CFD Potential Flow and System-Based Simu

NATO UNCLASSIFIED
RELEASABLE TO AUS AND SWE
CFD, Potential Flow, and System-Based Simulations of Course Keeping in

Calm Water and Seakeeping in Regular Waves for 5415M
Frederick Sterna, Serge Toxopeusb, Michel Visonneauc, Emmanuel Guilmineauc,
Woei-Min Lind, and Gregory Grigoropoulose
a
IIHR - Hydroscience & Engineering, The University of Iowa, Iowa City, IA, 52242, USA
Maritime Research Institute (MARIN), Wageningen / Delft University of Technology, The Netherlands
c
ECN - Ecole Centrale de Nantes, Nantes, France
d
Science Application International Corporation (SAIC), Arlington, VA, 22203, USA
e
Dept. of Naval Architecture and Marine Eng., National Technical University of Athens, Athens, Greece
b
frederick-stern@uiowa.edu
ABSTRACT
CFD, potential flow and system-based methods are validated for ship course keeping in calm water and
seakeeping in waves. In calm water, a self-propelled free model of 5415M appended with passive, active or no
fin stabilizers under either damped or forced roll is simulated using different methods. The forced roll is
induced by either forced rudder motion or forced fin motion. In the presence of waves, the 6DOF motions of
the model appended with active fins are simulated in regular head waves, regular beam waves and quartering
bi-chromatic waves. The predictions for all methods are validated with the extensive data provided by MARIN
for ship motions and forces and moments on the appendages such as rudders, fins and bilge keels. The results
are investigated with consideration to the mathematical model of ship motions and the high fidelity results are
used to explain some of the complex physics. The course keeping and seakeeping of the model, the reduction
rate of the roll motion, the effectiveness of the fin stabilizers as roll reduction device and the interaction of the
roll motion with other motions are also investigated.
1.0 INTRODUCTION
The simulation of ship course keeping and seakeeping has mostly been studied using potential flow (PF) and
system-based (SB) methods and more recently computational fluid dynamics (CFD). In most of the
simulations, however, the degree of freedom was limited to 3DOF or 4DOF and the validation was only
investigated for the ship motions. This was due to both the very high level of complexity of full 6DOF
simulations and few experimental fluid dynamics data (EFD) data available for such simulations to be
validated. In SIMMAN 2008 Workshop [1] extensive EFD free running data was provided for four appended
hull forms including two tankers (KVLCC), a container ship (KCS) and a surface combatant (5415M) to
validate the prediction capabilities of SB, PF, and CFD for maneuvering tests. The workshop was the first of
its kind primarily because most maneuvering simulation methods have yet to be benchmarked for their
prediction capabilities through systematic quantitative validation against EFD for free model. The EFD data,
however, was limited to ship motions in calm water and did not include forces or moments. Extensive
experiments were previously performed at MARIN to generate validation material for 6DOF motions in calm
water and waves and for the forces and moments of the appendages such as bilge keels, rudders and stabilizer
fins, see Toxopeus et al. [2]. The measured data provides a unique opportunity to investigate the prediction
capability of SB, PF and CFD methods for complicated 6DOF motions of the ship, surface controller motions
and forces and moments on the appendages.
The SB methods provide a mathematical framework to study the ship course keeping and seakeeping. The
prediction capability of SB methods are strongly function of the inputs for maneuvering coefficients, the
RTO-MP-AVT-189
8-1
NATO UNCLASSIFIED
NATO UNCLASSIFIED
CFD, Potential Flow, and
System-Based Simulations of
Course Keeping in Calm Water and Seakeeping in Regular Waves for 5415M
degree of freedom of the model and the mathematical model techniques used to include the wave, the rudder
and the propulsion forces. In the past, SB models have been applied extensively to estimate ship maneuvering
capabilities. Loeff and Toxopeus [3] discussed the application of SB prediction tools in concept design and
provide information about the correlation of the predictions with an extensive database of experimental
results. At the SIMMAN Workshop, Toxopeus and Lee [4] used several simulation tools to predict the
maneuverability of all test cases. The simulation tools were all of the modular type, i.e. forces and interactions
on each component of the ship were described separately. The coefficients in the model were based on
empirical formulae, such that experimental results were not required to predict the maneuverability of ships. It
was seen that the difference between predictions and the experiments depended strongly on the range of
application of each prediction tool: MPP (originally made for full-block ships) provided good results for the
KVLCCs, FreSim (for naval ships) for the 5415M and SurSim with slender body method (for cruise ships,
ferries, motor yachts) for the KCS. Furukawa et al. [5] studied prediction capability of 3DOF SB model. They
employed the Japanese MMGs (Japanese Mathematical Maneuvering model Group, see Ogawa and Kasai
[6]) model to include rudder and propulsion forces and predicted the turning diameter of KVLCC2 within
20%D accuracy. Kim and Kim [7] investigated the maneuvering performance of KVLCC tankers using a
3DOF SB model established based on MMG concept. Hydrodynamic coefficients were estimated by
analyzing PMM data. Predicted results showed about 5%D error for KVLCC2 turning diameter. To include
roll motion in maneuvering prediction of KCS, Yasukawa and Sano [8] developed 4DOF MMG based SB
model but neglected the hydrodynamic coupling between roll and other modes of motion. The results showed
very good agreement with experiment for the turning trajectory and heel angle but the zigzag overshoot angles
were over predicted. Umeda et al. [9] also employed MMG model and developed a coupled 4DOF SB model
which includes propulsion, rudder and waves forces in following waves with low encounter frequency to
predict the dynamic instability map for ONR Tumblehome. The model showed qualitative agreement but the
predicted roll exceeded 90 for Fr>0.3 while EFD maximum roll angle was 71. Yasukawa [10] designed a
coupled 6DOF SB model for all wave conditions including any heading angles and wave length to predict
motions of a self propelled model with rudder controllers. The MMG model was adopted to include rudder,
propulsion and wave forces. A linear time domain strip method was used to calculate wave induced motions.
The total motion was calculated by summation of low frequency motions induced by maneuvering and high
frequency motions induced by waves. The simulations showed only qualitative agreements with EFD and had
difficulties for quantitative prediction in short wave conditions. Ayaz et al. [11] developed a coupled nonlinear 6DOF MMG model with frequency dependent coefficients, incorporating memory effects in random
waves. The model was validated against free running test data and indicated qualitative agreement.
Unlike SB models, the PF methods employ strip theory, lifting line/surface or panel methods to compute
directly the forces and moments used to predict 6DOF ship motions. However, empirical corrections to
account for viscous effects are required. Yen et al. [12] used Large Amplitude Motion Program (LAMP) panel
method code to study the maneuvering capability of 6DOF 5415M model. The hull and rudder maneuvering
forces were implemented using a systems-based approach and the propeller was included using open-water
curves. The results showed better agreement with EFD for turning than zigzag maneuvering. The heel and
drift angle and speed loss were also well predicted for turning. Similar predictions with similar comparison
errors were made with the simulation code Fredyn, see Toxopeus and Lee [4]. Chen and Zhu [13] used time
domain Rankine panel method for predicting motions of a ship only restrained in surge in oblique waves.
Linear free surface boundary condition and mean wetted surface were adopted, while the numerical damping
method was used for the radiation conditions. The artificial spring model was used to control the numerical
drifting in sway and yaw motions. The empirical method was employed for roll damping due to viscous
effects. The motions for Flokstra container in oblique waves were compared and validated against
experimental data. The results showed good agreement for heave and pitch but not for roll as it depends on the
roll damping of viscous effect. Other motions were not validated since they were not recorded by the model
8-2
RTO-MP-AVT-189
NATO UNCLASSIFIED
NATO UNCLASSIFIED

test. Song et al. [14] employed a 3D Rankine panel method to investigate the 6DOF motion response and
structure loads on a containership. The numerical code was based on the weakly nonlinear method including
nonlinear FroudeKrylov and restoring forces. The empirical value was used for viscous damping due to roll
motion. An artificial spring model was employed for surge, sway and yaw motions to restrict the divergence
of numerical solutions. The comparisons showed some difference at low frequency region for horizontal
motions, i.e. surge, sway and yaw while heave, roll, and pitch showed acceptable agreement. At low
frequencies, the spring model had a significant effect on motion responses and better treatments were required
to control non-restoring motions such as surge, sway, and yaw. An extensive benchmark study of state-of-theart seakeeping prediction tools was presented by Bunnik et al. [15]. In this study, 11 different codes (9 PF
codes and 2 CFD codes, of which one was ISIS-CFD) were used to calculate motions of ships in a seaway.
Generally, it was found that good PF codes produce good results. When the motions are moderate and in the
absence of large viscous effects, the benefit of using CFD instead of the best PF methods was found to be
small.
CFD has the advantage of predicting course keeping and seakeeping without using a mathematical model or
empirical values for viscous effect, but it is considerably more expensive than SB or PF approaches. Huang et
al. [16] demonstrated full 6DOF simulations capability in irregular waves, including the effects of air, with a
steered rudder using body force propeller model. Muscari et al. [17] studied 3DOF turning circle maneuver of
the KVLCC2 in no free surface environment using RANS with the rudders and propellers. Jacquin et al. [18]
performed 6DOF turning maneuver simulation of series 60 hull form with steered rudder and body force
propeller model using RANS code ICARE. The 6DOF motions of a KVLCC1 tanker with moving rudder and
rotating propeller in a free surface flow were simulated by Carrica and Stern [19]. The rudder geometry was
approximated by a spade rudder to simplify the geometry. The 6DOF motions were validated against
experiment but the turning diameter was under predicted. Carrica et al. [20] performed model and full scale
simulations of turning and zigzag maneuver for 5415M hull form including rudder and body force propellers.
Sadat-Hosseini et al. [21] studied full 6DOF simulations of surf-riding, periodic motion and broaching in
regular waves for a ONR Tumblehome model with steered rudder using body force propeller model. The
results were validated against experimental data and compared with 4DOF SB model solutions. Also, 2DOF
captive simulations were carried out to evaluate the coefficients for the SB model. Such an approach was also
followed by Toxopeus [22]: RANS calculations were used to derived coefficients for an SB model and the
results of consecutive maneuvering simulations were compared with model experiments, demonstrating a
large improvement compared to the simulations with the original coefficients derived from empirical
formulae. The same ONR Tumblehome used in [21] but with rotating propellers are employed by Carrica et
al. [23] to improve the predicted motions. All the recent simulations [20,21,23] provide prediction capability
for 6DOF motions while detailed validation for forces and moments of appendages are not studied. The forces
of bilge keels are studied by Miller et al. [24] for 1DOF forced roll motion with large amplitude for ONR
Tumblehome for a range of forward speeds using CFDShip-Iowa. It was shown that CFDShip-Iowa was able
to distinguish between the eddy-making and bilge keel contributions of the total roll moment which are
difficult to accurately predict using potential flow simulation tools. Bassler et al. [25] expanded 1DOF
simulation in [24] to 2D and 3D using CFDShip-Iowa. They also studied the bilge keel forces in beam waves.
Dai and Miller [26] investigated inflow conditions to the propellers from the bilge keels and forces on the
bilge keel in steady turn using CFDShip-Iowa for DTMB 5617 model. Dai and Miller [27] investigated the
forces on propellers and rudders as well as bilge keels. It was shown that the propeller side force needs to be
taken into account when comparing hull and appendages generated side forces in the simulations. The
qualitative comparisons for the rudders forces showed large discrepancies and it was indicated that the
primary cause of discrepancies was due to poor predictions of velocity inflow at the rudder plane.
The objective of this paper is to perform and validate CFD, PF, and SB simulations for extensive experiments
RTO-MP-AVT-189
8-3
NATO UNCLASSIFIED
NATO UNCLASSIFIED
performed at MARIN in calm water and waves for 5415M as part of international collaboration under
auspices NATO AVT-161. The experiments were previously performed as part of THALES Project -the
cooperative research program initiated between the Royal Netherlands Navy, the Italian Navy and the Danish
Navy. The CFD, PF, and SB results are investigated with consideration to the mathematical model of ship
motions similar to the analysis performed for parametric rolling and broaching by Sadat-Hosseini et al.
[21,28]. Also, the detailed validation study is performed for forces and moments on the appendages including
rudders, fins and bilge keels and the high fidelity results are used to explain some of the complex physics.
CFD computations are performed using the CFDShip-Iowa code [29], a finite difference code employing a
single-phase level set method and a blended k-/k- turbulence model, and ISIS-CFD code [30,31,32] which
is a finite volume code using VOF method and k- turbulence model. PF simulations are performed by
employing Fredyn which is a non-linear strip theory based potential flow code supplemented by empirical
models for viscous forces [4] and SWAN [33,34] and LAMP [12,35-39] which are potential flow panel codes.
The SB roll decay and forced roll predictions are carried out by using both SurSim and FreSim codes [4]
developed by MARIN.
2.0 EFD METHOD

2.1
Ship Model
Free running experiments in calm water and waves were conducted for 5415M. The 5415M model is a geosim
of the DTMB 5415 ship model, but with different appendages. Main particulars and body plan are shown in
Table 1 and Fig. 1, respectively. The model was manufactured of wood and appended with skeg, twin split
bilge keels, roll stabilizer fins, twin rudders and rudder seats slanted outwards, shafts and struts, and counterrotating propellers. The rudder was of the spade type. The lateral area of the rudders was 215.4m2 i.e.
21.8% of the lateral area of the vessel, LppT. The propellers were fixed pitch type with direction of rotation
inward over top. The stabilizer fins were of the non retractable low aspect ratio type. The scale ratio of the
model was 35.48.
2.2
Test Setup
All experiments were carried out in the MARIN seakeeping and maneuvering basin which measures
170m40m5 m. The water depth to ship draft ratio was 29 in all tests indicating deep water condition. The
tests were performed with the ship model free running and the propeller rate of revolutions adjusted to the
self-propulsion point of the model for the envisaged speed. During the test, the wave elevation, ship motions,
ship accelerations, rudder and fin angles and propellers revolutions were measured. Also, propeller torque and
thrust and loads on bilge keels, rudders and fins were recorded. The wave elevations were measured in front
of the vessel and beside the vessel at mid-ship using resistance type wave probes and used to represent the
wave elevation at center of gravity. The ship motions were recorded through optical tracking system. The ship
accelerations were measured at three locations on the model using accelerometer. Several Potentio-meters
were employed to measure rudder and fin angles. Strain gauge transducers were used to measure loads on the
propellers, rudders, and fins. For loads on bilge keels, one component force transducers were utilized. More
details of test setup can be found in [2].
The coordinate system is ship-fixed located at centre of gravity, with x pointing toward the bow, y to portside
and z upward, as shown in Fig. 2. Thus the forces and moments are positive for X-force forwards, Y-force to
portside, Z-force upward, K-moment pushing starboard into the water, M-moment pushing the bow into the
water and N-moment pushing the bow to portside. The ship positions (x,y) were measured in an Earth-fixed
coordinate system with x pointing North and y pointing West. The roll () is positive for starboard down, the
8-4
RTO-MP-AVT-189
NATO UNCLASSIFIED
NATO UNCLASSIFIED

pitch () is positive for bow down and the yaw angle () is positive for bow turned to portside. The rudder
angle () is positive for trailing edge to portside and the stabilizer fin angles (F) are positive for nose down
position.
2.3
Test Conditions
In calm water, a self-propelled free model appended with passive, active, or no fin stabilizers under either
damped or forced roll is tested and the course keeping of the model is investigated. Also, the reduction rate of
the roll motion, the effectiveness of the fin stabilizers as roll reduction device, the interaction of the roll
motion with other motions and forces or moments on all appendages are investigated. In the presence of
waves, the course keeping of the ship as well as the ship responses (RAOs) are measured. Also, different wave
types such as regular waves and bi-chromatic waves are considered. The conditions for different tests in calm
water and waves are summarized in Table 2 and 3, respectively.
Herein, some of the cases are selected based on careful studies of the test results for validation of
computations. Three roll decay test at Fr=0.248 are considered: initial roll
deg with passive fins,
deg with no fins, and
deg with active fins. Also, three forced roll test conditions will be
studied: passive fins with forced rudder, active fins with forced rudder, forced fins with passive rudder. In
presence of waves, two test conditions in regular beam and head waves with active fins and once case in
quartering bi-chromatic waves with active fins are considered.
In roll decay test, the initial roll angle is applied by pushing the side of the model into the water. In forced roll,
the roll motion is applied by moving the rudders or fins in a sinusoidal motion. The frequency of rudders or
fins oscillation is 0.55Hz in full scale. The amplitude of oscillation is 15 deg for rudders and 25 deg for fins.
For active fins cases, the fins are controlled with
autopilot controller in which D=5 sec in full scale.
Also, the rudders are controlled by an autopilot controller, with

but the controller
settings were not recorded during the test. After the tests the coefficients , , and were determined for
each test individually by least-square fitting.
3.0 CFD METHOD

3.1
CFDShip-Iowa 4.5
CFDShip-Iowa [29] is designed for ship applications using either absolute or relative inertial non-orthogonal
curvilinear coordinate system for arbitrary moving but non-deforming control volumes. Turbulence models
include blended k-/k- based isotropic and anisotropic RANS and DES approaches with either integration to
the wall or wall functions. The free surface is modeled using a single-phase level set method. The domain is
discretized using multiblock/overset structured grids. The overset connectivity is obtained using the code
Suggar. Convection terms are approximated with finite differences second-order upwind for RANS or fourthorder upwind biased for DES. The second-order centered scheme is used for the viscous terms. The temporal
terms are discretized using a second-order backwards Euler scheme. Incompressibility is enforced by a strong
pressure/velocity coupling, achieved using either PISO or projection algorithms. The 6DOF capabilities are
implemented using Euler angles and enabled with a hierarchy of bodies. The rigid body equations are solved
in the ship system while the fluid flow equations are solved in an earth-fixed inertial reference system such
that the forces and moments are projected appropriately to perform the integration of the rigid body equations
of motion.
RTO-MP-AVT-189
8-5
NATO UNCLASSIFIED
NATO UNCLASSIFIED
3.1.1
Computational Domain and Grids
In order to achieve a large size computational domain with reasonable number of grid points, a cylinder shape
computational domain was used for cases in calm water. The radius of domain is 4.5 times larger than ship
length and the domain extends from z=-1L to z=0.25L in vertical direction. For cases in waves, the domain is
in box shape extending from -0.5<x<1.8, -1.1<y<1.1, -0.25<z<1, in dimensionless coordinates based on ship
length. The ship axis is aligned with x axis, with the bow at x=0 and the stern at x=1. The y axis is positive to
starboard with z pointing upward. The free surface at rest lies at z=0. The model is appended with skeg, twin
bilge keels, rudders and rudder seats, struts, shafts and stabilizer fins but not appended with actual propellers.
The propellers are modeled as a body force field applied at the position of propellers described by a disk
volume extended radially from rh to rp around the axis defined by p1 and p2, as listed in Table 4. The open
water curves are input to body force propeller model as a second order polynomial fit of the experimental
open water curves.
The computational grids are overset, with independent grids for the hull, appendages, refinement and
background, and then assembled together to generate the total grid. The grids for hull (boundary layer) are
generated with a hyperbolic grid generator using a double-O topology, one each for the starboard and the
portside. The same grid topology was used for each rudder and fin to describe their geometry extending out of
the hull. The grids are independent so are capable to simulate the operating rudders and fins. The skeg uses
same topology as well but overset the boundary layer grids. The O topology was used for struts, shafts, and
rudder seats. The H-type grid was used for twin bilge keels oversetting the boundary layer grids. Since no wall
function is used in this study, the first grid point away from all the solid surfaces was selected 10 -6 to capture
the detailed fluid, as required by the k-/k- turbulence model. For calm water, the background is built using
O-type grid topology to impose far field boundary conditions with H-type refinement block closer to the ship.
For waves, a Cartesian H-type grid topology was used for background. The total number of grid points is 6.37.0M for calm water and 18.6 M for waves, decomposed into 72 and 181 for parallel processing, respectively.
Details of the grids are shown in Table 5 and Fig. 3.
3.1.2
Case Setup
The experimental conditions are followed as closely as possible in the simulations. In all cases, experimental
data for surge, sway, heave, pitch, roll and yaw are used to impose the initial displacement, velocity, and
acceleration. Mimicking the experimental procedures, all cases are run with constant propeller RPS. The
rotational speed of the propellers is set to that obtained by self-propulsion at the corresponding Froude
number. Self-propulsion computations with speed controllers are used to find the RPS at the corresponding
Froude numbers. Feedback controllers are used for roll and heading for cases with active fins or rudders. The
roll controller produce some angle for stabilizer fins using PID controller with P=I=0 and D=-5sec in full
scale, same as experiment i.e.
to put back the ship at upright position. The heading controller acts
on rudder attempting to steer the ship at the desired heading. Since the heading controller was not recorded in
experiment, a PID controller was employed with I=0 and P and D estimated from fitting
to experimental heading and rudder angle for each test. The cases for validation include roll
decay test with active, passive, and no fins; forced roll induced by forced rudders with active and passive fins
and induced by forced fins with active rudder; seakeeping in head and beam waves; and seakeeping in bichromatic waves. Due to the high cost per run, verification was not attempted.
3.2
ISIS-CFD
ISIS-CFD, developed by the CFD group of the Fluid Mechanics Laboratory and available as a part of the
FINETM/Marine computing suite, is an incompressible unsteady Reynolds-averaged Navier Stokes (URANS)
8-6
RTO-MP-AVT-189
NATO UNCLASSIFIED
NATO UNCLASSIFIED

