Study of Maneuverability of

Container Ship With Nonlinear

R. Rajita Shenoi1
Department of Ocean Engineering,
IIT Madras,
Chennai 600036, India
e-mail: rajita.shenoy@gmail.com
P. Krishnankutty
Professor
Mem. ASME
Department of Ocean Engineering,
IIT Madras,
Chennai 600036, India
e-mail: pkrishnankutty@iitm.ac.in
R. Panneer Selvam
Professor
Department of Ocean Engineering,
IIT Madras,
Chennai 600036, India
e-mail: pselvam@iitm.ac.in
and Roll-Coupled Effects by
Numerical Simulations Using
RANSE-Based Solver
The examination of maneuvering qualities of a ship is necessary to ensure its naviga-
tional safety and prediction of trajectory. The study of maneuverability of a ship is a
three-step process, which involves selection of a suitable mathematical model, estimation
of the hydrodynamic derivatives occurring in the equation of motion, and simulation of
the standard maneuvering tests to determine its maneuvering qualities. This paper
reports the maneuvering studies made on a container ship model (S175). The mathemati-
cal model proposed by Son and Nomoto (1981, “On Coupled Motion of Steering and
Rolling of a High Speed Container Ship,” J. Soc. Nav. Arch. Jpn., 150, pp. 73–83) suita-
ble for the nonlinear roll-coupled steering model for high-speed container ships is con-
sidered here. The hydrodynamic derivatives are determined by numerically simulating
the planar motion mechanism (PMM) tests in pure yaw and combined sway–yaw mode
using an Reynolds-Averaged Navier–Stokes Equations (RANSE)-based computational
fluid dynamics (CFD) solver. The tests are repeated with the model inclined at different
heel angles to obtain the roll-coupled derivatives. Standard definitive maneuvers like
turning tests at rudder angle, 35 deg and 20 deg/20 deg zig-zag maneuvers are simulated
using the numerically obtained derivatives and are compared with those obtained using
experimental values. [DOI: 10.1115/1.4032895]

Keywords: planar motion mechanism (PMM), ship maneuvering, hydrodynamic

derivatives, container ship (S175), nonlinear and roll-coupled effects

1 Introduction derivatives, which is widely used by many researchers. But these

methods are based on a similar prototype vessel definite maneu-
International Maritime Organization [1] has brought out guide-
vers and any change from conventional design could result in
lines that integrate the maneuvering requirements along with the
incorrect estimation of hydrodynamic derivatives. Also, SI
ship design process, the objective of which is to reduce marine
method suggests to have more number of derivatives as known
casualties and subsequent pollution. The maneuvering qualities of
(about 80%) to reliably predict the unknown derivatives. With the
a ship must be verified to comply with the standards at the early
emergence of CFD as a powerful tool in studying flow associated
design stage. Maneuverability study involves a three-step process
phenomena and also developments in the high-performance
consisting of selection of a suitable mathematical model, estima-
computing, the method has found application in the studies of
tion of the hydrodynamic derivatives appearing in the equations
ship hydrodynamics like resistance and propulsion, seakeeping,
of motion, and then the simulation of the standard maneuvering
and maneuvering.
tests to determine its maneuvering qualities. Selection of a mathe-
Reynolds-Averaged Navier–Stokes Equations-based CFD
matical model depends on the nature and complexity of the prob-
application in the area of ship hydrodynamics is gaining popular-
lem, which forms the first stage in the study. The model identifies
ity, and many researchers have focused their interest in its applica-
the number and type of the derivatives that need to be estimated
tion to ship maneuvering problems. The application of CFD in the
in a maneuvering study. The ways of estimation of maneuvering
field of ship maneuvering has been significant in the past two dec-
derivatives are generally experimental and numerical methods.
ades. Direct maneuvering simulation (DMS) of standard maneu-
Experimental methods using free running tests or captive model
vering tests is one of the methods used by researchers in this field
tests such as PMM and rotating arm tests are more reliable. But
to estimate the maneuvering characteristics of a vessel. In this
this method has the disadvantage of being expensive and needing
method, the standard maneuvering tests such as zig-zag and turn-
elaborate experimental facility and time. Methods based on the
ing circle tests are simulated by solving together the equations of
regression analysis give rough assessment of the hydrodynamic
motion of ship along with RANSE equations for the fluid. Xing-
derivatives. Methods based on the system identification (SI) tech-
Kaeding and Jensen [2] used DMS to perform ship maneuvers
nique are a promising method of estimation of the hydrodynamic
like turning circle and zig-zag tests to study the hull, propeller,
and rudder interaction with the ship. Carrica et al. [3] performed
1
Corresponding author. unsteady RANSE computations of standard maneuvers like turn-
Contributed by the Ocean, Offshore, and Arctic Engineering Division of ASME
for publication in the JOURNAL OF OFFSHORE MECHANICS AND ARCTIC ENGINEERING.
ing circle tests at rudder angle, d ¼ 35 deg and 20 deg/20 deg zig-
Manuscript received June 30, 2015; final manuscript received February 5, 2016; zag tests for a surface combatant vessel consisting of twin rudders
published online April 7, 2016. Assoc. Editor: Celso P. Pesce. and appendages. The reported differences between the CFD and

Journal of Offshore Mechanics and Arctic Engineering AUGUST 2016, Vol. 138 / 041801-1
C 2016 by ASME
Copyright V

Downloaded From: http://offshoremechanics.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/pdfaccess.ashx?url=/data/journals/jmoeex/935201/ on 03/23/2017 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.or

