Sei sulla pagina 1di 80

Nationaal Lucht- en Ruimtevaartlaboratorium

National Aerospace Laboratory NLR

COMPANY CONFIDENTIAL

NLR-CR-2003-018

Initial development of a method to account for


wind shielding effects on a shuttle tanker
during FPSO offloading
A.C. de Bruin

This study has been made as part of the Overslag Optimalisatie Joint Industrial
Project (JIP). For the work Bluewater/MARIN has contracted DNW (Marin project
16656). The work is performed by NLR under subcontract with DNW (DNW
purchase order 22.0555).

Customer:
Contract number:
Owner:
Division:
Distribution:
Classification title:

German-Dutch Wind Tunnels


Bluewater
Fluid Dynamics
Limited
Unclassified
January 2003

-3NLR-CR-2003-018

Summary
Wind and underwater forces on an offloading tanker that is approaching an FPSO (Floating
Production and Storage Offloading unit) are influenced by so-called shielding or shadow
effects, caused by the distorted wind and water flow fields in the wake of the FPSO.
An offloading tanker approaching an FPSO will experience changing flow conditions that
require adequate steering inputs for a safe continuous approach to the FPSO. For estimating the
wind-induced and underwater flow forces and moments on the offloading tanker at arbitrary
positions in the neighbourhood of the FPSO a predictive model is needed. After careful analysis
of available wind tunnel test data a method is proposed to compute the forces and moments on a
ship in the wake of an FPSO. The method requires that the disturbed velocity field behind the
FPSO and the forces and moments on the shuttle tanker (unshielded conditions) are known. The
model is verified against the available wind tunnel data.

COMPANY CONFIDENTIAL
-4NLR-CR-2003-018

Contents

List of symbols

Introduction

Discussion of experimental results from tests in DNW-LST wind tunnel

2.1

Introduction

2.2

Test set-up

2.3

The measured flow fields

2.4

Measured forces and moments

2.4.1

Forces and moments on the offloading shuttle tanker (without wind shielding) 13

2.4.2

The effect of the wind shielding on the shuttle tanker

11
17

An aerodynamic interaction model for wind shielding effects

18

Conclusions and recommendations

23

References

25

5 Tables
47 Figures
Appendix A Drag coefficient of the shuttle tanker when based on the frontal wind
exposed area

73

1 Table
2 Figures
Appendix B Application of slender wing theory for deriving an empirical formula for
1 Figure

the side force coefficient CL

Appendix C Computation of Cx and CM,z values with ESDU method


1 Table

(80 pages in total)

COMPANY CONFIDENTIAL

76

78

COMPANY CONFIDENTIAL
-5NLR-CR-2003-018

List of Symbols
A

Aspect ratio of the ships hull (analogy to a low-aspect ratio wing, see App. B)

Aref

Reference area, see equation 2

effective wing span of the ship hull (see App. B)

a, b, H

cube dimensions (used in App. C)

length of the ship

force coefficient, defined in equation 2

CM

moment coefficient, defined in equation 2

dM

moment arm lengths, defined in equation 5

force

reference length for definition of moment coefficient, defined in equation 2

moment

dynamic wind pressure (q=V2)

qref

reference dynamic pressure (here taken as average dynamic wind pressure between

q18

z=0 and z=52 m full scale, see also equation. 2)


average wind pressure between z=0 and z=18 m (full scale)

velocity in wind-field

Vref

reference velocity, see equation 2

V10

(undisturbed) wind velocity at 10 m above sea level

x, y, z

flow axis system, defined in figure. 3

zref

reference height used for the wind profile (equation 1)

Greek symbols

power used in wind profile formula (see equation 1)

orientation of the FPSO or shuttle tanker with respect to the undisturbed wind

change in wind direction (with respect to undisturbed wind) in wake of the FPSO

18

average change in wind direction between z=0 and z=18 m height and for a certain
segment of the shuttle tanker

air density

sub-fixes
bow

for bow segment of the shuttle tanker

middle

for middle segment of the shuttle tanker

stern

for stern segment of the shuttle tanker

ref

reference condition

x, y, x

x-, y- or z component

drag, see equation 3

lift, see equation 3

COMPANY CONFIDENTIAL

COMPANY CONFIDENTIAL
-6NLR-CR-2003-018

This page is intentionally left blank.

COMPANY CONFIDENTIAL

COMPANY CONFIDENTIAL
-7NLR-CR-2003-018

Introduction

As part of the Offloading Operability Joint Industry Project (JIP: see Ref. 1), Marin granted a
study to DNW concerning the wind shielding effects on a shuttle tanker that is approaching an
FPSO (Floating Production and Storage Offloading unit). The present study by NLR is part of
this project. The aim of the study is to define a methodology for the prediction of wind and
underwater forces on an offloading tanker that is approaching an FPSO. These forces are
influenced by so-called shielding or shadow effects, caused by the distorted wind and water
flow fields in the wake of the FPSO. Therefore an offloading tanker approaching an FPSO will
experience changing flow conditions that require adequate steering inputs for a safe continuous
approach to the FPSO. For estimating the wind-induced and underwater flow forces and
moments on the offloading tanker at arbitrary positions in the neighbourhood of the FPSO a
predictive model is needed. Previous work on this subject has been reported in references 2 and
3.
After careful analysis of available wind tunnel data from DNW a calculation method is
proposed that takes into account the changed flow conditions in the wake of the FPSO. The
method is verified against wind tunnel data.

Discussion of experimental results from tests in DNW-LST wind tunnel

2.1 Introduction
A brief description of the tests and the initial test results has been given in reference 3. Here a
more detailed discussion of the results is given.
2.2 Test set-up
Tests have been performed in the DNW-LST low-speed wind tunnel, which has a tunnel cross
section of 2.25x3 m2. All tests were done at a tunnel speed of roughly 30 m/s. An atmospheric
boundary layer, characteristic for sea conditions (so-called sea2 profile), was simulated. Two
1:400 scale model tankers were employed (see Figs. 1 and 2). Both tankers have a similar shape,
but the FPSO has an extra deck load. The offloading shuttle tanker was divided in three model
segments (bow, middle and stern segment) of equal length (100 m full scale). These three
segments were always tested together, but model forces could be separately measured for each
model segment (but with the other segments still in place).

COMPANY CONFIDENTIAL

COMPANY CONFIDENTIAL
-8NLR-CR-2003-018

The tests consisted of three parts.


During rest run 4 until 21 (see Tab. 1) flow field traverses were made with a 5-hole rake, while
only the FPSO tanker was placed in the wind tunnel. The rake has 18 probes with a probe pitch
of 15 mm., but during the present tests only 17 probes were used. It was placed at fixed
x-position in the tunnel and was traversed in y-direction. The FPSO model was placed at nine
different positions with respect to the rake. Positions of the wake traversing planes and the
model are sketched in figure 3. The tunnel centre-line is at y=0 and the model centre is at x=0.
Only two model yawing angles (= 195 and = 210 degrees) were tested, yielding in total 18
flow fields. For each case an y-traverse was made with the lowest tube of the 5-hole rake at
17.5 mm (7 m full-scale) above the tunnel floor and an extra traverse a half probe pitch further
from the tunnel floor (so at 25 mm, or 10 m full scale). All three velocity components were
measured with the rake.
In a second series of measurements (runs 22-25) the forces on the shuttle tanker were measured
in the absence of the FPSO. A six-component external force balance was placed below the
rotation table centre. Either forces on the total model or on the bow-, middle- or stern-segment
of the shuttle tanker were measured. First the forces were measured during a continuous sweep (see polar 1 runs in Tab. 1; yawing angle between 180 and +180 degrees). Then the
forces were also measured during a step-by-step (limited) -sweep (see polar 2 runs in Tab. 1).
These tests represent the unshielded test conditions.
In a third series of measurements (runs-26-33) additional test runs with the FPSO at three
positions relative to the shuttle tanker were made (see Figs. 3 and 4). Forces were measured on
either the bow-, middle- or stern-segment as well as on the complete model. Forces were
measured in a limited -range. Again both continuous and step-by-step measurements were
taken. The data were processed into self-descriptive NLR Tout-file format.
2.3 The measured flow fields
Flow field measurements around and behind the FPSO were taken at nine downstream positions
in the wake (x= -0.50 (0.25) 1.50 m) and for two oblique model orientations (=195 and = 210
degrees, see Fig. 3 for a sketch of the wake measurement plane positions with respect to the
FPSO model). Flow velocity components (Vx, Vy, Vz) have been measured in a tunnel-fixed coordinate system. Measured flow fields are shown in figures 5 (=195) and 6 (=210). The
vectors show the cross-flow velocities and the magnitude of the axial velocity is indicated by
the colour. Close to the FPSO the flow could not be measured with the rake. Nevertheless it is
clear that at the leeward side of the FPSO a strong re-circulation region with substantial reduced
Vx occurs. The flow over the ship creates a strong vortex along the leeward side of the ship.
Immediately downstream of the stern of the model (at x=0.50 m), the centre of the vortex has
substantially moved to the left. Both the centres of the vortex and the wake are found in the lee

COMPANY CONFIDENTIAL

COMPANY CONFIDENTIAL
-9NLR-CR-2003-018

of the ships steering house. Further downstream the centre of the vortex moves slowly further to
the left, while maximum cross-flow velocities and wake velocity deficits are diminishing. The
cross-sectional area with disturbed velocities and the magnitude of the disturbances is largest for
the =210 case.
It should be noted that the size and depth of the wake are related to the drag of the ship,
whereas the side force on the FPSO is responsible for the cross-flow in the wake. So, to some
extend the overall characteristics of the wake flow are related to the forces on the upstream
model. Unfortunately, no model forces have been measured on the FPSO model, so this was not
further investigated.
A tanker in the wake of an FPSO will experience both reduced wind velocities (because of the
wake) and changed prevailing wind directions. Both these effects should be taken in account
when developing a predictive model for the wind shielding effects.
The undisturbed wind-profile can be approximated with:

z
V
=
Vref z ref

z
q
=
,
q ref z ref

(Eq. 1)

At upstream position x= -0.5 m, the simulated atmospheric boundary layer (designated as sea2)
is still almost undisturbed. This almost undisturbed flow field has been analysed in the area
between y=-0.47 and y=-0.32 m. Within this area the minimum, maximum and average values
for the total velocity are compared with several theoretical profiles from equation 1. The result
is shown in figure 7. It is obvious that quite some variation in the total velocity occurs. At
higher z-values the average velocity profile matches quite well with equation 1 for =0.1.
Flow properties in the wake of the FPSO model will have an influence on the forces and
moments on the shuttle tanker. Assuming that the upstream-influence of the shuttle tanker is not
too large (the shuttle tanker is sufficiently far downstream of the FPSO) the effective flow field
(as felt by the shuttle tanker) is about equal to the flow field as measured in the absence of the
shuttle tanker. Under this so-called frozen velocity field assumption, average flow conditions at
the shuttle tanker can be derived.
As shown in figure 3, the hull of the ship will intercept with the wake measurement planes. The
non-dimensional intercept location x/c (where c is the ship length, x/c=0 corresponds with the
bow of the ship and x/c=1 with the stern) and the minimum and maximum y positions of the

COMPANY CONFIDENTIAL

COMPANY CONFIDENTIAL
-10NLR-CR-2003-018

ships hull (ymin, ymax) are given in table 2. For x/c > 1 or x/c< 0, a straight extension of the ships
hull was assumed. When referring the lateral positions given in table 2 to the flow field data
shown in figures 5 and 6, it is obvious that the bow of the shuttle tanker is well within the
disturbed flow field. However the stern of the shuttle tanker moves well out of the disturbed
flow field, especially with more downstream model positions and for the =210 case.
For the derivation of average flow conditions the dynamic pressure and the flow angle data for
each z-position were first spatially averaged between ymin and ymax (see Tab. 2), yielding q(z)
and (z) profiles. In a second step these values where further spatially averaged (arithmetic
mean value of measured data points) between z=0.0175m (the first data point: at 7m height full
scale) and height z, yielding q ( z) and (z) profiles. It should be noted that this is only an
approximation of the average value between the tunnel wall and height z. Averaged profile
results ((z), (z) , q(z)/qref and q (z) / q ref ) are shown in figures 8 (for =195) and 9 (for
=210).
Average values at z=18 (the height of the hull) and at z=45 m (the height of the steering house)
are of specific significance. Values for q18 / q ref , q 45 / q ref , 18 and 45 are given in table
3. It should be noted that q ref refers to the atmospheric boundary layer profile of the undisturbed
flow. At the x=0.5 m measurement plane very large changes in flow angle are found, especially
at low z-values. For the same station also very low dynamic pressures are found at some
distance from the ground. It is clear that the flow conditions vary considerably along the centre
line of the shuttle tanker.
This becomes more clear when plotting q18 / q ref , q 45 / q ref , 18 and 45 as function of the
non-dimensional wake intercept position x/c (x/c=0 corresponds with the bow of the shuttle
tanker and x/c=1 corresponds with the stern, c is the length of the ship). Figure 10 shows the
results for the = 195 case, for each of the three ship positions investigated. Large flow angles
changes only occur near the bow of the ship when it is at position 1 (x=0.125 m). Considerable
deviations in dynamic pressure are observed, especially near the bow of the ship. For the = 210
degrees case (see Fig. 11) the flow conditions vary much more pronounced along the length of
the ship than for the =195 case.
Average flow conditions for each of the model segments were derived as well. Results are given
in table 4. Consequences of the changed flow conditions for the forces and moments on the
shuttle tanker will be discussed in section 3.