method. The solver is based on the finite volume method to build the spatial discretization of the transport
equations. The unstructured discretization is face-based, which means that cells with an arbitrary number of
arbitrarily shaped faces are accepted. A detailed description of the solver is given in [30,31]. The velocity
field is obtained from the momentum conservation equations and the pressure field is extracted from the mass
conservation constraint, or continuity equation, transformed into a pressure equation. In the case of turbulent
flows, transport equations for the variables in the turbulence model are added to the discretization. Freesurface flow is simulated with a multi-phase flow approach: the water surface is captured with a conservation
equation for the volume fraction of water, discretized with specific compressive discretization schemes
discussed in [30]. The method features sophisticated turbulence models: apart from the classical two-equation
k-w and k-e models, the anisotropic two-equation Explicit Algebraic Stress Model (EASM), as well as
Reynolds Stress Transport Models are available [31,32]. The technique included for the 6 degree of freedom
simulation of ship motion is described by Leroyer and Visonneau [40]. Time-integration of Newtons laws for
the ship motion is combined with analytical weighted or elastic analogy grid deformation to adapt the fluid
mesh to the moving ship. Furthermore, the code has the possibility to model more than two phases. For
brevity, these options are not further described here.
3.2.1
The computational domain extends from -1.5L < x < 3.5L, -1.5L < y < 1.5L and -1.25L < z < 0.375L. The
ship axis is located along x-axis with the bow located at x=0.5L and the stern at x=-0.5L. The free-surface at
rest lies at z=0. The unstructured hexahedral grid is generated with HEXPRESS. All appendages are taken
into account except the propellers which are modeled as a body force field applied at the position of
propellers. A local zone of refinement is created near the hull, to ensure small grid spacing. This grid is
composed of 5.9 million cells with about 300,000 cells located on the hull. Figure 3b illustrates the local mesh
distribution close to the bow and the stern.
3.2.2
Case Setup
The roll decay tests with no fins or passive fins are investigated. Firstly, an initial simulation with a ship free
to move in trim and sinkage with no roll angle is carried out. For this simulation, the actuator disk theory is
applied. Then, the initial roll angle is applied. The flow around the ship is computed by imposing the surge
motion while all other modes of motion are free. Moreover, the rudder action due to the autopilot is ignored in
these computations.
4.0 PF METHOD
4.1
FREDYN
Fredyn is developed by the Cooperative Research Navies (CRNAV) group. Its fundamentals are discussed in
De Kat and Paulling [41]. The version considered in this paper is Fredyn version 10.3. Fredyn is a program
dedicated to simulate the motions of high-speed semi-displacement ships in severe conditions. All six degrees
of freedom are computed in the time domain, where the motions can be large, up to the point of capsize. It is
also capable of computing the ingress of water through openings in the hull and superstructure. The program
is intended to be used in the initial design stage when model test data are not available.
The mathematical model consists of a non-linear strip theory approach, where linear (wave radiation and
diffraction) and non-linear (Froude-Krylov, including buoyancy) potential flow forces are combined with
viscous forces (propeller, bilge keel, rudder and fin forces, hull lift and drag, roll damping, wind loads and
etc). These viscous force contributions are of a nonlinear nature and based on (semi)empirical models. The
program can handle regular waves or irregular waves, including directional spreading. Wind can also be taken
RTO-MP-AVT-189
8-7
NATO UNCLASSIFIED
NATO UNCLASSIFIED
into account.
Several options exist to model the viscous forces on the hull during maneuvers. In the present work, the
viscous forces are based on the default Fredyn model. Alternatively, the modeling from FreSim, see section
5.1, can be used or user-defined coefficients can be provided. The roll damping is based on an adapted method
for fast displacement ships (FDS). The Fast Displacement Ship method was obtained from analyzing
systematic model tests on fast displacement type vessels (frigates). Possible other options for the roll damping
are the Ikeda-Himeno-Tanaka method, obtained from model tests on non-frigate type ships at low to moderate
speeds and the option in which coefficients can be defined by the user.
Fredyn has been validated against model tests with frigates and containerships. For frigate-type hull forms, in
particular, both excitation forces and motion response in waves have been considered in detail, including
conditions leading to capsize. Examination of the various assumptions embedded in Fredyn shows that in
general the program should be valid for any type of a relatively slender mono-hull operating at a Froude
number below 0.5. All force contribution formulations are independent of ship type, except for part of the
maneuvering forces.
A recent application of Fredyn for the 5415M hull form in calm water and waves can be found in Carette and
Van Walree [42] and Quadvlieg et al. [43]. Validation of amongst others roll damping predictions or motions
in waves with Fredyn can be found in Boonstra et al. [44] and Levadou and Gaillarde [45]. The maneuvering
prediction capability of Fredyn was validated by Toxopeus and Lee [4].
4.1.1
Case Setup
The hull form (sectional data) and the particulars of the propeller, bilge keels, rudders and stabilizer fins as
described in Section 2.1 were used as input to the program. The bare hull resistance curve was based on an
estimation using a modified version of the Holtrop and Mennen method [46]. This method also provides
estimates of the propeller wake fraction and thrust deduction fraction. The propeller thrust curve was obtained
from open water tests with the model propeller. Other than the use of the propeller open water tests and
estimation of the resistance curve, wake fraction and thrust deduction fraction, all coefficients were based on
the default values calculated by Fredyn. No additional tuning of the empirical coefficients based on model test
data was conducted. The rudder seats were modeled as additional fixed rudders.
During the cases with the rudders steered by autopilot, the coefficients determined from least-square fitting of
the rudder angle signal during the experiments were used, see section 2.3. However, for simplification of the
setup, the sway gain coefficient was ignored. This means that deviations in the y position between the
simulations and experiments can occur.
In Fredyn, the RPM of the propellers needs to be specified. In the present work, the RPM from the
experiments was used as input. Due to a different balance of resistance and propeller thrust, this may result in
a different speed during the simulation.
4.2
SWAN
SWAN2 2002 [34] is a 3D time-domain, panel code developed at MIT. The general formulation is described
by Sclavounos [33] while the specific time-domain solution was presented in detail by Kring et al. [47]. The
software implements a fully 3D approach based on the distribution of Rankine sources over the wetted and the
free surface. The linear free-surface condition is satisfied, while it has the capability of taking into account the
non-linear Froude-Krylov and hydrostatic forces. This option however, was not activated in the calculation
8-8
RTO-MP-AVT-189
NATO UNCLASSIFIED
NATO UNCLASSIFIED

presented herein.
4.2.1
A sensitivity analysis was conducted in order to define suitable extent of the free surface grid in the
longitudinal and lateral direction, as well as the respective number of panels fitted on the wetted surface of the
vessel in both directions.
The number of desired hull sheet nodes in a direction parallel to the X-axis is 30. The respective number of
nodes on a direction perpendicular to X-axis is 8. The respective number of panels is N-1. Furthermore, the
panel mesh extends on the free surface 0.5 L upstream, 1.5 L downstream and 1.0 L in sides. A total of 2300
panels are fitted on the hull form and the free surface.
4.2.2
Case Setup
A time step of 0.05 sec has been used in the calculations. The simulated time history was 300 sec. The code
can handle only passive fins providing also the variation of the angle of attack. The rudders are also handled
as fins. Furthermore, in the use of SWAN2 an iterative procedure was added to converge to the actual
dynamic draft and trim of the vessel at each speed. That pair of draft and trim was subsequently used in the
unsteady calculations. In general, the linearity assumption and the fact that viscous roll damping is not taken
into account reduces the reliability of the predictions in very high dynamic responses.
4.3
LAMP
In LAMPs 3-D time-domain dynamic simulation, the wave-body hydrodynamic forces are calculated using a
potential flow panel method to solve the wave-body interaction problem in the time domain; forces due to
viscous flow effects and other external forces such as hull lift, propulsors, rudders, etc. are modeled using
other computation methods or with empirical or semi-empirical formulas. Calm water maneuvering is a
special application of the general methodology, with no incident wave but retaining the wave-body
interactions related to forward speed and ship motions. For a ship maneuvering in waves, either body linear or
nonlinear hydrodynamic problems can be solved. The body nonlinear approach, which considers the effects of
the ships vertical motion relative to the calm water or incident wave, is almost always used for the hydrostatic
and Froude-Krylov wave forces. Details of the mathematical formulation, numerical implementation, and
application of LAMP for nonlinear seakeeping or maneuvering problems can be found in [12,35-39] among
other publications.
4.3.1
A sensitivity study was carried out to determine the computation domain and grid size. To get stable and
converged results, 1388 hydrodynamic body panels were used on the submerged portion of the whole ship
surface including the skeg and 2208 panels were used on the whole free surface. The free surface domain
extents from one ship length upstream and one ship length downstream in the longitudinal direction, and
extents one and a half ship lengths to the starboard and to the port side of the ship centerline.
4.3.2
Case Setup
The procedure to derive LAMPs maneuvering forces coefficients was developed and validated through
participation in the SIMMAN 2008 Workshop. This procedure was described in Yen et al. [8]. The PMM tests
were done at MARIN using an appended model with the propeller rotating at the model self-propulsion point.
The measured forces on the rudder and propeller during various forced maneuvering motions were used to
derive the rudder and propeller coefficients. LAMPs hull lift model and higher-order damping coefficients
RTO-MP-AVT-189
8-9
NATO UNCLASSIFIED
NATO UNCLASSIFIED
were adjusted to fit the measured forces and moments from the PMM test. The bilge keels, rudder, and
stabilizing fins were modeled as low-aspect ratio lifting surfaces which are sized and positioned based on the
MARINs seakeeping test report. Skeg was modeled using a lifting surface.
The 6DOF time domain runs were carried out for each of the test cases. In these calculations, the LAMP
simulations were done at model scale and then scaled to full scale for the final results. The LAMP
maneuvering model was tuned to match the calm water experimental data for resistance, linear and nonlinear
coefficients for surge and sway forces and yaw moment due to maneuvering motions, rudder lift and drag
coefficients, velocity increment on rudder inflow due to propeller wash, wake fraction and thrust deduction,
and open-water propeller thrust curve. However, the propeller RPM was set to match the initial speed in calm
water for each the experiment only and was held to constant for the whole simulation. LAMP implements a
slightly different autopilot algorithm than the one used in the experiment. For small course errors, LAMPs
algorithm behaves almost exactly like the one for the experiment, where values of P, D, and A are identical to
the experimental configuration, but the rudder bias (0) is not included.
5.0 SB METHOD
5.1
SurSim and FreSim
SurSim and FreSim are basically the same programs, but with different implementations of the hull forces and
rudder/fin forces. All other aspects are modeled using shared libraries. SurSim is dedicated to the simulation
of the maneuverability of mainly twin-screw ferries, cruise ships and motor yachts, while FreSim is used for
high-speed semi-displacement ships. Both codes model the motions of the ship in four degrees of freedom.
SurSim and FreSim do not contain wave modeling and therefore cannot be applied to study the course keeping
of ships in waves. The programs are of the modular type, i.e. forces on each component of the ship are
modeled separately. The rationale behind the modular models is that this approach will provide the easiest
means to incorporate physical background or more complex methods into the modeling of the forces on the
ship. Another advantage is that this approach enables a somewhat easier comparison of the coefficients across
different mathematical models. Both models utilize cross flow drag coefficients (see e.g. Hooft [48]) to model
non-linear effects in the forces and moments on the ship. The linear maneuvering coefficients are estimated
using the slender body method described by Toxopeus [49]. Alternatively, the hydrodynamic coefficients can
be given by the user. In Toxopeus [22], an example of this approach is given using coefficients calculated
with RANS computations. More information about SurSim and FreSim and their validation can be found in
Toxopeus and Lee [4]. For maneuvering predictions, FreSim is mostly applicable to slender naval ships, while
SurSim is mostly applicable to ships of moderate L/B ratio and moderate block coefficients.
In SurSim and FreSim rudders and fins are modeled as lifting surfaces, treating fins as "rudders" without
propeller in front. The forces and moments generated by the lifting surfaces are all added in the output files
and therefore the forces generated by the rudders cannot be separated by the forces generated by the fins. In
this paper, based on the type of test, it was decided to attribute the full loads generated by all lifting surfaces
as rudder loads, or as fin loads. In some cases in which both the rudders and the fins generate large forces,
deviations from the loads found during the experiments or in the results from other methods can be expected.
Furthermore, bilge keel forces are included in the hull forces and cannot be analyzed separately.
For the setup of the cases (roll decay and forced oscillation) identical input parameters were used for SurSim,
FreSim and Fredyn, except for the setting of the propeller RPM. In SurSim and FreSim, the RPM was
determined by the program while in Fredyn the RPM value was taken from the measurements. See section
8 - 10
RTO-MP-AVT-189
NATO UNCLASSIFIED
NATO UNCLASSIFIED

4.1.1 for more details of the setup.
6.0 COMPARISON CFD, PF, AND SB METHODS

The results for all prediction methods are transformed into EFD coordinate system described in Section 2.2
and then compared against EFD. The comparisons include the 6DOF ship motions (
, the
ship speed (uG), the rudder and fin angles (
, the wave elevation at center of gravity (Wave) and the loads
on the bilge keels (Fbk), rudders (Fr) and fins (Ff). The propeller loads for all the simulations are based on the
body force propeller model and are compared against the reported EFD thrust (T) and rpm (n). For each case,
the EFD outputs are discussed first. Then the prediction models are compared with EFD focusing first on
CFDShip-Iowa which covers the test cases more extensively. The discussions start from the 6DOF ship
motions and rudder and fin angles and then focus on the loads on the appendages. All the results and
measured EFD data are reported in full scale.
6.1
Data Analysis Method
For roll decay cases, the roll damping coefficients are derived based on Himeno Method [50] to study the
effects of the stabilizer fins. In this method, it is assumed that the roll motion can be described by the
following 1DOF equation:
| |
(1)
Here
is moment of inertia around x axis,
is added inertia, and are linear, quadratic and cubic
damping coefficients, is ship mass and GM is metacenteric height.
By plotting roll decrement
( is roll value at peaks) versus mean roll
and fitting the extinction curve in form of
through the data points, the
damping coefficients can be estimated by:
(2)
(3)
(4)
Herein
6.2
6.2.1
is natural roll period.
Roll Decay in Calm Water

Roll Decay with No Fins
For no fins condition, the EFD model is released at about 12 deg roll angle which reaches to 5 deg roll angle
in one cycle and reduces to less than a deg in four cycles, as shown in Fig. 4. The damped roll periods Td at
first and last cycles, where the mean roll angle is at its maximum and minimum respectively, are about 11.1
sec i.e. close to hydrostatic natural roll period (Th= 11.5 sec). Thus, the restoring moment of this hull is linear
function of roll angle. During the test, the ship is bow up with the average of 0.28 deg trim while the initial
trim of the ship is about 0.45 deg probably induced by putting the ship at desired initial roll angle. The trim
shows some oscillations at Td with amplitude of 0.05 deg for large roll angle conditions. The amplitude of
RTO-MP-AVT-189
8 - 11
NATO UNCLASSIFIED
NATO UNCLASSIFIED
oscillations reduces at small roll angle but it is hard to evaluate and compare it with hydrostatic heave/pitch
period Tzh=Th= 5.7 sec (see Irvine et al. [51]) as it includes noticeable noises. The sinkage indicates
oscillations at period of 6.2 sec close to hydrostatic heave period Tzh. The mean value of sinkage is about 0.07 m during the test. The heading of the ship changes slightly between 0.2 to -0.5 deg during the test and
oscillates at damped roll period. In fact, from positive to negative roll angle, the induced yaw moment changes
the sign causing oscillations at Td on yaw motion. The target heading seems to be around -0.13 deg such that
the rudders turn to starboard with the average value of 5 deg to induce enough negative yaw moment to turn
the ship to the desired heading. The oscillations on heading cause oscillations at Td on side motion.
Throughout the test the model moves 1m toward starboard after the ship travels 3.5L. The ship speed is fairly
constant during the test and corresponds to Fr=0.231 rather than the desired Fr=0.248. The propeller RPS is
106.3 rpm making the average of 500 kN thrust induced by each propeller. The forces on the rudders show a
mean value of 50 kN for resistance induced by rudders. The side force induced by rudders is about 240 kN for
max rudder angle and it oscillates at damped roll period. The bilge keels side force and roll moment show
damped harmonic oscillations at Td with peaks at max roll rate as the lift forces induced by bilge keels are
dependent on roll rate not roll motion. The max side force is about 50 kN producing 500 kNm roll moment.
The results for different types of simulation are plotted on Fig. 4 as well. CFDShip-Iowa predicts very well
the roll motion period but damping is under predicted such that the roll peaks are over predicted by 15%D.
The results show same period (Td=11.2 sec) at large and small roll angle confirming linear behavior for
restoring moment. The pitch motion increases from initial value (which is same as EFD) to 0.53 deg by
releasing the model and then drops to average value of 0.25 deg compared with 0.28 deg in experiment. The
oscillation of pitch at large roll angle is at damped roll period similar to experiment but at small roll angle is at
2Td. The source of this harmonic should be investigated in future. CFD predicts the effect of roll on heave
motion very well but the mean value (sinkage) is over predicted. The predicted yaw motion shows oscillations
similar to experiment induced by roll motion. The CFD model reaches to -0.13 deg heading since that was
used as target heading for PID controller. To steer the ship at the desired heading, the controller turns hard the
rudder toward starboard with about 7 deg right after releasing the roll and keeps the rudder at about 4 deg for
the rest of the simulation. The ship speed throughout the simulation is fairly constant U=8.65 m/s and very
close to EFD value (E=-2%D). The CFD propeller RPS is found from self propulsion test and it is 1.4%D
higher than the averaged EFD rps. The CFD thrust for both propellers are the same and close to the EFD data.
Direct integration of the forces and moments in the ship coordinates system was performed for bare hull and
appendages including rudders, twin bilge keels and propellers. Figure 4 shows some selected loads on the
bilge keels (Xbk,Ybk,Kbk,Nbk), rudders (Xr,Yr,Kr,Nr) and fins (Xf,Yf,Kf,Nf). The other components of loads on
appendages, the bare hull forces, the propeller forces and total forces are not shown here and reported in [52].
The surge forces (resistance) of both rudders are 77 kN while bilge keels induce 22kN surge force. The
contribution of the rudders and bilge keels to the total resistance is approximately 12.5%, a considerable
number. The bare hull resistance is about 600 kN, 77% of the total resistance. Thus the resistance for other
appendages is not negligible as well, about 10% of the total resistance. The total side force is mainly induced
by rudders and hydrostatic side force acting on the hull. The rudder induced side force shows a very good
agreement with EFD. The propeller induced side force is zero due to axisymmetric body force propeller model
and port-starboard symmetric condition of the ship hull. The bilge keels side force is very small compared to
rudders side force and it is over predicted by CFDShip-Iowa. For heave force and roll moment, the hydrostatic
force/moment of the bare hull is dominant. The induced roll moment by rudders and bilge keels counteract
partially the hydrostatic roll moment induced by bare hull. The predicted bilge keel roll moment is in phase
with EFD showing maximum value for max roll rate. However, the amplitude is over predicted. The pitch
moment shows bow up pitch moment induced by the bare hull, bilge keels and propellers. This moment is
counteracted by the moment induced by rudders. The total yaw moment of rudders and the bare hull are at the
8 - 12
RTO-MP-AVT-189
NATO UNCLASSIFIED
NATO UNCLASSIFIED