 experimental results were as low as 10%. Dubbioso et al. [4] per-
formed 20 deg/20 deg zig-zag maneuvers on a twin-screw, twin-
rudder tankerlike ship model using a general-purpose solver, and
the results are in good agreement compared with those from the
experiments. Though it is promising, the DMS method is time
consuming and requires large computing resources, making it
unviable for routine applications. The alternate method to numeri-
cally study the maneuvering characteristics of a vessel is to simu-
late the captive model tests, such as straight line, PMM, and
rotating arm, and to estimate the hydrodynamic derivatives using
an RANSE solver. These derivatives are used in the equations of
motion to simulate the vessel trajectory to perform standard
maneuvering tests. This method is more robust and computation-
ally less expensive, which makes it more popular among the
researchers. Ohmori [5] developed a finite-volume method for
computing viscous forces around the ship for steady oblique tow-
ing tests, circular motion tests, and PMM tests, and the compari-
son of these results with the experiments showed a good
agreement. Similar attempt was made by Nonaka et al. [6] to sim-
ulate oblique towing tests or static drift tests using a CFD code.
Following the advancements in dynamic mesh generation techni-
ques, Simonsen et al. [7] used chimera grid technique with
RANSE-based solver to compute forces acting around the tanker
ship Esso Osaka with and without rudder conditions for static
rudder and pure drift tests. Cura-Hochbaum [8] recommended
practices and guidelines to obtain feasible results while using
CFD-based PMM test procedures for surface ship as in unre-
stricted waters considering only four degrees-of-freedom (DOF).
The SIMMAN-2008 maneuvering workshop stated the suitability
of the application of the CFD solver together with a simpler
system-based maneuvering model for reliable prediction of ship
maneuvering [9]. Di Mascio et al. [10] investigated the maneuver-
ability behavior of twin-screw naval ship using RANSE-based
CFD simulations of forced PMM motions and concluded that with
the increase of the complexity of motion as in case of pure yaw or
combined sway–yaw tests, the errors in the prediction of the
hydrodynamic derivatives increased. Sakamoto et al. [11] con-
ducted the static and dynamic simulations on a surface combatant
using viscous CFD solver with dynamic overset interface and con-
cluded that the use of multiple run CFD-experimental curve fitting
method provided better estimate of the nonlinear maneuvering
derivatives than using the single-run method. The study of roll
effect in maneuvering studies is confined to experimental methods
or SI. Eda [12] stated the significance of roll effects on the high-
speed ships from the results of captive model tests and digital sim-
ulations. Son and Nomoto [13] performed captive model tests at dif-
ferent heel angles and derived the equations of the
yaw–sway–surge–roll coupled motions. Yoon et al. [14] used SI
technique to the data of free running tests to estimate the roll-
coupled hydrodynamic derivatives of a container ship. Banerjee et al.
[15] described the capabilities of a large amplitude horizontal PMM
to determine the linear, nonlinear, and roll dependent derivatives of a
twin-screw container vessel. Kim et al. [16] performed horizontal
PMM tests for two different container ship models, one with twin
propellers and twin rudders and the other with a single propeller and
single rudder, to obtain hydrodynamic coefficients including the
effects of roll. For high-speed vessels in tight maneuvers, the effect
of roll motion on its controllability becomes significant.
The present paper describes the ship maneuvering studies
performed on a container ship model (S175) by utilizing RANSE-
based CFD solver. The method adopted is the numerical simula-
tion of the PMM tests, and from the time history of forces and
moments, we derived the yaw dependent, sway–yaw dependent,
and roll-coupled hydrodynamic derivatives appearing in the
maneuvering equations of motion. The numerically estimated
hydrodynamic derivatives are substituted in the maneuvering
equations of motion, and then, the maneuverability parameters of
the vessel are evaluated from the simulated vessel trajectory of
turning circle at rudder angle, d ¼ 35 deg and 20 deg/20 deg zig-
zag tests. These results are compared with the similar parameters
041801-2 / Vol. 138, AUGUST 2016
Downloaded From: http://offshoremechanics.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/pdfaccess.ashx?url=/data/journals/jmoeex/935201/ on 03/23/2017 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.or
obtained using the experimental data of hydrodynamic
derivatives.
2 Mathematical Model
A ship maneuverability study starts with selection of an appro-
priate mathematical model, which consists of maneuvering equa-
tions of motion in the horizontal plane (i.e., surge, sway, and yaw)
with importance given to last two modes known as steering equa-
tions. High-speed container ships are subjected to dynamic heel
especially when the ship takes tight maneuvers. So, along with
the nonlinearity, the effect of roll must also be considered. For the
present study, a nonlinear roll-coupled model for high-speed
container ships proposed by Son and Nomoto [13] is chosen.
The maneuvering equations of motion are given by the follow-
ing equations:
ðm  Xu_ Þu_  ðm  Yv_ Þvr ¼ X (1)
ðm  Yv_ Þv_ þ ðm  Xu_ Þur  Yr_ r_ ¼ Y (2)
ðIz  Nr_ Þr_ þ Nv_ v_ ¼ N (3)
ðIx  Kp_ Þp_ ¼ K  WGMT u (4)
where X, Y, K, and N are given by
X ¼ XðuÞ þ ð1  tÞT þ Xvr vr þ Xvv v2 þ Xrr r 2
þ Xuu u2 þ Xd sin d þ Xext (5)
Y ¼ Yv v þ Yr r þ Yu u þ Yp p þ Yvvv v3 þ Yrrr r 3
þ Yvvr v2 r þ Yvrr vr 2 þ Yvvu v2 u þ Yvuu vu2
þ Yrru r 2 u þ Yruu ru2 þ Yd cos d þ Yext (6)
N ¼ Nv v þ Nr r þ Nu u þ Np p þ Nvvv v3 þ Nrrr r 3
þ Nvvr v2 r þ Nvrr vr 2 þ Nvvu v2 u þ Nvuu vu2
þ Nrru r 2 u þ Nruu ru2 þ Nd cos d þ Next (7)
K ¼ Kv v þ Kr r þ Ku u þ Kp p þ Kvvv v3 þ Krrr r 3
þ Kvvr v2 r þ Kvrr vr 2 þ Kvvu v2 u þ Kvuu vu2
þ Krru r 2 u þ Kruu ru2 þ Kd cos d þ Kext (8)
In the above equations, X and Y are forces due to motions in the
x (surge) and y (sway) directions. K and N are the moments about
the x (roll, u) and z (yaw, w) directions. u and v are the linear
velocities in x and y directions. p and r are angular velocities in x
and z directions. u_ and v_ are linear accelerations in x and y direc-
tions. p_ and r_ are angular accelerations in x and z directions. m is
the mass and W is the weight of the ship. Ix and Iz are the mass
moment of inertia of the ship about x and z axes. GMT is the trans-
verse metacentric height of the ship. XðuÞ ¼ Xjuju juju is velocity-
dependent damping function. t is the thrust deduction factor, T is
the propeller thrust, and d is the rudder angle. Xd , Yd , Nd , and Kd
are derivatives of forces/moments due to rudder deflection.
Xext ;Yext ;Next , and Kext are contribution of forces/moments due to
external disturbances such as bow thrusters, fins, and other
devices.
The simplified derivative notation of Society of Naval Archi-
tects and Marine Engineers Nomenclature [17], which is used to
write the hydrodynamic derivatives in the equations of motion, is
explained briefly as follows [18]. Ab_ represents the first-order
hydrodynamic derivative of force/moment, namely, A due to the
linear/angular acceleration, namely, b. _ For example, Yr_ represents
the first-order hydrodynamic derivative of sway force, Y due to
Transactions of the ASME
 angular acceleration, r. _ Ab represents the first-order hydrodynamic
derivative of force/moment, namely, A due to the rotation or lin-
ear/rotational velocity, namely, b. Abb represents the second-order
uncoupled hydrodynamic derivative of force/moment, namely, A
due to the rotation or linear/rotational velocity, namely, b. Abc rep-
resents the second-order cross-coupled hydrodynamic derivative
of force/moment, namely, A due to the linear/rotational velocity,
namely, b and c. Abbb represents the third-order uncoupled hydro-
dynamic derivative of force/moment, namely, A due to the linear/
rotational velocity, namely, b. Abbc and Abcc represent the Abcc
third-order cross-coupled hydrodynamic derivatives of force/
moment, namely, A direction due to the rotation or linear/rota-
tional velocity, namely, b and c. Fig. 1 PMM setup
The nondimensionalizing factors for forces and moments are
0:5qL2m Um2 and 0:5qL3m Um2 , where Um is the model or flow towing tank. The phase angle between the stern and bow deter-
velocity, Lm is the ship model length, and q is the density of water. mines the different modes of operation of the PMM, namely, pure
The nondimensionalizing factors for all force/moment derivatives sway, pure yaw, and combined sway–yaw mode. Dynamometers
are estimated by substituting the factors for all variables in each placed at the stern (S) and bow (B) are used to measure the forces
term in the equations of motion and equating it to the factors of yS and yB acting on the model [19].
forces/moments. The nondimensionalizing factors for all the For the Son and Nomoto [13] model, the pure sway mode is
derivatives have been mentioned in the result tables of all numeri- used to determine the sway-dependent derivatives, namely,
0
cal simulations. Xvv ; Yv0_ ; Yv0 ; Yvvv
0
; Nv0_ ; Nv0 ; Nvvv
0
; Kv0 ; and Kvvv
0
, and also the speed-
0
The present mathematical model has 47 derivatives excluding dependent derivative, Xuu . Pure yaw mode is used to obtain the
0
rudder derivatives. There are 18 linear derivatives in the model: yaw-dependent derivatives, namely, Xrr ; Yr0_ ; Yr0 ; Yrrr
0
; Nr0_ ; Nr0 ; Nrrr
0
;
0 0 0 0
six are acceleration derivatives, namely, Xu0_ ; Yv0_ ; Yr0_ ; Nv0_ ; Nr0_ , and Kr ; and Krrr , and the speed-dependent derivatives like Xu_ ; Xuu .
Kp0_ ; 12 are first-order derivatives, namely, Yv0 ; Yp0 ; Yu0 ; Yr0 ; Nr0 ; Nv0 ; The combined sway and yaw mode is used to obtain coupled
0 0 0 0
Np0 ; Nu0 ;Kp0 ; Ku0 ; Kv0 ; and Kr0 (of these four are direct derivatives sway- and yaw-dependent derivatives, namely, Xvr ; Yvrr ; Yvvr ; Nvrr ;
0 0 0
Nvvr ; Kvrr ; and Kvvr . The roll-coupled derivatives are obtained by
Yv0 ; Nr0 ; Kp0 , and Ku0 , and others are coupled ones). The remaining
incorporating heel to ship at different modes of operation of the
29 derivatives are higher order. There are five higher-order surge PMM. Incorporating heel to the ship in pure sway mode is used
0 0 0 0 0 0
derivatives, namely, Xuu ; Xvr ; Xrr ; Xuu , and Xvv of which Xuu is for determining the hydrodynamic derivatives, Xuu 0
; Yu0 ; Yvvu
0
;
direct. There are eight higher-order sway derivatives, namely, 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Yvuu ; Nu ; Nvvu ; Nvuu ; Ku ; Kvvu ; and Kvuu , and in pure yaw mode, it
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Yvvv ; Yrrr ; Yvvr ; Yvrr ; Yvvu ; Yvuu ; Yrru , and Yruu , of which Yvvv is 0 0 0 0 0 0
is used to determine Yrru ; Yruu ; Nrru ; Nruu ; Krru ; and Kruu . The
direct. There are eight higher-order yaw derivatives, namely,
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 remaining four derivatives, Yp0 ; Np0 ; Kp0 ; and Kp0_ , are dependent on
Nrrr ; Nvvv ; Nvvr ; Nvrr ;Nvvu ; Nvuu ; Nrru , and Nruu , of which Nrrr is
roll velocity and acceleration. Since only horizontal planar motions
direct. There are eight higher-order roll-coupled derivatives,
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 are considered in the present study, these derivatives cannot be
namely, Kvvv ; Krrr ; Kvvr ; Kvrr ; Kvvu ; Kvuu ; Krru , and Kruu .
obtained as they consist of motion in vertical plane. Moreover, sen-
This mathematical model is a modular one that considers the sitivity analysis conducted on the container ship using the mathe-
elements of ship such as hull, rudder, and propeller as separate matical model showed that these derivatives are having insignificant
module and expresses the rudder and propeller terms independ- effect on the maneuvering characteristics of the vessel [20].
ently. The rudder and propeller derivatives and parameters The 20 sway-dependent derivatives occurring in the maneuver-
appearing in the equations of motion are determined using empiri- ing equations of motion are found out by conducting the PMM
cal expressions, as mentioned in Ref. [13]. A bare hull form of the tests in pure sway mode of operation, and the roll-coupled sway
ship is considered for the study. The principal particulars of the derivatives are found out using the pure sway mode incorporated
container ship S175 considered here are given in Table 1. with static heel angles. The numerical simulation of the pure sway
mode as well as pure sway mode incorporating heel was per-
3 Numerical Simulation formed and described in detail in Ref. [21].
The present paper involves the numerical estimation of the
3.1 PMM Tests. PMM test is an experimental captive model remaining 23 hydrodynamic derivatives in the mathematical
test performed to determine velocity- and acceleration-dependent model, which are dependent on yaw, roll-coupled yaw, and com-
hydrodynamic derivatives occurring in the maneuvering equations bined sway and yaw. The estimation of the hydrodynamic deriva-
of motion. The schematic setup of the PMM is shown in Fig. 1. tives numerically for PMM modes of operation, namely, pure
The PMM has two oscillators, each at the bow (B) and stern (S) yaw, pure yaw with roll effects, and combined sway–yaw, is
sides of the model, equidistant about midlength of the model. explained in detail in Secs. 3.2, 3.4, and 3.5. The coordinate sys-
These are independently oscillated in the transverse direction at tem used for dynamic PMM tests is as shown in Fig. 2. Both the
prescribed motion amplitude, yoa, frequency, xo, and phase differ- earth-fixed coordinate system (xo, yo, zo) and ship-fixed coordinate
ence between the oscillators, 2e, while the model moves down the system (x, y, z) are right-handed coordinate system.
towing tank at a constant velocity along the centerline of the
Table 1 Principal particulars of the container ship (S175)
3.2 Pure Yaw Mode. The pure yaw mode of PMM is used
Particulars Ship Model (scale 1:36) for determining the yaw-dependent hydrodynamic derivatives in
the mathematical model. In this case, a phase angle exists between
Length between perpendiculars, LBP (m) 175 4.86 the oscillators so that the model experiences an oscillation in pure
Length over all, LOA (m) 178 4.94
yaw at the prescribed frequency of oscillation. The phase angle
Beam, B (m) 25.4 0.705
Draft at the fore end, T f (m) 8.0 0.22 between the fore and aft oscillators, 2e, must satisfy the condition
Draft at the aft end, T a (m) 9.0 0.25 given by the expression, tan e ¼ ðdxo =2Um Þ. The model when
Mean draft, T m (m) 8.5 0.236 towed down the tank with the above phase angle between the
Depth, D (m) 11.0 0.305 oscillators results in a situation where the centerline of the model
is always tangent to its path so that the transverse component of