COMPANY CONFIDENTIAL

COMPANY CONFIDENTIAL
-11NLR-CR-2003-018

2.4 Measured forces and moments


For all test conditions the forces and moments on the shuttle tanker model have been measured
both either during a continuous -sweep polar or in a step-by-step measurement procedure (see
Tab. 1). Wind direction sign convention is shown in figure 12. Though total forces and
moments on the complete shuttle tanker are of prime interest, additional force measurements
were separately taken for the bow-, middle- or the stern segments of the shuttle tanker. During
these test runs the model segment on which the forces were measured was separated from the
rest of the model by narrow slits. These measurements provide additional information on the
distribution of the wind forces over the different model segments.
Forces and moments are presented in non-dimensional form. The following definitions were
used for the forces and moments in the body fixed co-ordinate system (x, y, z):

F = q ref C A ref
M = q ref C M , A ref L

(Eq. 2)

( x, y, z)
Sign conventions are sketched in figure 12. The reference area Aref and the reference length L
have been taken as a fixed value, irrespective to the direction of the wind. Also the same
reference length L has been used for all moment components. This allows a straightforward
presentation of the experimental results. The dependency on flow angle is directly reflected in
the force coefficients. It should be noted that these coefficients are different from the constant
basic force coefficients used in the OCIMF and ESDU calculation methods (see references 4-6
and see Appendix C for an application), which are based on the respective frontal areas (Ax for
Fx and Ay for Fy). These methods employ an additional term for the effect of flow direction.
Here, Aref has quite arbitrarily been taken equal to 10 times the cross-sectional area of the ship
hull. In full scale the ship hull that was tested has a width of 50 m and a height of 18 m: Aref
=9000 m2. L is a reference momentum arm and it has been taken equal to 30 m. Finally, qref is
the spatially averaged dynamic wind pressure ( q = 1 2 V 2 ) between z=0 and 52 m height, so

q ref = q 52 . For the simulated sea2 wind profile qref 0.696 V102 , where V10 is the wind speed at
10 m height. To get some appreciation of the magnitude of the wind forces and moments, table
5 presents full scale values corresponding to a force or moment coefficient of unity (this is a
realistic value: maximum measured force and moment coefficients attain values in the order of
unity).
The surface movements of the ship are mainly depending on Fx (axial force), Fy (side- or sway
force) and Mz (yawing moment), so these are the most important ones to be considered here.

COMPANY CONFIDENTIAL

COMPANY CONFIDENTIAL
-12NLR-CR-2003-018

Instead of considering Cx and Cy (body fixed force components) it is also useful to consider CD
and CL (flow-oriented force components, defined in a rotated flow-axis system as shown in Fig.
13). The following relations apply:

C D = C x cos + C y sin

(Eq. 3)

C L = C x sin + C y cos

With given force and moment coefficients it is in principle possible to compute the application
point for the total force. Its location with respect to the balance centre follows from the
following relations (three equations and three unknowns):

M ( y, z) = M x Fy z + Fz y = q ref A ref (C M , x L C y z + C z y) = 0
M ( x , z) = M y Fz x + Fx z = q ref A ref (C M , y L C z x + C x z) = 0

(Eq. 4)

M ( x , y) = M z Fx y + Fy x = q ref A ref (C M ,z L C x y + C y x ) = 0
Unfortunately, the above set of equations has no unique solution for x, y, z because the
determinant of the set of equations is zero. One can define force application distances (sign of
the moment coefficients has been kept for convenience):

d M , x = C M , x L / C 2y + C 2z
d M , y = C M , y L / C 2x + C 2z

(Eq. 5)

d M ,z = C M ,z L / C 2x + C 2y
Adequate summing of the forces and moments measured for the separate segments yields the
forces and moments on the complete model:

F = F , bow + F, middle + F, stern


M x = M x , bow + M x , middle + M x , stern
M y = M y, bow + M y , middle + M y ,stern + 100 * (Fz , bow Fz ,stern )

(Eq. 6)

M z = M z , bow + M z , middle + M z , stern + 100 * (Fy , bow Fy ,stern )


Where the distance between the bow and stern force balance centres and the model centre is
equal to 100m (full scale), see also figure 14. If all measurements are perfect, the sum of the
forces measured for the different model segments should be equal to the force measured on the
complete model. This provides a useful consistency check.

COMPANY CONFIDENTIAL

COMPANY CONFIDENTIAL
-13NLR-CR-2003-018

2.4.1

Forces and moments on the offloading shuttle tanker (without wind shielding)

Before discussing the force measurements it is useful to consider the qualitative behaviour of
the forces and moments on the offloading shuttle tanker in relation to the yawing angle of the
ship and the flow around the ship. This is sketched in figure 15.
Wind-facing sides of the ship are exposed to a high stagnation pressure, whereas lower
pressures are found at the leeward side of the ship. Asymmetric flow conditions induce high
flow velocities and low pressures in the neighbourhood of corners and thus create a side force
component CL normal to the oncoming flow. Such low pressure areas are particularly strong
near the windward facing corners and therefore side forces tend to apply on the windward
facing sides and create a yawing moment as sketched in figure 15. The steering house is mainly
a drag inducing body (though there may also be a small side force acting on it) and this will give
a significant contribution to the total yawing moment, because of the relatively large momentum
arm. It is interesting to note that in the -range between 90 and 180 degrees, the contribution of
the steering house to the yawing moment is expected to be of opposite sign than that of the
ships hull.
In the force and moment coefficients data plots, lines will represent the data taken during
continuous sweeps and symbols represent the corresponding data points from step-by-step
measurements. In all cases a good agreement between both data sets is found.
The measured force coefficients are shown in figure 16. The axial force coefficient Cx is zero
when there is pure cross-flow (= 90 or 270 degrees) and becomes largest for = 180 (flow to
the bow of the ship) and for +/- 30 degrees (somewhat oblique flow from the stern).
Similarly, the side-force Cy is zero for = 0 and 180 degrees and becomes larger during crossflow conditions (= 90 and 270 degrees). Largest Cy values are observed for 115 and 245
degrees. The flow over the ship causes relatively low pressures above the ship and consequently
a substantial positive value for Cz, especially under pure cross-flow conditions. But compared to
the weight of the ship this force is still negligible. Peculiarly enough Cz is not symmetric with
respect to = 180 degrees, even though the ships geometry is almost perfectly symmetric. This
points to a potential problem with the measurement of vertical forces (and the corresponding
momentum coefficient CM,y). Probably the airflow through the slit between the model and the
tunnel floor of the wind tunnel is rather sensitive to the exact geometry of the slit. This will
cause distributed pressures below the model, which potentially have an influence on Cz, CM,y
and CM,z. Fortunately, no effect on the more important Cy , Cx and CM,z coefficients is to be
expected from this.

COMPANY CONFIDENTIAL

COMPANY CONFIDENTIAL
-14NLR-CR-2003-018

Flow oriented force coefficients CL and CD have been derived from equation 3 and are shown in
figure 17. The drag is smallest for =0 degrees (flow from the back), and becomes larger in
cross-flow conditions. In itself it is rather surprising that the drag is smallest with flow from the
stern, however the drag is composed of two terms: drag due to the pressure field around the
model and drag due to friction forces. With flow from the stern, one should expect a
considerable wake and corresponding pressure drag term for the steering house. But the wake of
the steering house implies relatively low (or even reversed) velocities over the ships deck. So
low friction forces are to be expected on this part of the ship. Apparently, this results in a
comparatively low total drag of the ship during flow from the stern conditions.
It should be noted that the drag coefficient is based on a constant reference area, whereas in the
case of a ships hull, the frontal projected area Aproj of the ship does strongly depend on the
direction of the flow. It is therefore no surprise that quite substantial changes in drag coefficient
(about 40 % around the mean value) are found, depending on flow direction. It was tried
whether with a method taking account of the actual projected frontal areas and the effective
dynamic wind pressures of the different model segments (hull, steering house and upper
steering house part) a more constant drag coefficient is found. The method is described in
Appendix A and the result, shown in figure A-2, shows indeed less (20%) variation in
C *D values.
As a consequence of model symmetry conditions CL is zero for = 0 and = 180 degrees (see
Fig. 17). It also becomes equal to zero during pure cross-flow conditions (= 90 and 270
degrees). Maximum CL is observed for 130 and 230 degrees. CL is always smaller than CD.
Closer inspection of the CL polar indicates a very slow change of CL with flow angle near = 0
and a somewhat faster change near = 180 degrees. This is followed by a more rapid change
further away from these points and a sudden drop in CL at still larger flow angles. This type of
behaviour resembles that of slender wings (wings with a long chord and a small span), which
display a slow linear lift increment followed by a rapid non-linear lift increment at larger angles
of attack. It is therefore tempting to apply slender wing theory to the present ship hull geometry.
As shown in Appendix B, with some proper empirical tuning this approach can give a
reasonable accurate model for CL.
Figure 18a shows that the angle between the force vector (Fx, Fy) and the flow vector reaches
values up to about 23 degrees. Figure 18b shows the CL-CD polar for the wind vector segments
90<<180 (flow to the bow) and 90<<90 (flow to the stern).
The moment coefficients are shown in figure 19. In the present study CM,z is of prime
importance. Its behaviour is anti-symmetric with respect to . The peculiar behaviour near
COMPANY CONFIDENTIAL

COMPANY CONFIDENTIAL
-15NLR-CR-2003-018

=180 (flow from the bow) should be noted. It is probably due to the combined but opposite
effects of suction at the bow lee-side and drag forces on the steering house (see for explanation
Fig. 15). Apparently for flow angles between 160 and 200 degrees, the contribution of the
steering house to the yawing moment exceeds that of the hull.
The behaviour of the moment coefficient CM,x can be understood as the combined effect of the
wind pressure forces on the wind facing side of the ships hull and the existence of low pressures
over the wind facing side of the deck. Finally, it should be noted that the CM,y values are not
perfectly symmetric with respect to =180 degrees. This is probably related to a measurement
problem (pressures below the model depend critically on the model suspension above the tunnel
floor) that was already noted when discussing Cz.
Force application distances have been computed with equation 5. The results are shown in
figure 20. The magnitudes are in qualitative agreement with the sizes of the ship. Small values
are found for dM,x (roughly up to about 20m, compared to 30 m half-width of the ships hull).
Large values are found for dM,y and somewhat smaller values for dM,z (up to about 60 m,
compared to 150 m half-length of the ships hull).
Force measurements have also been made for the stern, middle and bow segment separately.
Measurement consistency checks were made to check whether the sum of the forces and
moments on the different model segments (measured in three different runs) agree with the
forces and moments measured for the complete model. The checks have only been made for the
step-by-step measurement data points. Results for the model forces are shown in figure 21 and
for the moments in figure 22. A reasonable agreement is observed, except for Cz and for CM,y.
This is again most probably due to changing pressures below the model, that seem critically
depending to the model positioning close to the tunnel floor. More attention should be paid to
this in future measurements.
It is illustrative to consider the contributions of the different model segments to the total forces
and moments. The contributions to Cx, Cy and Cz are shown in figures 23-25. For Cx, by far the
largest contribution comes from the stern-segment of the model (due to the wind forces on the
steering house). The bow-segment contribution to Cx is much smaller. As to be expected with
the sign convention for Cx (see Fig. 13) the contributions from the stern and the bow segment
are positive with flow from the stern and negative with flow from the bow-side. Peculiarly
enough the contribution of the middle segment has an opposite sign. On the fully prismatic
middle section contributions to Cx should be expected from the friction forces. In principle,
negative friction forces might have been caused by (strong) back-flow over the upper deck, but

