４４７

Ｔｈｅ Ｓｐｅｃｉａｌｉｓｔ Ｃｏｍｍｉｔｔｅｅ ｏｎ Ｐｅｒｆｏｒｍａｎｃｅ ｏｆ

Ｓｈｉｐｓ ｉｎ Ｓｅｒｖｉｃｅ
Final Report and Recommendations to the 28th ITTC

tive attended.

１　 ＩＮＴＲＯＤＵＣＴＩＯＮ • 18 － 20, November 2015, MARIN,

Netherland. All members except SSPA repre⁃
sentative attended.
１．１　 Ｍｅｍｂｅｒｓｈｉｐ ａｎｄ Ｍｅｅｔｉｎｇｓ • 15 － 17, June 2016, Southampton, UK.
All members except Sebastian Bielicki from
The members of the Specialist Committee CTO attended.
on Performance of Ships in Service （ PSS） of • 18 － 20, January 2017, NMRI, Japan,
the 28th International Towing Tank Conference All members attended.
are as follows:
The AC representative to IMO Prof. Ger⁃
• Jinbao Wang （ Chairman ）, MARIC, hard Strasser attended all the meetings except
China the last one in order to closely follow the pro⁃
• Dominic Hudson （ Secretary ）, South⁃ gress of the speed/power trial procedure, C A
ampton University, UK guideline and provide feedback from IMO/
• Masaru Tsujimoto, NMRI, Japan MEPC meetings.
• Henk van den Boom, MARIN, The
Netherlands
• G. Grigoropoulos, NTUA, Greece
• Tae Il Lee, HHI, South Korea
• Lawrence Mak, NRC, Canada
• Sofia Werner, SSPA, Sweden
• Hironori Yasukawa, Hiroshima U. Ja⁃
pan
• Koutaku Yamamoto, Mitsui, Japan
• Sebastian Bielicki, CTO, Poland
• Uwe Hollenbach, HSVA, Germany.
（ Did not attend any meeting, and replaced by With Prof. Strasser （2 nd meeting）
Florian Kluwe from Sep, 2015）

Five Committee meetings were held as

follows.
• 17 － 19 December 2014, Vienna Model
Basin, Vienna, Austria. All members except
Henk van den Boom （ MARIN） and Uwe Hol⁃
lenbach （ HSVA） attended.
• 18 － 20 May 2015, MARIC, Shanghai,
China. All members except HSVA representa⁃ After Dr. Kluwe joined （5 th meeting）
４４８
１．２　 Ｔｅｒｍｓ ｏｆ Ｒｅｆｅｒｅｎｃｅ （ ＴＯＲ） Ａｓｓｉｇｎｅｄ
ｂｙ ｔｈｅ ２７ ｔｈ ＩＴＴＣ
(1) Coordinate and exchange information
with the Resistance, Propulsion and Sea⁃keep⁃
ing Committees as relevant, specifically with
regard to estimating fw, in the EEDI calculation
and C A guideline.
(2) Monitor and review the state of the art
for EEDI and EEOI prediction and determina⁃
tion methods, including CFD based methods.
(3) Provide answers to the following as⁃
pects of the analysis of speed/power sea trial
results:
a. Water temperature and density correc⁃
tion to take into account temperature/density
gradient
b. ISO proposed ‘ iterative method􀆳 as an
alternative for mean of means method for cur⁃
rent correction.
c. Statistical properties for the results of
load variation tests
d. Investigation of shallow water correc⁃
tion method to replace Lackenby
e. Influence of ship􀆳s heading and wind on
sea trials
f. Application of CFD methods for added
resistance due to waves, coordinated with the
Sea⁃keeping Committee
g. Wave limits for the wave correction
methods
h. Application of CFD methods for wind
loads
i. Expansion of the wind coefficient data⁃
base for more ship types
j. More extensive validation of the wave
correction methods, including wave limits
k. Feedback of full scale speed/power data
for correlation purpose especially for the design
and EEDI draughts.
c+. To find the possibility of using long
track and validation on Extended⁃Power⁃Meth⁃
od （ Note, this is an additional task proposed
by PSS to AC）
（4） On the basis of the results of these
investigations update the speed/power sea trial
procedures 7.5⁃04⁃01⁃01.1 and ⁃01.2. Coordi⁃
nate and exchange information in this respect
with the Propulsion Committee.
（5） Explore “ Ship in Service” issues
a. Monitoring and analysis of speed/power
performance of ships in service
b. Feedback of speed power data to sea⁃
keeping committee to get reliable data for fw
from full⁃scale measurements
c. Feedback of speed/ power data for fw
d. The influence of ship hull surface deg⁃
radation due to fouling and aging on the speed/
power performance and consider the related
EEOI issues originating from IMO require⁃
ments
（6） Establish a guideline for the use of
C A for different draught conditions. Coordinate
and exchange information in this respect with
the Propulsion Committee.
（7） Monitor and review the state of the
art with regard to minimum power require⁃
ments for safe and effective maneuvering and
requirements arising from the EEDI formula
（ sea margin） .
（8） Coordinate and exchange information
with the Maneuvering Committee with regard
to minimum power requirements for ships in
adverse weather conditions.
１．３　 Ｇｅｎｅｒａｌ Ｒｅｍａｒｋｓ
The purpose of the committee is to im⁃
prove the performance predictions （ especially
for large ships） for service conditions covering
the whole life⁃cycle of the ship, keeping in
mind the EEDI and EEOI development within
IMO.
One of the major objectives for 28 th PSS
committee was to improve the Speed/Power tri⁃

al procedures to make it more transparent and
straight forward. Another important task is to
formulate the guideline on how to determine
model⁃ship correlation factors.
２ 　 ＣＯＯＲＤＩＮＡＴＥ ＡＮＤ ＥＸＣＨＡＮＧＥ ＩＮ⁃
ＦＯＲＭＡＴＩＯＮ ＷＩＴＨ ＴＨＥ ＲＥＳＩＳＴ⁃
ＡＮＣＥ， ＰＲＯＰＵＬＳＩＯＮ ＡＮＤ ＳＥＡＫＥＥＰ⁃
ＩＮＧ ＣＯＭＭＩＴＴＥＥＳ ＡＳ ＲＥＬＥＶＡＮＴ，
ＳＰＥＣＩＦＩＣＡＬＬＹ ＷＩＴＨ ＲＥＧＡＲＤ ＴＯ
ＥＳＴＩＭＡＴＩＮＧ ｆ Ｗ ， ＩＮ ＴＨＥ ＥＥＤＩ ＣＡＬ⁃
ＣＵＬＡＴＩＯＮ ＡＮＤ ＣＡ ＧＵＩＤＥＬＩＮＥ
２．１　 Ｃｏｎｔａｃｔ ｗｉｔｈ ＩＴＴＣ Ｃｏｍｍｉｔｔｅｅｓ
The 28th PSS committee has coordinated
and exchanged information with the Resistance,
Propulsion, Seakeeping and Maneuvering Com⁃
mittees, specifically on estimating speed reduc⁃
tion coefficient fw, model⁃ship correlation fac⁃
tors and minimum power.
The task originates from the need to fur⁃
ther investigate the effect of the environmental
conditions on the in⁃service powering. In the
EEDI formula, this is accounted for by the co⁃
efficient fw. The sea⁃keeping committee has
been contacted with the request for cooperation
on this issue. Propulsion committee is mainly
related on C A and other correlation issue.
PSS committee has contacted Resistance
committee （ RC） on form factor k； Propulsion
committee （ PC） on correlation factor C A , load
variation test, and inconsistencies among proce⁃
dures； Seakeeping （ SC ） with respect to fw
coefficient； and Maneuvering committees
（ MC） /Stability in Waves （ SWC） on mini⁃
mum power respectively. PSS has also contac⁃
ted Energy Saving Method committee （ ESM）
for possible overlapping task and correlation of
energy⁃saving device from model to full scale.
Some joint meetings were held as follows.
(1) Dec 4, 2015, NMRI, Tokyo. Discuss
４４９
with RC/ESM, on determination （ 1 +k） using
CFD method for different ship types at differ⁃
ent draughts. CFD method is regarded as an
important supplement to Prohaska method, es⁃
pecially when Prohaska does not work with
pronounced bulbous and/or large transom.
(2) April 14 & 15, 2016, London. Discuss
with MC/SC/SWC on the EU SHOPERA Pro⁃
ject, joint Workshop on Manoeuvring in
Waves. More detailed information can be found
in the report on task 8 in Section 8.2.
(3) May 16, 2016, Shanghai. Discussion
with PC/ESM, on inconsistency between/a⁃
mong resistance, propulsion and ITTC1978
Performance Prediction Method procedures,
how to determine C A at different draughts and
how to get three load variation coefficients
from model test.
PSS provided Seakeeping committee with
a template for collecting data for ｆ ｗ . Unfortu⁃
nately, no response was received from SC. PSS
has tried to collect operational data from own⁃
ers to revise fw, for bulk carriers, tankers and
container ships. PSS has informed SC of ｆ ｗ data
collected.
In addition, PSS has contacted Propulsion
committee to make sure that “ Load variation
test” has been included in their procedure.
２．２　 Ｃｏｎｔａｃｔ ｗｉｔｈ ＩＭＯ， ＩＡＣＳ， ｅｔｃ．
The AC representative to IMO Prof. Ger⁃
hard Strasser, attended IMO MEPC 67 － 70 dur⁃
ing this term. Major outcome/comments related
to fluid dynamic issues are as follows.
（1） Major outcome/comments from IMO
MEPC 67 meeting.
•　 The IMO has agreed that the revised
ISO procedure for analysis of speed trials
should be used （ ISO15016） . The ISO standard
is broadly based on the relevant ITTC proce⁃
４５０
dure.
•　 IACS verification procedures are also
based on ITTC procedures.
（2） Major outcome/comments from IMO
MEPC 68 meeting
•　 Sea conditions and ship speed both
should be measured in accordance with either
ITTC2014 procedures, or ISO 15016: 2015.
Start of ISO （ 2015） procedure was from 1 st
September 2015. Difficulty in determining
draught of some large ships to accuracy of <
10cm was observed and procedures do allow
for ‘ agreement of all parties􀆳 if draught cannot
be determined.
•　 Submission by Greece and Japan on
minimum power requirements in adverse seas
shows that about 50% of ships have failed to
satisfy the requirements （ on level 1）, which
need further assessment on level 2. Minimum
power requirements would over⁃rule the EEDI
requirements.
• 　 IACS⁃discussion of procedures for
the verifiers, based on ITTC procedures. There
is a ‘ handbook for EEDI verifiers􀆳 from IACS.
（3） Major outcome/comments from IMO
MEPC 69 meeting
The following statements were made by
the chairman of the AC in the full assembly of
IMO:
• 　 The seawater temperature has been
discussed during the development of the new
ISO 15016. It is clearly stated that the seawater
temperature should be measured at the seawater
inlet of the engine. This is because a significant
part of the wetted surface is at the bottom of
the ship.
•　 To include the load variation test co⁃
efficients in the ITTC Speed Power Prediction
is taken care of by ITTC during this period
（2014⁃2017） . The ITTC Propulsion Commit⁃
tee has been given a term of reference dealing
with this issue. The ITTC can write a circular
letter to remind all tank facilities not to forget
to supply the load variation coefficients in their
test reports. （ AC has done so. ）
•　 The load variation coefficients should
be found for each ship individually and general
reference values should not be used. ITTC does
not give reference values for this.
３　 ＭＯＮＩＴＯＲ ＡＮＤ ＲＥＶＩＥＷ ＳＴＡＴＥ⁃ＯＦ⁃
ＴＨＥ⁃ＡＲＴ ＰＲＥＤＩＣＴＩＯＮ ＡＮＤ ＤＥＴＥＲ⁃
ＭＩＮＡＴＩＯＮ ＭＥＴＨＯＤＳ ＦＯＲ ＥＥＤＩ
ＡＮＤ ＥＥＯＩ
The 28th ITTC Specialist Committee on
Performance of Ships in Service has moni⁃
tored and reviewed the state of the art EEDI
and EEOI prediction and determination, as well
as discussions at the IMO MEPC.
３．１　 Ｍｏｎｉｔｏｒ ａｎｄ Ｒｅｖｉｅｗ
At MEPC62, the MEPC Committee ap⁃
proved the regulatory framework for Green⁃
house Gas （ GHG） reductions for international
shipping as an amendment to Annex VI of the
MARPOL Convention. This Annex entered in⁃
to force on 1st of January, 2013 （ Resolution
MEPC. 203（ 62） ） . The regulation is aimed at
improving energy efficiency for ships engaged
in ocean voyages and comprises technical regu⁃
lations for an Energy Efficiency Design Index
（ EEDI） and operational regulations （ Ship En⁃
ergy Efficiency Management Plan （ SEEMP） .
During the 28th term of ITTC, five MEPC
meetings were held （ see Table 1） .
At MEPC67, Oct. 2014, the MEPC Com⁃
mittee adopted amendments to extend the inter⁃
im guidelines for determining minimum pro⁃
pulsion power to maintain the manoeuvrability
of ships in adverse weather conditions （ MPP）,

by EEDI phase 1 period （ Resolution MEPC.
255（67） ） .
Ｔａｂｌｅ １　 ＩＭＯ ｍｅｅｔｉｎｇｓ
Meeting and date Adoption/Approval
Amendments to extension of the
MEPC67
interim guidelines of MPP by
Oct. 2014
EEDI Phase1; adopted
Revision of ISO15016; adopted
Amendments to assessment pro⁃
cedures for MPP level 1; adopt⁃
MEPC68 ed
May 2015 EEDI calculation for LNG car⁃
riers with diesel electric or
steam turbine propulsion sys⁃
tem; adopted
MEPC69
SEEMP exemption; approved
Apr. 2016
EEDI reviews for phase 2 peri⁃
od completed （ Table 3）
EEDI correction factor for
MEPC70
wood chip carriers; adopted
EEDI calculation for ships u⁃
Oct. 2016
sing gas as non⁃primary fuel; a⁃
dopted
Amendments to SEEMP guide⁃
lines; adopted
MEPC71 Amendments to interim guide⁃
Jul. 2017 lines for MPP
At the following MEPC68, the MEPC
Committee adopted amendments to assessment
procedures for MPP level 1 （ Resolution
MEPC. 262（68） ） . It was decided that the in⁃
terim guidelines should be examined and a⁃
mended if needed. Thus, the SHOPERA, JAS⁃
NAOE and MacRAW projects were proposed.
Reports from these projects were presented at
MEPC69 and MEPC70. Amendments to MPP
were deliberated at MEPC71.
In 2015, ISO published ISO15016 ∶ 2015
for the assessment of speed and power per⁃
formance by analysis of speed trial data. At
MEPC68, the MEPC Committee adopted the
guidelines for survey and certification of EEDI,
allowing the use of both ISO15016 ∶ 2015 and
ITTC Recommended Procedure 7. 5⁃04⁃01⁃01
４５１
（2014） （ Resolution MEPC. 261（68） ） .
Also, the guidelines on the method of cal⁃
culation of the attained EEDI for new ships, in⁃
cluding LNG carriers with diesel electric or
steam turbine propulsion system were adopted
（ Resolution MEPC. 263（68） ） .
At MEPC69, the MEPC Committee ap⁃
proved SEEMP exemption for ships not nor⁃
mally engaged in international voyages
（ MEPC. 1/Circ. 863） .
After MEPC67, reference lines, parame⁃
ters, reduction rates and time periods for EEDI
phase 2 were reviewed by the corresponding
groups. At MEPC70, the MEPC Committee a⁃
greed that phase 2 would remain the same but
it would be necessary to start reviewing EEDI
phase 3 requirements and their early implemen⁃
tation, as well as the possibility of establishing
phase 4, soon after MEPC71 （ MEPC70/18） .
In addition, a correction factor for wood chip
carriers and a calculation method for ships u⁃
sing gas as non⁃primary fuel was adopted at
MEPC70 （ Resolution MEPC. 281（ 70） ） . The
MEPC Committee also adopted amendments to
the SEEMP guidelines for more effective re⁃
duction of GHG emission （ Resolution MEPC.
278（70） ） .
EEDI 　 EEDI regulations apply to new
ships of 400GT and above. Table 2 shows the
twelve ship types covered.
Ship types required for EEDI reduction
were extended to Ro⁃Ro cargo ship （ vehicle
carrier）, Ro⁃Ro cargo ship, Ro⁃Ro passenger
ship, LNG carriers and Passenger ship with
non⁃conventional propulsion after 1st of Sep⁃
tember, 2015.
For each ship type, the reduction rate is
determined by ship size and phase of the EEDI
regulatory framework. The reduction rate is
given in Table 3, where the reference lines de⁃
termine the baseline.
４５２

The attained EEDI formula is given in Eq. Reduction of EEDI

（1 ）, which shows energy efficiency as CO2 Ship types for EEDI
calculation* 1st, Jan., regulated after
generated by a ship while doing one tonne⁃mile
2013 1st, Sep. 2015
of transport work.
EEDI Numerator Passenger ship* * * * - X
Attained EEDI = （1） 　 　 * Not applicable to ships with diesel⁃electric
EEDI Denominator
The denominator of Attained EEDI is given in propulsion, turbine propulsion and hybrid propulsion
Eq. （2） .
system, except for cruise passenger ships and LNG
EEDI Denominator = ｆ ｉ ·ｆ ｃ ·ｆ ｌ ·Ｃａｐａｃｉｔｙ·ｆ ｗ ·Ｖ ｒｅｆ
carriers
* * Separate for Gas carrier and LNG carrier
（2） * * * LNG carriers with diesel electric or steam
Where turbine propulsion system is applied.
Ｖ ｒｅｆ is ship speed in a calm sea condition * * * * Only regulated for Passenger ship hav⁃
and deep water, ing non⁃conventional propulsion
Ｃａｐａｃｉｔｙ is deadweight. For passenger
ships and Ro⁃Ro passenger ships, Ｃａｐａｃｉｔｙ is Ｔａｂｌｅ ３　 Ｒｅｄｕｃｔｉｏｎ ｒａｔｅ ｏｆ ＥＥＤＩ
gross tonnage. For containerships, Ｃａｐａｃｉｔｙ is
70 per cent of the deadweight,
ｆ ｉ ， ｆ ｃ ， ｆ ｌ and ｆ ｗ are correction factors.
For wood chip carriers ｆ ｃ is calculated by
Eq. （3） .
ｆ ｃ ｂｕｌｋ ｃａｒｒｉｅｒｓ ｄｅｓｉｇｎｅｄ ｔｏ ｃａｒｒｙ ｌｉｇｈｔ ｃａｒｇｏｓ ＝ Ｒ －０．１５ （３）
where Ｒ is the capacity ratio of the deadweight
of the ship divided by the total cubic capacity
of the cargo holds of the ship.
Ｔａｂｌｅ ２　 ＥＥＤＩ ｒｅｇｕｌａｔｉｏｎ
Reduction of EEDI
Ship types for EEDI
calculation* 1st, Jan., regulated after
2013 1st, Sep. 2015
Bulk carrier X X
Gas carrier X X* *
Tanker X X
Container ship X X
General cargo ship X X
Refrigerated cargo carrier X X
Combination carrier X X
Ro⁃Ro cargo ship （ vehicle
- X
carrier）
Ro⁃Ro cargo ship - X

