A STUDY ON THE EFFECT OF A BOW PLATE ON AN

AMPHIBIOUS VEHICLE

Thesis Report

Bhogadi Rohith

5th year, Dual Degree

In Ocean Engineering and Naval Architecture

Under the guidance of

Prof. O P Sha

For the fulfillment of the requirements of the M.Tech Project

2017 - 2018

Department of Ocean Engineering and Naval Architecture

Indian Institute of Technology, Kharagpur

1
 Acknowledgement

I thank Prof. O P Sha, for his unrelenting support as my guide throughout the project. He
kept reiterating that the end goal of the entire project was to have a positive learning experience.
Out of genuine concern, he has many a time redirected me to the right path. In the same line I
would like to thank Mr. Subir, Mr Gautam and Mr Atanu, the laboratory supervisors, who were
diligent in their support to my project. Mr. Sarath, meticulously guided me throughout the
experiments in the towing tank. I thank all the lab assistants who worked ardently for the successful
execution of the project, especially Mr. Subhash. I would also like to thank my senior, Mr. Rahul
Pawar, for helping me with the CFD portion of the project. I am also grateful to Mr. T Shakkir for
his helping hand and valuable advices regarding the virtual model. Also a special mention to Prof.
Anirban, who helped me get started with Star CCM. I thank Mr. Ravindra Babu (Ph.D) and Mr.
Apurva (Ph.D) for their selfless help in guiding me use ANSYS ICEM (for meshing) and ANSYS
fluent (for simulation) respectively.

2
 CONTENTS

1. Abstract ---------------------------------------------------------- 04

2. Introduction & Theory ----------------------------------------- 05

3. Resistance test and extrapolation of the data ---------------------- 07

4. Stability Analysis of the Model ---------------------------------- 17

5. CFD Analysis of the Model ------------------------------------ 19

6. Seakeeping Tests --------------------------------------------------- 23

7. Future work ------------------------------------------------------- 34

8. References --------------------------------------------------------- 36

3
 Abstract

The amphibious vessel being a vehicle with block like form (commonly referred to as ‘bluff
body’), produces a bow wave which increases the wave resistance disproportionately. It’s form also
leads to the vessel swamping forward (bow trim accompanied with sinkage). The hydrodynamics behind
the sinking and trimming of the vessel is explained. A bow plate is thus introduced. The bow plate’s role
in nullifying this bow wave is also explained. A resistance test with model has been performed. The
resistance and the effect of the bow plate on the trim and resistance of the model is observed for various
configurations of the bow plate and initial trim of the vessel.
On obtaining the resistance curve of the model, the full-scale resistance is usually found out by
means of extrapolation. The amphibious vehicle being a blunt body poses certain challenges in the
extrapolation of the resistance such as the determination of the form factor. A detailed study into the
extrapolation process was done.
The day to day functioning is expected to have personnel moving within the vehicle, even in the
vertical direction. This necessitates various stability tests to be carried out. Stability test for different
vertical centers of gravity are thus carried out for the design draft and displacement.
With the advent of CFD, industries were better able to check the precision of the model tests.
Here the CFD analysis for a simplified version of the model has been made for the sake of comparison
with the tests carried out in the towing tank. A juxtaposition of the results reveals the authenticity of our
experiment.
Finally, a set of seakeeping tests (to find the Heave and Pitch RAO) were carried out. The weight
distribution with which the experiments had to be carried out were pre-determined by means of an
inclining experiment. When the parameters such as radius of gyration and center of gravity of the vessel
approached the targeted values, the weights were secured in their respective positions and the
peremptory configuration was used for determining the response of the vessel in an environmental
condition of sea state -2.

4
 1. INTRODUCTION AND THEORY

For slender bodies, the viscous pressure resistance caused due to the pressure deficiency is small
relative to the skin friction. This occurs as the pressure, due to turbulent diffusion does not quite reach the
stagnation pressure. But, bluff bodies on the other hand have separation as the dominant flow
phenomenon. This occurs at the front corners as the rounding radius is of a much smaller order. It can
even occur at the rear ends in the cases where the body is long enough for the flow to become reattached
between bow and stern. These two drags are referred to as ‘fore body pressure drag’ and ‘base drag’. The
fore pressure drag is more significant of the two. The frictional resistance of a blunt body is negligible if
the body is short. The whole phenomenon can be better understood using Fig.1
Amphibious vehicles and other blunt shaped floating vehicles are thus encountered with the problem
of a large bow wave forming at higher speeds. The concomitant high resistance leads to bow submergence
and swamping.