COMPANY CONFIDENTIAL

COMPANY CONFIDENTIAL
-16NLR-CR-2003-018

this is unlikely to happen under oblique flow conditions (e.g. = 30 degrees, where Cx attains its
largest negative value).
However, it is also possible that this, rather unexpected, behaviour is due to an unwanted
pressure difference over the front and back ends of the model segment. The middle segment has
been isolated from the bow and stern segment by simply cutting a tape covering a small slit
between the model segments. The slits between the model segments are in open connection with
the local pressure field surrounding the model and some average pressure may build up in the
slit. This can influence the axial forces measured for the individual model segments (but will
have no effect on the total sum of the Cx contributions).
For Cy the different model segments contribute as to be expected. The largest contribution is due
to the stern-segment (because of the presence of the steering house). Each segment attains a
maximum at a different flow angle: the stern-segment for 70 degrees, the middle-segment
for about = 90 degrees and the bow-segment for about 120 degrees.
For Cz the contributions are predominantly positive (so a ship in wind conditions will be slightly
lifted). Maximum values are attained for roughly the same flow angles as observed for Cy. The
stern-segment gives weakly negative contributions near = 0 and the bow-segment near = 180
degrees. Measurements are not perfectly symmetric with respect to = 180 degrees.
Figures 26 and 27 show the contributions of the model segments to the flow oriented force
coefficients CD and CL. The middle- and bow-segment of the model behave more or less similar,
whereas the stern-segment behaves more complicated with . The stern-segment has the largest
contribution to the drag (because of the steering house). Near =180 the gradients dCL/d for
the bow and middle-segment are about equal, whereas the gradient for the stern-segment is of
opposite sign. Near =0 degrees the stern- and middle-segments have quite similar behaviour in
CL values, whereas the CL values for the bow-segment remain much smaller.
Figure 28 shows that the model segments have about equally sized contributions to the model
coefficient CM,x, albeit max contributions occur at different flow angles. Figures 29 and 30 show
the contributions of the different model segments to the moment coefficients CM,y and CM,z. For
the bow- and stern segments the contributions of the Cy and Cz terms (see equation 6) have been
included. The Cy and Cz contributions to CM,y and CM,z appear the most important ones. For this
reason CM,z of stern- and bow-segments closely resemble Cy (Fig. 24). Similarly, CM,y
contributions of stern and bow closely resemble Cz (Fig. 25). The middle-segment of the model
has only a very small contribution to CM,y and CM,z.

COMPANY CONFIDENTIAL

COMPANY CONFIDENTIAL
-17NLR-CR-2003-018

2.4.2

The effect of the wind shielding on the shuttle tanker

Forces and moments on the entire shuttle tanker have only been tested in a -range between 90
and 270 degrees, for three different relative positions (see Figs. 3 and 4) with respect to the
FPSO. Just as for the unshielded case, the forces and moments on the different model segments
have also been measured, albeit in a sometimes further reduced -range. We start the discussion
with the forces and moments on the total ship configuration.
The force coefficients for the three model positions are compared with the unshielded results in
figure 31. The shielding effects on the force coefficients seem at first sight rather modest. When
part of the shuttle tanker is in the wake (for the present test set-up this is primarily the case for
flow angles near or slightly beyond = 180), the reduced velocities in the wake lead to a lower
absolute value of Cx. There is a sharp maximum effect on Cx at about =200 degrees. The effect
is largest for the most upstream model position, but the effect reduces only slowly with the
distance between both models. It is interesting to note that, especially for the x=0.125 m case,
there is also a measurable effect on Cx for the pure cross-flow condition =90. This is clearly no
wake-effect, but is probably due to flow blockage by the hull of the FPSO. This deflects the
flow such that it hits the bow of the shuttle tanker, thereby causing a force in negative xdirection.
The wind shielding effect on Cy is mainly visible between = 180 and 260 degrees. It seems to
be caused both by a pure wake effect (leading to lower dynamic wind pressures and thus lower
forces) and by the deflected flow angle in the wake region (see the flow field data in figures 5
and 6). The deflected flow field causes a lower effective model side-slip angle, it is as if the
results for Cy are shifted in . Some other effects on Cy are visible near = 90 degrees.
The shielding effects on the drag and lift coefficient are shown in figure 32. The physical
explanation for the differences follows from the discussion of Cx and Cy values.
The shielding effect on the moment coefficients is shown in figure 33. The shielding effect on
CM,x is quite similar to that on Cy and is thus probably related to the changes in the (distributed)
side forces, because of the changed flow direction in the wake of the FPSO. Some shielding
effects are also visible near = 90 degrees.
Increased CM,y values are found between =180 and 270 degrees. According to the flow field
measurements (see Figs. 5 and 6) in this -range a considerable down wash will occur near the
bow of the FPSO, but rapidly less down wash further downstream. This will create negative
distributed Cz forces in the bow area, causing a positive contribution to CM,y. Some shielding
effects are also visible for below 180 degrees.
COMPANY CONFIDENTIAL

COMPANY CONFIDENTIAL
-18NLR-CR-2003-018

Similarly, in this -range, FPSO induced side slip angles will cause positive distributed side
forces, especially near the bow, and to a smaller extend to the stern of the shuttle tanker
(because of decreasing induced side-slip angle at larger distances behind the FPSO), thus
leading to a positive contribution to CM,z (see Fig. 13 for the sign conventions). Some shielding
effects are also visible for below 180 degrees.
Further insight in the shielding effects can be obtained by inspecting the contributions of the
different model segments during wind shielding conditions. Results, shown in figures 34-39,
indicate that (at least for the relative model positions tested here) the bow-segment of the model
has by far the largest wind-shielding contribution to the force coefficients Cy and Cz and to the
moment coefficients CM,y and CM,z. It is further interesting to note that at the upstream position
x=0.125 m, the Cz (and consequently also CM,y) contribution of the bow-segment displays a
sudden change near =225 degrees, probably due to a sudden change in flow pattern over the
bow-segment of the model.
It should be noted that the measurement results for CM,x (see Fig. 37) are not well understood
and also not consistent with the measurements for the complete ship. Summing of the different
model part contributions suggests a considerable total wind shielding effect on CM,x for the
complete -range, whereas measurements on the whole ship model (see Fig. 33a) yield only
shielding effects in a limited range.

An aerodynamic interaction model for wind shielding effects

A method to compute aerodynamic forces on a geometry consisting of prismatic elements is


presented in Appendix C. The method is based on the ESDU data-sheet methodology. In
Appendix C it is applied to the unshielded shuttle tanker case, for flow angle conditions = 0
and 90 degrees. Unfortunately the predicted force coefficients appear larger than the measured
ones. Nevertheless, elements of the general methodology presented in Appendix C are still
useful for the development of a wind shielding calculation procedure. Instead of computing the
total force the wind shielding calculation procedure will be based on measured forces and
moments for the undisturbed (unshielded) flow situation.
For calculation of the ship movements the forces Fx, Fy and the moment Mz are of prime
importance. In an unshielded situation these will depend on the wind direction, the shape of the
wind profile and the wind strength (defined as the wind velocity at a certain height).

COMPANY CONFIDENTIAL

COMPANY CONFIDENTIAL
-19NLR-CR-2003-018

For the unshielded situation, measurements on a model placed in a wind tunnel can give
accurate results for the force and moment coefficients for all wind directions . Proper re-scaling
with the actual scale of the ship and the actual wind velocity will yield Fx, Fy and Mz under all
wind conditions.
As shown in section 2.3, for the shielded case, the local flow velocity and its direction can be
considerably different from the unshielded situation and this will have an impact on Fx, Fy and
Mz of the shuttle tanker. If flow field properties downstream of the FPSO tanker (and in the
absence of the shuttle tanker) are known, these might be a starting point for calculating the
forces and moments on the shuttle tanker. However, this implicitly assumes that the effective
wake flow field immediately upstream of the shuttle tanker is the same as for the case without
shuttle tanker. In other words: a frozen wind field is assumed behind the FPSO tanker. It is
clear that this assumption neglects possible interference effects that the shuttle tanker can have
on the development of the wake flow behind the FPSO. E.g. the presence of the shuttle tanker
should not significantly alter the forces and the flow topology around the FPSO (e.g. the
location of flow re-attachment behind the FPSO). This becomes less true if both ships come
closer to each other, as is tentatively sketched in figure 40. No precise definition can be given
on what has to be considered as too close. For very close ship positions perhaps the only
solution for accounting for the shielding effects is to use an experimental data-base for all
relative model distances and orientations. For the time being a frozen velocity field is
assumed for calculating the forces and moments on the shuttle tanker under shielded conditions.
Comparison of calculated and measured values will bring further insight into the validity
boundaries of this assumption.
The following calculation procedure was tested:
1. Averaged frozen wind field properties along the centre-line of the shuttle tanker were
determined. These results were further averaged for the different model segments, yielding
average flow conditions within the internal volume of each shuttle tanker segment
( q18 , 18 for the bow- and middle-segment and q 45 , 45 for the stern-segment, see Tab.
4 and section 2.3).
2. Forces and moment data (Fx(), Fy(), Mz()) of all -sweeps were averaged in order to
suppress the scatter in the experimental data (due to measurement in turbulent flow
conditions. A five point spatial averaging method was used.
3. From the smoothed unshielded force data (e.g Cx()) of each model segment, the force and
moment coefficients at the effective mean flow angle were taken ( 18 for the bow and
middle-segment and 45 for the stern part). These are intermediate results only and are
shown in figures 41-46 as the green data points (legend: calculated (beta)).

COMPANY CONFIDENTIAL

COMPANY CONFIDENTIAL
-20NLR-CR-2003-018

4. These force and moment coefficients were re-scaled with the effective mean dynamic
pressure ratio ( q18 / q18, unshielded for the bow- and middle-segment and q 45 / q 45,unshielded for
the stern-segment). These results are shown in figures 41-46 as the blue data points (legend:
calculated (beta, q)).
5. Contributions to the total moment coefficient CM,z were determined with equation 6.
6. Computed forces and moment contributions of the different model segments were summed.
Wind-shielding calculation results for Cx, Cy and CM,z and for = 195 and 210 degrees are
shown in figures 41-46. The data are first shown per model segment. Blue data-points are the
final calculated data, whereas the red data-points are the measured data (measured by
segments). The green data-points are intermediate results (only corrected for ), and the black
data-point was measured in the unshielded situation for the nominal flow angle. The calculation
procedure seems satisfactory in most cases (e.g. Cy and CM,z for bow-segment), but is less
convincing in some other cases.
For the total forces and moments two different measured data sets are shown. Both are based on
the smoothed data of the -polar, but one is based on the measured force on the total model
(filled black and red symbols) and one is based on the summed contributions from the different
model segments (open black and red symbols). As discussed in section 2.4 the summed data for
the different model segments do not always agree with the measured data on the complete
configuration. The calculation (open blue symbols) is based upon summation for the different
model segments and should therefore be compared with the open red symbols.
The data in figures 41-46 are presented on arbitrary scales. To get a better impression of the
significance of the deviations found, the total calculation results have been plotted together with
all relevant data (including -sweeps) in figure 47. The lines represent smoothed -sweep data
(both for the unshielded as well as for the shielded cases). Dots are shown at the tested
geometrical yawing angle of the model. The black closed dots represent summed measured data
of the different model segments for the unshielded situation. The open dots represent summed
measured data for the shielded case. The filled dots represent the computed data (and should be
compared with the corresponding open symbols). The proposed calculation method produces
results in reasonable agreement with the measurements. It is however clear, that the differences
between summed and total measured data imply quite some uncertainty in the experimental data
and thus also in the correctness of the calculation procedure which is based on a calculation by
segments.

