Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Investigation of water depth and basin wall effects on KVLCC2 in manoeuvring motion using viscous-flow calculations

  • Original article
  • Published:
Journal of Marine Science and Technology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The objective of the NATO AVT-161 working group is to assess the capability of computational tools to aid in the design of air, land and sea vehicles. For sea vehicles, a study has been initiated to validate tools that can be used to simulate the manoeuvrability or seakeeping characteristics of ships. This article is part of the work concentrating on manoeuvring in shallow water. As benchmark case for the work, the KVLCC2 tanker from MOERI was selected. At INSEAN, captive PMM manoeuvring tests were conducted with a scale model of the vessel for various water depths. Several partners in the AVT group have conducted RANS calculations for a selected set of manoeuvring conditions and water depths for the bare hull. Each partner was asked to use their best practice and own tools to prepare the computations and run their flow codes. Specific instructions on the post-processing were given such that the results could be compared easily. The present article discusses these results. Detailed descriptions of the approach, assumptions, and verification and validation studies are given. Comparisons are made between the computational results and with the experiments. Furthermore, flow features are discussed.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9
Fig. 10
Fig. 11
Fig. 12
Fig. 13
Fig. 14
Fig. 15
Fig. 16
Fig. 17
Fig. 18
Fig. 19
Fig. 20
Fig. 21

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. In other studies in which the k-ω SST turbulence model was used, we have found that for grids with more excessive clustering of cells towards the wall, resulting in y+ values considerably lower than 1, the uncertainty estimates become much more consistent and closer to the expected order of convergence. This is mainly due to the fact that ω tends to infinity at the wall and therefore cells should be placed close to the wall in order to capture the large gradients in ω.

References

  1. Örnfelt M (2009) Naval mission and task driven manoeuvrability requirements for naval ships. In: 10th international conference on fast sea transportation (FAST). Athens, pp 505–518

  2. Quadvlieg FHHA, Armaoğlu E, Eggers R, Coevorden P van (2010) Prediction and verification of the manoeuvrability of naval surface ships. In: SNAME Annual Meeting and Expo, Seattle/Bellevue, Washington

  3. Simonsen CD, Stern F, Agdrup K (2006) CFD with PMM test validation for manoeuvring VLCC2 tanker in deep and shallow water. In: International conference on marine simulation and ship manoeuvring (MARSIM), Terschelling, The Netherlands

  4. Larsson L, Stern F, Bertram V (2003) Benchmarking of computational fluid dynamics for ship flows: The Gothenburg 2000 workshop. J Ship Res 47(1):63–81

    Google Scholar 

  5. Larsson L, Stern F, Visonneau M (eds) (2010) Gothenburg 2010: a workshop on numerical ship hydrodynamics, Gothenburg

  6. Stern F, Agdrup K (eds) (2008) SIMMAN workshop on verification and validation of ship manoeuvring simulation methods, Copenhagen

  7. Lee S-J, Kim H-R, Kim W-J, Van S-H (2003) Wind tunnel tests on flow characteristics of the KRISO 3,600 TEU containership and 300k VLCC double-deck ship models. J Ship Res 47(1):24–38

    Google Scholar 

  8. Kim W-J, Van S-H, Kim DH (2001) Measurement of flows around modern commercial ship models. Exp Fluids 31(5):567–578

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Fabbri L, Benedetti L, Bouscasse B, Gala FL, Lugni C (2006) An experimental study of the manoeuvrability of a blunt ship: the effect of the water depth. In: International conference on ship and shipping research (NAV)

  10. Fabbri L, Benedetti L, Bouscasse B, Gala FL, Lugni C (2006) An experimental study of the manoeuvrability of a blunt ship: the effect of the water depth. In: 9th numerical towing tank symposium (NuTTS)

  11. Fabbri L, Campana E, Simonsen C (2011) An experimental study of the water depth effects on the KVLCC2 tanker. AVT-189 Specialists’ Meeting, Portsdown West, UK, pp 12–14 October