Fig. 1

5
 The development of a new anti-trim device is provided here. To reduce the trim by the bow, wave
cancellation of the bow wave is created by a vertical plate set ahead of the actual bow. The position of the
bow plate is set so that the wave trough from the vertical plate cancels the bow wave. This results in
reduction in the bow wave size, the bow down movement, reduced trim by bow and ultimately reduced
resistance. In the experiment conducted on a life boat model (Latorre, 2004), the model showed that the
wave cancellation would occur when the bow plate width b and the model’s beam were equal. The location
x of the plate ahead of the bow was shown to be best at x/L ~ 0.08. Using these hints, a bow plate is
introduced in our model. The experiment is conducted for two different configurations of the bow plate,
one making an angle of 25o with the horizontal base line and the other making an angle of 35o. The figure
below shows the top view of the vehicle fitted with the vertical bow plate.

Fig. 2

It was studied by Latorre (Latorre, 2004) that when jack up platforms, barges and lift boat cranes,
all having a blunt bow, small L/B and B/T ratios move at a moderate speed, they produce a large bow
wave that sets up a negative (downward) pressure at the bow. As these vessels generally have a small L/B,
their longitudinal water plane moment of inertia Iyy and their moment to trim 1 cm (MCT) are small. The
consequence of this low MCT is that the vehicle trims by the bow at moderate speeds.

MCT α (Eqn. 1)

6
 The role of the bow plate in nullifying the bow wave and reducing the swamping is understood
with reference to the research paper – “Wu-Ting Tsai, Dick K. P. Yue:” “Interactions between a free
surface and a vortex sheet shed in the wake of a surface-piercing plate”, MIT, 1993. There in, the
mechanism of the bow plate is explained. A surface piercing plate would produce a free surface wave
which is to counteract a vortex sheet produced by the struts of the fore part of the vessel. The same is
demonstrated in the figure below showing the evolution of the free surface and vortex sheet in the wake
of a vertically moving plate (Tsai and Yue 1993).

Fig. 3

There are additional complexities due to free surface related effects of the displacement flow and
of secondary wave making. They occur as sinkage, trim and resistance in a considerable magnitude. There
is only a vague study in the area of resistance of blunt bodies owing to the fact that most of the water
borne vessels are more or less streamlined. Therefore, there is little systematic study on this matter.

2. RESISTANCE TEST AND EXTRAPOLATION OF DATA

PROBLEM FORMULATION

A model has been made of Perspex resembling the original vessel. It is scaled by a factor of 4.5

The amphibious vessel model has the following dimensions -

Length 1.6 m
Breadth 0.8 m
Weight 66.34 kg
Draft 1.075 m

7
 Experiments were conducted in a towing tank of length 150 m, width of 4 m and water depth of
1.8 m at a temperature of 31.4 0C. The carriage can reach speeds upto 3.5 m/s, albeit the maximum in
these experiments will only be upto 1.3 m/s.
The model of the battle vessel is to be tested for its resistance along with its trim and heave characteristics.
The carriage is fitted with a dynamometer (Kemp & Remmer, model R-47). The dynamometer constitutes
of 3 parts –
i) The trim transducer
ii) The heave transducer
iii) The load cell

As the objective of the experiments is to see the effect of the trim plate on the amphibious vessel,
experiments are conducted in both cases, with and without the trim plate.
The breadth of the bow plate is same as that of the amphibious vessel for wave cancellation ( Lattore ,
2004).
The stabilized angle of trim is to be found using an inclinometer. This device shows how the trim
varies with time. Further a video camera is suspended from the front portion of the carriage to catch
glimpses of the amphibious vessel in action.

