Evaluation of Seakeeping Predictions

  • Frederick Stern
  • Hamid Sadat-Hosseini
  • Maysam Mousaviraad
  • Shanti Bhushan
Chapter
First Online:

Abstract

Test cases related to seakeeping are studied in this chapter including heave and pitch with or without surge motion in regular head waves for KVLCC2 and KCS and wave diffraction and roll-decay with forward speed for DTMB 5415. For seakeeping, the total average error is E = 23 %D, comparable to the average error for previous seakeeping predictions. For resistance, the largest error values are for the 1st harmonic amplitude and phase (34 %D), followed by 0th harmonic amplitude (18 %D) and steady (7 %D). For motions, the largest error values are for the 0th harmonic amplitudes (54 %D), followed by 1st harmonic amplitude and phase (13 %D) and steady (9 %D). The errors for the CFD predictions are similar for the different geometries and wavelengths, the small and large amplitude waves, and for the cases with and without surge motion. The errors are larger for the cases with zero forward speed. Compared with potential flow, CFD showed larger errors for motions for the medium and long wavelengths. For wave diffraction submissions, the large grid size DES simulation has achieved an average error value of less than 10 %D, while for the small grid size URANS simulations the average error is 28 %D. For roll decay submissions, the average error values are 10 %D for resistance and less than 1 %D for roll motions.

Keywords

Coarse Grid Roll Motion Forward Speed Harmonic Amplitude Pitch Moment 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Notes

Acknowledgement

The research at Iowa was sponsored by Office of Naval Research under Grant Nos. N00014-01-1-0073 and N00014-06-1-0420 administered by Dr. Patrick Purtell. The authors would like to thank Dr. Dave Kring, Dr. Arthur Reed and Prof. Bob Beck for their helpful comments, especially Prof. Beck who patiently went through several iterations, which clarified our analysis and conclusions.