same order and much larger than the contribution of the other appendages. Comparing roll motion and bare
hull yaw moment shows that rolling to starboard causes positive yaw moment acting on the hull which pushes
the ship to turn to portside.
Comparing all the predicted motions with EFD data shows that most methods predict relatively the roll decay
time history well. For damped roll period, LAMP and CFDShip-Iowa show the best agreement while FreSim
and SWAN2 over predict the period by 11%D. For roll damping, ISIS-CFD and SWAN2 under predict the
roll damping such that the roll peaks are over predicted significantly. For pitch motion, all the methods except
CFDShip-Iowa strongly under estimate the pitch mean value. Also, the oscillations on pitch motion at large
roll angle are under predicted by all methods except CFDShip-Iowa showing that the coupling between roll
and pitch is not predicted well for most methods. Most of the simulations show oscillations at 2Td on pitch
motion while EFD shows harmonics at Td. The heave time history shows ISIS-CFD and SWAN2 under
predict the mean value. The yaw motion time history is not predicted well by most of the methods but the
trend and the harmonics is well predicted. The ISIS-CFD prediction shows large deviation from target heading
since the rudders are not activated to control the heading. Also rudders are passive for SWAN2 simulations.
The rudder angle for all predictions except CFDShip-Iowa shows the initial rudder angle is ignored. The ship
velocity for all methods agrees with EFD data but ISIS-CFD and Fredyn show significant over prediction. In
Fredyn, the applied RPM apparently does not correspond to the required approach speed. Comparing propeller
loads explains under prediction of resistance by all PF and SB methods as thrust is noticeably under estimated.
The loads on rudders show that CFD simulations over predict the rudder resistance force. The side force of
rudders is predicted quite well for all methods. The rudders side force for all predictions show oscillations at
Td with same amplitude of EFD data. The loads on bilge keels are under estimated by PF significantly while
CFD methods predict the roll moment induced by bilge keels relatively well. This is due to capability of eddy
making forces prediction in CFD simulations.
6.2.2
Roll Decay with Passive Fins
The results for roll decay with passive fins are shown in Fig. 5. The ship is released at -10 deg roll angle
which is reduced 60% in one cycle due to large roll damping. The damped roll period is about 11.3 sec for
both large and small roll angles explaining linear restoring moment similar to previous case. The pitch time
history shows the model is released at 0.18 deg bow down condition and oscillates at Th= 5.7 sec for one
cycle until reaches to dynamic trim value of 0.1 deg during the test. Heave motion shows similar trend. The
model is pushed down into water during the roll initial condition setup such that the sinkage is about -0.36 m
at t=0 and then fluctuates at hydrostatic heave period until the ship stays at -0.26 m. The yaw motion shows
the ship slightly turns to starboard and portside in each roll cycle but stays fairy well at 0.17 deg of heading.
Such a heading causes the ship moves toward portside about 0.4 m after sailing 3.2L. The ship speed is fairly
constant during the test and it is about 9.5 m/s corresponding to Fr=0.254 close to the desired Fr=0.248. The
propellers rotate at 115.5 rpm to provide the required thrust. The propeller thrust oscillates at damped roll
period with the average of 600kN.The forces on rudders show significant noises on the resistance force. The
average resistance force varies throughout the test but at small rudder angle reaches to about 95 kN. The
rudder side force is correlated with rudder angle. For maximum rudder motion to portside/starboard the side
force is at max negative/positive peak which is about 200kN. The forces on fins show that the resistance
induced by fins is about 16 kN in average. The side forces of the fins are correlated with fins angle. Thus, it
oscillates at Td with maximum value of 60 kN for max fins angle. The bilge keel side force and roll moment
shows that the bilge keels produce forces in phase with roll rate. The side force/roll moment is negative
(acting toward portside) when the ship rolls from portside to starboard to damp the roll motion.
The CFDShip-Iowa predictions are shown in Fig. 5. The roll decay damped period is predicted very well and
RTO-MP-AVT-189
8 - 13
NATO UNCLASSIFIED
NATO UNCLASSIFIED
is the same for both small and large roll angle confirming linear restoring moment behavior. However, the
amplitude is a bit smaller than EFD introducing slightly larger damping prediction. The pitch time history
shows similar trend to EFD as the ship is released at 0.15 deg bow down condition and oscillates around 0.1
deg for small roll angle. For heave motion, the ship is pushed into water at t=0 and then released such that the
ship starts oscillating at heave natural/hydrostatic frequency Tzh= 5.7 sec for about 10 sec like EFD. The
amplitude of oscillations is predicted very well. It should be noted that the heave damping is significant as it
was expected such that the amplitude of oscillations drops 80% after only one cycle. The heave motion
converges to -0.22 m compared with -0.26 m in experiment. After releasing the ship at zero heading, the ship
turns toward starboard for 0.14 deg and then portside for 0.54 deg in first roll cycle. The variation of heading
is over predicted by CFD probably because the yaw damping is under predicted due to the simplicity of the
body force propeller model. However, the ship sails at average heading of 0.17 deg to portside similar to EFD
as that was set as target heading in PID controller on rudders. Comparing CFD and EFD rudders show rudder
angle amplitude is over predicted but mean value is the same as EFD similar to the prediction for yaw motion
as the rudder angle is correlated with heading. As shown in surge and sway motion, the heading of 0.17 deg in
average moves the ship toward West for 1.36 m after 40 sec when ship has traveled 2.5L toward North.
During the simulation, the ship speed is nearly constant corresponding to Fr=0.246. The body force propeller
model predicts 115.2 RPM for propellers very close to EFD value of 115.5 rpm. However, the thrust on the
propellers are under estimated by 17%D. The forces and moments are integrated on bare hull, rudders, fins
and bilge keels to evaluate their contribution on total forces and moments. Figure 5 shows some selected loads
on the bilge keels (Xbk,Ybk,Kbk,Nbk), rudders (Xr,Yr,Kr,Nr) and fins (Xf,Yf,Kf,Nf). The other components of
loads on appendages, the bare hull forces, the propeller forces and total forces are not shown here and reported
in [52]. The rudder surge force produces maximum resistance at maximum rudder angle with about 110 kN
which drops to 90kN for small rudder angles, close to EFD value. The bilge keels produce 24kN resistance in
average. The passive fins produce only 18 kN resistance which is negligible compared with other appendages
as measured in EFD. The propeller thrust in ship coordinate system produces 920 kN surge force which is
nearly the same as the total resistance of the ship including all appendages. The rudders, bilge keels and fins
have remarkable role in the resistance as they contribute to 24% of the total resistance. The maximum total
side force is 400 kN (half of the resistance) which occurs at maximum drift angle of 1 deg. The share of
rudders is comparable with the hull side force and agrees well with EFD. The bilge keels and fins have same
order side forces which are over predicted. Note that that the propeller side force is zero as the y-component
of the twin propellers' thrust are the same but acting on the opposite sides with zero net. For heave force and
roll moment, the hydrostatic hull force is dominant while the role of appendages is not noticeable. The pitch
moment induced by rudders is half of the magnitude of that for hull and attempts to put the ship at bow down
position. The passive fins also provide pitch moment assisting bow down condition but the magnitude is only
2% compared to that of rudders. The combined bilge keels and propellers induce 35% rudders' pitch moment
but in the opposite direction, helping the ship for bow up condition. The yaw moments induced by the rudders
and the hull are dominant and both are maximum at maximum roll angle. The hull yaw moment is negative
for negative roll angles explaining tendency to turn the ship to starboard by rolling to portside. The rudders
yaw moment reacts against the hull yaw moment to steer the ship. It is interesting that the bilge keels assist the
turning of the hull with negative yaw moment for negative roll angles even though their yaw moment is very
small compared to that for the hull. The passive fins and propellers apply negligible yaw moment on the ship.
The predictions for different methods are also shown in Fig. 5. The roll motion time history shows all methods
except FreSim and SWAN2 predict the roll period fairly well. The damped period prediction errors are 10.5
and 8%D for FreSim and SWAN2, respectively. The roll amplitude is significantly over predicted by
SWAN2, ISIS-CFD and SurSim. The pitch motion time history indicates that most of the methods show large
errors in prediction of the dynamic trim. Also, the SWAN2 prediction shows very large amplitude oscillations
on pitch motion compared to other methods and EFD. Note that the heave and pitch motion is not predicted by
8 - 14
RTO-MP-AVT-189
NATO UNCLASSIFIED
NATO UNCLASSIFIED

the SB methods. Both CFD methods and LAMP show good prediction for heave motion while Fredyn under
predicts significantly the mean value (dynamic sinkage). For heading, ISIS-CFD shows fairly large errors
because the rudders are not used to control the heading and rudders angle are zero during the simulation. Also
SWAN2 ignores the rudder actions. The rudder angle time history shows similar trend as EFD rudder angle
but with different mean value as the rudders are not located at initial angle provided by EFD data. The error
for ISIS-CFD heading prediction induces large prediction error for side motion as well while the surge motion
is predicted well by all methods as the ship velocity is close to EFD value. The loads on the propellers are
under predicted for all methods especially for PF and SB methods partially due to simplicity of body force
propeller model and partly because they used bare hull resistance curve to estimate the propeller RPM. The
resistance force induced by rudders are predicted nearly zero for all methods except CFD methods which
agree fairly well with EFD data. The side force on rudders are predicted very well by CFD and SB methods
and under predicted by PF methods. The resistance induced by fins are estimated fairly well by CFDShipIowa but under predicted for other methods. The side forces induced by fins are over predicted by PF and
CFD methods. The forces on bilge keels are over predicted by CFD methods and strongly under predicted by
PF methods. Note that there is no force for passive fins (it is included in the rudder forces) or bilge keels
(included in the hull forces) in SB methods such that those forces are shown as zero.
6.2.3
Roll Decay with Active Fins
As shown in Fig. 6, the ship is released from 18 deg roll to portside. Thanks to the active fins the damping is
significantly large such that the roll is reduced to 2 deg after one cycle and reaches to less than a deg for the
rest of the test. The damped roll period is about 11.9 sec during the test which is larger compared to previous
cases as expected due to larger roll damping. The time history of active fins angle describes how the roll is
controlled. Once the ship is released the fins are controlled by D controller on the roll i.e.
thus the
fin angle changes by changing the roll rate. When the ship starts rolling the roll angle decreases to zero
(upright position) and then overshoots to starboard. At the same time, the fin angle would be negative as the
roll rate is positive i.e. the starboard fin is at nose up position while the portside one is at nose down position
inducing significant negative roll moment. The induced roll moment counteracts the hydrostatic roll moment
to reduce the roll speed and consequently the overshooting. Once the ship overshoots the upright position the
hydrostatic moment changes its sign and assists the fins to reduce the next roll peak. Thus fins control the roll
by roll speed reduction first and then providing extra restoring moment for each half of roll cycle. Note that
the maximum fin angle is limited to 25 deg in the test and that occurs when the roll overshoots the upright
position as that is the point where the roll rate is at its peak. The pitch time history shows that the ship is at
0.12 deg bow down position at t=0 and then oscillates one cycle at pitch natural period to reach to about 0.04
deg after the roll is damped. For heave motion, the ship is pushed down into water for about 6.5% of the
design draft to enforce the initial roll. The ship moves upward and oscillates at heave natural/hydrostatic
frequency Tzh= 5.7 sec around a water line at 3% lower than the design draft. For yaw angle, the ship starts
moving to East for a short time after releasing and then turns to West attaining 0.7 deg yaw angle. However,
the yaw angle reduces to 0.28 deg as the ship is steered by the rudders. The rudders' trailing edge turn 1 deg to
starboard causing the ship turns to East as mentioned earlier. At t=8 sec the rudders turns -3 deg to portside
attempting to control the heading of 0.7 deg at that time. To keep the ship at heading of 0.28 deg, the rudders
stay at -1.2 deg for the rest of the test. The heading of 0.28 produces 0.5 m side motion to East after traveling
3.3L to North. Note that the side motion shows oscillations induced by large roll angle at beginning of the
simulation showing coupling between roll and the side motion. The ship speed throughout the test is changed
1% i.e. it is nearly constant and it corresponds to desired Fr=0.248. This ship speed is achieved by propellers
rotating at 115.8 rpm and producing averaged thrust of about 569 kN for each propeller. The loads on rudders
show high frequency oscillations on rudder surge force at propeller rotation frequency. The side force shows
oscillations at damped roll period with maximum value of about 400 kN for max rudder deflection condition.
RTO-MP-AVT-189
8 - 15
NATO UNCLASSIFIED
NATO UNCLASSIFIED
The resistance force induced by fins show oscillations at Td/2 with maximum of 210 kN for max fin angle.
The mean value of fin surge force is about 20 kN for small fin angle. The fin side force is two times larger for
max fin angle and reaches to about zero as it is expected for small fin angle. The bilge keel side force and roll
moment show damped oscillations at Td with peaks where the roll rate is maximum. The bilge keel side force
is 20% of the side force induced by fins.
The prediction for CFDShip-Iowa indicates that the roll damping is under predicted and roll period is over
predicted. The damped roll period is about 12.4 sec throughout the simulation i.e. it is over predicted by 4%D.
Also, the roll peak after second cycle is 4.4 deg compared to 2 deg for EFD. The source of the discrepancy
between CFD and EFD is probably due to the simplification performed on the grid generation for active fins
geometry. There is a gap between the hull and the fins giving the fins capability to have their own moves. The
original gap was too narrow for overlap grid setup thus the gap was modified by reducing the span size of the
fins. That would cause under estimation of fins roll moment i.e. over prediction of roll angle. The pitch time
history agrees fairly well with experiment. The pitch motion starts oscillating at damped roll period after
releasing the ship and then stays at 0.024 deg trim angle. The heave time history clearly shows the oscillations
at heave natural frequency after the roll is released similar to EFD. The oscillations also have fairly similar
amplitude with EFD but the averaged value is under predicted. The yaw angle shows the ship advances
toward East for a very short time because the negative roll is induced negative yaw moment. Then the ship
turns to West as the roll gets positive and consequently the induced yaw moment applies in the opposite
direction. Thus the yaw motion shows oscillations at damped roll period. Since the heading is under the
control of rudders, the ship finally sails at 0.28 deg set as target heading for the heading controller. The CFD
rudders are at initial positive angle i.e. they produce positive yaw moment to counteract the roll induced yaw
moment to turn the ship toward 0.28 deg heading. Once the roll induced yaw moment changes its sign, both
the rudders and roll induced bare hull yaw moment assist the ship to reach to the target such that after one roll
cycle the ship is fairly located at target heading. Comparing EFD and CFD fins motion, CFD over predicts the
peaks and period similar to those for roll as fin motion prediction is correlated with roll motion prediction.
The trajectory of ship predictions show that CFD under predicts the side motion but shows very similar trend
with EFD i.e. oscillations at damped roll period for large roll angles are observed on side motion. The surge
motion indicates very good agreement with EFD as ship speed is predicted close to EFD. The propeller rpm is
fixed at 118.7 during the simulation providing 2.5%D error compared with EFD data. The average of the
propeller thrust is about 507 kN, the same for both propellers. The forces and moments on bare hull, rudders,
bilge keels and active fins are integrated to study the role of such parts on the total forces and moments
applied on the ship. Note that Fig. 6 shows some selected loads on the bilge keels (Xbk,Ybk,Kbk,Nbk), rudders
(Xr,Yr,Kr,Nr) and fins (Xf,Yf,Kf,Nf). The other components of loads on appendages, the bare hull forces, the
propeller forces and total forces are not shown here and reported in [52]. The rudders surge force is about 100
kN which is about 14% of the resistance of bare hull and 10% of the total resistance of the appended hull. The
bilge keels create only 25 kN resistance throughout the simulation. The active fins provide 200 kN resistance
(20% of the total resistance of the appended hull) when they are at the maximum angle (25 deg) showing their
significant role on the resistance. Therefore the fin motion causes the propeller thrust to change slightly to
keep the ship at desired speed as shown in Fig. 6. The contribution of fins to total resistance for small fin
angles is the same as bilge keels i.e. 20 kN, close to EFD value. For side force, the combination of rudders and
fins side forces counteract the hull side force. The side force of rudders is over predicted and it is in phase
with EFD data. The maximum rudder side force is 500 kN for maximum rudder deflection. The fins side force
is under predicted and it is 400 kN for maximum fin deflection. The induced side force by bilge keels is about
200 kN for maximum roll angle i.e. it is over predicted. The propeller side force is zero during the test because
of the nature of body force propeller model as mentioned earlier. The total heave force and roll moment are
mainly induced by hydrostatic force applied on the hull such that the role of the appendages are not dominant.
The roll moments induced by appendages explain that in each half roll cycle the fins reduce the roll speed as
8 - 16
RTO-MP-AVT-189
NATO UNCLASSIFIED
NATO UNCLASSIFIED