ANALYSIS METHODOLOGY

Towing tank tests

The following are the experiments carried out in the towing tank, for a displacement of 230.453 kg.
(scaling down 21 tonnes). As the model only weighs 66.34 kg, the remaining weight is achieved by
using ballast weights. The draft of the vessel is kept to 1.075 m, leaving a free board of just 0.275 m.
The amphibious vessel is tested for the following configurations -
i) Without the bow plate
a. For initial stern angle of +1.2o
b. For initial bow angle of -1.2o

ii) With the bow plate at an angle of 25o

a. For initial stern angle of +1.2o
b. For initial bow angle of -1.2o

iii) With the bow plate at an angle of 35o

a. For initial stern angle of +1.2o
b. For initial bow angle of -1.2o

After the resistance curves for the model is found the resistance is extrapolated for
the full scale model. This is done by the using the conventional extrapolation
method.

8
 CT  f  Rn , Fn  (Eqn. 2)

which, following Froude, can be written as:

CT  CV ( Rn )  CW ( Fn ) (Eqn. 3)

where:
1
CV  RV 2
 SV 2 is the viscous resistance coefficient, assumed to be a function of Reynolds
number only for a given geometry.

CW  RW 1
2
 SV 2 is the wave resistance coefficient, assumed to be a function of Froude
number only for a given geometry.

Therefore, if geometrically similar ships (“geo-sims”) move at speeds such that their Froude
numbers are equal, their wave resistance coefficients will also be equal. Noting that in geometrically
similar ships, the wetted surface S is proportional to the square of the length L and the displacement
volume  is proportional to the cube of the length,

V
Fn  constant implies  constant, (Eqn. 4)
L

and

RW
CW  constant implies  constant since, with k1, k2, k3, k4 and k5 as constants,


RW RW RW RW RW
1
 1
 1
 1
 1
 constant. (Eqn. 5)
2
 SV 2 2
 k1L2 k2 L 2
 k3 L3 2
 k4  k
2 5

Thus, another expression of the Froude law is that for geometrically similar ships, the wave resistance
coefficient is constant if the Froude number is constant. The Froude law may be used for the determination
of the resistance of a ship from the measured resistance of its geometrically similar model provided that a
method can be found to determine the viscous resistances of the model and the ship:

- The model total resistance RTM is measured at a speed VM.

- The model viscous resistance RVM at the speed VM is calculated by some independent means.

9
 - The model wave resistance at the speed VM is obtained : RWM  RTM  RVM . (Eqn. 6)

- The ship wave resistance at the corresponding speed is obtained using the Froude law:

LS S
VS  VM  RWS  RWM  . (Eqn. 7)
LM M

- The ship viscous resistance RVS at the speed VS is calculated.

- The total resistance of the ship at the speed VS is obtained:

RTS  RVS  RWS . (Eqn. 8)

This procedure may also be expressed in terms of the resistance coefficients:

CTS  CTM  CVM  CVS FnS  FnM (Eqn. 9)

The procedure of calculating the resistance of the ship from the resistance of the model requires a method
for calculating viscous resistance.

Based on the concept of dimensional analysis, modern methods for estimating the frictional
resistance use formulas of the type:

C F  f  Rn  (Eqn. 10)

At equal Reynolds numbers the ratio of the frictional resistance coefficient of a three-dimensional body
such as a ship to the frictional resistance coefficient of a plane surface of a two-dimensional surface of
infinite aspect ratio is a constant that depends on the form of the body but is independent of the Reynolds
number. This ratio is called the form factor:

CF  ship 
r  1 k  both at the same Rn . (Eqn. 11)
CF 0

2
CF  0.075  log10 Rn  2  . (Eqn. 12)

Then we apply

CTS  CTM  CVM  CVS (Eqn. 13)

10
 RESULTS

The result of the experiment for the different configurations is plotted below. The abscissa represents
the speed of the model in all the cases. The ordinate represents resistance, trim and heave characteristics,
sequentially going down, for both initial trim conditions.

The following tables show the results for the tests carried out in the towing tank for a model
displacement of 230.453 kg.

Sign Convention –
 positive trim indicates stern trim.
 positive heave is taken in the downward direction.