References

  1. Beck RF, Reed AM (2000) Modern computational methods for ships in a seaway. Proceedings of 23rd ONR Symposium on Naval Hydrodynamics, Val de Reuil, FranceGoogle Scholar
  2. Belknap W, Bassler C, Hughes M (2010) Comparisons of body-exact force computations in large amplitude motion. 28th Symposium on Naval Hydrodynamics, Pasadena, CaliforniaGoogle Scholar
  3. Bunnik T, Daalen EV, Kapsenberg G, Shin Y, Huijsmans R, Deng G, Delhommeau G, Kashiwagi M, Beck B (2010) A – comparative study on state-of-the-art prediction tools for seakeeping. 28th Symposium on Naval Hydrodynamics, Pasadena, CaliforniaGoogle Scholar
  4. Carrica PM, Wilson RV, Stern F (2006) Unsteady RANS simulations of the ship forward speed diffraction problem. Comput Fluids 35(6):545–570CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  5. Carrica PM, Wilson RV, Noack RW, Stern F (2007) Ship motions using single-phase level set with dynamic overset grids. Comput Fluids 36(9):1415–1433CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  6. Carrica PM, Fu H, Stern F (2010) Self-propulsion free to sink and trim and pitch and heave in head waves of a Kcs model. Proceedings of Gothenburg 2010: A Workshop on CFD in Ship Hydrodynamics, Gothenburg, SwedenGoogle Scholar
  7. Castiglione T, Stern F, Bova S, Kandasamy M, (2011) Numerical investigation of the seakeeping behavior of a catamaran advancing in regular head waves. Ocean Eng 38(16):1806–1822Google Scholar
  8. Deng GB, Leroyer A, Guilmineau E, Queutey P, Visonneau M, Wackers J (2010) Verification and validation for unsteady computation. Proceedings of Gothenburg 2010: A Workshop on CFD in Ship Hydrodynamics, Gothenburg, SwedenGoogle Scholar
  9. Fabbri L, Campana E, Simonsen C (2011) An experimental study of the water depth effects on the KVLCC2 tanker. AVT-189 Specialists Meeting on Assessment of Stability and Control Prediction Methods for NATO Air and Sea Vehicles, Portsdown West, UKGoogle Scholar
  10. Faltinsen OM (1990) Sea loads on ships and offshore structures. Cambridge University press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  11. Fossen TI (2005) A nonlinear unified state-space model for ship maneuvering and control in seaways. J Bifurcat Chaos. doi:10.1142/S0218127405013691Google Scholar
  12. Fossen TI (2011) Handbook of marine craft hydrodynamics and motion control. John Wiley & Sons LtdGoogle Scholar
  13. Gui L, Longo L, Metcal B, Shao J, Stern F (2002) Forces, moment, and wave pattern for naval combatant in regular head waves-part 2: measurement results and discussions. Exp Fluids 32(1):27–36CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. He W, Diez M, Peri D, Campana EC, Tahara Y, Stern F (2012) URANS study of delft catamaran total/added resistance, motions and slamming loads in heading sea including irregular wave and uncertainty quantification for variable regular wave and geometry. 29th Symposium on Naval Hydrodynamics Gothenburg, Sweden, 26–31 August 2012Google Scholar
  15. Hino T (ed.) (2005) Proceedings of CFD workshop, NMRI report, Tokyo 2005Google Scholar
  16. Hyman M (2010) Gothenburg 2010 submission for Case 3.2 using CFDShip-Iowa V4. Proceedings of Gothenburg 2010: A Workshop on CFD in Ship Hydrodynamics, Gothenburg, SwedenGoogle Scholar
  17. Irvine M, Longo J, Stern F (2004) Towing tank tests for surface combatant for free roll decay and coupled pitch and heave motions. Proceedings of 25th ONR Symposium on Naval Hydrodynamics, St Johns, CanadaGoogle Scholar
  18. Irvine M, Longo J, Stern F (2008) Pitch and heave tests and uncertainty assessment for a surface combatant in regular head waves. J Ship Res 52(2):146–163Google Scholar
  19. Kandasamy M, Ooi SK, Carrica PM, Stern F (2010) Integral force/moment water-jet model for CFD simulations. J Fluid Eng 132:101103-1-9CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Kashiwagi M (2009) Impact of hull design on added resistance in waves—application of the enhanced unified theory. Proceedings of the 10th International Marine Design Conference, Trondheim, Norway, pp 521–535Google Scholar
  21. Joncquez SAG (2009) Second-Order Forces and Moments acting on Ships in Waves. PhD Thesis, Technical University of Denmark, DenmarkGoogle Scholar
  22. Kim WJ, Van SH, Kim DH (2001) Measurement of flows around modern commercial ship models. Exp Fluids 31:567–578CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Larsson L, Stern F, Visonneau M (eds) (2010) Gothenburg 2010: a workshop on numerical ship hydrodynamics. Gothenburg, SwedenGoogle Scholar
