Sie sind auf Seite 1von 11

MARNET CFD Workshop, Haslar 20/21-03-2003

Use of CFD methods for hullform optimisation in a model basin


Jochen Marzi HSVA, Bramfelder Str 164, D 22305 Hamburg, marzi@hsva.de Introduction Improving a hullform in terms of its resistance and power consumption has always been a primary task for all model basins since William Froude set up his first facility. Primarily based on model testing, this activity has been pursued in the basins for almost 100 years. CFD methods have, since the 1980ies say, accompanied the experimental efforts to arrive at an improved / optimised hullform, given the set of constraints applied to the particular design. This approach was and still widely is limited by and thus clearly a function of the particular skills and expertise available in this numerical optimisation exercise. The methods typically applied in the optimisation exercise have evolved over the years. Starting with linear potential theory in the early 80ies, today mostly non-linear potential flow methods for free surface problems and RANSE codes for wake analysis are applied on a regular basis for consultancy projects. A normal or almost traditional way of performing optimisations of hullforms would be a computation for an initial or parent hullform, the analysis of the results and the suggestion of modifications to the geometry. All this will be based on the experience of the personnel involved in the design optimisation process. A typical example for this approach is shown in Fig. 1, an extract of several alternatives that have been analysed during the design of the hull for a fast cruise liner. Of course, a model basin will always make sure that the best expertise is available for this exercise and the best possible solution can be found to satisfy customer requirements. On the other hand, the maritime market is changing rapidly over time. This held for the past and is equally or even more right in the present. Requirements for new ships often lead to designs which expand the limits of experience, either in terms of speed requirements, unconventional hullforms or excessively large designs with rather unusual hullform parameters such as block- or waterplane coefficients. In this cases, new approaches to find improved hullforms are necessary. Fortunately, the increase in affordable computer speed nowadays allows to adapt real, mathematical optimisation strategies and combine them with CFD methods to achieve reasonable optimisation systems for the improvement of ship hullforms. Although the range of flow codes to be applied in such optimisation is realistically limited to panel codes complete RANSE computations would certainly be out of proportion the novel concept of hullform optimisation in an automated scheme including form modification, computation and optimisation is widely regarded as a big step forward in the general applicability of CFD. Consequently, an affordable automatic optimisation presently is limited to the wave making part of a ship s resistance. The approach shown in the following thus concentrates on the application of a panel code for wave resistance prediction. The question of validity of the results obtained in this exercise however plays an important role. For the particular case of the optimisation of a fast RoPAX ferry we have initiated a thorough validation campaign. Of course it would be favourable to make available a large range of model test data for this exercise. For practical reasons however this is prohibitive. Thus we have opted for a check of test cases or probes using a free surface RANSE code. A limited number of model tests for the initial and the final version of the hull are performed. This will yield resistance data as well as wave cut data and a detailed analysis of the flow at the hull. The model tests have not been fully accomplished at the time of preparation of the present paper. These will be published later in a separate paper.

MARNET CFD Workshop, Haslar 20/21-03-2003

Hullform Modelling The modelling of hullforms is a crucial issue for any model basin. The situation of a towing tank is apparently different from e.g. a shipyard. Running limited projects, i.e. basically the hydrodynamic analysis of a new hull, for a much larger number of customers leads to a high number of projects and associated hullforms being processed per year. This requirement calls for simple, accurate and fast solutions for geometry modelling where inputs arrive from a wide number of totally different sources. This cover 3-d surface models, either as usable CAD models or exchange formats such as IGES, 2-d lines data down to traditional drawings only. Any model basin must be prepared to deal with such inputs. HSVA have chosen NAPA as a geometry package already several years ago. This is felt to be adequate and versatile enough to cater for almost any requirements from our customers sides. An advantage is certainly the fact that an increasing number of shipyards are using NAPA too and the exchange of geometry data can be facilitated by transferring complete models. In any case a proper geometry description can be made in a few hours only. In the process of hullform optimisations however, tools are sought which allow for automated modification of hullforms, preferably based on easy to control parameters. There are certainly such tools around. The FANTASTIC project (see Maisonneuve et. al.) has demonstrated the use of parametric hullform modelling based on various tools such as FRIENDSHIP or parametric NAPA integrated into an automatic optimisation environment. A major effort however is required to arrive at a parametric model when starting from an existing, non-parametric hullform. Constraints for the modification of hull lines For a model basin an important issue in the process of hullform optimisations are external constraints imposed by the customer. These may reflect cost aspects for the building of the vessel or result from functional considerations imposed by internal structures or the famous anchor bulb collision problem. Whatever it may be, these constraints will limit the range of possible modifications to a given hullform to only few possible options. Thus in a hullform optimisation process we would always favour a tool allowing to pick a certain area of the hull where changes can be performed without affecting the rest of the geometry. This set of c onstraints can certainly be met using a parametric model of the hullform initially. However, this will often not be available from the beginning of a new project or it will be very laborious to generate. Consequently HSVA has decided to use an external hullform modification during the phase of initial form optimisation before final towing tank testing. As this phase is usually characterised by the application of panel methods for the analysis of the hull, it suggests itself to use a simple model for shape modification. Such a model would be the panel surface generated for the computations. Since the introduction of the npn tool into NAPA, this is a frequently applied panel mesh generator. It allows for fast and accurate generation of panel models even on highly complex surfaces which might even include major appendices. Typical panel mesh sizes of 1500 2000 (surface) panels on the hull capture even small details of the local shape and are regarded sufficiently accurate to perform shape variations.