Experiment on amphibious vessel – without the bow plate

For initial trim = -1.2o

Run Speed (m/s) Resistance (N) Heave (cm) Trim (in deg)
1 0.521 13.677 -0.186 -1.27
2 0.663 21.868 0.197 -1.55
3 0.814 34.76 0.814 -1.58
4 1.025 57.073 0.729 -2
5 1.228 87.539 1.606 -2.6
Table 1

For initial trim = +1.2o

Run Speed (m/s) Resistance (N) Heave (cm) Trim (in deg)
6 0.531 14.076 -0.442 1.19
7 0.675 22.94 -0.149 1.18
8 0.816 34.03 0.036 1.094
9 1.016 56.44 0.538 1.016
10 1.201 78.264 1.483 0.711
Table 2

11
Experiment on amphibious vessel – with the bow plate at an angle 25o

For initial trim = +1.2o

Run Speed (m/s) Resistance (N) Heave (cm) trim (in deg)
1 0.767 27.441 0.384 -1.29
2 0.933 44.038 0.658 -1.35
3 0.998 52.172 0.786 -1.37
4 1.188 73.746 1.301 -1.39
Table 3

For initial trim = -1.2o

Run Speed (m/s) Resistance (N) Heave (cm) Trim (in deg)
5 0.777 29.767 0.468 0.99
6 0.937 44.775 0.659 0.97
7 1.047 56.824 0.864 0.93
8 1.187 75.051 1.275 0.9
Table 4

Experiment on amphibious vessel – with the bow plate at an angle 35o

For initial trim = +1.2o

Run Speed (m/s) Resistance (N) Heave (cm) trim (in deg)
9 0.771 29.606 0.383 -1.25
10 0.944 44.147 0.636 -1.29
11 1.051 57.948 0.9 -1.25
12 1.19 75.191 1.331 -1.17
Table 5

For initial trim = -1.2o

Run Speed (m/s) Resistance (N) Heave (cm) trim (in deg)
13 0.765 28.093 0.442 1.04
14 0.929 43.061 0.58 0.98
15 1.055 58.194 0.987 0.9
16 1.188 75.361 1.318 1
Table 6

12
 These results have been plotted and resistance has been extrapolated as mentioned in ‘Analysis
Methodology’ for k=0. Though this will give rise to an error, it is justified by the fact that the separation
drag is predominant in this vehicle as compared to the viscous component. However, a comparative
analysis for 2 different values of k has been done in the subsequent section.

RESISTANCE CHARACTERISTICS

Model Resistance curve for bow trim -1.2 deg

80

70

60
Resistance (N)

50 resistance without plate

resistance with plate 25
40 resistance with plate 35

30

20
0.7 0.8 0.9 1 1.1
Speed (m/s)

Fig. 4

Here plate 25 indicates the configuration of the vessel wherein the angle of the bow plate is 25o with
respect to the plane ground.
Similarly, plate 35 indicates the configuration of the vessel wherein the angle of the bow plate is 25o
with respect to the plane ground.

13
 Full scale Resistance curve for bow trim -1.2 deg
8000

7000

6000
Resistance ( in N)

5000 resistance without plate

resistance with plate 25

4000 resistance with plate 35

3000

2000
1.5 1.7 1.9 2.1 2.3 2.5 2.7
Speed ( in m/s)

Fig. 5

The effect of the bow plate can be observed in the plot above. As the speed increases the resistance shoots
up in the case where the bow plate is absent. The plots can now be approximated using the least square
method to find a trend line.

The percentage decrease in resistance due to bow plate at angle 25o = 13.04%
The percentage decrease in resistance due to bow plate at angle 35o =12.03%

Though it is clear that bow plate angle 35o should have a further reduction in the resistance as
compared to bow plate angle 25o, the error is due to the approximation of the non – linear curve with a
linear regression.

