COMPANY CONFIDENTIAL
NLRCR2003018
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:
3NLRCR2003018
Summary
Wind and underwater forces on an offloading tanker that is approaching an FPSO (Floating
Production and Storage Offloading unit) are influenced by socalled 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
windinduced 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
4NLRCR2003018
Contents
List of symbols
Introduction
2.1
Introduction
2.2
Test setup
2.3
2.4
2.4.1
Forces and moments on the offloading shuttle tanker (without wind shielding) 13
2.4.2
11
17
18
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
COMPANY CONFIDENTIAL
76
78
COMPANY CONFIDENTIAL
5NLRCR2003018
List of Symbols
A
Aspect ratio of the ships hull (analogy to a lowaspect ratio wing, see App. B)
Aref
a, b, H
CM
dM
force
moment
qref
reference dynamic pressure (here taken as average dynamic wind pressure between
q18
velocity in windfield
Vref
V10
x, y, z
zref
Greek symbols
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
subfixes
bow
middle
stern
ref
reference condition
x, y, x
x, y or z component
COMPANY CONFIDENTIAL
COMPANY CONFIDENTIAL
6NLRCR2003018
COMPANY CONFIDENTIAL
COMPANY CONFIDENTIAL
7NLRCR2003018
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 socalled 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 windinduced 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.
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 setup
Tests have been performed in the DNWLST lowspeed 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 (socalled 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
8NLRCR2003018
COMPANY CONFIDENTIAL
COMPANY CONFIDENTIAL
9NLRCR2003018
of the ships steering house. Further downstream the centre of the vortex moves slowly further to
the left, while maximum crossflow velocities and wake velocity deficits are diminishing. The
crosssectional 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 crossflow 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 windprofile 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 zvalues 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 upstreaminfluence 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 socalled 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
nondimensional 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
10NLRCR2003018
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 zposition 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 zvalues. 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
nondimensional 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
11NLRCR2003018
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 46
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 crosssectional 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
12NLRCR2003018
Instead of considering Cx and Cy (body fixed force components) it is also useful to consider CD
and CL (floworiented force components, defined in a rotated flowaxis 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:
(Eq. 6)
COMPANY CONFIDENTIAL
COMPANY CONFIDENTIAL
13NLRCR2003018
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.
Windfacing 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 stepbystep
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 crossflow (= 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 sideforce 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 crossflow 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
14NLRCR2003018
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
crossflow 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 A2, 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 crossflow 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 nonlinear 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 CLCD 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 antisymmetric with respect to . The peculiar behaviour near
COMPANY CONFIDENTIAL
COMPANY CONFIDENTIAL
15NLRCR2003018
=180 (flow from the bow) should be noted. It is probably due to the combined but opposite
effects of suction at the bow leeside 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 halfwidth 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 halflength 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
stepbystep 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 2325. For Cx, by far the
largest contribution comes from the sternsegment of the model (due to the wind forces on the
steering house). The bowsegment 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 bowside. 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) backflow over the upper deck, but
COMPANY CONFIDENTIAL
COMPANY CONFIDENTIAL
16NLRCR2003018
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 sternsegment (because of the presence of the steering house). Each segment attains a
maximum at a different flow angle: the sternsegment for 70 degrees, the middlesegment
for about = 90 degrees and the bowsegment 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
sternsegment gives weakly negative contributions near = 0 and the bowsegment 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 bowsegment of the model behave more or less similar,
whereas the sternsegment behaves more complicated with . The sternsegment has the largest
contribution to the drag (because of the steering house). Near =180 the gradients dCL/d for
the bow and middlesegment are about equal, whereas the gradient for the sternsegment is of
opposite sign. Near =0 degrees the stern and middlesegments have quite similar behaviour in
CL values, whereas the CL values for the bowsegment 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 bowsegments closely resemble Cy (Fig. 24). Similarly, CM,y
contributions of stern and bow closely resemble Cz (Fig. 25). The middlesegment of the model
has only a very small contribution to CM,y and CM,z.
COMPANY CONFIDENTIAL
COMPANY CONFIDENTIAL
17NLRCR2003018
2.4.2
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 setup 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 crossflow condition =90. This is clearly no
wakeeffect, 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 sideslip 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
18NLRCR2003018
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 sideslip 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 3439,
indicate that (at least for the relative model positions tested here) the bowsegment of the model
has by far the largest windshielding 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 bowsegment displays a
sudden change near =225 degrees, probably due to a sudden change in flow pattern over the
bowsegment 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.
COMPANY CONFIDENTIAL
COMPANY CONFIDENTIAL
19NLRCR2003018
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 rescaling
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 reattachment 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 database 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 centreline 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 middlesegment and q 45 , 45 for the sternsegment, 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
middlesegment and 45 for the stern part). These are intermediate results only and are
shown in figures 4146 as the green data points (legend: calculated (beta)).