MARNET CFD Workshop, Haslar 20/21-03-2003

Hullform Modification HSVA have developed a new tool panipul to perform hullform modifications based on the geometric information included in the panel model for a ship. This programme allows to apply different sets of second order continuous algebraic functions to modify either the entire hull or, which is more likely, a clearly defined area e.g. at the bulb, the forward shoulder etc. Presently 22 different modification functions have been implemented. These allow to - change global parameters like B/T - shifting forward and aft shoulders - modify the character of frames (V <-> U type) - modify the bulb (length, thickness, rise) The general concept for the input generation is kept simple: After specifying a modification function from a list, limits for the application and max. shift vectors have to be supplied. This holds for almost all of the functions implemented so far. <panipul> produces a new geometry based on the modifications specified, checks hydrostatic data and generates a new output file for computations. Two versions of the p rogramme exist: - an interactive version, supplied with a simple user interface which allows to instantly check the resulting change in shape after applying a modification function - a batch version to be used in an automatic optimisation process after the range of parameters to be applied for certain functions has been determined using the interactive version We do not expect that the present implementation range will cover the ground entirely. However, the modular structure will allow to extend the functionality of the programme easily on demand. So far a number of test cases have been run in order to check the functionality of the programme. This entail container ships, ferries, cruise liners as well as blunt shapes such as tankers and bulk carriers. All examples showed promising results. For an old container ship hull Sydney Express, used as a test case, significant improvements of abt. 8% reduction in wave resistance could be o btained using panipuls shape modification functions on the bulbous bow. Even for a modern tanker project we were able to attain reductions, though expectedly smaller than in the previous case. An example of the application of the shape modification is shown in Fig. 1 in the appendix. This shows the modification of the bulbous bow for the Hamburg Test Case, a small size (16000 TEU) container ship. At the end of the optimisation scheme there is always a need to transfer the new hullform into the CAD system for further processing. It is obvious that at this point the use of an integrated approach, i.e. utilising a parametric (CAD-)model already in the optimisation shows some advantages. However, panipul provides an output for a set of definition lines (these can be sections, waterlines or buttocks) directly in a NAPA format. These can be imported at a click of a button, the generation of a new hull surface usually takes only little time. Computations I) Potential Flow Computations

For global hullform optimisation process we have applied HSVAs in-house panel code -SHALLO . This is a typical non-linear free surface potential flow code.

-SHALLO features an iterative treatment of the non- linear free surface boundary conditions as described by (Jensen at al. 1986) and the patch method for treating the body boundary

MARNET CFD Workshop, Haslar 20/21-03-2003

condition and pressure integration described by (Sding 1993). The body surface is discretised using triangular and rectangular patches, the hull panel model is adapted to the actual wetted surface during each iteration, thus implying a proper discretisation of the hull surface. After each iteration trim and sinkage are estimated based on the vertical forces and the body grid is moved accordingly. The code features a fully automatic mesh generation for the free surface using intelligent defaults, which may however be overridden by the user if required. Although the patch method introduced for the treatment of the body (boundary condition) offers large improveme nts with regard to the accuracy of the force integration, an additional wave cut analysis has been introduced to cater for the requirements of the optimisation process. Using the panel code as source for a single function of merit in an optimisation might be misleading when relying on the integration of hull pressure alone.
II) RANSE Computations