COMPANY CONFIDENTIAL

COMPANY CONFIDENTIAL
-21NLR-CR-2003-018

Remarks on a possible alternative calculation procedure


Alternative calculation procedures for the forces and moments in the wind-shielded situation are
possible and should be mentioned for possible further evaluation.
First of all it has to be noted that the proposed calculation method is based on segmentation of
the model in three segments. This is because force measurement data were available for the
bow-, middle- and the stern segment of the shuttle tanker. However, this segmentation is quite
arbitrarily. It might e.g. be better to distinguish the steering house as a separate entity. This
extends far above the ship hull and has a different aerodynamic behaviour. It also has an
important influence on the yawing moment. Separate weighing of this model segment would
probably lead to improved understanding of the forces and moments in relation to the flow
angle . Also the aerodynamic forces on this cubic shaped part seem more amenable to
modelling than those of the entire (complex shaped) stern-segment.
In the tested calculation method volume averaged flow conditions q and of the different
segments were used to calculate the force and moment coefficient for each segment. The total
force and moment follows from summation over the segments. The following general relations
apply for deriving the volume averaged flow conditions (Ni flow field data-points in model
segment i):

qi =

1
Ni

Ni

q( j)
j=1

1
i =
Ni

(Eq. 7)

Ni

( j)
j=1

And the force and moment coefficients for model segment i then follow from:

C x ,i ,shielded () = q i ,shielded / q i ,unshielded C x ,i, unshielded ( + i )


C y ,i ,shielded () = q i ,shielded / q i ,unshielded C y,i, unshielded ( + i )
C M ,z ,i ,shielded () = q i ,shielded / q i ,unshielded C M , z ,i, unshielded ( + i )
C M ,z ,i ,shielded () = x i C y,i ,shielded ()
The force and moment of the total configuration (Ns segments) then follow from:

COMPANY CONFIDENTIAL

(Eq. 8)

COMPANY CONFIDENTIAL
-22NLR-CR-2003-018

Ns

C x ,shielded () = C x ,i ,shielded ()
i =1
Ns

C y ,shielded () = C y,i ,shielded ()

(Eq. 9)

i =1

Ns

C M ,z ,shielded () = [C M , z ,i,shielded () + C M ,z ,i ,shielded ()]


i =1

The usage of bulk averaged properties q and is not necessarily the best choice to make.
E.g. if locally large flow angles occur, these can have a relatively large impact on the moment
Mz, but by using a volume averaged value this local information is lost. Also Cx(), Cy()
and CM,z() are generally non-linear functions of and it is therefore not obvious that a volume
averaged will lead to the optimum result.
Instead of using bulk volume averaged properties q and one could also use a distributed
forces model, which more naturally takes account of distributed flow variations. In this
procedure the volume averaging step for obtaining q and is replaced by a direct volume
averaging of the force and moment coefficients. If the internal volume of each tanker segment i
consists of Ni equally sized volume elements and the local flow conditions q and are given,
the following volume integration procedure applies:

C x ,i ,shielded () =
C y ,i ,shielded () =

Ni

1
q i ,unshielded N i
q i ,unshielded N i

( j) C x ,i, unshielded ( + j )

i ,shielded

( j) C y,i, unshielded ( + j )

j=1

(Eq. 10)

Ni

1
q i ,unshielded N i

C M ,z ,i ,shielded () =

i ,shielded

j=1
Ni

C M ,z ,i ,shielded () =

i ,shielded

( j) C M , z ,i, unshielded ( + j )

j=1

Ni

1
q i ,unshielded N i

i ,shielded

( j) x j C y ,i ,unshielded ( + j )

j=1

The total force and moment coefficients for the Ns segments follow again from equation 9.
It is also possible to first perform average q and along the height of the segment and then
replace equation 10 with an integration over the ground surface of the segment. For linear
relationships between the force and moment coefficients and the above sketched distributed
surface alternative calculation procedure will lead to equal results for the force coefficients, but
the computed value for CM,z is not necessarily the same, because it takes account of the actual
momentum arms xj.

COMPANY CONFIDENTIAL

COMPANY CONFIDENTIAL
-23NLR-CR-2003-018

Conclusions and recommendations

Flow measurements
The measurements with the 5-hole rake yield good flow field data, but are relatively sparse in xdirection (x is 1/3 of the length of the shuttle tanker). In case that a more refined validation of
the proposed wind-shielding calculation method is to be made, it is recommended to measure
additional intermediate flow field planes in order to reduce the flow errors in the flow averaging
step of the calculation method.
Development of a flow field model
The proposed calculation method for the shielding effect requires detailed knowledge of the
wake flow field for all FPSO model wind headings. Such wake measurements are only
affordable for a limited number of flow conditions, e.g. for validation of the wind-shielding
calculation method. In practice it is not possible to perform that many elaborate measurements.
In principle two options remain:

Measurement of the initial flow field (for different flow angles) and calculation of the flow
further downstream. Initial attempts by Marin to calculate the wake flow where not yet
successfully.

Development of an analytical wake model based on measured forces on the FPSO. It is


known that the velocity defects in the wake are related to the drag and that the cross-flow
is related to the side force on the FPSO model. It is proposed to relate the wake
properties directly behind the FPSO to these measured forces and develop empirical
relations for the downstream development of the wake. Existing flow field data for =195
and 210 degrees can be used to test such a flow field model.

Force measurements
During the analysis of the force measurement data, inconsistencies were found between
measurements for the whole shuttle tanker model and the summed contributions of the three
model segments. These problems are summarised below.

Detailed inspection of the force and moment data reveal that the large (5 mm) slit between
the model and the tunnel floor is probably causing a problem with the measured forces. The
flow through this slit will create a pressure distribution below the model that is probably
quite sensitive to the exact geometry of the slit. It will mainly influence Fz but can also have
an influence on the moment coefficients CM,y and CM,x. Discrepancies in these coefficients
are observed when comparing the summed forces and moments of the different model
segments with the forces and moments measured for the entire model. More attention
should be paid to this phenomenon in future wind tunnel tests, e.g. by using some sort of

COMPANY CONFIDENTIAL

COMPANY CONFIDENTIAL
-24NLR-CR-2003-018

labyrinth sealing between the bottom of the ship and the tunnel floor or by using a more
narrow slit (e.g. 1 instead of 5 mm).

Similarly, the measurement by segments allows a pressure build-up in the slit between the
model parts. A static pressure field is to be expected. However, this may quite critically
depend on the details of the gap geometry (especially at the wind facing parts, where any
misalignment between the two model-parts can have a large effect). This can have an effect
on Cx and to some extend also on CM,y and CM,z. Indeed the measurements reveal some
mismatch between measured Cx on the total configuration and the summed contributions of
the model segments. There are some peculiarities on measured Cx for the middle segment
(the force is directed against the prevailing wind direction). In future experiments it should
be attempted to diminish these problems by applying a suitable labyrinth sealing between
the model segments.

In addition it was noted that the segmentation of the model in a bow-, middle- and stern
segment is quite arbitrary. Other segmentations are feasible. In particular it was remarked that
the aerodynamic properties of the steering house will be quite different from that of the ship
hull. Putting these together in one model segment (the stern) is not very logical. It would
probably have been better if the steering house would be considered as a separate segment,
either by measuring it separately, or by calculating it separately (e.g. with an ESDU like
approach as sketched in App. C).
Calculation method for wind shielding effects
A method for calculation of the forces and moments for situations with wind shielding was
presented and tested. The method in its current version utilises volume averaged flow quantities

q and for the different model segments (bow-, middle- and stern) and the measured force
and moment coefficients for the unshielded case. Encouraging results were obtained, but some
further testing of the method (for other relative model positions and with more accurate force
measurements on the different model segments) is recommended. A potentially better
calculation procedure (the so-called distributed forces method) has been proposed, but still
needs to be tested
Stability of the flow field
A necessary requirement for modelling the movement of the shuttle tanker in the wake of the
FPSO is that that the flow-field is sufficiently steady such that the periodic changes in the flow
do not lead to significant unsteady movement of the tanker. So far no data have been gathered
on the unsteadiness of the wake flow. It is recommended to explore the frequency content of the
wake flow with a single hot-wire or hot-film probe as part of a future test campaign.

COMPANY CONFIDENTIAL

COMPANY CONFIDENTIAL
-25NLR-CR-2003-018

References

1. Anon.: Project plan Overslag Optimalisatie (in Dutch), version 2.0, 27-03-2002.
2. Fucatu, C.H.; Nishimoto, K.; Maeda, H.; Masetti, I.Q.; The shadow effect on the dynamics of
a shuttle tanker, Proc. 20th International Conference on Offshore Mechanics and Arctic
Engineering, OMAE, 2001.
3. Buchner, B.; Bunnik, T.; Wind shielding investigations for FPSO tandem Offloading,
Presented at JSC, 2002.
4. Anon.: Prediction of wind and current loads on VLCCs, OCIMF 1994.
5. Anon.: Fluid forces, pressures and moments on rectangular blocks, ESDU Item Number
71016, September 1971.
6. Anon.: Mean fluid forces and moments on rectangular prisms: surface-mounted structures in
turbulent shear flow, ESDU Item Number 80003, December 1979.
7. Hoerner, S.F.; Borst, H.V.; Fluid-Dynamic Lift, Hoerner Fluid dynamics, 2nd edition, 1985.
8. Hoerner, S.F.; Fluid-Dynamic Drag, published by the author, 1958.

COMPANY CONFIDENTIAL

COMPANY CONFIDENTIAL
-26NLR-CR-2003-018

Table 1 Overview of test conditions of initial DNW-LST FPSO/shuttle tanker shielding tests
series Run Polar
[#]
[#]
[#]
3102
4
1
2
3102
5
1
2
3102
6
1
2
3102
7
1
2
3102
8
1
2
3102
9
1
2
3
4
3102 10
1
2
3
4
3102 11
1
2
3
4
3102 12
1
2
3
4
3102 13
1
2
3102 14
1
2
3
4
3102 15
1
2
3
4
3102 16
1
2
3
4
3102 17
1
2
3102 18
1

[]
195
195
195
195
195
195
195
195
195
195
195
195
195
195
195
195
195
195
195
195
195
195
195
195
195
195
210
210
210
210
210
210
210
210
210
210
210
210
210
210
210
210
210

balance RAKE / FPSO model


Model
Configuration pos
x [m]
y [m]
FPSO model
0.500 -0.48 0.50
FPSO model
0.500 -0.48 0.50
FPSO model
1.000 -0.48 0.50
FPSO model
1.000 -0.48 0.50
FPSO model
1.500 -0.48 0.50
FPSO model
1.500 -0.48 0.50
FPSO model
1.250 -0.48 0.50
FPSO model
1.250 -0.48 0.50
FPSO model
0.750 -0.48 0.50
FPSO model
0.750 -0.48 0.50
FPSO model
0.250 -0.48 -0.17
FPSO model
0.250 0.05 0.50
FPSO model
0.250 -0.48 -0.17
FPSO model
0.250 0.05 0.50
FPSO model
0.000 -0.48 -0.11
FPSO model
0.000 0.11 0.50
FPSO model
0.000 -0.48 -0.11
FPSO model
0.000 0.11 0.50
FPSO model
-0.250 -0.48 -0.05
FPSO model
-0.250 0.18 0.50
FPSO model
-0.250 -0.48 -0.05
FPSO model
-0.250 0.18 0.50
FPSO model
-0.500 -0.48 0.06
FPSO model
-0.500 0.11 0.50
FPSO model
-0.500 -0.48 0.06
FPSO model
-0.500 0.11 0.50
FPSO model
-0.500 -0.48 0.50
FPSO model
-0.500 -0.48 0.50
FPSO model
-0.250 -0.48 0.12
FPSO model
-0.250 0.40 0.50
FPSO model
-0.250 -0.48 0.12
FPSO model
-0.250 0.40 0.50
FPSO model
0.000 -0.48 -0.02
FPSO model
0.000 0.26 0.50
FPSO model
0.000 -0.48 -0.02
FPSO model
0.000 0.26 0.50
FPSO model
0.250 -0.48 -0.11
FPSO model
0.250 0.11 0.50
FPSO model
0.250 -0.48 -0.11
FPSO model
0.250 0.11 0.50
FPSO model
0.500 -0.48 0.50
FPSO model
0.500 -0.48 0.50
FPSO model
0.750 -0.48 0.50

COMPANY CONFIDENTIAL

z [m]
0.1375
0.1450
0.1375
0.1450
0.1375
0.1450
0.1375
0.1450
0.1375
0.1450
0.1375
0.1375
0.1450
0.1450
0.1375
0.1375
0.1450
0.1450
0.1375
0.1375
0.1450
0.1450
0.1375
0.1375
0.1450
0.1450
0.1375
0.1450
0.1375
0.1375
0.1450
0.1450
0.1375
0.1375
0.1450
0.1450
0.1375
0.1375
0.1450
0.1450
0.1375
0.1450
0.1375

Activity/
Remarks
rake traverse
rake traverse
rake traverse
rake traverse
rake traverse
rake traverse
rake traverse
rake traverse
rake traverse
rake traverse
rake traverse
rake traverse
rake traverse
rake traverse
rake traverse
rake traverse
rake traverse
rake traverse
rake traverse
rake traverse
rake traverse
rake traverse
rake traverse
rake traverse
rake traverse
rake traverse
rake traverse
rake traverse
rake traverse
rake traverse
rake traverse
rake traverse
rake traverse
rake traverse
rake traverse
rake traverse
rake traverse
rake traverse
rake traverse
rake traverse
rake traverse
rake traverse
rake traverse