14
 Model Resistance curve for aft trim + 1.2 deg
80

70

60
Resistance (N)

50 resistance without plate

resistance with plate 25

40 resistance with plate 35

30

20
0.7 0.75 0.8 0.85 0.9 0.95 1 1.05 1.1
Speed (m/s)

Fig. 6 & Fig. 7

Full scale resistance curve for aft trim + 1.2 deg

9000

8000

7000

6000
Resistance ( in N)

5000
Resitance without plate
4000
Resistance with plate 25
3000 Resistance with plate 35

2000

1000

0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3
Speed ( in m/s)

15
The percentage decrease in resistance due to bow plate at angle 25o = 11.82%
The percentage decrease in resistance due to bow plate at angle 35o = 12.24%

Role of form factor in the extrapolation process -

As mentioned in the ‘analysis methodology’, the form factor (k) is here considered to be zero,
though that is not the factual value.
However, if the value of ‘k’ is considered then ultimately the estimated full-scale resistance will
decrease. This is shown by the adjacent plot for the configuration without the bow-plate. That means we
have slightly over-estimated the final resistance, which is safer than under estimating it!!

Comparison of Full Scale Resistance for different

Form Factors
8000

7000

6000
Total Resistance ( in N)

5000

4000
For k =0
3000 For k=1
2000

1000

0
1 1.5 2 2.5 3
Speed ( in m/s)

Fig. 8

16
 3. Stability Analysis of the Model

Any water vessel is sure to have its stability checked before actually being put in water. The
amphibious vehicle in discussion right now is expected to have high transversal stability owing to
its high B/T ratio. The virtual model of the amphibious vehicle which was subjected to the
stability test is displayed below.

Fig. 9

The load case of the vessel requires the total displacement, longitudinal arm and vertical arm to
be provided. Then the vessel’s heel is varied from an angles ranging from 0o to 65o.

The stability analysis for two particular configurations of the vessel were required to be carried
out. The cases are presented below –

VCG ( m)
Mass (kg) X Y Z
case 1 23517 3.584 0.0163 1.122
case 2 20376 3.4752 0.0348 1.0801

Table 7
The figures below, as expected show that the GZ gradually decreases as the value of VCG
increases for a particular displacement.

17
 Variation of GZ for different positions of VCG in case 1
VCG = 1.022 m VCG = 1.072 m VCG = 1.122 m VCG = 1.172 m VCG = 1.222 m

0.3

0.25

0.2

0.15
GZ ( in m)

0.1

0.05

0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60

-0.05
Heel (in deg)

Fig. 10

Variation of GZ for different positions of VCG in case 2

VCG = 1.08 m VCG = 1.03 m VCG = 0.98 m VCG = 1.13 m VCG = 1.18 m

0.4

0.35

0.3

0.25

0.2
GZ ( in m)

0.15

0.1

0.05

0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
-0.05

-0.1
Heel ( in deg)

Fig. 11

18
 4. CFD Analysis

The results of the towing tank resistance test are to be verified via simulation. The model being a
tracked body has a complicated geometry below the waterline, especially the wheels. For this a
simplified version of the amphibious vehicle is modelled using ‘Creo Parametric’ as shown in the figure
below. The wheels have been omitted and the edges are not chauffeured to make the meshing of the
model more user friendly. The error is not expected to be too pronounced as the original archetype is
also more or less a bluff body. However, all the dimensions are in proportion to the prototype.

Fig. 12
This has been systematically meshed in ANSYS ICEM using hexagonal meshing with bi-
geometric distribution through-out and hyperbolic distribution near the free surface.

Fig. 13

19
 The mesh has been imported to ANSYS Fluent for simulation. The model has been set
for the multiphase condition choosing the primary phase as air and the secondary phase as water.
The k-omega model is used as the turbulence model. The values of ‘k’ and ‘omega’ are
calibrated for each velocity.

Fig. 14

The amphibious vehicle is set for a freeboard of 0.1 m (model scale), the primary phase is
air and the secondary phase is water. The red and blue colors indicate the volume fraction
distribution of air and water.
The model is now simulated for the same velocities as in the towing tank experiment.
With a time step of 0.01 seconds for 300 time steps. The whole simulation is set for 300
iterations, but the solution converges well before the completion of the entire epoch.

20
 The vehicle is seen to have eddies forming in the rear and forward parts. This can be observed in
the pressure distribution (as depicted by the color bar on the left) of the vehicle as depicted below.