they counteract hydrostatic roll moment first and then assist that after overshooting the upright position. The
order of the induced roll by rudders is similar with the fins moment. The bilge keels, however, provide one
order magnitude smaller moment which agrees well with EFD data. The pitch moment indicates that the hull
itself, bilge keels and propellers produce a bow up moment while rudders mainly and fins partially counteract
those moments. It is interesting that the propellers pitch moment is 14% of the moment induced by the hull.
The yaw moment time histories show the rudders working against the yaw moment induced by the hull and
bilge keels to control the heading. The yaw moment applied on the ship due to fins is negligible even for
maximum fin deflection. This is due to the fact that the fins are located close to center of gravity of the ship.
The results for different methods are also shown in Fig. 6. ISIS-CFD is not used for this case. The roll decay
time history indicates that the roll damping is under predicted by all methods. SWAN2 shows the most under
prediction for roll damping. The roll period is pretty well predicted by all methods. The pitch motion agrees
well with EFD only for CFDShip-Iowa. The results of LAMP and SWAN2 show over prediction of dynamic
trim while Fredyn under predicts that. The SB methods are not used to predict the heave and pitch. The heave
motion is predicted fairly well by CFDShip-Iowa, LAMP and SWAN2 while Fredyn under predicts the steady
state value. The yaw response is estimated well by CFDShip-Iowa following closely the EFD data while other
methods show large prediction errors even though the trend is relatively predicted. This is because the yaw
motion is controlled and reduced to target heading after awhile due to active rudders. The rudder angle time
history is correlated with yaw motion such that the rudder angle is over predicted by LAMP and Fredyn and
well predicted by CFDShip-Iowa. Note that the rudders are passive for SWAN2 simulations. The loads of
propellers are underestimated by all methods as before with best agreement observed for CFDShip-Iowa. The
resistance of rudders is under predicted by all methods except CFDShip-Iowa which over predicts that. The
rudder resistance is predicted fairly constant while EFD shows large oscillations on rudders resistance due to
existence of rotating propellers. The side force on the rudders is over predicted by SB methods and under
predicted by PF methods. For the SB methods, the over prediction shown is caused by the inclusion of the fin
forces in the overall rudder forces. If the EFD rudder and fin forces are summed, the agreement between the
EFD and SB results is much better. The resistance of the fins shows harmonics at Td/2 for all methods similar
to EFD. The amplitude of oscillations is under predicted by PF methods while CFDShip-Iowa shows the best
agreement with EFD data. The side force of fins for all of the methods shows similar trend as EFD but the
amplitude is under predicted for most of the methods. PF methods significantly under predict the loads on
bilge keels as the nature of bilge keel forces is eddy making force and PF methods should be tuned to capture
properly the bilge keel forces. The results for CFDShip-Iowa show over prediction of bilge keel forces.
6.2.4
Effects of Fins
The roll decay results of the model appended with passive, active, or no fin stabilizers provide the opportunity
to investigate the effectiveness of the fin stabilizers as roll reduction device. Therefore herein the reduction
rate of the roll motion for different cases is studied by comparing the linear and nonlinear damping
coefficients. The damping coefficients are obtained based on quadratic and cubic fits to the roll decay
extinction curves.
Tables 6-8 show damping coefficients for no fin, passive fin and active fin roll decay cases. Each table
includes the damping coefficients estimated based on quadratic and cubic fitings. Based on quadratic fitting to
EFD data, the dimensional linear damping coefficient for no fin case is 68.1103 kNms/rad while the
quadratic term is 4.3103 kNms2/rad2. The prediction error for damping coefficient is between 4% and
40%D in which the minimum is for FreSim and the maximum is for ISIS-CFD. The quadratic term is
predicted by an error between 10% for SurSim and 85%D for SWAN2. For the case with passive fin the EFD
damping coefficient increases to =68.9103 kNms/rad and =14.38 kNms2/rad2, as shown in Table 7.
RTO-MP-AVT-189
8 - 17
NATO UNCLASSIFIED
NATO UNCLASSIFIED
Therefore, the nonlinear damping is increased 230% compared with the case with no fin while linear damping
is increased only 1%. The nonlinear roll damping is originated from eddy making damping which is increased
due to the eddies induced by passive fins. The prediction errors for and are in a range of 2-40%D and 10100%D, respectively. The large errors for quadratic damping coefficient are for all SB and PF methods as they
might not include the eddy making forces induced by viscosity using proper empirical formula. The estimated
quadratic damping is negative for Fredyn and LAMP. For CFD cases, the quadratic damping prediction error
is about 10%D for both CFD simulations which is better than other methods as vortical structures can be
predicted. The CFDShip-Iowa over predicts while ISIS-CFD under predicts the quadratic damping.
Comparing the results with no fin case shows that the linear damping is increased by 35% from no fin to
passive fin case for some PF and SB methods compared to 1% change for EFD data. For the case with active
fins (Table 8) the EFD linear damping coefficient increases to 202 kNms/rad and the quadratic term increases
to =20.8 kNms2/rad2. Thus, the linear damping is three times larger compared with passive fin case due to
the increase of lifting forced induced by active fins with large attack angle. Also the quadratic damping is
increased by 45%. The prediction errors for and are in a range of 25-72%D and 8-195%D, respectively.
Most of the predictions show significant increase of linear damping compared to passive fin case as expected.
For nonlinear damping, among all the methods only CFD simulations could predict the quadratic damping
coefficients.
The damping coefficients based on cubic fitting to all EFD and predicted results show larger linear damping
coefficients for all cases compared with those estimated from quadratic fits. The EFD linear damping is
71.4103 kNms/rad for no fin case increasing to 74.9103 kNms/rad for the case with passive fins, as shown
in Tables 6 and 7. The trend of linear damping from no fin to passive fin is the same as before. However, the
rate of the increase of the linear damping is 5%, which is larger than what quadratic fitting shows. This is
more reasonable as the lift force induced by passive fins is not negligible and should increase clearly the linear
damping. The EFD cubic damping coefficient is 1.1103 kNms3/rad3 for no fin case increasing to 6.5103
kNms3/rad3 for the passive fin case as expected. The prediction errors for and for no fin case are in range
of 2-34%D and 20-85%D, respectively. Also, the prediction errors for and for passive fin case are in range
of 0.3-30%D and 31-103%D, respectively. The large errors for linear damping are for ISIS-CFD, SWAN2 and
LAMP. For active fin case (Table 8), the EFD linear damping increases to 209 kNms/rad and cubic damping
increases to 11103 kNms3/rad3. The prediction errors for and are in range of 28-73%D and 34-138%D,
respectively. The prediction error for cubic damping coefficient is minimum for CFD simulations as before.
For both quadratic and cubic methods, it should be mentioned that the EFD roll decay analysis itself is prone
to an uncertainty. Depending on the number of oscillations considered, different damping coefficients will be
obtained. The authors noticed that the uncertainty in is 19% using quadratic fitting and 13% using cubic
fitting. Also, the uncertainties in and are 160% and 131%, respectively. Therefore, part of the large
prediction errors for nonlinear damping coefficients could be due to the uncertainties in EFD data analysis.
6.2.5
Motions Coupling
The total forces and moments on the ship can be investigated in frequency domain using 6DOF mathematical
model discussed in Sadat-Hosseini et al.[21] ( refer to equations 4-9 in the paper) to analyze the coupling
between all modes of motion. As discussed earlier, surge motion is not under any discernable oscillations
while side motion oscillates noticeably at fd for large roll angle. Heave and pitch asymptote to their dynamic
calm water values with small amplitude oscillations mostly at fd/2 and 2fd. Roll and yaw are under damped
harmonic oscillations at fd. The rudder angle oscillates at fd similar to yaw angle as it is defined by PID
controller using yaw angle input. The active fins also show harmonics at fd as they are based on the PID
controller on the roll angle. The CFDShip-Iowa total surge force shows harmonic amplitudes at 2fd at large
8 - 18
RTO-MP-AVT-189
NATO UNCLASSIFIED
NATO UNCLASSIFIED

roll angle and fd/2 at small roll angles. The first one is mainly induced by second order surge and roll
coupling term expressed as
in the mathematical model and partially induced by second order surge
and sway/yaw coupling
and
. The second one should be induced by first order surge and
heave/pitch coupling as heave and pitch oscillate at fd/2. The total side force shows large harmonic
amplitudes at fd and 3fd which are originated from the first and third order coupling with roll and yaw
motions and first order coupling with rudder and fin motions. The heave force and similarly the pitch moment
show noticeable harmonics at about 2fd which could be because of first order heave and pitch coupling and/or
second order coupling of heave and pitch with sway, roll and yaw motions. The roll moment shows large
harmonic amplitudes at fd which is originated from the first order coupling of roll with sway, yaw, rudder and
fin motions. Lastly, the yaw moment indicates harmonics at fd and 3fd due to first and third order coupling of
yaw with roll and sway motions and due to first order coupling of yaw with rudder and fin motions.
6.3
6.3.1
Forced Roll in Calm Water

Rudder Induced Roll with Passive Fins
The results for rudder induced roll with passive fins are shown in Fig. 7 and Table 9. The rudders' trailing
edges are at 4 deg to starboard at the beginning of the test, as shown in Fig. 7. Then the rudders are moved
under forced oscillations at TR=11.42 sec close to natural roll period. The amplitude of oscillations is about
13.4 deg compared to the desired value of 15 deg, as shown in Table 9. Throughout the test, the rudders
oscillate around an average value of -4 deg which is similar to the initial deflection value inducing negative
average yaw moment on the ship. The time history of roll shows that the roll is about zero at t=0 but once the
rudders' trailing edge turns to portside the ship starts rolling to portside as the acting point of the net lift force
on the rudders are below the center of gravity of the ship. For first couple of rudder oscillation cycles the roll
amplitude eventually raises until it reaches to stable oscillation. The roll response oscillates at rudder
excitation frequency with amplitude and average value of 6.216 deg and 0.17 deg, respectively. The phase lag
between roll and rudder is 137 deg. The pitch motion shows the model is at 0.1 deg bow up condition when
the rudders start harmonic turning. The pitch angle decreases to average value of 0.02 deg in first couple of
oscillations. The stable amplitude of pitch response is about 0.06 deg at TR and 0.015 deg at TR/2. It is
interesting that the pitch oscillates mainly at TR while it was expected to fluctuate at TR/2. In other words, the
pitch angle is positive for negative rudder angle and negative for positive rudder angle while the pitch is
supposed to be same for both positive and negative rudder angles. The source of pitch motion oscillations at
TR could be a sign of asymmetric condition of the model respect to x-z plane. Comparing pitch and roll time
histories reveals that pitch and roll motions are relatively in phase (4 deg phase lag). The same can be
observed for heave motion i.e. the heave motion is maximum at the moments when roll and pitch are
maximum. The stable heave motion amplitude induced by forced rudder motion is about 0.03 m at TR and 0.01
deg at TR/2. The yaw motion shows the model is at zero heading before rudders start harmonic turning. Once
the rudders start the oscillation by turning to portside the ship turns portside as well due to positive yaw
moment induced by rudders. Because of the ship inertia and lethargy, the ship keeps turning to portside even
after the rudders reach to maximum deflection and turn to starboard. The ship starts eventually turning to
starboard as a result of negative rudder yaw moment. Thus the result is a harmonic motion for yaw with
amplitude of 0.23 deg and with a phase lag between yaw and rudders for about 236 deg. Throughout the test,
the average of heading changes slightly from initial value of 0.4 deg to a negative value as a result of negative
mean value of rudder angles mentioned earlier. Therefore, the ship travels toward West for a short time and
then heads to East while moves toward North. The fluctuations on heading cause harmonic oscillations on
surge and side motions with amplitude of 33 m and 0.24 m at TR and with 50% of those amplitudes at TR/2.
The ship speed is 9.0 m/s ( 3% less than the desired speed corresponding to Fr=0.248) at the beginning of the
test but decreases for about 3% due to the ship drift angle of 4 deg and large rudder angles. The propeller rpm
RTO-MP-AVT-189
8 - 19
NATO UNCLASSIFIED
NATO UNCLASSIFIED
is fixed at 106.5 rpm as the test setup was planned. The thrust for each propeller is about 500 kN oscillating
with amplitude of 50 kN at forced rudder motions period. The resistance for rudders oscillates at TR/2 and TR
with amplitude of 40 kN and 43 kN, respectively. The rudders provide 60 kN resistance in average. The side
force induced by rudders show harmonics at TR with amplitude of 493 kN. The average resistance induced by
fins is about 15 kN which oscillates at TR with small amplitude of 1.8 kN. The amplitude of side force induced
by fins is 30 kN. The recorded side force and roll moment on bilge keels show oscillations at T R with
amplitude of 19 kN and 163 kNm for Y and K, respectively. The forces on bilge keels are in phase with roll
velocity as it is expected.
Comparing CFDShip-Iowa results with EFD indicates that the CFD rudders oscillate under same conditions as
EFD i.e. same amplitude, mean and phase to mimic EFD test setup as close as possible. The prediction of roll
response agrees very well with EFD in terms of the phase and the period but not the amplitude. The stable roll
amplitude is predicted 8.08 deg compared to 6.216 deg for EFD suggesting under prediction of roll damping
and/or over prediction of rudders yaw moment. The CFD pitch motion confirms the fact that the pitch should
oscillate mainly at TR/2 unlike what was observed in EFD. Also the pitch shows oscillations at 2T R=2T
similar to the roll decay cases. The pitch oscillates with amplitude of 0.015 deg and 0.05 deg at TR/2 and 2TR,
respectively, and with average of 0.02 deg bow down position. The similar behavior is also observed for
heave motion with amplitude of 0.011 m and 0.02 m at TR/2 and 2TR. The mean value of heave is about -0.16
m i.e. the ship sinks more into the water for about 2.6% of its design draft. The yaw motion shows that CFD
ship is located at zero heading at t=0, similar to EFD. The yaw motion oscillation happens for each cycle of
rudder motion producing a harmonic yaw motion with amplitude of 0.38 deg and fairly constant mean value
of 0.7 deg. Therefore, the yaw motion amplitude is over predicted probably due to over prediction of rudder
induced yaw moment which might be the source of roll over prediction as well. The yaw motion creates
harmonics on surge and side motions similar to EFD but with larger amplitude for side motion as yaw motion
is over predicted. Throughout the test, the average CFD ship speed is 8.87 m/s, which is 2%D larger than
EFD. The CFD propellers rotate at 111.3 rpm about 4% larger than EFD which explains 2% CFD ship speed
error as the thrust is quadratic function of ship speed. The forces on bare hull, rudders, bilge keels and passive
fins are integrated to investigate their contribution on the total forces and moments. Note that Fig 7 shows
some selected loads on the bilge keels (Xbk,Ybk,Kbk,Nbk), rudders (Xr,Yr,Kr,Nr) and fins (Xf,Yf,Kf,Nf). The
other components of loads on appendages, the bare hull forces, the propeller forces and total forces are not
shown here and reported in [52]. The surge force induced by rudders show oscillations at TR/2 with the
average value of 120 kN and amplitude of 38 kN i.e. the mean value of the rudder resistance is over predicted
but amplitude is predicted well. The contribution of rudders to total resistance is 9%-18.4% for rudder angles
varying between -18 and 10 deg. Note that the total resistance is almost the same as propellers thrust force as
the ship speed is fairly constant. The resistance for bilge keels and fins fluctuate at T R/2 with very small
amplitude and with the average of 23 and 19 kN, respectively. The overall contribution of rudders, bilge keels
and passive fins to the total ship resistance is 14%-23%, a considerable number. The resistance of bare hull in
average is 650 kN i.e. 75% of the total resistance. Thus the share of the other appendages such as the rudder
seats, the shafts and the struts is 9% in average. The side force induced by rudders is the main part of the total
side force with the amplitude of 433 kN, close to EFD data, while bilge keels and fins produce 61 kN and 33
kN side forces. Thus the bilge keels induced side force is over predicted but the fins induced side force is
predicted very well. The side forces for all appendages oscillate at TR. The heave forces of rudders and other
appendages are negligible compared to the hull heave force which is mainly hydrostatic force. Also, the roll
moment shows that the hydrostatic roll moment induced by hull is dominant. It is found that the roll moment
induced by rudders is counteracted by the hull itself, bilge keels and fins. The pitch moment of the appendages
reveals that mainly the rudders and partly the fins create pitch moment causing bow down condition. This
moments acts in the opposite direction of those induced by hull, bilge keel and propellers. The yaw moment
describes that the rudder angle to portside (positive rudder angle) produces positive rudder yaw moment
8 - 20
RTO-MP-AVT-189
NATO UNCLASSIFIED
NATO UNCLASSIFIED

causing the ship to turn to portside. The fins also provide yaw moments for same direction but in very small
order of magnitude compared with that for rudders. This is due to the fact that the fins are located very close
to the center gravity of the ship.
The results for different methods are also shown in Fig. 7 and Table 9. In all CFD, PF and SB methods, the
rudders are under forced oscillations around mean value of zero except for CFDShip-Iowa in which the
rudders are forced to oscillate with average of -4 deg mimicking EFD condition. Similar to CFDShip-Iowa,
most of the methods over predict the roll amplitude. Fredyn has the maximum over prediction with an error of
58%D while the best agreement is for LAMP with E=6%D as the damping could be tuned properly to EFD
value. Among SB methods, FreSim shows better agreement with EFD. For pitch and heave motions, the SB
methods are not used to predict them. All the simulations show the oscillations are mainly at TR/2 unlike EFD.
The mean value of heave motion is not predicted well by Fredyn. The amplitudes of the oscillations for both
pitch and heave are under predicted with large errors by all methods. For yaw motion, Fredyn has the
maximum over prediction with an error of 140%D. Also SB methods and Fredyn fail to catch the mean value
of yaw. The harmonics of surge motion is well predicted by all methods while the harmonics on side motion is
over predicted with large errors by all SB and PF methods. The prediction error is significantly large for SB
methods. Similar to all previous cases, the loads on propellers are under estimated by all methods with the
best agreement for CFDShip-Iowa. The resistance force of the rudders show oscillations at TR/2 for all
predictions similar to EFD data. The amplitude of the oscillations is predicted quite well by all methods with
the best agreement for LAMP. The side force induced by rudders is over predicted by SB methods and Fredyn
and under predicted by CFDShip-Iowa. For loads on fins, SB methods show zero as they do not include fin
forces in the mathematical model. The average resistance is under predicted by all methods while CFDShipIowa over predicts that. The side force of fins shows harmonics at TR like EFD data. The mean and amplitude
of side force of fins is predicted very well by CFD and PF methods. The loads of bilge keels are over
predicted by CFD methods and under predicted by PF methods. However, the prediction forces are in phase
with EFD data.
6.3.2
Rudder Induced Roll with Active Fins
Figure 8 and Table 10 show the results for forced roll motion induced by rudders while the fins are active to
control the roll motion. The EFD rudder angle shows that the rudders are under forced harmonic motions with
amplitude of 13.4 deg and mean value of -4 deg similar to previous test. The period of rudder oscillation is
TR=11.42 close to roll natural frequency which is also same as before. Once the forced rudder motion starts by
turning the rudders to portside the ship rolls to portside and keeps rolling even after the rudders are turning
back to starboard side. The ship starts rolling to starboard eventually showing reaction to rudders motion. This
provides a lag between roll and rudders which is due to the ship inertia. As a result the ship would be under
forced roll motion at TR but with a phase lag with rudder forced motion. The amplitude of roll motion is 3.68
deg compared to previous test in which was 6.216 deg showing the importance of active fins. The fins are
controlled by
i.e. the fins are at zero angle when the roll angle is at peak as shown. When the ship
starts rolling from portside to starboard for each roll cycle the fin angles are zero first and then becomes
negative as roll rate is positive. The peaks for fin angles with value of about 10 deg happen when roll is zero
as the magnitude of roll rate is at maximum. As discussed earlier, by rolling from portside to starboard, the
starboard fin will be at nose down while the other one will be at nose up position producing negative roll
moment. Thus in each half roll cycle the fins induced moment counteracts the hydrostatic roll moment for first
half (where roll is negative) reducing the overshoot angle and assists the hydrostatic roll moment for second
half to return the ship to upright position. The pitch motion also oscillates at TR with amplitude of 0.04 deg
and is in phase with roll motion. Thus the maximum pitch is observed when the ship is at maximum roll. The
heave is also in phase with roll with amplitude of 0.018 m and mean value of -0.165 m. The yaw motion
RTO-MP-AVT-189
8 - 21
NATO UNCLASSIFIED
NATO UNCLASSIFIED
shows that the rudders cause fluctuations on the ship heading such that the ship yaw motion oscillates at T R
with amplitude of 0.24 deg. The mean value of yaw is positive at several rudder cycles but slightly becomes
negative due to negative mean value of forced rudder motions. As it is expected, the side motion shows the
ship moves toward West at the beginning of the test because of positive mean value of yaw angle and then
turns to East for the rest of the test. The side motion shows very weak oscillations at TR due to yaw motion
fluctuation. The ship speed throughout the test decreases from initial value of Fr=0.24 to Fr=0.226. The
propellers rotate at 106.3 rpm producing a thrust of 490 kN. The resistance for rudders oscillates at TR/2 and
TR with amplitude of 42 kN and 39 kN, respectively. The rudders provide 80 kN resistance in average. The
side force induced by rudders show harmonics at TR with amplitude of 511 kN. The resistance induced by fins
is about 20 kN in average and oscillates at TR and TR/2 with amplitude of 6.3 kN and 8 kN, respectively. The
amplitude of side force induced by fins is 115 kN. The recorded side force and roll moment on bilge keels
show oscillations at TR with amplitude of 7.4 kN and 64 kNm for Y and K, respectively.
The CFDShip-Iowa results show the rudders are under forced oscillations with same mean, amplitude and
phase mimicking EFD condition. The predicted roll response shows good agreement with EFD in terms of
period and phase but the amplitude is over predicted. The EFD roll amplitude is 3.7deg compared with CFD
value of 4.9deg. Anyhow, CFD shows effectiveness of active fins by reducing the CFD value of 8 deg for roll
to 4.9 deg by using active fins. The fin angles are over predicted as the fin angles are correlated with roll
angle. The amplitude of fins angle is predicted about 13 deg while EFD shows 10 deg. The CFD pitch motion
shows harmonic at TR/2 unlike what was observed in EFD. Also the pitch shows oscillations at 2T R=2T
similar to the roll decay cases. The pitch oscillates with amplitude of 0.007 deg and 0.025 deg at TR/2 and
2TR, respectively, and with average of 0.01 deg bow down position. The similar harmonics are also observed
for heave motion. The mean value of heave is about -0.15 m compared with -0.165 m. The yaw motion agrees
well with EFD for the amplitude and phase but not for the mean value. The EFD mean value is larger such
that the ship turns more toward West side. This results in large errors for predicted side motion as shown in
Fig. 8. The CFD ship speed oscillates slightly around Fr=0.234, 3% higher than the EFD ship speed. This is
probably due to 2.5%D higher rate of CFD propeller rotation compared with EFD. The integration of forces
and moments on the appendages and bare hull is performed to find out their impact on overall ship
performance. Figure 8 shows some selected loads on the bilge keels (Xbk,Ybk,Kbk,Nbk), rudders (Xr,Yr,Kr,Nr)
and fins (Xf,Yf,Kf,Nf). The other components of loads on appendages, the bare hull forces, the propeller forces
and total forces are not shown here and reported in [52]. The resistance of rudders is 110 kN in average but
varies between 70 kN and 150 kN depending on the rudder angles. The contribution of rudders on total
resistance is 12.8% in average which can increase to 17.4%. The resistance of bilge keels is 22 N which
changes only 1% in each roll cycle, providing 2.5% of the total resistance. The fins provide 32 kN resistance
(3.7% of total resistance) changing 43% depending on the fin angle. The hull resistance itself is also about 600
kN in average, 70% of total resistance. Thus the share of rudders, bilge keels and fins is 19% of the total
resistance in average. The contribution of other appendages is less than 11% to the total resistance. The side
force time histories reveal that the rudders and the hull itself contribute mainly to side force. In fact, the rudder
side force is counteracted by the hull induced side force. The order of side force created by fins is 37% of that
produced by hull. Also, bilge keels provide three times less side force compared to fins. For heave force and
roll moment, the hydrostatic forces acting on the hull are dominant. The roll moment induced by rudders and
fins are one order of magnitude smaller than hull induced roll moment. In each half roll cycle, the induced roll
moment by fins counteracts hydrostatic hull moment at first half and assists that at second half as mentioned
earlier. The geometry and location of the rudders and fins provide bow down pitch moment while bare hull,
bilge keels and propellers make bow up pitch moment. The order of pitch moment induced by rudders is about
half of the hull pitch moment. The fins and bilge keels create 1% and 4.5% of the pitch moment induced by
hull. Lastly, the yaw moment time histories show that 60% of yaw moment induced by rudders is counteracted
by hull such that the total yaw moment is in order of 40% of rudder yaw moment. The fins and bilge keels
8 - 22
RTO-MP-AVT-189
NATO UNCLASSIFIED
NATO UNCLASSIFIED