  12. Vaz G, Jaouen FAP, Hoekstra M (2009) Free-surface viscous flow computations. Validation of URANS code FreSCo. In: 28th international conference on ocean, offshore and arctic engineering (OMAE), OMAE2009-79398, Honolulu, May 31–June 5

  13. Vaz G, Waals O, Fathi F, Ottens H, Le Souef T, Kwong K (2009) Current Affairs—model tests, semi-empirical predictions and CFD computations for current coefficients of semi-submersibles. In: 28th international conference on ocean, offshore and arctic engineering (OMAE), OMAE2009-80216, Honolulu, May 31–June 5

  14. Vaz G, Toxopeus SL, Holmes S (2010) Calculation of manoeuvring forces on submarines using two viscous-flow solvers. In: 29th international conference on ocean, offshore and arctic engineering (OMAE), OMAE2010-20373

  15. Koop AH, Klaij CM, Vaz G (2010) Predicting wind shielding for FPSO tandem offloading using CFD. In: 29th international conference on ocean, offshore and arctic engineering (OMAE), OMAE2010-20284, Shanghai

  16. Toxopeus SL (2011) Practical application of viscous-flow calculations for the simulation of manoeuvring ships. PhD thesis, Delft University of Technology, Faculty Mechanical, Maritime and Materials Engineering

  17. Menter FR (1994) Two-equation eddy-viscosity turbulence models for engineering applications. AIAA J 32(8):1598–1605

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Dacles-Mariani J, Zilliac GG, Chow JS, Bradshaw P (1995) Numerical/experimental study of a wingtip vortex in the near field. AIAA J 33:1561–1568

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Bettle MC, Toxopeus SL, Gerber AG (2010) Calculation of bottom clearance effects on Walrus submarine hydrodynamics. Int Shipbuild Prog 57(3–4):101–125. doi:10.3233/ISP-2010-0065

    Google Scholar 

  20. StarCCM + User’s manual

  21. Queutey P, Visonneau M (2007) An interface capturing method for free-surface hydrodynamic flows. Comput Fluids 36(9):1481–1510. doi:10.1016/j.compfluid.2006.11.007

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  22. Duvigneau R, Visonneau M, Deng GB (2003) On the role played by turbulence closures in hull shape optimization at model and full scale. J Mar Sci Technol 8:11–25. doi:10.1007/s10773-003-0153-8

    Google Scholar 

  23. Deng GB, Visonneau M (1999) Comparison of explicit algebraic stress models and second order turbulence closures for steady flows around ships. In: 7th international conference on numerical ship hydrodynamics, Nantes, France

  24. Leroyer A, Visonneau M (2005) Numerical methods for RANSE simulations of a self-propelled fish-like body. J Fluid Struct 20(3):975–991. doi:10.1016/j.jfluidstructs.2005.05.007

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Xing T, Bhushan S, Stern F (2012) Vortical and turbulent structures for KVLCC2 at drift angle 0, 12, and 30 degrees. Ocean Eng 55:23–43. doi:10.1016/j.oceaneng.2012.07.026

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Carrica PM, Wilson RV, Stern F (2007) An unsteady single-phase level set method for viscous free surface flows. Int J Numer Meth Fluids 53(2):229–256. doi:10.1002/fld.1279

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  27. Xing T, Shao J, Stern F (2007) BKW-RS-DES of unsteady vortical flow for KVLCC2 at large drift angles. In: 9th international conference on numerical ship hydrodynamics, Ann Arbor

  28. International Organization for Standardization (ISO) (1995) Guide to the Expression of Uncertainty in Measurement

  29. Stern F, Wilson RV, Coleman HW, Paterson EG (2001) Comprehensive approach to verification and validation of CFD simulations - part 1: methodology and procedures. J Fluids Eng 123(4):793–802. doi:10.1115/1.1412235