Fig. 15

The velocity distribution (as depicted by the color bar on the left) further corroborates the
presence of eddies in the rear and fore of the vehicle.

Fig. 16

21
The results of the simulation are as follows:

Table 8

The resistance from the simulation compares to the experiment as follows –

Comparison for model scale b/w experiment and CFD

Model Experiment CFD in Fluent

120.00

100.00

80.00
Resistance (N)

60.00

40.00

20.00

0.00
0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1 1.1 1.2 1.3
Speed (m/s)

Fig. 17

22
 ANSYS Fluent gives results in terms of the pressure and viscous component of the
resistance. The pressure component can be seen to be clearly greater than the viscous component,
as expected. This also justifies our choosing to err by taking k =0.
The plot in fig.15 indicates that the deviation from the experimental data is higher at
greater speeds. This can also be understood from the simplified model we have used for
simulation.

5. SEAKEEPING TESTS

 Requirement of the VCG, K_moment.

 Formulation.
 Experiment conducted to find weight distribution.
 Experiment in the wave maker.
 Analysis of the results.

Problem Formulation:

The vessel is to be tested for a displacement of 23.5 tonnes

The positional requirements of the full scale vessel are
Vertical Centre of Gravity = 1090.5 mm
Pitch Radius of Gyration = 2066.5 mm

Thus, for the model, the requirements are scaled down (ƛ = 4.5)
Δmodel = 258 kg
VCG = 242.33 mm
Kpitch = 459.22 mm

The inclining test is performed with an objective of getting the weight distribution required for
carrying out the seakeeping tests. As the final displacement, VCG & Kpitch are already

23
 mentioned, we now try to adjust the weights inside the model to get those values. Thus, we get
the weight distribution with which we can carry out the seakeeping tests. The formulation for
doing these experiments is mentioned below.

Analysis Methodology –

An inclining test on the swing by moving ballast weight from one end to the other end of the swing  xBallast 
is done. The model ship is not kept on the swing at this time. Measure of the inclining angle of the swing
is taken. The center of gravity of the swing + ballast weight is calculated as shown below.

MassBallast * xBallast
OGSwing+Ballast  (Eqn. 14)
 MassSwing  MassBallast  * Sin 1 
Then an oscillation test of the swing by keeping the ballast weight at the ends of the swing is done. The
model ship is not kept on the swing at this time. Measure the time period of oscillation of the swing is
taken. The moment of inertia of the swing + ballast weight is calculated as shown below.

ISwing+Ballast
TSwing+Ballast  2 (Eqn. 15)
 Mass Swing  MassBallast  OGSwing+Ballast g

ISwing+Ballast 
T 2
Swing+Ballast  *  Mass Swing  MassBallast  OGSwing+Ballast g
(Eqn. 16)
4 2

g : Acceleration due to gravity

An inclining test on the swing by moving ballast weight from one end of the swing to the other end of the
swing  xBallast  is done. The model ship is kept on the swing at this time. Measure of the inclining angle
of the swing is taken. The center of gravity of the swing + ballast + model is calculated as shown below.

MassBallast * xBallast
OGSwing+Ballast+Model  (Eqn. 17)
 MassSwing  MassBallast  MassModel  * Sin  2 
An estimate OGModel as shown below.

OGModel 
 Mass Swing  MassBallast  MassModel  OGSwing+Ballast+Model   MassSwing  MassBallast  OGSwing+Ballast
 MassModel 
(Eqn. 18)

24
An oscillation test of the swing by keeping the ballast weight at the ends of the swing is done. The model
ship is kept on the swing at this time. Measure of the time period of oscillation of the swing is taken. The
moment of inertia of the swing + ballast weight + model is calculated as shown below.