cause very few percent of the total yaw moment. The propellers yaw moment is negligible as the propellers
counter-rotate.
The results for different methods are also shown in Fig. 8 and Table 10. In the PF and SB methods, the
rudders are under forced oscillations around mean value of zero and with amplitude of 15 deg. For CFDShipIowa, the rudders are forced to oscillate with average of -4 deg and amplitude of 14 mimicking EFD
condition. Similar to CFDShip-Iowa, the PF and SB methods over predict the roll amplitude. Fredyn has the
maximum over prediction with the error of 92%D while the best agreement is for CFDShip-Iowa with
E=34%D. The pitch and heave motions are only predicted by CFD and PF methods; both show large over
prediction errors. For yaw motion, the amplitude of oscillations on yaw induced by rudders is strongly over
predicted by Fredyn. Similar to all previous cases, the loads on propellers are under estimated by all methods
with the best agreement for CFDShip-Iowa. The resistance force of the rudders show oscillations at TR/2 for
all predictions similar to EFD data. The amplitude of the oscillations is predicted quite well by all. The side
force induced by rudders is captured well by SB methods, over predicted by Fredyn and under predicted by
CFDShip-Iowa. The average resistance of the fins is over predicted by CFDShip-Iowa. The side force of fins
shows harmonics at TR like EFD data. The mean and amplitude of side force of fins is predicted very well by
CFD. The loads of bilge keels are over predicted by the CFD method.
6.3.3
Fins Induced Roll
Unlike the two previous cases where the roll was induced by forced rudder motion, the forced roll motion can
be provided by moving the fins under forced harmonic motion. Figure 9 and Table 11 show the results for
forced roll induced by fins. The fins are under harmonic oscillations with amplitude of 25 deg and period of
TF=11.42 sec i.e. 0.55 rad/sec. Again the oscillation period of fins is close to roll natural frequency of the ship.
For each fin motion cycle, when fin angle is at positive peak of 25 deg the induced roll moment is negative
attempting to roll the ship to portside. This is due to nose down position of starboard fin and nose up position
of the portside fin. Once the ship is at max roll to portside the fin angles are -25 deg turning the ship to
starboard. This creates a forced roll motion with amplitude of 6.43 deg. The mean value of roll is about zero
as the mean value of fin forced motion is zero. Also, the roll shows 60 deg phase lag with fin motion. The
induced roll causes pitch motion for the ship with amplitude of 0.05 deg at TF and 0.015 deg at TF/2. The ship
is at bow down position in average. The pitch is relatively in phase with roll as previous cases. The pitch is
about zero when the ship is at max roll to portside and is at maximum when the ship is at max roll to
starboard. The heave response is also in phase with roll with amplitude of 0.03 m and 0.01 m at TF and TF/2,
respectively. By starting the forced fin motion, the ship turns to portside and yaw angle increases to about 0.12
deg. After that the ship turns back to -0.6 heading because of negative rudder induced yaw moment as the
mean value of rudder angles is about -3 deg. Then the ship stays at -0.3 deg heading in average throughout the
test. The negative sign of the rudders cause the ship travel to East after awhile. The surge and side motions
show oscillations at TF and TF/2 but with large amplitude at TF. The ship speed is fairly constant during the
test and it is about Fr=0.224 compared to desired value of 0.248. The propellers rotate at 106.5 rpm producing
480 kN thrust for each propeller. The loads on rudders including surge and side forces are very small in
average and include high frequency oscillations. The side force on rudders shows oscillations at TF with
amplitude of 103 kN. The resistance force on fins shows oscillations mainly at TF/2 with amplitude of 53 kN
and average of 60 kN. The maximum resistance induced by fins reaches to 120 kN which is a very large
amount compared to the thrust provided by propellers. The side force induced by fins oscillates at TF with
nearly zero mean value and amplitude of 225 kN. The loads on bilge keels show oscillations at TF with
amplitude of 49 kN and 430 kN for Y and K, respectively.
The results for CFDShip-Iowa show that the fins are forced with same condition as EFD. The induced roll
RTO-MP-AVT-189
8 - 23
NATO UNCLASSIFIED
NATO UNCLASSIFIED
agrees well with EFD in terms of the phase and the mean value but the amplitude is under predicted such that
the CFD value is 5.6 deg while EFD is 6.4 deg. The pitch time history indicates harmonics at TF/2 as it was
expected. The roll to starboard and portside induces same pitch moment i.e. the pitch motion would oscillate
at TF/2. Also, the pitch clearly oscillates at 2TF similar to all other cases. The mean value of pitch is about 0.02
degree at bow down condition. The heave motion also shows similar harmonics with average value of -0.17
m. The yaw motion shows the ship turns to starboard due to negative induced rudder moment. Then the ship
yaw motion turns to portside because of turning rudders to portside. The yaw moment induced by roll motion
causes oscillations for yaw motion for each roll motion cycle producing harmonics at TF on yaw motion. The
surge and sway motions show oscillations at TF and TF/2 induced by forced roll motion similar to EFD data.
The CFD propulsion rate is 109 rpm compared with 106.5 rpm for EFD. The CFD ship speed is 8.67 m/s
which is 3.7% higher than EFD due to higher rpm for CFD propellers and/or simplicity of CFD propeller body
force model. Figure 9 shows some selected loads on the bilge keels, rudders and fins. The other components
of loads on appendages, the bare hull forces, the propeller forces and total forces are not shown here and
reported in [52]. The integrated forces and moments on the appendages show that the resistance of rudders is
78 kN, 9% of the total resistance. The fins produce 60 kN resistance in average but changes 65% by changing
fin angles to 25 deg and the bilge keels create 22.5 kN. Thus the contribution of rudders, fins and bilge keels
to total resistance is 19% in average, a very large number. The bare hull makes 600 kN in average, 70% of the
total resistance. The share of the other appendages on the total resistance is 11%. The side force created by the
active fins has amplitude of 160 kN which is counteracted by mainly the bare hull side force and rudders. The
bilge keels side force is 25% of those induced by the fins i.e. it is under predicted. The propeller side force is
zero due to axisymmetric body force model. The both heave force and roll moment are dominant for bare hull
because of the hydrostatic nature of bare hull heave force and roll moment. The roll moment shows that fairly
large fin angles in order of 25 deg can create up to 13% of the hydrostatic roll moment of the bare hull which
is really impressive. The induced roll moment by rudders and bilge keels are about 40% and 10% of those
induced by fins and both act against fins moment. Note that the induced roll moment by bilge keels is under
predicted. The propeller roll moment is about zero as it was expected. The pitch moment induced by rudders
and fins are both positive imposing bow down situation for ship. However, the bare hull itself, rudders and
bilge keels create negative pitch moment. The yaw moment induced by rudders acts against the moments
induced by fins, bare hull, and bilge keels. The order of rudder yaw moment is close to the bare hull yaw
moment and the other appendages play a negligible role there.
The predictions for other methods are also shown in Fig. 9 and Table 11. The fins are under forced oscillations
for all cases mimicking EFD condition. The roll angle is under predicted by all methods with maximum error
of 42%D for FreSim prediction. The phase difference between roll and fin motions is under predicted by all
methods, with the largest errors found for FreSim and Fredyn. The best agreement for both amplitude and
phase is obtained for CFDShip-Iowa. For pitch and heave motions, SB methods are not used. All the
predictions show mainly harmonics at TF/2 unlike EFD. The amplitude of oscillations for heave and pitch
motions are predicted with large errors by all methods. The prediction of yaw motion shows SB methods are
quite off due to the neglect of the autopilot gain for the deviation from the track. All the predictions show
harmonics at TF on yaw motion like EFD data. The maximum prediction errors for amplitude of oscillations
on yaw motion belong to PF methods. The propeller loads are under predicted by all methods but best
agreement is for CFDShip-Iowa prediction. The loads on rudders show that the mean value of resistance of
rudders is predicted well by all methods while CFDShip-Iowa over predicts that. The rudder side force
oscillates at TF for all methods. The amplitude of oscillations in the CFDShip-Iowa and PF predictions agree
well with EFD data. The resistance induced by fins shows harmonics at TF/2 similar to EFD data but the
amplitude is under predicted for all methods with maximum error for the SB methods. The induced side force
by fins is also under predicted by SB and CFD methods but predicted well by PF methods. For loads on bilge
keels all the simulations under predict the side force and roll moment amplitudes. The under predicted results
8 - 24
RTO-MP-AVT-189
NATO UNCLASSIFIED
NATO UNCLASSIFIED

for CFDShip-Iowa have the minimum errors among other methods.

6.3.4
Motions Coupling
The results show fairly similar coupling between roll and other modes of motion as roll decay. The surge,
sway, roll, yaw, fins and rudders oscillate at forced roll period ff with small amplitudes at 2ff for surge and
sway. The pitch and heave oscillate mainly at ff while it was expected to fluctuate at 2ff. In other words, the
pitch angle should be same for both positive and negative roll angle i.e. the pitch period is half of roll period.
This is probably due to asymmetric condition of the ship model. The simulations show same harmonics for all
motions except for heave and pitch in which they show harmonics mainly at 2ff and partially at ff and ff/2.
The CFDShip-Iowa total surge force shows harmonic amplitudes at 2ff, ff and ff/2. The first one is mainly
induced by second order surge and roll coupling term expressed as
in the mathematical model. Also it
is partially induced by second order surge and sway/yaw coupling
and
. The second and third
ones should be induced by first and second order surge and heave/pitch coupling
and
. The total side force shows large harmonic amplitudes at ff, 3ff and 5ff which are originated
from the first, third and fifth order coupling with roll and yaw motions. Also first order sway coupling with
rudder and fin motions induces harmonics at ff on side force. The heave force and similarly the pitch moment
show noticeable harmonics at about 2ff which could be because of first order heave and pitch coupling and/or
second order coupling of heave and pitch with sway, roll and yaw motions. The roll moment shows large
harmonic amplitudes at ff which is originated from the first order coupling of roll with sway, yaw, rudder and
fin motions. Lastly, the yaw moment indicates harmonics at ff and 3ff due to first and third order coupling of
yaw with roll, sway, rudder and fin motions.
6.4
6.4.1
Seakeeping in Waves
Regular Head Waves with Active Fins
The results for 6DOF simulations of seakeeping in regular head waves are shown in Fig. 10 and Table 12. The
ship is located in a wave with amplitude of 1.03 m and frequency of 0.6 rad/s (=1.206L) indicating linear
wave with wave slope of Ak=0.0378. The roll motion oscillates with very small angle (<0.8 deg) due to non
zero heading of the ship in the waves, as shown in Fig. 10. The fins turn based on the roll rate to control the
roll motion. However, the fin angles are fairly small and are less than 2 deg as the roll response is negligible in
head waves. The pitch motion shows the pitch is nearly zero at t=0 because the center gravity of the ship is
located on the wave trough. Once the ship starts sailing at desired speed, the pitch motion becomes negative
because the incoming wave crest pushes the bow toward up. The wave crest moves at relative velocity toward
the aft of the ship and produces positive pitch motion for the ship when it is located before the ship center of
gravity. After that, the wave trough reaches to the ship center of gravity and again produces nearly zero pitch.
The pitch motion shows oscillation at encounter period of Te=6.686 sec with amplitude of 1.75 deg (0.8Ak)
and mean value of -0.09 deg. The heave motion shows similar behavior as pitch but with about 220 deg phase
lag. The heave amplitude and mean value are 0.78m and -0.19 m, respectively. The ship is at -0.3 deg heading
at t=0 which eventually decreases to -1.25 deg and stays there during the test as it is under the control of the
rudders. The yaw motion shows harmonics at Te with amplitude of 0.031 deg induced by waves. The yaw
motion oscillations are quite in phase with wave at center of gravity. The rudders are at about 1 deg angle to
starboard turning the ship to starboard eventually. The surge and side motions show the ship sails toward
North and at the same time East due to negative mean value of rudder angles. Also, both surge and side
motion show harmonics at Te and Te/2. The oscillations on surge motion are in phase with wave while sway
motion shows 180 deg phase lag with the wave. The ship speed is about 8.95 m/s compared to the desired
speed of 9.56 m/s. This is the result of the added resistance induced by waves. The loads on the propellers
RTO-MP-AVT-189
8 - 25
NATO UNCLASSIFIED
NATO UNCLASSIFIED
show oscillations at Te with amplitude of 120 kN and mean value of 600 kN. The loads on rudders show that
both surge and side forces are very small in average due to small deflection of rudders during the test. The
surge and side forces induced by rudders oscillate at high frequency relevant to propeller rotation frequency as
rudders are located inside the wake of the propellers. The loads on the fins are negligible due to nearly zero fin
angle such that the fins induced resistance is about 13 kN in average. The heave force induced by fins (not
shown here) indicates oscillations at Te with amplitude of 44 kN. The loads on bilge keels show similar
oscillations with amplitude of 2.8 kN and 24 kNm for side force and roll moment, respectively.
The CFDShip-Iowa results show that the model is located at wave trough at t=0 and the initial values are set
to EFD values mimicking the EFD condition. The roll motion shows the model oscillates several cycles at roll
natural frequency until reaches to around 0.05 deg due to wave induced roll moment as the ship heading
respect to wave is not exactly zero. The fins follow the controller on the roll rate such that the fin angles reach
to 1.2 deg for first roll cycle (where the roll angle is large) and drops to 0.05 deg for small roll angle. The
predicted pitch motion shows sinusoidal harmonic similar with EFD data but with about 60 deg phase lag. The
mean value is about -0.065 deg and the amplitude is 1.88 deg compared to 1.75 deg for EFD. Thus the
amplitude is over predicted by 7%D. The heave motion shows clearly a sinusoidal oscillation with mean value
of -0.155 m and amplitude of 0.79 m, very close to EFD value. The yaw motion shows the ship turns to
starboard at the beginning of the simulation similar to EFD and then turns back slowly to portside. The wave
causes harmonics at Te on the yaw motion with very small amplitude. Throughout the simulation, the rudders
assist the ship to sail at the target heading. This results in -3 deg rudder angle in average. The rudders oscillate
with amplitude of 0.07 deg at Te because of their correlation with yaw motion. The ship heading causes
harmonics on surge and side motions similar to EFD. The ship speed is about 9.1 m/s, close to EFD speed.
The CFD propeller rpm is 118.4 similar to the one used in calm water cases corresponded to the nominal
Fr=0.248. Figure 10 shows some selected loads on the bilge keels, rudders and fins. The other components of
loads on appendages, the bare hull forces, the propeller forces and total forces are not shown here and reported
in [52]. The forces and moments show that the total resistance of the ship in head waves is 1150 kN in
average, compared to 850-870 kN in previous cases in calm water. Thus, the results show that the resistance is
increased by 35% in the head waves. The integrated forces on rudders show that the rudders resistance is 115
kN, 10% of the total resistance. Both bilge keels and fins provide 30 kN resistance in average i.e. the
resistance induced by fins are over predicted. The bare hull creates 950kN which is the one has changed
significantly in waves compared to calm water. The share of appendages on total resistance is only 12.6% for
this case as main part of the resistance (82.6% of the total resistance) is the bare hull resistance in calm water
plus the wave forces on the hull. The total side force is mainly induced by the hull and rudders but they are
very small due to almost zero wave heading. The total heave force and roll moment are mainly hydrostatic
force acting on the hull. The roll moments induced by appendages are fairly small except for rudders which
counteract 40% of the roll induced by hull. The average pitch moments induced by the bare hull and bilge
keels are negative attempting to put the ship at bow up position. The rudders mainly and the fins for very
small percent counteract the hull and bilge keels pitch moment. The total bare hull yaw moment which is
mainly induced by waves shows that the average wave yaw moment is positive turning the ship to portside.
The rudders, however, counteracts this yaw moment but not enough to produce zero for the net yaw moment.
The fins create negative yaw moment helping the rudders but the amount of their contribution is really
negligible. In fact, the fins yaw moment is not even enough to counteract the yaw moment induced by the
bilge keels.
The results for other prediction methods are also shown in Fig. 10 and Table 12. Note that no simulation is
done using SB methods for wave cases. Also, the roll and yaw motions are zero in the Fredyn and LAMP
since the ship sails in head waves. Only in the CFDShip-Iowa and SWAN2 computations a non-zero deviation
from head waves is modeled and therefore non-zero roll and yaw motions are seen. The rudders and fins are
8 - 26
RTO-MP-AVT-189
NATO UNCLASSIFIED
NATO UNCLASSIFIED

acting as passive objects for all methods except for CFDShip-Iowa. The wave at center of gravity of the ship
shows that all methods follow EFD in terms of phase and period except Fredyn as the ship speed is over
predicted and encounter period is under predicted. As before, this is caused by the unbalance of the given
RPM and the corresponding ship speed. The pitch motion predictions show sinusoidal oscillation for pitch
same as EFD. The amplitude of pitch motion is quite well predicted by all methods, with largest under
prediction of 11%D by Fredyn and largest over prediction of 8%D by CFDShip-Iowa. The phase of the pitch
motion is not predicted well for all methods showing about 50 deg phase lag. For heave motion, the mean
value is well predicted for all methods. The comparison error in heave amplitude is within 5%D, except for
LAMP, for which an over prediction of 26%D is found. The results show about 60 deg phase lag for all heave
predictions compared with EFD data. The propeller loads are under estimated by all methods as before. The
resistance and side forces of rudders are nearly zero for PF methods as they did not have active rudders. For
fins, the induced resistance is under predicted by PF methods and over predicted by CFD methods. Also, PF
methods fail to predict the nonlinearities on the resistance. For side force acting on fins PF methods show
zero. For bilge keels, the side force and roll moment are zero for LAMP while CFDShip-Iowa predicts the
harmonics and amplitudes fairly well.
6.4.2
Regular Beam Waves with Active Fins
The results for seakeeping in regular beam waves are shown in Fig. 11 and Table 13. The wave amplitude is
0.96 m and the wave frequency is 0.8 rad/sec (=0.678L) i.e. linear wave condition with Ak=0.0626. The
wave approaches to the ship from starboard. At t=0, the wave trough has just passed the ship and the ship has
rolled to starboard with angle of 2.5 deg. The roll time history shows the ship rolls to starboard at max angle
all the time when the wave trough is located at the ship center of gravity. Similarly, the max roll to portside
happens when the wave crest is located at ship center of gravity. The roll period is 7.85 sec corresponding to
wave frequency. The roll amplitude is about 2.5 deg which is 0.71Ak and the mean value is nearly zero. The
roll is under the control of the fins such that the fins turn 10 deg to damp the roll motion. The mechanism of
how fins damp the roll motion follows the explanations mentioned before. The pitch motion shows harmonic
oscillation with same period as roll and in phase with roll motion. The pitch amplitude is 0.088 deg
(0.025Ak). The heave motion is nearly in phase with wave at center of gravity. This is due to the fact that the
ratio of wave length and ship beam size is 5.05. Therefore the ship just moves up and down with the wave
with amplitude of 0.97 m (1.06A) and mean value of -0.17 m. The yaw motion shows harmonic at wave
frequency with amplitude of 0.09 deg caused by waves. The model slightly turns to starboard such that the
average yaw motion becomes negative after about ten cycles. This is due to the negative yaw moment induced
by the negative mean value of rudder angles. The rudder angle also shows harmonics at wave frequency as it
is correlated with yaw motion. For surge motion, harmonics at Te and Te/2 are observed with amplitude of
23.4m and 11.7 m, respectively, while the model advances toward North. The side motion shows the model
moves toward West during the test in general but oscillates at wave frequency with amplitude of 0.68 m.
During the test the model has about 9 deg drift angle when the wave crest is located at center of gravity and -6
deg drift when the wave trough is at center of gravity, showing significant yaw moment acting on the model.
The ship speed is about 9.3 m/s very close to the desired value. The propeller rate is reported 114 rpm
providing about 600 kN thrust for each. The loads on rudders show about 80kN resistance induced by rudders.
The side force shows oscillations at wave frequency with amplitude of 103kN. Both resistance and side forces
show oscillations at high frequency relevant to propeller rotation frequency as the rudders are in the wake of
propellers. The loads on fins show harmonic oscillations on resistance force of fins with average of about 30
kN and amplitude of 9.8 kN and 10.2 kN at Te and Te/2. The side force shows oscillations at Te with amplitude
of 150 kN induced by 10 deg fin angles. The fin induced heave force (not shown here) has mean value of
about 10 kN and amplitude of 53 kN. The side force, heave force and roll moment induced by bilge keels
RTO-MP-AVT-189
8 - 27
NATO UNCLASSIFIED
NATO UNCLASSIFIED
show large harmonics at Te with amplitude of 38, 28 kN and 335 kNm.