Ro⁃Ro passenger ship - X

LNG carrier* * * - X

The numerator shows CO2 emissions which
are derived from the fuel consumption of the
engine, multiplied by the CO2 conversion factor
for the type of fuel and the engine power.
In the case a ship is equipped with a dual⁃
fuel main or auxiliary engine, the Ｃ Ｆ factor for
gas fuel and the Ｃ Ｆ factor for fuel oil should
apply and be multiplied with the specific fuel
oil consumption of each fuel at the relevant
EEDI load point. Meanwhile, gas fuel should
be identified whether or not it is regarded as
the “ primary fuel” in accordance with Eq （4） .
ｆ ＤＦｇａｓ is the fuel availability ratio of gas fuel
corrected for the power ratio of gas engines to
total engines.
ｎｔｏｔａｌ
∑ Ｐ ｔｏｔａｌ（ ｉ）
Ｆ ＤＦｇ
１
＝
ｉ
ｆ ＤＦｇａｓ ＝ ｎｇａｓｆｕｅｌ
Ｆ ＤＦｌｇ
∑ Ｐ ｇａｓｆｕｅｌ（ ｉ）
＝
ｉ １
Ｆ ＤＦｇ ＝ Ｖ ｇａｓ ρ ｇａｓ ＬＣＶ ｇａｓ Ｋ ｇａｓ
ｎｌｉｑ
Ｆ ＤＦｌｇ ＝ { ∑Ｖ
ｉ＝１
ｌｉｑ（ ｉ） ρ ｌｉｑ（ ｉ） ＬＣＶ ｌｉｑ（ ｉ） Ｋ ｌｉｑ（ ｉ）
ｆ ＤＦｌｉｑ ＝ １ － ｆ ＤＦｇａｓ
where
ｆ ＤＦｇａｓ should not be greater than 1,
Ｐ ｔｏｔａｌ is the total installed engine power for
main engine and auxiliary engine,
Ｐ ｇａｓｆｕｅｌ is the dual fuel engine installed
power for main engine and auxiliary engine,
Ｖ ｇａｓ is the total net gas fuel capacity on
board,
Ｖ ｌｉｑ is the total net liquid fuel capacity on
board of liquid fuel tanks permanently connect⁃
ed to the ship􀆳s fuel system,
ρ ｇａｓ is the density of gas fuel,
ρ ｌｉｑ is the density of each liquid fuel,
ＬＣＶ ｇａｓ is the low calorific value of gas fu⁃
el,
ＬＣＶ ｌｉｑ is the low calorific value of liquid
fuel,
Ｋ ｇａｓ is the filling rate for gas fuel tanks
and
Ｋ ｌｉｑｕｉｄ is the filling rate for liquid fuel
４５３
tanks.
If the total gas fuel capacity is at least
50% of the fuel capacity dedicated to the dual
fuel engines, namely ｆ ＤＦｇａｓ ≥0.5, then gas fuel
is regarded as the “ Primary fuel, ” and ｆ ＤＦｇａｓ =
1 and ｆ ＤＦｌｉｑ = 0 for each dual fuel engine.
If ｆ ＤＦｇａｓ < 0.5, gas fuel is not regarded as
the “ primary fuel. ” The Ｃ Ｆ and ＳＦＣ in the
EEDI calculation for each dual fuel engine
（ both main and auxiliary engines） should be
calculated as the weighted average of Ｃ Ｆ and
ＳＦＣ for liquid and gas mode, according to
ｆ ＤＦｇａｓ and ｆ ＤＦｌｉｑ ． Ｃ ＦＭＥ （ ｉ） ＳＦＣ ＭＥ （ ｉ） in the EEDI
calculation is to be replaced by Eq. （8） .
Ｃ ＦＭＥ（ ｉ） ＳＦＣ ＭＥ（ ｉ）
＝ ｆ ＤＦｇａｓ ( Ｃ ＦＭＥ ｐｉｌｏｔ ｆｕｅｌ（ ｉ） ＳＦＣ ＭＥ ｐｉｌｏｔ ｆｕｅｌ（ ｉ）
（８）
（４）
＋ Ｃ ＦＭＥ ｇａｓ（ ｉ） ＳＦＣ ＭＥ ｇａｓ（ ｉ） )
＋ ｆ ＤＦｌｉｑ（ ｉ） Ｃ ＦＭＥ ｌｉｑ（ ｉ） ＳＦＣ ＭＥ ｌｉｑ（ ｉ）
（５） For LNG carrier with diesel electric or
steam turbine propulsion system, Ｖ ｒｅｆ is the rele⁃
} ＋ Ｆ ＤＦｇ vant speed at 83% of ＭＰＰ Ｍｏｔｏｒ or
（６） ＭＰＰ Ｓｔｅａｍ Ｔｕｒｂｉｎｅ , respectively. Here ＭＰＰ is a de⁃
（７） sign margin with the normal operating condi⁃
tion at 100 percent of the motor/steam turbine
rating.
EEOI/SEEMP 　 SEEMP is a mandatory
operational measure. Each ship shall keep on⁃
board a ship specific Ship Energy Efficiency
Management Plan. SEEMP provides a means
for monitoring ship and fleet efficiency per⁃
formance over time and assessing improve⁃
ments when optimizing the performance of the
ship.
It was proposed that if a ship did not nor⁃
mally engage in international voyages, SEEMP
requirements would be exempted. For example,
sales of a ship or repair work. The MEPC
Committee approved the SEEMP exemption for
such voyages in MEPC69.
To improve reduction of GHG emission,
MEPC70 adopted a data collection system for
４５４
fuel oil consumption of ships （ DCS） by amen⁃
ding the SEEMP guidelines. The contents of
DCS will be deliberated in future MEPC.
３．２　 Ｒｅｖｉｅｗ ｏｆ Ｒｅｃｅｎｔ Ｒｅｓｅａｒｃｈ
Some examples of recent research were
reviewed to show the broad range of research
being conducted, the technology and the re⁃
sults.
Sea Trial Analysis Joint Industry Project
（ STA⁃JIP） formed in 2014 and ITTC devel⁃
oped a clear, pragmatic and transparent guide⁃
line for reliable speed/power assessment （ van
den Boom et al., 2013） . For conduct and anal⁃
ysis of speed/power trials, strict limitations had
been set for minimum water depth, maximum
wave heights and maximum wind speed. Cor⁃
rection methods were developed for wind,
waves, air and water density, air and water tem⁃
perature, displacement and water depth to ad⁃
dress deviation from ideal conditions. Double
runs and “ mean of means” or iterative meth⁃
ods were used to eliminate current effect from
speed over ground. Model test results were
used to convert trial draught to design draught.
Propeller efficiency was corrected for non⁃ideal
loads using the results of load variation model
tests.
Tsujimoto et al. （2013） presented a meth⁃
od to calculate added resistance in waves and a
method to estimate fuel consumption using a
Fuel Index. The results were compared with
model and full⁃scale data. The comparison
showed that the added resistance in waves was
accurately predicted. Propeller revolution, ship
speed and fuel consumption agreed well with
onboard measurements.
Kim, S.⁃O. et al. （2014） performed CFD
simulation using an overset grid method and
RANS incompressible viscous flow governing
equations for the KRISO container ship, to pre⁃
dict added resistance. The results were com⁃
pared with published experimental results. It
showed that computed added resistances were
similar to experimental results, except for some
differences around the resonant frequency.
Coraddu et al. （2014） presented a proce⁃
dure to evaluate the EEOI by Monte Carlo sim⁃
ulation because there were different proposals
that used deadweight tonnage （ DWT）, gross
tonnage （ GT ） and net tonnage （ NWT ） as
“ capacity ” for RoPax ships. The results
showed that EEOI evaluated with the GT as ca⁃
pacity, is stable and suitable for comparison
with a reference value, but it does not reflect
the true ship design process. EEOI with DWT
or NWT as capacity represented the ship
process better but the values showed a large
spread, making it difficult to compare with a
reference value.
Sprenger et al. （ 2014） used a combined
seakeeping and manoeuvring simulator to de⁃
termine the minimum required power of a car⁃
go vessel to advance in head seas as a function
of wave period and wave height. It was demon⁃
strated, by comparing to model tests, that it was
possible to simulate and predict seakeeping and
manoeuvring behaviour of a vessel at the de⁃
sign stage.
Kobayashi et al. （ 2015） proposed a new
weather⁃routing optimization, which minimized
either fuel consumption or EEOI. A simulation
of a transoceanic voyage was performed by
solving the differential equations of motion.
Wave forces, wind forces, hull forces, propeller
thrust and rudder forces were considered. It
was concluded that optimization of EEOI did
not provide the same route as minimal fuel
consumption and the authors suggested that an
alternative index should be considered.
Chi et al. （2015） proposed a new method
to calculate ship efficiency and emissions in re⁃
al⁃time. They used a software architecture that
combined the vessel database with an Automat⁃
ic Identification System （ AIS） that integrated
with ASSIST—a vessel tracking system that

processed real time data streams of AIS messa⁃
ges. The authors concluded that satellite AIS
technology and cloud⁃based design of software
architecture make it feasible to scale this ap⁃
proach.
Attah et al. （2015） analysed the powering
options for LNG carriers using EEDI as a crite⁃
ria. It was found that 72% of the future order
book was dual⁃fuel diesel electric （ DFDE ） .
DFDE had the best EEDI value and fell consid⁃
erably below the current baseline, but one ma⁃
jor disadvantage is methane slip. This meant
that Phase 3 improvements would have no
effect on DFDE as current designs had met the
requirement. It is recommended that a new EE⁃
DI is calculated and, if based on the current
DFDE vessels rather than on the entire LNG
carrier fleet, it would be more effective in stim⁃
ulating technology improvements. Such an EE⁃
DI also needs to account for methane slip.
Acomi et al. （2015） studied how minimi⁃
zing emissions could be influenced by external
factors, by analysing the loaded voyage of an
oil tanker. An Electronic Chart Display and In⁃
formation System （ ECDIS） was used for voy⁃
age planning in real time, given an environ⁃
mental forecast. Two routes were considered⁃a
direct route with minimum distance and an al⁃
ternate route optimized to avoid adverse weath⁃
er. It was found that even though the distance
of the direct route was shorter, the fuel con⁃
sumption was higher than that of the alternative
route. This showed that weather conditions
could greatly influence the value of EEOI.
The determination of the best speed from
the navigational and environmental factors a
short distance ahead of the vessel was the
premise of a real⁃time ship energy efficiency
improvement study by Wang et al. （ 2015 ） .
The environmental factors were predicted using
a wavelet neural network. The ship resistance
in different speeds and environments was cal⁃
culated. A real⁃time optimization model was
used to determine the engine speed for optimal
４５５
energy efficiency. It was concluded that deter⁃
mining the real⁃time optimal engine speed
could reduce fuel consumption by 20% and
could be applied to other ship types.
Sprenger et al. （2016） established a data⁃
base to assess ship operation in adverse condi⁃
tions. As part of the SHOPERA project, 1300
model tests on three ship hulls were conducted
in 4 European laboratories. Added resistance
and drift force were assessed. They found that
the RAO for added resistance increased for
shorter relative wavelengths, that a squared⁃am⁃
plitude relationship for added resistance was
observed in longer waves and manoeuvres in
regular waves with different initial wave head⁃
ings illustrated the importance of wave effects.
Using a cargo vessel, Backmann et al.
（2016） studied how various ship⁃specific fac⁃
tors in the IMO guidelines for EEDI calculation
affected the EEDI of a vessel and how different
methods of calculating the added wave resist⁃
ance affected the value of EEDI⁃weather. The
results showed that the attained EEDI was 22%
lower than the actual Carbon Dioxide emis⁃
sions. The attained EEDI would have exceeded
the reference EEDI value if the vessel were e⁃
quipped with a heavy fuel oil or a marine gas/
diesel oil engine instead of a natural gas en⁃
gine. Issues with the methods suggested by
IMO and ISO for calculating the added resist⁃
ance due to waves were raised.
Faitar et al. （ 2016） compared the effects
of introducing alternative energy sources in a
crude oil tanker on EEDI and EEOI. It was
found that technologies such as a dual fuel en⁃
gine, shaft motor, shaft generator, wind turbines
and photovoltaic panels have positive effects in
lowering EEDI and EEOI values.
Besikci et al. （ 2016） used fuzzy AHP, a
multiple criteria decision making technique, to
prioritize energy efficiency measures. Twenty
experts were asked to compare 6 main criteria
and 9 sub⁃factors. The results of the question⁃
４５６
naire were analysed using a Fuzzy⁃AHP meth⁃
od. It was found that voyage performance man⁃
agement, hull and propeller condition manage⁃
ment, and engine maintenance onboard were
the most preferred criteria.
４ 　 ＡＮＡＬＹＳＩＳ ＯＦ ＳＰＥＥＤ ／ ＰＯＷＥＲ ＳＥＡ
ＴＲＩＡＬ ＲＥＳＵＬＴＳ
４．１　 Ｗａｔｅｒ Ｔｅｍｐｅｒａｔｕｒｅ ａｎｄ Ｄｅｎｓｉｔｙ Ｃｏｒ⁃
ｒｅｃｔｉｏｎ
In this term, the Committee discussed that
appropriate measurement of water temperature
or density is not easy with deep draught ships
considering gradient effects. It is difficult to e⁃
valuate where a water sample should be taken,
since the gradient of water temperature or den⁃
sity depends on water area, depth and season.
Measurement using water samples taken either
from water surface or inlets may not be correct.
However, since the ship􀆳s bottom has a large
fraction of the hull surface area （ and therefore
causes large frictional resistance） it is greatly
affected by the water temperature, which is
dominant in the present correction method.
Therefore, a water sample taken from an inlet
which is located at almost the same level as the
ship􀆳s bottom is a practical location to measure
the water temperature.
Some Japanese shipyards conducted a val⁃
idation study of the water temperature correc⁃
tion and these indicate shortcomings in the
present correction method. The validation study
was conducted by comparing the deviations of
ship􀆳s speed at 75% MCR from the mean value
（ Ｖ S _mean） of sister ships both with and with⁃
out the water temperature correction. In the
study, existing trial data for several types of
ship, e. g. tanker, container carrier, bulk carrier,
general cargo and PCC （ over 100 vessels in
total） were considered. Comparison results are
shown in Figure 1.
From the results, it is found that the cor⁃
rected data are still scattered and do not con⁃
verge to a constant value. This indicates there
are other undetected factors to be considered
for water temperature correction.
Figure 1 　 Comparison results of ship􀆳s
speed deviation normalized by the mean
ship􀆳s speed of each series of sister vessel
（ % V S _mean）
The roughness allowance should be con⁃
sidered as an undetected factor since the rough⁃
ness allowance, as well as the frictional resist⁃
ance, is influenced by Reynolds number and
consequently water temperature. Thus, the
Committee proposes that the terms for rough⁃
ness allowance should be included in the for⁃
mula for correction in the revised recommen⁃
ded procedure.
It was also discussed whether the formulae
for the frictional resistance coefficient and the
roughness allowance should be prescribed or
not （ there is no description for these formu⁃
lae） . As a result, the Committee proposes that
the formulae which are introduced in other IT⁃
TC recommended procedures should be re⁃
ferred to explicitly. However, there was the o⁃
pinion that the formulae adopted for perform⁃
ance prediction based on tank tests can also be
adopted for water temperature corrections for
speed trial.
Conclusions. The Committee decided to
retain the present advice that the water temper⁃
ature shall be taken at the sea water inlet level.
Furthermore, the Committee proposes to in⁃
clude the terms of the roughness allowance in

the formula for the correction and to add the
description of the formulae to be referred to for
the frictional resistance coefficient and rough⁃
ness allowance.
４．２ 　 ‘ Ｉｔｅｒａｔｉｖｅ Ｍｅｔｈｏｄ􀆳 ａｓ ａｎ Ａｌｔｅｒｎａｔｉｖｅ
ｆｏｒ Ｍｅａｎ ｏｆ Ｍｅａｎｓ Ｍｅｔｈｏｄ ｆｏｒ Ｃｕｒ⁃
ｒｅｎｔ Ｃｏｒｒｅｃｔｉｏｎ
Although the Terms of Reference refer to
investigating the ‘ Iterative method􀆳 as an alter⁃
native for load variation method and current
elimination, the investigation on load variation
method has been omitted by this Committee
since the Iterative Method （ IM） is just a meth⁃
od for current correction. Since the ‘ Mean of
Means􀆳 （ MoM） may also be used for current
correction, both the IM and MoM are reviewed
in this section.
Current correction for ship􀆳s speed. Since
there are currents in the actual sea, the ship􀆳s
speed over ground, Ｖ G , which is measured by
DGPS during a speed trial, includes any current
effect. In order to confirm the ship􀆳s propulsive
performance, which is generally defined for
still water, ship speed through the water, Ｖ S ,
should be derived with the following formula:
ＶＳ ＝ ＶＧ － ＶＣ （９）
Current speed, Ｖ C , in the above formula
should be estimated by a method, e. g. fitting
current curves to current variations since it is
difficult to measure the averaged current speed
acting on whole ship. In general, the current
speed varies with place and time. Therefore the
current curve can be expressed as a function of
place and time. Since the function including
these two （2） factors is relatively complicated,
the effect of place is eliminated by conducting
trial measurements at almost the same position.
Consequently, current variation around the
same position can be expressed only with a
function of time.
Review of ‘ Mean of Means􀆳 method
４５７
（ MoM） . As described in the previous commit⁃
tee report, MoM, which was already adopted in
the ITTC recommended procedure 7. 5⁃04⁃01⁃
01.2, is supposed to eliminate the current effect
by the following formula with four （ 4） ship􀆳s
speed measured by two （2） double runs （ DR;
consecutive run and return run reciprocally re⁃
peated in almost the same geographical place
and at same power setting） without explicitly
deriving the current curve:
Ｖ Ｇ１ ＋ ３ Ｖ Ｇ２ ＋ ３ Ｖ Ｇ３ ＋ Ｖ Ｇ４
ＶＳ ＝ （１０）
８
In this case, however, the current speed is
assumed to vary parabolically with time.
Namely, a quadratic function is fitted to the
current variation for each engine output as
shown in Figure 2. In addition, to derive for⁃
mula （10）, it is assumed that all time intervals
between every run within 2DR are equal.
Figure 2　 The relationship of current speed
with the actual variation, the assumed func⁃
tion and the one derived from ship speed
measurements from 4 runs （2DR）
When the conditions during an actual
speed trial deviate greatly from the assumptions
（ parabolic trend of current variation and the
same time intervals ）, errors of the estimated
current speed from the corresponding true val⁃
ue become large. In the report of the previous
term, it is pointed out that, for large low speed
ships such as VLCC, 2DR may be insufficient
to ensure accuracy since a quadratic function
does not necessarily fit the current variation o⁃
ver a long time period.
４５８
As similar method to the above MoM,
mean of means of 3 runs （ 1DR+1run） given
by the following formula is supposed to also e⁃
liminate the current effect:
Ｖ Ｇ１ ＋ ２ Ｖ Ｇ２ ＋ Ｖ Ｇ３
ＶＳ ＝ （１１）
４
In this case, current speed is assumed to
vary linearly as shown in Figure 3. When cur⁃
rent speed varies non⁃linearly, errors tend to be
large.
Figure 3　 The relationship of current speed
with the actual variation, the assumed func⁃
tion and the one derived from ship speed
measurements from 3 runs （1DR+1run）
Taking the mean of 2 runs （1DR）, given
by the following formula, will eliminate the
current speed where it is assumed to be con⁃
stant against time as shown in Figure 4.
Ｖ Ｇ１ ＋ Ｖ Ｇ２
ＶＳ ＝ （１２）
２
In this method, error may be large when
the current speeds change （ normally change）
within 1DR. This method is adopted for sister
ships in the ITTC recommended procedure 7.5⁃
04⁃01⁃01, provided that the speed⁃power trials
of the first ship are acceptable.
Review of ‘ Iterative Method􀆳 （ IM） . IM
was originally introduced by ISO experts dur⁃
ing the revision work of ISO15016 to harmo⁃
nize the ISO and ITTC procedures.
In this method, the current speed is as⁃
sumed to vary with the semidiurnal period,
based on the premise that the tidal current is
caused by gravitation and the revolution of the
Figure 4　 The relationship of current speed
with the actual variation, the assumed func⁃
tion and the one derived from ship speed
measurements from 2 runs （1DR）
moon. Thus, a current curve is expressed by a
sinusoidal function of time, ｔ, given by formula
（13） with the period, Ｔ C , of 0.51753day:
æ ２π ö æ ２π ö
Ｖ Ｃ ＝ Ｖ Ｃ，Ｃ ｃｏｓ ç ｔ ÷ ＋ Ｖ Ｃ，Ｓ ｓｉｎ ç ｔ ÷
è ＴＣ ø è ＴＣ ø
　 　 ＋ Ｖ Ｃ，Ｔ ｔ ＋ Ｖ Ｃ，０
（１３）
Unknown factors, Ｖ C, C , Ｖ C, S , Ｖ C, T, Ｖ C, 0 , in
formula （5） are determined iteratively together
with the unknown factors, ａ， ｂ， ｑ, in the re⁃
gression curve for ship speed, Ｖ S , and power,
Ｐ, as shown in Figure 5.
In this method, a current curve is defined
using all measured ship speeds. When the con⁃
ditions during the actual trial largely deviate
from the assumptions （ sinusoidal trend of cur⁃
rent variation with period of 0.51753day）, er⁃
rors of the estimated current speed from the
corresponding true value become large.
Verification of Accuracy. A verification
study of the accuracy of both MoM and IM has
been performed by members of the committee,
SVA, HSVA and SSPA, during the harmoniza⁃
tion process of the ITTC and ISO procedures.
The results of the study are documented by
Strasser et al. （2015） . According to the results
of the study, the answers for the concerns de⁃
scribed are found as follows:
• 　 In order to ensure the accuracy of
current correction for MoM, 2DR for each
power setting （ totally 2 +2 +2DR for 3 engine
outputs） are required.

