M o d el T est B a sed F o rm u lation s o f S h ip -S h ip

In te ra c tio n Forces
M are Y an torre, E lla d a V erzh b itsk aya, Ghent U niversity 1
E rik L aforce, Flanders Hydraulics

1 In tro d u c tio n
Especially in restricted waters, the m anoeuvring and course keeping of ships may be affected by
interaction between the ship and the boundaries of the navigation area. These effects should be
included into the m athem atical model of m anoeuvring sim ulators if situations are investigated in
which distances to these boundaries are expected to be relatively small. T he effect of th e b ottom
is usually reflected by introducing depth dependent hydrodynam ic coefficients. In addition there are
bank effects to a ship navigating parallel to hanks and quays and there is interaction w ith other -
sailing or moored - ships. The realism of ship m anoeuvring sim ulations carried out in confined waters
and the reliability of their results highly depend on the accuracy of the m athem atical m odelling of
the hydrodynam ic forces and moments due to interaction. For this reason, S T C W (1995) requires
th a t ’’navigation and watchkeeping sim ulation equipm ent should (...) realistically sim ulate ’own sh ip ’
dynamics in open water conditions including the effects of (...) interaction w ith other ships” .
There are few published d a ta from experim ental research on interaction between ships. N ew ton
(1960) investigated interaction effects during overtaking manoeuvres w ith two ship m odels in deep
w ater (( 1 ): L = 4.51 m, B = 0.63 m, T = 0.18 m, C B = 0.61; (2): L = 3.46 m, B = 0.43 m,
T = 0.18 m, C b = 0.71; h = 2.74 m - symbols and term inology are explained in A ppendix 1 ). M u ller
(1967) studied b o th overtaking and m eeting of ships in a narrow canal, R em ery (1974) the interaction
forces on a moored vessel due to the passage of another ship. D and (1981) carried out overtaking
and head-on encounter tests between two ship models ((1): L = 3.32 m, B = 0.47 m, T = 0.17 m,
C B = 0.70; (2): L = 3.96 m, B = 0.51 m, T = 0.21 m, C B = 0.76; h = 0.23 — 0.56 m) on parallel
courses. Others have developed num erical m ethods to calculate the interaction forces theoretically,
e.g. Tuck and N ew m an (1974), K ijim a (1987), K aplan and Sankaranarayanan (1987).
There are very few semi-empirical approaches, resulting in an estim ation of the tim e histories of
forces and moments in the horizontal plane due to interaction w ith another ship as a function of
geometry, speeds and environment param eters. B rix (1993), based on B rix (1979), presents a m ethod
to estim ate the forces and moments acting on a ship during an overtaking m anoeuvre form ulating
approxim ations for the m aximum values of the longitudinal and transverse forces and for the yaw
m oment, Appendix 2. The m ethod is valid only for overtaking m anoeuvres, the influence of water
depth not taken into account, and the ratio of ships’ lengths is lim ited. B rix (1993) states: ’’Besides
some theoretical approaches and experim ental results no reliable results are available except of a
semi-empirical nature. Hence at present state of knowledge the latte r m ethod (...) should be used
until b e tte r knowledge is at hand” . Vary ani et al. (1999) present empirical formulae for predicting
the peales of the lateral force and the yaw moment during interactions between two m eeting ships,
A ppendix 3. The cases in which one of the ships has zero speed (V't = 0 or V o — 0) are not covered,
the length ratio is lim ited, and the m ethod is only valid for encounter manoeuvres.
Most authors only handle a particular aspect of the interaction problem:
- restrictions of relative motions betw een b o th ships (encounter, overtaking, m oored ships, ...);
- ships w ith length in the same order of m agnitude
(except D and (1975) who investigated the very specific case of ship-tug interaction);
- the effect of ship geometry param eters is not considered.

1Div. Maritime Technology, Technologiepark 9, B-9052 Gent, Belgium , marc.vantorre@rng.ac.be

Flanders Hydraulics, Berchemlei 115, B-2140 Antwerpen, Belgium , marc.vantorre@lin.vlaanderen.be

124 Schiffstechnik B d.49 - 2002/Ship Technology Research Vol. 49 - 2002

 For th e prediction of hydrodynam ic forces th a t are of im portance for m anoeuvring, m odel testing
rem ains th e m ain d a ta source. This is also the case for the investigation of ship-ship interaction forces.
However, it is not straightforw ard to handle this problem in model experiments:

- the execution of ship-ship interaction tests require the availability of a second ship m odel (target
ship) which has to be moved independently w ith a controllable speed and lateral position referred
to th e own ship model attached to the m ain towing carriage;

- th e execution of a system atic experim ental program is very time-consuming, due to th e large
num ber of param eters defining an interaction test:
(a) own ship (e) draft of target ship (T t ) (i) orientation of target ship
(b) targ et ship (f) lateral distance (j) speed of target ship (Vt )
(c) w ater depth (h) (g) orientation of own ship
(d) draft of own ship (T o) (h) speed of own ship (Vo)

In order to improve the quality of the ship-ship interaction module of its ship m anoeuvring sim ulator,
Flanders Hydraulics decided to install an auxiliary carriage in its towing tank for m anoeuvres in
shallow w ater, and to perform a comprehensive test program. T hanks to fully autom atic control,
m anual intervention it only required for m anipulating param eters (a), (b), (c), (d), (e) and (i). T his
allowed m any tests in a relatively short tim e.

2 E x p e r im e n ta l p rogram
T he experim ental facilities consisted of a shallow water towing tank, equipped w ith a planar m otion
carriage (consisting of a longitudinal or m ain carriage, a lateral carriage and a yaw table), a wave
generator and an auxiliary carriage for ship-ship interaction tests, F ig .l. The tan k has an overall
length of 8 8 m, w ith a useful p art of 67 m, a w idth of 7.0 m and a m aximum water dep th of 0.5 m.
Usually, th e scale of the ship models is selected so th a t the model length is 3.5 to 4.5 m. As such
ship m odels have a draft of about 0.20 m, the depth to draft ratio can be varied between 1 and 2.5,
which is sufficient for studying ship behaviour in shallow water conditions in which ships navigate in
approach channels and m anoeuvre in harbour areas.

