Numerical computation of motions and structural loads for large containership using 3D Rankine panel method
- 85 Downloads
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.
KeywordsRankine panel method fluid-structure interaction benchmark test containership springing whipping
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
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.
- Bishop RED, Price WG, 1979. Hydroelasticity of ships. Cambridge University Press, London.Google Scholar
- 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
- 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
- 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
- ITTC Seakeeping Committee, 1978. Report of the seakeeping committee. 15th Int. Towing Tank Conference, the Hague, Netherlands, 1, 55–114.Google Scholar
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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
- Korvin-Kroukovsky BV, Jacobs WR, 1957. Pitching and heaving motions of a ship in regular waves. Trans. SNAME, 65, 590–632.Google Scholar
- Kring DC, 1994. Time domain ship motions by a three-dimensional Rankine panel method. PhD thesis, Mass Inst. of Technology.Google Scholar
- 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
- 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
- Ogilvie TF, Tuck EO, 1969. A rational strip theory of ship motions: Part I. University of Michigan.Google Scholar
- Salvesen N, Tuck EO, Faltinsen O, 1970. Ship motions and sea loads. Trans. SNAME, 78, 250–287.Google Scholar
- 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
- 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
- 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