COMPANY CONFIDENTIAL
-27NLR-CR-2003-018

series Run Polar


[#]
[#]
[#]
2
3102 19
1
2
3102 20
1
2
3102 21
1
2
3211 22
1
2
3231 23
1
2
3221 24
1
2
3241 25
1
2
3341 26
1
2
3341 27
1
2
3341 28
1
2
3321 29
1
2
3321 30
1
2
3
4
3311 31
1
2
3
4
5
6
3331 32
1
2
3331 33
1
2
3
4

[]
210
210
210
210
210
210
210
3600
360165
3600
360165
3600
360165
3600
360165
270 90
217.5180

270 90
217.5180

270 90
217.5180

270 90
217.5180

270 90
217.5180

270 90
217.5180

270 90
217.5180

270 90
217.5180

270 90
217.5180

270 90
217.5180

250 120
217.5180

240 110
217.5180

Model
Configuration
FPSO model
FPSO model
FPSO model
FPSO model
FPSO model
FPSO model
FPSO model
tanker
tanker
tanker
tanker
tanker
tanker
tanker
tanker
FPSO + tanker
FPSO + tanker
FPSO + tanker
FPSO + tanker
FPSO + tanker
FPSO + tanker
FPSO + tanker
FPSO + tanker
FPSO + tanker
FPSO + tanker
FPSO + tanker
FPSO + tanker
FPSO + tanker
FPSO + tanker
FPSO + tanker
FPSO + tanker
FPSO + tanker
FPSO + tanker
FPSO + tanker
FPSO + tanker
FPSO + tanker
FPSO + tanker
FPSO + tanker
FPSO + tanker

balance RAKE / FPSO model

pos
bow
bow
stern
stern
middle
middle
total
total
total
total
total
total
total
total
middle
middle
middle
middle
middle
middle
bow
bow
bow
bow
bow
bow
stern
stern
stern
stern
stern
stern

x [m]
0.750
1.000
1.000
1.250
1.250
1.500
1.500
0.125
0.125
0.250
0.250
0.375
0.375
0.375
0.375
0.250
0.250
0.125
0.125
0.375
0.375
0.250
0.250
0.125
0.125
0.125
0.125
0.250
0.250
0.375
0.375

y [m]
-0.48 0.50
-0.48 0.50
-0.48 0.50
-0.48 0.50
-0.48 0.50
-0.48 0.50
-0.48 0.50
0.125
0.125
0.125
0.125
0.125
0.125
0.125
0.125
0.125
0.125
0.125
0.125
0.125
0.125
0.125
0.125
0.125
0.125
0.125
0.125
0.125
0.125
0.125
0.125

COMPANY CONFIDENTIAL

z [m]
0.1450
0.1375
0.1450
0.1375
0.1450
0.1375
0.1450
-

Activity/
Remarks
rake traverse
rake traverse
rake traverse
rake traverse
rake traverse
rake traverse
rake traverse
continuous
step-by-step
continuous
step-by-step
continuous
step-by-step
continuous
step-by-step
continuous
step-by-step
continuous
step-by-step
continuous
step-by-step
continuous
step-by-step
continuous
step-by-step
continuous
step-by-step
continuous
step-by-step
continuous
step-by-step
continuous
step-by-step
continuous
step-by-step
continuous
step-by-step
continuous
step-by-step

COMPANY CONFIDENTIAL
-28NLR-CR-2003-018

Table 2 Position of the shuttle tanker (centre-line, left- and right side of the hull) in the
(model scale) co-ordinate system of the flow field measurements
= 195

x
[m]

= 210

yleft

yCL

yright

yCL

yleft

yright

0.50

0.023

-0.054

0.101

0.006

-0.072

0.083

0.75

-0.044

-0.121

0.034

-0.139

-0.216

-0.061

1.00

-0.111

-0.188

-0.033

-0.283

-0.361

-0.205

1.25

-0.178

-0.255

-0.100

-0.427

-0.505

-0.350

1.50

-0.245

-0.322

-0.167

-0.572

-0.649

-0.494

x/c for = 195

x
[m]

pos I

pos II

x/c for = 210


pos III

pos I

pos II

pos III

0.50

-0.021

-0.188

-0.354

0.007

-0.160

-0.326

0.75

0.324

0.157

-0.009

0.392

0.225

0.058

1.00

0.669

0.502

0.336

0.777

0.610

0.443

1.25

1.014

0.847

0.681

1.162

0.995

0.828

1.50

1.359

1.193

1.026

1.547

1.380

1.213

Note:

yCL, yleft and yright are centre line, left- and right lateral wake intersect positions of the ship hull (in m at model
scale) in the flow field co-ordinate system (see Fig. 3)

x/c denotes the intersect position along the ships centreline: x/c =0 at bow and x/c=1 at stern of the ship

Table 3 Average flow conditions over ship hull intersect areas


X [m]

= 195 deg

= 210 deg

q18 / q ref

q 45 / q ref

q18 / q ref

q 45 / q ref

0.50

0.280

-10.3

0.167

0.75

-8.8

-3.0

0.640

-7.1

0.553

0.687

1.5

0.623

undisturbed
Note:

0.851

18

45

18

45

0.400

-20.3

0.272

-36.5

-13.3

0.373

0.579

0.313

0.430

-13.3

-4.0

1.00

0.485

-2.5

0.631

0.780

-2.7

-1.1

1.25

-4.7

-1.5

0.793

0.924

-1.4

-0.8

0.756

-2.5

-0.8

0.974

0.0

0.0

0.851

0.974

0.0

0.0

q18 = q (z = 18m)

18 = (z = 18m)

COMPANY CONFIDENTIAL

COMPANY CONFIDENTIAL
-29NLR-CR-2003-018

Table 4 Average dynamic pressures and flow angles for each model segment.
Different model positions
pos 1

pos 2

pos 3

= 195

bow middle stern

bow middle stern

bow middle stern

q18 / q ref

0.33

0.43

0.52

0.38

0.48

0.55

0.43

0.52

0.58

q 45 / q ref

0.50

0.61

0.66

0.57

0.64

0.69

0.61

0.66

0.72

18

-14.1

-7.9

-6.0

-9.9

-7.0

-4.8

-7.9

-6.0

-3.7

45

-6.3

-2.7

-2.0

-3.8

-2.4

-1.6

-2.7

-2.0

-1.2

= 210

bow middle stern

bow middle stern

bow middle stern

q18 / q ref

0.23

0.41

0.65

0.30

0.54

0.72

0.41

0.65

0.80

q 45 / q ref

0.34

0.53

0.79

0.42

0.68

0.86

0.53

0.79

0.92

18

-26.9

-10.6

-3.0

-17.5

-5.9

-1.9

-10.6

-3.0

-1.4

45

-9.4

-3.3

-1.2

-5.8

-2.0

-0.9

-3.3

-1.2

-0.7

Note: Table cells for which

q / q ref < 0.5 or > 5 degrees are shaded

Table 5 Forces and moments on the shuttle tanker depending on the mean wind velocity at
10 m height (assuming a force and moment coefficient equal to unity)
Force
Moment [Nm]
V10
[m/s]
[N]
1
626
31320
2
2506
125280
4
10022
501120
6
22550
1127520
8
40090
2004480
10
62640
3132000
12
90202
4510080
14
122774
6138720
16
160358
8017920
18
202954
10147680
20
250560
12528000

COMPANY CONFIDENTIAL

COMPANY CONFIDENTIAL
-30NLR-CR-2003-018

Fig. 1 Wake shielding test set-up in DNW-LST wind tunnel

300
76
32
20
4

26

140
10.5

14

22
18

upper-deck cargo (FPSO only)


a) side view

50

40

60

b) top view
Fig. 2 Sketch of the model dimensions (in [m]; full-scale) tested at 1:400 scale in DNW-LST
wind tunnel

COMPANY CONFIDENTIAL

COMPANY CONFIDENTIAL
-31NLR-CR-2003-018
y= 0.028 m

y= 0.157 m

y= -0.5 m

y= 0.5 m

y
x

x= 0
x=0.25 m

wake traverse
planes

= 210 deg

= 195 deg
Fig. 3

Position of the FPSO model with respect to tunnel centreline and wake traverse planes.
Relative positions of shuttle tanker that were tested (see also Fig. 4) are shown for
reference.

COMPANY CONFIDENTIAL

COMPANY CONFIDENTIAL
-32NLR-CR-2003-018

50

50
50
50

Fig. 4

Sketch of the relative model positions (at full scale, in m)

COMPANY CONFIDENTIAL

COMPANY CONFIDENTIAL
-33NLR-CR-2003-018

a) x= -0.50 m, = 195 degrees

b) x= -0.25 m, = 195 degrees

c) x= 0 m, = 195 degrees

COMPANY CONFIDENTIAL

COMPANY CONFIDENTIAL
-34NLR-CR-2003-018

d) x= 0.25 m, = 195 degrees

e) x= 0.50 m, = 195 degrees

f) x= 0.75 m, = 195 degrees

COMPANY CONFIDENTIAL

COMPANY CONFIDENTIAL
-35NLR-CR-2003-018

g) x= 1.00 m, = 195 degrees

h) x= 1.25 m, = 195 degrees

i) x= 1.50 m, = 195 degrees


Fig. 5

Measured flow fields behind FPSO, wind heading = 195 degrees

COMPANY CONFIDENTIAL

COMPANY CONFIDENTIAL
-36NLR-CR-2003-018

a) x= -0.50 m, = 210 degrees

b) x= -0.25 m, = 210 degrees

c) x= 0 m, = 210 degrees

COMPANY CONFIDENTIAL

COMPANY CONFIDENTIAL
-37NLR-CR-2003-018

d) x= 0.25 m, = 210 degrees

e) x= 0.50 m, = 210 degrees

f) x= 0.75 m, = 210 degrees

COMPANY CONFIDENTIAL

COMPANY CONFIDENTIAL
-38NLR-CR-2003-018

g) x= 1.00 m, = 210 degrees

h) x= 1.25 m, = 210 degrees

i) x= 1.50 m, = 210 degrees


Fig. 6 Measured flow fields behind FPSO, wind heading = 210 degrees

COMPANY CONFIDENTIAL

COMPANY CONFIDENTIAL
-39NLR-CR-2003-018

100.00

X=- 0.5, = 210

90.00

z [m]

80.00
70.00

VT_avg

60.00

VT_min

50.00

VT_max

40.00

sea_prof(0.11)

30.00

sea_prof(0.10)

20.00

sea prof(0.09)

10.00

VT/V 10

0.00
0.00

0.50

1.00

1.50

4
Fig. 7

The undisturbed (total) velocity profile at upstream position X=-0.5 m (data between
y=-0.47 and 0.32 m) compared with some power profiles (equation 1, with =0.09, 0.1
and 0.11)

100
90

= 195

80
70
z [m]

60

x=0.50

50

x=0.75

40

x=1.00

30

x=1.25

20

x=1.50

10

[deg]

0
-30

-20

-10

10

a) (z)

COMPANY CONFIDENTIAL

COMPANY CONFIDENTIAL
-40NLR-CR-2003-018

100
= 195

90
80
70
z [m]

60

x=0.50

50

x=0.75

40

x=1.00

30

x=1.25

20

x=1.50

10

0
-30

-25

-20

-15

-10

avg

[deg]

-5

b) ( z )
100

= 195

90
80

z [m]

70
60

x=0.50

50

x=0.75
x=1.00

40

x=1.25

30

x=1.50

20

seaprof

10

q/qref

0
0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

1.2

c) q(z)/qref
100

= 195

90
80
70
z [m]

60

x=0.50

50

x=0.75
x=1.00

40

x=1.25

30

x=1.50

20

seaprof

10

qavg/q ref,

0
0.0

d)

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

1.2

q (z) / q ref

Fig. 8

Averaged profile data (averaged between ymin and ymax values given in Tab. 2), =195

COMPANY CONFIDENTIAL

COMPANY CONFIDENTIAL
-41NLR-CR-2003-018

100

= 210

90
80
70
z [m]

60
x=0.50

50

x=0.75

40

x=1.00
x=1.25

30
20
10

[deg]

0
-50

-40

-30

-20

-10

10

a) (z)
100

= 210

90
80
70
z [m] 60
50

x=0.50

40

x=0.75
x=1.00

30

x=1.25

20
10

avg [deg]

0
-50

-40

-30

-20

-10

b) ( z )
100

= 210

90
80

z [m]

70
60

x=0.50

50

x=0.75

40

x=1.00

30

x=1.25

20

x=-0.5

10

q/q ref

0
0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

1.2

c) q(z)/qref

COMPANY CONFIDENTIAL

COMPANY CONFIDENTIAL
-42NLR-CR-2003-018

100

= 210

90
80
70
z [m] 60
50

x=0.50

40

x=1.00

30

x=1.25

20

x=-0.5

x=0.75

10

q avg/q ref

0
0.0

d)