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME) (2009) Standard for Verification and Validation in Computational Fluid Dynamics and Heat Transfer, V&V 20 Committee

  31. Eça L, Vaz G, Hoekstra M (2010) A verification and validation exercise for the flow over a backward facing step. In: ECCOMAS fifth European conference on computational fluid dynamics, Lisbon, Portugal, June

  32. Xing T, Stern F (2010) Factors of safety for Richardson extrapolation. J Fluids Eng. 132(6). doi: 10.1115/1.4001771

  33. Coleman HW, Stern F (1997) Uncertainties in CFD code validation. J Fluids Eng 119(4):795–803. doi:10.1115/1.2819500

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Bhushan S, Carrica P, Yang J, Stern F (2011) Scalability studies and large grid computations for surface combatant using CFDShip-Iowa. Int J High Perform Comput Appl 1–22. doi: 10.1177/1094342010394887

  35. Xing T, Stern F (2011) Closure to discussion of: “factors of safety for Richardson extrapolation”. J Fluids Eng 133(11):115502. doi:10.1115/1.4005030

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Larsson L, Stern F, Visonneau M (2011) CFD in ship hydrodynamics—results of the Gothenburg 2010 workshop. In: IV international conference on computational methods in marine engineering (MARINE), Lisbon

  37. Toxopeus SL (2011) Viscous-flow calculations for KVLCC2 in deep and shallow water. In: IV international conference on computational methods in marine engineering (MARINE), Lisbon

  38. Kume K, Hasegawa J, Tsukada Y, Fujisawa J, Fukasawa R, Hinatsu M (2006) Measurements of hydrodynamic forces, surface pressure, and wake for obliquely towed tanker model and uncertainty analysis for CFD validation. J Mar Sci Technol 11(2):65–75. doi:10.1007/s00773-005-0209-y

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Hino T (ed) (2005) CFD Workshop Tokyo 2005, Tokyo

  40. Zou L (2011) CFD predictions including verification and validation of hydrodynamic forces and moments on a ship in restricted waters. Licentiate thesis, Chalmers University of Technology, Gothenburg, Sweden

Download references

Acknowledgments

Part of this research was sponsored by the US Office of Naval Research, Subaward P.O.No. 1000753759 (Prime Award No. N00014-10-C-0123) under administration of Dr. Patrick Purtell. The CFD simulations were conduced utilizing DoD HPC.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Maritime Research Institute Netherlands (MARIN)/Delft University of Technology, Wageningen, The Netherlands

    S. L. Toxopeus

  2. FORCE Technology, Lyngby, Denmark

    C. D. Simonsen

  3. ECN-Ecole Centrale de Nantes, Nantes, France

    E. Guilmineau & M. Visonneau

  4. University of Idaho, Moscow, ID, USA

    T. Xing

  5. IIHR-Hydroscience and Engineering, The University of Iowa, Iowa City, IA, USA

    F. Stern

Authors
  1. S. L. Toxopeus
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. C. D. Simonsen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. E. Guilmineau
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. M. Visonneau
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. T. Xing
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. F. Stern
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to S. L. Toxopeus.

Appendix

Appendix

1.1 Estimation of KVLCC2 bare hull resistance from experimental results

To estimate the resistance of the bare hull KVLCC2 at Re = 4.6 × 106, the KVLCC2 with rudder data is corrected for the estimated resistance of the rudder. For this, the following steps are made:

First, the resistance R of the model is calculated (resistance coefficient based on wetted surface area C T = 4.11 × 10−3 [5], with a specified uncertainty of U D = 1 % [8]; wetted area with rudder S wa = 0.2682 × L 2pp [5]; model speed V = 1.047 m/s [8]):

$$ R = C_{\text{T}} \times \raise.5ex\hbox{$\scriptstyle 1$}\kern-.1em/ \kern-.15em\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstyle 2$} \times \rho \times V^{ 2} \times S_{\text{wa}} = - 4. 1 1 \times 10^{ - 3} \times 0. 5 \times 9 9 8 \times 1.0 4 7^{ 2} \times 0. 2 6 8 2 \times L_{\text{pp}}^{ 2} = 18.36\;{\text{N}} $$