Computerised
planar motion
carriage Rails W ave generator
Auxiliary carnage

220

77.50m

F ig.l: Towing tan k for manoeuvres in shallow water

T he m axim um speed values of the m ain and auxiliary carriage are 2.0 and 1.2 m /s, respectively.T he
own ship, attached to the m ain carriage and equipped w ith rudder and propeller, is only free to heave
and pitch. Following signals are m easured and registered during the tests, Fig.2:
- position of the three sub-mechanisms
- longitudinal and lateral force acting on fore and aft m easuring stations
- vertical displacement at four positions (fore/aft; p o rt/starb o ard )
- vertical displacement lim itation detection
- propeller th ru st, torque and rpm
- ru d d er angle, horizontal (tangential and normal) rudder force components, rudder torque
- auxiliary carriage: speed, passing detection (relative to m ain carriage)

Schiffstechnik Bd.49 - 2002/Ship Technology Research Vol. 49 - 2002 125

 1m

Fig.2: Ship model instrum entation

1 rudder mechanism 7 propeller rate of tu rn m eter 13 propeller control
2 rudder control system 8 amplifier 14 leakage alarm
3 leakage pum p 9 sinkage m easurem ent (4x) 15 lim it vertical m otion (4x)
4 battery 10 long, dynam om eter (2 x) 16 vertical guidance
5 th ru st & torque m eter 11 lateral dynam om eter (2 x) 17 pitch and roll m echanism
6 propeller m otor 12 roll m easurem ent

MODEL 0
MODEL C2

MODELH

MODEL E

19.5

J .5 18.5

2.5 17.5

i3.5

Fig.3: Tested ship model. M odel C, D, E (Esso Osaka), Flanders Hydraulics

Model H (B ritish Bom bardier), TU Delft

126 Schiffstechnik Bd.49 - 2002/Ship Technology Research Vol. 49 - 2002

Forces acting on or displacements perform ed by th e target ship, attached to the auxiliary carriage, are
not measured, nor is the target ship provided w ith propeller or rudder. The connection of th e targ et
ship model to the auxiliary carriage allows free heave and pitch. Four ship models were used for the
experim ental program, Table I, Fig.3. D uring th e test program , ship models E, D and H fulfilled the
functions of both own ship and target ship; m odel C was only used as target ship.

Table I: Ship m odel characteristics

ship model C D E H
Ship type bulk carrier container ship tanker small tanker
Lpp M 3.984 3.864 3.824 2 .2 1 0

B [m] 0.504 0.550 0.624 0.296

T [m] 0.155 0.18 0 .2 0 0.155 0.18 0 .2 0 0.136 0.207 0.256 0.125 0.178
CB H 0.829 0.843 0.857 0.561 0.588 0.609 0.798 0.816 0.829 0.796 0.83

Table II gives an overview of all tested com binations of param eters (c), (d), and (e), taking account of
a common scale factor 1:75. For each com bination own sh ip /targ e t ship, a reference condition (h ref ,
T o,ref i Tx,ref) was selected. New combinations were chosen by modifying water depth, own sh ip ’s
draft or target ship’s draft, allowing to assess th e effect of each of the param eters.
Table II: Overview of tested combinations of depth and drafts (in m, full scale values, scale factor
1/75; values in table denote water depth /i; reference com binations in bold)

own ship To
E D H
Target Tp 19.20 15.53 1 0 .2 0 15.00 13.50 11.63 13.35
15.00 18.63
17.08 17.08 17.08
D 13.50 18.63 18.63
23.04 23.04 23.03
11.63 18.63
17.08
13.35 18.63
H 23.03
17.08 17.08 14.85
9.38 18.63 17.08
23.04 23.04 18.63
15.00 18.63
17.08 17.08 14.85 14.85
C 13.50 18.63 17.08 17.08
23.04 23.04 18.63 18.63
11.63 18.63
17.08
E 15.53 18.63 18.63 18.63 18.63
23.04

Following standard ships’ speed values were selected: 0, 4, 8 , 12, 16 knots. In cases where speeds of
1 2 or 16 knots were not realistic or could lead to grounding due to squat effects, combinations w ith

6 knots were selected as well. Most tests were carried out w ith the target ship moving in negative

sense relative to the co-ordinate system of the tan k , while th e own ship’s orientation was selected as a
test param eter. The lateral distances were usually selected in such a way th at th e clearance betw een
the ships was equal to 0.25, 0.5, 1, or 2 tim es th e sm allest beam . In some conditions, tests were also
carried out w ith clearance ratios of 3, 4 and 5. T he lateral distance betw een the target ship’s centreline
and the tank wall was about 2 m, so th a t a clearance of 2.8 to 6.5 tim es the ship’s beam was obtained.

Schiffstechnik Bd.49 - 2002/Ship Technology Research Vol. 49 - 2002 127

 X (MN)
X (MN) 2.0E+0
2.5E+0
1.0E+0

O.OE+O 0.OE+O

1.OE+O
-2.5E+0
2.OE+O

-5.0E+0 ■3 .OE+O

5.0E+X 3.OE+1

2.OE+1
2. 5E+1
X .OE+X

O .DE+O 0.OE+O

-1,OE+1
- 2 .5E+1
-2.OE+1

-5.OE+1 -3.OE+1

X.5E+3 1 .OE+3
N (MNm)
X .OE + 3
5.OE+2
5.OE+2

0.OE+O 0 .OE+O

-5.OE+2
-5.OE+2
-X.OE+3

- X .5E+3 -1.OE+3

-2 - 1 0 1 2 -2 - 1 0 1 2

$< -) §< -) ,

VT=12knots -•-VT=8knots
E-D — E-C ~Q— D -E -*-D-C
VT=4knots -*-VT=0knots

Fig.4: Encounter m anoeuvre betw een ships
of approxim ately same length, reference con­
ditions, Vo = Vt = 1 2 knots, ybb = 0.5Bmin
Fig.5: Encounter m anoeuvre between ships
of approxim ately same length, (own ship: E;
target ship: D), reference conditions, Vo = 8
knots, ybb = 0.5J3m¡n; influence of speed V r
of target ship

3 G en eral o b serv a tio n s

The general p a tte rn of the tim e histories of the longitudinal and lateral force components and of
the yaw m oment acting on the own ship m ainly depends on:
- the ship lengths ratio
- the ship speeds ratio
F irst, we discuss ships of (approxim ately) equal length (ships C, D, E), then the effect of a significant
difference in ship length.