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

1.2

q (z) / q ref

Fig. 9 Averaged profile data (averaged between ymin and ymax values given in Tab. 2), =210
= 195 [deg]
0

18,avg

[deg]

-5
-10

pos 1

-15

pos 2

-20

pos 3

-25
-30
-0.5

0.5

1.5

x/c

a) 18
= 195 [deg]
0

45,avg

[deg]

-5
-10

pos 1

-15

pos 2

-20

pos 3

-25
-30
-0.5

0.5

1.5

x/c

b) 45

COMPANY CONFIDENTIAL

COMPANY CONFIDENTIAL
-43NLR-CR-2003-018

= 195 [deg]
1

q18,avg /qref

0.8
pos 1
0.6

pos 2

0.4

pos 3
undisturbed

0.2
0
-0.5

0.5

1.5

x/c

c) q18 /qref
= 195 [deg]
1

q45,avg /qref

0.8
pos 1
0.6

pos 2

0.4

pos 3
undisturbed

0.2
0
-0.5

0.5

1.5

x/c

d)

q 45 /qref

Fig. 10

Flow direction and average dynamic pressure along the ship hull for various positions
of the offloading tanker (=195)

COMPANY CONFIDENTIAL

COMPANY CONFIDENTIAL
-44NLR-CR-2003-018

= 210 [deg]
0

18,avg

[deg]

-5
-10

pos 1

-15

pos 2

-20

pos 3

-25
-30
-0.5

0.5

1.5

x/c

a) 18
= 210 [deg]
0

45,avg

[deg]

-5
-10

pos 1

-15

pos 2

-20

pos 3

-25
-30
-0.5

0.5

1.5

x/c

b) 45
= 210 [deg]
1

q18,avg /qref

0.8
pos 1
0.6

pos 2

0.4

pos 3
undisturbed

0.2
0
-0.5

0.5

1.5

x/c

c) q18 /qref

COMPANY CONFIDENTIAL

COMPANY CONFIDENTIAL
-45NLR-CR-2003-018

= 210 [deg]
1

q45,avg /qref

0.8
pos 1
0.6

pos 2

0.4

pos 3
undisturbed

0.2
0
-0.5

0.5

1.5

x/c

d)

q 45 /qref

Fig. 11

Flow direction and average dynamic pressure along the ship hull for various positions
of the offloading tanker (=210)

COMPANY CONFIDENTIAL

COMPANY CONFIDENTIAL
-46NLR-CR-2003-018

270 degrees
y

0 degrees

x
180 degrees
90 degrees

Fig. 12

Definition of wind headings relative to the FPSO vessel

Fy

My
Fx

Fz

Mx

Mz

V
Fig. 13

Force and moment sign conventions for the shuttle tanker (right-handed
co-ordinate system)

Fy

Mz
stern
Fig. 14

Fy

Fx

Mz

Fy

Fx

middle

Mz
bow

Segmentation of the off-loading shuttle tanker

COMPANY CONFIDENTIAL

Fx

COMPANY CONFIDENTIAL
-47NLR-CR-2003-018
+
-

= 0 deg

CD

CD
CL=0
CM,z=0

CD

CL

CM,z

CD
CM,z<0

= 20deg
-

CD
+

CD
CL 0
CM,z 0

= 90 deg

CM,z

= 160 deg
+
+
-

+
+

CL
CD

CD
CL
CM,z>0

CM,z

CL
CD
CM,z<0

CM,z
CD

= 200 deg

CL

Forces and moments on the ship hull

Fig. 15

Forces and moment contributions from


the steering house

Sketch of the flow pattern and force and moment contributions of the hull and steering
house

COMPANY CONFIDENTIAL

COMPANY CONFIDENTIAL
-48NLR-CR-2003-018

0.8
0.6
0.4
Cz

0.2

Cx
0.0
-0.2

30

60

90

120 150 180 210 240 270 300 330 360

Cy

-0.4
-0.6

Fig. 16

[deg]

Force coefficients Cx, Cy, Cz as function of wind heading (no wind shielding)

0.6
0.4
0.2
CL

0.0
-0.2

-0.4

30 60

90 120 150 180 210 240 270 300 330 360

CD

[deg]

-0.6

Fig. 17

Flow oriented drag and side-force coefficients CD and CL as function of wind heading
(no wind shielding)

COMPANY CONFIDENTIAL

COMPANY CONFIDENTIAL
-49NLR-CR-2003-018

30
20
10
f
0
[deg]

30

60

90

120

150

180

210

240

270

300

330

360

-10
-20
-30
[deg]
Fig. 18a Angle between the undisturbed flow and the force vector (Fx, Fy), no wind shielding

0.2

0.1
bow

CL 0.0
0.0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

-0.1

-0.2
CD

Fig. 18b The CL-CD polars for flow from the stern (-90<<90) and for
flow from the bow (90<<270)

COMPANY CONFIDENTIAL

stern

COMPANY CONFIDENTIAL
-50NLR-CR-2003-018

0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2

CMy

0.0
-0.2

CMz
0

30

60

90 120 150 180 210 240 270 300 330 360

CMx

-0.4
-0.6
-0.8

Fig. 19

[deg]

Moment coefficients CM,x, CM,y, CM,z as function of wind heading (moments on total
model; no wind shielding)

0.30
0.20
0.10
0.00
0

30 60 90 120 150 180 210 240 270 300 330 360

d Mx
d My
d Mz

-0.10
-0.20
[deg]
-0.30
Fig. 20

Force application distances dM,x, dM,y, dM,z (referenced to the ships hull length)
computed with equation 5 (no wind shielding)

COMPANY CONFIDENTIAL

COMPANY CONFIDENTIAL
-51NLR-CR-2003-018

0.80
0.60
Cz: summed

0.40

Cx: summed

0.20

Cy: summed

0.00

Cz: total
Cx: total

-0.20

Cy: total

-0.40
-0.60
150

180

210

240

270

300

330

360

[deg]

Fig. 21

Consistency check of step-by-step force measurement data.(no wind shielding). Lines


represent measurements of forces on total ship geometry, symbols represent sum of
forces measured for the different model segments (see equation 6)

0.80
0.60
0.40

CMz: summed

0.20

CMx: summed
CMy: summed

0.00

CMz: total

-0.20

CMx: total

-0.40

CMy: total

-0.60
-0.80
150

180

210

240

270

300

330

360

[deg]

Fig. 22

Consistency check of step-by-step moment measurement data (no wind shielding).


Lines represent measurement of moments on total ship geometry, symbols represent
summed data for the different model segments (see equation 6)

COMPANY CONFIDENTIAL

COMPANY CONFIDENTIAL
-52NLR-CR-2003-018

0.20
0.10
bow
Cx 0.00

middle
stern

-0.10
[deg]

-0.20
0

Fig. 23

30 60 90 120 150 180 210 240 270 300 330 360

Contributions of the different model segments to Cx (no wind-shielding)

0.30
0.20
0.10

bow

Cy 0.00

middle
stern

-0.10
-0.20
[deg]

-0.30
0

Fig. 24

30 60 90 120 150 180 210 240 270 300 330 360

Contributions of the different model segments to Cy (no wind-shielding)

0.40
0.30
bow

0.20
Cz

middle
0.10

stern

0.00
[deg]

-0.10
0

Fig. 25

30 60 90 120 150 180 210 240 270 300 330 360

Contributions of the different model segments to Cz (no wind-shielding)

COMPANY CONFIDENTIAL

COMPANY CONFIDENTIAL
-53NLR-CR-2003-018

0.30

0.20
bow
CD 0.10

middle
stern

0.00
[deg]

-0.10
0

Fig. 26

30 60 90 120 150 180 210 240 270 300 330 360

Contributions of the different model segments to CD (no wind-shielding)

0.20

0.10
bow
CL 0.00

middle
stern

-0.10
[deg]

-0.20
0

Fig. 27

30 60 90 120 150 180 210 240 270 300 330 360

Contributions of the different model segments to CL (no wind-shielding)

COMPANY CONFIDENTIAL

COMPANY CONFIDENTIAL
-54NLR-CR-2003-018

0.20
0.10
bow
CM,x 0.00

middle
stern

-0.10
[deg]

-0.20
0

Fig. 28

Contributions of the different model segments to CM,x (no wind-shielding)

1.00
0.80
0.60
0.40
0.20
CM,y 0.00
-0.20
-0.40
-0.60
-0.80
-1.00

bow
middle
stern

[deg]
0

Fig. 29

CM,z

30 60 90 120 150 180 210 240 270 300 330 360

Contributions of the different model segments to CM,y (no wind-shielding)

1.00
0.80
0.60
0.40
0.20
0.00
-0.20
-0.40
-0.60
-0.80
-1.00

bow
middle
stern

[deg]
0

Fig. 30

30 60 90 120 150 180 210 240 270 300 330 360

30 60 90 120 150 180 210 240 270 300 330 360

Contributions of the different model segments to CM,z (no wind-shielding)

COMPANY CONFIDENTIAL

COMPANY CONFIDENTIAL
-55NLR-CR-2003-018

0.30
0.20
0.10

unshielded
x=0.125

Cx 0.00

x=0.250
x=0.375

-0.10
-0.20
[deg]

-0.30
0

30 60 90 120 150 180 210 240 270 300 330 360

a) Cx
0.60
0.40
0.20

unshielded
x=0.125

Cy 0.00

x=0.250
x=0.375

-0.20
-0.40
[deg]

-0.60
0

30 60 90 120 150 180 210 240 270 300 330 360

b) Cy
0.80
0.70
0.60
0.50
Cz

unshielded

0.40

x=0.125

0.30

x=0.250
x=0.375

0.20
0.10
0.00

[deg]

-0.10
0

30 60 90 120 150 180 210 240 270 300 330 360

c) Cz
Fig. 31

Effect of wind shielding on force coefficients Cx, Cy and Cz (forces on total model) as
function of wind heading and model position

COMPANY CONFIDENTIAL

COMPANY CONFIDENTIAL
-56NLR-CR-2003-018

0.60
0.50
0.40

unshielded
x=0.125

CD 0.30

x=0.250
x=0.375

0.20
0.10
[deg]

0.00
0

30 60 90 120 150 180 210 240 270 300 330 360

a) CD

0.20
0.15
0.10
unshielded

0.05

x=0.125

CL 0.00

x=0.250
x=0.375

-0.05
-0.10
-0.15

[deg]

-0.20
0

30 60 90 120 150 180 210 240 270 300 330 360

b) CL
Fig. 32

Effect of wind shielding on force coefficients CD and CL (forces on total model) as


function of wind heading and model position

COMPANY CONFIDENTIAL

COMPANY CONFIDENTIAL
-57NLR-CR-2003-018

0.50
0.40
0.30
0.20
unshielded

0.10

x=0.125

CM,x 0.00

x=0.250

-0.10

x=0.375

-0.20
-0.30
-0.40

[deg]

-0.50
0

30 60 90 120 150 180 210 240 270 300 330 360

a) CM,x
0.80
0.60
0.40
unshielded

0.20

x=0.125

CM,y 0.00

x=0.250
x=0.375

-0.20
-0.40
-0.60

[deg]

-0.80
0

30 60 90 120 150 180 210 240 270 300 330 360

b) CM,y
0.80
0.60
0.40
unshielded

0.20

x=0.125

CM,z 0.00

x=0.250
x=0.375

-0.20
-0.40
-0.60
[deg]

-0.80
0

30 60 90 120 150 180 210 240 270 300 330 360

b) CM,z
Fig. 33

Effect of wind shielding on moment coefficients CM,x, CM,y and CM,z as function of wind
heading and model position

COMPANY CONFIDENTIAL

COMPANY CONFIDENTIAL
-58NLR-CR-2003-018

0.20

0.10
unshielded
x=0.125

Cx 0.00

x=0.250
x=0.375

-0.10
[deg]

-0.20
0

30

60

90 120 150 180 210 240 270 300 330 360

a) bow segment
0.20

0.10
unshielded
x=0.125

Cx 0.00

x=0.250
x=0.375

-0.10
[deg]

-0.20
0

30

60

90 120 150 180 210 240 270 300 330 360

b) middle segment
0.25
0.20
0.15
0.10
0.05

unshielded
x=0.125

Cx 0.00

x=0.250

-0.05

x=0.375

-0.10
-0.15
-0.20

[deg]