COMPANY CONFIDENTIAL
COMPANY CONFIDENTIAL
20NLRCR2003018
4. These force and moment coefficients were rescaled with the effective mean dynamic
pressure ratio ( q18 / q18, unshielded for the bow and middlesegment and q 45 / q 45,unshielded for
the sternsegment). These results are shown in figures 4146 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.
Windshielding calculation results for Cx, Cy and CM,z and for = 195 and 210 degrees are
shown in figures 4146. The data are first shown per model segment. Blue datapoints are the
final calculated data, whereas the red datapoints are the measured data (measured by
segments). The green datapoints are intermediate results (only corrected for ), and the black
datapoint 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 bowsegment), 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 4146 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
21NLRCR2003018
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:
COMPANY CONFIDENTIAL
(Eq. 8)
COMPANY CONFIDENTIAL
22NLRCR2003018
Ns
C x ,shielded () = C x ,i ,shielded ()
i =1
Ns
(Eq. 9)
i =1
Ns
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 nonlinear 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
23NLRCR2003018
Flow measurements
The measurements with the 5hole 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 windshielding 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 windshielding
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.
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
24NLRCR2003018
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 buildup 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 modelparts 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 socalled 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 flowfield 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 hotwire or hotfilm probe as part of a future test campaign.
COMPANY CONFIDENTIAL
COMPANY CONFIDENTIAL
25NLRCR2003018
References
1. Anon.: Project plan Overslag Optimalisatie (in Dutch), version 2.0, 27032002.
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: surfacemounted structures in
turbulent shear flow, ESDU Item Number 80003, December 1979.
7. Hoerner, S.F.; Borst, H.V.; FluidDynamic Lift, Hoerner Fluid dynamics, 2nd edition, 1985.
8. Hoerner, S.F.; FluidDynamic Drag, published by the author, 1958.
COMPANY CONFIDENTIAL
COMPANY CONFIDENTIAL
26NLRCR2003018
Table 1 Overview of test conditions of initial DNWLST 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
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
27NLRCR2003018
[]
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
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
stepbystep
continuous
stepbystep
continuous
stepbystep
continuous
stepbystep
continuous
stepbystep
continuous
stepbystep
continuous
stepbystep
continuous
stepbystep
continuous
stepbystep
continuous
stepbystep
continuous
stepbystep
continuous
stepbystep
continuous
stepbystep
continuous
stepbystep
continuous
stepbystep
continuous
stepbystep
COMPANY CONFIDENTIAL
28NLRCR2003018
Table 2 Position of the shuttle tanker (centreline, left and right side of the hull) in the
(model scale) coordinate 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
[m]
pos I
pos II
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 coordinate 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
= 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
29NLRCR2003018
Table 4 Average dynamic pressures and flow angles for each model segment.
Different model positions
pos 1
pos 2
pos 3
= 195
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
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
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
30NLRCR2003018
300
76
32
20
4
26
140
10.5
14
22
18
50
40
60
b) top view
Fig. 2 Sketch of the model dimensions (in [m]; fullscale) tested at 1:400 scale in DNWLST
wind tunnel
COMPANY CONFIDENTIAL
COMPANY CONFIDENTIAL
31NLRCR2003018
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
32NLRCR2003018
50
50
50
50
Fig. 4
COMPANY CONFIDENTIAL
COMPANY CONFIDENTIAL
33NLRCR2003018
c) x= 0 m, = 195 degrees
COMPANY CONFIDENTIAL
COMPANY CONFIDENTIAL
34NLRCR2003018
COMPANY CONFIDENTIAL
COMPANY CONFIDENTIAL
35NLRCR2003018
COMPANY CONFIDENTIAL
COMPANY CONFIDENTIAL
36NLRCR2003018
c) x= 0 m, = 210 degrees
COMPANY CONFIDENTIAL
COMPANY CONFIDENTIAL
37NLRCR2003018
COMPANY CONFIDENTIAL
COMPANY CONFIDENTIAL
38NLRCR2003018
COMPANY CONFIDENTIAL
COMPANY CONFIDENTIAL
39NLRCR2003018
100.00
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
40NLRCR2003018
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
41NLRCR2003018
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
42NLRCR2003018
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
43NLRCR2003018
= 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
44NLRCR2003018
= 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
45NLRCR2003018
= 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
46NLRCR2003018
270 degrees
y
0 degrees
x
180 degrees
90 degrees
Fig. 12
Fy
My
Fx
Fz
Mx
Mz
V
Fig. 13
Force and moment sign conventions for the shuttle tanker (righthanded
coordinate system)
Fy
Mz
stern
Fig. 14
Fy
Fx
Mz
Fy
Fx
middle
Mz
bow
COMPANY CONFIDENTIAL
Fx
COMPANY CONFIDENTIAL
47NLRCR2003018
+

= 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
Fig. 15
Sketch of the flow pattern and force and moment contributions of the hull and steering
house
COMPANY CONFIDENTIAL
COMPANY CONFIDENTIAL
48NLRCR2003018
0.8
0.6
0.4
Cz
0.2
Cx
0.0
0.2
30
60
90
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
CD
[deg]
0.6
Fig. 17
Flow oriented drag and sideforce coefficients CD and CL as function of wind heading
(no wind shielding)
COMPANY CONFIDENTIAL
COMPANY CONFIDENTIAL
49NLRCR2003018
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 CLCD polars for flow from the stern (90<<90) and for
flow from the bow (90<<270)
COMPANY CONFIDENTIAL
stern
COMPANY CONFIDENTIAL
50NLRCR2003018
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
