both sway and yaw motions. found to be 0.06 rad s1 according to the equation given in
Together with a sway velocity assigned to the ship, a phase angle Fig. 17.
exists between the fore and aft oscillators so that the model expe-
riences an oscillation in yaw at the prescribed frequency of oscil- 3.5.1 Results and Discussion. The forces and moments are
lation. The model kinematic parameters for this mode are given computed with respect to the ship-fixed coordinate system in
by the equations as shown in Fig. 17. surge, sway, and yaw directions. The forces and moment time-
For the dynamic simulations in combined sway–yaw mode, history plots in 4DOF are obtained by performing dynamic
fluid-domain dimensions, boundary conditions, and solver settings (PMM) simulations in combined sway–yaw mode. The third cycle

041801-10 / Vol. 138, AUGUST 2016 Transactions of the ASME

Downloaded From: http://offshoremechanics.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/pdfaccess.ashx?url=/data/journals/jmoeex/935201/ on 03/23/2017 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.or


Fig. 18 Time history of force/moments for dynamic simulation in combined sway–yaw mode

Table 7 Hydrodynamic derivative results from dynamic simu-


lation in combined sway–yaw mode

Nondimensionalized Numerical
hydrodynamic Nondimensionalization Experimental (present
derivatives factor [20] CFD)
0
Xvr 0:5qL3m 0.00311 0.00036
0
Yvrr 0:5qL4m =Um 0.0405 0.048
0
Yvvr 0:5qL3m =Um 0.0214 0.0181
0
Nvrr 0:5qL5m =Um 0.00156 0.0043
0
Nvvr 0:5qL4m =Um 0.0424 0.0102
0
Kvrr 0:5qL5m =Um 0.001057 0.001
0
Kvvr 0:5qL4m =Um 0.000558 0.0019

Fig. 20 Zig-zag maneuver

Fig. 19 Turning circle test

Fig. 21 Turning circle test (d 5 35 deg)


of the numerical PMM tests is chosen for deriving the hydrody-
namic derivatives, and the time-history plots of force/moment
obtained from numerical simulations in combined sway–yaw
mode are as shown in Fig. 18. The Fourier series representation the mathematical model of Son and Nomoto [13] in order to
and analysis as mentioned in Sec. 3.2 are chosen for deriving the derive expressions for hydrodynamic derivatives.
hydrodynamic derivatives. In this method, time series of forces The numerically obtained hydrodynamic derivatives are nondi-
and moments in a cycle are written in terms of Fourier series, and mensionalized using appropriate factors (Table 7) and compared
the coefficients of these Fourier terms are compared with those in with the experimental data [13] as shown in Table 7. The

Journal of Offshore Mechanics and Arctic Engineering AUGUST 2016, Vol. 138 / 041801-11

Downloaded From: http://offshoremechanics.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/pdfaccess.ashx?url=/data/journals/jmoeex/935201/ on 03/23/2017 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.or


Fig. 22 20 deg/20 deg zig-zag maneuver

Table 8 Turning circle test results

Numerical (present CFD)

Turning circle test parameters (m) Experiment [20] Value Error (%)

Steady turning radius 299 299 0


Transfer at 90 deg heading 314 335 6.69
Advance at 90 deg heading 564 544 3.55
Tactical diameter at 180 deg heading 714 712 0.28

Table 9 20 deg/20 deg zig-zag maneuver results

Numerical (present CFD)

Zig-zag test parameters Experimental [20] Value Error (%)