-0.25
0

30

60

90 120 150 180 210 240 270 300 330 360

c) stern segment
Fig. 34

Wind shielding effects on Cx. Contributions of the different model segments

COMPANY CONFIDENTIAL

COMPANY CONFIDENTIAL
-59NLR-CR-2003-018

0.30
0.20
0.10
unshielded
x=0.125

Cy 0.00

x=0.250
x=0.375

-0.10
-0.20
[deg]

-0.30
0

30

60

90 120 150 180 210 240 270 300 330 360

a) bow segment
0.30
0.20
0.10
unshielded
x=0.125

Cy 0.00

x=0.250
x=0.375

-0.10
-0.20
[deg]

-0.30
0

30

60

90 120 150 180 210 240 270 300 330 360

b) middle segment
0.30
0.20
0.10
unshielded
x=0.125

Cy 0.00

x=0.250
x=0.375

-0.10
-0.20
[deg]

-0.30
0

30

60

90 120 150 180 210 240 270 300 330 360

c) stern segment
Fig. 35

Wind shielding effects on Cy. Contributions of the different model segments

COMPANY CONFIDENTIAL

COMPANY CONFIDENTIAL
-60NLR-CR-2003-018

0.40
0.30
0.20

unshielded
x=0.125

Cz

x=0.250

0.10

x=0.375

0.00
[deg]

-0.10
0

30

60

90 120 150 180 210 240 270 300 330 360

a) bow segment
0.40
0.30
0.20

unshielded
x=0.125

Cz

x=0.250

0.10

x=0.375

0.00
[deg]

-0.10
0

30

60

90 120 150 180 210 240 270 300 330 360

b) middle segment
0.40
0.30
0.20

unshielded
x=0.125

Cz

x=0.250

0.10

x=0.375

0.00
[deg]

-0.10
0

30

60

90 120 150 180 210 240 270 300 330 360

c) stern segment
Fig. 36

Wind shielding effects on Cz. Contributions of the different model segments

COMPANY CONFIDENTIAL

COMPANY CONFIDENTIAL
-61NLR-CR-2003-018

0.25
0.20
0.15
0.10
CM,x

0.05

unshielded

0.00

x=0.125
x=0.250

-0.05

x=0.375

-0.10
-0.15
-0.20

[deg]

-0.25
0

30

60

90 120 150 180 210 240 270 300 330 360

a) bow segment
0.25
0.20
0.15
0.10
0.05

unshielded
x=0.125

CM,x 0.00

x=0.250

-0.05

x=0.375

-0.10
-0.15
-0.20

[deg]

-0.25
0

30

60

90 120 150 180 210 240 270 300 330 360

b) middle segment
0.25
0.20
0.15
0.10
0.05

unshielded
x=0.125

CM,x 0.00

x=0.250

-0.05

x=0.375

-0.10
-0.15
-0.20

[deg]

-0.25
0

30

60

90 120 150 180 210 240 270 300 330 360

c) stern segment
Fig. 37

Wind shielding effects on CM,x. Contributions of the different model segments

COMPANY CONFIDENTIAL

COMPANY CONFIDENTIAL
-62NLR-CR-2003-018

1.00
0.80
0.60
0.40
0.20

unshielded
x=0.125

CM,y 0.00

x=0.250

-0.20

x=0.375

-0.40
-0.60
-0.80

[deg]

-1.00
0

30

60

90 120 150 180 210 240 270 300 330 360

a) bow segment
1.00
0.80
0.60
0.40
0.20

unshielded
x=0.125

CM,y 0.00

x=0.250

-0.20

x=0.375

-0.40
-0.60
-0.80

[deg]

-1.00
0

30

60

90 120 150 180 210 240 270 300 330 360

b) middle segment
1.00
0.80
0.60
0.40
0.20

unshielded
x=0.125

CM,y 0.00

x=0.250

-0.20

x=0.375

-0.40
-0.60
-0.80

[deg]

-1.00
0

30

60

90 120 150 180 210 240 270 300 330 360

c) stern segment
Fig. 38

Wind shielding effects on CM,y. Contributions of the different model segments

COMPANY CONFIDENTIAL

COMPANY CONFIDENTIAL
-63NLR-CR-2003-018

1.00
0.80
0.60
0.40
0.20

unshielded
x=0.125

CM,z 0.00

x=0.250

-0.20

x=0.375

-0.40
-0.60
-0.80

[deg]

-1.00
0

30

60

90 120 150 180 210 240 270 300 330 360

a) bow segment
1.00
0.80
0.60
0.40
0.20

unshielded
x=0.125

CM,z 0.00

x=0.250

-0.20

x=0.375

-0.40
-0.60
-0.80

[deg]

-1.00
0

30

60

90 120 150 180 210 240 270 300 330 360

b) middle segment
1.00
0.80
0.60
0.40
0.20

unshielded
x=0.125

CM,z 0.00

x=0.250

-0.20

x=0.375

-0.40
-0.60
-0.80

[deg]

-1.00
0

30

60

90 120 150 180 210 240 270 300 330 360

c) stern segment
Fig. 39

Wind shielding effects on CM,z. Contributions of the different model segments

COMPANY CONFIDENTIAL

COMPANY CONFIDENTIAL
-64NLR-CR-2003-018

d
FPSO tanker

shuttle tanker

a) Large distance between the two tankers. Negligible influence of shuttle tanker on the flow
conditions at the FPSO. Global flow conditions at some distance upstream of the shuttle
tanker are not different than for the case without shuttle tanker. Frozen velocity field
assumption is valid.

d
FPSO tanker

shuttle tanker

b) Medium distance between the tankers. Some influence of the shuttle tanker on the flow
conditions at and the forces on the FPSO. Global flow conditions behind the FPSO are
somewhat different than for a case without shuttle tanker. Frozen velocity field approximation
is weakly violated.

d
FPSO tanker

shuttle tanker

c) short distance between the tankers. Strong influence of the shuttle tanker on the FPSO,
direct coupling between the flow fields around FPSO and shuttle tanker. Frozen velocity field
assumption is violated.

Fig. 40

Sketch (very schematic) of the interaction effect between two tankers in relation to
their relative distance d (assuming that the FPSO is upstream of the shuttle tanker)

COMPANY CONFIDENTIAL

COMPANY CONFIDENTIAL
-65NLR-CR-2003-018

bow ( =195)
0.00
-0.01

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4
unshielded

-0.02
x

shielded

-0.03

calc. (beta)

-0.04

calc. (beta, q)

-0.05
-0.06
model position x [m]

middle ( =195)
0.03
unshielded

0.02

shielded

calc. (beta)
0.01

calc. (beta, q)

0.00
0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

model position x [m]

stern ( =195)
0.00
0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

-0.05
Cx

unshielded
shielded

-0.10

calc. (beta)
calc. (beta, q)

-0.15
-0.20
model position x [m]

total ( =195)
0.00
0

0.1

0.2

0.3

-0.05

Cx

0.4
unshielded
shielded

-0.10

unshield (sum)
-0.15

shielded (sum)
calc. (beta, q)

-0.20
-0.25
model position x [m]

Fig. 41

Wind shielding correction for each model segment (Cx, = 195 degrees)

COMPANY CONFIDENTIAL

COMPANY CONFIDENTIAL
-66NLR-CR-2003-018

bow ( =195)
0.00
0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

-0.01

unshielded

-0.02

shielded

calc. (beta)

-0.03

calc. (beta, q)

-0.04
-0.05
model position x [m]

middle ( =195)
0.00
0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4
unshielded

-0.01

shielded

calc. (beta)
-0.02

calc. (beta, q)

-0.03
model position x [m]

stern ( =195)
0.00
0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4
unshielded

-0.01

shielded

Cy

calc. (beta)
-0.02

calc. (beta, q)

-0.03
model position x [m]

total ( =195)
0.00
0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4
unshielded
shielded

Cy

-0.05

unshield (sum)
shielded (sum)
calc. (beta, q)

-0.10
model position x [m]

Fig. 42

Wind shielding correction for each model segment (Cy, = 195 degrees)

COMPANY CONFIDENTIAL

COMPANY CONFIDENTIAL
-67NLR-CR-2003-018

bow ( =195)
0.00
0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

-0.05
M,
z

unshielded
shielded

-0.10

calc. (beta)
calc. (beta, q)

-0.15
-0.20
model position x [m]

middle ( =195)
0.01

unshielded
M,
z

shielded

0.00
0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

calc. (beta)
calc. (beta, q)

-0.01
model position x [m]

stern ( =195)
0.10
0.08
M,
z

unshielded
0.06

shielded

0.04

calc. (beta)
calc. (beta, q)

0.02
0.00
0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

model position x [m]

total ( =195)
0.20
unshielded

0.10

shielded

M,
z

unshield (sum)

shielded (sum)

0.00
0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

calc. (beta, q)

-0.10
model position x [m]

Fig. 43

Wind shielding correction for each model segment (CM,z, = 195 degrees)

COMPANY CONFIDENTIAL

COMPANY CONFIDENTIAL
-68NLR-CR-2003-018

bow ( =210)
0.00
-0.01

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4
unshielded

-0.02
x

shielded

-0.03

calc. (beta)

-0.04

calc. (beta, q)

-0.05
-0.06
model position x [m]

middle ( =210)
0.03
unshielded

0.02

shielded

calc. (beta)
0.01

calc. (beta, q)

0.00
0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

model position x [m]

stern ( =210)
0.00
0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

-0.05

unshielded
shielded

Cx -0.10

calc. (beta)
calc. (beta, q)

-0.15
-0.20
model position x [m]

total ( =210)
0.00
0

0.1

0.2

0.3

-0.05

Cx

0.4
unshielded
shielded

-0.10

unshield (sum)
-0.15

shielded (sum)
calc. (beta, q)

-0.20
-0.25
model position x [m]

Fig. 44

Wind shielding correction for each model segment (Cx, = 210 degrees)

COMPANY CONFIDENTIAL

COMPANY CONFIDENTIAL
-69NLR-CR-2003-018

bow ( =210)
0.00
0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

-0.02

unshielded

-0.04

shielded

calc. (beta)

-0.06

calc. (beta, q)
-0.08
-0.10
model position x [m]

middle ( =210)
0.00
0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

-0.01

Cy

unshielded

-0.02

shielded
calc. (beta)

-0.03

calc. (beta, q)

-0.04
-0.05
model position x [m]

stern ( =210)
0.00
0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

-0.02

Cy

unshielded

-0.04

shielded
calc. (beta)

-0.06

calc. (beta, q)

-0.08
-0.10
model position x [m]

total ( =210)
0.00
0

0.1

0.2

0.3

-0.05

Cy

0.4
unshielded
shielded

-0.10

unshield (sum)
-0.15

shielded (sum)
calc. (beta, q)

-0.20
-0.25
model position x [m]

Fig. 45

Wind shielding correction for each model segment (Cy, = 210 degrees)

COMPANY CONFIDENTIAL

COMPANY CONFIDENTIAL
-70NLR-CR-2003-018

bow ( =210)
0.00
0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

-0.10
M,
z

unshielded
shielded

-0.20

calc. (beta)
calc. (beta, q)

-0.30
-0.40
model position x [m]

middle ( =210)
0.02

unshielded

0.01
M,
z

shielded

calc. (beta)
0.00

calc. (beta, q)
0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

-0.01
model position x [m]

stern ( =210)
0.40
0.30
M,
z

unshielded
shielded

0.20

calc. (beta)
calc. (beta, q)

0.10
0.00
0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

model position x [m]

total ( =210)
0.40
0.30
M,

Cz

unshielded
shielded

0.20

unshield (sum)
0.10

shielded (sum)
calc. (beta, q)

0.00
0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

-0.10
model position x [m]

Fig. 46

Wind shielding correction for each model segment (CM,z, = 210 degrees)

COMPANY CONFIDENTIAL

COMPANY CONFIDENTIAL
-71NLR-CR-2003-018
unshielded (total)
shielded (x=0.125, total)
shielded (x=0.250, total)
shielded (x=0.375, total)
calc. (x=.125, summed)
calc. (x=.250, summed)
calc. (x=.375, summed)
unshielded (summed)
shielded (x=.125, summed)
shielded (x=.250, summed)
shielded (x=.375, summed)

-0.10

-0.15
Cx
-0.20

[deg]

-0.25
180

190

200

210

220

0.00

unshielded (total)
shielded (x=0.125, total)
shielded (x=0.250, total)
shielded (x=0.375, total)
calc. (x=.125, summed)
calc. (x=.250, summed)
calc. (x=.375, summed)
unshielded (summed)
shielded (x=.125, summed)
shielded (x=.250, summed)
shielded (x=.375, summed)

-0.05
-0.10
Cy
-0.15
-0.20

[deg]

-0.25
180

190

200

210

220

unshielded (total)
shielded (x=0.125, total)
shielded (x=0.250, total)
shielded (x=0.375, total)
calc. (x=.125, summed)
calc. (x=.250, summed)
calc. (x=.375, summed)
unshielded (summed)
shielded (x=.125, summed)
shielded (x=.250, summed)
shielded (x=.375, summed)

0.40
0.30
0.20
CM,z 0.10
0.00
-0.10

[deg]

-0.20
180

190

200

210

220

Fig. 47 Summary of wind shielding calculation results

COMPANY CONFIDENTIAL

COMPANY CONFIDENTIAL
-72NLR-CR-2003-018

This page is intentionally left blank.

