CFD-based analyses for a slow speed manoeuvrability model

  • Diego Villa
  • Michele Viviani
  • Stefano Gaggero
  • Marc Vantorre
  • Katrien Eloot
  • Guillaume Delefortrie
Original article


In the context of the low speed and high drift angles manoeuvres, a limited number of experimental test cases are available in open literature. Consequently, the ability to reliably predict the hull forces (and the related hydrodynamic coefficients) via computational fluid dynamics calculations may represent a significant added value to further tune or to generate new simplified hull forces models to be employed in a manoeuvring code. Even if some applications can be found in the literature for selected cases and conditions, as those considered in the present work, a more systematic comparison is mandatory to confirm the reliability of these numerical approaches. In light of this, in the present work a systematic application of the open-source viscous-based flow solver OpenFOAM to predict forces at low-speed manoeuvring conditions for two ship test cases (the KCS and the KVLCC) is presented. The proposed numerical setup, specifically designed to be applied in the early ship design stage (limiting computational effort), shows a satisfactory accuracy to cope with the strong off-design conditions related to these specific ship operative conditions.


Slow speed manoeuvrability CFD viscous code OpenFOAM CFD verification and validation 


  1. 1.
    Ferrando M, Gaggero S, Villa D (2015) Open source computations of planning hull resistance. Trans R Inst Naval Arc Part B Int J Small Craft Technol 157:83–98Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Wilson RV, Stern F, Coleman HW, Paterson EG (2001) Comprehensive approach to verification and validation of CFD simulations—part 2: Application for RANS simulation of a cargo/container ship. J Fluids Eng 123(4):803–810CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Larsson L, Stern F, Visonneau M (2013) CFD in ship hydrodynamics—results of the Gothenburg 2010 workshop. In: MARINE 2011, IV international conference on computational methods in marine engineering. Springer, pp 237–259Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Carrica PM, Wilson RV, Noack RW, Stern F (2007) Ship motions using single-phase level set with dynamic overset grids. Comput Fluids 36(9):1415–1433CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Gaggero S, Villa D, Brizzolara S (2010) RANS and PANEL method for unsteady flow propeller analysis. J Hydrodyn Ser B 22(5):564–569CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Gaggero S, Villa D, Tani G, Viviani M, Bertetta D (2017) Design of ducted propeller nozzles through a RANSE-based optimization approach. Ocean Eng 145:444–463CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Guilmineau E, Deng GB, Leroyer A, Queutey P, Visonneau M, Wackers J (2018) Numerical simulations for the wake prediction of a marine propeller in straight-ahead flow and oblique flow. J Fluids Eng 140(2):021111CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Morgut M, Nobile E (2012) Numerical predictions of cavitating flow around model scale propellers by CFD and advanced model calibration. Int J Rotat Mach 2012:618180. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Bertetta D, Brizzolara S, Canepa E, Gaggero S, Viviani M (2012) EFD and CFD characterization of a CLT propeller. Int J Rotat Mach 2012:348939. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Gaggero S, Villa D, Viviani M (2017) An extensive analysis of numerical ship self-propulsion prediction via a coupled BEM/RANS approach. Appl Ocean Res 66:55–78CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Gaggero S, Villa D, Viviani M (2015) The kriso container ship (KCS) test case: an open source overview. In: Proceedings of VI international conference on computational methods in marine engineering MARINE, pp 15–17Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Castro AM, Carrica PM, Stern F (2011) Full scale self-propulsion computations using discretized propeller for the KRISO container ship KCS. Comput Fluids 51(1):35–47CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Berger S, Druckenbrod M, Greve M, Abdel-Maksoud M, Greitsch L (2011) An efficient method for the investigation of propeller hull interaction. In: Proceedings of the 14th numerical towing tank symposiumGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Carrica PM, Ismail F, Hyman M, Bhushan S, Stern F (2013) Turn and zigzag maneuvers of a surface combatant using a URANS approach with dynamic overset grids. J Mar Sci Technol 18(2):166–181CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Broglia R, Dubbioso G, Durante D, Di Mascio A, single rudder configuration (2015) Turning ability analysis of a fully appended twin screw vessel by CFD. Part I. Ocean Eng 105:275–286CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Sakamoto