128 Schiffstechnik Bd.49 - 2002/Ship Technology Research Vol. 49 - 2002

 1.5E +0 -X (MM)

1.OE+O
1. OE + Q 5 . OE-1

O .OE+O 0 . OE+O
- 5 . OE-1
-1 .OE+O

-2.OE+O
- 1 . 5E+0

-3.OE+O -2.OE+O

2 . OE+1 6.OE+O
1.5E+1 -Y (MN)
4.OE+O
1.OE+1 — ---
5.OE+O
O.OE+O 0 . OE+O
-5.OE+O
-2,OE+O

-4.OE+O
-1.5E+1
-2.OE+1 -6,OE+O

1.OE+3 4 .OE+2
N (MMla)

5.OE+2 2.OE+2

O.OE+O

-5.OE+2 -2.OE+2

-1.0E+3 - 4 . OE + 2

-2 - 1 0 -2 -1 0 1 2

S(-> §(")
o
o
>

knots _*_V0= 4 knots

II

-E-D -E-C —o — d-E -D*~C

-o-VO= 8 knots -o~V0=12 knots

Fig. 6 : Encounter m anoeuvre betw een ships Fig. 7: Encounter m anoeuvre between ships
of approxim ately same length, (own ship: E; of approxim ately same length, reference
target ship: D), reference conditions, Vt — 8 conditions, Vo = 1 2 knots, Vt = 0 ,
knots, 3/ÖÖ = 0.5i3mjn; influence of Vo Vbb = 0-5-Bm¡n

3.1 S h ip s o f co m p a ra b le le n g th
3 .1 .1 C ase I: H e a d -o n e n c o u n te r (m e e tin g ship s)
T he general p a tte rn of the tim e histories of the horizontal force and moment components acting
on a ship during an encounter m anoeuvre is, Fig.4:
- consecutive decrease and increase of th e ship’s resistance X \
- the lateral force Y is characterised by initial repulsion, followed by attractio n between b o th ships,
and finally repulsion again;
- four phases can be distinguished in the tim e history of the yaw moment N \ consecutive actions
of bow repulsion, bow attraction, bow repulsion and bow attraction.
Thus the X-force tim e history is characterised by two, the T-force by three, and the JV-moment

Scliiffstechnik Bd.49 - 2002/Ship Technology Research Vol. 49 - 2002 129

by four extremes.

4.OE+O X (MN) 4 .OE + O ■X (MN)

3.OE+O 3,OE+O
2 . OE+O 2 .OE+O
1.OE+O 1.OE+O
0.OE+O 0 .OE+O
-1.OE+O 1. 05+0
-2.OE+O 2 . OE+O
-3.OE+O 3.OE+O
-4.OE+O ■4 .OE+O
-5.OE+O •5.OE+O

1.5E+1 1.5E+1
Y (MN)

Ï*
1.OE+1 1 .OE+1

5 .OE+O 5.OE+O A
M a
0 . OE+Q

-5.OE+O

-1.OE+1
0 .OE+O
-5.OE+O

-1.OE+1
■Ml

VK.V
-1.5E+1 -1 .5E+1

2.OE+3 2.OE+3

1.5E+3 1 .5E+3 N (MNm)

1.OE+3 1 .OE+3

5 . OE+2 5.OE+2

0.OE+O 0 .OE+O
-5.OE+2 -S.OE+2

- 1 .OE+3 -1.OE+3

-1,5E+3 -1 .5E+3

-2.OE+3 -2.OE+3

- 2 - 1 0 1 2 -2 -1 0 1 2
U -) %«

8 knots V0 = 4 knots
E-D E-C -o-D-E -o-D-C
11

knots
<
o

Fig. 8 : Overtaking m anoeuvre between ships Fig.9: Overtaking m anoeuvre betw een ships
of approxim ately same length, own ship of approxim ately same length, (own ship:
overtaken, reference conditions, V q = 8 E, target ship: D); own ship overtaken,
knots, Vt = 12 knots, y¡¡b = 0.5-Bm¡n reference conditions, Vt = 12 knots,
yib = 0.5j3mjn; influence of own ship speed
Fig.4 gives examples of encounter m anoeuvres during which both ships are moving at th e sam e
forward speed. Fig.5 shows the effect of the target ship’s, Fig . 6 the own ship’s forw ard speed. Only
in one situation the above described p a tte rn changes: if the targ e t’s ship speed is zero (i.e. w hen the
own ship passes a m oored or anchored ship), we observe, Fig.7:
- a general resistance increase;
- th e first repulsion phase is missing in the lateral force;
- no clear p a tte rn for the yaw moment.
Forces m easured on a ship passing a m oored ship are rather small, but passing distances m ay be

130 Schiffstechnik Bd.49 - 2002/Ship Technology Research Vol. 49 - 2002

smaller. A realistic sim ulation requires at least a correct sequence of a ttrac tio n an d repulsion phases.
T he general p a tte rn valid for encounter m anoeuvres may not be applicable if th e target sh ip ’s speed
is small (or zero).