Figure 5　 The process of IM
•　 If the time steps between the runs of
one power setting are as equal as possible,
MoM will give more accurate results than
when they are not.
•　 The IM, not only with 1+2+1DR but
also with 1 +1 +1DR, proves to be as accurate
as the MoM method with 2+2+2 double runs,
at EEDI point.
•　 When the actual current variation de⁃
viates from the assumed parabolic/sinusoidal
trend and the variation of the current within the
2DR is very high, neither of the methods are
applicable. These areas, when known, should
be avoided.
•　 When the speed⁃power curve signifi⁃
cantly deviates from the assumed regression
curve （ Ｐ ＝ ａ ＋ ｂＶ qS ）, the MoM is more accurate.
Investigation of Convergence of IM. Dur⁃
ing the term of this committee, a concern was
raised about the convergence of IM for sister
ships （1+1+1DR） . That is, although there are
in total seven （7） unknown factors to be deter⁃
mined, there are only six （ 6） points obtained
from sea trials for a sister ship. However, the
cases where the iterative process does not suc⁃
cessfully converge have not been presented to
date, although a lot of speed trials analysis u⁃
４５９
sing IM have been conducted. Hence, the con⁃
vergence of IM was further investigated.
The investigation has been conducted by
calculating examples using fabricated perform⁃
ance prediction results for the KVLCC and the
following conditions:
•　 Number of runs: 1+1+1DR
•　 Wind condition: constant wind speed
and direction of 5m/s and 15deg., respectively.
• 　 Current profile: 3 kinds of profile,
defined by changing the starting times as
shown in Figure 6.
•　 Time interval: 2hours.
Figure 6　 The current profile used for in⁃
vestigation of convergence of the IM
The calculation was implemented using
the spreadsheet, which was revised to show the
convergence history from that used during the
４６０

verification study in Strasser el al, 2015.

The calculation results are shown in Fig⁃

ures 7 to 9 for the 3 current profiles （ start
times）, respectively. Each figure presents the
comparison of the speed⁃power curve as de⁃
rived from the final results of the IM and the
given one, the comparison of the current curve
derived from the final results of IM and the
given profile and the convergence histories of
the power and the current speed.

Figure 8 　 Calculation results for current

profile （2）

Figure 7 　 Calculation results for current

profile （1）

Figure 9 　 Calculation results for current
profile （3）
From the convergence history, it is found
that, in each case, the iteration converges suffi⁃
ciently within ten （ 10 ） steps. As shown in
Figure 5, actually, the number of the known da⁃
ta points are greater than the number of the un⁃
known factors in each of the steps where the
regression curve or the current curve are deter⁃
mined. Since the iteration process is conducted
４６１
by defining the initial regression curve appro⁃
priately and changing the speed⁃power regres⁃
sion and current curve alternately and gradual⁃
ly, the iteration process successfully converges.
On the other hand, another point is found
from the results of the calculation. That is, the
errors at the ends of the current curve are rela⁃
tively large. Ideally, therefore, the contract
power, or EEDI case, should be measured as
the middle of the three power settings in time.
Discussions. It was pointed out that there
are some cases where the regression curve, P =
a+b* V q , may not be applicable due to, for ex⁃
ample, effect of the bulbous bow. That was also
pointed out in the verification in Strasser et al,
2015 and listed in this section （ see subsection
‘ Verification of Accuracy’ ） .
Although there is the prescription for
MoM method that if a current variation of a⁃
bove 0.2knots within a double run is encoun⁃
tered, one （ 1 ） additional double run at that
power setting shall be conducted, it is impossi⁃
ble to calculate the current variation from 1DR
because current elimination with 1DR relies on
the assumption that the current is constant with
time.
Conclusions. In addition to the verification
of accuracy reported in Strasser et al, 2015,
convergence was further investigated in the
Committee this term.
From the results of these studies, the
Committee agreed to adopt the ‘ Iterative
method􀆳 as an alternative to the ‘ Mean of
Means􀆳 method in the revised recommended
procedure.
４．３　 Ｓｔａｔｉｓｔｉｃａｌ Ｐｒｏｐｅｒｔｉｅｓ ｆｏｒ ｔｈｅ Ｒｅｓｕｌｔｓ ｏｆ
Ｌｏａｄ Ｖａｒｉａｔｉｏｎ Ｔｅｓｔｓ
Effect of propeller load on the self⁃propul⁃
sion factors have been discussed at the ITTC
（ Adachi & Moriyama （1981） ） and ITTC RP
４６２
7.5⁃04⁃01⁃01.2 （ 2014） . The thrust deduction
and the wake coefficient are related to square
root of propeller load factor （ Ｃ T ） based on the
propeller momentum theory. Mizogichi & Tasa⁃
ki （1983） have pointed out that the ship self⁃
propulsion point in waves has to be evaluated
following change to the thrust deduction factor
by the propeller load factor.
Effect of ship motion on wake fraction
should account for the propeller load factor.
Fig. 10 shows the difference of wake fraction
（ ΔＵ a0 ′） in still water and in waves.
Ｕ ａ０ｗ － Ｕ ａ０
ΔＵ ａ０ ′ ＝ （１４）
２ζ Ａ ／ ｄ Ａ
where Ｕ a0 and Ｕ a0w are wake coefficients
at zero thrust in still water and in waves, re⁃
spectively; ζ A is wave amplitude; ｄ A is aft
draught. In the figure, the frequency response
of ΔＵ a0 ′ can be evaluated, where Est. is the es⁃
timated RAO derived from dynamic pressure at
the bottom of the propeller and orbital velocity
of waves, λ ／ Ｌ is wave length⁃ship length ratio
（ Tsujimoto et. al （2017） ） .
Figure 10　 Self propulsion factors in waves
are different from these in still water （ left;
container ship, right; VLCC）
From the knowledge on self⁃propulsion
factors in waves, the following aspects should
be further investigated.
（1） To consider self⁃propulsion factors in
waves, the thrust deduction and the wake coef⁃
ficient are related to square root of propeller
load factor
（ 2 ） The ship self⁃propulsion point in
waves has to be evaluated by the thrust deduc⁃
tion factor, which is changed by propeller load
factor.
（3） Wake fraction in waves is not only
affected by propeller load but also by ship mo⁃
tion.
４．４　 Ｉｎｖｅｓｔｉｇａｔｉｏｎ ｏｆ Ｓｈａｌｌｏｗ Ｗａｔｅｒ Ｃｏｒｒｅｃ⁃
ｔｉｏｎ Ｍｅｔｈｏｄ
Speed/power trials are sometimes conduc⁃
ted in shallow water, whereas the speed of the
vessel in the newbuilding contract and in the
EEDI is specified for deep water. For this pur⁃
pose Lackenby （ 1963） proposed an empirical
correction method based on Schlichting􀆳s ex⁃
periments with 3 slender navy vessels in 1934.
Lackenby􀆳s correction on speed distinguishes
between a return flow effect and wave effect:
ΔＶ æ ＡＭ ö ｇＨ ö １ ／ ２
＝ ０．１２４２ çç ２ － ０．０５ ÷÷ ＋ １ － ç ｔａｎｈ ２ ÷
æ
Ｖ èＨ ø è Ｖ ø
ＡＭ
ｆｏｒ ≥ ０．０５ （１５）
Ｈ２
where
Ａ M = midship section area under water,
Ｇ = acceleration due to gravity,
Ｈ = water depth,
Ｖ = ship speed,
ΔＶ = decrease of ship speed due to shal⁃
low water.
This correction method has been used o⁃
ver the past decades and is also in place in the
 ４６３

ITTC⁃2014 Procedure for Speed/Power Trials Raven （ 2016 ） furthermore accounts for
as well as in the ISO 15016⁃2015. Both proce⁃ dynamic sinkage. The change in propulsive ef⁃
dures are accepted by IMO MEPC for EEDI. ficiency due to water depth proved to be small.

The range of application has been restrict⁃
ed by the 27 th ITTC to the following:
If the water depth is less than the larger of
the following expressions （16）, a shallow wa⁃
ter correction may be applied:
The shallow water effect on the viscous
resistance is expressed as a relative increase of
the viscous resistance coefficient:
The new mean line has the following ex⁃
pression:

Ｖ２Ｓ æＴö
１．７９

ｈ ＝ ３ Ｂ·Ｔ ａｎｄ ｈ ＝ ２．７５ （１６） Ｃｖ ／ Ｃｖ ｄｅｅｐ ＝ １ ＋ ０．５７ ç ÷ （１８）

ｇ èＨø

The value of the water depth to be used to be used for Ｔ ／ Ｈ < 0.5 only.
for correction shall not be less than the larger
value obtained from the following expressions where:
(17): Ｔ = draught at midship
Ｈ = water depth
Ｖ２Ｓ
ｈ ＝ ２ Ｂ·Ｔ ａｎｄ ｈ ＝ ２ （１７） The actual coefficients in the above for⁃
ｇ
mulation were derived from available model
where,
test and CFD data for various ship types at
ｈ = water depth［ m］
Ｂ ＝ Ship beam［ m］
model and at full scale as presented in Figure
11 （ Raven 2012） .
Ｔ = draught at midship ［ m］
Ｖｓ = ship speed［ m/s］
ｇ = acceleration of gravity ［ m/s2 ］ .

Within these range limitations, the maxi⁃

mum speed correction can be more than 0.2kn
（ refer to Figure 16） . The resulting power cor⁃
rection can thus be significant. Results of
speed/power trials with various vessels in deep
and shallow water however, have indicated that
the corrections provided by Lackenby􀆳s method
are over⁃estimating shallow water effects.

In a recent study Raven （ 2016 ） devel⁃

oped a new approach to correct for shallow wa⁃
ter effects in speed power trials. This new ap⁃
proach is based on splitting the viscous and
wave resistance increases since they are de⁃
pendent on very different parameters, for exam⁃
ple, the water depth/draught ratio and the
Froude⁃number based on water depth, respec⁃
tively.
Figure 11　 Relative increase of viscous re⁃
sistance coefficient
It is noted that expression （9） provides a
good fit within the limitation of T/H<0.5. For
extreme shallow water other parameters such as
specific shape effects have to be accounted for,
but this is not required for trial corrections as
４６４
speed/power trials require intermediate to deep
water.
To evaluate the effect of shallow water on
wave resistance, Raven conducted systematic a⁃
nalysis with a free⁃surface potential code
（ RAPID）, utilizing fully non⁃linear free⁃sur⁃
face boundary conditions. Computations for 6
different ship types for several speeds as pres⁃
ented in Figure 12, showed that for FnH< 0.65
no general increase in wave resistance was
found.
Figure 12　 Relative increase of wave resist⁃
ance
The increase of dynamic sinkage and its
effect on the power increase has been formula⁃
ted by Raven based on the Tuck/Hooft ap⁃
proach for squat, extended by an estimate for
deep water sinkage:
２ ２
Ñ éê Ｆｎ Ｈ
Δ（ ｓｉｎｋａｇｅ） ／ Ｌ ＝ ｃ ｚ －
Ｌ ３ êë １ － Ｆｎ Ｈ ２
１ － Ｆｎ ＨＤ
Figure 13 shows that this expression re⁃
presents a good agreement with the computed
sinkage for the 6 vessels tested.
The original shallow⁃water correction pro⁃
cedure proposed by Raven （2016） requires an
input value of the ratio of viscous to total re⁃
sistance, in deep water, for the speed consid⁃
ered. This is a consequence of the approach to
Figure 13　 Correlation between sinkage for⁃
mulation and predictions from RAPID
deal with the viscous and wave resistance sepa⁃
rately. This ratio was either deduced from pre⁃
dictions based on model tests, or estimated.
For a trials correction procedure this is
impractical. Therefore the procedure has been
reformulated. Typically, viscous resistance is
more easily estimated than wave resistance; so
instead of a ratio, now the absolute magnitude
of the viscous resistance is calculated. The
shallow⁃water correction for viscous resistance
then results in an absolute viscous resistance
increase. This is translated into a power in⁃
crease using the known value of the propulsive
efficiency.
For the effect of the additional dynamic
sinkage, an overall correction based on a con⁃
stant Admiralty coefficient is applied, as in Ra⁃
Ｆｎ ＨＤ
ven （2016） .
ùú
２ ú
û
（１９） Thus, the viscous resistance is required in
deep water, for the same speed and draught as
measured during the trials. It consists of:
⁃ frictional and viscous pressure resistance
on the hull
⁃ roughness drag
⁃ appendage resistance of mainly frictional
type,
⁃ but excluding the drag caused by flow
separation from sharp edges, such as an im⁃
mersed transom stern, bow thruster openings or

cut⁃off aft sides of headboxes etc., since these
give a residual drag contribution that should be
supposed unaffected by the water depth.
This deep⁃water viscous resistance is now
calculated by using a frictional resistance coef⁃
ficient from the ITTC57 line, multiplied by a
form factor （ 1 + k ） . From several empirical
form factor formulae, the one by Gross and
Watanabe ［ 1972 ］ was chosen, requiring no
detailed data of the hull form and producing re⁃
sults close enough to those of more elaborate
expressions.
As is known, the ITTC57 line is some⁃
what steeper than true flat⁃plate friction lines.
Scale effect studies by CFD, such as Raven et
al. （ 2009）, have indicated that this typically
causes an increase of the ratio Ｃ Ｖ ／ Ｃ Ｆ０⁃ＩＴＴＣ５７
from model to ship. In model⁃to⁃ship extrapo⁃
lation, such an increase is typically accommo⁃
dated in the correlation allowance, but in an es⁃
timate of the viscous resistance at ship scale
this should be taken into account. By compari⁃
son with numerical flat⁃plate friction lines and
alternative empirical lines, a mean 6% increase
was deduced. Therefore, the estimated viscous
resistance is increased by this amount.
Once the fraction of viscous resistance of
the total resistance is known, the dominant
effects of shallow water on viscous resistance
and sinkage can thus be computed. The ap⁃
proximation of the viscous resistance fraction is
based on the form factor estimated according to
Gross and Watanabe （1972） .
For the validation of the new correction
method dedicated speed/power trials with 3
vessels at various water depths have been con⁃
ducted by MARIN and supported by the STA⁃
Group. The reason to deploy trials rather than
model tests in this case is the fact that model
basins are not only restricted in depth but also
in width. For the validation it is important to
only correct for depth and not for horizontal re⁃
strictions of the basin. Research by Raven has
４６５
shown that due to the horizontal restrictions, e⁃
ven for a 16m wide basin, model tests can o⁃
ver⁃estimate shallow water resistance increases
by up to 30% for a container vessel. The effect
of the tank width for this latter case, as compu⁃
ted by CFD, is presented in Figure 14.
Figure 14 　 Effect of tank walls on resist⁃
ance increase in shallow water as estimated
by CFD （ KRISO Container vessel）
In some cases shallow water tests are con⁃
ducted in deep water basins using a false floor.
Comparison between results for model tests in
a shallow water basin and a deep water basin
with a false bottom, have shown that the shal⁃
low water effects are over predicted by the
false floor basin （ Oosterveld, 1992 ） . The
differences at that time were explained by wa⁃
ter circulations and pressure exchanges around
the false floor due to leakage at the tank walls.
Finally, it is noted that the extrapolation of
shallow water model test results is not trivial.
For these reasons an extensive trial campaign
was conducted on board 4 vessels, an inland
vessel, a hopper dredger, a navy academy ves⁃
sel and a 80k LPGC. The results of the first
three vessels were contributed by MARIN and
the results of the last vessel were contributed
by HHI. The particulars of these vessels are
given in Table 4. The trials and analysis have
been conducted according to the ITTC 2014
Guidelines.
Ships 1 to 3 were subjected to speed/pow⁃
４６６
er trials in 4 water depths, with the exception
of the inland vessel where tests were conducted
in 3 depths. The trials were conducted offshore,
near shore and inshore of The Netherlands un⁃
der excellent weather conditions. Ship 4 was
tested off the coast of South Korea, in less than
0.5 m waves, 2⁃3 m/s head winds, shallow and
deep water. Trials were conducted and analysed
according to 27th ITTC 7.5⁃04⁃01⁃01.
For each vessel the speed/power curves
for the different water depths were corrected to
arrive at the deep water situation and then com⁃
Ｔａｂｌｅ ４　 Ｍａｉｎ ｐａｒｔｉｃｕｌａｒｓ ｏｆ ｔｈｅ ｖｅｓｓｅｌｓ ｕｓｅｄ ｆｏｒ ｆｕｌｌ ｓｃａｌｅ ｔｒｉａｌｓ
Figure 15 　 Trial results for naval academy
vessel corrected to deep water by Lackenby
（ top） and Raven （ bottom）
pared with the actual deep water trial results.
These corrections were conducted by means of
the new Raven method as well as with the
Lackenby􀆳s method.
For a perfect trial and shallow water cor⁃
rection the lines for all water depths should co⁃
incide. It was found that in all cases the Raven
method resulted in a better agreement with the
deep water results. In Figure 15, the results for
the naval academy vessel are presented, which
were not yet available in Raven （2016） .
In Figure 16, the corrections according to
the old Lackenby method and the new Raven
method for each of the vessels are presented as
a function of water depth/draught ratio, togeth⁃
er with the actual measured results from the tri⁃
als. Again, for each of these vessels it is shown
that the new Raven method shows a much bet⁃
ter agreement with the test results than the old
Lackenby method. It is noted that the large dis⁃
crepancies with the trial results are for those in
extremely shallow water and outside the appli⁃
cation limits for trials correction.
Although the Raven method has been val⁃
idated for more shallow water （ viz. H/T = 2）,
at this stage the new method will be applied
within the existing ITTC restrictions stipulated
in expressions （16） and （17） .
The applicability and validity of these re⁃
sults for modern large merchant vessels such as
VLCC, ULCC, LNGC and other ship types
have been discussed by ITTC⁃PSS as trial re⁃