The majority of in-house viscous flow computations is performed using the RANSE solver Comet. (CD). This is applied to projects involving the prediction of double model flows as well as the prediction of free surface behaviour. High Froude Number free-surface flows usually include strongly breaking waves. These are modelled as a two-phase flow computing both air and water flow simultaneously. The conservation equations for mass and momentum are solved in integral form using a finite volume method. The integrals are approximated using the midpoint rule. The variables respectively their gradients are determined using linear interpolation respectively central differences. The SIMPLE algorithm couples pressures and velocities. The Reynolds stress tensor (i.e. turbulence) can be modelled by a variety of turbulence models such as the standard k- or the RNG-k- turbulence model. Demirdzic et al. (1999) give more details of the method. The free-surface is captured by the high-resolution interface capturing (HRIC) scheme. The code allows in principle unstructured grids with arbitrary polyeders, non-matching block interfaces for block-structured gr ids, sliding grids and the import of user-defined routines, making it a very versatile tool in our experience. The code has been used in several test exercises, e.g. recomputations for the Gothenburg Test Case (KRISO container ship) and is used for consultancy projects on an increasingly basis. In the present optimisation exercise the Comet computations have been used to check and validate the computations performed for the fast RoPAX ferry to be optimised. We have compared the results obtained for the initial hullform and the finally selected optimised shape with those obtained from the panel code predictions. An experimental investigation is right underway to give a correlation between these two approaches. Final results can be shown only for the initial model.

MARNET CFD Workshop, Haslar 20/21-03-2003

Optimisation Scheme The optimisation strategy is related to the concept described in the FANTASTIC project. The main elements of the process chain are the panel code -SHALLO, the shape modification in panipul as described above and the use of FRONTIER as an optimisation platform. Frontier allows to control the entire process flow, the specification of modification functions and parameters as well as the selection of different optimisation models or strategi es. Among the list of available options the SIMPLEX and MOGA algorithms provided are the most frequently used ones in our application.

NAPA Geometr y Definition


Panel generation

Computation <-Shallo>

Result funct. of merit

Optimisation
<FRONTIER>

Parameters for final hullform

Form modification <panipul>

Organisation of the process chain optimisation (in the dotted box) + data generation The figure above illustrates the global or ganisation of the process flow. The dotted box contains all elements relevant for the optimisation itself. NAPA is used as input data generator (panel mesh), the final hullform is transferred back into NAPA on the basis of an easy-to-use set of curves for the final shape. Optimisation exercise: The whole process chain has been tested on a typical high speed RoPAX ferry model. This ship is abt. 160 m long and sails at a speed of 27 kts, yielding a Froude Number of abt. 0.35 . Fig. 9 in the appendix shows a general linesplan of the vessel. There is an old model of the vessel ( = 20.8) available which could be used for validation later. The target for the optimisation was to reduce the wave making part of the resist ance by means of automatically generated hullform modifications. Starting from the original hullform we have applied a set of modifications functions addressing: - the position of the forward shoulder - length of the bulbous bow - max. thickness and distribution of the bulb and - rise of the bulb Due to practical considerations the shape modifications on the hull were strongly limited. This would allow to re-use the existing physical hull for a second model. The constraints on the bulb were very much relaxed, a maximum length and width were specified due to external design considerations. Initial runs were used to check dependency on certain individual parameters. Fig. 6 shows the development of the resistance with a variation of the bulb length. Starting from a rather short bulb a