Journal of Offshore Mechanics and Arctic Engineering AUGUST 2016, Vol. 138 / 041801-3

Downloaded From: http://offshoremechanics.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/pdfaccess.ashx?url=/data/journals/jmoeex/935201/ on 03/23/2017 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.or

 Fig. 2 Earth-fixed and ship-fixed coordinate system

model hull form of the container ship S175 is shown in Fig. 4.

Fig. 3 Path and orientation of model in pure yaw mode
Fig. 4 Container ship (S175) model
the resultant velocity, Um, is zero. The model kinematic parame-
ters for this mode are given by the equations as shown in Fig. 3.
The hull form is geometrically modeled in a commercial soft-
R
ware, ANSYS ICEM CFDV, and imported to the RANSE-based CFD
R
solver STAR-CCMþV for meshing and analysis. The geometric
The fluid domain is selected based on the International Towing
Tank Conference (ITTC) [22] standards. This standard gives a
range of values for different dimensions of the fluid domain. For
dynamic simulations, the upper limits of this standard are used. It
extends 4 Lm (Lm is the ship model length ¼ 4.84 m) aft of the
model, 2 Lm forward of the model, 3 Lm on port and starboard
sides, and 1 Lm below the bottom. To keep the near-wall mesh
around the ship model intact and to avoid mesh failure at sharp
corners, an inner domain of cylindrical shape with radius 3 m and
depth 2.6 m encompassing the model and fluid around its close
proximity is created as shown in Fig. 5. Unstructured trimmed
hexahedral cell shape-based core mesh with prismatic near-wall
layers is generated using the CFD tool. The boundary conditions
are velocity inlet, pressure outlet with a pressure value corre-
sponding to hydrostatic pressure of fluid column for outlet, wall
with no slip for the hull, and wall with slip for side, bottom, and
top boundaries according to the ITTC regulations [22]. The inlet
velocity of flow is taken as 1.0 m/s. The physical model and solver
settings used for all the numerical simulations are in three-
dimensional domain; flow model used is implicit unsteady with a
segregated (predictor–corrector) solver, and the solution algorithm
is semi-implicit method for pressure linked equations (SIMPLE).
Second-order upwind spatial and first-order temporal discretiza-
tion schemes are used. In order to predict the forces and moments
acting on the hull, a turbulent model that can accurately capture
the near-wall physics is necessary. CFD studies such as grid-
independency study, domain-dependency study, and turbulence
model study are conducted to select optimum conditions for
dynamic simulation in pure yaw mode. The turbulence model