ISwing+Ballast+Model
TSwing+Ballast+Model  2 (Eqn. 19)
 Mass Swing  MassBallast  MassModel  OGSwing+Ballast+Model g

I Swing  Ballast  Model 

T 2
Swing  Ballast  Model  *  Mass Swing  MassBallast  MassModel  OGSwing  Ballast  Model g
(Eqn. 20)
4 2

The moment of inertia of the model ship about the pitch axis passing through its center of gravity is
estimated as shown below.
2
I Swing  Ballast  Model  I Swing  Ballast  MassM od el * OGmod el  I Model (Eqn. 21)

I Model  I Swing  Ballast  Model   I Swing  Ballast  MassM od el * OGmod

2
el  (Eqn. 22)

25
Experimental Set up and Precautions –

In course of performing this experiment, a lot of practical issues were dealt with –

i) As the experiment is based on the deflection of the swing, the bearings of the swing were
carefully lubricated.
ii) There were no fans running in the vicinity of the experiment as the swing would further
deflect.
iii) The swing was made horizontal by using a ‘spirit level’ and adjusting the screws of the swing
accordingly.

Fig. 18

iv) To make sure that the reading is exactly 00 at the start of the experiment, a thin plate
weighing 2.8 kg was put at one of the corners of the swing and was accounted for throughout
the experiment.

26
v) The amphibious vehicle being made of a sensitive material (Perspex), cannot be subjected to
loading as high as 260 kg-wt as the track wheel would fall apart. For this it was important to

Fig. 19

have some support on top of which the model could be placed and fully loaded. An orange
barge (120cm x 40cm x 20cm) served this purpose. It’s mass and elevated CG were
accounted for in this experiment.

vi) The positions of the weights were continuously varied so as to achieve the required VCG &
K pitch. Having achieved so, the positions were carefully marked with a marker.

27
 Fig. 20

vii) As a lot of weights had to be positioned on the deck of the vessel; they were tightly secured
by means of a thin rubber membrane.

Fig. 21

viii) The weight distribution had to take into consideration the dynamometer that would later on
be fitted during the seakeeping tests. Thus, a mass of 3 kg is put in that reserved space.

28
 Fig. 22

Mass swing = 190.24 kg (170.5 kg swing + 2.8 kg plate for correction + 8.94 kg inverted barge)
Mass model = 258.34 kg
Mass ballast = 8 kg

Results

The following are the results for each of the progressive experiments conducted.

CG swing = 72.32 cm (from the pivot)

CG barge = 84.97 cm (from the pivot)
CG model hull = 7.92 cm (from the keel)
CG model fully loaded = 23.30 cm (from the keel)
K pitch = 41.975 cm (with a natural time period of 2.262 seconds)

29
 Thus, the error can be calculated with respect to the required values of VCG and K pitch

Error in VCG = 3.83 %

Error in K pitch = 8.59 %

Having thus obtained the weight distribution in the vehicle, the seakeeping tests are carried out.

Seakeeping test in the towing tank –

The model is carefully placed in the towing tank and is then gradually loaded in the positions
which have been previously marked. The model is then carefully dragged till it’s under the towing
carriage and is then fitted with the dynamometer. Thus, the heave and pitch response of the vessel for
various frequencies can be measured.

Fig. 23

30
The wave-maker used for the experiment is of the brand DHI (single peddle, wave back). It can
produce waves whose time period varies from 0.9 sec to 4 sec. However, the height of the wave
can be varied based on factors like water depth.

Analysis Methodology:

During each run (a set of H, T), the calibrated heave response and pitch response is noted with
the time series.
The vessel is to be tested for an environment corresponding to sea-state 2. Thus, the significant
wave height is 0.3 m (30 cm).
The scaled wave height for the model vessel would thus come down to 0.067 m. The wave-
maker thus produces a wave of amplitude of 0.034 m.

Results –

Heave Response -

The example of a heave response for a particular run is displayed below, showing the nature of
heave of the vessel when subjected to regular wave of period 1.75 sec. (for example)

Heave Response for wave period of 1.75 sec

40
30
20
10
Heave (cm)

0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
-10
-20
-30
-40
-50
Time series (sec)

Fig. 24

Sign Convention: positive heave – downwards, negative heave – upwards.

31
The results for the heave response for the other wave periods were as follows –

Table 9

Here, ƞr represents the response amplitude & ƞo represents the incident wave amplitude.

Heave Response Sea State 2

14.00
Heave RAO (ƞr/ƞo) ------->

12.00

10.00

8.00

6.00

4.00

2.00

0.00
0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 6.00 7.00 8.00
ω (rad/sec ) -------->

Fig. 25

It can be observed that in the region till about 3 rad/sec, the vessel simply rides the waves.
And beyond 5 rad/sec, the vessel isn’t much effected by the high frequency waves.

