Resistance and Squat of Surface Combatant DTMB Model 5415: Experiments and Predictions

Leo Lazauskas Cyberiad leo@cyberiad.net First Draft: 16 Dec. 2009

Abstract The purpose of this note is to compare predictions of the resistance and squat of a model DMTB 5415 hull with as many experimental results as we could glean from the open literature at the end of 2009.

Experimental Data

Figure 1: DTMB 5415 model hull. DTMB INSEAN 5415 2340 LP P (m) 5.720 5.720 BW L (m) 0.760 0.760 T (m) 0.248 0.248 D (m3 ) 0.549 0.549 2 S (m ) 4.786 4.786 IIHR 5512 3.048 0.386 0.133 0.083 1.371

Table 1: Hull geometric parameters. A sideview of the model hull is shown in Figure 1. The principal dimensions of the three hulls are given in Table 1. The DTMB5415 and INSEAN 2340 are identical except for the materials used in their construction; the IIHR5512 hull is a smaller geosim of the other two hulls. Table 2 contains values of gravitational acceleration g , water density, , and kinematic eddy viscosity, , for three towing tanks. Values of g at the three tanks are based on local latitudes reported by Stern et al [11].

Quantity DTMB INSEAN IIHR 2 g (ms ) 9.8009 9.8033 9.8031 (kg m3 ) 999.0 998.5 997.5 2 1 6 (m s 10 ) 1.005 0.925 Table 2: Water properties at three towing tanks.

According to Longo and Stern [7], values of during the IIHR5512 model tests varied between 996.93 kg m3 and 997.97 kg m3 ; varied between 0.88 m2 s1 106 and 0.97 m2 s1 106 . We will use the midpoint of the extremes for and in predictions of the 5512 hull resistance. For the INSEAN 2340 hull the value of = 1.005 m2 s1 106 is the average of the values for FR = 0.1, 0.28 and 0.41 reported in Table 1 of Olivieri et al [10].
10 IIHR 5512: L=3.048m Exp: IIHR Exp: Fac. 1 Exp: Fac. 2 Exp: Fac. 3 Exp: Fac. 4 Exp: Fac. 5 10 INSEAN 2340: L=5.72m CFDSHIP CFX COMET FINFLO FLUENT ICARE MGSHIP UNCLE Exp: INSEAN Exp: Fac. 1 Exp: Fac. 2 Exp: Fac. 3

CT X 10-3

CT X 10

-3

0 5

0.05

0.1

0.15

0.2 Fr

0.25

0.3

0.35

0.4

0.45

0 5

0.05

0.1

0.15

0.2 Fr

0.25

0.3

0.35

0.4

0.45

IIHR 5512: L=3.048m No Squat ITTC LL08

INSEAN 2340: L=5.72m No Squat ITTC LL08

4.5

4.5

4 CF X 10-3 CF X 10
-3

3.5

3.5

2.5

0.05

0.1

0.15

0.2 Fr

0.25

0.3

0.35

0.4

0.45

2.5

0.05

0.1

0.15

0.2 Fr

0.25

0.3

0.35

0.4

0.45

Figure 2: Experimental values of the total resistance coecient (top) and estimates of the skin-friction using two dierent empirical friction lines (bottom). The top two plots of Figure 2 show the total resistance coecient CT for two dierent model sizes. This coecient is dened by RT CT = (1) 1/2U 2 S where RT is the total resistance, U is ship speed, and S is the wetted surface area at rest. Points labelled Exp: Fac were taken from the Final Report to the 25th ITTC [5]. The IIHR experiments were taken from Longo and Stern [7]. The points labelled Exp: INSEAN are from Olivieri et al [10]. 2

