Advertisement

Numerical simulation about the manoeuvre of trimaran and asymmetric twin hull with hull attitude taken into account by OpenFOAM

  • Jiaye Gong
  • Yunbo LiEmail author
  • Fan Jiang
Original article
  • 55 Downloads

Abstract

Based on CFD method, the numerical method for the manoeuvre simulation of trimaran and asymmetric twin hull by OpenFOAM was applied in this paper. The grid independency test was carried out, and the computed result of turn and zigzag manoeuvres was compared with the result of self-propulsion experiment to validate the numerical method. Then, the numerical method was applied to simulate the turn and zigzag manoeuvres of both an actual trimaran and an actual asymmetric twin hull. By the manoeuvre simulation in calm water with hull attitude fixed and free, the effect of hull attitude on the manoeuvre of trimaran and asymmetric twin hull with different layouts and Froude number was discussed, and the importance of hull attitude for the numerical simulation of turn and zigzag manoeuvres was illustrated. The result shows that, the numerical method in this paper is valid for the manoeuvre simulation of trimaran and asymmetric twin hull, and it makes sense to take the hull attitude into account for the manoeuvre simulation of trimaran and asymmetric twin hull.

Keywords

Turn manoeuvre Zigzag manoeuvre Trimaran Asymmetric twin hull OpenFOAM 

Notes

Funding

This work was supported by Natural Science Foundation of Shanghai (19ZR1422500) and National Natural Science Foundation of China (CN) (51979157).

References

  1. 1.
    Kurultay AA (2003) Sensitivity analysis of the seakeeping behavior of trimaran ships. Thesis CollectionGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Sato Y, Uzawa K, Miyata H (2007) Validation of motion prediction method for Trimaran vessels. In: 9th International Conference on Numerical Ship Hydrodynamics Michigan, pp 5–8Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Vakilabadi KA, Khedmati MR, Seif MS (2014) Experimental study on heave and pitch motion characteristics of a wave-piercing trimaran. Trans Famena 38(3):13–26Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Ogawa A, Kasai H (1978) On the mathematical method of manoeuvring motion of ships. Int Shipbuilding Prog 25(292):306–319CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Kose K (1982) On a new mathematical model of maneuvering motions of a ship and its applications. Int Shipbuilding Prog 29(336):205–220CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Jensen G, Klent M, Xing-Kaeding Y (2004) On the way to the numerical basin for seakeeping and manoeuvring. In: 9th International symposium on practical design of ships and other floating structures, Lübeck-Travemünde, GermanyGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Xing KY (2006) Unified approach to ship seakeeping and manoeuvring by a RANSE Method. Ph.D. Dissertation, Report No.634, TU Hamburg-Harburg, GermanyGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Skejic R, Faltinsen OM (2008) A unified seakeeping and manoeuvring analysis of ships in regular waves. J Mar Sci Technol 13(4):371–394CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Bhushan S, Xing T, Carrica P, Stern F (2009) Model- and full-scale URANS simulations of athena resistance, powering, seakeeping, and 5415 manoeuvring. J Ship Res 53(4):179–198Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Carrica PM, Hyman M, Bhushan S, Stern F (2013) Turn and zigzag manoeuvres of a surface combatant using a URANS approach with dynamic overset grids. J Mar Sci Technol 18(2):166–181CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Zhang W, Zou Z (2016) Time domain simulations of the wave-induced motions of ships in manoeuvring condition. J Mar Sci Technol 21(1):154–166CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Wang J, Zou L, Wan D (2018) Numerical simulations of zigzag manoeuvre of free running ship inn waves by RANS-Overset grid method. Ocean Eng 162:55–79CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Yasukawa H, Hirata N, Dose K (2005) Influence of outrigger position on the maneuverability of a high-speed Trimaran. Jpn Soc Naval Archit Ocean Eng 2005:229–232Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Javanmardi M, Jahanbakhsh E, Seif M, Sayyaadi H (2008) Hydrodynamic Analysis of Trimaran Vessels. Pol Marit Res 15(1):11–18CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Katayama T, Taniguchi T, Fujii H, Ikeda Y (2009) Development of maneuvering simulation method for high speed craft using hydrodynamic forces obtained from model tests. In: 10th International Conference on Fast Sea Transportation, FAST 2009, Athens, Greece, October 2009, pp 477–489Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Aksu E, Köse E (2017) Evaluation of mathematical models for tankers manoeuvring motions. J Eta Marit Sci 5(1):95–109CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Wang S, Khoo BC, Liu GR, Xu GX (2013) An arbitrary Lagrangian–Eulerian gradient smoothing method (GSM/ALE) for interaction of fluid and a moving rigid body. Comput Fluids 71(3):327–347MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Shen ZR, Wan DC (2013) RANS computations of added resistance and motions of a ship in head waves. Int J Offshore Polar Eng 23(4):263–271Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Shen ZR, Ye HX, Wan DC (2014) URANS simulations of ship motion responses in long-crest irregular waves. J Hydrodyn 26(3):436–446CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Rusche H (2002) Computational fluid dynamics of dispersed two-phase flows at high phase fractions. Imperial College, London, UKGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Weller HG (2002) Derivation, modelling and solution of the conditionally averaged two-phase flow equations. Technical Report TR/HGW/02, Nabla LtdGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Xia K, Zhan M, Wan D, Wei GW (2012) Adaptively deformed mesh based interface method for elliptic equations with discontinuous coefficients. J Comput Phys 231(4):1440–1461MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Xing T, Carrica P, Stern F (2008) Computational towing tank procedures for single run curves of resistance and propulsion. J Fluids Eng 130(10):1135–1150CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Menter FR (1994) Two-equation eddy-viscosity turbulence models for engineering applications. AIAA J 32(8):1598–1605CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    ITTC, Manoeuvring Committee (2014) Recommended Procedures and Guidelines, Guideline on Use of RANS tools for manoeuvring prediction, 27th International Towing Tank Conference. Denmark, CopenhagenGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    ITTC, Manoeuvring Committee (2014) Recommended Procedures and Guidelines, Guideline on Validation and vertification of RANS solutions in the prediction of manoeuvring capabilities, 27th International Towing Tank Conference. Denmark, CopenhagenGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Roache PJ (1997) Quantification of uncertainty in computational fluid dynamics. Ann Rev Fluid Mech 29(29):23–160MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Li Y, Gong J, Ma Q, Yan S (2018) Effects of the terms associated with ϕzz in free surface condition on the attitudes and resistance of different ships. Eng Anal Boundary Elem 95:266–285MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Yasukawa H, Yoshimura Y (2015) Introduction of MMG standard method for ship manoeuvring predictions. J Mar Sci Technol 20(1):37–52CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Japan Society of Naval Architects and Ocean Engineers (JASNAOE) 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.College of Ocean Science and EngineeringShanghai Maritime UniversityShanghaiChina
  2. 2.College of Shipping Building EngineeringHarbin Engineering UniversityHarbinChina

Personalised recommendations