,OE + O -X {MK) 1.5E+0 -X (MN)

.OE + Q
1.OE+O
.OE + O
5 . OE-1
.OE + O
.OE+O
.OE+O -5.OE-1
.OE + O
-1.OE+O
-3.OE+O
-1.SE+O
-4.OE+O
~ 5 .OE+O -2.OE+O

1 .5E+X 2.5E+0
j
2 . OE+O -y <iEwi )
1.OE+1 1 .5E+0
1 I
1 .OE+O
5.OE+O
5 .OE-l L _ » . V
t 1 %
0 .OE+O 0 . OE+O
OE-1 t i H
-5.OE+O n s i L
OE+O
VH» ¿ i f r ^J -
5E+0
-1.OE+1 f ir
OE+O
5E+0 V 1
-1.5E+1

2.OE+3 5.OE+2 --- ,----,----

1.5E+3 4.OE+2 ■N (MNm)---

V
1.OE+3
3.OE+2
2.OE+2
I— -V-
5.OE+2 1.OE+2
0.OE+O 0.OE+O
-1.0E+2
«MM ■M s* d MS MC
-5.OE+2
-2,OE+2
-1.OE+3
-3.OE+2
-4,OE+2
- 2 .OE+3 -5,OE+2

-2 - 1 0 1 2 -2 - 1 0

4 (-)
-VT= 8 knots -VT= 4 knots
-E-D -E-C D-E -D-C
-VT— 0 knots

Fig. 10: Overtaking m anoeuvre between ships F ig .ll: Overtaking m anoeuvre betw een ships
of approxim ately same length, own ship over­ of approxim ately same length, (own ship:
taking, reference conditions, Vo = 1 2 knots, D, target ship: E); own ship overtaking,
V r = 8 knots, y bb = 0.5 B mm T o = 0 . 8 6 Tb,re/; T t = T r,ref; h = hj-ef,
Vo = 1 2 knots, y bb 0.5 B u influence of
target ship speed
3 .1 .2 C ase II: T arget sh ip overtakes ow n sh ip
F ig . 8 shows typical tim e histories:
- contrary to case I, we have consecutive resistance increase and resistance decrease
- the tim e history of lateral force is comparable to the case of encounter m anoeuvres
- the yaw m oment shows only two extremes: consecutive bow repulsion and bow a ttra c tio n

Schiffstechnik Bd.49 - 2002/Ship Technology Research Vol. 49 - 2002 131

 Fig.9 shows the effect of the own ship’s speed. T he general p a tte rn appears to be valid for the
complete range of speeds, including zero speed.

1.5E + 0 X (MN)

i .o b + o 1.OE+O
5.OE-1 5 . OE-1
0.OE+O 0 . OE+O
-5.OE-1 -5.OE-1
-1.OE+O -1.OE+O
-1.5E+0 -1.5E+0
-2.OE+O -2.OE+O

1.5E+1 1.OE+1
Y (MN)
1.OE+1
5.OE+O
5.OE+O

0.OE+O 0.OE+O

- S .OE+O
-5.OE+O
-1.OE+1

-1.5E+1 -1.OE+1

1.OE+3 3. OE+2
N (MNm )
2.OE+2
S.OE+2
1. OE+2

0.OE+O 0.OE+O

-1 .OE+2
-5.OE+2
-2 .OE+2

-3 .OE+2
-2 -1 0 1 2 -2 0

!(-) ç (-)

-VT=12knots -VT= Bknafcs

•E-H -D-H ■H-C -H~D -H-E
-VT= 4knots -VT= 0knots

Fig. 12: Encounter m anoeuvre between ships Fig.13: Encounter m anoeuvre between ships
of significantly different length, reference of significantly different length, (own ship:
conditions, Vo = Vt = 1 2 knots, ybb = 0.5 B t H, target ship: C); reference conditions,
Vo = 8 knots, ybb = 0.5 B t \ influence of
speed Vt of target ship
3 .1 .3 C ase III: O w n sh ip overtak es ta r g e t sh ip
Fig. 10 shows typical tim e histories:
- The own ship’s resistance decreases slightly at first, then increases
- The lateral force tim e history has only two extremes: consecutive a ttractio n and repulsion
- The yaw moment is also characterised by two extremes: consecutive bow a ttractio n and bow
repulsion. This tim e history is com parable to th e case of the own ship being overtaken, but
w ith opposite sign.

132 Schiffstechnik Bd.49 - 2002/Ship Technology Research Vol. 49 - 2002

 2 .OB+ O -X { 1.5E+0 -X (MN)
1 .5B+0
1 -OE+O
5 .OE-1 5.OE-1
0.OE+O 0.OE+O
-5.OE-1 - S .OE-1
-1.OE+O
-1.5E+0
-2.OE+O 1.5E+0
- 2 -5E+0

8.OE+O 4.OE+O
6.OE+O Y (MN) 3.OE+O ■Y (MN)
4.OE+O 2 , OE+O
2.OE+O 1.OE+O
0 .OE+O O.OE+O
- 2 .OE+O -1.OE+O
-4.OE+O -2.OE+O
-6.OE+O -3.OE+O
-8.OE+O -4.OE+O

8.OE+2 6.OE+2
6.OE+2 .N (MNm)
4.OE+2
4.OE+2
2.OE+2
2.OE+2
0.OE+O 0.OE+O
- 2 .OE+2
-2.OE+2
4.OE+2
-4.OE+2
-6.OE+2
- 8 .OE+2 -6.OE+2

2 1 0 1 2 -2 -1 0

4 (-) Ç (-)

E-H —*r- D-H -o-H-C —o— H-D -a-H-E -*-D-H -o - H - C —o— H —D -a - H - E

Fig. 14: Overtaking m anoeuvre between ships Fig. 15: Overtaking m anoeuvre betw een ships
of significantly different length, own ship of significantly different length, own ship
overtaken, reference conditions, Vo = 8 overtaking, reference conditions, Vo = 1 2
knots, Vt = 1 2 knots, y &&= 0.5B t knots, Vt = B knots, y = 0.5 B t

Fig. 11 shows the influence of the target ship’s speed:

- the initial decrease of th e own ship’s resistance disappears w ith decreasing Vt \
- the lateral force tim e history keeps its structure;
- the initial bow a ttrac tio n characterising the yaw moment disappears w ith decreasing target sh ip ’s
speed, so th a t at zero Ut only bow repulsion is observed.
Case II w ith Vt = 0 (own ship passes a m oored (target) ship) may be considered as a logical
transition between cases I and III, cf. Fig.7.

