This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
Numerical simulation of ship stability for dynamic environment
S. Surendran ∗, J. Venkata Ramana Reddy
Department of Ocean Engineering, Indian Institute of Technology Madras, Chennai 600 036, India Received 28 March 2002; accepted 15 July 2002
Abstract The prediction of ship stability during the early stages of design is very important from the point of vessel’s safety. Out of the six motions of a ship, the critical motion leading to capsize of a vessel is the rolling motion. In the present study, particular attention is paid to the performance of a ship in beam sea. The linear ship response in waves is evaluated using strip theory. Critical condition in the rolling motion of a ship is when it is subjected to synchronous beam waves. In this paper, a nonlinear approach has been tried to predict the roll response of a vessel. Various representations of damping and restoring terms found in the literature are investigated. A parametric investigation is undertaken to identify the effect of a number of key parameters like wave amplitude, wave frequency, metacentric height, etc. 2002 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Stability; Capsizing; Metacentric height; Beam sea; Roll motion
1. Introduction Stability against capsizing in heavy seas is one of the fundamental requirements in ship design. Capsizing is related to the extreme motion both of ship and waves. Rolling of a ship in rough environment may be inﬂuenced by many factors. They can be divided into three main situations; beam sea, following and quartering sea conditions. In the present study, the problem of ship safety has been studied with regard to the rolling motion of a ship in beam waves. Bhattacharyya (1978) discussed rolling motion of a ship and the devices for roll
Corresponding author. E-mail addresses: firstname.lastname@example.org (S. Surendran); email@example.com (J. Venkata Ramana Reddy).
0029-8018/03/$ - see front matter 2002 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/S0029-8018(02)00109-9
Vassalos et al. Venkata Ramana Reddy / Ocean Engineering 30 (2003) 1305–1317 Nomenclature A44 Afv B B44 BL BN ˙ . Surendran. They studied the importance of roll damping on the response of a ship. Odabasi and Vince (1982) concentrated on the roll response of a ship under the action of sudden excitation. Dalzell (1978) discussed about the representation of damping in different nonlinear forms. (1985) explained stability criteria for . J.1306 S.f) B(f bN bL C44 Cb D GM GZ H I44 KB KG KM L LBP LOA M0 T w we wf f ٌ ⌬ am l fv ˙ f ¨ f added mass moment of inertia in roll area under GZ curve up to the angle of fv breadth of the vessel damping moment coefﬁcient linear roll damping moment coefﬁcient nonlinear roll damping moment coefﬁcient nonlinear damping moment nondimensional nonlinear damping term nondimensional linear damping term restoring moment coefﬁcient block coefﬁcient depth of the vessel metacentric height righting arm wave height transverse mass moment of inertia of the vessel vertical position of the center of buoyancy above the baseline vertical position of the center of gravity above baseline vertical position of the metacenter above baseline wave length length between perpendiculars length overall amplitude of the wave exciting moment draught wave frequency encountering frequency natural frequency of the roll motion relative roll angle volume of displacement weight displacement maximum wave slope nondimensional inertia term angle of vanishing stability angular velocity angular acceleration damping.