Figure 16 　 Raven and Lackenby correc⁃
tions and trial results; hopper dredger, na⁃
val vessel, inland vessel and 80k LPGC
（ top to bottom）
４６７
sults of such vessels in various water depths
were not available. Looking at the length/beam
ratios, the block coefficients and prismatic co⁃
efficients, the 3 vessels tested represent a large
variety of ship types. Although the size of pres⁃
ent day merchant vessels may be a factor 3 to 5
larger than these vessels, the ITTC good prac⁃
tice of scaling also applies to the results of the
selected vessels. The Raven method at least ac⁃
counts for the relative contribution of viscous
resistance, where Lackenby􀆳s ignores this
effect.
It has been noted that all three test vessels
are twin screw designs and the propeller con⁃
figuration may have some effects on the shal⁃
low water power. These effects have not been
investigated but are estimated to be of minor
importance.
Alternatively, the corrections for power on
shallow water may be derived from propulsion
model tests for the specific vessel in deep and
shallow water, corresponding with the water
depth during the speed/power trials. Such mod⁃
el tests have to be conducted in a towing tank
with sufficient width and for which results have
been validated with full scale trials in shallow
water.
Validation by Model Test in shallower wa⁃
ter than required by ISO15016 ∶ 2015. In order
to further evaluate the shallow water correction
method, NMRI has performed resistance and
propulsion tests using a tank which can per⁃
form the tests in both deep and shallow waters
（ Fujisawa et al., 2017） . The ship model is the
Japan Bulk Carrier （ JBC）, with its principal
particulars shown in Table 5. The diameter of
the model propeller is small, such that trip
wires are attached on the face and back. The
dimensions of the towing tank are shown in
Table 6. The side wall effect is corrected by the
Tamura method prescribed in ITTC 7.5⁃02⁃02⁃
01.
４６８
Ｔａｂｌｅ ５　 Ｐｒｉｎｃｉｐａｌ ｐａｒｔｉｃｕｌａｒｓ ｏｆ ｔｈｅ
ｓｈｉｐ ａｎｄ ｔｈｅ ｐｒｏｐｅｌｌｅｒ
Ｔａｂｌｅ ６　 Ｐｒｉｎｃｉｐａｌ ｐａｒｔｉｃｕｌａｒｓ ｏｆ ｔｈｅ ｔｏｗｉｎｇ ｔａｎｋ
From the tank tests, both in deep and shal⁃
low water, speed （ Ｖ s ） ⁃power （ ＢＨＰ） relations
are estimated. The corrected speed⁃power rela⁃
tions by Lackenby method and Raven method
from deep water to shallow water are compared
and shown in Figure 17 and Figure 18. Here Ｈ
is water depth and ｄ A is aft draught.
Figure 17　 Comparison of predicted power
（ Ｈ ／ ｄ A = 2.78）
From the comparisons, the Raven method
shows less correction than the Lackenby meth⁃
od. At Ｈ ／ ｄ Ａ = 2.78 for all speed ranges and at
Figure 18　 Comparison of predicted power
（ Ｈ ／ ｄ A = 2.16）
Ｈ ／ ｄ Ａ = 2.16 for a lower speed than the designed
speed （ 14.5 knot）, the Raven method shows
good agreement with the result of tank tests in
very shallow water, correcting for the side wall
effect.
It should be stressed that two draughts
studied are less than lower limit （ Ｈ ／ ｄ Ａ ≥3.3）
of shallow water restrictions. In addition, ship
model is rather small （ less than 5 metres） with
a very large block coefficient, the diameter of
propeller is even smaller than 0.15 m, which
may lead to more uncertainties.
Discussions and conclusions
（1） Why should Lackenby method be re⁃
placed now, since it has been used since 1963？
Shallow water has a large effect on resist⁃
ance and ship speed. Present day large and fast
ships, such as 20 k TEU experience shallow
water effects at 50 m water depth. This implies
that shallow water corrections are used more
often. Lackenby has been used for sea trials
correction due to a previous lack of better
methods. It is likely to be abused by yards pur⁃
posely doing trials in shallow water to reach
the contract speed. As an ITTC technical com⁃
mittee, PSS did commit to developing a better

shallow water correction method.
（2） Lackenby gives similar results to my
towing tank, so it seems acceptable？
Shallow water model tests are complex, e.
g. tank walls and false bottom can both affect
the results.
（3） Validation trials used for the valida⁃
tion of Raven were conducted with small ships,
which are not representative for present day
large ships.
China may get access to some ships to do
more trials in the coming years （ cooperating
with ship⁃owners） . There are currently no sys⁃
tematic trials since it is costly and availability
of data is dependent on owners and yards.
Lackenby is no better validated either.
（ 4 ） Is the Raven method perfect or
should be improved first before being intro⁃
duced？
Raven is a practical method, which is not
perfect but it is ‘ state of the art􀆳 and better than
Lackenby.
After long discussion, PSS agreed to pro⁃
pose the use of Raven （ 2016） method. How⁃
ever, since the Raven method has been devel⁃
oped by one institution in cooperation with the
STA group it is too early to make this an ex⁃
clusive rule with legal consequences. Therefore
the AC suggests to accept this method in paral⁃
lel to Lackenby method in order for other insti⁃
tutions to validate it.
４．５　 Ｔｒｉａｌ Ｄｉｒｅｃｔｉｏｎ
External Forces at Sea　 During speed tri⁃
als at sea, ships meet various environmental
conditions such as wind, waves, current, water
depth, air temperature and water temperatures.
Most noticeably the wind, waves and currents
４６９
have force and directionality. In most cases of
speed trials, such directionality acts on a ship
with different directions as in Figure 19.
Figure 19　 Conning display in speed trial
In Figure 19, wind （ white arrow）, waves
（ red arrow） and current （ blue arrow） show
different directions during a speed trial. This
means that if trial direction is decided based on
one environmental condition such as waves,
forces from the side direction of the ship are
unavoidable from the remaining conditions,
such as wind and current. These forces from
the side direction require drift and rudder de⁃
flections to keep a base course by autopilot.
It is well known that drift and rudder de⁃
flections induce added resistance. From the cal⁃
culations based on ISO 15016 ∶ 2002 and an
MMG model of the ship􀆳s manoeuvrability for
added resistance and thrust deduction by drift,
5 － 6 degrees of drift leads to a speed loss of
0.6 － 0.7 knots. Since the ITTC Recommended
Procedure and ISO 15016 ∶ 2015 do not com⁃
pensate for added resistance caused by the drift
and rudder deflections, minimizing theses de⁃
flections is very important during a speed trial,
to get accurate speed performance of ships.
Guidelines for Trial Direction In a wave
dominant sea area, for minimizing drift and
４７０
performing more reliable wave corrections, it is
recommended that the trial direction shall be
carried out by heading into and following the
wave direction. In other sea areas, there are
many cases where the wind is more dominant
than the waves. It is reported that the correc⁃
tions for wind are 6 times the corrections for
waves in some sea areas. The reason for this
result is that in sea areas protected by land and
islands, there are many cases that the wind is
more dominant than waves. For very large
commercial ships the small wave height pro⁃
duces a negligible effect when compared to the
added resistance caused by the wind. In order
to obtain reliable speed trial results, it is neces⁃
sary to select the trial direction so as to head
into and follow the dominant wave or wind di⁃
rection, depending on which affects the ship
speed the most.
During speed trials, it is common that the
dominant weather conditions, such as wind or
wave directions, change significantly. In this
case, for accurate assessment of a ship􀆳s speed
performance, the changes in weather conditions
have to be reflected in the trial direction. Con⁃
sequently, trial direction can be changed be⁃
tween each power setting according to the
change of weather condition. This can be ap⁃
plied when the Mean of Means method for cur⁃
rent elimination is applied.
４．６　 Ａｐｐｌｉｃａｔｉｏｎ ｏｆ ＣＦＤ Ｍｅｔｈｏｄｓ ｆｏｒ Ａｄｄ⁃
ｅｄ Ｒｅｓｉｓｔａｎｃｅ Ｄｕｅ ｔｏ Ｗｉｎｄ ａｎｄ Ｗａｖｅ
Ｌｏａｄｓ
CFD has developed considerably as a tool
for prediction of many aspects of ship perform⁃
ance. This development is described well in the
Proceedings of previous ITTC meetings, in par⁃
ticular the reports of the Resistance committee
and those of Specialist Committees in aspects
of CFD. The regular Gothenburg and Tokyo
workshops on CFD in the maritime field also
chronicle this development and provide specific
benchmarking results for the application of
CFD to a range of ship hydrodynamics prob⁃
lems.
This Committee has considered the specif⁃
ic question as to whether CFD is sufficiently
accurate and practical for the prediction of cor⁃
rections to sea⁃trial results for （ i） wind and
（ ii） wave loads.
Wind Loads In predicting the wind loads
on a vessel for the purposes of sea⁃trials cor⁃
rection, it is necessary that the CFD be capable
of predicting the forces acting on the above⁃
water portion of the vessel, averaged over the
time for the trials run, for all wind angles. Flow
around a ship􀆳s superstructure is typically that
associated with a bluff⁃body. The CFD method
and its application must thus be suitable for
time⁃averaged bluff⁃body flows.
In assessing the distortion of airflow over
a ship􀆳s superstructure and its effects on the ac⁃
curacy of wind measurements recorded by a
shipboard anemometer, Moat et al （ 2006a, b）
compared RANS CFD predictions to wind tun⁃
nel measurements. Moat et al （2006a） confirm
that RANS CFD is capable of predicting accu⁃
rately the airflow around a bluff superstructure.
Guidance on the siting of anemometers and
practical values for correction of measurements
made using bridge⁃based anemometers are con⁃
tained in Moat et al （ 2006b） . These data are
of potential use when using a ship􀆳s standard
anemometer for wind speed measurements on
trials.
In other applications of aerodynamics,
from road and rail vehicles to civil structures,
RANS CFD is applied to predict time⁃averaged
mean drag forces accurately. This, together
with further validation for ship superstructures,
indicates that RANS CFD may be used to pre⁃
dict wind load corrections for sea⁃trials results.
In such an application it is necessary to ensure
an adequate mesh density, choose a suitable
turbulence model and to follow current best
practice guidelines. For prediction of drag coef⁃
ficients for practical use, it is not necessary to

model all details of the superstructure.
If CFD is to be used to predict wind re⁃
sistance coefficients for sea⁃trials corrections,
then it is necessary for the CFD code and user
to have demonstrated verification and valida⁃
tion against qualified wind tunnel results so
similar ships and with a required uncertainty of
the derived air resistance corresponding to 2%
of total power. The simulation for the actual
speed trial case has to use the same mesh struc⁃
ture, density, resolution of geometry and choice
of flow modelling parameters （ e. g. turbulence
models and boundary conditions） as used in
the validation demonstration.
For clarity, the database of wind resistance
coefficients in recommended procedure 7.5⁃04⁃
01⁃01 includes the source of the data, whether
wind tunnel or CFD.
Wave Loads The challenge of predicting
wave added resistance sufficiently accurately
for sea⁃trials correction requires CFD to resolve
unsteady forces over the vessel encountering
waves of arbitrary heading and period. The
processes associated with this task are consid⁃
ered in Winden et al （2014） . The Tokyo 2015
CFD workshop included a benchmark study on
the motions of the KCS in regular head waves
for a single speed and variety of wave periods.
CFD results from 10 organisations were com⁃
pared with experimental data. Whilst the aver⁃
age of the submissions agreed well with the ex⁃
perimental data, there was considerable scatter
in the CFD predictions. Studies by IACS and
also for the SHOPERA workshops indicate that
in general motions are better predicted than
added resistance. In addition, the mesh densi⁃
ties required for accurate motions prediction
suggest that CPU times are too long for use in
sea⁃trials corrections. Most computations are
also for model scale, do not include the propel⁃
ler （ i.e. not self⁃propelled） and are for regular
long⁃crested waves. Validation data for CFD
for anything other than head waves are also
sparse. It is thus considered that for prediction
４７１
of wave load corrections for sea⁃trials, the evi⁃
dence is insufficient to recommend that CFD
may be applied in general.
４．７　 Ｍｏｒｅ Ｅｘｔｅｎｓｉｖｅ Ｖａｌｉｄａｔｉｏｎ ｏｆ ｔｈｅ
Ｗａｖｅ Ｃｏｒｒｅｃｔｉｏｎ Ｍｅｔｈｏｄｓ Ｉｎｃｌｕｄｉｎｇ
Ｗａｖｅ Ｌｉｍｉｔｓ
Following the 27th term, the Committee
has carried out the validation of wave correc⁃
tion methods, with examination of the wave
limits for the analysis of the speed/power trial.
Currently four methods are permitted to be
used for the wave correction; 1） STAWAVE⁃1,
2） STAWAVE⁃2, 3 ） NMRI method and 4 ）
Seakeeping model tests.
Wave Correction Methods 　 A validation
study for these methods, except the seakeeping
model test, has been carried out. During the
study extension to oblique⁃following waves
and limits of wave height have also been car⁃
ried out.
To start the validation study, data format
and calculation programs were distributed to
the PSS members.
1） STAWAVE⁃1
STAWAVE⁃1 method developed by STA⁃
JIP is a simplified correction method to esti⁃
mate the added resistance in waves with limited
input data. It has restrictions that heave and
pitch during speed/power trial are small （ verti⁃
cal acceleration at bow <0.05 g） and only ap⁃
plied for wave directions within 0 to ± 45 de⁃
grees from bow.
2） STAWAVE⁃2
STAWAVE⁃2 method developed by STA⁃
JIP is an empirical correction method with fre⁃
quency response functions. It has restrictions of
ship dimensions and wave directions within
0 to ±45 degrees from bow.
４７２

3） NMRI method

NMRI method is a theoretical method

with practical corrections in short waves. There
are two options to obtain the coefficient of ad⁃
vance speed in short waves for application to
the wave correction, Ｃ U , by simplified tank
tests in short waves or by an empirical formula.
Figure 20 　 Ship types; case of model
For NMRI method, extension to the ob⁃ test in regular waves
lique⁃following waves is proposed and its vali⁃
dation was included. Hereafter, this extension
of NMRI method is designated as NMRI VES⁃
TA） .

Validation Study　 A validation study has

been carried out for the case of model tests in
regular waves, in long⁃crested irregular waves
and full scale data at speed/power trial.
Figure 21　 Distribution of ship length;
For the validation study on wave correc⁃ case of model test in regular waves
tion methods, a total of 20 members including
16 new data providers during the 28th term
participated.

（1） Case of model test in regular waves

For the validation case of model tests in

regular waves, 62 data points with 51 tests and
11 calculations for 38 ships are provided.
The ship types and distribution of the ship
length are shown in Figure 20⁃21 respectively.
The load condition and calculation method for
Ｃ U of NMRI （ VESTA） are shown in Figure
22.
Please note that the data include confiden⁃
tial information, so that the total numbers are
not necessarily consistent with each other.
Frequency response functions of these
methods are compared with the tank test re⁃
sults. Some examples are shown in Figure 23.
The estimation of NMRI （ VESTA）, both by
tank tests and empirical formula （ VESTA⁃
emp） are shown. Maruo is the method pre⁃
Figure 22 　 Load condition （ left ） and
calculation method for Ｃ U of NMRI meth⁃
od （ right）; case of model test in regular
waves
scribed in ISO15016 ∶ 2002. The non⁃dimen⁃
sional coefficient （ Ｋ AW ） of added resistance in
regular waves （ Ｒ AW ） is shown in Equation
（20） .
Ｒ ＡＷ
Ｋ ＡＷ ＝ （２０）
４ρｇζ ａ ２ Ｂ２ ／ Ｌ
where ρ is fluid density, ζ a is wave amplitude,
Ｂ is ship breadth and Ｌ is ship length.
From the comparison it is found that;

Figure 23 　 Frequency response in regular
head waves
•　 STAWAVE⁃1; it shows good estima⁃
tion in short waves, but underestimation for
other frequencies.
•　 STAWAVE⁃2; estimation in short
waves should be improved: in some cases it
shows underestimation and in other cases it
shows overestimation.
•　 NMRI （ VESTA）; it shows good es⁃
timation, including in short waves.
（2） Case of model test in irregular waves
For the validation case of model tests in
irregular waves, 86 data points for 61 ships,
with 33 unknown ship types are provided. The
number of new data from the last term is 30 of
４７３
17 ships.
Figure 24 　 Ship types; case of model
test in irregular waves
Figure 25　 Distribution of ship length;
case of model test in irregular waves
Figure 26 　 Load condition （ left ） and
calculation method for Ｃ U of NMRI meth⁃
od （ right）; case of model test in irregular
waves
The ship types and distribution of the ship
length are shown in Figure 24 and 25 respec⁃
tively. The load condition and calculation meth⁃
od for Ｃ U of NMRI （ VESTA） are shown in
Figure 26.
Added resistance in long⁃crested irregular
waves for these three methods is compared
with the estimation based on the tank tests and
shown in Figure 27.
４７４
Effects of ship speed and wave height on
added resistance in long⁃crested irregular waves
are investigated and shown in Figures 28 and
29, respectively.
Figure 27　 Added resistance in long crested
irregular waves （ top: all data, bottom ex⁃
cludes data of large wave height）
From the comparison it is found that:
•　 STAWAVE⁃1: The data are scattered.
Effect of speed on added resistance in waves is
ignored.
•　 STAWAVE⁃2: The data are scattered
but overall there is good agreement. In low
speed, it underestimates.
•　 NMRI （ VESTA）: It shows good a⁃
Figure 28 　 Effect of ship
speed on added resistance in
long crested irregular waves
（ Tanker）
Figure 29 　 Effect of wave height on
added resistance in long crested irregular
waves （ Container ship）
greement in large wave heights and a wide
speed range.
（3） Comparison with full scale data from
speed/power trial
For the validation of full scale data on
speed/power trials, 25 datasets from 25 ships
are provided.
The ship types and distribution of the ship
length are shown in Figures 30 and 31, respec⁃
tively. The load condition and calculation meth⁃
od for Ｃ U of NMRI （ VESTA） are shown in
Figure 32.
Some particular cases for the speed⁃power
relation of the trial which are not in a calm sea
condition are shown in Figure 33. In Figure 33,
Ｐ * is normalized engine power, Ｖ is ship
speed, Ｈ w is significant wave height of wind
waves and Ｈ s is significant waves of swell. In

Figure 30　 Ship types; case of full scale
data at speed/power trial
Figure 31　 Distribution of ship length;
case of full scale data at speed/power
trial
Figure 32 　 Load condition （ left ） and
calculation method for Ｃ U of NMRI meth⁃
od （ right ）; case of full scale data at
speed/power trial
the analysis of speed/power trial data, correc⁃
tions other than wave correction are performed
identically for each ship. In Figure 33, （ c） and
（ d） small wave corrections for STAWAVE⁃1
and STAWAVE⁃2 are performed due to the re⁃
striction of wave direction.
Speed⁃power relationships after correc⁃
tions for 4 sister ships are shown altogether in
Figure 34. From Figure 34, it is found that the
least variation, i. e. the most convergent/stable,
４７５
is NMRI （ VESTA）, since it takes account of
the added resistance in oblique⁃following
waves, whereas STAWAVE⁃1 and STAWAVE⁃2
do not take account of such.
From the analysis it is found that:
•　 STAWAVE⁃1: It is found that the re⁃
sults from STAWAVE⁃1 have large discrepan⁃
cies when compared to those from STAWAVE⁃
2 and NMRI （ VESTA） （ see Figure 33（ a） ）
•　 STAWAVE⁃2: It shows similar tend⁃
ency as STAWAVE⁃1 （ see Figure 33 （ b ） ） .
The limitation of encounter wave direction,
head waves only, causes the variation.
•　 NMRI （ VESTA） has the most con⁃
sistency results among the methods since it
takes account of the added resistance in ob⁃
lique⁃following waves.
Discussions　 Through the deliberation at
the committee using data for a variety of ships,
the committee has agreed to propose changes in
the ITTC Recommended Procedures as follows.
For STAWAVE⁃2 the ship length to be ap⁃
plied is changed from 75 m － 350 m to 50 m －
400 m, the upper limit of the breadth⁃draught
ratio is changed from 5.5 to 9.0 and the lower
limit of the block coefficient is extended from
0.5 to 0.39.
For NMRI method the same restrictions as
for STAWAVE⁃2 for the ship dimensions are
applied, except two. The first exception is that
the NMRI method does not limit speed. This is
because the NMRI method takes speed effects
into account. The second one is that the NMRI
method does not specify the upper limit of the
ship length. The reason is that the NMRI meth⁃
od is accurate in short waves, mainly encoun⁃
tered by large ships. Besides, NMRI method is
extended to all wave directions. There are no
restrictions on ship types. The upper limit of
applied wave height by visual observation is
４７６