Also shown in Figure 2 are predictions using a variety of CFD techniques described in the Gothenburg 2000 Workshop on Numerical Ship Hydrodynamics [1]. The bottom two plots of Figure 2 show the estimated skin-friction for the two model sizes using two dierent lines. The curves labelled ITTC use the ITTC 1957 line [4]; the other line, labelled LL08, is the present authors line [6] which is based on Grigsons algorithm [2] [3]. In general, for Reynolds numbers below about 107 , the LL08 line is lower than the ITTC57 line; for Rn > 107 , the LL08 line predicts higher skin-friction than the ITTC line. In the bottom right-side plot of Figure 2, the two lines give almost identical predictions for F r 0.45. The Reynolds number corresponding to this hull and F r is Rn 2 107 ,

Predictions
10 IIHR 5512: L=3.048m Line=LL08 No Squat Michlet: RF+RW Michlet: RF+RW+RH Flotilla: RF+RW Flotilla: RF+RW+RH 10 INSEAN 2340: L=5.72m Line=LL08 No Squat Michlet: RF+RW Michlet: RF+RW+RH Flotilla: RF+RW Flotilla: RF+RW+RH

CT X 10-3

CT X 10

-3

0.05

0.1

0.15

0.2 Fr

0.25

0.3

0.35

0.4

0.45

0.05

0.1

0.15

0.2 Fr

0.25

0.3

0.35

0.4

0.45

Figure 3: Michlet and Flotilla predictions of total resistance for the two hulls in a static attitude. For the purposes of the present report, the total resistance RT is considered to be the sum of the skin-friction RF , the wave resistance RW and, optionally, the transom stern hydrostatic resistance, RH . The latter component is sometimes included to account for the loss of hydrostatic pressure on transom sterns when they are running partly or fully dry. Wave resistance is estimated using Michells [8] thin-ship theory. The inclusion of the transom hydrostatic resistance is popular in some hydrodynamic circles, however, it is not universally accepted as a consistent improvement over simple linear theory. In Figure 3 the pale blue and pink curves do not include RH in the total resistance. The other two curves include RH in the total. It can be seen that RH is only signicant for F r < 0.2. There are some small dierences between the predictions using Michlet and Flotilla. These are due to the way that the hulls are represented in the two programs and the way in which a partly-wet, partly-dry transom stern is handled by the two codes. Based on Prohaska plots, and in accordance with ITTC quality procedure 4.9-03-03001.2, Stern et al [11] calculated that a form factor of k = 0.15 would be appropriate for the model hulls. From the results shown in Figure 3 use of this factor would improve the agreement of predictions with experiments for lower Froude numbers, typically below about 0.22, but it would also lead to a greater over-prediction of the total resistance for F r > 0.36. The predictions in the top two plots of Figure 4 used a one-shot method to predict squat. The sinkage force and trimming moment were calculated, the hull was shifted and rotated into the appropriate attitude, and then the drag was calculated. In the bottom two plots, this process was repeated until the hulls were in equilibrium. A maximum of 10 iterations was allowed in Flotilla, 3

10

IIHR 5512: L=3.048m Line=LL08 Squat: 1 iteration Flotilla: RF+RW Flotilla: RF+RW+RH

10

INSEAN 2340: L=5.72m Line=LL08 Squat: 1 iteration Flotilla: RF+RW Flotilla: RF+RW+RH

CT X 10-3

CT X 10

-3

0.05

0.1

0.15

0.2 Fr

0.25

0.3

0.35

0.4

0.45

0.05

0.1

0.15

0.2 Fr

0.25

0.3

0.35

0.4

0.45

10

IIHR 5512: L=3.048m Line=LL08 Squat: 10 iterations Flotilla: RF+RW Flotilla: RF+RW+RH

10

INSEAN 2340: L=5.72m Line=LL08 Squat: 10 iterations Flotilla: RF+RW Flotilla: RF+RW+RH

