Advertisement

Journal of Marine Science and Application

, Volume 16, Issue 4, pp 417–426 | Cite as

Numerical computation of motions and structural loads for large containership using 3D Rankine panel method

  • Jung-Hyun Kim
  • Yonghwan Kim
Article
  • 85 Downloads

Abstract

In this paper, we present the results of our numerical seakeeping analyses of a 6750-TEU containership, which were subjected to the benchmark test of the 2nd ITTC–ISSC Joint Workshop held in 2014. We performed the seakeeping analyses using three different methods based on a 3D Rankine panel method, including 1) a rigid-body solver, 2) a flexible-body solver using a beam model, and 3) a flexible-body solver using the eigenvectors of a 3D Finite Element Model (FEM). The flexible-body solvers adopt a fully coupled approach between the fluid and structure. We consider the nonlinear Froude–Krylov and restoring forces using a weakly nonlinear approach. In addition, we calculate the slamming loads on the bow flare and stern using a 2D generalized Wagner model. We compare the numerical and experimental results in terms of the linear response, the time series of the nonlinear response, and the longitudinal distribution of the sagging and hogging moments. The flexible-body solvers show good agreement with the experimental model with respect to both the linear and nonlinear results, including the high-frequency oscillations due to springing and whipping vibrations. The rigid-body solver gives similar results except for the springing and whipping.

Keywords

Rankine panel method fluid-structure interaction benchmark test containership springing whipping 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Notes

Acknowledgement

This study was carried out as part of the 2nd ITTC–ISSC workshop in 2014. Special thanks to KRISO, who conducted the model test and provided the experimental results. This study was also a part of a research project supported by LRFC. (LRFC: Lloyd’s Register Foundation (LRF)-funded Research Center at SNU). The support provided by LRFC is also appreciated.