32
Pitch Response –

Similarly, the pitch response for a particular run is displayed below, showing the nature of heave
of the vessel when subjected to regular wave of period 1.75 sec. (for example)

Pitch Response for wave period of 1.75 sec

12

10

6
Ɵ(rad)

0
24:25.9 24:34.6 24:43.2 24:51.8 25:00.5 25:09.1 25:17.8 25:26.4 25:35.0
-2
Time (sec)

Fig. 26

Here it can be noticed that the vessel had an initial trim of 4 rad. in the forward direction.

The results for the pitch response for the other wave periods were as follows –

Time period ω (rad/sec) Ɵ/Ak

0.90 6.98 2.04
1.50 4.19 107.06
1.75 3.59 138.68
2.00 3.14 114.73
2.50 2.51 94.03

Table 10

33
Note - the quantity Ɵ/(Ak) has a special significance as it indicates the amount by which the
vessel has pitched with respect to the slope of the wave.

Pitch response for Sea state 2

160.00
140.00
Ɵ/Ak ---------------->

120.00
100.00
80.00
60.00
40.00
20.00
0.00
0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 6.00 7.00 8.00
ω (rad/sec) ---------->

Fig. 27

It can be observed that in the region till about 3 rad/sec, the vessel simply rides the waves.
And beyond 5 rad/sec, the vessel isn’t much effected by the high frequency waves.

6. FUTURE WORK

Fig. 28

WATER JET PROPULSION

34
To choose the propulsion system of this amphibious vessel is an important part of the thesis. There are
vessels which use ‘track propulsion’, but this would only allow for very low speeds. Screw propellers
haves the major disadvantage of have a high clearance requisite, unlike a water jet inlet.

Apart from that, water jets have high maneuverability at low speeds, good operating ability in shallow
waters and high thrust at low speeds to aid in maneuverability and exiting water. These advantages
combined to increase the demand for water jet propulsion systems in a variety of marine and amphibious
vehicles.
The resistance curve of the model is now determined, a waterjet propulsion has to be designed to
provide half the required thrust, as the propulsion system is a twin system.

P prop = (Eqn. 23)

ƞ ƞ

Where,
power required per propeller = P prop
efficiency of the pump = ƞ
efficiency of installation = ƞ

Thus, the objectives of the future work of would be –

 Determining the exact location for the inlets of the waterjet propulsion.
 Determining the performance of the waterjet selected through a self-propulsion test using CFD.

Fig. 29

35
 Also, in the future, the projectile motion of the vessel during ‘water entry’ is to be investigated.

Fig. 30

7. REFERENCES

1. Latorre.R , Arana.J , “Reduction of Amphibious Vehicle Resistance and Bow Swamping by Fitting a
Wave Cancellation Bow Plate”, American Society of Naval Engineers,2010.
2. Nowacki.H , Moses.J.L, Snyder E.D, Young B.J, “Experiments on the resistance of a family of box like
hull forms for amphibious vehicles”, Department of Naval Architecture and Marine Engineering, The
University Of Michigan, 1968.
3. Allison, J.L., “Marine Waterjet Propulsion”, SNAME Annual meeting, New York, 1993.
4. Ghadimi, Parviz, Roya Shademani, and Mahdi Yousefi Fard. "Performance Assessment of the Waterjet
Propulsion System through a Combined Analytical and Numerical Approach." International Journal of
Physics 1, no. 2 (2013): 22-27.
5. Wu-Ting Tsai, Dick K. P. Yue “Interactions between a free surface and a vortex sheet shed in the wake
of a surface-piercing plate” MIT, 1993.
6. Michaá Kotowski, Wiesáaw Barnat, “Experimental and numerical buoyancy analysis of tracked military
vehicle”, Military University of Technology, 2012.
7. H.H.Chun et. Al, “Self-Propulsion Test and Analysis of an Amphibious Tracked
Vehicle with Waterjet”, Pusan National University, Korea.

36