CT X 10-3

CT X 10

-3

0.05

0.1

0.15

0.2 Fr

0.25

0.3

0.35

0.4

0.45

0.05

0.1

0.15

0.2 Fr

0.25

0.3

0.35

0.4

0.45

Figure 4: Flotilla predictions of total resistance for the two hulls when they are free to sink and trim: one-shot squat method (top); iterated squat (bottom). but (typically) fewer than 5 were actually required. Each iteration took about 3 seconds on an i7 personal computer with 4Gb of memory. Although this is quite slow compared to calculations without squat eects, it should be noted that CFD codes can take several hours (or even days!) on much larger and faster computers. Flotilla predictions of sinkage and trim are compared to experiments in Figure 5. The dierences in estimated sinkage using the one-shot method and the iterated variant are signicant for F r > 0.35. Unfortunately, the scatter in the experiments is large, and the data runs out just when the sinkage should become smaller as F r increases further. Flotilla seems to over-predict the amount of trim, however, experimental trim angle data from Facilities 1 to 3 is not available. It would not be surprising if the trim experiments were as scattered as the corresponding sinkage data shown in the left-hand plot of Figure 5.

Conclusion
Several sets of experimental data for a model destroyer hull were presented. Predictions of the total resistance using two (linear theory) computer codes, Michlet and Flotilla, were made and found to be in reasonable agreement with the experiments, and also with estimates using more elaborate CFD codes. Predictions of sinkage are acceptable, however, predictions of trim are only in qualitative agreement with the (small number of) experiments.

0.001

0.2 0 -0.2

-0.001 Trim angle (deg.) INSEAN 2340: L=5.72m Flotilla: 1 iter. Flotilla: 10 iters Exp: DTMB Exp: INSEAN Exp: Fac. 1 Exp: Fac. 2 Exp: Fac. 3 0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 Fr 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4 0.45

-0.4 -0.6 -0.8 -1 -1.2 -1.4 -1.6 -1.8 INSEAN 2340: L=5.72m Flotilla: 1 iter. Flotilla: 10 iters Exp: DTMB Exp: INSEAN 0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 Fr 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4 0.45

Sinkage/Lpp

-0.002

-0.003

-0.004

-0.005

-0.006

Figure 5: Flotilla predictions of sinkage (left) and trim (right) for the INSEAN2340 model hull.

References
[1] Proceedings of Gothenburg 2000: A workshop on numerical ship hydrodynamics, Larsson, Stern and Bertram (eds), Chalmers University of Technology, Gothenburg, Sweden, 2000. [2] Grigson, C.W.B., An accurate smooth friction line for use in performance prediction, Trans. of the Royal Institution of Naval Architects , 1993, pp. 149152. [3] Grigson, C.W.B., A planar friction algorithm and its use in analysing hull resistance, Trans. of the Royal Institution of Naval Architects , 2000, pp. 76115. [4] Proceedings of the 8th ITTC, Madrid, Spain 1957, published by Canal de Experiencias Hidrodinamicas, El Pardo, Madrid. [5] The Resistance Committee, Final Report and Recommendations, Proc. 25th ITTC, Vol I, Fukuoka, Japan, 2008. [6] Lazauskas, L., Resistance, wave-making and wave-decay of thin ships, with emphasis on the eects of viscosity, PhD thesis , Dept. Applied Mathematics, The University of Adelaide, April 2009. [7] Longo, J. and Stern, F., International collaboration on benchmark CFD validation data for surface combatant DTMB model 5415 J. Ship Research , Vol. 49, No. 1, Mar. 2005, pp. 556. [8] Michell, J.H., The wave resistance of a ship, Phil. Mag. (5), 45, 1898, pp. 106123. [9] Lazauskas, L., Michlet, http://www.cyberiad.net/michlet.htm, Cyberiad, 19992009, [10] Olivieri, A., Pistani, F., Avanzini, A., Stern, F. and Penna, R., Towing tank experiments of resistance, sinkage and trim, boundary layer, wake and free surface ow around a naval combatant INSEAN 2340 model IIHR Tech. Report No. 421, Uni. of Iowa, USA, Sep. 2001. [11] Stern, F., Longo, J., Penna, R., Olivieri, A., Ratclie, T. and Coleman, H., International collaboration on benchmark CFD validation data for surface combatant DTMB model 5415 23rd ONR Symposium on Naval Hydrodynamics, Val de Reuil, France, 2000.