MARNET CFD Workshop, Haslar 20/21-03-2003

maximum is attained for a reduction of bulb length (the parameter is a factor relative to the original bulb length) of 1.2 m. The minimum in turn shows for the max. allowable bulb length of 2.4 m. This rather clear relation changes rapidly when a mix of several parameters is allowed. For the optimisation we have selected 5 independent parameters as described above. Here the relations become more complex. Figs. 7 and 8 show the dependency on 2 driving parameters namely the length and the thickness of the bulb. However, relations are much more complex in this exercise and the clear distribution obtained for the single parameter is lost. The minimum resistance occurs for a bulb length which is abt. 2. m longer, a detail view reveals that the resistance data rise again for higher values up to the specified limit of 2.5 m. Fig. 9 gives a comparison of the hull lines for the original and the modified hullform. The lengthening of the bulb and its increased thickness are visible. Figs. 10 and 11 compare 2 different wave cuts, the first located 0.134*LP P fr om the hull, the second one further outward at 0.395*LP P . The dotted lines show the waves generated by the initial design, the straight lines the optimised shape. Substantial reductions are visible. Fig. 15 shows the relative gains on the wave resistance obtained from wave cuts and the residual resistance resulting from pressure integration and corrections for a few selected good - designs. In order to check the validity of the predictions, cross computations have been performed using the RANSE code. Fig. 13 shows a comparison of the predicted wave pattern, results of the panel code on top, Comet predictions at the bottom. It is obvious that the global pattern compares well. Finally, Fig. 12 shows a comparison for the inner wave cut between panel code results, Comet results and experimental data. It is apparent that the overall structure of the wave system is well represented. However both methods seem to fail to resolve some of the smaller effects. Here mesh resolution needs to be investigated further. Conclusions The method proposed for hull form modifications based on panel models for potential flow analysis shows promising results when applied in the context of an optimisation that can be performed using panel codes. The optimisation environment and process chain shown here shows a good potential. It is versatile and new cases can be set up very quickly. This is a ready to use process for any commercial project. A final validation is still subject to additional test ing which will be performed soon. Acknowledgements Research described above was sponsored by the German Minist ry of Research and Development (BmBF) under the grant 18S0192 Hydro- und Eismechanische Entwicklungen zur Verbesserung von Entwurfs- und Prognosetechniken (HEIS), Vol. 1: Optimierung von Rumpfformen mit Strmungsprogrammen References
H. Sding (1993), A Method for Accurate Force Calculation in Potential Flow, Ship Technology Research, Volume 40 G. Jensen, Z.-X. Mi and H. Sding, 1986: Rankine Methods for the Solution of the Steady Wave Resistance Problem, Sixteenth Symposium on Naval Hydrodynamics, 1986 DEMIRDZIC, I.; MUZAFERIJA, S.; PERIC, M. (1999), Computation of turbulent flows in complex geometries, calculation of complex turbulent flows, WIT Press JENSEN, G.; MARZI, et. al.. (2000), Wave resistance computations - A comparison of different approaches, 23rd Symp. Naval Hydrodyn., Val de Reuil MAISONNEUVE, J.J., HARRIES, S. , RAVEN, H.C., MARZI, J. , VIVIANI, U. Towards optimal design of ship hull shapes, IMDC 03, Athens 2003.

MARNET CFD Workshop, Haslar 20/21-03-2003

Appendix:

Fig. 1: Bulbous bow modification for the Hamburg Test Case (Ville de Mercure)

Fig. 2 : Modifications of the Sidney Express hullform

MARNET CFD Workshop, Haslar 20/21-03-2003

Fig. 3: Comparison of predicted bow waves for the Sidney Express test.

Cx / Cx0 Widerstandsbeiwerte (relativ)

1.0200E+00 1.0000E+00 9.8000E-01 9.6000E-01 9.4000E-01 9.2000E-01 9.0000E-01 8.8000E-01 cr/cr0 ct/ct0 orig. mod.

Fig. 4: Resistance reduction for the Sydney Express case, residual (wave) resistance (left) , tot al resistance (right)

Fig 5: Lines for the fast RoPAX test ship

MARNET CFD Workshop, Haslar 20/21-03-2003

Fig. 6: Fast RoPAX: Variation of bulb length (single parameter), development of resistance

Fig. 7: Fast RoPAX optimisation:dependency on bulb length

Fig. 8: Fast RoPAX optimisation: dependency on bulb thickness

MARNET CFD Workshop, Haslar 20/21-03-2003

Fig. 9: Fast RoPAX optimisation: Comparison of hull lines for the origi nal and the finally selected version

Fig. 10: Comparison of 1st wave cut initial design (dotted), modified ship

Fig. 11: Comparison of 3rd wave cut initial design (dotted), modified ship
Wellenschnitt 1
0.08

0.06

0.04

0.02 Messung nuShallo RANSE zeta

0 12.5 -0.02

14.5

16.5

18.5

20.5

22.5

24.5

26.5

28.5

30.5

32.5

-0.04

-0.06

-0.08 x

Fig. 12: Comparison of 1 wave cut RANSE comp. vs. panel prediction and experiment

st

MARNET CFD Workshop, Haslar 20/21-03-2003

Fig. 13: Predicted wave pattern for the initial design top: -SHALLO , bottom: Comet

Fig. 14: Comparison of wave elevation at the hull initial design (dotted), modified ship Fig. 15: Relative gains in resistance obtained for several designs
1.20E+00

1.00E+00

8.00E-01

6.00E-01

cr/cr0 Rw/Rw0

4.00E-01

2.00E-01

0.00E+00 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8