Figure 33　 Speed⁃power relationships for sea trials

Figure 34　 Speed⁃power relationships of sister ships （ Bulk carrier）

（ left; STAWAVE⁃1, middle; STAWAVE⁃2, right; NMRI （ VESTA） ）

changed to be the same as the STAWAVE⁃1

and STAWAVE⁃2. ４．８　 Ｗｉｎｄ Ｃｏｒｒｅｃｔｉｏｎ

Conclusions Through the validation study
STAWAVE⁃1, STAWAVE⁃2 and NMRI method
are investigated by using model tests in regular
and irregular waves and full scale data on
speed/power trials using a variety of ship data,
size and types, and tank tests/full scale data.
From the studies, the features of each
method of wave correction are understood. By
these validation studies the committee proposes
to change the limits on ship length, breadth⁃
draught ratio and block coefficient to be the
same for STAWAVE⁃2 and NMRI methods.
Wind correction is the one of most domi⁃
nant factors in speed trials. Therefore wind
measurement and correction have to be careful⁃
ly carried out for accurate assessment of ship􀆳s
speed performance.
Wind Measurement 　 Anemometers for
wind measurement are usually installed on the
deck house. It is not easy to measure accurately
wind speed and direction from this location,
because of disturbance by the super structure,
radar mast （ s ） and funnel. This disturbance
could influence the correction results for the

environmental conditions in speed trials. Figure
35 is a comparison of measured readings for an
onboard anemometer and an anemometer loca⁃
ted on a fishing boat in the same area and at
the same time of a speed trial for an LNG Car⁃
rier.
Figure 35 　 Wind Measurements for LNG
Carrier
This figure shows that the wind speed
measured by the anemometer onboard would
be reduced when compared to the wind speed
measured near to the sea surface.
For the confirmation of accuracy of wind
speed measurements on the deck house, a wind
tunnel test was carried out for various wind di⁃
rections for an LNG Carrier with results in Fig⁃
ure 36.
Figure 36　 Wind Speeds in Tunnel Test for
Various Directions
The dashed line is the generated wind
speed in the wind tunnel. In head wind condi⁃
tions, the measured wind speed is very similar
to the generated wind, but in following wind
４７７
conditions the measured wind speed is less
than generated wind speeds, caused by disturb⁃
ance. Considering most speed trials are carried
out in head and following wind conditions, in
this case there is the possibility of less accurate
wind corrections because the wind averaging
method reduces the relative wind speed in head
wind conditions. In wind corrections, a large
relative wind speed in the head wind condition
is dominant to corrections since the wind re⁃
sistance is proportional to the square of the rel⁃
ative wind speed.
Figure 37　 Changes of Wind speed and Di⁃
rections
Figure 37 shows the changes of wind
speed and direction in time series with a 1 hour
interval. In such environmental conditions there
would be excessive, or reduced, wind correc⁃
tions when a wind averaging method is applied.
Sometimes incomprehensible wind speed
and direction are measured during speed trials
with an anemometer on the deck house. In
these cases, a wind averaging method presents
more acceptable wind corrections.
The accuracy of wind measurement on
board is therefore very important and a wind
averaging method has to be applied carefully
for reliable wind correction results.
Wind Profile　 The difference between the
vertical position of the anemometer and the ref⁃
erence height is to be corrected by means of
the wind speed profile, given by the following
formula.
４７８
æ Ｚ ｒｅｆ ö
α
Ｖ ＷＴｒｅｆ ＝ Ｖ ＷＴ ç ÷ （２１）
è Ｚａ ø
where,
Ｖ ＷＴｒｅｆ : true wind velocity at the reference
height ［ m/s］
Ｖ ＷＴ : true wind velocity at the vertical po⁃
sition of the anemometer ［ m/s］
Ｚ ｒｅｆ : reference height for the wind resist⁃
ance coefficients ［ m］
Ｚ ａ : vertical position of the anemometer
［ m］
The wind profile is according to the expo⁃
nent in equation （12） . Hsu （1994） and many
researchers proposed the exponent is 1/9 over
sea and 1/7 over land, for determining the pow⁃
er⁃law of the wind profile. Most wind tunnel
tests for wind coefficients of ships are carried
out based on a 1/9 exponent for the wind pro⁃
file. Therefore, the database of wind coeffi⁃
cients which are available in the speed trial a⁃
nalysis procedure are presented with an expo⁃
nent of 1/9 for wind profile.
４．９　 Ｆｅｅｄｂａｃｋ ｏｆ Ｆｕｌｌ Ｓｃａｌｅ Ｓｐｅｅｄ ／ Ｐｏｗｅｒ Ｄａ⁃
ｔａ ｆｏｒ Ｃｏｒｒｅｌａｔｉｏｎ Ｐｕｒｐｏｓｅ Ｅｓｐｅｃｉａｌｌｙ ｆｏｒ
ｔｈｅ Ｄｅｓｉｇｎ ａｎｄ ＥＥＤＩ Ｄｒａｕｇｈｔｓ
This task is closely related to the issue of
model⁃ship correlation factors at different
drafts, i. e. design or EEDI draft and trial draft.
It is difficult to collect the full⁃scale
speed/power data derived from sea trial results,
including correlation factors, since those are the
confidential information for shipyards or model
testing institutes, which are based on their own
experiences. Furthermore, especially for design
or EEDI draft, sea trials are very limited.
Therefore, in the committee, the possibility of
obtaining them from operational data was dis⁃
cussed. However, this scheme is also difficult
since the obtained data are required to be ana⁃
lysed using the model test results for the sub⁃
ject ships under cooperation of shipyards or
model testing institutes and that is the same sit⁃
uation as collecting the data from yards or in⁃
stitutes.
The other solution than collecting the
speed/power data directly is collecting the
difference of correlation factors between two
drafts. In the progress report of the 27th ITTC,
one of the results of study on the relationship
between two drafts, which was conducted by
Japanese shipyards, is presented. The result is
also presented as an informative in the appen⁃
dix of “ Guideline on the determination of
model⁃ship correlation factors” . The result is
an example but can be used as the reference
data.
On the other hand, in the committee, it is
pointed out that it is impossible to generate
general guidelines for the relationship of corre⁃
lation factors between two drafts since each
shipyards or institutes uses their own variant of
extrapolation method and consequently their
own correlation factors. This discussion is also
described as an informative in the appendix of
“Guideline on the determination of model⁃ship
correlation factors” . As a result, the committee
agreed to provide a guideline that presents a
general approach for establishing a model⁃ship
power correlation as described in this report,
section 7 “ Guideline on the determination of
model⁃ship correlation factors” .
４．１０　 Ｅｘｔｅｎｄｅｄ Ｐｏｗｅｒ Ｍｅｔｈｏｄ
Extended Power Method （ EPM ） . The
EPM was originally introduced as an alterna⁃
tive for the Direct Power Method （ DPM） dur⁃
ing the harmonization process of the ITTC and
ISO procedures. DPM and EPM are basically
the same in terms of directly correcting the
power deviation due to deviations of resistance
and the propeller loading point during trial
measurement from an ideal condition. Further⁃

more, in both methods, the deviation of propel⁃
ler load should be evaluated using propeller
open water characteristics （ POC） . While, in
the DPM, the relationship between the devia⁃
tion of propeller load and power correction
should be prepared prior to the actual trial, in
the EPM correction due to propeller load
should be estimated directly during trial analy⁃
sis.
Figure 38 presents the comparison of anal⁃
ysis results between the DPM and the EPM,
which were conducted by some Japanese
shipyards using actual trial data.
Figure 38 　 Comparison between the
corrected powers by DPM and EPM,
normalised by the corresponding value
from the DPM （ % DPM）
From the comparison results, the differ⁃
ence between corrected powers from the two
methods are within around 1% of the corre⁃
sponding value by the DPM.
The EPM has the advantage that full scale
wake fraction can be estimated in the analysis
process.
Discussions. The concern that the EPM is
based on a torque identity rather than a thrust i⁃
dentity was presented because Ｋ Q values are
used when estimating propeller load. However,
the method used in the EPM is “ the reversed
thrust identity method” rather than a torque i⁃
dentity method as explained:
•　 In a thrust identity method, as shown
４７９
in Figure 39, relationships between Ｊ and Ｋ T in
open water and behind the ship are assumed to
be equal to each other. Then, to compensate for
the actual deviation between the propeller con⁃
ditions in open water and behind the ship, the
relative rotative efficiency, η R , is introduced.
η R is calculated with Ｋ Q（ T） derived from Pro⁃
peller Opens Characteristics （ POC ） and Ｋ Q
measured by torque meter during the model
test.
Figure 39 　 Thrust identity method in
model test
•　 The Ｋ􀆳 Q derived from measured pow⁃
er during the full⁃scale ship trial corresponds to
the Ｋ Q measured by a torque meter during
model tests. If the propeller load is obtained u⁃
sing the Ｋ􀆳 Q on the Ｋ Q curve （ dashed arrow in
Figure 40）, that is a torque identity method. In
the EPM, however, Ｋ􀆳 Q is not used directly but
the value obtained by multiplying Ｋ􀆳 Q and η R is
used as shown in Figure 40. That value corre⁃
sponds to Ｋ Q（ T） obtained in the thrust identity
method.
The Committee agreed on this explanation
of the thrust/torque identity methods for the
EPM.
Conclusions. The committee proposes to
include the EPM in the recommended proce⁃
dure as informative, considering the advantage
that the EPM can allow an estimation of full⁃
scale wake fraction.
４８０
Figure 40　 The “ reversed Thrust Identity
Method” in the EPM is different from the
Torque Identity method
４．１１　 Ｉｎｖｅｓｔｉｇａｔｅ ｔｈｅ Ｐｏｓｓｉｂｉｌｉｔｙ ｏｆ Ｕｓｉｎｇ ｔｈｅ
Ｌｏｎｇ⁃Ｔｒａｃｋ Ｍｅｔｈｏｄ
The long track is a trial trajectory with re⁃
duced Williamson turning manoeuvres during
double run measurements at the same power
settings. This approach is only possible when
the iterative method of current correction would
be applied in post processing of measured data.
Figure 41 　 Scheme of standard （ short ）
track and long track trajectories （ numbers in
circles⁃counters of turning manoeuvres,
numbers along track⁃engine settings, trian⁃
gles⁃start / end of measurements）
To investigate the long track method, the
trajectory of a trial for double runs at EEDI
power settings was applied as presented in Fig⁃
ure 41. The input test data was prepared based
on a model test speed⁃power curve, with cor⁃
rections for environmental conditions based on
the calculation of the resistance values associat⁃
ed with each power value. The time span be⁃
tween COMEX and FINEX was estimated
based on a turning circle diameter of 5 vessel
lengths, with a speed reduction of 45% and a
15 vessel length distance of steady approach
with reduced speed. The run duration was as⁃
sumed to be 12 minutes （ 2 minutes to speed
up） . The analysis was done without wind aver⁃
aging. Figure 42 presents current curves and
the start time of each run in the trial tests. The
red dots represent the current velocity correc⁃
tion applied for each trial run with respect to
time.
Figure 42　 Current velocity profiles
The resulting data is presented as a proba⁃
bility density function （ PDF） of speed devia⁃
tion between tank prediction and evaluated trial
measurements for the short and long track traj⁃
ectories. The curves in Figure 43 present the
PDF with and without the mean value. It can
be seen that the mean value of the speed devia⁃
tion, as well as the spread of the PDF, are very
close to each other. Thus, taking into account
the reduced trial time and comparable accuracy,
the long track method might be a valuable al⁃
ternative to the standard trials procedure. This
investigation was, however, only conducted for
one artificial trials and should be expanded to
other types of vessels with different approach
times to confirm this conclusion.
The investigation made in this term was
postponed to next term due to uncertainty a⁃
round some scenarios of conducting speed tri⁃
als, such as the possibility of wind averaging
and the influence of current change within the
large geographical range of the long track traj⁃

ectory.
/Appendix
Table 1&2
Figure 43 Probability density function, left,
with average speed deviation, right, only
standard deviation （ for spread assessment）
４．１２　 Ｕｐｄａｔｅｄ Ｐｒｏｃｅｄｕｒｅ
On the basis of these investigations, the
Recommended Procedures （7.5⁃04⁃01⁃01.1 and
⁃01.2） for speed/power trials conduct and anal⁃
ysis were combined and updated. Part of the
major changes made to the combined procedure
are shown in Table 7.
Ｔａｂｌｅ ７　 Ｍａｊｏｒ ａｍｅｎｄｍｅｎｔｓ ｔｏ ｒｅｃｏｍｍｅｎｄｅｄ
ｐｒｏｃｅｄｕｒｅ
Section
Description
/Appendix
Merge part1 and part2, renumbering
Version 2014 sections, appendices, equations, fig⁃
ures
G⁃modulus to be 82 400 N/mm2,
same as in ISO 15016 ∶ 2015
4.1
The ship􀆳s condition in line with ISO
5
15016.
The description of trial area and trial
6 10.3.2
course in line of ISO 15016.
Restriction for wave height changed:
6.3 Fig 1 All methods has the same wave limit
if spectrum is measured
Restriction to maximum change of
6.5 the current speed: 0.5 knots/hour *
timespan
４８１
Section
Description
Move draught reading and date to
7.2⁃3 secondary parameters （ to be regis⁃
tered once per trial ） . Add ｄｒａｕｇｈｔ
ｒｅａｄｉｎｇ ａｔ ｚｅｒｏ ｓｐｅｅｄ
7.6.5 Allow wave direction to be observed
Clarified what is meant by wave
7.6.5
measurements and wave observations
If wave direction change, heading
8.4 can change between power settings,
if means of means is used
The speed runs shall ｐｒｅｆｅｒａｂｌｙ be
carried out by heading into and fol⁃
8.4
lowing the dominant wave or wind
direction
Power settings: adequately distribu⁃
8.7 ted within the power range of 65%
MCR and 100% MCR
EEDI/contract power should be in
8.8.1
not the first or the last run, timewise
8.8
number of runs for Mom, Iterative,
sister vessels determined
9.1.1 Added: trial end time
Clarification of which wave correc⁃
tion methods can be used. If require⁃
10.2
ments are fulfilled, the method can
be selected between valid options
What to do if no load variation fac⁃
10.2.3 tors are missing？ Now mandatory to
get load variation factors
Remove Jonswap spectrum, add sen⁃
tence about selecting other spectra if
appropriate
10.3.2 Equation for G is corrected
Equation for P⁃M spectrum, （ ome⁃
10.3.2
ga ⁃5 ） corrected to （ omega5 ）
４８２

Section Section
Description Description
/Appendix /Appendix

Modified formula for temperature Limits for STAWAVE 2: 50 （ m） <

10.3.3 and density correction, including G. 2 Ｌ ｐｐ < 400 （ m）, Discussed to remove
ΔC f upper limit, but decided to keep it

Standard density of sea water should Restriction of the G. 3 method: Ｌ ｐｐ >

10.3.3 G. 3
be 1026 kg/m3 not 1025 50m, all directions

Raven shallow water correction Minimum wave length extended to

10.3.4 G. 4
method added 0􀆰 3Ｌ ｐｐ instead of 0.5Ｌ ｐｐ

Clarification of what “ shifting the
11 item 13 power curve” means. It means alpha
will be different for every speed
When more than three （ 3 ） power
settings are obtained, it is clarified to
use either a spline through the cor⁃
11 item 13
rected points or a polynomial curve
of degree one less than the number
of power settings
Rudder angle removed from what
12
should be reported for each run
Description of load variation model
D. 3 test moved to other Recommended
Procedure
More sophisticated method for wind
E correction, other than averaging. Re⁃
quested but no change
Clarification of wind tunnel data:
F. 3 source, reference height, projected
area
Wind profile exponent is 1/9. （ Used
E. 2 to be 1/7） . 1/7 is for land and 1/9 is
for sea
F. 3 more vessels added to C x library
Add drawings/sketches showing ship
F. 3
type superstructure
Add table of C x values instead of on⁃
F. 3
ly graphs
Allow CFD for C x under strict con⁃
F. 2
dition
Add iterative method for current cor⁃
H. 1
rection
Add Extended power method for ref⁃
J
erence
５　 ＥＸＰＬＯＲＥ ＳＨＩＰ ＩＮ ＳＥＲＶＩＣＥ ＩＳＳＵＥＳ
５．１ 　 Ｓｐｅｅｄ ／ Ｐｏｗｅｒ Ｐｅｒｆｏｒｍａｎｃｅ ｏｆ Ｓｈｉｐ ｉｎ
Ｓｅｒｖｉｃｅ
Speed/power performance of ships in
service become a very important issue because
of the EEOI （ Energy Efficiency Operational
Indicator）, Monitoring for speed performance
are increasingly of interest to ship owners.
There are two main purposes for assessment of
speed performance in service. One is the as⁃
sessment of service performance over a whole
route and the other is the validation of speed
performance after delivery, or in service.
The important points of this issue are that
speed performance is typically validated in sin⁃
gle run conditions and the trial course for chec⁃
king speed performance in service cannot be
selected with the same care as for contractual
with speed trials. The Committee was presented
with comparison results between speed trials
with two double runs and measured speed per⁃
formance over single runs, after retrofit for a
container ship. The comparison result is shown
in Figure 44.
 ４８３

force and steady yaw moment in regular waves

are shown in Figure 45. The subject ship is a
bulk carrier of Ｌ = 178m. This figure shows that
the effect of advance speed is not obvious, ex⁃
cept for steady yaw moment in beam waves of
λ ／ Ｌ = 0.6⁃0.8. The calculation results were in
good agreement with model data, except for the
steady yaw moment in beam waves of λ ／ Ｌ
（ wave length⁃ship length ratio）= 0.6⁃0.8.

Figure 44 　 The Speed/Power Comparison

between Speed Trials and Single Run Condi⁃
tions

The corrected results for the single runs a⁃

gree closely with the speed trial results with
two double runs.