Fig. 5 Meshed fluid domain with boundaries labeled for dynamic simulation

041801-4 / Vol. 138, AUGUST 2016 Transactions of the ASME

Downloaded From: http://offshoremechanics.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/pdfaccess.ashx?url=/data/journals/jmoeex/935201/ on 03/23/2017 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.or

 Fig. 6 Time history of force/moments for dynamic simulation in pure yaw mode

used in the present study is shear stress transport (Menter) k–x, which is a supercomputing facility available at Indian Institute of
which is widely used in similar studies by other researchers [7]. Technology, Madras. The simulations are executed in parallel on
Though Reynolds stress models could be a better choice while eight Intel E5-2670 8 C 2.6 GHz processors of the supercluster.
considering prediction of complex flow phenomena, these models An average simulation time of 24 hrs is observed for one oscilla-
are less robust and computationally expensive [8]. All the yþ tion cycle for dynamic PMM modes.
near-wall treatment is used for all the simulation, which uses the
blended wall law (yþ < 5), if the mesh is fine enough, and if the 3.2.1 Results and Discussion. The forces and moments are
mesh is coarse enough (yþ > 30), the wall law is equivalent to a computed with respect to the ship-fixed coordinate system in surge,
logarithmic profile. The free surface modeling is done using mul- sway, and yaw directions. The forces and moment time-history plots
tiphase flow model with the volume of fluid method, which cap- in 4DOF are obtained by performing dynamic (PMM) simulations
tures the movement of the interface between the fluid phases. The in pure yaw mode. It has been observed that the time history of the
high-resolution interface capturing convective discretization hydrodynamic forces has initial one to two cycles in the transient
scheme is used to track the air water interface. The time step is region [23], and hence, it is advisable to analyze the third or subse-
carefully chosen for the simulations and is based on solution sta- quent cycle to derive the hydrodynamic derivatives. This cycle of
bility as well as the grid motion per time step. Though an implicit force history is represented with a Fourier series. Equating this to
method of solution is used, time steps should be small enough so the right-hand side of the equations of motion (Eqs. (5)–(8)), expres-
that they do no lead to mesh failure during mesh motions for dif- sion for the derivatives is derived in terms of Fourier coefficients.
ferent modes. A convergence criterion of residual drop by order Subsequent evaluation and substitution of these coefficients in the
of 103 for internal iterations is chosen. The solution is termed above derived expressions yield the value for the respective hydro-
converged when there is a repetitive pattern for the forces and dynamic derivatives. The results reported here are those from the
moments on the ship hull over the oscillation cycles. The fluid- third cycle and are shown in Fig. 6.
domain dimensions, boundary conditions, and solver settings cho- The numerically obtained hydrodynamic derivatives are nondi-
sen for the simulations are the same as that used for the pure sway mensionalized using appropriate factors (Table 2) and compared
mode in dynamic simulations [21]. The meshed body along with
the specified boundary conditions is shown in Fig. 5. The cell
count of these meshes is approximately 2.62  106. Table 2 Hydrodynamic derivative results from dynamic simu-
The dynamic ship motion in pure yaw mode is numerically simu- lation in pure yaw mode
lated by assigning appropriate yaw rotation rate with respect to the
Nondimensionalized Numerical
ship-fixed coordinate system. A motion along the sway direction of hydrodynamic Nondimensionalization Experimental (present
the fluid domain with respect to the earth-fixed coordinate system is derivatives factor [20] CFD)
also given additionally, so that the ship maintains its centerline tan-
0
gent to the path. To accomplish the motions involved in dynamic sim- Xu_ 0:5qL3m 0.000238 0.0000072
ulation, a morphing procedure is utilized, which redistributes the 0
Xuu 0:5qL2m 0.000423 0.000758
mesh vertices at each time step to accommodate the motion of the 0
Xrr 0:5qL4m 0.0002 0.000065
ship. The motion is assigned to the ship model and inner cylindrical 0
Yr_ 0:5qL4m 0.000353 0.000012
domain by defining a translational velocity superimposed with angu- 0
Yr 0:5qL3m Um 0.00242 0.0025
lar velocity, which is expressed in terms of predefined field functions 0

available in the CFD tool. The PMM oscillation frequency is chosen Yrrr 0:5qL5m =Um 0.00177 0.0013
0
such that the nondimensionalized frequency, x0o ðx0o ¼ xo ðLm =Um ÞÞ, Nr_ 0:5qL5m 0.000419 0.00044
0
lies in the range of 2–4 [23] and based on the calculations is taken as Nr 0:5qL4m Um 0.00222 0.0022
0
0.9448 rad s1 with a sway amplitude of 0.3 m. The yaw rate (r) is Nrrr 0:5qL6m =Um 0.00229 0.00097
found to be 0.145 rad s1 as per the equation in Fig. 3.
0
Kr 0:5qL4m Um 0.000063 0.000024
R
All the simulations in the present work are run on the VIRGOV 0
Krrr 0:5qL6m =Um 0.000046 0.000025
supercluster of the high-performance computing environment,

Journal of Offshore Mechanics and Arctic Engineering AUGUST 2016, Vol. 138 / 041801-5

Downloaded From: http://offshoremechanics.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/pdfaccess.ashx?url=/data/journals/jmoeex/935201/ on 03/23/2017 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.or

 0
Table 3 Xuu results from different methods of numerical simulation

Method of determination

Pure sway [16] Pure yaw Static tests

Nondimensionalized hydrodynamic derivatives Experimental [20] Value Error (%) Value Error (%) Value Error (%)
0
X uu 0.00042 0.00078 84.6 0.00075 79.4 0.00049 16

pure yaw mode deviates more compared to the experimental one

Fig. 7 Model configuration in resistance test
with the experimental data [13] as shown in Table 2. The deriva-
tives which have high impact on the maneuvering characteristics
of the ship [20] in pure yaw mode are namely, Nr0_ ; Nr0 ; Yr0 ; Yr0_ ; Xuu
0
, sides, where Lm ¼ LBP. Unstructured trimmed hexahedral cell
0
and Nrrr . Of these six derivatives, three of them have been pre-
dicted with a high level of accuracy, namely, Nr0_ ; Nr0 , and Yr0 .
Though the values of the remaining hydrodynamic derivatives
deviate more from the experimental values, the sensitivity analy-
sis shows that they have less effect on ship maneuvering charac-
teristics. Moreover, the numerically obtained higher-order
derivatives deviate more from those obtained from the experi-
ments, and similar trends have been reported in literature [11].
3.3 Estimation of X 0uu From Static Simulation. The sensi-
0 with ship oriented at b ¼ 0 deg are generated with different speeds
tivity analysis shows that the derivative, Xuu , has high influence
on the advance, transfer, and tactical diameter parameter of the
turning circle tests [20]. It has been observed that this derivative
numerically estimated from the dynamic tests in pure sway or
(Table 3). Hence, an alternative method to determine this particu-
0
lar derivative has been tried. Xuu is a second-order surge deriva-
tive that depends on the forward speed, u. Resistance tests
conducted numerically at different speeds with the ship oriented
at zero drift angle, i.e., ship’s longitudinal axis in line with the
centerline of the ship, give the variation of forces with respect to
the speed. The model configuration for the resistance tests is
shown in Fig. 7.
Static simulations are conducted for ship held at drift angle,
b ¼ 0 deg and at different inlet velocities. The fluid domain is
selected based on the ITTC [22] standards. This standard gives a
range of values for different dimensions of the fluid domain. For
static simulations, the upper limits of this standard are used. It
extends 2Lm from the aft, 1Lm from the bow, 1.5Lm from each of
port and starboard sides, and 1Lm each from the keel to bottom
shape-based core mesh with prismatic near-wall layers is gener-
ated using the CFD tool. The boundary conditions are velocity
inlet, pressure outlet with a pressure value corresponding to
hydrostatic pressure of fluid column for outlet, wall with no slip
for the hull, and wall with slip for side, bottom, and top
boundaries according to the ITTC regulations [22]. The fluid do-
main, physical model, and solver settings used for the numerical
simulations are same as that used for static simulation of static
drift tests [21]. The meshed body along with the specified bound-
ary conditions specified is shown in Fig. 8. Separate simulations
at velocity inlet, namely, 0.5 m s1, 0.75 m s1, 1 m s1, and
1.5 m s1. The cell count of these meshes is approximately
0.97  106.