The results for CFDShip-Iowa shows the model is at same initial condition as EFD to follow EFD test setup
closely. The wave time history at center of gravity reveals that the CFD model moves faster than EFD a bit
which results the model meets the wave crest sooner than EFD model after long run. The predicted roll motion
agrees well with EFD in terms of the phase and the period but the amplitude is under predicted as it is 1.75
deg compared to 2.5 deg for EFD. The pitch motion shows the positive peak is predicted well but the negative
peak is under predicted. Thus the amplitude is under predicted by 9%D and the mean value is over predicted.
The heave motion shows remarkable agreement with EFD with 1%D error on both amplitude and mean value.
The yaw motion response is closely in phase with EFD data. The yaw amplitude is 0.08 deg very close to EFD
with mean value decreasing with the same rate as EFD. For side motion, the ship moves toward West with
same rate as EFD. The oscillations are predicted on side motion with amplitude of 0.75 m. For surge motion,
both harmonics at Te and Te/2 are observed with amplitude of 23.6m and 11.8 m, respectively. The CFD ship
speed is 9.43 m/s, 1% higher than EFD. The speed difference between CFD and EFD causes unmatched phase
between CFD and EFD after long term running. Figure 11 shows some selected loads on the bilge keels,
rudders and fins. The other components of loads on appendages, the bare hull forces, the propeller forces and
total forces are not shown here and reported in [52]. The forces and moments time history shows that the ship
total resistance is 1000kN. The share of resistance of the rudders is about 100 kN in average (10%) which is
over predicted compared with EFD. The fins provide 40 kN resistance and bilge keels make 25 kN. The bare
hull creates 575 kN resistance. Thus, the contribution of rudders, active fins and bilge keels is 16.5% to total
resistance. The share of shafts, struts and rudder seats would be 26%, very large amount of contribution
compared to calm water cases and head wave simulation. Therefore, these appendages (in particular the struts)
should not be excluded from the grids of the simulations that are performed in beam waves. The average side
force acting on the hull and all appendages is not significant but the amplitude is very large for bare hull as
expected. The rudders produce side force with amplitude of 5% of that induced by the bare hull which is close
to EFD value. The fins induced side force has amplitude of 71 kN meaning E=50%D and the bilge keels
provide about half of that showing good agreement with EFD. Therefore fins and bilge keels make 3% side
force of that induced by bare hull. The heave force and roll moment are mainly induced by the bare hull due to
hydrostatic forces and moments acting on the hull. The roll moment induced by rudders and fins are at the
same order, 10% of the roll moment induced by the hull. The bilge keel roll moment is about 190 kNm which
is only 2% of the moment induced by the bare hull. The bare hull and propeller induced pitch moments are
dominant which assist the ship to be at bow up position. The rudders and bilge keels produce similar pitch
moment but in the opposite direction so the net of those is nearly zero. The fins provide only 250 kNm pitch
moment in average encouraging bow down condition. For yaw moment, the amplitude of the moment induced
by rudders and bare hull are dominant. The rudders yaw moment counteracts the moment induced by the bare
hull. The yaw moment induced by active fins and bilge keels are negligible compared to those induced by the
hull and rudders. The propellers provide zero net yaw moment as the ship has counter-rotated propellers.
The results for other predictions shown in Fig. 11 indicate that the generated waves follow closely the
experimental data in terms of the amplitude and phase. The roll motion shows that all methods under predict
the roll amplitude with best agreement for LAMP and the most under prediction is for Fredyn, as shown in
Table 13. Also, the roll phase is not predicted well for SWAN2. Since the roll is under predicted the fin angle
is also under predicted by all methods. For pitch response, the amplitude is predicted very well by CFDShipIowa while Fredyn shows very large errors. The mean value of pitch motion is not predicted by LAMP while
other methods show quite good agreement with EFD. The pitch phase reveals disagreement for SWAN2
similar to that observed for the roll motion. For heave motion, the amplitude is predicted well by CFDShipIowa and LAMP but SWAN2 and Fredyn show under prediction. The yaw motion shows oscillations at Te for
all prediction methods while the amplitude is over predicted by PF methods showing that the yaw damping is
8 - 28
RTO-MP-AVT-189
NATO UNCLASSIFIED
NATO UNCLASSIFIED

not properly modeled in those methods. Also, the trend of yaw motion (mean value) is not predicted by PF
methods. The rudder angle amplitude shows large errors for PF methods particularly for LAMP as it is
correlated with yaw motion and the deviation from the track. The ship speed is fairly constant for all methods
except Fredyn which shows an increase of speed during the run, due to the imbalance of propeller thrust and
resistance as before. The loads on propellers are under predicted by all methods with the best prediction for
CFDShip-Iowa. The loads on rudders show that the resistance of rudders is predicted fairly well by PF
methods while CFD over predicts that. The side force of rudders is predicted by CFDShip-Iowa while LAMP
over predicts (due to the larger rudder angle) and Fredyn under predicts that. The predicted loads on fins are in
phase with EFD data for all methods. The mean value of resistance force of the fins is under predicted by PF
methods and over predicted by CFDShip-Iowa. The amplitude is under predicted by all methods. For side
force, the amplitude is very well predicted by LAMP (due to the relatively good prediction of the roll angle
and therefore the fin angle) while other methods under predict that. For fins induced heave force, the
amplitude is under predicted by all methods with best agreement obtained for CFDShip-Iowa. For bilge keels,
the side force and roll moment is only predicted well by CFDShip-Iowa while LAMP fails to capture the
induced forces and moments by bilge keels.
6.4.3
Quartering Bi-Chromatic Waves with Active Fins
The results for seakeeping in bi-chromatic waves are shown in Fig. 12. The bi-chromatic wave consists of two
regular waves with same amplitude of 1.77 m and periods of 9.4 sec (k=0.0455 1/m) and 10.2 sec (k=0.03868
1/m). The wave heading is 120 deg respect to the ship bow and approaches the ship from portside. The bichromatic wave envelope will have oscillations at both high frequency and low frequency. The characteristic
of low frequency oscillations associate with the differences of the individual wave number and frequency.
Thus the low frequency oscillations will have a nominal wavelength of
and nominal period
of
sec. For high frequency oscillations, the period is based on the average value of both
periods. Therefore, the high frequency oscillations occur at
sec. The recorded EFD wave
shows both harmonics but at encounter periods due to the ship speed. The roll motion shows the model is at
15 deg to starboard at t=0. By passing the waves, the roll oscillates at Te=14 sec but meantime its amplitude
changes as the wave amplitude changes. This forms low frequency oscillation for roll motion with encounter
period of 280 sec. The max roll angle happens for max wave height and it is about 20 deg for roll to starboard
and 15 deg for roll to portside. Note that the wave hits the ship from portside. The roll motion is fairly in
phase with wave amplitude at center of gravity. The fin motions are correlated with roll as
. The
large roll rate causes the fin angle reaches to their maximum of 25 deg during the test. The pitch response is
similar to roll but has about 180 deg phase lag with waves. The max pitch is near 3 deg and happens when the
ship is located on the wave trough or wave crest. The heave motion shows oscillations at both low and high
frequency similar to pitch motion but has 90 deg phase lag with pitch as it was expected. The maximum heave
motion is 2.5 m, 40% of the design draft which is very large. The yaw motion also shows oscillations induced
by wave moment approaching at the heading of 120 deg from portside. The wave provides positive yaw
moment in average such that the ship yaw motion shows turning to portside in average. Again the maximum
amplitude of yaw fluctuations happens when the wave amplitude is at maximum and it is about 3.5 deg. The
oscillations on yaw motion create fluctuations on rudder angles as they are defined based on PID controller on
the heading. The maximum rudder fluctuation has amplitude of 22.5 deg and it is for max yaw amplitude. At
that time, the average rudder angles are 9 deg to starboard to turn the ship toward starboard acting against the
wave yaw moment. The side motion shows the ship moves to West in average due to wave yaw moment while
it sails toward North. The side motion oscillations have amplitude of 1.5 m due to the existence of the waves.
The drift angle of the ship reaches to about 18 deg for max wave amplitude condition causing large yaw
moment acting on the ship. The propellers rotate at 114.8 rpm which creates 640 kN thrust for each propeller
RTO-MP-AVT-189
8 - 29
NATO UNCLASSIFIED
NATO UNCLASSIFIED
acting in the shaft direction. The loads on rudders oscillate similar to rudder motion and are maximum for
maximum rudder deflection. The maximum of rudder resistance amplitude and mean value are 450 kN for
22.5 deg rudder deflection. At the same time, the amplitude of induced rudder side force is three times larger.
For fins, the maximum loads happen for max wave amplitude such that the induced resistance amplitude and
mean value are about 125 kN and the side force amplitude is 375 kN for 25 deg fin angles. The heave force
induced by fins has amplitude of 120 kN. The side and heave force induced by bilge keels are half of those
induced by fins. The amplitude of roll moment induced by bilge keels is at maximum for max wave amplitude
and it is about 800 kNm.
The results for CFDShip-Iowa are shown in Fig. 12. The phases of both regular waves which are components
of bi-chromatic waves were not provided by EFD and estimated very well such that the generated waves show
good agreement with EFD waves. The predicted roll motion agrees well with EFD in terms of period and
phase but the amplitude is over predicted. The max roll to starboard is 27 deg and to portside is 22 deg ad both
happen when the wave amplitude is at max value. It seems that the average roll angle throughout the
simulation is very close to EFD. The maximum mean value is 2.5 deg roll to starboard similar to EFD and
again happens at max wave amplitude. The large roll motion induced by waves activates the fins to damp the
roll. For this purpose, the fins turn hard to their maximum value of 25 deg many times during the test.
Comparing CFD and EFD fins angles shows that the fins follow EFD during the simulation but overall the fin
angles are over predicted as the roll is over predicted. The CFD prediction for pitch motion shows very good
agreement with EFD. The maximum pitch angle is about 3 deg similar to EFD. The trend of increase and
decrease of pitch amplitude follows EFD. The pitch mean value is positive during the simulation and is 0.08
deg at max wave height condition suggesting that the ship is at bow down position in general during the test.
The predicted yaw motion shows that CFD captures the yaw amplitude when the ship turns to portside (yaw is
positive) but the negative yaw angle is under predicted. In particular, for max wave amplitude the positive
max yaw is 6 deg close to EFD but the negative max yaw is zero while EFD is -2 deg. This causes difference
between CFD and EFD yaw mean value during the simulation. The rudder angle prediction follows the
prediction for yaw motion. Since the CFD and EFD agreement is good for positive yaw angle, the rudders
show agreement with EFD for negative rudder angles. Note that for positive yaw motion, the rudder angles
become negative as they turn to starboard to control the heading. Thus the mean value of rudder angles is not
predicted well similar to yaw motion. Comparing CFD and EFD side motion indicates the CFD model moves
slower toward West than EFD model. However, the period and amplitude of oscillations on side motion are
fairly well predicted. Throughout the simulation the propeller rpm is 118 compared to 114.8 in EFD. The ship
speed time history shows the model moves slower in average in larger wave amplitude due to the increase of
the resistance. Once the wave amplitude reaches to its minimum the mean value of ship speed is at max of
9.34 m/s close to desired Fr=0.248. The ship speed drops to 8.7 m/s for largest wave amplitude, 7% decrease
due to the increased resistance. The ship speed is exactly in phase with wave amplitude at center of gravity.
The max ship speed at each period happens when the wave crest is located at the ship center of gravity. When
the ship is on wave trough, the ship will be placed between two wave crest reducing the ship speed to its
minimum at each period. This trend can be confirmed by EFD as well. The thrust produced by propellers
show that the mean value of the thrust is 520 kN for nearly zero wave amplitude which increases by
increasing the wave amplitude. In fact, the ship speed and advance ratio reduce and based on the open water
curves the thrust coefficient and similarly the torque increases. Figure 12 shows some selected loads on the
bilge keels, rudders and fins. The other components of loads on appendages, the bare hull forces, the propeller
forces and total forces are not shown here and reported in [52]. The forces and moments time histories show
that the propellers provide 1000 kN thrust when the wave amplitude is nearly zero. The mean value of thrust
raises 20% (reaches to 1200 kN) by increasing the wave amplitude due to the larger resistance. The rudders
provide 110 kN resistance in average for small wave amplitude as the rudder angles are about zero. The
induced resistance lifts up to 260 kN for large wave amplitude where the rudder angles are about 10 deg in
8 - 30
RTO-MP-AVT-189
NATO UNCLASSIFIED
NATO UNCLASSIFIED

average. Note that the mean value of resistance of rudders is close to EFD but the amplitude is under
predicted. The fins also contribute 50 kN and 100 kN to total resistance in average for small and large wave
amplitudes, which are close to EFD values. The resistance created by bilge keels is about 24 kN and changes
slightly with wave amplitude. The share of rudders, fins and bilge keels is 18% of the total resistance for
nearly zero wave amplitude and 32% for large wave amplitude. The resistance of bare hull shows 690 kN for
small wave amplitude and 730 kN for large wave amplitude. Thus the resistance on the hull changes 6% by
changing the wave amplitude. The summation of the resistance induced by rudders, fins, bilge keels and bare
hull provide an estimate of the resistance induced by the rest of appendages. This indicates that the rudders
seats, shafts, struts and skeg create 13% of the total resistance for small wave amplitude dropping to 7% in
large waves. The side force shows that the bare hull has the largest amount of side force which is three times
larger than that induced by rudders. The rudders attempt to counteract the hull side force but cannot cancel
that out completely resulting in noticeable side motion for the ship as discussed before. The side forces for
fins and bilge keels are negligible compared to those for rudders and bare hull. Comparing side forces of
rudders, fins and bilge keels with EFD data show very good agreement for rudders and fins but bilge keel side
force is over predicted. The propellers side force is zero due to the symmetric condition of the ship. The heave
force and roll moment are dominant for bare hull because of the hydrostatic forces acting on the ship. The
bare hull roll moment has a positive mean value causing the ship to turn to starboard more than the portside as
seen before. The active fins induce counteracting roll moment which is about 10% of the hull roll moment
showing the effectiveness of fins in controlling the ship roll. The roll moment induced by bilge keels is
negligible. This roll moment is predicted very well. The propeller induced roll moment becomes nonzero at
the times when part of one of the propellers comes out of the water. The pitch moment shows the bare hull,
the rudders and propellers induce large pitch moment on the ship. The bare hull and propellers attempt to put
the ship at bow up position while rudders counteract that. The fins also assist rudders but their share is only
10% of that induced by rudders. The yaw moment is induced mainly by the bare hull and partly by the bilge
keels tending to turn the ship to portside as the mean value of yaw moment is positive. The maximum yaw
moment is for max wave amplitude as expected. The rudders counteract this moment inducing negative
average yaw moment. The fins assist the rudders but not with a substantial amount. The propellers yaw
moment shows similar trend as propeller roll moment i.e. it becomes nonzero for the times that propellers are
partly in water.
The predictions for other methods are shown in Fig. 12 as well. The wave at center of gravity shows a phase
lag with EFD after long run for most predictions due to differences in ship speed. LAMP slightly under
predicts the sustained speed and therefore the wave phase is slightly less well predicted than other methods.
The predictions for roll show LAMP, SWAN2 and CFDShip-Iowa over predict the roll angle but Fredyn
under predicts the roll considerably. Since fin angle prediction is correlated with roll motion prediction, the fin
angles are over predicted by all methods except Fredyn. For pitch and heave motions, fairly good agreements
are observed for all methods. The yaw motion prediction shows that Fredyn over predicts the yaw oscillations
amplitude while CFDShip-Iowa and LAMP under predict that. The rudder angle prediction is dependent on
yaw motion prediction such that the agreement for Fredyn prediction is not good. Furthermore, the mean
value of the rudder angle is not predicted well by Fredyn, due to the neglect of the rudder gain for the
deviation from the track. The surge motion shows good agreement for all methods. The amplitude of
oscillations at Te is predicted for side motion using all methods but the mean value and the trend is only well
predicted by CFDShip-Iowa. The mean value and amplitude of loads on propellers are under predicted by all
methods. The rudder resistance is over predicted by Fredyn and under predicted by other methods. The side
force of rudders is over predicted by Fredyn and under predicted by LAMP and both are not in phase with
EFD data. The resistance of fins is under predicted by all methods with maximum under prediction for
Fredyn. The side force of fins is over/under predicted by LAMP/Fredyn. For bilge keels, LAMP under predict
RTO-MP-AVT-189
8 - 31
NATO UNCLASSIFIED
NATO UNCLASSIFIED
side and heave forces and roll moment significantly.