To reduce the current effects in single

runs, a well calibrated speed log was used for
ship speed measurement. All data were careful⁃
ly collected for more than 10 minutes in each
measurement. Data filtering to avoid accelera⁃
tion conditions, deceleration conditions, turning Figure 45 　 Comparison between tank tests
with rudder deflection, shallow water, high and calculations; left side: non⁃dimensional
waves, etc. is very important for assessment of steady sway force in regular waves （ Ｃ ＹＷ ）;
ship speed from single run conditions. right side: non⁃dimensional steady yaw mo⁃
ment in regular waves （ Ｃ ＮＷ ）
５．２　 Ｍｏｎｉｔｏｒｉｎｇ ａｎｄ Ａｎａｌｙｓｉｓ ｏｆ Ｓｐｅｅｄ ／ Ｐｏｗ⁃
ｅｒ Ｐｅｒｆｏｒｍａｎｃｅ ｏｆ Ｓｈｉｐｓ ｉｎ Ｓｅｒｖｉｃｅ
Using the calculation method, simulations
of ship speed （ Ｖ）, engine power （ ＢＨＰ）, fuel
consumption per day （ ＦＰＤ）, drift angle （ β）
To explore ship performance predictions
and rudder angle （ δ ） were carried out in
in service, evaluation of steady sway force and
weather conditions （ based on Beaufort scale of
steady yaw moment in waves is performed.
The investigation is carried out comparing per⁃
wind; BF）, of which the weather parameters
formance predicted without steady sway force
were sequentially changed and the added resist⁃
and steady yaw moment in waves and perform⁃
ance in waves was calculated by NMRI method
ance predicted including these effects.
（ Tsujimoto et. al, 2015） . The simulated results
with/without steady sway force and steady yaw
The steady sway force and steady yaw
moment in waves are shown in Figure 46.
moment in regular waves are interpolated from
the database, based on ship length （ Ｌ）, breadth
From these figures, it is observed that drift an⁃
（Ｂ）, draught （ ｄ） and ship type. The database
gle and rudder angle are affected by the steady
sway force and steady yaw moment in waves.
is constructed from numerical calculations u⁃
sing a 3D panel method at zero forward speed. Ship speed, power and fuel consumption are
The comparison between tank tests and not affected much.
the calculation （３Ｄ ｐａｎｅｌ⁃ｉｎｔ） for steady sway
４８４

From the simulation, it is found that esti⁃

mation of ship speed, power and fuel consump⁃
tion in waves is not affected when the steady
sway force and steady yaw moment in waves,
except for the beam waves which affect the
drift angle and the rudder angle.

５．３　 Ｓｐｅｅｄ ／ Ｐｏｗｅｒ Ｄａｔａ ｆｏｒ ｆ ｗ

Ship full scale data were collected for an

investigation of speed/power data for ｆ ｗ by the
PSS Committee during this term. fw is a non⁃
dimensional coefficient indicating the decrease
in speed in a representative sea conditions,
which is prescribed in MEPC. 1/Circ. 796.

To collect the data, an Excel sheet was

distributed to ship owners. Table 8 shows a
sheet of ship particulars, and Table 9 shows a
sheet of an abstract from a ship􀆳s log. The for⁃
mat was designed to encompass the minimum
data content to be easy to complete by ship
owners.
Ｔａｂｌｅ ８　 Ｄａｔａ ｃｏｌｌｅｃｔｉｏｎ ｓｈｅｅｔ ｏｆ ｓｈｉｐ ｐａｒｔｉｃｕｌａｒｓ
ｗｉｔｈ ｓａｍｐｌｅ ｄａｔａ

In the tables, yellow cells are indispensa⁃

ble to obtain ｆ ｗ of the vessel, green cell is es⁃
sential to obtain ｆ ｗ of the vessel, in case that no
displacement data is available in the log data,
and blue cells are necessary to obtain ｆ ｗ of the
vessel, in case that no shaft power data is avail⁃
able in the log data. Figure 46　 Ship performance simulation
 ４８５

Greek ship owners cooperated with the in⁃ ting of 10 tankers, 8 bulk carriers and 13 con⁃
vestigation and provided operational data. tainer ships, but unfortunately only 4 sets of
data for tankers are valid.
The collected data is for 31 ships, consis⁃

Ｔａｂｌｅ ９　 Ｄａｔａ ｃｏｌｌｅｃｔｉｏｎ ｓｈｅｅｔ ｏｆ ａｂｓｔｒａｃｔ ｆｒｏｍ ｓｈｉｐ􀆳ｓ ｌｏｇ ｗｉｔｈ ｓａｍｐｌｅ ｄａｔａ

Figure 47 presents the analysed ship speed

in service from an abstract of log data of a
tanker. From these data ｆ ｗ is obtained and
shown in Figure 48, with the data in standard
ｆ ｗ curves published in MEPC. 1/Circ. 796
（2012）

Figure 48　 Obtained ｆ ｗ data with standard ｆ ｗ

curve for tankers

the ｆ ｗ standard curves developed by IMO can

be used and validated.

Figure 47 　 Extracted ship speed in ６　 ＩＮＦＬＵＥＮＣＥ ＯＦ ＳＨＩＰ ＨＵＬＬ ＳＵＲ⁃

service from an abstract of log data for ＦＡＣＥ ＤＥＧＲＡＤＡＴＩＯＮ ＤＵＥ ＴＯ
a tanker ＦＯＵＬＩＮＧ ＡＮＤ ＡＧＩＮＧ ＯＮ ＴＨＥ
ＳＰＥＥＤ ／ ＰＯＷＥＲ ＰＥＲＦＯＲＭＡＮＣＥ
From these data, unfortunately only for a
The quality of the surface of ship hulls de⁃
few ships, it is shown that the procedures of
grades during the time in service due to various
４８６
external influences. Primarily these are biofoul⁃
ing, corrosion and aging of the hull coating.
This process negatively affects the speed⁃power
performance of vessels. In order to improve the
in⁃service performance of vessels and to mini⁃
mise shipping related emissions prediction
models, monitoring and mitigation measures
are needed. Some aspects and recent develop⁃
ments in this field are presented below.
６．１ 　 Ｍｅａｓｕｒｅｍｅｎｔ ｏｆ Ｈｕｌｌ Ｓｕｒｆａｃｅ Ｄｅｇｒａ⁃
ｄａｔｉｏｎ
Hull surface degradation can be measured
by different approaches, which can be catego⁃
rized into “ direct” and “ in⁃direct” types. Di⁃
rect types directly target the surface quality of
the hull shell, e. g. by roughness measurements,
while in⁃direct methods use performance indi⁃
cators that allow for an assessment of the level
of surface degradation. These performance indi⁃
cators are usually calculated from recorded per⁃
formance data during ship operation.
The main interest in hull surface degrada⁃
tion is its influence on fuel consumption and
the speed⁃power performance of vessels. In⁃di⁃
rect measures are commonly used to address
this task. Underlying performance indicators
use long⁃term trends in consumption data to
detect degradation of hull surface condition.
Besides the hull surface, the surface con⁃
dition of propellers should also be covered, as
they contribute to the total ship performance to
the same extent as the hull does. In the most
commonly applied monitoring approaches, reg⁃
istering only the propulsive power, mostly by
torque measurements, it is not possible to sepa⁃
rate hull and propeller influences. This problem
could be overcome if reliable thrust measure⁃
ments are in place to complement the torque
data.
A systematic evaluation of degraded hull
surface samples has been performed, for exam⁃
ple, within the EU⁃funded research project
TARGETS by University of Newcastle （ see
TARGETS Consortium, 2014） . Such investiga⁃
tions could be used in future to link the direct
and indirect measurement procedures and
would be part of future prediction models.
The indirect evaluation of ship perform⁃
ance by on⁃board measurements is covered by
the new ISO⁃standard ISO 19030 published in
November 2016. This new standard consists of
three parts, General Principles （ 1 ）, Default
Method （2） and Alternative Methods （3） .
The initiative to establish this new stand⁃
ard was actively supported by paint manufac⁃
turers in order to create a rational procedure for
evaluating the quality of anti⁃fouling products.
The new standard defines four key per⁃
formance indicators （ KPI ） for quantification
of hull surface degradation related to dry doc⁃
king performance, hull service performance,
maintenance trigger and effectiveness of main⁃
tenance events. Input to the KPIs is recorded
data, corrected for environmental influences.
These correction methods make reference to
ITTC recommended procedures as well as to
ISO 15016 （ ISO 2015） .
However, the first edition of the new ISO
standard leaves out some important influencing
factors, such as a procedure for CPPs, filtering
of rudder movement, filtering of wave influ⁃
ence and the drift of SFOC over time. Obvious⁃
ly appropriate, sufficiently accurate approaches
to address these parameters are so far missing.
The main obstacle to date is the lack of
reliable, high⁃quality data for evaluation and
for developing prediction models. While many
ship operators still use noon reports, which
have a coarse resolution in time of 24 hours,
the recording of high frequency data is becom⁃
ing increasingly popular. The latter are still af⁃
fected by deficiencies which lead to reductions
of data of up to 90% by quality filtering （ Park
et. al. 2017） .

６．２　 Ｐｒｅｄｉｃｔｉｏｎ ｏｆ Ｈｕｌｌ Ｓｕｒｆａｃｅ Ｄｅｇｒａｄａｔｉｏｎ
Due to the lack of data of appropriate
quality, evaluation and prediction models are
rarely available. Some interesting findings on
this particular topic are presented in Gunder⁃
mann et. al. （2016）
On the research side a number of projects
have addressed the topic in the recent past.
Here, primarily the question of how growth and
corrosion increases the frictional resistance of
the hull and which types of hull surface degra⁃
dation increase the resistance to what extent
have been studied （ see TARGETS⁃consortium,
D. 1.3: “ Report on Surface Roughness”, Gun⁃
dermann, et. al. : “ A Statistical Study of Pro⁃
pulsion Performance of Ships and the Effect of
Dry Dockings, Hull Cleanings and Propeller
Polishes on Performance”, HullPic 2016）
６．３　 Ｍｅａｓｕｒｅｓ ａｎｄ Ｔｅｃｈｎｏｌｏｇｉｅｓ ｔｏ Ｍｉｔｉｇａｔｅ
Ｈｕｌｌ Ｓｕｒｆａｃｅ Ｄｅｇｒａｄａｔｉｏｎ
Finally, the third area of concern covers
mitigation measures aimed at reducing hull sur⁃
face degradation. Proposed measures are:
• Adjustment of docking period based on
appropriate KPIs
• Hull surface cleaning/polishing （ EU
projects MINOAS, INCASS, SMARTBOT and
CROCELLS: robotics for ship maintenance,
underwater hull surface）
• Propeller cleaning/polishing
• Novel/improved paint （ antifouling ）
systems （ e. g. EU⁃project “ ByeFouling”: De⁃
velopment of new eco⁃friendly, low toxic anti⁃
fouling coatings）
• EU project “ eSHaRk ”: Eco⁃friendly
ship hull film system with fouling release and
fuel saving properties;
４８７
The new ISO 19030 standard also aims to
provide a standardized approach for evaluation
of such measures by providing suitable KPIs.
６．４　 Ｏｕｔｌｏｏｋ
The topic of hull surface degradation and
its influence on speed⁃power performance be⁃
comes increasingly relevant for the future as
operators aim to minimise the operating costs
of their fleets. Assessing the three major sub⁃
topics of Measurement, Prediction and Mitiga⁃
tion is therefore crucial also for ITTC in the fu⁃
ture. A definite prerequisite for addressing
these topics successfully is the availability of
sufficient high⁃quality monitoring data. These
topics should be addressed in parallel with hull
surface degradation questions.
７　 ＤＲＡＦＴ ＧＵＩＤＥＬＩＮＥ ＯＮ ＴＨＥ ＵＳＥ
ＡＮＤ ＴＨＥ ＤＥＴＥＲＭＩＮＡＴＩＯＮ ＯＦ ＣＯＲ⁃
ＲＥＬＡＴＩＯＮ ＦＡＣＴＯＲＳ
７．１　 Ｏｖｅｒｖｉｅｗ
The PSS Committee has studied the topic
intensively in order to find a feasible solution
to approach the range of topics associated with
the correlation strategy between model⁃based
predictions and ship performance. While the o⁃
riginal formulation of the Committee􀆳s Terms
of Reference targets a very specific question
only, namely the draught dependency of the
correlation factor C A , the Committee has decid⁃
ed that it is appropriate to address the topic in a
more general approach.
The draft guideline presents a general ap⁃
proach for establishing a model⁃ship power
correlation and addresses the uncertainty in val⁃
idating the correlation factors for other
draughts.
７． ２ 　 Ｃｏｒｒｅｌａｔｉｏｎ Ｓｃｈｅｍｅｓ ｉｎ ＩＴＴＣ Ｐｏｗｅ⁃
ｒｉｎｇ Ｍｅｔｈｏｄ
ITTC recommended procedure 7.5⁃02⁃03⁃
４８８
01.4 references four schemes to correlate the
predicted full scale power of a ship from model
tests with the power obtained from the corre⁃
sponding sea trials.
The basis for the determination of these
correlation factors is always the comparison be⁃
tween predicted full scale values based on the
towing tank experiments and the speed⁃power
performance obtained from sea trials. Aiming
to ensure a consistent quality of the obtained
correlation factors, the guideline provides a
general procedural approach on how to derive
them.
７．３　 Ｉｎｆｌｕｅｎｃｉｎｇ Ｖａｒｉａｂｌｅｓ Ｓｐｅｃｉｆｉｃ ｔｏ Ｉｎｄｉ⁃
ｖｉｄｕａｌ Ｔｅｓｔ Ｉｎｓｔｉｔｕｔｅｓ
Generally, institutes conducting model
tests use their individual correlation formulae
following one of 4 basic concepts. This is nec⁃
essary as each towing tank delivers slightly dif⁃
ferent measurement results due to individual
characteristics.
A partial but by no means exhaustive list
of correlation⁃related variables specific to each
towing tank is given in the draft guideline.
These refer to the test facility itself, the model
and the individual post⁃processing strategies a⁃
dopted.
７．４　 Ａｐｐｒｏａｃｈ
In order to derive reliable correlation a da⁃
tabase containing model test results and full
scale measurements is required. The underlying
dataset has to be quality⁃checked with respect
to geometric conformity of the ship, propeller
and appendages. Further model tests as well as
full scale trials have to be performed and eval⁃
uated consistently based on ITTC recommen⁃
ded procedures.
There is a strong tendency to use a corre⁃
lation scheme correcting the vessels􀆳 resistance
rather than power only, but in any case only
one single correlation scheme shall be applied
on model test results.
Depending on the correlation scheme cho⁃
sen, an ideal correlation factor has to be deter⁃
mined by comparing model test predictions
with corrected trial results. This is straight for⁃
ward for power based correlation schemes, but
requires more effort for resistance based
schemes as the relation between total resistance
and delivered power is non⁃linear. Thus an iter⁃
ative approach is recommended in this case.
Once the set of ideal correlation factors is
available, they are used to set up the correlation
model by multi⁃variate regression analysis.
The significance of the individual parame⁃
ters has to be tested by statistical instruments.
Candidates for variables are the ship dimen⁃
sions, model scale, hull form characteristics （ e.
g. draught）, Reynolds number and tank charac⁃
teristics （ e.g. blockage） .
８　 ＭＩＮＩＭＵＭ ＰＯＷＥＲ ＲＥＱＵＩＲＥＭＥＮＴＳ
The 2012 Guidelines on the method of
calculation of the attained Energy Efficiency
Design Index （ EEDI） for new ships （ resolu⁃
tion MEPC. 212（ 63） ） represent a major step
forward in implementing the regulations on en⁃
ergy efficiency of ships （ resolution MEPC. 203
（62） ） . However, concerns had been expressed
regarding sufficiency of propulsion and steering
abilities of ships to maintain their manoeu⁃
vrability in adverse conditions if the EEDI re⁃
quirements are achieved through simple reduc⁃
tions of the installed engine power.
Greece carried out a study and submitted
it to IMO in doc. MSC 93/21/5, as supplemen⁃
ted by doc. MSC 93/INF. 13. This information
was passed by the Maritime Safety Committee
to MEPC 67 for consideration and action. In
these submissions, the Guidelines issued by

IMO as doc. MSC⁃MEC. 2/Circ. 11 of Decem⁃
ber 2012 were criticized both with respect to
Level 1⁃Minimum Power Lines and to Level 2⁃
Simplified Approach. The Level 1 method was
less stringent than that of Level 2, while some
problems were present in the latter method. To
address these, MEPC in doc. MEPC. 1/Circ.
850 of November 2014 revised the definition of
“ adverse sea conditions” in Level 2⁃simplified
assessment, to H S = 5.5 m for ships longer than
250 m and to 4.0 m for ships shorter than 200
m （ linear interpolation in⁃between ） . In this
way, Level 1 assessment⁃Minimum Power
Lines became stricter than the respective Level
2 assessment, as should be the case. Further⁃
more, on May 2015 doc. MEPC 68/WP. 9 in
Annex 6 revised the Minimum Power Lines so
that the Level 1 Assessment Method became
stricter than Level the one for Level 2.
Meanwhile, to address the challenges of
the issue of minimum power requirements for
safe ship operation in adverse conditions,
through more in⁃depth research, two research
projects were initiated in 2014 and 2015. The
research project Energy Efficient Safe Ship Op⁃
eration （ SHOPERA, www. shopera. org） and
a Japanese research project JASNAOE （ these
projects are hereinafter collectively referred to
as “ the Projects” ） studied different aspects of
ship manoeuvring in severe sea conditions.
These results are published as doc. MEPC 70/
INF. 33 and doc. MEPC 70/INF. 35 in 2016.
They also collaborated to devise common pro⁃
posals for the revision of the current interim
Guidelines through technical and practical con⁃
siderations and evaluation. The Projects pre⁃
scribed specific operational scenarios which
ships should be capable of managing, with re⁃
spect to manoeuvrability. Their common pro⁃
posal was submitted to MEPC 70 in order to
invite comment from Member States, IGOs and
NGOs. （ MEPC 70/5/20） .
At MEPC 70, the Committee, having re⁃
called that MEPC 68 had agreed to await the
outcome of the research projects （ MEPC 68/
４８９
21, paragraph 3.81） and that the revised inter⁃
im Guidelines would be submitted to MEPC 71
（ MEPC 70/5/20, paragraph 14）, agreed to note
all documents submitted to the 70 th MEPC ses⁃
sion on this issue and invited interested Mem⁃
ber Governments and/or international organisa⁃
tions to take all submitted documents as well as
other views expressed into account, when pre⁃
paring the full text of the draft revised 2013 In⁃
terim Guidelines. （ MEPC 70/18, paragraph 5.
43） .
Upon receiving related comments at
MEPC 70, the Projects conducted further stud⁃
ies on the draft revised Guidelines. Results of
these studies have shown that the specified sce⁃
narios for a ship􀆳s handling in adverse condi⁃
tions should be modified and the applied ad⁃
verse weather conditions are now more severe
than those specified in the existing Guidelines.
This proposal was developed with a calculation
method based on state⁃of⁃the⁃art methodology
in the field of ship dynamics and ship hydrody⁃
namics, which were validated with model ex⁃
periments in random bow⁃quartering wind and
waves for a bulk carrier and a car carrier at 0kt
against the direction of wind and were applied
to about 20 latest oil tanker and bulk carrier de⁃
signs from shipyards, together with real opera⁃
tional records from major operation companies.
Since no other proposal is available at the
IMO, this updated draft revised Guidelines are
provided below.
８． １　 Ｔｈｅ Ｄｒａｆｔ Ｒｅｖｉｓｅｄ Ｇｕｉｄｅｌｉｎｅｓ ｆｏｒ Ｄｅ⁃
ｔｅｒｍｉｎｉｎｇ Ｍｉｎｉｍｕｍ Ｐｒｏｐｕｌｓｉｏｎ Ｐｏｗｅｒ
ｔｏ Ｍａｉｎｔａｉｎ ｔｈｅ Ｍａｎｏｅｕｖｒａｂｉｌｉｔｙ ｏｆ
Ｓｈｉｐｓ ｉｎ Ａｄｖｅｒｓｅ Ｃｏｎｄｉｔｉｏｎｓ
Purpose 　 The purpose of these draft re⁃
vised Guidelines is to assist Administrations
and Recognized Organizations （ ROs） in verif⁃
ying that ships, complying with EEDI require⁃
ments set out in regulations on Energy Effi⁃
ciency for Ships, have sufficient propulsion and
steering abilities to maintain the manoeuvrabili⁃
ty in adverse conditions.
４９０
Applicability 　 These Guidelines are ap⁃
plied in the case of all new tankers, bulk carri⁃
ers and combination carriers, required to com⁃
ply with regulations on energy efficiency for
ships according to regulation 21 of MARPOL
Annex VI, with a size of equal to or more than
20, 000 DWT, for Phase 2 and after.
These Guidelines are intended for ships in
unrestricted navigation. For other cases, the
Administration should determine appropriate
Guidelines, taking the operational area and rel⁃
evant restrictions into account.
Loading condition　 These Guidelines are
applied in ｍａｘｉｍｕｍ ｓｕｍｍｅｒ ｌｏａｄ condition.
This is considered the worst case although in
the study by Greece the heavy ballast condition
has been found to be the worst case.
Acceptance criteria and adverse conditions
　 The ship is considered to have sufficient pro⁃
pulsion and steering ability for manoeuvrability
in adverse conditions if it satisfies the require⁃
ments of sufficient propulsion ability in a sea⁃
way in accordance with the assessment proce⁃
dures defined.
The wind speed and the significant wave
height applied as adverse conditions are de⁃
fined as follows:
Ｔａｂｌｅ １０　 Ｗｉｎｄ ｓｐｅｅｄ ａｎｄ ｓｉｇｎｉｆｉｃａｎｔ ｗａｖｅ
ｈｅｉｇｈｔ ｆｏｒ ｄｉｆｆｅｒｅｎｔ ｓｈｉｐ ｌｅｎｇｔｈｓ
Ship length Significant wave
Wind speed
L pp（ m） （ m/s） height h s（ m）
L pp <200 ［19.0］ ［4.5］
200≤L pp ≤250
Parameters linearly interpolated
according to ship􀆳s length L pp
L pp >250 ［22.6］ ［6.0］
where the values inside the square brack⁃
ets are subject to change during the discussion
at the IMO.
The assessment is performed in irregular
waves described by the JONSWAP spectrum
with the peak parameter 3.3 and cos2 ⁃direction⁃
al spreading. The range of peak wave periods
applied in the assessment range from 3.6 h s
to the greater one of 5.0 h s or 12.0 seconds,
with the increment of 0.5 seconds or smaller.
Assessment procedures　 Compliance with
the requirements can be demonstrated using
any of the following two assessment proce⁃
dures:
（1） Ｍｉｎｉｍｕｍ Ｐｏｗｅｒ Ｌｉｎｅｓ, in accordance
with the resolution MEPC. 232（65）, as amen⁃
ded by resolutions MEPC. 255 （ 67 ） and
MEPC. 262（68）; or
（2） Ｍｉｎｉｍｕｍ Ｐｏｗｅｒ Ａｓｓｅｓｓｍｅｎｔ, described
here.
Minimum Power Assessment 　 The pro⁃
posed Minimum Power Assessment is based on
the solution of a single degree⁃of⁃freedom ma⁃
noeuvring equation in longitudinal direction to
demonstrate that the ship can move with the
speed of ［ 2.0 knots］ through water in wind
and wave directions from head to 30 degrees
off⁃bow for a situation of weather⁃vaning.
The manoeuvring capabilities of the ship
at 2.0 knots, in the adverse conditions have not
been demonstrated by model tests or detailed
CFD calculations.
The assessment consists of the following
steps:
（1 ） calculate the maximum total resist⁃
ance in the longitudinal ship direction over
wind and wave directions from head to 30 de⁃
grees off⁃bow;
（2） calculate the corresponding required
brake power and rotation speed of the installed
engine, considering the resistance and propul⁃