COMPANY CONFIDENTIAL

COMPANY CONFIDENTIAL
-73NLR-CR-2003-018

Appendix A Drag coefficient of the shuttle tanker when based on the frontal wind
exposed area
In traditional force models, see e.g. references 4-6, the drag is found by summing the drag
contributions of the different model segments. For the individual model segments drag is
computed by multiplying the drag coefficient with the projected wind-exposed area of the
model segment with the mean dynamic wind pressure over the height of the model segment. For
sharp edged geometry elements a drag coefficient in the order of one should be expected for all
model elements.
It was checked if with a drag coefficient definition based on the frontal exposed area of the
shuttle tanker a more constant drag coefficient would have been obtained. The ship geometry
(see Fig. 2) was approximated with three prismatic elements:
1)

The ships hull (300x50x18 m3).

2)

The lower part of the steering house (26x40x22 m3 ).

3) The upper part of the steering house (highly schematised: 8x65x5 m3 ).


Wind velocity (relative to the wind velocity at the reference height of 52 m) and dynamic wind
pressure profiles (referenced to the average dynamic wind pressure between z=0 and z=52 m:
qref) are shown in figure A.1, together with a backside view of the ship. Dynamic wind pressures
were averaged over the height of the model parts and the results are given in table A.1. These
results were applied to obtain an effective drag coefficient C *D based on the projected frontal
area of the ship and the effective dynamic pressures of the three main model parts (1: main ship
hull, 2: lower part of the steering house, 3: upper part of the steering house). The following
formulas were used:

D = C D q ref A ref = C *D (q1A 1 + q 2 A 2 + q 3 A 3 )


C *D =

CD
q1 A 1
q A3
q A2

+ 2
+ 3
q ref A ref q ref A ref q ref A ref

The following formulas for the frontal area of the model parts apply:

[
]
= 22 40 + 26 max[abs (sin(tan (40 / 26) + ), abs ( sin(tan (40 / 26) + )] ,
= 5 65 + 8 max[abs (sin(tan (65 / 8) + ), abs ( sin(tan (65 / 8) + )]

A 1 = 18 50 2 + 300 2 max abs (sin(tan 1 (50 / 300) + ), abs (sin( tan 1 (50 / 300) + ) ,
A2
A3

COMPANY CONFIDENTIAL

COMPANY CONFIDENTIAL
-74NLR-CR-2003-018

The result, shown in figure A.2, shows a C *D value around 0.75. Compared to the original drag
coefficient definition (based on a constant reference area, see equations 2 and 3 and Fig. 17) the
maximum deviations are now smaller: in the order of about 20% depending on flow angle .
Table A.1

Average dynamic wind pressures over the height of the main model parts
(from equation 1, with =0.1)

model part

zmin [m]

zmax [m]

q / q ref [-]

hull
steering house lower part (stern-1)
steering house upper part (stern-2)
lower bow part (bow-1)

0
18
40
18

18
40
45
22

0.809
1.063
1.152
0.991

60

V/Vref

z [m]
50

q/qref

40
30
20
10
0
0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.2

a) wind and dynamic wind pressure profile

1.4

b) ship geometry (view from the back)

Fig. A.1 Simulated wind profile with respect to the model geometry

COMPANY CONFIDENTIAL

COMPANY CONFIDENTIAL
-75NLR-CR-2003-018

1.2
1.0
0.8
CD: Aproj
CD: Aref

0.6
0.4
0.2
[deg]

0.0
0

30

60

90

120 150

180 210 240

270 300 330

360

Fig. A.2 Drag coefficient C D defined with the projected frontal area (Aproj) and drag coefficient
CD defined with the constant reference area (Aref), no wind shielding

COMPANY CONFIDENTIAL

COMPANY CONFIDENTIAL
-76NLR-CR-2003-018

Appendix B Application of slender wing theory for deriving an empirical formula


for the side force coefficient CL
The variation of the side force coefficient CL with is shown in figure 17. For small flow angles
there is a slow increment of CL with , followed by a much more rapid increment at larger flow
angles. Since this behaviour is well known from slender wing theory and the hull of the ship
resembles to some extend a slender wing, it is useful to see if elements of slender wing theory
can be used to describe the observed variation of CL with .
The sea surface can be considered as a symmetry plane. The ships hull then resembles a wing
with a chord c of 300 m and a span b of 2 times the height of the hull (2 x 18= 36 m). The
aspect ratio A of that wing is equal to b2/(bc)= 0.12. According to references 7-8 the lift

coefficient (here that lift force is actually a side force) of a slender infinitely thin (flat plate)
wing in a uniform flow can be approximated as:

C L = 0.5 sin cos (A + sin )

(Eq. B.1)

As argued in reference 7, the factor 0.5 is in fact to be expected lower because the effective
hull geometry is not a flat plate, but has a rectangular (36 x 60 m2) cross-section. Apart from
this, the basic formulation should still apply, albeit the lift of the ships hull would only be half
the value of the lift on the equivalent slender wing. From equation B-1 the lift coefficient of the
ship hull, referenced to qref rather than q 18 (the average dynamic pressure over the height of the
ships hull) and to Aref rather than S= bc, and with an empirical reduction factor p becomes:

C L = 0.25 p sin cos (A + sin * ) (S / A ref ) ( q18 / q ref )


* = min{ , 180 , 360 }

(Eq. B.2)

This result is compared against the measurements in Figure B-1. With p equal to unity the
model predicts lift in qualitative agreement with the measurements, but the predicted lift is
much too large. With p adapted to the experimental data (p=0.35 for < 90 and p=0.5 for

> 90 ) a quite reasonable agreement is found. However, the linear lift gradient is still too
large near = 180 (flow from the bow) and still much too large near = 0 degrees (flow from the
stern).

COMPANY CONFIDENTIAL

COMPANY CONFIDENTIAL
-77NLR-CR-2003-018

0.3

measured
Eq. B-1, p=1
Eq. B-2, p adapted

CL
0.2
0.1
0.0
-0.1
-0.2

[deg]
-0.3
0

30

60

p= 0.35

90

120

150

180

210

240

270

p= 0.50

300

330

360

p= 0.35

Fig. B.1 Measured CL and calculated CL with modified slender wing theory (equation B.1), no
wind shielding

COMPANY CONFIDENTIAL

COMPANY CONFIDENTIAL
-78NLR-CR-2003-018

Appendix C Computation of Cx and CM,z values with ESDU method


A general source of information for calculating aerodynamic forces and moments is presented in
References 5 and 6. Reference 6 addresses the forces on prismatic objects mounted on a surface
in a turbulent shear flow and is therefore most appropriate for the present study. For a prismatic
body with a frontal area H x b (height H and width b) and a top area equal to b x a, the force
component Fx (normal to the frontal area) can be written as:

Fx = q ref bHC 'x k s k l k i k

(Eq. C.1)

C 'x is the basic force coefficient for the prism, for low turbulence, uniform flow at zero crossflow (flow normal to the H x b face) and it depends on a/b and H/b ratio. ks represents the effect
of the atmospheric boundary layer and is defined as the ratio of the average dynamic wind
pressure over the height of the object ( q ) and qref. The effect of the longitudinal length turbulent
length scale xLu is represented by kl and it is a function of a/xLu, where xLu is a function of the
height of the object and of the specific boundary layer profile (see Ref. 6). The effect of the
turbulence intensity is generally to increase Fx. This effect is represented by ki, which is given as
a function of H/b, a/b and the average turbulence intensity Iu. Unfortunately, no data are
available for H/b < 0.25 (e.g. the ships hull at = 90).
According to reference 6 the force component Fy follows with the same procedure, but
interchanging the a and b dimensions and taking the flow incidence as 90- , i.e. k90-. It
should be noted that the derived Cx and Cy force coefficients will generally lead to a non-zero
lift force component.
The data of Ref. 6 have been used to calculate the CF,x = CD values of the main ship elements for
= 0 and 90 degrees, for which k=1. The related q / q ref values of the different ship elements

are given in table 6. Two values for ki have been assumed: ki = 1 and ki estimated from
reference 6. The contribution to the drag coefficient (non-dimensional with Aref) becomes:

C D = C 'x

q A front
klki
q ref A ref

(Eq. C.2)

These are evaluated in table C.1. Under pure cross-flow conditions ( = 90), the forces on the
stern and bow segments (having a momentum arm equal to x from model centre to the centre
of prismatic part) will induce a rolling moment coefficient around the z-axis:

C M , z = C D

x
L

(Eq. C.3)

COMPANY CONFIDENTIAL

COMPANY CONFIDENTIAL
-79NLR-CR-2003-018

For each part CD is computed with equation C.2. C 'x is a function of H/b and a/b; kl is the
turbulent length-scale effect and a function of the ratio between a and the longitudinal
turbulence length scale xLU; ki depends on turbulence intensity Iu and on a/b and H/b. Data of
reference 6 have been used. Magnitude of ki is unclear because H/b of ships hull is outside
empirical data range. Therefore two values for ki have been employed.
This has also been computed in table C.1. It has to be noted that the computed forces and
moments are larger than the experimental values. Even when ki = 1 is taken.
It is concluded that the experimental data do not fit well with the method presented in reference
6. This might partly be due to uncertainties in the turbulence parameters and to the fact that the
ships hull height is small (H/b of the hull lies outside the empirical data range, especially for the
=90 degree case). A further drawback of the method presented in Ref.6 is that it does not give

sufficiently detailed data on k in relation to the a/b and H/b ratio.

COMPANY CONFIDENTIAL

COMPANY CONFIDENTIAL
-80NLR-CR-2003-018

Table C.1 Computed Cx and CM,z values for =0 and =90 degrees (method of Ref. 6)
= 90

parameter
hull

= 0

stern-1 stern-2 bow-1 bow-2

hull

stern-1 stern-2 bow-1 bow-2

300

26

20

32

20

60

40

65

60

11

60

40

65

60

10

300

26

20

32

20

18

40

45

22

27.5

18

40

45

22

27.5

H/b

0.06

1.54

2.25

0.69

1.38

0.30

1.00

0.69

0.37

2.50

a/b

0.20

1.54

3.25

1.88

0.50

5.00

0.65

0.31

0.53

1.82

Afront

5400

594

100

128

110

1080

880

325

240

60

C'x
ks= q /qref

1.20

1.05

0.95

1.00

1.20

1.00

1.20

1.20

1.15

1.05

0.809 1.063 1.152 0.991 1.034 0.809 1.063 1.152 0.991 1.034

xLU

110

130

130

110

110

110

130

130

110

110

a/xLU

0.55

0.31

0.50

0.55

0.09

2.73

0.20

0.15

0.29

0.18

Iu

0.1

0.1

0.1

0.1

0.1

0.1

0.1

0.1

0.1

0.1

kl

0.82

0.96

0.83

0.82

1.00

0.85

1.00

1.00

0.96

1.00

ki,max

1.60

1.55

1.60

1.70

1.50

1.70

1.65

1.70

1.75

1.55

ki,min

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

CD,max

0.764 0.106 0.016 0.020 0.023 0.140 0.206 0.085 0.051 0.011

CD,min

0.478 0.068 0.010 0.012 0.015 0.083 0.125 0.050 0.029 0.007

Contribution to CM,z

stern

bow

stern

bow

CM,z,max

-0.553

0.196

0.0

0.0

CM,z,min

-0.355

0.124

0.0

0.0

Summary of results

computed
CD,max,tot

0.928

CD,min ,tot

0.583

CM,z,max

-0.357

CM,z,min

-0.232

experiment
0.47
-0.25

computed

experiment

0.493

0.20 (= 0),

0.294

0.25 (= 180)

0.0
0.0

0.0

For each part CD is computed with equation C-2. C 'x is a function of H/b and a/b; kl is the
turbulent length-scale effect and a function of the ratio between a and the longitudinal
turbulence length scale xLU; ki depends on turbulence intensity Iu and on a/b and H/b. Data of
reference 6 have been used. Magnitude of ki is unclear because H/b of ships hull is outside
empirical data range. Therefore two values for ki have been employed.

COMPANY CONFIDENTIAL