Journal of Marine Science and Technology

, Volume 18, Issue 4, pp 471–496 | Cite as

Investigation of water depth and basin wall effects on KVLCC2 in manoeuvring motion using viscous-flow calculations

  • S. L. ToxopeusEmail author
  • C. D. Simonsen
  • E. Guilmineau
  • M. Visonneau
  • T. Xing
  • F. Stern
Original article


The objective of the NATO AVT-161 working group is to assess the capability of computational tools to aid in the design of air, land and sea vehicles. For sea vehicles, a study has been initiated to validate tools that can be used to simulate the manoeuvrability or seakeeping characteristics of ships. This article is part of the work concentrating on manoeuvring in shallow water. As benchmark case for the work, the KVLCC2 tanker from MOERI was selected. At INSEAN, captive PMM manoeuvring tests were conducted with a scale model of the vessel for various water depths. Several partners in the AVT group have conducted RANS calculations for a selected set of manoeuvring conditions and water depths for the bare hull. Each partner was asked to use their best practice and own tools to prepare the computations and run their flow codes. Specific instructions on the post-processing were given such that the results could be compared easily. The present article discusses these results. Detailed descriptions of the approach, assumptions, and verification and validation studies are given. Comparisons are made between the computational results and with the experiments. Furthermore, flow features are discussed.


KVLCC2 Viscous flow Manoeuvring Shallow water Wall effects 



Part of this research was sponsored by the US Office of Naval Research, Subaward P.O.No. 1000753759 (Prime Award No. N00014-10-C-0123) under administration of Dr. Patrick Purtell. The CFD simulations were conduced utilizing DoD HPC.