Fig. 8 Meshed fluid domain with boundaries labeled for static simulation

041801-6 / Vol. 138, AUGUST 2016 Transactions of the ASME

Downloaded From: http://offshoremechanics.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/pdfaccess.ashx?url=/data/journals/jmoeex/935201/ on 03/23/2017 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.or

 Fig. 9 Surge force–time history at different forward speeds
Fig. 10 Variation of surge force with forward speed in static
simulation
3.3.1 Results and Discussion. The forces are computed with
respect to the ship-fixed coordinate system in surge direction for
every speed (Fig. 9). A mean value of the numerically simulated
force data is calculated over the time interval in which the results
are stabilized. The surge force X obtained is plotted against the
speed, u. The data points in the graph (Fig. 10) are fitted with a
second-order polynomial curve. The fitted equations of the curve
are differentiated twice and equated to the corresponding
coefficients of the speed-dependent terms of the third-order Taylor
series expansion of the equations of motion [24] to obtain Xuu .
The derivative is nondimensionalized by the factor 0:5qL2m , and
the value is compared with that obtained from the experiments
0
[13] and presented in Table 3. The percentage deviation of Xuu
from the experimental result has come down to 16%. This devi-
ation is less compared to the results obtained from dynamic simu-
lations. Hence the result obtained from static simulation is more
reliable and is used for trajectory simulations.
3.4 Pure Yaw With Roll. The roll-dependent derivatives in
the equations of motion that can be determined from the pure yaw
0 0 0 0 0 0
mode of operation are Yruu ; Yrru ; Nruu ; Nrru ; Kruu ; and Krru
(Eqs. (5)–(8)). To determine these derivatives, separate meshes
are generated for heel angle, u ¼ 0 deg to 10 deg, in steps of
2 deg. The cell count of these meshes is approximately
2.63  106. The fluid-domain dimensions, boundary conditions,
and solver settings chosen for the simulations are the same as that
used for the pure yaw mode in dynamic simulations (Sec. 3.2).
The model in heeled position and the fluid domain surrounding it
(inner domain) are subject to oscillations in pure yaw mode. The
kinematic motion parameters for this mode of motion are same as
Journal of Offshore Mechanics and Arctic Engineering
Downloaded From: http://offshoremechanics.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/pdfaccess.ashx?url=/data/journals/jmoeex/935201/ on 03/23/2017 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.or
that mentioned in Sec. 3.2. The force and moment time-history
plots in the surge, sway, yaw, and roll directions obtained for each
heel angle of the model are shown in Fig. 11.
3.4.1 Estimation of the Coupled Derivatives—Y 0ruu ; N 0ruu ;
and K 0ruu . Adopting the Fourier series method for determining
the hydrodynamic derivatives, the first-order yaw velocity-
dependent derivatives, namely, Yr , Nr , and Kr , are determined at
each heel angle. The derivatives are nondimensionalized using
appropriate factors as mentioned in Table 2 and plotted against
the heel angle shown in Fig. 12. The points are fitted with a
second-order polynomial curve. The fitted equations of force/
moment curves are differentiated twice, and the coefficients are
compared with the corresponding terms in the third-order Taylor
series expansion of the equations of motion [24] to obtain the
derivatives. The comparison of the numerically obtained three
hydrodynamic derivatives is compared with the experimental
results and is shown in Table 4. The deviations of these third-
0
order roll-coupled derivatives are high except for Nruu , but sensi-
tivity studies [20] show that they have only small effect on ship
maneuvering.
3.4.2 Estimation of the Derivatives—X0uu ; Y 0u ; N 0u ; and K 0u .
Estimation of the above pure roll-dependent hydrodynamic deriv-
atives is achieved by noting the surge and sway force and yaw and
roll moment values in the stabilized cycle (third cycle is used
here) at which the yaw rate (r) becomes zero. It is expected that at
this position, where r ¼ 0, the only effect is due to heel or static
roll angle. This procedure is repeated for different heel angles and
forces, and moments at r ¼ 0 for each heel angle are noted. The
force and moment plots superimposed with the yaw rate plots at
roll angle u ¼ 10 deg are shown in Fig. 13.
The values of forces and moments at zero yaw rate are taken
after two cycles of operation. These forces and moments are non-
dimensionalized using appropriate factors (0:5qL2m Um2 for force
and 0:5qL3m Um2 for moment) and plotted against heel angle. The
points are fitted with second-order polynomial curve in case of
surge and straight line in case of sway, yaw, and roll as the
0
surge derivative (Xuu ) is second-order and other derivatives
0 0 0
(Yu ; Nu ; Ku ) are of first-order. The force/moment curves are dif-
ferentiated, and the coefficients are compared with the corre-
sponding terms in the third-order Taylor series expansion of the
equations of motion [24] to obtain the derivatives. The plots along
with fitted curves are shown in Fig. 14. The values of these hydro-
dynamic derivatives are compared with the experimental ones and
shown in Table 5. Though the percentage deviations are high for
all these roll-coupled derivatives, the sensitivity analysis indicates
their low effect on the ship maneuvering parameters [20].
3.4.3 Estimation of the Coupled Derivatives—Y 0rru ; N 0rru ;
and K 0rru . Pure yaw tests including the roll at different yaw rates
are performed to estimate the higher-order yaw–roll coupled
AUGUST 2016, Vol. 138 / 041801-7
 Fig. 11 Time history of force/moments for dynamic simulation in pure yaw at different heel
angles

0 0 0
Fig. 12 Plots to determine Yr uu ; Nr uu ; and Kr uu

0 0 0
derivatives, namely, Yrru ; Nrru , and Krru . Two different values of
yaw rate, 0.12 rad/s and 0.17 rad/s, are chosen for performing the
simulations which are based on the yaw rate(r) equation given in Table 4
0 0
Experimental and numerical values of Yr uu , Nr uu , and
Fig. 3. Separate meshes are generated for heel angle, u ¼ 0 deg to 0
Kr uu
10 deg, in steps of 2 deg. The fluid-domain dimensions,
boundary conditions, and solver settings chosen for the simula- Nondimensionalized Experimental Numerical
tions are the same as that used for the pure yaw mode in dynamic hydrodynamic derivatives [20] (present CFD)
simulations (Sec. 3.2). The motion parameters are calculated as 0
per the yaw rate considered for each set of simulation. The model Yruu 0.001368 0.0147
0
in a heeled position and the fluid domain surrounding it (inner Nruu 0.00242 0.0029
0
domain) are subject to oscillations in pure yaw mode. Twelve Kruu 0.000036 0.0002
meshes (six heel angles for each yaw rate and two yaw rates