  24. Longo J, Stern F (2005) Uncertainty assessment for towing tank tests with example for surface combatant DTMB model 5415. J Ship Res 49(1):55–68CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Longo J, Shao J, Irvine M, Stern F (2007) Phase-averaged PIV for the nominal wake of a surface ship in regular head waves. J Fluid Eng 129:524–540CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Mousaviraad SM, Carrica PM, Stern F (2010) development and validation of harmonic wave group single-run procedure for RAO with comparison to regular wave and transient wave group procedures using URANS. Ocean Eng 37(8):653–666CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Sadat-Hosseini H, Stern F, Olivieri A, Campana E, Hashimoto H, Umeda N, Bulian G, Francescutto A (2010) Head-waves parametric rolling of surface combatant. Ocean Eng 37(10):859–878CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Sadat-Hosseini H, Carrica PM, Stern F, Umeda N, Hashimoto H, Yamamura S, Mastuda A (2011) CFD, system-based and EFD study of ship dynamic instability events: surf-riding, periodic motion, and broaching. Ocean Eng 38(1):88–110CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 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 Eng 59:240–273CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Singh SP, Sen D (2007) A comparative linear and nonlinear ship motion study using 3-D time domain methods. Ocean Eng 34:1863–1881CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Simonsen CD, Otzen JF, Stern F (2008) EFD and CFD for KCS heaving and pitching in regular head waves. Proceedings of 27th ONR Symposium on Naval Hydrodynamics, Seoul, KoreaGoogle Scholar
  32. Simonsen CD, Otzen JF, Joncquez S, Stern F (2012) EFD and CFD for KCS heaving and pitching in regular head waves. submitted to Ocean EngineeringGoogle Scholar
  34. Stern F, Longo J, Penna R, Oliviera A, Ratcliffe T, Coleman H (2000) International collaboration on benchmark CFD validation data for naval surface combatant. Invited Paper: Proceedings of 23rd ONR Symposium on Naval Hydrodynamics, Val de Reuil, FranceGoogle Scholar
  35. Stern F, Wilson RV, Coleman H, Paterson E (2001) Comprehensive approach to verification and validation of CFD simulations-part 1: methodology and procedures. J Fluid Eng 123(4):793–802CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Stern F, Olivieri A, Shao J, Longo J, Ratcliffe T (2004) Statistical approach for estimating intervals of certification or biases of facilities or measurement systems including uncertainties. IIHR-Hydroscience & Engineering, The University of Iowa, IIHR Report No 442, pp 67Google Scholar
  37. Stern F, Olivieri A, Shao J, Longo J, Ratcliffe T (2005) Statistical approach for estimating intervals of certification or biases of facilities or measurement systems including uncertainties. J Fluid Eng 127:604–610CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Stern F, Carrica P, Kandasamy M, Gorski J, O’Dea J, Hughes M, Miller R, Kring D, Milewski W, Hoffman R, Cary C (2007) Computational hydrodynamic tools for high-speed sealift. Trans Soc Naval Archit Marine Eng 114:55–81Google Scholar
  39. Stern F, Agdrup K, Kim SY, Hochbaum AC, Rhee KP, Quadvlieg F, Perdon P, Hino T, Broglia R, Gorski J (2011) Experience from SIMMAN 2008—the first workshop on verification and validation of ship maneuvering simulation methods. J Ship Res 55(2):135–147Google Scholar
  40. Takai T, Kandasamy M, Stern F (2011) Verification and validation study of URANS simulations for an axial waterjet propelled large high-speed ship. J Mar Sci Technol 16(4):434–447CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Tarafder S (2007) Third order contribution to the wave-making resistance of a ship at finite depth of water. Ocean Eng 34(1):32–44. (January 2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Tarafder S, Khalil G (2006) Calculation of ship sinkage and trim in deep water using a potential based panel method. Int J Appl Mech Eng 11(2):401–414MATHGoogle Scholar
  43. Toxopeus S, Simonsen C, Guilmineau E, Visonneauc M, Stern F (2011) Viscous-flow calculations for KVLCC2 in manoeuvring motion in deep and shallow water. AVT-189 Specialists Meeting on Assessment of Stability and Control Prediction Methods for NATO Air and Sea Vehicles, Portsdown West, UKGoogle Scholar
  44. Weymouth G, Wilson R, Stern F (2005) RANS CFD predictions of pitch and heave ship motions in head seas. J Ship Res 49:80–97Google Scholar
  45. Wilson RV, Carrica PM, Stern F (2006) Unsteady RANS method for ship motions with application to roll for a surface combatant. Comput Fluids 35(5):419–451CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Xing T, Carrica P, Stern F (2008) Computational towing tank procedures for single run curves of resistance and propulsion. J Fluid Eng 130(10):1–14CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Xing T, Carrica P, Stern F (2011) Developing streamlined version of CFDShip-Iowa-4.5. IIHR-Hydroscience & Engineering, The University of Iowa, IIHR Report No. 479, pp 63Google Scholar
  48. Zlatev Z, Milanov E, Chotukova V, Sakamoto N, Stern F (2009) Combined model-scale EFD-CFD investigation of the maneuvering characteristics of a high speed catamaran. Proceedings of FAST 2009: The 10th International Conference on Fast Sea Transportation, Athens, GreeceGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Frederick Stern
    • 1
  • Hamid Sadat-Hosseini
    • 1
  • Maysam Mousaviraad
    • 1
  • Shanti Bhushan
    • 2
  1. 1.University of Iowa and Iowa Institute of Hydraulic Research (IIHR)Iowa CityUSA
  2. 2.Mississippi State UniversityStarkvilleUSA

Personalised recommendations