Schiffstechnik Bd.49 - 2002/Ship Technology Research Vol. 49 - 2002 133

3.2 Ships o f different le n g th
Fig.12 shows tim e histories of the horizontal force and m om ent components on a ship during an
encounter m anoeuvre between two ships of significantly different length. T he general p a tte rn rem ains
valid for the longitudinal and lateral force com ponents, cf. Fig.4. For the yaw m oment, tins is only
the case for the longest ship. The tim e history of m om ent acting on the smallest ship is characterised
by more extremes, cf. Fig.13. Higher harm onics are introduced into the lateral force’s tim e history.

1.5E+0 _X (MN) 3. OE+O -X (MN)

2.OE+O

5.OE-1 1.OE+O

0 .OE+O 0.OE+O

-5.OE-1 -1.OE+O
-2.OE+O

-1.5E+0 -3.OE+O

-2.OE+O -4.OE+O

8.OE+O ----- 6.OE+O

6.OE+O -Ï < Y (MN)
4.OE+O
4.OE+O
2.OE+O 2. OE+O
0.OE+O
-2.OE+O 0.OE+O
-4.OE+O
-2.OE+O
-6.OE+O
-8.DE+O -4 .OE+O
-1.OE+1
-1.2E+1 -6 .OE+O

4.OE+2 1.OE+3
N (MNm) 8.OE+2
3.OE+2
6.OE+2
2.OE+2
4 . OE+2

2. OE+2
0.OE+O O.OE+O

-1.OE+2 -2.OE+2

-2.OE+2 .OE+2

-2 -1 0 1 2 -2 -1 0 2

U -) U -)

-ybb = 0.25 BO -o-ybb = 0.50 BO -*-ybb = 0.25 BO -o-ybb = 0.50 BO

-ybb = 1.00 BO -a-ybb = 2.00 BO Tk— ybb as 1. 00 BO -a- y b b = 2.00 BO
-ybb as 3.00 BO -a— ybb = 4.00 BO
-ybb = 5.00 BO -•-ybb = 3.00 BO -o-ybb = 4.00 BO

Fig. 16: Encounter m anoeuvre between ships
of approxim ately same length, (own ship:
D, target ship: E); reference conditions,
V0 = Vt = 8 knots; influence of lateral
distance
F ig .17: O vertaking m anoeuvre between ships
of approxim ately same length, (own ship:
D, targ et ship: E); own ship overtaking,
reference conditions, Vo — 1 2 knots, Vt = 8
knots; influence of lateral distance

Figs. 14 and 15 show forces and moments acting on overtaking and overtaken ships. The general
p a tte rn valid for ships of equal length is, to some extent, also applicable, although higher harmonics
can be distinguished.

134 Schiffstechnik Bd.49 - 2002/Ship Technology Research Vol. 49 - 2002

 X (MN) 4. OE+O -X (MN)
2.5E+0 3.OE+O

O .OE+O

-2.5E+Q

- 2 .OE+O
-3.OE+O
-7.5E+0
-4.OE+O
-1.OE+1 -5.OE+O

1.OE+1 4.OE+1
(MN) 3.OE+1 -Y (MN)
7.5E+0
2 . OE+1
5.OE+O

2.5E+0 O .OE+O

-2.OE+1
- 2 .5E+0
- 3 .OE+1
-5.OE+O 4.OE+1

1.5E+3 1 .5E+3

1 .OE+3
1.OE+3
5.OE+2

5.OE+2 0.OE+O

-5.OE+2
0.OE+O
1.OE+3

-5.OE+2 -1.5E+3
-2 -1 O -2 -1 0 1

m Ê<-)
-+- ybb = 0.25 BO —o— ybb = 0 .50 BO
— TT =1.00 TTref
ybb = 1. 00 BO -a— ybb = 2. 00 BO -*-TT =1.11 TTref
-«-ybb = 3. 00 BO -o-ybb — 4 .00 BO -a- TT =0.86 TTref

Fig.18: Overtaking m anoeuvre betw een ships
of approxim ately same length, (own ship:
D, targ et ship: E); own ship overtaken,
reference conditions, Vo = 8 knots, Vt = 1 2
knots; influence of lateral distance
.3 O p era tio n a l p a ra m eters
Fig. 19: Encounter m anoeuvre between ships
of approxim ately same length, (own ship:
E, target ship: D); Vo = V t = 12 knots;
ybb = 0 .5I?min ; influence of target ship’s draft

- Influence of lateral distance: Forces and m om ents decrease w ith increasing lateral distance be­
tween ships, Figs.16 to 18. A lthough th e general p a tte rn of the tim e history rem ains unaffected,
higher harm onics may occur a t either very small or very large lateral distance. T he relative
longitudinal position at which the extrem es occur m ay be also affected.

- Influence of target ship’s draft: The interaction forces and moments increase significantly if the
target ship’s draft increases, Fig.19.

- Influence of own ship’s draft and under keel clearance: The own ship’s draft to depth ratio
appears to be a very im portant param eter, Fig.20. If all other param eters (including the two

Schiffstechnik Bd.49 - 2002/Ship Technology Research Vol. 49 - 2002 135

 ships’ drafts) are kept constant, interaction forces increase significantly w ith decreasing w ater
depth. The influence of th e own ship’s draft is less clear. Increasing T o while keeping h / T 0 and
T t constant leads to a slight decrease of the interaction forces. On the other hand, if the own
ship’s draft is increased w ithout changing the target ship’s draft nor the water depth, interaction
forces become m ore im portant; in this case, however, the Ii / T q ratio is decreased significantly.

