Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The impact of free surface modelling on hydrodynamic forces for ship navigating in inland waterways: water depth, drift angle, and ship speed effect

  • Review article
  • Published:
Journal of Marine Science and Technology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Simulations of standard manoeuvring tests require a good estimation of the hydrodynamic derivatives. These are extracted from the hydrodynamic forces applying on the ship. The present work focuses on the investigation of the importance of free surface assessment on the estimation of the hydrodynamic forces, particularly, in the presence of the ship–bottom interaction and when certain parameters are varied, including the ship’s speed and the drift angle. This investigation aims, in particular, to mark off the confidence Interval of neglecting free surface deformation hypothesis by comparing the results of static drift test with and without considering this assumption. The study was carried on a 135 m inland containership at a scale ratio of 1:25 undergoing static drift tests. In order to recreate the ship–bottom interaction, the depth to draft ratio (h/T) is varied to obtain four channel configurations. The tests are performed by numerical code under the commercial software Ansys Fluent by solving Reynolds Averaged Navier Stokes Equations(RANSE) coupled to a \(k -\omega\) SST turbulence model. To investigate the effect of free surface modelling, the hydrodynamic forces are compared when the free surface separating air and water is considered, using Volume Of Fluid (VOF) method, and when the free surface is neglected. The simulations are carried out for various ship speeds and various drift angles.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9
Fig. 10
Fig. 11
Fig. 12
Fig. 13
Fig. 14
Fig. 15
Fig. 16
Fig. 17
Fig. 18
Fig. 19
Fig. 20
Fig. 21
Fig. 22
Fig. 23
Fig. 24
Fig. 25
Fig. 26
Fig. 27
Fig. 28

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Kobyliński L (2014) Bank effect and operation of inland waterways vessels. Zeszyty Naukowe/Akademia Morska w Szczecinie 37(109):50–55

    Google Scholar 

  2. Vantorre M, Delefortrie G, Eloot K et al (2003) Experimental investigation of ship–bank interaction forces. In: International conference on marine simulation and ship maneuverability (MARSIM ’03), Kanazawa, Japan. pp RC–31–1/9

  3. Eloot K, Verwilligen J, Vantorre M (2007) A methodology for evaluating the controllability of a ship navigating in a restricted channel. Arch Civ Mech Eng 7(3):91–104

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Zou L, Larsson L, Delefortrie G et al. (2011) CFD prediction and validation of ship-bank interaction in a canal. In: 2nd international conference on ship Manoeuvring in shallow and confined water: ship to ship interaction. Royal Institution of Naval Architects. pp 413-422

  5. Zou L, Larsson L (2013) Numerical predictions of ship-to-ship interaction in shallow water. Ocean Eng 72:386–402

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Vantorre M, Verzhbitskaya E, Laforce E (2002) Model test based formulations of ship-ship interaction forces. Ship Technol Res 49:124–141

    Google Scholar 

  7. Yeung RW (1978) On the interactions of slender ships in shallow water. J Fluid Mech 85(01):143–159

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  8. de Koning GH (2005) Squat results from calculations of panel methods. In: Proceedings of the international maritime-port technology and development conference, Singapore 2005, p 47

  9. Lataire E, Vantorre M, Vandenbroucke J, Eloot K (2011) Ship to ship interaction forces during lightering operations. In: Petterson B, Berg TE, Eloot K, Vantorre M (eds) Proceedings of the 2nd international conference on ship manoeuvring in shallow and confined water: ship to ship interaction, pp 211–222

  10. The International Towing Tank Conference (ITTC) (2017) Guideline on use of RANS tools for manoeuvring prediction 7.5-03 04-01, p 2

  11. Mucha P, Deng G, Gourlay T et al (2016) Validation studies on numerical prediction of ship squat and resistance in shallow water. [C] 4th MASHCON, Hambourg

  12. He R, Zhang ZZ, Wang XZ et al (2016) Numerical simulation of the ship bottom interaction of DTC container carrier for different keel clearance in pure sway motion. 4th MASHCON, Hamburg

  13. Shenoi RR, Krishnankutty P, Selvam RP et al (2013) Prediction of maneuvering coefficients of a container ship by numerically simulating HPMM using RANSE based solver. In: Third international conference on ship Manoeuvring in shallow and confined water

  14. Cura HA, Vogt M, Gatchell S (2008) Maneuvering prediction for two tankers based on RANSE simulations, SIMMAN, (2008) Workshop on verification and validation of ship Manoeuvering simulation methods, April 4–16. Denmark, Copenhagen

  15. Toxopeus SL (2007) Deriving mathematical manoeuvring models for bare ship hulls using viscous flow calculations. J Marine Sci Technol 14(1):30–38

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Phillips AB, Turnock SR, Furlong M (2009) Evaluation of manoeuvring coefficients of a self-propelled ship using a blade element momentum propeller model coupled to a Reynolds averaged Navier Stokes flow solver. Ocean Eng 36(15):1217–1225

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Simonsen CD, Stern F (2003) Verification and validation of RANSE based maneuvering simulations of Esso Osaka: effects of drift and rudder angle on the forces and moments. Comput Fluids 32(10):1325–1356

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  18. Jacquin E, Guillerm PE, Drouet A et al (2006) Simulation of unsteady ship maneuvering using free-surface RANSE solver. In: 26th symposium on naval hydrodynamics, Rome, Italy

  19. Simonsen CD, Otzen JF, Klimt C et al (2012) Maneuvering predictions in the early design phase using CFD generated PMM data. In: 29th symposium on naval hydrodynamics