Overshoot yaw angle (deg) 6.61 5.88 11.04


Time to reach second overshoot (s) 103 99 3.88

derivative which has high impact on the maneuvering characteris- zag maneuver are simulated by solving the equations of motion
0 R
tics of the ship [20] in combined sway–yaw mode is Nvvr and using MATLABV.
0 0
those having moderate influence are Yvrr and Yvvr . These deriva-
tives have been predicted satisfactorily. The percentage deviation 4.1 Results and Discussion. Nineteen derivatives are obtained
0
of the derivative, Nvvr , from the experimental values is more from the sway velocity-dependent derivatives obtained from
(76%). However, Sakamoto et al. [11] reported similar trends of dynamic simulations in pure sway mode and from static simula-
percentage deviation for the particular derivative. Though the tions with roll [21]. These 19 derivatives along with the 23 deriva-
0
hydrodynamic derivatives like Kvvr deviate more, the sensitivity tives obtained from dynamic simulations in pure yaw mode,
analysis shows that it has a small effect on ship maneuvering. yaw–roll coupled mode, and the combined sway–yaw mode and
Considering the complexity of the motions in the combined 0
Xuu obtained from static simulation from present study are used to
sway–yaw motion mode of PMM and noting the results from the simulate the standard maneuvering tests. The tests are also per-
sensitivity analysis, the results are encouraging. formed using all derivatives obtained by the experimental meth-
ods for comparison. A comparison of parameters of the turning
4 Simulation of Trajectory circle tests as well as zig-zag tests simulated using derivatives
obtained by both experimental [13] and CFD methods is shown in
The maneuvering capabilities of the vessel are studied by
Figs. 21 and 22 and also compared in Tables 8 and 9. The results
simulating standard maneuvering tests like the turning circle and
of the various test parameters match with reasonable accuracy
zig-zag tests. Turning tests are performed to understand the ves-
with the experiments for both turning circle tests and zig-zag
sel’s steady turning ability and course changing characteristics.
maneuver.
Figure 19 shows the details of the turning circle tests which are
characterized by standard measures like steady turning radius, tac-
tical diameter, and advance and transfer. Zig-zag tests are per- 5 Summary and Conclusions
formed to learn about the control characteristics, course keeping
ability, and yaw checking ability. Figure 20 shows the details of This paper presents the study of maneuvering qualities of a
the zig-zag maneuvers which are characterized by the principal container ship (S175) where the hydrodynamic derivatives
numerical measures, namely, time to reach second overshoot, appearing in the equations of motion of the mathematical model
overshoot yaw angle, and over shoot width of path [19].The turn- proposed by Son and Nomoto [13] are numerically estimated.
ing circle tests at rudder angle, d ¼ 35 deg and 20 deg/20 deg zig- RANSE-based CFD approach is used for the determination

041801-12 / Vol. 138, AUGUST 2016 Transactions of the ASME

Downloaded From: http://offshoremechanics.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/pdfaccess.ashx?url=/data/journals/jmoeex/935201/ on 03/23/2017 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.or