3,OE+O X <MH)

2.OE+O
1.OE+O
0.OE+O
-1.OE+O 1.00E+02
2.OE+O 7.50E+01
g- 5.00E+01 o

g" 2.50E+01 AJ
0 W
gj O.OOE+OO J

4 . OE+1 S’ -2.50E+01 n o peak 1

>' -5.00E+01
□ n peak 2
3. OE + 1 -Y (MN) ilIP
& a peak 3
-7.50E+01 n ií
2.OE+1 □
-1.00E+02 n
1 . OE+1 -100 -75 -50 -25 0 25 50 75 100
0.OE+O Y : measured peak value (N)
8.00E+01
-1.OE+1
-2.OE+1 6.00E+01

-3.OE+1 g 4.00E+01 aft

'vi
- 4 .OE+1 !Ü 2.00E+01
c(un
o peak 1
1.5E+3 £ O.OOE+OO
□ peak 2
N (MNm) -2.00E+01 a peak 3
1.OE+3
-4.00E+01
5.OE+2 -40 -20 0 20 40 60
Y: measured peak value (N)
0.OE+O 5.00E+01

S .OE+2
„ 2.50E+01
1.OE+3
S O.OOE+OO
-1.5B+3
-2 -1 0 2 o peak 1
1
§(-> ^ -2.50E+01 n peak 2
A peak 3
— T O = l ,0 0 TOref ; h/TO SK 1 .20
- * - T O = l .00 TOref ; h/TO = 1.48
— -5.00E+01
— T O = l . 00 TOref ; h/TO 1 .10
-o— T O = l .24 TOref ? h/TO = 1.20 -50 -25 0 25 50
TO=0 .66 TOref ; h/TO 5B 1 .67 Y: measured peak value (N)

Fig.20: E ncounter m anoeuvre between ships Fig.21: Own ship E, target ship D, lateral
of approxim ately sam e length, (own ship: force: m easured peale values and regression
E, target ship: D); Vo = Vt = 12 knots; output. (a) encountering, (b) own ship
ybb = 0.5T?min ; influence of own ship’s draft overtaken, (c) own ship overtaking
and water depth

4 M a th e m a tic a l m o d e llin g o f e x tr e m e s
A first way of analysing th e test results is based on a regression analysis carried out on the peak
values for X , Y , and N . Such an approach is only practical if the num ber of extremes is b o th lim ited
and predictable. This is n ot th e case if own ships encounter target ships th a t are significantly longer,

136 Schiffstechnik Bd.49 - 2002/Ship Technology Research Vol. 49 - 2002

b u t for all other m anoeuvres the tim e histories are characterised by a fixed num ber of extrem es.
Regression analyses were carried out m aking use of following formulations:

i ) = f ( V o , V T) V h'A(i) f ^ - p A(í) ( 1)
V -LO J \J-T ,ref J \J -0 ,r e f J

A = X , Y , N \ (i ) = peak num ber (i = 1,2 for A = X ; i = 1 ,2 ,3 for A = Y-, i = 1,2, 3,4 for A = N ) .

The following form ulations were used to account for the influence of b o th ships’ speeds:

f i ( V o ,V T ) = A ${ 0 V% + A % V 0 Vt + A % V * (2)
f 2 (V o ,V T ) = A f s (Vo + VT )2 + A f D (Vo + V T ) ( V o - V T ) + A ÿ D ( V o - V T ) 2 (3)

Several ways of accounting for the influence of the lateral distance were investigated:

íh (Ayo) = rid = — (4)

Ucb
52 (Ayo) = Vcb + bri2cb (5)

5 3 (Ay0) = y lccmi'l'Ali) = *' 1 (6)

54 (A y0) = y / / V , , V > = ( 1 + J ^ ) m,J" ' A{,> (7)

y i and y 2 are based on the non-dim ensional inverse value of the distance between the own ship’s
centreline and th e target ship’s side; a sim ilar approach is often applied for modelling bank effects.
M odelling according to follows Varyani et al. (1999).
Eventually, the following form ulation for the peak values of X , Y , and N , combining Eqs.(3) and
(6 ), was selected:

-4(i| = l p L ÿ „ , T o , r . A A § ( V 0 + VT Ÿ + A f l ( V o + VT )(V 0 - VT ) + A f D(V0 - VT f \

J-O J X-I-T^ef ) \lo ,r e j J

W ith (n y = n y = 1; tin = 2). So for a given combination own ship / target ship, a set of seven
coefficients is required for predicting each peak value.
It appeared not, possible to find a suitable global regression for all cases of interaction; a separate set
of regression coefficients was determ ined for cases I (encounter m anoeuvres), II (own ship overtaken
by target ship) and III (own ship overtaking target ship). In this way, the num ber of coefficients to
be determ ined by regression analysis increases to 42 for the longitudinal force, 63 for the lateral force
and 84 for th e yaw m om ent for a given com bination of ships, covering a broad range of own ship’s
drafts, targ et ship’s drafts and water depths.
T he m ost com plete experim ental series were carried out w ith ship m odel E as own ship. A set of
coefficients was determ ined by non-linear regression for each target ship (C, D, H). Fig.21 shows the
good agreem ent betw een th e m easured peak values and the regression for the lateral force com ponent.
T he correlation is less satisfactory for the last peak of b o th lateral force and yaw m oment, b u t the
m agnitude of these peaks is rather restricted and the last part of the tim e history is often affected
by oscillations probably caused by tan k resonance. For interaction between ship models E (own) and
D (target), Table III shows the R 2-values characterising correlation between m easured and m odelled
peak values.