6.4.4
Motions Coupling
All 6DOF motions including fins and rudders for EFD data oscillate at encounter frequency fe with small
amplitudes at 2fe for surge and sway. The predictions show similar harmonics. The CFDShip-Iowa total surge
force shows harmonic amplitudes at 2fe and fe. The first one is mainly induced by second order surge and
sway/roll/yaw coupling term expressed as
,
and
in the mathematical model. Also it could
be partly due to second order coupling of surge with heave/pitch. The second one is induced by wave
excitation force. The total side force shows large harmonic amplitudes at fe which is originated from the first
order coupling with roll, yaw, rudders and fins motions and wave excitation force. Also side force shows
small harmonic amplitudes at 2fe induced by second order coupling with heave and pitch. The heave force and
similarly the pitch moment show harmonics at fe and 2fe. The first one is because of first order coupling of
heave and pitch and/or wave excitation force. The second one is induced by second order coupling with
sway/roll/yaw motions. The roll moment shows large harmonic amplitudes at fe which is mainly originated
from first order coupling with sway, yaw, rudders and fins and/or wave excitation force. Lastly, the yaw
moment indicates harmonics at fe and 2fe. The first one is due to first order coupling of yaw with roll, sway,
rudder and fins motions and/or wave forces. The second one is induced by second order coupling of yaw with
heave and pitch.
7.0 CONCLUSIONS
CFD, PF, and SB simulations for extensive experiments performed at MARIN in calm water and waves for a
modified version of the DTMB5415, designated 5415M, are performed and the results are investigated with
consideration to the mathematical model of ship motions. The detailed validation study is performed for
motions of the ship and the controllers and forces and moments on the appendages including rudders, fins and
bilge keels. Also, the high fidelity results are used to explain some of the complex physics.
Based on the roll decay simulations for the model appended with no fins, passive fins and active fins, it can be
concluded that system based, potential flow and CFD methods are well capable of predicting the decay of roll
in time and the effectiveness of the fins as roll reduction device are fairly well predicted by all methods.
However, only the more sophisticated methods are able to model all physics. In this respect, it is demonstrated
that high-fidelity CFD is capable of accurately simulating the physics associated with roll decay. The
investigation on the forces and moments reveals that the contribution of the rudders, fins and bilge keels to the
total resistance can be significant depending on the rudders and fins angles. The total side force and roll
moment are mainly induced by rudders and bare hull. For pitch moment, the role of propellers and rudders are
not negligible. The total yaw moment of rudders and the bare hull are at the same order and much larger than
the contribution of the other appendages. The results show coupling between roll and other modes of motion.
The harmonics in predicted total forces and moments are investigated using the mathematical model to
understand the nature of coupling between all modes of motion.
In the rudders and fins induced forced roll simulations, it is seen that the efficiency of the rudders is in most
cases over-predicted, while the efficiency of the fins is under-predicted. This corresponds to the roll decay
with active fins, in which the decay of the roll in the experiments was much faster than in all simulations. Also
for forced oscillations, it is seen that the more sophisticated methods such as CFD or PF are able to model the
physics. The loads on appendages show same conclusions as roll decay cases. Also, the investigation on
predicted forces and moments in frequency domain shows coupling between roll and other modes of motion.
8 - 32
RTO-MP-AVT-189
NATO UNCLASSIFIED
NATO UNCLASSIFIED

For regular head and beam wave cases and bi-chromatic wave case, it is seen that as expected, most PF
methods perform well. When looking at details, however, it appears that some of the physics are predicted
more accurately with CFD. Although CFD costs much more computation time, the present work demonstrates
that it can provide better results than potential flow methods. The results for forces on the appendages show
that the share of rudders, fins and bilge keels for total resistance is extremely significant for large wave
amplitude as observed in bi-chromatic waves. Also, the shafts, struts and rudder seats show very large amount
of contribution to total resistance in beam waves compared to calm water cases and head wave simulation.
Thus, they play important role in beam wave simulations and should not be excluded from the model. It is
shown that the share of bare hull resistance in total resistance is increased in wave cases due to the wave
forces. The forces and moments are investigated with consideration to the mathematical model and the
harmonics induced by coupling of motions and waves are discussed.
For future work, the local flow field provided by CFD simulations will be investigated to study the interaction
of vortical structures produced by the fins and other appendages. The flow physics could provide better
understanding of fins and bilge keels efficiencies in vicinity of other appendages. System based, potential
flow, and CFD simulations will be performed in irregular waves to evaluate the seakeeping and course
keeping performance of the ship in random seas.
8.0 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Hamid Sadat-Hosseini and Pablo Carrica, IIHR, and Tin-Guen Yen, SAIC, are co-authors. The research
performed at IIHR was sponsored by the US Office of Naval Research, grants N00014-01-1-0073 and NICOP
N00014-06-1-064 under administration Dr. Patrick Purtell. The CFD simulations were conducted utilizing
DoD HPC.
The authors gratefully acknowledge the permission given by the Danish, Italian and Netherlands Navies to use
the test results obtained within Supplement Joint Program 10.111 to the Western European Armaments Group
Memorandum of Understanding for THALES.
9.0 REFERENCES
[1] Stern F., Agdrup K., Kim S.Y., Cura Hochbaum A., Rhee K.P., Quadvlieg F.H.H.A., 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, Journal of Ship Research, Vo. 55, pp. 135147.
[2] Toxopeus, S.L., Walree F. van, and Hallmann R. (2011), Maneuvering and Seakeeping Tests for 5415M.
AVT-189 Specialists' Meeting, Portsdown West, UK.
[3] Loeff, G.B. and Toxopeus, S.L. (2003), Maneuvering assessment in concept ship design, NAV 2003
International Conference on Ship and Shipping Research.
[4] Toxopeus S.L. and Lee S.W. (2008), Comparison of maneuvering simulation programs for SIMMAN
test cases, SIMMAN 2008 Workshop on Verification and Validation of Ship Maneuvering Simulation
Methods, pages E56-61, Copenhagen, Denmark, April 2008.
[5] Furukawa Y., Nakiri Y., Kijima K., Ibaragi H. (2008), The Prediction of Maneuverability of KVLCC1
RTO-MP-AVT-189
8 - 33
NATO UNCLASSIFIED
NATO UNCLASSIFIED
and KVLCC2, SIMMAN 2008, Copenhagen, Denmark.

[6] Ogawa A. and Kasai H. (1978), On the mathematical model of maneuvering motion of ships,
International Shipbuilding Progress, 25(292):306-319.
[7] Kim S., Kim Y. (2008), Prediction of Maneuvering Performance for KVLCC1 and KVLCC2 Based On
PMM Data, SIMMAN 2008, Copenhagen, Denmark.
[8] Yasukawa H., Sano M. (2008), Maneuvering Simulation of MOERI Container Ship, SIMMAN 2008,
Copenhagen, Denmark.
[9] Umeda N., Yamamura S. et al (2008), Extreme Motions of a Tumblehome Hull in Following and
Quartering Waves, Proceedings of the 6th Osaka Colloquium on Seakeeping and Stability of Ships,
Osaka, pp.437-443.
[10] Yasukawa H. (2006), Simulation of Ship Maneuvering in Waves (1st report: turning motion), Journal of
the Japan Society of Naval Architects and Ocean Engineers, Vol. 4, pp.127-136 (Japanese).
[11] Ayaz Z., Vassalosa D., Spyrou K. J. (2006), Maneuvering behavior of ships in extreme astern seas,
Journal of Ocean Engineering, Vol. 33, pp. 2381-2434.
[12] Yen T.G., Liut D.A., Zhang S., Lin W.M., and Weems K.M. (2008), LAMP Simulation of Calm Water
Maneuvers for a US Navy Surface Combatant, SIMMAN 2008, Copenhagen, Denmark.
[13] Chen J.P., Zhu D.X. (2010), Numerical simulations of wave-induced ship motions in time domain by a
Rankine panel method, Journal of Hydrodynamics, Vol. 22, pp. 373-380.
[14] Song M., Kim K.H., Kim Y. (2011), Numerical analysis and validation of weakly nonlinear ship motions
and structural loads on a modern containership, Journal of Ocean Engineering, Vol. 38, pp. 77-87.
[15] Bunnik T.H.J., Daalen E.F.G. van, Kapsenberg G.K., Shin Y., Huijsmans R.H.M., Deng G,
Delhommeau G., Kashiwagi M. and Beck B. (2010), A comparative study on state-of-the-art prediction
tools for seakeeping, 28th Symposium on Naval Hydrodynamics, Pasadena, California, 12-17 September.
[16] Huang J., Carrica P., Stern F. (2008), Semi-coupled air/water immersed boundary approach for
curvilinear dynamic overset grids with application to ship hydrodynamics, International Journal
Numerical Methods Fluids, Vol. 58, pp. 591-624.
[17] Muscari R., Broglia R., Di Mascio A. (2008), Trajectory prediction of a self-propelled hull by unsteady
RANS computations. 27th ONR Symposium Naval Hydrodynamics, Seoul, Korea.
[18] Jacquin E., Guillerm P.E., Drouet, A., Perdon, P., Alessandrini, B., (2006), Simulation of Unsteady Ship
Maneuvering Using Free-Surface RANS Solver, 26th Symposium on Naval Hydrodynamics, Rome,
Italy.
[19] Carrica P.M., Stern F. (2008), DES simulations of KVLCC1 in turn and zigzag maneuvers with moving
propeller and rudder, SIMMAN 2008, Copenhagen, Denmark.
8 - 34
RTO-MP-AVT-189
NATO UNCLASSIFIED
NATO UNCLASSIFIED

[20] Carrica P.M., Ismail F., Hyman M., Bhushan S. Stern F. (2011), Turn and Zigzag Maneuvers of a
Surface Combatant Using a URANS Approach with Dynamic Overset Grids, submitted to Journal of
Ocean Engineering.
[21] Sadat-Hosseini H., Carrica P.M., Stern F., Umeda N., Hashimoto H., Yamamura S., Mastuda A. (2011),
CFD, system-based and EFD study of ship dynamic instability events: surf-riding, periodic motion, and
broaching, Journal of Ocean Engineering, Vol. 38, Issue 1, pp. 88-110.
[22] Toxopeus S.L. (2011), Practical application of viscous-flow calculations for the simulation of
manoeuvring ships, PhD thesis, Delft University of Technology, ISBN 978-90-75757-05-7.
[23] Carrica P.M., Sadat-Hosseini H., Stern F. (2011), CFD Analysis of Broaching for a Model Surface
Combatant with Explicit Simulation of Moving Rudders and Rotating Propellers, Submitted to Journal
of Ocean Engineering.
[24] Miller R., Bassler C., Atsavapranee P., Gorski, J. (2008).Viscous Roll Predictions for Naval Surface
Ships Appended with Bilge Keels using URANS, Proc. 27th Symposium on Naval Hydrodynamics,
October, Seoul, Korea.
[25] Bassler C.C., Miller R., Reed A., Brown A.J.(2010), Considerations for Bilge Keel Force Models in
Potential Flow Simulations of Ship Maneuvering in Waves, Proc. 12th Intl. Ship Stability Workshop,
Washington, D.C. June.
[26] Dai C., Miller R. (2009), Hydrodynamic Effects of Bilge Keels on the Hull Flow During Steady Turns,
Proc. 28th Intl. Conf. on Ocean, Offshore and Arctic Engineering, Honolulu, Hawaii.
[27] Dai C., Miller R. (2011), URANS Simulation of An Appended Hull During Steady Turn with Propeller
Represented by an Actuator Disk Model, Proc. 30th Intl. Conf. on Ocean, Offshore and Arctic
Engineering, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
[28] Sadat-Hosseini H., Stern F., Olivieri A., Campana E., Hashimoto H., Umeda N., Bulian G., Francescutto
A. (2010), Head-waves parametric rolling of surface combatant. Journal of Ocean Engineering, Journal
of Ocean Engineering, Vol. 37, Issue 10, pp. 859-878.
[29] Carrica P.M., Wilson R.V., Stern F. (2007), An unsteady single-phase level set method for viscous free
surface flows, International Journal Numerical Methods Fluids, Vol. 53, Issue 2, pp. 229-256.
[30] Queutey P., Visonneau M. (2007), An Interface Capturing Method for Free-Surface Hydrodynamic
Flows, Computers & Fluids, Vol. 36, No. 9, pp. 1481-1510.
[31] Duvigneau R. and Visonneau M.(2003), On the role played by turbulence closures in hull shape
optimization at model and full scale, J. Mar. Sci. Technol., Vol. 8, pp. 1125.
[32] Deng G.B. and Visonneau M. (1999), Comparison of explicit algebraic stress models and second order
turbulence closures for steady flows around ships, Proc. 7th Int. Conf. on Numerical Ship
Hydrodynamics, Nantes, France.
[33] Sclavounos P.D. (1996), Computation of Wave Ship Interactions, Advances in Marine Hydrodynamics,
RTO-MP-AVT-189
8 - 35
NATO UNCLASSIFIED
NATO UNCLASSIFIED
ed. by M. Qhkusu, Computational Mechanics Publication.

[34] SWAN2 2002 (2002), User Manual: Ship Flow Simulation in Calm Water and in Waves, Boston Marine
Consulting Inc., Boston MA 02116, USA.
[35] Yen T., Zhang S., Weems K., Lin W.M. (2010), Development and Validation of Numerical Simulations
for Ship Maneuvering in Calm Water and in Waves, The Proceedings of the 28th Symposium of Naval
Hydrodynamics , Pasadena, California, USA.
[36] Lin W.M. and Yue D.K.P. (1990), Numerical Solutions for Large-Amplitude Ship Motions in the TimeDomain, Proceedings of the 18th Symposium on Naval Hydrodynamics, The University of Michigan,
U.S.A., pp. 4166.
[37] Weems K., Zhang S., Lin W.M., Shin Y.S, and Bennett J. (1998), Structural Dynamic Loadings Due to
Impact and Whipping, Proceedings of the 7th International Symposium on Practical Design of Ships and
Mobile Units, The Hague, The Netherlands.
[38] Lin W.M., Zhang S., Weems K., and Yue D.K.P. (1999), A Mixed Source Formulation for Nonlinear
Ship-Motion and Wave-Load Simulations, Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on
Numerical Ship Hydrodynamics, Nantes, France, pp. 1.3.112.
[39] Lin W.M., Zhang S., Weems K., Liut D. (2006), Numerical Simulations of Ship Maneuvering in Waves,
Proceedings of the 26th Symposium on Naval Hydrodynamics, Rome, Italy.
[40] Leroyer A. and Visonneau M. (2005), Numerical methods for RANSE simulations of a self-propelled
fish-like body, J. Fluid & Structures, Vol. 20, No. 3, pp. 975991.
[41] De Kat, J. O., and Paulling J. R. (2001), Prediction of extreme motions and capsizing of ships and
offshore marine vehicles, 20th International Conference on Offshore Mechanics and Arctic Engineering
(OMAE), paper number OMAE2001/OFT-1280, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, June.
[42] Carette N. F. and Walree F. van (2010), Calculation method to include water on deck effects, 11th
International Ship Stability Workshop (ISSW), pages 166-172, Wageningen, The Netherlands, June.
[43] Quadvlieg F.H.H.A., Armaolu E., Eggers R., and Coevorden P. van (2010), Prediction and verification
of the maneuverability of naval surface ships. SNAME Annual Meeting and Expo, Seattle/Bellevue,
WA, November.
[44] Boonstra H., Jongh M. P. de, and Pallazi L. (2004), Safety assessment of small container feeders. 9 th
Symposium on Practical Design of Ships and Other Floating Structures (PRADS), Lbeck-Travemnde,
Germany, September.
[45] Levadou M. and Gaillarde G. (2003), Operational guidance to avoid parametric roll, RINA - Container
vessels Conference.
[46] Holtrop J. and Mennen G.G.J. (1982), An Approximate Power Prediction Method. International
Shipbuilding Progress, Vol. 29, No. 335, pages 166-170, July.
8 - 36
RTO-MP-AVT-189
NATO UNCLASSIFIED
NATO UNCLASSIFIED

[47] Kring D.C., Huang Y.F., Sclavounos P.D., Vada T., and Braathen A. (1996), Nonlinear ship motions and
wave induced loads by a Rankine panel method, 21th Symposium of Naval Hydrodynamics, Trondheim,
pp. 45-63.
[48] Hooft J.P. (1994), The cross flow drag on a maneuvering ship, Ocean Engineering, 21(3):329-342.
[49] Toxopeus S.L. (2006), Validation of slender-body method for prediction of linear maneuvering
coefficients using experiments and viscous-flow calculations, 7th ICHD International Conference on
Hydrodynamics, pages 589-598, Ischia, Italy, October.
[50] Himeno Y. (1981), Prediction of Ship Roll Damping State of the Art, University of Michigan, Report
No. 239.
[51] Irvine M., Longo J., and Stern F. (2008), Pitch and heave tests and uncertainty assessment for a surface
combatant in regular head wave, Journal of Ship Research, Vol. 52, pp. 146163.
[52] MARIN (2011), Simulation of the roll decay motion and behavior in waves of 5415M, Report No.
70024-2-RD.
RTO-MP-AVT-189
8 - 37
NATO UNCLASSIFIED
NATO UNCLASSIFIED
Table 1: DTMB5415M main particulars

Ship hull
LCB position forward of midship: xCG
-0.683 m
Transverse metacentric height: GM
1.95 m
Vertical position of CG: KG
7.51 m
Natural period of roll
11.50 s
Roll radii of gyration: kxx
0.4*B
Pitch and yaw radius of gyration: kyy kzz
0.25L
Propellers
Expanded blade area ratio: AE/A0
0.58
Number of blades
5
Direction of rotation
Inward over the top
Rudders
Maximum rudder thickness
0.89 m
Longitudinal position of rudder axis
4 m forward AP
Offset of rudder axis
4.75 m
Stabilizer fins
Longitudinal position of fin axis
71 m forward AP
Sectional shape
NACA0015
Planform
trapezoidal
Length : L
Breadth : B
Draft : T
Displacement : m
Wetted surface area (bare hull)
Block coefficient : Cb
142.0 m
19.06 m
6.15 m
8431.8 ton
2972.6m2
0.507
Diameter: D
Pitch at 0.7R: P0.7R
Boss-diameter ratio: d/D
6.15 m
5.32 m
0.347 m
Average height
Average chord
Rudder area ratio: AR/ (L*T)
4.4 m
3.5 m
1.81%
Span
Chord
Projected lateral area
2m
3m
6m
Table 2: EFD, CFD, PF, and SB test cases in calm water

Test
Fin Type
EFD Test Conditions
Simulation Test Conditions
Passive
Fin
Fr=0,0.138,0.248,0.413
0=-10,-12,-15 deg
Fr=0.248
0=-10 deg
W/O Fin
Fr=0,0.138,0.248,0.413
0=12,14,15 deg
Fr=0.248
0=12 deg
1.3
Active
Fin
Fr=0.138,0.248,0.413
0=-18, 20 deg
Fr=0.248
0=-18 deg
2.1
Passive
Fin
Id.
Test Name
Test Type
1.1
1.2
ROLL DAMPING
Free roll decay
Forced roll due to

rudders
2.2
2.3
FORCED ROLL
Forced roll due to Fin
Active
Fin
Forced
Fin
Fr=0.248
Fr=0.248
Rudder amplitude=15 deg
Rudder frequency=0.55rad/s Rudder frequency=0.55rad/s
Fr=0.248
Fr=0.248
Rudder frequency=0.55rad/s Rudder frequency=0.55rad/s
Fr=0.248
Fr=0.248
Fin amplitude=25 deg
Fin amplitude=25 deg
Fin frequency=0.55 rad/s
Fin frequency=0.55 rad/s
8 - 38
RTO-MP-AVT-189
NATO UNCLASSIFIED
NATO UNCLASSIFIED

Table 3: EFD, CFD, PF, and SB test cases in waves

Test
Id.
Test Type
Fin Type
EFD Test Conditions
Speed
3.1
W/O Fin
Fr=0.248
0.413
Active Fin
Fr=0.248
0.413
Seakeeping in
regular waves
3.2
4.1
Fr=0.248
Seakeeping in Bichromatic waves

4.2
Active Fin
Fr=0.379
Simulation Test Conditions
Wave Setup
H/:0.005-0.04
/L:0.536-1.736
:285deg
H/:0.005-0.04
/L:0.301-2.71
:90,135,180, 285,
315
H/ L: 0.035, 0.044
/L: 0.97/1.14,
0.97/1.14
:300deg
H/ L: 0.035, 0.035
/L: 0.89/1.10,
0.89/1.10
:315deg
Speed
Wave Setup
Fr=0.248
H/=0.012,/L=1.205
H/=0.0199,/L=0.678
Fr=0.248
H/ L: 0.035
/L: 0.97/1.14
:300deg
Table 4: Body force propeller model inputs for CFDShip-Iowa

Starboard
Port
2
0.41249-0.31135J-0.13264J2
KT
0.41249-0.31135J-0.13264J
KQ
0.052741-0.02917J-0.02251J2
-0.052741+0.02917J+0.02251J2
rp/L
0.02166
0.02166
rh/rp
0.16005
0.16005
p1/L
(0.93222979,0.03274648,-0.03601247)
(0.93222979,-0.03274648,-0.03601247)
p2/L
(0.9422709,0.03274648,-0.03652641)
(0.9422709,-0.03274648,-0.03652641)
RTO-MP-AVT-189
8 - 39
NATO UNCLASSIFIED
NATO UNCLASSIFIED
Table 5: Details of 5415M grid used in CFDShip-Iowa