of the hydrodynamic derivatives, by numerically simulating N¼ yaw moment (N  m)
dynamic tests in pure yaw mode, pure yaw mode with roll and p¼ roll rate (rad s1)
combined sway, and sway mode of PMM. The numerically r¼ yaw rate (rad s1)
obtained hydrodynamic derivatives from the aforementioned tests t¼ thrust deduction factor
are used to simulate the definitive maneuvers like turning circle T¼ propeller thrust (N)
and zig-zag tests and compared with the parameters of the stand- u¼ linear velocity in surge direction (m s1)
ard maneuvers obtained using the experimental data of the Um ¼ resultant velocity of ship model (m s1)
hydrodynamic derivatives. The conclusions obtained from the v¼ linear velocity in sway direction (m s1)
study are outlined below. v_ ¼ linear acceleration in sway direction (m s2)
Eleven hydrodynamic derivatives out of the 47 derivatives W¼ weight of water displaced by the ship (kg)
appearing in the equations of motion (Eqs. (1)–(8)), namely, x¼ X-coordinate in ship-fixed coordinate system
Xu0_ ; Xuu
0 0
; Xrr ; Yr0_ ; Yr0 ; Yrrr
0
; Nr0_ ; Nr0 ; Nrrr
0
; Kr0 , and Krrr0
, are estimated X¼ surge force (N)
using dynamic simulations in pure yaw mode. Among these deriv- xo ¼ X-coordinate in earth-fixed coordinate system
atives that have high impact on the maneuvering parameters, y¼ Y-coordinate in ship-fixed coordinate system
Nr0_ ; Nr0 , and Yr0 are predicted with high accuracy of 4.84%, 0.92%, Y¼ sway force (N)
and 3.3%, respectively. The hydrodynamic derivative that has yo ¼ Y-coordinate in earth-fixed coordinate system
0
high impact on the turning circle characteristics, namely, Xuu , has yoa ¼ sway motion amplitude for PMM (m)
been estimated more accurately using static tests than the dynamic z¼ Z-coordinate in ship-fixed coordinate system
tests with an accuracy of 16%. The accuracy in the prediction of zo ¼ Z-coordinate in earth-fixed coordinate system
the six hydrodynamic derivatives appearing in the equations of 2e ¼ phase difference between the oscillators of PMM (deg)
0 0 0 0 0 0
motion, namely, Yruu ; Yrru ; Nruu ; Nrru ; Kruu , and Krru , estimated b¼ drift angle (deg)
using dynamic simulations in pure yaw mode with roll is pre- d¼ rudder angle (deg)
dicted less accurately. However, sensitivity studies show that r¼ displaced volume (m3)
these derivatives do not have a significant impact on the maneu- q¼ density of water (kg m3)
vering tests. Seven hydrodynamic derivatives out of the 47 deriva- u¼ roll angle (deg)
0 0
tives appearing in the equations of motion, namely, Xvr ; Yvrr ; xo ¼ oscillation frequency for PMM (rad s1)
0 0 0 0 0
Yvvr ; Nvrr ; Nvvr ; Kvrr , and Kvvr , are estimated using dynamic simu-
lations in combined sway–yaw mode. A high accuracy in the pre- References
diction of these derivatives is difficult to obtain considering the [1] IMO, 2002, “Explanatory Notes to the Standard for Ship Manoeuvrability,”
complexity of motions and physics involved. Among these deriva- International Maritime Organization, London, Resolution MSC.137(76).
tives, the one having high impact on the maneuvering parameters, [2] Xing-Kaeding, Y., and Jensen, A. G., 2006, “Simulation of Ship Motions
0 During Maneuvers,” Ship Technol. Res., 53(4), pp. 14–28.
namely, Nvvr , is predicted with a deviation of 76% from the exper- [3] Carrica, P. M., Ismail, F., Hyman, M., Bhushan, S., and Stern, F., 2013, “Turn
imental values. Though the deviation is more, considering the and Zig-Zag Maneuvers of Surface Combatant Using URANS Approach With
complexity of motions in combined sway–yaw, and also noting Dynamic Overset Grids,” J. Mar. Sci. Technol., 18(2), pp. 166–181.
the similarity in the trends of results reported in the literature [11], [4] Dubbioso, G., Durante, D., and Broglia, R., 2013, “Zig-Zag Maneuver Simulation
by CFD for Tanker Like Vessel,” 5th International Conference on Computational
the present result is quite satisfactory. The remaining 19 deriva- Methods in Marine Engineering, Hamburg, Germany, May 29–31.
0
tives, namely, Xvv ; Yv0_ ; Yv0 ; Yvvv 0
; Nv0_ ; Nv0 ; Nvvv
0
; Kv0 ; Kvvv
0
; Xuu 0
; [5] Ohmori, T., 1998, “Finite Volume Simulation of Flows About a Ship in Maneu-
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Yu ; Yvvu ; Yvuu ; Nu ; Nvvu ; Nvuu ; Ku ; Kvvu , and Kvuu , predicted vering Motion,” J. Mar. Sci. Technol., 3(2), pp. 82–93.
using pure sway mode and sway-roll coupled mode were reported [6] Nonaka, K. H., Miyazaki, H., Nimura, T., Ueno, M., Hino, T., and Kodama, Y.,
2000, “Calculation of Hydrodynamic Forces Acting on a Ship in Maneuvering
in Ref. [21] and are not repeated here. However, the numerical Motion,” International Conference on Marine Simulation and Ship Maneuver-
values of these derivatives are used in the present paper for con- ing (MARSIM), Orlando, FL, May 8–12.
ducting trajectory simulations. [7] Simonsen, C. D., Otzen, J. F., Klimt, C., Larsen, N. L., and Stern, F., 2012,
Standard definitive maneuvers like turning tests at rudder angle “Maneuvering Predictions in the Early Design Phase Using CFD Generated PMM
Data,” 29th Symposium on Naval Hydrodynamics, Gothenburg, Sweden, Aug. 26–31.
35 deg and 20 deg/20 deg zig-zag maneuvers are simulated using [8] Cura-Hochbaum, A., 2011, “On the Numerical Prediction of the Ship’s
the numerically obtained derivatives and are compared with those Manoeuvring Behaviour,” Ship Sci. Technol., 5(9), pp. 27–39.
obtained using the experimental values. The errors in the test [9] Stern, F., Agdrup, K., Kim, S. Y., Hochbaum, A. C., Rhee, K., Quadvleig, F.,
parameters of the turning tests are 0% for steady turning radius, Perdon, P., Hino, T., Broglia, R., and Gorski, J., 2011, “Experience From
SIMMAN 2008—The First Workshop on Verification and Validation of Ship
6.69% for transfer, 3.55% for advance, and 0.28% for tactical Maneuvering Simulation Methods,” J. Ship Res., 55(2), pp. 135–147.
diameter. The errors in overshoot angle and time to reach second [10] Di Mascio, A., Dubbioso, G., Notaro, C., and Vivan, M., 2011, “Investigation of Twin-
overshoot are 11.4% and 3.65%, respectively, while conducting Screw Naval Ships Maneuverability Behaviour,” J. Ship Res., 55(4), pp. 221–248.
zig-zag maneuver for the same. [11] Sakamoto, N., Carrica, P. M., and Stern, F., 2012, “URANS Simulations of
Static and Dynamic Maneuvering for Surface Combatant: Part 1 Verification
Twenty-three hydrodynamic derivatives have been estimated and Validation for Forces, Moments and Hydrodynamic Derivatives,” J. Mar.
by dynamic tests in pure yaw mode, yaw–roll coupled mode, and Sci. Technol., 17(4), pp. 422–445.
combined sway–yaw mode of PMM from the present study. The [12] Eda, H., 1980, “Maneuvering Performance of High Speed Ships With Effects of
main challenge in this work was to successfully simulate the Roll Motion,” Ocean Eng., 7(3), pp. 379–397.
[13] Son, K., and Nomoto, K., 1981, “On Coupled Motion of Steering and Rolling of
coupled sway–yaw–roll motions, while capturing all the physics a High Speed Container Ship,” J. Soc. Nav. Arch. Jpn., 150, pp. 73–83.
of interactions accurately. Overall, it can be stated that the present [14] Yoon, H. K., Son, N. S., and Lee, C. M., 2004, “Estimation of Roll Related
RANSE-based CFD approach is promising in estimation of the Hydrodynamic Coefficients Through the Free Running Model Tests,” MTTS/
hydrodynamic derivatives in the maneuvering equation of motion. IEEE/TECHNO-OCEAN’04, Kobe, Japan, Nov. 9–12, pp. 1086–1092.
[15] Banerjee, N., Rao, C. S., Raju, M. S. P., and Hughes, P., 2006, “Determination
This in turn helps in the accurate prediction of the maneuvering of Manoeuvrability of Ship Model Using Large Amplitude Horizontal Planar
characteristics of surface ships. Motion Mechanism,” International Conference in Marine Hydrodynamics
(MAHY-2006), SNAME, Visakhapatnam, India, Jan. 5–7.
[16] Kim, Y.-G., Kim, S.-Y., Kim, H.-T., Lee, S.-W., and Yu, B.-S., 2007, “Prediction
Nomenclature of the Maneuverability of a Large Container Ship With Twin Propellers and Twin
Rudders,” J. Mar. Sci. Technol., 12(3), pp.130–138.
GMT ¼ transverse metacentric height (m) [17] SNAME, 1952, “Nomenclature for Treating the Motion of a Submerged Body
Ix ¼ virtual mass moment of inertia about x axis (kg/m2) Through a Fluid,” Society of Naval Architects and Marine Engineers, Tech.
Iz ¼ virtual mass moment of inertia about z axis (kg/m2) Res. Bull., 1–5.
[18] Shenoi, R. R., Krishnankutty, P., Selvam, R. P., and Kulsreshtha, A., 2013,
K¼ roll moment (N  m) “Prediction of Maneuvering Coefficients of a Container Ship by Numerically
Lm ¼ length of the ship model (m) Simulating HPMM Using RANSE Based Solver,” Third International Conference
m¼ mass of the ship (kg) on Ship Manoeuvring in Shallow and Confined Water, Jun. 3–5, Ghent, Belgium.