041801-8 / Vol. 138, AUGUST 2016 Transactions of the ASME

Downloaded From: http://offshoremechanics.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/pdfaccess.ashx?url=/data/journals/jmoeex/935201/ on 03/23/2017 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.or

 Fig. 13 Force and moment, and yaw rate time history for heel angle, u 5 210 deg

0 0 0 0
Fig. 14 Plots to determine Xuu ; Yu ; Nu ; and Ku from pure yaw with roll simulations

considered) are generated and used for the CFD analysis. The cell
0 0
Table 5 Experimental and numerical values of Xuu ; Yu ; Nu ; and
0
count of these meshes is approximately 2.63  106.
The hydrodynamic derivatives Yu0 ; Nu0 , and Ku0 are obtained
0
Ku
from each set of simulations at different yaw rates. The procedure
Nondimensionalized Experimental Numerical for obtaining the hydrodynamic derivatives is as mentioned in
hydrodynamic derivatives [20] (present CFD) Sec. 3.4.2. The values of forces and moments at zero yaw rate
0
after two cycles of operation are taken at each heel angle. These
Xuu 0.0002 0.0008 forces and moments are nondimensionalized using appropriate
0
Yu 0.00006 0.0006 factors and plotted against heel angles as shown in Fig. 15. The
0
Nu 0.00014 0.0003 points are fitted with straight line in case of sway, yaw, and roll to
Ku
0
0.000021 0.0007 obtain the hydrodynamic derivatives, Yu0 ; Nu0 , and Ku0 . The fitted
equations of the force/moment curves are differentiated once, and

Journal of Offshore Mechanics and Arctic Engineering AUGUST 2016, Vol. 138 / 041801-9

Downloaded From: http://offshoremechanics.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/pdfaccess.ashx?url=/data/journals/jmoeex/935201/ on 03/23/2017 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.or

 0 0 0 0
Fig. 15 Plots to determine Xuu ; Yu ; Nu ; and Ku from pure yaw with roll simulations at different yaw rates

0 0 0
Fig. 16 Plots to determine Yrr u , Nrr u , and Krr u

0 0
Table 6 Experimental and numerical values of Yrr u , Nrr u , and
0
Krr u

Nondimensionalized Experimental Numerical

hydrodynamic derivatives [20] (present CFD)
0
Yrru 0.009325 0.0403
0
Nrru 0.003859 0.022
0
Krru 0.000243 0.0007

the coefficients are compared with the corresponding terms in the

third-order Taylor series expansion of the equations of motion
[24] to obtain the derivatives.
Two sets of values of Yu0 ; Nu0 , and Ku0 are obtained from the
coefficients of the fitted equations (Fig. 15) from simulations at Fig. 17 Path and orientation of model in combined sway–yaw
two different yaw rates. These results along with the values mode
obtained from pure yaw with roll simulations mentioned in
Sec. 3.4.2 are plotted against nondimensionalized yaw rate, r’
(r 0 ¼ rðLm =Um Þ), as shown in Fig. 16. The discrete values are fit-
chosen are same as that mentioned in Sec. 3.2. The dynamic ship
ted with second-order polynomial curve. The force/moment
motion in combined sway–yaw mode is numerically simulated by
curves are differentiated twice, and the coefficients are compared
assigning a yaw rate and a sway velocity to the ship model. To ac-
with the corresponding terms in the third-order Taylor series
complish the motions involved in dynamic simulation, the morph-
expansion of the equations of motion [24] to obtain the deriva-
0 0 0 ing procedure is utilized. The motion is assigned to the ship model
tives, Yrru , Nrru , and Krru (Table 6).
and inner cylindrical domain by defining a translational velocity
superimposed with an angular velocity, which is expressed in
3.5 Combined Sway–Yaw Mode. The combined sway–yaw terms of predefined field functions available in the CFD tool. The
mode of PMM is used for determining the sway- and yaw- PMM oscillation frequency is taken as 0.9448 rad s1 as per the
dependent hydrodynamic derivatives in the mathematical model. standards [23] with a sway amplitude of 0.3 m. The yaw rate (r) is
In this mode, the ship is subjected to both sway and yaw motions. found to be 0.06 rad s1 according to the equation given in
Together with a sway velocity assigned to the ship, a phase angle Fig. 17.
exists between the fore and aft oscillators so that the model expe-
riences an oscillation in yaw at the prescribed frequency of oscil- 3.5.1 Results and Discussion. The forces and moments are
lation. The model kinematic parameters for this mode are given computed with respect to the ship-fixed coordinate system in
by the equations as shown in Fig. 17. surge, sway, and yaw directions. The forces and moment time-
For the dynamic simulations in combined sway–yaw mode, history plots in 4DOF are obtained by performing dynamic
fluid-domain dimensions, boundary conditions, and solver settings (PMM) simulations in combined sway–yaw mode. The third cycle

041801-10 / Vol. 138, AUGUST 2016 Transactions of the ASME

Downloaded From: http://offshoremechanics.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/pdfaccess.ashx?url=/data/journals/jmoeex/935201/ on 03/23/2017 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.or

 Fig. 18 Time history of force/moments for dynamic simulation in combined sway–yaw mode

Table 7 Hydrodynamic derivative results from dynamic simu-

lation in combined sway–yaw mode

Nondimensionalized Numerical
hydrodynamic Nondimensionalization Experimental (present
derivatives factor [20] CFD)
0
Xvr 0:5qL3m 0.00311 0.00036
0
Yvrr 0:5qL4m =Um 0.0405 0.048
0
Yvvr 0:5qL3m =Um 0.0214 0.0181
0
Nvrr 0:5qL5m =Um 0.00156 0.0043
0
Nvvr 0:5qL4m =Um 0.0424 0.0102
0
Kvrr 0:5qL5m =Um 0.001057 0.001
0
Kvvr 0:5qL4m =Um 0.000558 0.0019

Fig. 20 Zig-zag maneuver

Fig. 19 Turning circle test

Fig. 21 Turning circle test (d 5 35 deg)

of the numerical PMM tests is chosen for deriving the hydrody-
namic derivatives, and the time-history plots of force/moment
obtained from numerical simulations in combined sway–yaw
mode are as shown in Fig. 18. The Fourier series representation
and analysis as mentioned in Sec. 3.2 are chosen for deriving the
hydrodynamic derivatives. In this method, time series of forces
and moments in a cycle are written in terms of Fourier series, and
the coefficients of these Fourier terms are compared with those in
the mathematical model of Son and Nomoto [13] in order to
derive expressions for hydrodynamic derivatives.
The numerically obtained hydrodynamic derivatives are nondi-
mensionalized using appropriate factors (Table 7) and compared
with the experimental data [13] as shown in Table 7. The

Journal of Offshore Mechanics and Arctic Engineering AUGUST 2016, Vol. 138 / 041801-11

Downloaded From: http://offshoremechanics.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/pdfaccess.ashx?url=/data/journals/jmoeex/935201/ on 03/23/2017 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.or

 Fig. 22 20 deg/20 deg zig-zag maneuver

Table 8 Turning circle test results

Numerical (present CFD)

Turning circle test parameters (m) Experiment [20] Value Error (%)

Steady turning radius 299 299 0

Transfer at 90 deg heading 314 335 6.69
Advance at 90 deg heading 564 544 3.55
Tactical diameter at 180 deg heading 714 712 0.28

Table 9 20 deg/20 deg zig-zag maneuver results

Numerical (present CFD)

Zig-zag test parameters Experimental [20] Value Error (%)