  20. Kim H, Akimoto H, Islam H (2015) Estimation of the hydrodynamic derivatives by RANSE simulation of planar motion mechanism testOcean. Engineering 208:129–139

    Google Scholar 

  21. Fournarakis N, Papanikolaou A, Chroni D et al (2016) Estimation of the maneuvering characteristics of the DTC containership using URANSE based simulations. In: Proceedings of the 3rd international conference on maritime technology and engineering (MARTECH 2016), Lisbon, Portugal, 4–6 July 2016. CRC Press, Boca Raton, p 259

  22. Turnock SR, Phillips AB, Furlong M (2008) URANS simulations of static drift and dynamic manoeuvres of the KVLCC2 tanker. SIMMAN

  23. Toxopeus SL, Simonsen CD, Guilmineau E et al (2013) Investigation of water depth and basin wall effects on KVLCC2 in manoeuvring motion using viscous-flow calculations. J Mar Sci Technol 18(4):471–496

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Shenoi RR, Krishnankutty P, Panneer Selvam R (2014) Study of manoeuvrability of container ship by static and dynamic simulations using a RANSE-based solver. Ships Offshore Struct 11(3):316–334

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Jones DA, Clarke DB (2010) Fluent code simulation of flow around a naval hull: the DTMB 5415 (No. DSTO-TR-2465). Defense Science and Technology Organization Victoria (Australia) Maritime Platforms Div.

  26. Van Leeuwen G (1964) The lateral damping and added mass of an oscillating shipmodel. Shipbuilding Laboratory, Technological University Delft, Publication No. 23

  27. Gotoh H, Okayasu A, Watanabe Y (2013) Computational wave dynamics. World Scientific Publishing Company, New York

    Book  MATH  Google Scholar 

  28. Jin Y, Duffy J, Chai S et al (2016) URANS study of scale effects on hydrodynamic manoeuvring coefficients of KVLCC2. Ocean Eng 118:93–106

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Zwart PJ, Godin PG, Penrose J et al (2008) Simulation of unsteady free-surface flow around a ship hull using a fully coupled multi-phase flow method. J Mar Sci Technol 13(4):346

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Menter FR (1994) Two-equation eddy-viscosity turbulence models for engineering applications. AIAA J 32(8):1598–1605

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. “ANSYS Fluent Inc” 2010 user’s guide. Release 13.0. Chapter 19.4.1.1

  32. Roache PJ (1997) Quantification of uncertainty in computational fluid dynamics. Ann Rev Fluid Mech 29(1):123–160

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  33. Oberkampf WL, Roy CJ (2010) Verification and validation in scientific computing. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Book  MATH  Google Scholar 

  34. Kaidi S, Smaoui H, Sergent P (2017) Numerical estimation of bank-propeller-hull interaction effect on ship manoeuvring using CFD method. J Hydrodyn Ser B 29(1):154–167

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Stern F, Agdrup K, Kim SY et al (2011) Experience from SIMMAN 2008-the first workshop on verification and validation of ship maneuvering simulation methods. J Ship Res 55(2):135–147

    Google Scholar 

  36. Roychoudhury S, Dash AK, Nagarajan V (2017) CFD simulations of steady drift and yaw motions in deep and shallow water. Ocean Eng 142:161–184

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Min KS, Kang SH (2010) Study on the form factor and full-scale ship resistance prediction method. J Mar Sci Technol 15(2):108–118

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Granville PS (1956) The viscous resistance of surface vessels and the skin friction of flat plates. SNAME 64:209–240

    Google Scholar 

  39. Raven HC, van der Ploeg A, Starke AR et al (2008) Towards a CFD-based prediction of ship performance-progress in predicting full-scale resistance and scale effects. Int J Marit Eng 150:A4

    Google Scholar 

  40. PIANC (1992) Capability of ship manoeuvring simulation models for approach channels and fairway in harbours, report of Working Group No. 20 of permanent technical committee II. Supplementto PIANC bulletin No 77, pp 49

  41. Schlichting O (1934) Ship resistance in water of limited depth-resistance of sea-going vessels in shallow water. Jahrbuch der STG 3:127–148

    Google Scholar 

  42. Sorensen RM (1997) Prediction of vessel-generated waves with reference to vessels common to the upper mississippi river system. Prepared for US Army Engineer District, p 50

  43. He G, Kashiwagi M et al (2014) Time-domain analysis of steady ship-wave problem using higher-order BEM. Int J Offshore Polar Eng 24(01):1–10

    Google Scholar 

  44. Tunaley JKE (2014) Ship wakes in shallow waters, LRDC report

  45. Robijns T (2015) Flow beneath inland navigation vessels, chap 5. Master Thesis, p 80

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Centre de Recherche Royallieu, Laboratoire Roberval Université de Technologie de Compiègne, CS 60319, 60203, Compiène Cedex, France

    Intissar Razgallah, Sami Kaidi & Hassan Smaoui

  2. Centre d’études et d’expertise sur les risques, l’environnement, la mobilité et l’aménagement (CEREMA-DTecEMF), 134, rue de Beauvais-CS 60039, 60280, Margny Lès Compiègne, France

    Sami Kaidi, Hassan Smaoui & Philippe Sergent

Authors
  1. Intissar Razgallah
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Sami Kaidi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Hassan Smaoui
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Philippe Sergent
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Intissar Razgallah.

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Razgallah, I., Kaidi, S., Smaoui, H. et al. The impact of free surface modelling on hydrodynamic forces for ship navigating in inland waterways: water depth, drift angle, and ship speed effect. J Mar Sci Technol 24, 620–641 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00773-018-0566-y

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00773-018-0566-y

Keywords

Search

Navigation