Journal of Marine Science and Technology

, Volume 19, Issue 1, pp 52–74 | Cite as

Ship underwater noise assessment by the Acoustic Analogy part II: hydroacoustic analysis of a ship scaled model

  • S. IannielloEmail author
  • R. Muscari
  • A. Di Mascio
Original article


In this paper the Acoustic Analogy is used to predict the underwater noise from a complete scaled ship model in a steady course. The numerical investigation is performed by coupling an incompressible RANS code, equipped with a level-set approach to account for the fundamental time evolution of the free surface, to a FWH-based hydroacoustic solver, here suitably designed to manage the huge set of data coming from a full-unsteady hydrodynamic simulation. The results reveal the overall limited contribution from the propeller thickness and loading noise components and the fundamental one from the nonlinear quadrupole sources. The comparison between the hydrodynamic and hydroacoustic solutions point out the noticeable scattering effects due to the hull surface, the possible influence of sound refractions at the free surface and, above all, the leading role played by the turbulent fluctuating component of the velocity field. Finally, by computing the pressure time histories at a prescribed set of virtual hydrophones and turning them into the frequency domain, the ship noise footprint in dB is traced out, thus showing how the Acoustic Analogy can be effectively used to analyze the ship hydroacoustic behavior, both in terms of amplitude and directivity.


Hydroacoustics Underwater noise Acoustic Analogy 



This work was developed within the frame of the collaborative Research project SILENV (Ships oriented Innovative soLutions to rEduce Noise & Vibrations, funded by the EU in the Call FP7-SST-2008-RTD-1. Grant Agreement SCP8-GA-2009-234182) and partially funded by the Italian Ministry of Education, University and Research through the research project RITMARE. The authors also wish to thank Dr. Mario Felli for his support in providing the experimental data used to validate the RANS hydrodynamic calculations.


  1. 1.
    Zakarauskas P, Chapman DMF, Staal PR (1990) Underwater acoustic ambient noise levels on the eastern Canadian continental shelf. J Acoust Soc Am 87:2064–2071CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Arveson PT, Vendittis DJ (2000) Modern cargo ship noise. J Acoust Soc Am 107(1):118–128CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Wales SC, Heitmeyer RM (2002) An ensemble source spectra model for merchant ship-radiated noise. J Acoust Soc Am 111(3):1211–1231CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Ross D (2005) Ship sources of ambient noise. IEEE J Ocean Eng 30(2):257–261CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    McDonald MA, Hildebrand JA, Wiggins SM, Ross D (2006) Increases in deep-ocean ambient noise in the Northeast Pacific west of San Nicholas Island. J Acoust Soc Am 120:711–718CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Trevorrow MV, Vasiliev B, Vagle S (2008) Directionality and maneuvering Effects on a surface ship underwater acoustic signature. J Acoust Soc Am 124(2):767–778CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    McKenna MF, Soldevilla M, Oleson EM, Wiggins SM, Hildebrand JA (2009) Increased underwater noise levels in the Santa Barbara channel from commercial ship traffic and its potential impact on blue whales (Balaenoptera musculus), In: Damiani CC, Garcelon DK (eds) 7th California Islands symposium, pp 141–149Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    McKenna MF, Ross D, Wiggins SM, Hildebrand JA (2012) Underwater radiated noise from modern commercial ships. J Acoust Soc Am 131(1):92–103CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Payne R, Webb D (1971) Orientation by means of long range acoustic signaling in baleen whales. Ann N Y Acad Sci 188:110–141CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Wartzok D, Ketten DR (1999) Marine mammal sensory system. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, DC, pp 117–175Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Au WWL (2000) Acoustic interaction of humpback whales and whale-watching boats. Mar Environ Res 49:469–481CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Clark CW (1990) Acoustic behavior of mysticete whales. Plenum Press, New York, pp 571–583Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Clark CW, Ellison WT (2004) Potential use of low-frequency sounds by baleen whales for probing the environment: evidence from models and empirical measurements. The University of Chicago Press, Chicago, pp 564–582Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Anderson P, Andersen SV, Bodger L, Friesch J, Kappel JJ (2000) Cavitation considerations in the design of Kappel propellers. In: Proceedings of the NCT’50, international conference on propeller cavitation, 2–5 April 2000, University of Newcastle, UKGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Sasaki N, Patience G (2005) Evolution of high efficiency propeller with new blade section. In: Motorship conference, January 2005, BilbaoGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    De Jong K (1991) On the optimization and the design of ship screw propellers with and without end plates. University of Groningen, Department of Mathematics, The Netherlands, 19 November 1991Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Osher S, Sethian JA (1988) Fronts propagating with curvature-dependant speed: algorithms based on Hamilton–Jacobi formulations. J Comput Phys 79:12–40CrossRefzbMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Sussman M, Smekerda P, Osher SJ (1994) A level set approach for computing solutions to incompressible two-phase flow. J Comput Phys 114:146–159CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Di Mascio A, Broglia R, Muscari R (2009) Prediction of hydrodynamic coefficients of ship hulls by high-order Godunov-type methods. J Mar Sci Technol 14:19–29CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Adalsteinsson D, Sethian JA (1999) The fast construction of extension velocities in level set methods. J Comput Phys 148:2–22CrossRefzbMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Harten A, Engquist B, Osher S, Chakravarthy SR (1987) Uniformly high order accurate essentially non-oscillatory schemes. J Comput Phys 71:231–303CrossRefzbMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Felli M, Di Felice F (2005) Propeller wake analysis in nonuniform inflow by LDV phase sampling techniques. J Mar Sci Technol 10:159–172CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Muscari R, Felli M, Di Mascio A (2011) Analysis of the flow past a fully appended hull with propellers by computational and experimental fluid dynamics. J Fluid Eng 133(6). doi: 10.1115/1.4004215
  24. 24.
    Jeong J, Hussain F (1995) On the identification of a vortex. J Fluid Mech 285:69–94CrossRefzbMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Felli M, Falchi M, Pereira F, Di Felice F (2010) Dynamics of the propeller wake structures interacting with a rudder. In: Proceedings of the 28-th symposium on naval hydrodynamics, 12–17 September, Pasadena, California, USAGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© JASNAOE 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.CNR-INSEAN, Istituto di Studi ed Esperienze di Architettura NavaleRomeItaly
  2. 2.CNR-IAC, Istituto per le Applicazione del CalcoloRomeItaly

Personalised recommendations