References

  1. Bishop RED, Price WG, 1979. Hydroelasticity of ships. Cambridge University Press, London.Google Scholar
  2. Bunnik T, van Daalan E, Kapsenberg G, Shin Y, Huijsmans R, Deng G, 2010. A comparative study on state-of-the-art prediction tools for seakeeping. Proc. 28th Symposium on Naval Hydrodynamics, Pasadena.Google Scholar
  3. Gentaz L, Guillerm PE, Alessandrini B, Delhommeau G, 1999. Three-dimensional free-surface viscous flow around a ship in forced motion. Proc. 7th Int. Conf. Num. Ship Hydro, Paris, 1–12.Google Scholar
  4. Hirdaris SE, Temarel P, 2009. Hydroelasticity of ships-recent advances and future trends. Proc. of the IMechE, Part M: Journal of Engineering for the Maritime Environment, 223(3), 305–330. DOI: 10.1243/14750902JEME160Google Scholar
  5. ITTC Seakeeping Committee, 1978. Report of the seakeeping committee. 15th Int. Towing Tank Conference, the Hague, Netherlands, 1, 55–114.Google Scholar
  6. Jensen JJ, Dogliani M, 1996. Wave-induced ship hull vibrations in stochastic seaways, Marine Structures, 9, 353–387. DOI: 10.1016/0951-8339(95)00031-3CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Khabakhpasheva TI, Kim Y, Korobkin AA, 2014. Generalized Wagner model of water impact by numerical conformal mapping, Applied Ocean Research, 44, 29–38. DOI: 10.1016/j.apor.2013.10.007CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Kim JH, Kim Y, 2014. Numerical analysis on springing and whipping using fully-coupled FSI models. Ocean Engineering, 91, 28–50. DOI: 10.1016/j.oceaneng.2014.08.001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Kim JH, Kim Y, Yuck RH, Lee DY, 2015. Comparison of slamming and whipping loads by fully coupled hydroelastic analysis and experimental measurement. Journal of Fluids and Structures, 52, 145–165. DOI: 10.1016/j.jfluidstructs.2014.10.011CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Kim KH, Kim Y, 2008. On technical issues in the analysis of nonlinear ship motion and structural loads in waves by a time-domain Rankine panel method. The 23rd International Workshop on Water Waves & Floating Bodies, Jeju.Google Scholar
  11. Kim Y, Kim JH, 2016. Benchmark study on motions and loads of a 6750-TEU containership. Ocean Engineering, 119, 262–273. DOI: 10.1016/j.oceaneng.2016.04.015CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Kim Y, Kim KH, Kim JH, Kim T, Seo MG, Kim Y, 2011. Time-domain analysis of nonlinear motion responses and structural loads on ships and offshore structures-development of WISH programs. International Journal of Naval Architecture and Ocean Engineering, 3(1), 37–52. DOI: 10.2478/IJNAOE-2013-0044MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Kim Y, Kim KH, Kim Y, 2009. Analysis of hydroelasticity of floating ship-like structures in time domain using a fully coupled hybrid BEM-FEM. Journal of Ship Research, 53(1), 31–47. DOI: 10.3744/SNAK.2012.49.4.312Google Scholar
  14. Korsmeyer FT, Lee CH, Newman JN, Sclavounos PD, 1988. The analysis of wave effects on tension-leg platforms. Proc. 7th Conf. on Offshore Mech. and Arctic Eng, Houston.Google Scholar
  15. Korvin-Kroukovsky BV, Jacobs WR, 1957. Pitching and heaving motions of a ship in regular waves. Trans. SNAME, 65, 590–632.Google Scholar
  16. Kring DC, 1994. Time domain ship motions by a three-dimensional Rankine panel method. PhD thesis, Mass Inst. of Technology.Google Scholar
  17. Lin WM, Yue DKP, 1991. Numerical solution for large-amplitude ship motions in the time domain. Proc. 18th Symposium on Naval Hydrodynamics, National Academy Press, Washington DC, 41–66.Google Scholar
  18. Malenica S, Tuitman JT, 2008. 3D FEM-3D BEM model for springing and whipping analysis of ships. Proc. International Conference on Design and operation of Containerships, London.Google Scholar
  19. Nakos DE, Sclavounos PD, 1990. On steady and unsteady ship wave patterns. Journal of Fluid Mechanics, 215, 263–288. DOI: 10.1017/S0022112090002646MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  20. Newman JN, 1964. A slender-body theory for ship oscillations in waves. Journal of Fluid Mechanics, 18(4), 602–618. DOI: 10.1017/S0022112064000441MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  21. Ogilvie TF, Tuck EO, 1969. A rational strip theory of ship motions: Part I. University of Michigan.Google Scholar
  22. Sadat-Hosseini H, Wu PC, Carrica PM, Kim H, Toda Y, Stern F, 2013. CFD verification and validation of added resistance and motions of KVLCC2 with fixed and free surge in short and long head waves. Ocean Engineering, 59, 240–273. DOI: 10.1016/j.oceaneng.2012.12.016CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Salvesen N, Tuck EO, Faltinsen O, 1970. Ship motions and sea loads. Trans. SNAME, 78, 250–287.Google Scholar
  24. Shin KH, Jo JW, Hirdaris SE, Jeong SG, Park JB, Lin F, Wang Z, White N, 2015. Two- and three-dimensional springing analysis of a 16,000 TEU container ship in regular waves. Ships and Offshore Structures, 10(5), 498–509. DOI: 10.1080/17445302.2015.1014255Google Scholar
  25. Yang KK, Nam BW, Lee JH, Kim Y, 2013. Numerical analysis of large-amplitude ship motions using FV-based Cartesian grid method. International Journal of Offshore and Polar Engineering, 23(3), 168–196.Google Scholar
  26. Zhao R, Faltinsen O, Aarsnes J, 1996. Water entry of arbitrary two-dimensional sections with and without flow separation. Proc. the Twenty-First Symposium on Naval Hydrodynamics, Trondheim.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Harbin Engineering University and Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Naval Architecture & Ocean EngineeringSeoul National UniversitySeoulKorea

Personalised recommendations