Overshoot yaw angle (deg) 6.61 5.88 11.04

Time to reach second overshoot (s) 103 99 3.88

derivative which has high impact on the maneuvering characteris-
0 R
tics of the ship [20] in combined sway–yaw mode is Nvvr and
0 0
those having moderate influence are Yvrr and Yvvr . These deriva-
tives have been predicted satisfactorily. The percentage deviation
0
of the derivative, Nvvr , from the experimental values is more
(76%). However, Sakamoto et al. [11] reported similar trends of
percentage deviation for the particular derivative. Though the
0
hydrodynamic derivatives like Kvvr deviate more, the sensitivity
analysis shows that it has a small effect on ship maneuvering.
Considering the complexity of the motions in the combined
sway–yaw motion mode of PMM and noting the results from the
sensitivity analysis, the results are encouraging.
4 Simulation of Trajectory
The maneuvering capabilities of the vessel are studied by
simulating standard maneuvering tests like the turning circle and
zig-zag tests. Turning tests are performed to understand the ves-
sel’s steady turning ability and course changing characteristics.
Figure 19 shows the details of the turning circle tests which are
characterized by standard measures like steady turning radius, tac-
tical diameter, and advance and transfer. Zig-zag tests are per-
formed to learn about the control characteristics, course keeping
ability, and yaw checking ability. Figure 20 shows the details of
the zig-zag maneuvers which are characterized by the principal
numerical measures, namely, time to reach second overshoot,
overshoot yaw angle, and over shoot width of path [19].The turn-
ing circle tests at rudder angle, d ¼ 35 deg and 20 deg/20 deg zig-
zag maneuver are simulated by solving the equations of motion
using MATLABV.
4.1 Results and Discussion. Nineteen derivatives are obtained
from the sway velocity-dependent derivatives obtained from
dynamic simulations in pure sway mode and from static simula-
tions with roll [21]. These 19 derivatives along with the 23 deriva-
tives obtained from dynamic simulations in pure yaw mode,
yaw–roll coupled mode, and the combined sway–yaw mode and
0
Xuu obtained from static simulation from present study are used to
simulate the standard maneuvering tests. The tests are also per-
formed using all derivatives obtained by the experimental meth-
ods for comparison. A comparison of parameters of the turning
circle tests as well as zig-zag tests simulated using derivatives
obtained by both experimental [13] and CFD methods is shown in
Figs. 21 and 22 and also compared in Tables 8 and 9. The results
of the various test parameters match with reasonable accuracy
with the experiments for both turning circle tests and zig-zag
maneuver.
5 Summary and Conclusions
This paper presents the study of maneuvering qualities of a
container ship (S175) where the hydrodynamic derivatives
appearing in the equations of motion of the mathematical model
proposed by Son and Nomoto [13] are numerically estimated.
RANSE-based CFD approach is used for the determination

041801-12 / Vol. 138, AUGUST 2016 Transactions of the ASME

Downloaded From: http://offshoremechanics.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/pdfaccess.ashx?url=/data/journals/jmoeex/935201/ on 03/23/2017 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.or