sion characteristics of the ship including ap⁃
pendages; and
（ 3 ） check whether the required brake
power does not exceed the maximum available
brake power of the installed engine, defined ac⁃
cording to the engine manufacturer data at the
actual rotation speed of the installed engine.
The maximum total resistance is defined
as the sum of the resistance in calm⁃water at
the ［ 2.0 knots］ forward speed and the maxi⁃
mum added resistance in a seaway over wind
and wave directions from head to 30 degrees
off⁃bow. It should be noted that in the 2013
Guidelines the minimum speed was 4.0 knots.
Requirement　 To satisfy the requirements
of Ｍｉｎｉｍｕｍ Ｐｏｗｅｒ Ａｓｓｅｓｓｍｅｎｔ, the required
brake power in the adverse conditions at the
forward speed ［ 2. 0 knots ］ through water
should not exceed the available brake power of
the installed engine in the same conditions:
Ｂ ≤ ＰＢ
Ｐ ｒｅｑ （２２）
ａｖ
The required brake power P req
B is calculated
as
２π ｎ Ｐ Ｑ
Ｐ ｒｅｑ ＝ （２３）
Ｂ
ηｓ ηｇ ηＲ
where
ｎ Ｐ(1/s) 　 is the propeller rotation rate in
the specified adverse conditions and the speci⁃
fied forward speed;
Ｑ(N·m)　 is the corresponding propeller
torque;
η ｓ 　 is the mechanical transmission effi⁃
ciency of the propeller shaft, approved for the
EEDI verification;
η ｇ 　 is the gear efficiency, approved for
the EEDI verification; and
η Ｒ 　 is the relative rotative efficiency.
４９１
The basic assumption here is that the pro⁃
pulsive efficiency of the vessel is the same in
calm water and in severe sea conditions. The a⁃
vailable brake power in the adverse conditions
at the forward speed is defined as the maxi⁃
mum engine output at the actual rotation speed,
taking into account the engine torque limit,
surge/air limit and all other relevant limits in
accordance with the engine manufacturer􀆳s data.
Definition of propulsion point 　 The pro⁃
peller rotation rate and the corresponding pro⁃
peller advance ratio in the adverse conditions at
the forward speed are defined from the propel⁃
ler open⁃water characteristics by solving the
following equation:
ＫＴ Ｔ
２
＝ （２４）
Ｊ ρ ｕ２ａ Ｄ２Ｐ
where
Ｋ Ｔ 　 is the thrust coefficient of the propel⁃
ler, defined from the propeller open⁃water char⁃
acteristics;
Ｔ(N)　 is the required propeller thrust;
ρ(kg/m3 ) 　 is the sea water density, ρ =
1025 kg/m3 ;
ｕ ａ(m/s)　 is the propeller advance speed;
and
Ｄ Ｐ(m)　 is the propeller diameter.
The corresponding torque of the propeller
is calculated as
Ｑ ＝ Ｋ Ｑ ρ ｎ２Ｐ Ｄ５Ｐ （２５）
where
Ｋ Ｑ 　 is the torque coefficient of the pro⁃
peller, defined from the propeller open⁃water
characteristics.
The propeller advance speed ｕ ａ is calculat⁃
ed as
ｕ ａ ＝ Ｕ ( １⁃ｗ ) （２６）
where
４９２
Ｕ (m/s)　 is the forward speed [2.0 knots]
through water; and
ｗ　 is the wake fraction.
Definition of required propeller thrust 　 waves Ｘ ｄ and maximum added rudder resist⁃
The required propeller thrust Ｔ is defined from
the equation
Ｘｓ ＋ Ｘａ
（２７）
Ｔ＝
１⁃ｔ
where
Ｘ ｓ(N)　 is the resistance in calm⁃water at
the forward speed including resistance due to
appendages;
Ｘ ａ(N)　 is the maximum added resistance
in seaway Ｘ ａ ; and
ｔ　 is the thrust deduction taking into ac⁃
count suction force on the ship hull due to pro⁃
peller thrust.
Definition of calm water characteristics　 Ｕ ＋ ｖ ｗ ｃｏｓμ;
The calm⁃water characteristics used for the as⁃
sessment, such as the calm⁃water resistance,
self⁃propulsion factors and propeller open⁃wa⁃
ter characteristics, are defined by the methods
approved for EEDI verification, including:
（1） the calm⁃water resistance Ｘ ｓ , defined
from the following equation:
１ bow ε = 30.
Ｘｓ ＝ ( １ ＋ ｋ ) ＣＦ ρＳ Ｕ２ （２８）
２
（2） where ｋ is the form factor, Ｃ Ｆ is the
frictional resistance coefficient, ρ is sea water
density, ρ = 1025 kg/m3 , Ｓ is the wetted surface
area of the hull and the appendages and Ｕ is
the forward speed;
（3） the propeller thrust deduction ｔ, wake
fraction ｗ and relative rotative efficiency η Ｒ ;
and
（4） the propeller open⁃water characteris⁃
tics Ｋ Ｔ ( Ｊ ) and Ｋ Ｑ ( Ｊ ) .
Definition of added resistance　 The maxi⁃
mum added resistance in seaway Ｘ ａ is defined
as sum of maximum added resistance due to
wind Ｘ ｗ , maximum added resistance due to
ance due to manoeuvring in seaway Ｘ ｒ over
wind and wave directions from head to 30 de⁃
grees off⁃bow.
Definition of wind resistance　 The maxi⁃
mum added resistance due to wind Ｘ ｗ is calcu⁃
lated as
Ｘ ｗ ＝ ０．５ Ｘ′ｗ ( ε ) ρ ａ ｖ２ｗｒ Ａ Ｆ （２９）
where
Ｘ′ｗ ( ε ) 　 is the non⁃dimensional aerody⁃
namic resistance coefficient;
ε(degree)　 is the apparent wind angle;
ρ ａ(kg/m3 )　 is the air density, ρ ａ = 1.2 kg/
m3 ;
ｖ ｗｒ(m/s)　 is the relative wind speed, ｖ ｗｒ ＝
ｖ ｗ(m/s)　 is the absolute wind speed, de⁃
fined by the adverse conditions in paragraph 4.
2; and
Ａ Ｆ(m2 )　 is the frontal windage area of the
hull and superstructure.
The maximum added resistance due to
wind Ｘ ｗ is defined as maximum over wind di⁃
rections from head on ε = 0 to 30 degrees off⁃
The non⁃dimensional aerodynamic resist⁃
ance coefficient Ｘ′ｗ is defined from wind tun⁃
nel tests or equivalent methods verified by the
Administrations or the Recognised Organisati⁃
ons. Alternatively, it can be assumed with Ｘ′ｗ
= 1. 1, as the maximum over wind directions
from head on to 30 degrees off⁃bow. If deck
cranes are installed in the ship and the lateral
projected area of the deck cranes is equal to or
exceeds 10% of the total lateral projected area
above the waterline of the ship, Ｘ′ｗ = 1. 4
should be assumed instead of Ｘ′ｗ = 1.1.
 ４９３

Definition of added resistance due to component.

waves　 The maximum added resistance due to
waves Ｘ ｄ is defined in accordance with either The maximum added resistance due to
waves Ｘ ｄ is defined as maximum over wave di⁃
（1） expression rections from head on μ = 0 to 30 degrees off⁃
bow μ = 30.
０．７５
æ Ｂ·ｄ ö The added resistance in short⁃crested ir⁃
Ｘ ｄ ＝ １３３６（５．３ ＋ Ｕ） ç ÷ ·ｈ２ｓ
è Ｌ ＰＰ ø regular head waves may be regarded as the
（３０） maximum added resistance over wave direc⁃
tions from head on to 30 degrees off⁃bow, be⁃
where cause in short⁃crested waves, the maximum
added resistance over wave directions from
Ｌ ＰＰ(m)　 is the length of the ship between head waves to 30 degrees off⁃bow occurs in
head waves.
perpendiculars;
Ｂ　 is the breadth of the ship;
The spreading function Ｄ ( μ⁃μ′ ) is defined
ｄ　 is the draught at the specified condi⁃
to be proportional to a cosine square function.
tion of loading; and
Alternatively, a long⁃crested seaway may be as⁃
ｈ ｓ(m)　 is the significant wave height.
sumed with Ｄ （ μ － μ′） ＝ δ （ μ － μ′） where δ is
Dirac􀆳s delta function; in this case, the maxi⁃
This expression defines the maximum
mum added resistance due to waves Ｘ ｄ can be
added resistance over wave directions from
determined by multiplying the added resistance
head on to 30 degrees off⁃bow.
in long⁃crested irregular head waves by the
correction factor 1.3, to consider that maximum
（2） or a spectral method
of the added resistance in long⁃crested waves
does not always correspond to a head wave di⁃

∫∫
Ｘ ｄ ( Ｕ，μ′，ω′ )
¥
２π
Ｘｄ ＝ ２
rection. This statement should be further sup⁃
Ｓ ζζ ( ω′ )
０
０ Ａ２ ported by model tests and/or calculations.
Ｄ ( μ⁃μ′ ) ｄω′ｄμ′ （３１）
The quadratic transfer functions of added
ｗｈｅｒｅ Ｘｄ
resistance in regular waves ２ are defined from
Ａ
Ｘｄ seakeeping tests or equivalent methods verified
(N/m2 )　 is the quadratic transfer func⁃
Ａ２ by the Administrations or the Recognised Or⁃
tion of the added resistance in regular waves ganisations.
and A is the wave amplitude;
Ｓ ζζ ( ω′ ) 　 is the seaway spectrum speci⁃ Definition of added rudder resistance due
fied as JONSWAP spectrum; to manoeuvring in seaway　 The maximum ad⁃
Ｄ ( μ⁃μ′ ) 　 is the spreading function of ditional rudder resistance due to manoeuvring
wave energy with respect to mean wave direc⁃ in seaway Ｘ ｒ may be calculated for practicality
tion specified as cos2 ⁃directional spreading; in a simplified way as
ω ′(rad/s)　 is the wave frequency of com⁃ Ｘ ｒ ＝ ０．０３·Ｔ （３２）
ponent;
μ (rad)　 is the encountered angle between where Ｔ is the propeller thrust.
ship and wave; and
μ′ ( rad ) 　 is the direction of the wave
４９４
８．２　 Ｃｏｏｒｄｉｎａｔｉｏｎ ｗｉｔｈ Ｍａｎｏｅｕｖｒｉｎｇ Ｃｏｍ⁃
ｍｉｔｔｅｅ—Ｗｏｒｋｓｈｏｐ ｏｎ Ｍａｎｏｅｕｖｒｉｎｇ ｉｎ
Ｗａｖｅｓ
A workshop on Manoeuvring in Waves
was held at Lloyd􀆳s Register, London, UK, on
14 April 2016, jointly organized by the ITTC
Manoeuvring Committee and the EU SHOP⁃
ERA Project with the participation of ITTC
Seakeeping Committee, ITTC Stability in
Waves Committee and the ITTC Specialist
Committee on Performance of Ships in Service.
The objective of this workshop was to ex⁃
change information on model testing and simu⁃
lation methods to evaluate ship manoeuvring in
waves and deepen understanding of manoeuv⁃
ring in waves. In the following, summarized
outlines of the presentations in the workshop
are provided:
Guillerm, P.E. (2016), member of the IT⁃
TC Manoeuvring Committee, outlined the con⁃
tent of manoeuvring in waves, i.e. course⁃keep⁃
ing, broaching and turning ability in waves.
Since the numerical simulations are still not
mature, the community relies mainly on model
tests to provide validation data, which are diffi⁃
cult and demanding. IMO has not specified any
standard on the weather conditions in which
the standard manoeuvres are to be performed.
The intact stability code, only, is somewhat re⁃
lated to the manoeuvring problem since it en⁃
compasses parametric rolling and broaching.
Shigunov, V. (2016 ) presented “ SHOP⁃
ERA: Criteria, Assessment Framework, Meth⁃
ods” and introduced the concept of specific op⁃
erational scenarios and proposed specific crite⁃
ria to ensure manoeuvrability under the prevail⁃
ing adverse conditions in each of the proposed
scenarios. The evaluation of these criteria was a
challenge, since it is impossible at full scale
and impractical at model scale, while numerical
tools are not mature enough. SHOPERA pro⁃
posed an alternative procedure, using:
• 　 Separate evaluation of the different
forces (wind, waves, rudder, …) on the basis of
simple model tests
•　 Numerical simulations and empirical
formulae for different effects
•　 Defined forces are combined in a
simple numerical model of the three motions e⁃
quations (linear motions along axes x and y
and angular motion around axis z). The method
will replace the original empirical method of
Level 2⁃simplified assessment. By reducing ap⁃
proximations and increasing the complexity of
the equations, this procedure could be estab⁃
lished as Level 3⁃Comprehensive method. All
simplifications should contribute to the conser⁃
vative nature of the assessment.
Yasukawa, H. (2016) presented the Japa⁃
nese R & D project JASNAOE on manoeuv⁃
ring in adverse weather condition and mini⁃
mum power requirement of ships. The aim of
the project is to evaluate the validity of the
Level 2 guidelines. The project is subdivided
into four tasks:
•　 Development of a mathematical mod⁃
el for manoeuvring in waves
•　 Determination of the wave drift
forces
•　 Validation of the model
•　 Analysis method for establishing ma⁃
noeuvring limits and motion stability.
Kim, Y. G. (2016), described the current
Research Activities in Manoeuvring in Waves
in Korea. Both KRISO Institute and Ministry
of Trade, Industry and Energy MOTIE, in co⁃
operation with Inha University. The progress of
the pertinent activities have been published in
six publications on:
•　 the modelling of the wave forces in