CMy
0.0
0.2
CMz
0
30
60
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
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
51NLRCR2003018
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
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
COMPANY CONFIDENTIAL
COMPANY CONFIDENTIAL
52NLRCR2003018
0.20
0.10
bow
Cx 0.00
middle
stern
0.10
[deg]
0.20
0
Fig. 23
0.30
0.20
0.10
bow
Cy 0.00
middle
stern
0.10
0.20
[deg]
0.30
0
Fig. 24
0.40
0.30
bow
0.20
Cz
middle
0.10
stern
0.00
[deg]
0.10
0
Fig. 25
COMPANY CONFIDENTIAL
COMPANY CONFIDENTIAL
53NLRCR2003018
0.30
0.20
bow
CD 0.10
middle
stern
0.00
[deg]
0.10
0
Fig. 26
0.20
0.10
bow
CL 0.00
middle
stern
0.10
[deg]
0.20
0
Fig. 27
COMPANY CONFIDENTIAL
COMPANY CONFIDENTIAL
54NLRCR2003018
0.20
0.10
bow
CM,x 0.00
middle
stern
0.10
[deg]
0.20
0
Fig. 28
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
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
COMPANY CONFIDENTIAL
COMPANY CONFIDENTIAL
55NLRCR2003018
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
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
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
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
56NLRCR2003018
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
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
b) CL
Fig. 32
COMPANY CONFIDENTIAL
COMPANY CONFIDENTIAL
57NLRCR2003018
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
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
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
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
58NLRCR2003018
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
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
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
c) stern segment
Fig. 34
COMPANY CONFIDENTIAL
COMPANY CONFIDENTIAL
59NLRCR2003018
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
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
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
c) stern segment
Fig. 35
COMPANY CONFIDENTIAL
COMPANY CONFIDENTIAL
60NLRCR2003018
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
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
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
c) stern segment
Fig. 36
COMPANY CONFIDENTIAL
COMPANY CONFIDENTIAL
61NLRCR2003018
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
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
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
c) stern segment
Fig. 37
COMPANY CONFIDENTIAL
COMPANY CONFIDENTIAL
62NLRCR2003018
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
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
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
c) stern segment
Fig. 38
COMPANY CONFIDENTIAL
COMPANY CONFIDENTIAL
63NLRCR2003018
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
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
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
c) stern segment
Fig. 39
COMPANY CONFIDENTIAL
COMPANY CONFIDENTIAL
64NLRCR2003018
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
65NLRCR2003018
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
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
66NLRCR2003018
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
67NLRCR2003018
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
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
68NLRCR2003018
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
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
69NLRCR2003018
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
70NLRCR2003018
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
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
71NLRCR2003018
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
COMPANY CONFIDENTIAL
COMPANY CONFIDENTIAL
72NLRCR2003018
COMPANY CONFIDENTIAL
COMPANY CONFIDENTIAL
73NLRCR2003018
Appendix A Drag coefficient of the shuttle tanker when based on the frontal wind
exposed area
In traditional force models, see e.g. references 46, 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 windexposed 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)
2)
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
74NLRCR2003018
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 (stern1)
steering house upper part (stern2)
lower bow part (bow1)
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
1.4
Fig. A.1 Simulated wind profile with respect to the model geometry
COMPANY CONFIDENTIAL
COMPANY CONFIDENTIAL
75NLRCR2003018
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
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
76NLRCR2003018
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:
(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) crosssection. 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 B1 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:
(Eq. B.2)
This result is compared against the measurements in Figure B1. 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
77NLRCR2003018
0.3
measured
Eq. B1, p=1
Eq. B2, 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
78NLRCR2003018
(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 nonzero
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 (nondimensional 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 crossflow 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 zaxis:
C M , z = C D
x
L
(Eq. C.3)
COMPANY CONFIDENTIAL
COMPANY CONFIDENTIAL
79NLRCR2003018
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 lengthscale 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
COMPANY CONFIDENTIAL
COMPANY CONFIDENTIAL
80NLRCR2003018
Table C.1 Computed Cx and CM,z values for =0 and =90 degrees (method of Ref. 6)
= 90
parameter
hull
= 0
hull
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 C2. C 'x is a function of H/b and a/b; kl is the
turbulent lengthscale 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