N, Carrica PM, Stern F (2012) URANS simulations of static and dynamic maneuvering for surface combatant: part 1. Verification and validation for forces, moment, and hydrodynamic derivatives. J Mar Sci Technol 17(4):422–445CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Broglia R (2008) Numerical simulations of the pure sway and pure yaw motion of the KVLCC-1 and 2 tanker. In Proceedings of SIMMAN 2008 workshop on verification and validation of ship maneuvering simulation methods, Lyngby, DenmarkGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Hajivand A, Mousavizadegan SH (2015) Virtual maneuvering test in CFD media in presence of free surface. Int J Naval Arch Ocean Eng 7(3):540–558CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Cura-Hochbaum A, Uharek S (2014) Prediction of the manoeuvring behaviour of the KCS based on virtual captive tests. SIMMAN 2014, CopenhagenGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Yoshimura Y, Nakao I, Ishibashi A (2009) Unified mathematical model for ocean and harbour manoeuvring. In: International conference on marine simulation and ship maneuverabilityGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Yoshimura Y (2007) New mathematical model of hydrodynamic hull force in ocean and harbor maneuvering. Proc JASNAOE 4:271–274Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Jin Y, Duffy J, Chai S, Chin C, Bose N (2016) URANS study of scale effects on hydrodynamic manoeuvring coefficients of KVLCC2. Ocean Eng 118:93–106CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Woolliscroft MO, Maki KJ (2016) A fast-running CFD formulation for unsteady ship maneuvering performance prediction. Ocean Eng 117:154–162CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Moukalled F, Mangani L, Darwish M et al (2016) The finite volume method in computational fluid dynamics. An Adv Int OpenFOAM Matlab. zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Patankar S (1980) Numerical heat transfer and fluid flow. CRC Press, Boca RatonCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Issa RI (1986) Solution of the implicitly discretised fluid flow equations by operator-splitting. J Comput Phys 62(1):40–65MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Bruzzone D, Gaggero S, Podenzana Bonvino C, Villa D, Viviani M (2014) Rudder-propeller interaction: analysis of different approximation techniques. In: Proceedings of the 11th international conference on hydrodynamics ICHD, pp 19–24Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Villa D, Viviani M, Tani G, Gaggero S, Bruzzone D, Podenzana Bonvino C (2017) Numerical evaluation of rudder performance behind a propeller in bollard pull condition. J Mar Sci Appl 17:153–164. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Bruzzone D, Ruscelli D, Villa D, Vivani M (2015) Numerical prediction of hull force for low velocity manoeuvring. In: 18th international conference on ships and shipping research, NAV 2015, pp 284–295Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Menter FR (1993) Zonal two equation k–x model for aerodynamic flows. AIAA paper 93-2906. In: 24th fluid dynamics conference, Orlando, FL Aerodynamics of Horizontal Axis Wind Turbines, volume 69Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Menter FR (1994) Two-equation eddy-viscosity turbulence models for engineering applications. AIAA J 32(8):1598–1605CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Abbas N, Kornev N (2016) Validation of hybrid URANS/LES methods for determination of forces and wake parameters of KVLCC2 tanker at manoeuvring conditions. Ship Technol Res 63(2):96–109CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Ferziger JH, Peric M (2012) Computational methods for fluid dynamics. Springer, BerlinzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Delefortrie G, Geerts S, Vantorre M (2016) The towing tank for manoeuvres in shallow water. In: Uliczka K et al (eds) Proceedings of the 4th international conference on ship manoeuvring in shallow and confined water with special focus on ship bottom interaction, Hamburg, Germany, 23–25 May 2016 (4th MASHCON), pp 226–235. Bundesanstalt für WasserbauGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    The Manouevring Committee (2017) Report of the manoeuvring committee. In: Proceedings of the 28th international towing tank conference, pp 15–17Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Lataire E (2014) Experiment based mathematical modelling of ship-bank interaction. PhD Thesis, Ghent UniversityGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© JASNAOE 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Electrical, Electronics and Telecommunication Engineering and Naval Architecture (DITEN)University of GenovaGenoaItaly
  2. 2.Maritime Technology DivisionGhent UniversityGhentBelgium
  3. 3.Flanders Hydraulics ResearchAntwerpBelgium

Personalised recommendations