 of the hydrodynamic derivatives, by numerically simulating
dynamic tests in pure yaw mode, pure yaw mode with roll and
combined sway, and sway mode of PMM. The numerically
obtained hydrodynamic derivatives from the aforementioned tests
are used to simulate the definitive maneuvers like turning circle
and zig-zag tests and compared with the parameters of the stand-
ard maneuvers obtained using the experimental data of the
hydrodynamic derivatives. The conclusions obtained from the
study are outlined below.
Eleven hydrodynamic derivatives out of the 47 derivatives
appearing in the equations of motion (Eqs. (1)–(8)), namely,
Xu0_ ; Xuu
0 0
; Xrr ; Yr0_ ; Yr0 ; Yrrr
0
; Nr0_ ; Nr0 ; Nrrr
0
; Kr0 , and Krrr0
using dynamic simulations in pure yaw mode. Among these deriv-
atives that have high impact on the maneuvering parameters,
Nr0_ ; Nr0 , and Yr0 are predicted with high accuracy of 4.84%, 0.92%,
and 3.3%, respectively. The hydrodynamic derivative that has
high impact on the turning circle characteristics, namely, Xuu
been estimated more accurately using static tests than the dynamic
tests with an accuracy of 16%. The accuracy in the prediction of
the six hydrodynamic derivatives appearing in the equations of
0 0 0 0
motion, namely, Yruu ; Yrru ; Nruu ; Nrru ; Kruu , and Krru
using dynamic simulations in pure yaw mode with roll is pre-
dicted less accurately. However, sensitivity studies show that
these derivatives do not have a significant impact on the maneu-
vering tests. Seven hydrodynamic derivatives out of the 47 deriva-
tives appearing in the equations of motion, namely, Xvr
0 0 0 0 0
Yvvr ; Nvrr ; Nvvr ; Kvrr , and Kvvr , are estimated using dynamic simu-
lations in combined sway–yaw mode. A high accuracy in the pre-
diction of these derivatives is difficult to obtain considering the
complexity of motions and physics involved. Among these deriva-
tives, the one having high impact on the maneuvering parameters,
0 During Maneuvers,” Ship Technol. Res., 53(4), pp. 14–28.
namely, Nvvr , is predicted with a deviation of 76% from the exper-
imental values. Though the deviation is more, considering the
complexity of motions in combined sway–yaw, and also noting
the similarity in the trends of results reported in the literature [11],
the present result is quite satisfactory. The remaining 19 deriva-
0
tives, namely, Xvv ; Yv0_ ; Yv0 ; Yvvv 0
; Nv0_ ; Nv0 ; Nvvv
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Yu ; Yvvu ; Yvuu ; Nu ; Nvvu ; Nvuu ; Ku ; Kvvu , and Kvuu , predicted
using pure sway mode and sway-roll coupled mode were reported
in Ref. [21] and are not repeated here. However, the numerical
values of these derivatives are used in the present paper for con-
ducting trajectory simulations.
Standard definitive maneuvers like turning tests at rudder angle
35 deg and 20 deg/20 deg zig-zag maneuvers are simulated using
the numerically obtained derivatives and are compared with those
obtained using the experimental values. The errors in the test
parameters of the turning tests are 0% for steady turning radius,
6.69% for transfer, 3.55% for advance, and 0.28% for tactical
diameter. The errors in overshoot angle and time to reach second
overshoot are 11.4% and 3.65%, respectively, while conducting
zig-zag maneuver for the same.
Twenty-three hydrodynamic derivatives have been estimated
by dynamic tests in pure yaw mode, yaw–roll coupled mode, and
combined sway–yaw mode of PMM from the present study. The
main challenge in this work was to successfully simulate the
coupled sway–yaw–roll motions, while capturing all the physics
of interactions accurately. Overall, it can be stated that the present
RANSE-based CFD approach is promising in estimation of the
hydrodynamic derivatives in the maneuvering equation of motion.
This in turn helps in the accurate prediction of the maneuvering
characteristics of surface ships.
Nomenclature
GMT ¼ transverse metacentric height (m)
Ix ¼ virtual mass moment of inertia about x axis (kg/m2)
Iz ¼ virtual mass moment of inertia about z axis (kg/m2)
K¼ roll moment (N  m)
Lm ¼ length of the ship model (m)
m¼ mass of the ship (kg)
Journal of Offshore Mechanics and Arctic Engineering
Downloaded From: http://offshoremechanics.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/pdfaccess.ashx?url=/data/journals/jmoeex/935201/ on 03/23/2017 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.or
N¼ yaw moment (N  m)
p¼ roll rate (rad s1)
r¼ yaw rate (rad s1)
t¼ thrust deduction factor
T¼ propeller thrust (N)
u¼ linear velocity in surge direction (m s1)
Um ¼ resultant velocity of ship model (m s1)
v¼ linear velocity in sway direction (m s1)
v_ ¼ linear acceleration in sway direction (m s2)
W¼ weight of water displaced by the ship (kg)
x¼ X-coordinate in ship-fixed coordinate system
, are estimated X¼ surge force (N)
xo ¼ X-coordinate in earth-fixed coordinate system
y¼ Y-coordinate in ship-fixed coordinate system
Y¼ sway force (N)
yo ¼ Y-coordinate in earth-fixed coordinate system
0
, has yoa ¼ sway motion amplitude for PMM (m)
z¼ Z-coordinate in ship-fixed coordinate system
zo ¼ Z-coordinate in earth-fixed coordinate system
2e ¼ phase difference between the oscillators of PMM (deg)
0 0
, estimated b¼ drift angle (deg)
d¼ rudder angle (deg)
r¼ displaced volume (m3)
q¼ density of water (kg m3)
u¼ roll angle (deg)
0 0
; Yvrr ; xo ¼ oscillation frequency for PMM (rad s1)
References
[1] IMO, 2002, “Explanatory Notes to the Standard for Ship Manoeuvrability,”
International Maritime Organization, London, Resolution MSC.137(76).
[2] Xing-Kaeding, Y., and Jensen, A. G., 2006, “Simulation of Ship Motions
[3] Carrica, P. M., Ismail, F., Hyman, M., Bhushan, S., and Stern, F., 2013, “Turn
and Zig-Zag Maneuvers of Surface Combatant Using URANS Approach With
Dynamic Overset Grids,” J. Mar. Sci. Technol., 18(2), pp. 166–181.
[4] Dubbioso, G., Durante, D., and Broglia, R., 2013, “Zig-Zag Maneuver Simulation
by CFD for Tanker Like Vessel,” 5th International Conference on Computational
Methods in Marine Engineering, Hamburg, Germany, May 29–31.
0
; Kv0 ; Kvvv
0
; Xuu 0
; [5] Ohmori, T., 1998, “Finite Volume Simulation of Flows About a Ship in Maneu-
0
vering Motion,” J. Mar. Sci. Technol., 3(2), pp. 82–93.
[6] Nonaka, K. H., Miyazaki, H., Nimura, T., Ueno, M., Hino, T., and Kodama, Y.,
2000, “Calculation of Hydrodynamic Forces Acting on a Ship in Maneuvering
Motion,” International Conference on Marine Simulation and Ship Maneuver-
ing (MARSIM), Orlando, FL, May 8–12.
[7] Simonsen, C. D., Otzen, J. F., Klimt, C., Larsen, N. L., and Stern, F., 2012,
“Maneuvering Predictions in the Early Design Phase Using CFD Generated PMM
Data,” 29th Symposium on Naval Hydrodynamics, Gothenburg, Sweden, Aug. 26–31.
[8] Cura-Hochbaum, A., 2011, “On the Numerical Prediction of the Ship’s
Manoeuvring Behaviour,” Ship Sci. Technol., 5(9), pp. 27–39.
[9] Stern, F., Agdrup, K., Kim, S. Y., Hochbaum, A. C., Rhee, K., Quadvleig, F.,
Perdon, P., Hino, T., Broglia, R., and Gorski, J., 2011, “Experience From
SIMMAN 2008—The First Workshop on Verification and Validation of Ship
Maneuvering Simulation Methods,” J. Ship Res., 55(2), pp. 135–147.
[10] Di Mascio, A., Dubbioso, G., Notaro, C., and Vivan, M., 2011, “Investigation of Twin-
Screw Naval Ships Maneuverability Behaviour,” J. Ship Res., 55(4), pp. 221–248.
[11] Sakamoto, N., Carrica, P. M., and Stern, F., 2012, “URANS Simulations of
Static and Dynamic Maneuvering for Surface Combatant: Part 1 Verification
and Validation for Forces, Moments and Hydrodynamic Derivatives,” J. Mar.
Sci. Technol., 17(4), pp. 422–445.
[12] Eda, H., 1980, “Maneuvering Performance of High Speed Ships With Effects of
Roll Motion,” Ocean Eng., 7(3), pp. 379–397.
[13] Son, K., and Nomoto, K., 1981, “On Coupled Motion of Steering and Rolling of
a High Speed Container Ship,” J. Soc. Nav. Arch. Jpn., 150, pp. 73–83.
[14] Yoon, H. K., Son, N. S., and Lee, C. M., 2004, “Estimation of Roll Related
Hydrodynamic Coefficients Through the Free Running Model Tests,” MTTS/
IEEE/TECHNO-OCEAN’04, Kobe, Japan, Nov. 9–12, pp. 1086–1092.
[15] Banerjee, N., Rao, C. S., Raju, M. S. P., and Hughes, P., 2006, “Determination
of Manoeuvrability of Ship Model Using Large Amplitude Horizontal Planar
Motion Mechanism,” International Conference in Marine Hydrodynamics
(MAHY-2006), SNAME, Visakhapatnam, India, Jan. 5–7.
[16] Kim, Y.-G., Kim, S.-Y., Kim, H.-T., Lee, S.-W., and Yu, B.-S., 2007, “Prediction
of the Maneuverability of a Large Container Ship With Twin Propellers and Twin
Rudders,” J. Mar. Sci. Technol., 12(3), pp.130–138.
[17] SNAME, 1952, “Nomenclature for Treating the Motion of a Submerged Body
Through a Fluid,” Society of Naval Architects and Marine Engineers, Tech.
Res. Bull., 1–5.
[18] Shenoi, R. R., Krishnankutty, P., Selvam, R. P., and Kulsreshtha, A., 2013,
“Prediction of Maneuvering Coefficients of a Container Ship by Numerically
Simulating HPMM Using RANSE Based Solver,” Third International Conference
on Ship Manoeuvring in Shallow and Confined Water, Jun. 3–5, Ghent, Belgium.
AUGUST 2016, Vol. 138 / 041801-13
 [19] Crane, C. L., Eda, H., and Landsburg, A., 1989, “Principles of Naval Architecture,”
Controllability, SNAME, Jersey City, NJ, pp. 200–258.
[20] Shenoi, R. R., Krishnankutty, P., and Selvam, R. P., 2015, “Sensitivity Study of
Hydrodynamic Derivative Variations on the Maneuverability Prediction of a
Container Ship,” ASME Paper No. OMAE2015-41490.
[21] Shenoi, R. R., Krishnankutty, P., and Selvam, R. P., 2014, “Study of Maneuver-
ability of Container Ship by Static and Dynamic Simulations Using RANSE
Based Solver,” Ships Offshore Struct. (published online).
041801-14 / Vol. 138, AUGUST 2016
Downloaded From: http://offshoremechanics.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/pdfaccess.ashx?url=/data/journals/jmoeex/935201/ on 03/23/2017 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.or
[22] ITCC, 2011, “Practical Guidelines for Ship CFD Application,” ITTC Recom-
mended Procedures and Guidelines, 7.5-03-02-03.
[23] Vantorre, M., 2000, “Captive Manoeuvring Tests With Ship Models: A Review of
Actual Practice Based on 22nd ITTC Maneuvering Committee Questionnaire,”
International Conference on Marine Simulation and Ship Manoeuvrability (MAR-
SIM 2000), Orlando, FL, May 8–12.
[24] Abkowitz, M. A., 1964, “Lectures on Ship Hydrodynamics—Steering and Maneuver-
ability,” Hydro-Og Aero-Dynamisk Laboratorium, Report No. Hy-5, Lyngby, Denmark.
Transactions of the ASME