T he relative longitudinal positions $ of the ships at which the extremes occur appear to depend
on the com bination own ship / target ship and on the way of interaction, b u t do not vary significantly

Schiffstechnik Bd.49 - 2002/Ship Technology Research Vol. 49 - 2002 137

w ith other param eters. If the extrem es’ longitudinal positions and m agnitudes are determ ined, th e
tim e history can be calculated by means of a suitable interpolation formula, e.g. Fig.22.
Table III: Own ship E, target ship D: correlation betw een m easured peak values and regression o u tp u t 2

R2 encounter own ship own ship

overtaken overtaking
x (D 0 .8 8 0.81 0.89
XV) 0 .8 6 0.79 0 .8 6

y (b 0.95 0.96 0.89

y( 2) 0.95 0.94 0.95
y(3) 0.76 0.72 (0.77)
NV) 0.94 (0.92) (0.72)
N V) 0.93 0.91 0.92
N (3) 0.84 0 .8 6 0.90
NV) 0.60 (0.87) (0.67)

0.025 2.5
0.02 2
0.015 / - -o 1.5 >-_
C------- U "
“c 0.01 1 b '
Q -V----
>-
0.005 ............... 0.5
“q
C/5 0 ----- A - ------ 0
- A - — -A
20 -0.005 -0.5 5
C
A/3
z 10
-0.01 ..... O - ^ ------- O
>
-0.015 . . ---- -1.5 ¿
-0.02 — . . .. -2 g
-10
-0.025 -2.5
-20
■2 -1.5 ■1 -0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 2
0 0.2 0 .4 0.6 0.8
^ T .r c /^ 0 ,r e f (-)

Fig.22: Exam ple of modelled tim e history — *— Y 'S S (l) — ■— Y'SD(l)

(line) vs. experiment (line + symbols): — A— Y D D ( l) _ 4 - mh,Y(l)
own ship E, target ship C, reference condi­ — -O — mT,Y(l) mO,Y(l)
tions, encounter manoeuvre, Vo — 8 knots, - O - m y.Y(l)
Vt = 1 2 knots, ytb = 0.5 B t (model values)
Fig.23: Own ship E, encounter m anoeuvre,
first extrem e for lateral force: regressions
coefficients as a function of target ship
displacement
For all m anoeuvres w ith ships D and E as own ship, a m athem atical m odel for the interaction
forces w ith three target ships has been determ ined. T he num ber of param eters is rath er large, b u t
the results are certainly acceptable for sim ulation applications.
As a first approxim ation, the results can be extended to other target ships w ith length not exceeding
the own ship’s length. Fig.23 shows th a t interpolation of the regression coefficients as a function of
displacement may lead to an acceptable estim ation.
Disadvantages of the methodology remain:

- The values of the regression coefficients depend on the considered force or m om ent com ponent,
2The values between brackets concern minor, less im portant extrem es.

138 Schiffstechnik Bd.49 - 2002/Ship Technology Research Vol. 49 - 2002

 the target ship and the peak num ber, Table IV. T he average values may give a first approxim ation
for estim ating the influence of th e concerning param eters, b u t the overall applicability m ay be
questioned.

- The model is less practical if the num ber of extrem es exceeds 4, i.e. the targ et ship’s length is
greater th an the own ship’s length.

Table IV: Own E, target C, D, H, regression coefficients: average, stan d ard deviation a
X Y N
m ean <7 m ean a m ean cr
mh -0.32 0.27 -0.77 0.36 -0.64 0.17
TUT 0.85 0.63 1.51 0.46 1.24 0.63
m0 -0.25 0.56 -0.07 0.52 -0.18 0.30
rriyi -0.63 0.20 -0.95 0.29 -1.06 0.29

5 F u tu re d ev elo p m en ts
In order to overcome the disadvantages of a m athem atical m odel based on a form ulation for extrem e
values of force and moment components, an approach based on functions approxim ating tim e histories
is considered. For the lateral force and yaw m om ent, following functions are selected as an alternative
for an original form ulation by Vary ani et al. (1999):

¿ (É - & ) k l N C0S [k 21V’T fé - f o ’j v ) ] eX P [ - &3 ¿ ( £ - ä i f + f c fjv f é - & ) ] (10)

¿=1

A prelim inary analysis revealed th a t Eqs.(9) and (10) result in a realistic approxim ation of the lateral
interaction forces in cases I (encounter m anoeuvres) and II (own ship overtaken). In these cases, the
coefficients ¿ 2 , Æ3 , Äq, and £ 0 hardly depend on the ships’ speeds for a given own ship / targ et ship
combination. Eqs.(9) and (10) are not suitable for approxim ating lateral forces in case III, including
the case of a m oored target ship.
Most m athem atical models for sim ulation of ship-ship interaction effects are based on a restricted
num ber of experim ental data. Due to the large num ber of param eters determ ining the interaction
effects, the general character of such models m ay be questioned. The execution of a system atic,
comprehensive captive interaction test program w ith a variety of ship combinations should be
considered as a further step into the development of a more general semi-empirical m ethod for
predicting interaction forces.

R eferen ces
BRIX, J. (1979), MTI-Stellungnahme zum Thema ”Aus-dem-Ruder-laufen” von Schiffen, Sog- und Gierbeein­
flussungen bei Passiervorgängen, Hansa 116/18, pp.1383-1388
BRIX, J. (ed.) (1993), Manoeuvring Technical Manual, Seehafen Verlag, Hamburg
DAND, I.W. (1975), Some aspects of tug-ship interaction, 4. Int. Tug Conv., New Orleans, pp.61-80
DAND, I.W. (1981), Some measurements of interaction between ship models passing on parallel courses, Nat.
Maritime Inst., Report R 108
KAPLAN, P.; SANKARANARAYANAN, K. (1987), Hydrodynamic interaction of ships in shallow channels,
including effects of asymmetry, Int. Conf. Ship Manoeuvrability, London, Paper No. 21