Journal of Offshore Mechanics and Arctic Engineering AUGUST 2016, Vol. 138 / 041801-13

Downloaded From: http://offshoremechanics.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/pdfaccess.ashx?url=/data/journals/jmoeex/935201/ on 03/23/2017 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.or


[19] Crane, C. L., Eda, H., and Landsburg, A., 1989, “Principles of Naval Architecture,” [22] ITCC, 2011, “Practical Guidelines for Ship CFD Application,” ITTC Recom-
Controllability, SNAME, Jersey City, NJ, pp. 200–258. mended Procedures and Guidelines, 7.5-03-02-03.
[20] Shenoi, R. R., Krishnankutty, P., and Selvam, R. P., 2015, “Sensitivity Study of [23] Vantorre, M., 2000, “Captive Manoeuvring Tests With Ship Models: A Review of
Hydrodynamic Derivative Variations on the Maneuverability Prediction of a Actual Practice Based on 22nd ITTC Maneuvering Committee Questionnaire,”
Container Ship,” ASME Paper No. OMAE2015-41490. International Conference on Marine Simulation and Ship Manoeuvrability (MAR-
[21] Shenoi, R. R., Krishnankutty, P., and Selvam, R. P., 2014, “Study of Maneuver- SIM 2000), Orlando, FL, May 8–12.
ability of Container Ship by Static and Dynamic Simulations Using RANSE [24] Abkowitz, M. A., 1964, “Lectures on Ship Hydrodynamics—Steering and Maneuver-
Based Solver,” Ships Offshore Struct. (published online). ability,” Hydro-Og Aero-Dynamisk Laboratorium, Report No. Hy-5, Lyngby, Denmark.

041801-14 / Vol. 138, AUGUST 2016 Transactions of the ASME

Downloaded From: http://offshoremechanics.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/pdfaccess.ashx?url=/data/journals/jmoeex/935201/ on 03/23/2017 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.or