Name
Calm Water Calm Water Calm Water

Wave
No Fin
Active Fin Passive Fin Active Fin
Parent/Child
Boundary Layer S/P*

Skeg
Rudder Top S/P
Rudder Top-Collar S/P
Rudder In S/P
Rudder Out S/P
Rudder Refinement S/P
Passive Stabilizer S/P
Passive Stabilizer Collar S/P
Active Stabilizer In S/P
Active Stabilizer Out S/P
Bilge keels S/P
Shaft Root S/P
Shaft S/P
Shaft Collar S/P
Shaft Refinement S/P
Strut In S/P
Strut Out S/P
Calm water Ref Stern
Wave Ref Stern
Calm water Ref
Wave Ref
Calm water background
Wave background
I
173
61
99
45
57
57
99
78
40
57
57
154
45
91
38
41
52
52
65
80
145
220
213
230
Parent
Parent
Parent
Parent
Child1
Child1
Parent
Parent
Parent
Child2
Child2
Parent
Parent
Parent
Parent
Parent
Parent
Parent
Parent
Parent
Parent
Parent
Parent
Parent
J
51
38
32
47
36
36
30
39
58
71
71
36
46
46
51
58
35
35
126
180
81
120
42
220
K
83
41
30
45
46
46
32
31
41
46
46
51
46
45
49
40
52
52
56
112
93
172
42
145
Total
I*J*K
732309 (x2)
95038
95040 (x2)
95175 (x2)
94392 (x2)
94392 (x2)
95040 (x2)
I*J*K
732309 (x2)
95038
95040 (x2)
95175 (x2)
94392 (x2)
94392 (x2)
95040 (x2)
I*J*K
732309 (x2)
95038
95040 (x2)
95175 (x2)
94392 (x2)
94392 (x2)
95040 (x2)
94302 (x2)
95120 (x2)
282744 (x2)
95220 (x2)
188370 (x2)
94962 (x2)
95120 (x2)
94640 (x2)
94640 (x2)
458640
186162 (x2)
186162 (x2)
282744 (x2)
95220 (x2)
188370 (x2)
94962 (x2)
95120 (x2)
94640 (x2)
94640 (x2)
458640
282744 (x2)
95220 (x2)
188370 (x2)
94962 (x2)
95120 (x2)
94640 (x2)
94640 (x2)
458640
1092285
1092285
1092285
375732
375732
375732
6.32 M
7.07 M
6.70 M
I*J*K
732309 (x2)
95038
95040 (x2)
95175 (x2)
94392 (x2)
94392 (x2)
95040 (x2)
186162 (x2)
186162 (x2)
282744 (x2)
95220 (x2)
188370 (x2)
94962 (x2)
95120 (x2)
94640 (x2)
94640 (x2)
1612800
4540800
7337000
18.63 M
*S/P: Starboard/Portside
Table 6: The period and damping coefficients for roll decay without fins
Parameters
EFD
Td (s)
11.1
Quadratic
Fitting
Cubic
Fitting
MNms/rad 68.1
MNms2/rad2 4.28
MNms/rad 71.5
MNms3/rad3 1.08
Fredyn
(E%D)
11.7
(-5.4)
59.9
(12.0)
2.41
(43.7)
61.4
(14.1)
0.55
(49.1)
CFDShipIowa
(E%D)
11.2
(-0.9)
61.1
(10.3)
1.65
(61.4)
62.3
(12.9)
0.37
(65.7)
LAMP
(E%D)
11.4
(-2.7)
75.4
(-10.7)
1.17
(72.7)
76.1
(-6.4)
0.32
(70.4)
Swan2
(E%D)
12.2
(-9.9)
52.5
(22.9)
0.62
(85.5)
52.8
(26.1)
0.16
(85.2)
8 - 40
FreSim
(E%D)
12.3
(-10.8)
71.1
(-4.4)
3.54
(17.3)
72.6
(-1.5)
1.30
(-20.4)
SurSim ISIS-CFD
(E%D)
(E%D)
11.6
11.9
(-4.5)
(-7.2)
58.8
40.7
(13.7)
(40.2)
4.70
6.64
(-9.8)
(-55.1)
60.9
46.9
(14.8)
(34.4)
1.57
1.53
(-45.4)
(-41.7)
RTO-MP-AVT-189
NATO UNCLASSIFIED
NATO UNCLASSIFIED

Table 7: The period and damping coefficients for roll decay with passive fins
Parameters
EFD
Td (s)
11.3
Quadratic
Fitting
MNms/rad 69.0
MNms2/rad2 14.4
MNms/rad 74.9
Cubic
Fitting
MNms3/rad3 6.53
Fredyn
(E%D)
11.7
(-3.5)
74.9
(-8.6)
-0.003
(100)
75.1
(-0.26)
-0.22
(103)
CFDShipIowa
(E%D)
11.3
(0.0)
65.9
(4.5)
16.1
(-11.8)
71.4
(4.7)
8.56
(-31.1)
LAMP
(E%D)
11.5
(-1.8)
96.3
(-39.6)
-3.1
(121)
94.7
(-26.4)
-0.99
(115)
Swan2
(E%D)
12.2
(-8.0)
56.1
(18.7)
0.49
(96.6)
56.3
(24.8)
0.19
(97.1)
FreSim
(E%D)
12.5
(-10.6)
80.3
(-16.4)
4.3
(70.1)
81.8
(-9.2)
1.83
(72.0)
SurSim ISIS-CFD
(E%D)
(E%D)
11.7
11.9
(-3.5)
(-5.3)
67.8
45.0
(1.7)
(34.8)
4.9
12.9
(66.0)
(10.4)
69.5
52.2
(7.2)
(30.3)
2.07
3.90
(68.3)
(40.3)
Table 8: The period and damping coefficients for roll decay with active fins
Parameters
EFD
Td (s)
12.2
Quadratic
Fitting
Cubic
Fitting
MNms/rad 202.4
MNms2/rad2 20.8
MNms/rad 208.8
MNms3/rad3 10.8
Fredyn
(E%D)
11.5
(5.7)
151.2
(25.3)
-19.8
(195)
133.0
(36.3)
-4.1
(138)
CFDShipIowa LAMP
(E%D)
(E%D)
12.4
11.7
(-1.6)
(-4.1)
89.3
147.4
(55.9)
(27.2)
22.4
3.7
(-7.7)
(82.2)
103.0
149.4
(50.7)
(28.4)
7.05
1.39
(34.7)
(87.1)
Swan2
(E%D)
12.2
(0.0)
56.0
(72.3)
0.3
(98.5)
56.2
(73.1)
0.07
(99.3)
FreSim
(E%D)
12.8
(-4.9)
128.6
(36.5)
7.1
(65.9)
133.6
(36.0)
1.86
(82.8)
SurSim
(E%D)
12.0
(1.6)
95.0
(53.1)
19.1
(8.2)
109.3
(47.6)
4.70
(56.5)
Table 9: The FFT of ship motions and rudder angle for forced roll induced by rudders with passive fins
value
a1
x/L
y/L
z/L
/
/
/
13.400
0.231
0.002
0.0002
0.464
0.005
0.018
EFD
a2/a1 phase
0.003
0.502
0.538
0.355
0.001
0.242
0.123
0
177
152
138
137
141
236
Fredyn
a1 a2/a1 phase
E%D E%D E%2
-11.9 0.0
0.0
-3.0 0.5 -1.4
-425.6 0.5 -6.1
99.8 280.7 -0.3
-58.2 0.0 10.8
99.8 220.0 -25.0
-140.4 0.0 -1.9
CFDShip-Iowa
a1 a2/a1 phase
E%D E%D E%2
-4.5 0.0
0.0
-0.5 0.5 -1.1
-74.8 0.5 -2.5
93.5 5.5 -30.3
-30.0 0.0
5.6
92.1 3.1 -56.4
-63.4 0.0 -1.7
a1
E%D
-6.5
-1.1
-208.0
99.3
-6.3
99.6
-34.9
LAMP
a2/a1
E%D
0.0
0.5
0.6
59.1
0.0
14.0
0.0
phase
E%2
0.0
-0.8
-5.0
-20.3
5.8
-52.2
-1.9
RTO-MP-AVT-189
FreSim
a1 a2/a1 phase
E%D E%D E%2
-10.2 0.0
0.0
-1.8 0.5 -0.6
-886.1 0.5 -8.3
NA
NA
NA
-13.5 0.0 11.1
NA
NA
NA
-80.0 0.0
6.9
a1
E%D
-10.2
-1.5
-1508
NA
-41.9
NA
-34.0
SurSim
a2/a1 phase
E%D E%2
0.0
0.0
0.5 -0.6
0.6 -8.1
NA
NA
0.0
0.8
NA
NA
0.0 10.0
8 - 41
NATO UNCLASSIFIED
NATO UNCLASSIFIED
Table 10: The FFT of ship motions and rudder and fin angles for forced roll induced by rudders with active
fins
EFD
a2/a1 phase
value
a1
F/
x/L
y/L
z/L
/
/
/
13.430
0.737
0.230
0.007
0.0001
0.274
0.003
0.018
0.002
0.009
0.500
0.520
0.178
0.004
0.065
0.149
0
27
174
168
130
132
135
240
Fredyn
a1 a2/a1 phase
E%D E%D E%2
-11.6 0.0
0.0
-92.0 0.0
6.9
-2.9 0.5 -2.2
-32.2 0.5 -1.7
99.4 75.5 14.2
-93.4 0.0
8.9
99.8 233.8 5.6
-107.1 0.0
1.1
CFDShip-Iowa
a1 a2/a1 phase
E%D E%D E%2
-4.2 0.0
0.0
-34.3 0.0
1.7
1.4
0.5 -1.7
87.5 0.1 27.8
95.1 4.0 -58.9
-34.2 0.0
5.3
92.5 2.9 -14.4
-36.5 0.1 -0.8
FreSim
a1 a2/a1 phase
E%D E%D E%2
-10.0 0.0
0.0
-34.3 0.0
5.3
-1.0 0.5 -1.4
-147.6 0.5 -3.6
NA
NA
NA
-35.8 0.0
7.8
NA
NA
NA
-73.4 0.0
9.4
SurSim
a1 a2/a1 phase
E%D E%D E%2
-10.0 0.0
0.0
-60.5 0.0 -1.9
-0.9 0.5 -1.4
-248.2 0.5 -3.6
NA
NA
NA
-62.4 0.0
0.6
NA
NA
NA
-49.0 0.0 11.4
Table 11: The FFT of ship motions and rudder and fin angles for forced roll induced by fins
value
a1
F
/ F
x/L
y/L
z/L
/
/
/
25.480
0.010
0.229
0.0005
0.0002
0.252
0.002
0.001
EFD
a2/a1 phase
0.000
0.075
0.501
0.203
0.333
0.002
0.288
0.096
0
18
359
174
301
300
302
233
Fredyn
a1 a2/a1 phase
E%D E%D E%2
1.8
0.0
0.0
NA
NA
NA
-4.5 0.5
0.0
-121.9 0.4 -49.2
99.9 130.4 71.7
39.6 0.0
7.5
99.9 75.8 68.6
-423.1 0.0 35.6
CFDShip-Iowa
a1 a2/a1 phase
E%D E%D E%2
1.8
0.0
0.0
25.2 0.1 -81.7
0.4
0.5 -0.3
-75.0 0.6 -48.9
96.7 4.5 25.3
13.0 0.0
3.6
95.0 3.8 83.1
-115.4 0.1 40.8
a1
E%D
1.9
-231.6
2.2
60.9
99.2
24.3
99.5
-426.9
LAMP
a2/a1
E%D
0.0
0.0
0.5
0.0
18.0
0.0
22.7
0.0
phase
E%2
0.0
-0.3
-0.3
-7.5
23.3
4.7
-8.1
24.4
FreSim
a1 a2/a1 phase
E%D E%D E%2
2.4
0.0
0.0
NA
NA
NA
1.8
0.5
0.3
-528.1 0.5 43.6
NA
NA
NA
41.5 0.0 12.2
NA
NA
NA
-153.8 0.0 31.4
SurSim
a1 a2/a1 phase
E%D E%D E%2
2.4
0.0
0.0
NA
NA
NA
1.8
0.5
0.3
-734.4 0.5 43.9
NA
NA
NA
31.6 0.0
3.1
NA
NA
NA
-269.2 0.0 22.2
Table 12: The FFT of ship motions and rudder and fin angles for the case in head waves with A=1.03m and
Ak=0.0378
value
a1
/Ak 0.296
F/Ak 0.373
x/A 19.340
y/A 0.020
z/A 0.753
/Ak 0.093
/Ak 0.808
/Ak 0.014
EFD
a2/a1 phase
0.055
0.042
0.498
0.714
0.008
0.009
0.008
0.061
138
184
7
188
56
297
274
19
Fredyn
CFDShip-Iowa
LAMP
SWAN2
a1 a2/a1 phase a1 a2/a1 phase a1 a2/a1 phase a1 a2/a1 phase
E%D E%D E%2 E%D E%D E%2 E%D E%D E%2 E%D E%D E%2
NA
NA
NA 88.4 0.2 15.6 NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA 94.4 0.1 14.2 NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
-2.6 0.5
1.4
1.7
0.5
1.4
2.7
0.5 -98.1 1.3
0.5
1.4
NA
NA
NA -1009 0.5
1.9
NA
NA
NA 94.8 0.0 38.3
0.8
0.0 -82.2 -1.3 0.0 -82.5 -25.6 0.0 15.0 4.9
0.0 15.6
NA
NA
NA 96.0 0.1 16.4 NA
NA
NA 51.0 0.0 -8.3
10.5 0.0 13.6 -7.6 0.0 15.3 -4.1 0.0 15.3 3.3
0.0 15.0
NA
NA
NA 88.7 1.1
1.9
NA
NA
NA 89.4 0.0 -47.2
8 - 42
RTO-MP-AVT-189
NATO UNCLASSIFIED
NATO UNCLASSIFIED

Table 13: The FFT of ship motions and rudder and fin angles for the case in beam waves with A=0.96m and
Ak=0.0626
value
a1
/Ak 0.325
F/Ak 2.833
x/A 24.448
y/A 0.717
z/A 1.061
/Ak 0.710
/Ak 0.025
/Ak 0.025
EFD
a2/a1 phase
0.047
0.001
0.499
0.020
0.002
0.002
0.182
0.052
151
25
10
266
345
137
121
306
Fredyn
a1 a2/a1 phase
E%D E%D E%2
-161.6 0.0 -12.2
44.6 0.1 -7.5
-4.5 0.5 -96.4
3.8
0.0 -3.6
13.7 0.0 -3.1
44.8 0.0 -1.4
-202.3 0.0 -56.1
-91.0 0.0
7.5
CFDShip-Iowa
a1 a2/a1 phase
E%D E%D E%2
11.2 0.1 -18.6
31.2 0.0 -1.1
-0.7 0.5
1.7
-8.6 0.0 -2.5
-1.0 0.0 -1.7
31.4 0.0
4.2
9.1
0.1 -3.3
6.7
0.1 -0.8
a1
E%D
-331.1
21.0
2.1
5.1
-2.5
21.2
25.0
-70.8
LAMP
a2/a1
E%D
0.0
0.0
0.5
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.1
0.0
SWAN2
phase a1 a2/a1 phase
E%2 E%D E%D E%2
-1.7 NA
NA
NA
-5.3 NA
NA
NA
2.8
1.5
0.5 -96.9
-2.2 4.2
0.0 -10.3
-3.9 7.0
0.0 95.0
0.8 30.4 0.0 17.5
-3.1 -38.6 0.0 -64.4
-6.1 -78.7 0.0
6.7
Figure 1: DTMB 5415M geometry and body plan.
Figure 2: The ship-fixed coordinate system located at center of gravity.
RTO-MP-AVT-189
8 - 43
NATO UNCLASSIFIED
NATO UNCLASSIFIED
(a)
(b)
Figure 3: (a) Overset grid system and instantaneous view of the free surface for CFDShip-Iowa; (b)
Unstructured grid system for ISIS-CFD.
8 - 44
RTO-MP-AVT-189
NATO UNCLASSIFIED
NATO UNCLASSIFIED

Figure 4: The results for roll decay without fins
RTO-MP-AVT-189
8 - 45
NATO UNCLASSIFIED
NATO UNCLASSIFIED
Figure 5: The results for roll decay with passive fins
8 - 46
RTO-MP-AVT-189
NATO UNCLASSIFIED
NATO UNCLASSIFIED

Figure 6: The results for roll decay with active fins
RTO-MP-AVT-189
8 - 47
NATO UNCLASSIFIED
NATO UNCLASSIFIED
Figure 7: The results for forced roll due to forced rudders with passive fins
8 - 48
RTO-MP-AVT-189
NATO UNCLASSIFIED
NATO UNCLASSIFIED

Figure 8: The results for forced roll due to forced rudders with active fins
RTO-MP-AVT-189
8 - 49
NATO UNCLASSIFIED
NATO UNCLASSIFIED
Figure 9: The results for forced roll due to forced fins
8 - 50
RTO-MP-AVT-189
NATO UNCLASSIFIED
NATO UNCLASSIFIED

Figure 10: The results for seakeeping in regular head waves
RTO-MP-AVT-189
8 - 51
NATO UNCLASSIFIED
NATO UNCLASSIFIED
Figure 11: The results for seakeeping in regular beam waves
8 - 52
RTO-MP-AVT-189
NATO UNCLASSIFIED
NATO UNCLASSIFIED

Figure 12: The results for seakeeping in quartering bi-chromatic waves
RTO-MP-AVT-189
8 - 53
NATO UNCLASSIFIED
NATO UNCLASSIFIED
8 - 54
RTO-MP-AVT-189
NATO UNCLASSIFIED

CFD Potential Flow and System-Based Simu

Caricato da

Informazioni sul documento

Titolo originale

Copyright

Formati disponibili

Condividi questo documento

Condividi o incorpora il documento

Opzioni di condivisione

Hai trovato utile questo documento?

Questo contenuto è inappropriato?

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

CFD Potential Flow and System-Based Simu

Caricato da

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

NATO UNCLASSIFIED

RELEASABLE TO AUS AND SWE

CFD, Potential Flow, and System-Based Simulations of Course Keeping in

CFD, Potential Flow, and

2.0 EFD METHOD

CFD, Potential Flow, and

Also, the rudders are controlled by an autopilot controller, with

3.0 CFD METHOD

Computational Domain and Grids

CFD, Potential Flow, and

Computational Domain and Grids

CFD, Potential Flow, and

Computational Domain and Grids

Computational Domain and Grids

SurSim and FreSim

CFD, Potential Flow, and

4.1.1 for more details of the setup.

6.0 COMPARISON CFD, PF, AND SB METHODS

Data Analysis Method

is natural roll period.

Roll Decay in Calm Water

CFD, Potential Flow, and

Roll Decay with Passive Fins

CFD, Potential Flow, and

Roll Decay with Active Fins

CFD, Potential Flow, and

CFD, Potential Flow, and

Forced Roll in Calm Water

CFD, Potential Flow, and

Rudder Induced Roll with Active Fins

CFD, Potential Flow, and

Fins Induced Roll

CFD, Potential Flow, and

for CFDShip-Iowa have the minimum errors among other methods.

CFD, Potential Flow, and

Regular Beam Waves with Active Fins

show large harmonics at Te with amplitude of 38, 28 kN and 335 kNm.

CFD, Potential Flow, and

Quartering Bi-Chromatic Waves with Active Fins

periods. Therefore, the high frequency oscillations occur at

sec. The recorded EFD wave

CFD, Potential Flow, and

side and heave forces and roll moment significantly.

CFD, Potential Flow, and

and KVLCC2, SIMMAN 2008, Copenhagen, Denmark.

CFD, Potential Flow, and

ed. by M. Qhkusu, Computational Mechanics Publication.

CFD, Potential Flow, and

Table 1: DTMB5415M main particulars

Table 2: EFD, CFD, PF, and SB test cases in calm water

EFD Test Conditions

Simulation Test Conditions

Free roll decay

Forced roll due to

Forced roll due to Fin

CFD, Potential Flow, and

Table 3: EFD, CFD, PF, and SB test cases in waves

EFD Test Conditions

Seakeeping in Bichromatic waves

Simulation Test Conditions

Table 4: Body force propeller model inputs for CFDShip-Iowa

Table 5: Details of 5415M grid used in CFDShip-Iowa

Calm Water Calm Water Calm Water