Schiffstechnik Bd.49 - 2002/Ship Technology Research Vol. 49 - 2002 139

KIJIMA, K. (1987), Manoeuvrability of ships in confined water, Int. Conf. Ship Manoeuvrability, London, Paper
No. 20
MULLER, E. (1967), Untersuchungen über die gegenseitige Kursbeeinflussung von Schiffen auf Binnenwasser­
strassen, Schiff und Hafen 19/6
NEWTON, R.N. (1960), em Some notes on interaction effects between ships close aboard in deep water, 1.
Symp. Naval Maneuverability, Washington, pp.1-24
REMERY, G.F.M. (1974), Mooring forces induced by passing ships, Offshore Technology Conf., Dallas, Paper
No. 2066
STCW (1995), Am endment to the International Convention on Standards of Training, Certification and Watch-
keeping for Seafarers, IMO
TUCK, E.O.; NEWMAN, J.N. (1974), Hydrodynamic interactions between ships, 10. Symp. Naval Hydrodyn.,
Cambridge, pp.35-70
VANTORRE, M.; LAFORCE, E.; VERZHBITSKAYA, E. (2001), Model test based formulations of ship-ship
interaction forces for simulation purposes, 28. IMSF Annual Meeting, Genova, www.imsf.org/agm2001.htm
VARYANI, K.S.; McGREGOR, R.C.; WOLD, P. (1999), Empirical formulae to predict peak of forces and
moments during interactions, Hydronav’99 - Manoeuvring’99, Gdansk-Ostroda, pp.338-349

A p p e n d ix 1: S y m b o ls a n d c o n v e n tio n s
Bo beam of own ship xo longitudinal tank axis
Bp beam of target ship Y lateral force (positive if repulsive)
CB block coefficient Vbb clearance between ships
h water depth Vcb lateral distance between own ship’s centreline
Lo length of own ship and target ship’s side
L j' length of target ship 2/cc lateral distance between ships’ centrelines
N yaw moment (positive if bow repulsed) yo lateral tan k axis
To draft of own ship 2/00 lateral position of own ship
Tt draft of target ship 2/or lateral position of target ship
Vo speed of own ship (> 0) e longitudinal distance between the own and target
VT speed of target ship (> 0) ships’ m idships sections divided by {Lo + L t ) / 2;
X longitudinal force (positive forward) increasing w ith tim e during any manoeuvre

zr

X0
OWN
CG yeb TARGET

140 Schiffstechnik Bd.49 - 2002/Ship Technology Research Vol. 49 - 2002

A p p e n d ix 2: B r ix (1 9 9 3 )
The extremes of longitudinal and transverse forces and yaw m om ent are approxim ated by:

A ç tmax = C xS,m ax^u m L mTm CxSjaax. ~ 0.014...0.017 (11)

Ys,max = C’Y 3,max w ith Cl'S,max = 0.025.-.0.030 (12)

Ns,max — C j ^ f s , m a x C x S , m a x ~ 0.004...0.007 (13)

L rn is the m ean ship length, T m the m ean draft, u rn th e m ean speed. T he smaller values of C x s , max;
C'y .s',max and C x s , max have to be used for L 2)L-\ > 1.5. Significantly different values were published
by B rix (1979). The values are valid for a stan d ard passing distance y cc,ref = 0 .3 5 L m . T he influence
of Ucc can be included as follows:

Dec V 0.6Lm : oc y cc (14)

0 .6L m < y cc.< 1.6Lm : oc Vcc (15)
Vcc V 1-OTm ; OC y cc ■■■'ycc (16)

T he curves of the interaction forces as functions of the ship position ( may be constructed using
following table:

e - 1 .0 0 0 -0.750 -0.500 -0.250 0 .0 0 0 0.250 0.500 0.750 1 .0 0 0

X S / X s , m ax -0.289 -0.690 -1 .0 0 0 -0.850 -0.250 0.590 0.980 0.810 0.330

X s /l/y m a x 0.289 0.345 -0.060 -0.595 -0.935 -0.982 -0.637 -0.250 -0.089
N s/N s,m a x 0.264 0.706 1 .0 0 0 0.873 0 .2 2 1 -0.682 -0.927 -0.706 -0.424

A p p e n d ix 3: V aryani et al. (1999)

For the extrem e values of the lateral force, following expression is form ulated:

■yms Sp Ei ßi ( E L \ ßi [ E i Y .
C fi xi 1+ 1 + Y? (17)
9 p U iU 2B \ D \ Li H D \) \T a

i = 1 bow-bow situation; i — 2 m idship-m idship situation; i = 3 stern-stern situation. The extrem e

values for the yaw moment are given by:

Mi Sp md Fi { H y i /L iy { AU
= ■
N 1+ + NÍ Ei 1 + N(
C mí = Lyl" 1
SpUiUïBiD-iL-i Ti H n y \ l ¡) I Ul
( 18 )
i = 1 bow-bow situation; i = 2 im m ediately before m idship-m idship; i = 3 im m ediately after midship-
midship; i — 4 stern-stern situation. T he following values for the constants and exponents apply:
i 1 2 3 4
i 1 2 3
ym s N ms 0.305 -0.81 0.95 -0 . 2 1
1 .2 0 -2 . 0 0 1 .0 1 jym d
ym d -0.85 0 0 -0.85
-0.85 -0.85 -0.85
y mu N m u{U2 > Ux) 0 1.585 7.059 0
0.434 0.492 0.626
N m u{U2 < U i) 0 0.839 3.926 0
a -5.50 -4.80 -6 . 0 0
£ -5.00 -8 . 0 0 -1 0 .0 0 -5.00
ß -0.90 -0.96 -0.94
V -0.75 -1 .0 0 - 1 .2 0 -0.90
5 -2.19 -2.19 -2.19
6 -2.19 -2.19 -2.19 -2.19
These form ulations are expressed by m eans of the original symbols defined by V aryani et, al. (1999):
S p = ycc, Ux = U0 , U2 = UT , a U = Ut - Uq , ¿ i = T o , L 2 = L T , B 1 = B 0 , D 1 = T 0 , H = h

Schiffstechnik Bd.49 - 2002/Ship Technology Research Vol. 49 - 2002 141