time domain,
•　 model tests and PMM tests for ma⁃
noeuvring in regular waves
•　 the numerical analysis of manoeuv⁃
ring in waves
• 　 captive model tests and numerical
simulation of the manoeuvring forces in waves
•　 the effect of rudder control on ship
speed in regular waves.
Both projects are underway for another
two years aiming to:
•　 develop key technology for the anal⁃
ysis of a ship􀆳s integrated ability of manoeuv⁃
ring and seakeeping
•　 improve Added Resistance and Ship
Operational Efficiency for Hull Form Design
Kim, Y. (2016), the chairman of the ITTC
Seakeeping Committee, presented an analysis
of the seakeeping problems associated with the
problem of manoeuvring in waves. Pertinent e⁃
merging issues were identified:
• 　 Control and measurement issues in
seakeeping tests;
• 　 Lack of any specific guidance for
coupled seakeeping and manoeuvring analysis
(speed effect needs to be included in seakeep⁃
ing theory, e.g. turning in a seaway);
•　 Coupled analysis in the time domain
(time scale, decomposition of terms for sea⁃
keeping versus manoeuvring, e.g. drift forces);
•　 Hydrodynamic coefficients in waves
and nonlinearities;
•　 Ocean environmental conditions and
extreme analysis.
４９５
•　 Validation.
Grigoropoulos, G.J. (2016), member of the
ITTC Specific Committee for the Performance
of Ships in Service, presented the recent activi⁃
ties towards More Rational Guidelines to De⁃
termine Minimum Propulsion Power for Safe
Operation under Adverse Weather Conditions.
The history of the guidelines since 2012 were
presented, together with the updating of Level
1⁃Power Line Assessment to become stricter
than Level 2⁃Simplified Assessment in 2015.
An explanation was provided as to why Level
3⁃Comprehensive Assessment is too complicat⁃
ed to be used in guidelines for professional na⁃
val architects and was therefore dropped, but
may be used as validation, although CFD meth⁃
odologies are not quite mature enough to pro⁃
vide acceptable and robust results in all test ca⁃
ses. Some differences between SHOPERA and
JASNAOE at the time of the meeting were
highlighted.
Finally, Hochbaum, A. C. ( 2016 ), the
chairman of the ITTC Specific Committee on
Stability in Waves, spoke about “ Stability Cri⁃
teria and Implications with Manoeuvrability” .
The closest effect to manoeuvring in waves is
parametric rolling. The presentation therefore
focused on parametric roll and provided the
following conclusions:
•　 Parametric roll occurs when the wave
length is equal to the ship length;
•　 Parametric rolling occurs in short
waves only when the steepness is very large
(experimental research based);
•　 Due to rudder emergence during par⁃
ametric roll, course stability can be affected
(large yaw angles);
•　 The mean wave forces can increase
or decrease C (the stability coefficient).
４９６
９　 ＣＯＮＣＬＵＳＩＯＮＳ ＡＮＤ ＲＥＣＯＭＭＥＮ⁃
ＤＡＴＩＯＮＳ
９．１　 Ｍａｉｎ Ｃｏｎｃｌｕｓｉｏｎｓ
a. Water temperature should be taken into
account during sea trial for power correction.
b. ‘ Iterative method􀆳 has been adopted as
an alternative for current correction.
c. Load variation tests should be done for
each ship.
d. Raven (2016) method should be used in
parallel to Lackenby as a new shallow water
correction method.
e. Ship􀆳s heading has to be determined by
the most dominant wave, wind and current
effect, during sea trials.
f. Application of CFD methods for added
resistance due to waves is still not practical for
general use.
g. Wave limits for all the wave correction
methods should be the same.
h. Application of CFD methods for wind
loads is possible under certain conditions.
i. Expansion of the wind coefficient data⁃
base for more ship types is still necessary.
j. More extensive validation of the wave
correction methods is still needed due to the
complexity.
k. Feedback of full scale speed/power data
for correlation purpose especially for the design
and EEDI draught is very important.
l. Feedback of speed/power data for fw,
Excel sheet for collecting full⁃scale data has
been distributed to the ship owners. Japan has
collected some data from ship owners. A simi⁃
lar campaign is underway in Greece.
m. The influence of ship hull surface deg⁃
radation due to fouling and aging on the speed/
power performance, proves to be very difficult
to address. The main obstacle to date is the
lack of reliable data, appropriate filtering and
correction strategies and the possibility to sepa⁃
rate propeller and hull performance.
n. After many investigations and discus⁃
sions, the speed/power sea trial procedure 7.5⁃
04⁃01⁃01 has been updated significantly.
o. A new guideline for the use of model⁃
ship correlations at different draught has been
established.
９． ２　 Ｒｅｃｏｍｍｅｎｄａｔｉｏｎｓ ｔｏ ｔｈｅ Ｆｕｌｌ Ｃｏｎｆｅｒ⁃
ｅｎｃｅ
The 28 th ITTC PSS Committee recom⁃
mends to the Full Conference to:
•　 Adopt the revised Procedure 7.5⁃04⁃
01⁃01: Preparation, Conduct and Analysis of
Speed/Power Trials
•　 Adopt the new Guideline 7.5⁃04⁃01⁃
02: Guideline on the determination of model⁃
ship correlation factors at different draughts.
９． ３ 　 Ｒｅｃｏｍｍｅｎｄａｔｉｏｎｓ ｆｏｒ ｔｈｅ Ｎｅｘｔ ＰＳＳ
Ｃｏｍｍｉｔｔｅｅ Ｗｏｒｋ
1） Address the following aspects of the a⁃
nalysis of speed/power sea trial results:
(1) Shallow⁃water correction
a. Further validation of Raven ( 2016 )
method and comparison with Lackenby.
b. More investigation of model test on
shallow⁃water correction
c. To study the possibility of CFD meth⁃
ods for shallow⁃water correction
(2) Wave correction at full scale
a. More extensive validation of the present
wave correction methods and expand range of
application, introduce other methods where
necessary.
b. Monitor the development of CFD meth⁃
ods for added resistance due to waves
(3) Wind correction
a. Guidelines on the location and height of

the anemometer and whether a dedicated ane⁃
mometer is necessary
b. Investigate limitations of averaging
wind correction method and suggest improve⁃
ments
c. Establish guideline for CFD to obtain
wind coefficient.
d. Extend wind coefficient database for
more ships.
e. Initiate and conduct benchmark study
for evaluation of CFD applicability to deter⁃
mine the wind resistance coefficients.
(4) Current correction
a. Further validation on the present current
correction methods.
b. To find the possibility of using long
track on 2 double runs.
(5) Comprehensive correction
a. Further validation on Extended⁃Power⁃
Method
b. More investigation on existing methods
for the speed/power sea trial analysis，including
the Combined Correction Method presented by
H.Yasukawa (Ship Technology Research, Vol.
62, No.3, 2015, pp.173⁃185.)
(6) Study and validate model⁃ship correla⁃
tion factors at different draughts when possible
(7) Provide a practical guideline for instal⁃
lation of measuring equipment on a propeller
shaft with regard to the shaft material proper⁃
ties (e. g. G modulus), shaft geometry and a⁃
lignment.
(8) Other
a. Water temperature and density influence
on ship􀆳s performance
b. Identify the noise in the measured data
during the ship performance assessment and i⁃
dentify the filtering method
c. Measurement error and influence on
４９７
power
2） Update the speed/power sea trial pro⁃
cedures 7.5⁃04⁃01⁃01.1 where appropriate
3） Update guideline to determine model⁃
ship correlation factors at different draughts
4） Explore ‘ ship in service’ issues, to
get feedback to towing tanks with respect to:
a. Key performance indicators identifying
and establishing performance baseline when
appropriate.
b. More accurate measurement of environ⁃
mental data, including wind, waves, current,
etc, and comparison with hindcast data when a⁃
vailable.
c. Monitor information related to speed⁃
power assessment, including fuel consumption,
shaft torque, speed, displacement, trim and rud⁃
der angle etc.
d. Noon reporting: Specification of mini⁃
mum data required.
e. To find possibilities to analyse ship per⁃
formance, including speed⁃power relation, de⁃
crease of ship speed, etc. on a single run.
f. Identify the applicability of unmanned
(flying, floating or underwater...) vehicles and
devices.
5） Address the issues brought about from
IMO MEPC71 and following meetings con⁃
cerning the minimum power requirements, in⁃
cluding issues on manoeuvrability under ad⁃
verse weather.
6 ） Validate the Level 2⁃Simplified As⁃
sessment Method of the 2013 Interim Guide⁃
lines (MEPC.1/Circ.850).
7） Monitor new technologies applied in
ship systems and identify their influence on
ship performance prediction.
４９８
１０　 ＲＥＦＥＲＥＮＣＥＳ
Acomi, N., Acomi, O.C., and Stanca, C., 2015,
“ The Use of ECDIS Equipment to Achieve
an Optimum Value for Energy Efficiency
Operation Index”, IOP Conf. Series: Materi⁃
als Science and Engineering 95.
Adachi, H. and Moriyama, F. (1981): Proc. of
ITTC􀆳81, Session on Propulsion Perform⁃
ance, Vol.2, pp.81⁃84
Attah, E.E. and Bucknall, R., 2015, “ An Anal⁃
ysis of the Energy Efficiency of LNG Ships
Powering Options Using the EEDI”, Ocean
Engineering, 110 62⁃74.
Bockmann, E. and Steen S., 2016, “ Calculation
of EEDI weather for a General Cargo Ves⁃
sel”, Ocean Engineering 122 (2016) 68⁃73.
Boom, H. Van den, Huisman, H. and Mennen,
F., 2013, “ New Guidelines for Speed Power
Trials, Level Playing Field Established for
IMO EEDI”, SWZ Maritime.
Besikci, E.B., Kececi, T., Arslan, O. and Turan,
O., 2016, “ An Application of Fuzzy⁃AHP to
Ship Operational Energy Efficiency Meas⁃
ures”, Ocean Engineering 121, 392⁃402.
Caraddu, A., Figari, M., and Savio, S., 2014,
“ Numerical Investigation of Ship Energy
Efficiency by Monte Carlo Simulation ”,
Proc IMechE Part M:, J Engineering for
Maritime Environment, Vol. 228(3) 220⁃234.
Chi, H., Pedrielli, G., Kister, T., Ng, S.H. and
Bressan, S., 2015, “ An AIS Based Frame⁃
work for Real Time Monitoring of Vessels
Efficiency”, Proceedings of the 2015 IEEE
IEEM.
Faitar C. and Novac, I., 2016, “ A New Ap⁃
proach on the Upgrade of Energetic System
Based on Green Energy. A Complex Com⁃
parative Analysis of the EEDI and EEOI.”,
IOP Conf. Series: Material Science and En⁃
gineering 145.
Fujisawa, J., Fukasawa, R. and Tsujimoto M.,
2017, “ Evaluation of Resistance and Propul⁃
sion Performance by Shallow water Tests
and Powering in Shallow Water” ｉｎ Ｊａｐａ⁃
ｎｅｓｅ, Journal of the Japan Society of Naval
Architects and Ocean Engineers, Vol.25.
Gross, A., and Watanabe, K., 1972, “ Form fac⁃
tor”, Appendix 4, Report of Performance
Committee, 13 th ITTC, Hamburg.
Grigoropoulos, G. J., 2016, http://shopera. org/
download/2354/
Guillerm, P.E., 2016, http://shopera.org/down⁃
load/2348/
Gundermann et. al., 2016, “ A Statistical Study
of Propulsion Performance of Ships and the
Effect of Dry Dockings, Hull Cleanings and
Propeller Polishes on Performance ”, Pro⁃
ceedings of the 1st Hull Performance & In⁃
sight Conference
S. A. Hsu, Eric A. Meindl and David B. Gil⁃
housen, 1994, “ Determining the Power⁃Law
Wind⁃Profile Exponent under Near⁃Neutral
Stability Conditions at Sea”, Journal of Ap⁃
plied Meteorology and Climatology
Hochbaum, A. C., 2016, http://shopera. org/
download/2380/
ISO 15016: 2015, 2015, “ Ships and marine
technology⁃Guidelines for the assessment of
speed and power performance by analysis of
speed trial data”, ISO.
ISO: “ ISO 19030⁃1: 2016, Ships and marine
technology—Measurement of changes in
hull and propeller performance—Part 1:
General principles”, Geneva, 2016

ISO: “ ISO 19030⁃2: 2016, Ships and marine
technology—Measurement of changes in
hull and propeller performance—Part 2: De⁃
fault method”, Geneva, 2016
ISO: “ ISO 19030⁃3: 2016, Ships and marine
technology—Measurement of changes in
hull and propeller performance—Part 3: Al⁃
ternative Methods”, Geneva, 2016
ITTC RP 7.5⁃04⁃01⁃01.2 (2014): Analysis of
Speed/Power Trial Data.
Kim, S.⁃O., Park, J.C., Ock, Y.B., Shin, H.S.,
Heo, J.K., Lee, S. K. (2014), “ CFD Simu⁃
lation of Added Resistance of Ships in Head
Sea for Estimating Energy Efficiency Design
Index, Oceans 2014, Taipei.
Kim, Y., 2016, http://shopera. org/download/
2351/
Kim, Y.G., Yeo, D.J. and Kim, S.H., 2016, ht⁃
tp://shopera.org/download/2345/
Kobayashi, E., Hashimoto, H., Taniguchi, Y.
and Yoneda, S., 2015, “ Advanced Op⁃
timized Weather Routing for an Ocean Go⁃
ing Vessel”, 2015 International Asso⁃ciation
of Institutes of Navigation World Congress
Prague, Czech republic, 20⁃23 Oct.
Lackenby, H., 1963. “ The Effect of Shallow
Water on Ship Speed”, Shipbuilder, 70, No
672.
Lee, T., Ahn, B., Park, D., Bae, H., and Ha, S.,
2014, “ A Study on the Assessment Method
of Ship Speed Performance in Service Using
Speed Trial Analysis Method”, Proceedings
of the Society of Naval Architects of Korea,
pp.1109⁃1112.
Lee Tae⁃il, Bong⁃Seok Ahn, Do⁃Young Park,
Han⁃Koung Bae and Sun⁃Jong Ha, 2014,
“ A Study on the Assessment Method of
４９９
Ship Speed Performance in Service Using
Speed Trial Analysis Method” , Proceedings
of the Society of Naval Architects of Korea
Mizoguchi, S. and Tasaki, R.(1983): Investiga⁃
tion into Propulsion Factors in Waves with
Overload Tests of a Container Ship (in Japa⁃
nese), J. of the Kansai Society of Naval Ar⁃
chitects, Japan, pp.121⁃129.
MEPC. 1/Circ. 863, 2016, “ Recommendation
on exemption of ships not normally en⁃
gaged on international voyages from the re⁃
quirements in chapter 4 of MARPOL annex
VI” , IMO.
MEPC70/18, 2016, “ Report of the Marine En⁃
vironment Protection Committee on its sev⁃
entieth session”, IMO.
MEPC. 1/Circ. 796, 2012, “ Interim Guidelines
for the calculation of the coefficient ｆ ｗ for
decrease in ship speed in a representative
sea condition for trial use”, IMO.
Moat, B. I., Molland, A. F. and Yelland, M. J.,
2006a, “ Quantifying the Airflow Distortion
on Merchant Ships. Part 1: Validation of a
CFD model”, Journal of Atmospheric and
Oceanic Technology, Vol. 23, 341⁃350.
Moat, B.I., Molland, A.F. and Yelland, M.J.,
2006b, “ Quantifying the Airflow Distortion
over Merchant Ships. Part 2: Application of
the Model Results” , Journal of Atmospher⁃
ic and Oceanic Technology, Vol. 23, 351⁃
360.Oosterveld, M.W.C., 1992, “ MARIN,
Moving into High Technology ” , MARIN
Jubilee 1992; Special Jubilee Volume,
Elsevier.
Park et. al., 2017, “ Experience in Applying
ISO19030 to Field Data ”, Proceedings of
the 2nd Hull Performance & Insight Confer⁃
ence.
Raven, H.C., Van der Ploeg, A., Starke, A.R.
５００
and Eça, L. 2009, “ Towards a CFD⁃based
prediction of ship performance; progress in
predicting full⁃scale resistance and scale
effects”, Int. Jnl. Maritime Engineering, Vol.
135.
Raven, H.C., 2012, “ A Computational Study of
Shallow⁃Water Effects on Ship Viscous Re⁃
sistance”, 29 th Symposium on Naval Hydro⁃
dynamics, Gothenburg, Sweden.
Raven, H.C., 2016, “ A New Correction Proce⁃
dure for Shallow⁃Water Effects in Ship
Speed Trials”, Proceedings of PRADS 2016,
Copenhagen.
Resolution MEPC. 255 ( 67 ), 2014, “ Amend⁃
ments to the 2013 interim guidelines for de⁃
termining minimum propulsion power to
maintain the manoeuvrability of ships in ad⁃
verse conditions”, IMO.
Resolution MEPC. 261 ( 68 ), 2015, “ Amend⁃
ments to the 2014 guidelines on survey and
certification of the energy efficiency design
index (EEDI) ”, IMO.
Resolution MEPC.262 (68), 2015, “ 2013 in⁃
terim guidelines for determining minimum
propulsion power to maintain the manoeu⁃
vrability of ships in adverse conditions ” ,
IMO.
Resolution MEPC. 263 ( 68 ), 2015, “ Amend⁃
ments to the 2014 guidelines on the method
of calculation of the attained energy efficien⁃
cy design index ( EEDI ) for new ships ”,
IMO.
Resolution MEPC. 278 ( 70 ), 2016, “ Amend⁃
ments to MARPOL annex VI (data collec⁃
tion system for fuel oil consumption of
ships) ”, IMO.
Resolution MEPC. 281 ( 70 ), 2016, “ Amend⁃
ments to the 2014 guidelines on the method
of calculation of the attained energy efficien⁃
cy design index ( EEDI ) for new ships ”,
IMO.
Shigunov, V., 2016, http://shopera. org/down⁃
load/2339/
Sprenger, F., Hassani, V., Maron, A., Delefort⁃
rie, G., Zwijnsvoorde, T., Cura⁃Hochbaum,
A., Lengwinat, A., 2016, “ Establishment of
a Validation and Benchmark Database for
the Assessment of Ship Operation in Ad⁃
verse Conditions”, OMAE2016⁃54865, Pro⁃
ceedings of the ASME 2016, 35th Interna⁃
tional Conference on Ocean, Offshore and
Arctic Engineering, OMAE2016, June19⁃24,
Busan, South Korea.
Sprenger, F., Selvik, O., Fathi, D., Ringen E.,
Hassani, V., 2014, “ Simulating Minimum
Required Power and Manoeuvrability in Ad⁃
verse Conditions.”, OMAE2014⁃23878, Pro⁃
ceeding of the ASME 2014, 33rd Interna⁃
tional Conference on Ocean, Offshore and
Arctic Engineering, OMAE 2014, June 8⁃13,
San Francisco, California, USA.
Strasser, G. et. al, 2014 “ A Verification of the
ITTC/ISO Speed/Power Trials Analysis ”,
Journal of Marine Science and Technology.
TARGETS Consortium: “ Guidelines for Ener⁃
gy Efficient Ships” , Deliverable 8.3, Targe⁃
ted Advanced Research for Global Efficien⁃
cy of Transportation Shipping, 2014, http://
www.targets⁃project. eu/files/d8.3 _⁃_ guide⁃
lines_ for _ energy _ efficient _ ships _⁃_ final.
pdf
Tsujimoto, M. Kuroda, M. and Sogihara, N.,
2013, “ Development of a Calculation
Method for Fuel Consumption of Ships in
Actual Seas with Performance Evaluation” ,
OMAE2013⁃11297, Proceedings of the
ASME 2013 32nd International Conference
on Ocean, Offshore and Arctic Engineering,
OMAE 2013, Jun 9⁃14, Nantes, France.
 ５０１

Tsujimoto, M. et al. (2017): Development of

Ship Performance Simulator in Actual Seas ISO—International Organization for
(in Japanese), Papers of National Maritime Stand⁃ardization
Research Institute, Vol.16, No.3, pp.17⁃41.
MARPOL—The International Convention
Wang, K., Yan, X., Yuan, Y. and Li, F., 2015, for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships
“ Real⁃time Optimization of Ship Energy Ef⁃
ficiency Based on the Predication Technolo⁃ MEPC—Marine Environment Protection
gy of Working Condition ”, Transportation Committee
Research Part D 46 (2016) 81⁃93.
MPP—Minimum Propulsion Power to
Wang J., Yu H., Zhang Y., Xiong X, CFD⁃ Maintain the Manoeuvrability of Ships in Ad⁃
Based Method of Determining Form Factor verse Weather Conditions
k for Different Ship Types and Different
Drafts, Journal of Marine Science and SEEMP—Ship Energy Efficiency Man⁃
Application. ( 2016 ) 15: 1⁃DOI: 10. 1007/ age⁃ment Plan
s11804⁃016⁃1372⁃8
CTO—Centrum Techniki Okretowej, Po⁃
Winden, B., Turnock, S.R. and Hudson, D.A., land
2014, “ A RANS modelling approach for
predicting powering performance of ships in HHI—Hyundai Heavy Industry, South
waves”, International Journal of Naval Ar⁃ Korea
chitecture and Ocean Engineering, Vol. 6
(2), 418⁃430. HSVA—Hamburgische Schiffbau⁃Ver⁃
suchsanstalt GmbH, Germany
Yasukawa, H., 2016, http://shopera. org/down⁃
load/2342/ MARIC—Marine Design and Research
Institute of China

MARIN—Marine Research Institute,

７　 ＮＯＭＥＮＣＬＡＴＵＲＥ Netherland

EEDI—Energy Efficiency Design Index NMRI—National Maritime Research In⁃

stitute, Japan
EEOI—Energy Efficiency Operational In⁃
dicator NTUA—National Technical University of
Athens, Greece
GHG—Greenhouse Gas
NRC—National Research Council Canada
IACS—International Association of Clas⁃
sification Societies SSPA—Sweden AB

IMO—International Maritime Organiza⁃ UK—United Kingdom

tion