Then, the resistance of the rudder is estimated. For this, the average velocity at the rudder location is calculated, using a wake fraction of w = 0.44 [8]: V rud = (1 − w)V = 0.586 m/s. The Reynolds number for the rudder with average chord c = 0.149 m follows from (ν = 1.256 × 10−6 m2/s based on the Reynolds number and model speed during the tests): Re rud = V rud c/ν = 6.96 × 104. Additionally, the rudder resistance coefficient is needed to calculate the rudder resistance. An estimate is made with the ITTC friction line, using an assumed form factor (1 + k) of 1.1, which is reasonable for lifting surfaces:

$$ C_{{{\text{T}},{\text{rud}}}} \frac{0.075}{{\left( {\log \left( {Re_{\text{rud}} } \right) - 2} \right)^{2} }}\left( {1 + k} \right) = 10. 2 1 \times 10^{ - 3} $$

The rudder wetted area follows from the difference between the wetted area with rudder and without rudder (S wa,bare = 0.2656 × L 2pp [39]), such that the rudder resistance is found:

$$ R_{\text{rud}} = C_{{{\text{T}},{\text{rud}}}} \times \raise.5ex\hbox{$\scriptstyle 1$}\kern-.1em/ \kern-.15em\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstyle 2$} \times \rho \times V_{\text{rud}}^{ 2} \times S_{{{\text{wa}},{\text{rud}}}} = - 10. 2 1 \times 10^{ - 3} \times 0. 5 \times 9 9 8 \times 0. 5 8 6^{ 2} \times \left( {0. 2 6 8 2-0. 2 6 5 6} \right) \times L_{\text{pp}}^{ 2} = 0.14\;{\text{N}} $$

The non-dimensional longitudinal force X for the KVLCC2 without rudder is now estimated by:

$$ X = - \left( {R - R_{\text{rud}} } \right)/\left( { 1/ 2 \rho V^{ 2} L_{\text{pp}} T} \right) = - 1. 6 8 3 \times 10^{ - 2} $$

1.2 Estimation of KVLCC2M bare hull resistance at Re = 4.6 × 106 from experimental results

The resistance of the KVLCC2M can be scaled to a different Reynolds number using the form factor method. For this, the form factor is required, see also, e.g., Toxopeus [37]. In the Tokyo workshop, the form factor was specified to be: (1 + k) = 1.2 [39]. The total longitudinal force measured was given by Kume et al. [38]: X = −1.756 × 10−2, with U D = 3.3 %. The friction coefficient for Re = 3.945 × 106 leads to X f = −1.457 × 10−2, using a wetted surface area of S wa = 0.2668 × L 2pp [39]. The residual resistance is therefore found as follows: X res = X − (1 + k)·X f = 0.76 × 10−4. Taking the friction coefficient for Re = 4.6 × 106, and combining this with the form factor and the residual resistance, the following longitudinal force is estimated for the KVLCC2M:

$$ X = \left( { 1 + k} \right) \times X_{\text{f}} \left( {Re = 4. 6 \times 10^{ 6} } \right) + X_{\text{res}} = 1. 2 \times - 1. 4 1 6 \times 10^{ - 2} + 0. 7 6 \times 10^{ - 4} = - 1. 70 7 \times 10^{ - 2} $$

This value is about 1.4 % larger in magnitude than the estimated value for the KVLCC2 bare hull, which is within the uncertainty of the experiments.

About this article

Cite this article

Toxopeus, S.L., Simonsen, C.D., Guilmineau, E. et al. Investigation of water depth and basin wall effects on KVLCC2 in manoeuvring motion using viscous-flow calculations. J Mar Sci Technol 18, 471–496 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00773-013-0221-6

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00773-013-0221-6

Keywords

Search

Navigation