  1. 1.
    Örnfelt M (2009) Naval mission and task driven manoeuvrability requirements for naval ships. In: 10th international conference on fast sea transportation (FAST). Athens, pp 505–518Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Quadvlieg FHHA, Armaoğlu E, Eggers R, Coevorden P van (2010) Prediction and verification of the manoeuvrability of naval surface ships. In: SNAME Annual Meeting and Expo, Seattle/Bellevue, WashingtonGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Simonsen CD, Stern F, Agdrup K (2006) CFD with PMM test validation for manoeuvring VLCC2 tanker in deep and shallow water. In: International conference on marine simulation and ship manoeuvring (MARSIM), Terschelling, The NetherlandsGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Larsson L, Stern F, Bertram V (2003) Benchmarking of computational fluid dynamics for ship flows: The Gothenburg 2000 workshop. J Ship Res 47(1):63–81Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Larsson L, Stern F, Visonneau M (eds) (2010) Gothenburg 2010: a workshop on numerical ship hydrodynamics, GothenburgGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Stern F, Agdrup K (eds) (2008) SIMMAN workshop on verification and validation of ship manoeuvring simulation methods, CopenhagenGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Lee S-J, Kim H-R, Kim W-J, Van S-H (2003) Wind tunnel tests on flow characteristics of the KRISO 3,600 TEU containership and 300k VLCC double-deck ship models. J Ship Res 47(1):24–38Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Kim W-J, Van S-H, Kim DH (2001) Measurement of flows around modern commercial ship models. Exp Fluids 31(5):567–578CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Fabbri L, Benedetti L, Bouscasse B, Gala FL, Lugni C (2006) An experimental study of the manoeuvrability of a blunt ship: the effect of the water depth. In: International conference on ship and shipping research (NAV)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Fabbri L, Benedetti L, Bouscasse B, Gala FL, Lugni C (2006) An experimental study of the manoeuvrability of a blunt ship: the effect of the water depth. In: 9th numerical towing tank symposium (NuTTS)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Fabbri L, Campana E, Simonsen C (2011) An experimental study of the water depth effects on the KVLCC2 tanker. AVT-189 Specialists’ Meeting, Portsdown West, UK, pp 12–14 OctoberGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Vaz G, Jaouen FAP, Hoekstra M (2009) Free-surface viscous flow computations. Validation of URANS code FreSCo. In: 28th international conference on ocean, offshore and arctic engineering (OMAE), OMAE2009-79398, Honolulu, May 31–June 5Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Vaz G, Waals O, Fathi F, Ottens H, Le Souef T, Kwong K (2009) Current Affairs—model tests, semi-empirical predictions and CFD computations for current coefficients of semi-submersibles. In: 28th international conference on ocean, offshore and arctic engineering (OMAE), OMAE2009-80216, Honolulu, May 31–June 5Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Vaz G, Toxopeus SL, Holmes S (2010) Calculation of manoeuvring forces on submarines using two viscous-flow solvers. In: 29th international conference on ocean, offshore and arctic engineering (OMAE), OMAE2010-20373Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Koop AH, Klaij CM, Vaz G (2010) Predicting wind shielding for FPSO tandem offloading using CFD. In: 29th international conference on ocean, offshore and arctic engineering (OMAE), OMAE2010-20284, ShanghaiGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Toxopeus SL (2011) Practical application of viscous-flow calculations for the simulation of manoeuvring ships. PhD thesis, Delft University of Technology, Faculty Mechanical, Maritime and Materials EngineeringGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Menter FR (1994) Two-equation eddy-viscosity turbulence models for engineering applications. AIAA J 32(8):1598–1605CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Dacles-Mariani J, Zilliac GG, Chow JS, Bradshaw P (1995) Numerical/experimental study of a wingtip vortex in the near field. AIAA J 33:1561–1568CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Bettle MC, Toxopeus SL, Gerber AG (2010) Calculation of bottom clearance effects on Walrus submarine hydrodynamics. Int Shipbuild Prog 57(3–4):101–125. doi: 10.3233/ISP-2010-0065 Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    StarCCM + User’s manualGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Queutey P, Visonneau M (2007) An interface capturing method for free-surface hydrodynamic flows. Comput Fluids 36(9):1481–1510. doi: 10.1016/j.compfluid.2006.11.007 CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Duvigneau R, Visonneau M, Deng GB (2003) On the role played by turbulence closures in hull shape optimization at model and full scale. J Mar Sci Technol 8:11–25. doi: 10.1007/s10773-003-0153-8 Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Deng GB, Visonneau M (1999) Comparison of explicit algebraic stress models and second order turbulence closures for steady flows around ships. In: 7th international conference on numerical ship hydrodynamics, Nantes, FranceGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Leroyer A, Visonneau M (2005) Numerical methods for RANSE simulations of a self-propelled fish-like body. J Fluid Struct 20(3):975–991. doi: 10.1016/j.jfluidstructs.2005.05.007 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Xing T, Bhushan S, Stern F (2012) Vortical and turbulent structures for KVLCC2 at drift angle 0, 12, and 30 degrees. Ocean Eng 55:23–43. doi: 10.1016/j.oceaneng.2012.07.026 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Carrica PM, Wilson RV, Stern F (2007) An unsteady single-phase level set method for viscous free surface flows. Int J Numer Meth Fluids 53(2):229–256. doi: 10.1002/fld.1279 MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Xing T, Shao J, Stern F (2007) BKW-RS-DES of unsteady vortical flow for KVLCC2 at large drift angles. In: 9th international conference on numerical ship hydrodynamics, Ann ArborGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    International Organization for Standardization (ISO) (1995) Guide to the Expression of Uncertainty in MeasurementGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Stern F, Wilson RV, Coleman HW, Paterson EG (2001) Comprehensive approach to verification and validation of CFD simulations - part 1: methodology and procedures. J Fluids Eng 123(4):793–802. doi: 10.1115/1.1412235 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME) (2009) Standard for Verification and Validation in Computational Fluid Dynamics and Heat Transfer, V&V 20 CommitteeGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Eça L, Vaz G, Hoekstra M (2010) A verification and validation exercise for the flow over a backward facing step. In: ECCOMAS fifth European conference on computational fluid dynamics, Lisbon, Portugal, JuneGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Xing T, Stern F (2010) Factors of safety for Richardson extrapolation. J Fluids Eng. 132(6). doi:  10.1115/1.4001771
  33. 33.
    Coleman HW, Stern F (1997) Uncertainties in CFD code validation. J Fluids Eng 119(4):795–803. doi: 10.1115/1.2819500 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Bhushan S, Carrica P, Yang J, Stern F (2011) Scalability studies and large grid computations for surface combatant using CFDShip-Iowa. Int J High Perform Comput Appl 1–22. doi:  10.1177/1094342010394887
  35. 35.
    Xing T, Stern F (2011) Closure to discussion of: “factors of safety for Richardson extrapolation”. J Fluids Eng 133(11):115502. doi: 10.1115/1.4005030 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Larsson L, Stern F, Visonneau M (2011) CFD in ship hydrodynamics—results of the Gothenburg 2010 workshop. In: IV international conference on computational methods in marine engineering (MARINE), LisbonGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Toxopeus SL (2011) Viscous-flow calculations for KVLCC2 in deep and shallow water. In: IV international conference on computational methods in marine engineering (MARINE), LisbonGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Kume K, Hasegawa J, Tsukada Y, Fujisawa J, Fukasawa R, Hinatsu M (2006) Measurements of hydrodynamic forces, surface pressure, and wake for obliquely towed tanker model and uncertainty analysis for CFD validation. J Mar Sci Technol 11(2):65–75. doi: 10.1007/s00773-005-0209-y CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Hino T (ed) (2005) CFD Workshop Tokyo 2005, TokyoGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Zou L (2011) CFD predictions including verification and validation of hydrodynamic forces and moments on a ship in restricted waters. Licentiate thesis, Chalmers University of Technology, Gothenburg, SwedenGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© JASNAOE 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • S. L. Toxopeus
    • 1
    Email author
  • C. D. Simonsen
    • 2
  • E. Guilmineau
    • 3
  • M. Visonneau
    • 3
  • T. Xing
    • 4
  • F. Stern
    • 5
  1. 1.Maritime Research Institute Netherlands (MARIN)/Delft University of TechnologyWageningenThe Netherlands
  2. 2.FORCE TechnologyLyngbyDenmark
  3. 3.ECN-Ecole Centrale de NantesNantesFrance
  4. 4.University of IdahoMoscowUSA
  5. 5.IIHR-Hydroscience and EngineeringThe University of IowaIowa CityUSA

Personalised recommendations