only roll has restoring forces and exhibits strong resonant motions. the rolling single degree of freedom second order differential (1) ¨ ϩ B44f ˙ ϩ C44f ϭ M0coswet. namely roll motion has been considered. Hence. ț Using the nonlinear theoretical model. ț the shape of the hull.1. Witz et al. Surendran. There are two ways of thinking with regard to the possible approach to the ship stability in wave. roll motion can be considered to be the most important in the stability analysis of a vessel. A simpliﬁed analytical subjected to regular sinusoidal motion can be simulated by a equation of the general form ship capsizing in waves is loss of stability in roll roll response model is assumed for the vessel when waves. ț the encountering speed of wave. This simpliﬁcation can be justiﬁed by the reasoning that the vessel capsize is strongly inﬂuenced by the roll motion. Zborowski and Taylan (1989) studied the small vessel’s roll motion stability reserve for resonance conditions. H/L. He contributed empirical relationships for the calculation of roll damping. ț the wave steepness. J. De Kat and Paulling (1989) investigated motions and capsizing of ships in severe sea conditions. total weight and buoyancy. (I44 ϩ A44)f . In addition. Venkata Ramana Reddy / Ocean Engineering 30 (2003) 1305–1317 1307 semisubmersible stability. Chakrabarti (2001) explained various types of damping associated with rolling. Equation of roll motion—linear approach One of the main reasons of motion. 2. respectively. The factors that inﬂuence roll response of different vessels are listed below: ț the ratio between the natural period of rolling and the encountering period of wave. 2. For a ship in regular beam sea. (1989) investigated the roll response of a semisubmersible model with an inﬂectional restoring moment. Lewis (1988) concentrated on rolling dynamics taking into account the wave and other environmental effects. Formulation of the problem For the purpose of analysis. among the three transverse coupled motions. ț the damping efﬁciency of the underwater parts of the hull. ț Using the available linear ship motion theory. only the signiﬁcant motion pertaining to stability and capsizing. Taylan (2000) investigated the effect of nonlinear damping and restoring in ship rolling. its stability. Francescutto (2000) studied the problem of ship safety with regard to the stability and rolling motion of ships in beam waves. where H and L are wave height and length.S.
f) ϩ ⌬GZ(f) ϭ w2 (I44 ϩ A44)f e amI44coswet.1308 S. therefore. ˙ ) ϭ BLf ϩ BNf B1(f ˙ ) ϭ BLf ˙ ϩ BNf2f ˙. and the values of coefﬁcients C1. J. C2. C3 are substituted. Let us consider an equation of nonlinear roll motion with B1 type damping and quintic restoring (Taylan. It takes the form 3 5 2 ˙ ϩ bNf ˙ ͉f ˙ ͉ ϩ w2 ¨ ϩ bLf f ff ϩ m3f ϩ m5f ϭ lwe amcoswet. ț The added mass moment of inertia is approximately constant with frequency and. Assumptions made in the formulation of nonlinear rolling motion equation: ț No coupling exists between roll and any other degrees of freedom. (2) Eq. (4) is divided throughout by (I44 ϩ A44). Equation of roll motion—nonlinear approach One of the problems associated with modeling nonlinear systems is the difﬁculty in establishing which of the nonlinear components are critical. nonlinearity plays signiﬁcant role in roll dynamics. 2000) ¨ ϩ B44(f ˙ . 2. Venkata Ramana Reddy / Ocean Engineering 30 (2003) 1305–1317 In this paper. (4) (5) where . (2) is a relevant expression for roll motion prediction. the total inertia is constant. higher degree polynomials are avoided due to their relatively cumbersome manipulations in the solution procedure. A typical equation of nonlinear roll motion can be expressed as (Taylan. In the present study. respectively. The expressions deﬁning the damping are as follows: ˙ ͉f ˙ ͉. 2000) ¨ ϩ BLf ˙ ϩ BNf ˙ ͉f ˙ ͉ ϩ ⌬(C1f ϩ C3f3 ϩ C5f5) (I44 ϩ A44)f ϭ w2 e amI44coswet. In general. three different nonlinear damping and nonlinear restoring terms are considered. Surendran. B3(f (3a) (3b) (3c) Cubic and quintic expressions are the most favorable descriptions for restoring. ț Forcing is harmonic. If Eq.f ˙ ) ϭ BLf ˙ ϩ BNf ˙ 3. but it is not usual to come across a seventh degree polynomial. For larger angles. B2(f. linear equations of motion are solved for solutions at small angle of roll. The nonlinear model involves two forms of nonlinearities: ț the damping ț the restoring moment.2.
Coefﬁcients of the polynomials are determined by static and dynamic characteristics of the GZ curve such as metacentric height. The damping moment coefﬁcient has been calculated . and area under the curve. GZ. Table 2 shows the comparison between the IMO criteria and the RO–RO ship. The added mass moment of inertia of the vessel in rolling is assumed to be 20% of the mass moment of inertia. Surendran. (I44 ϩ A44) ͫ ͬ (6b) ͬ (6c) (6d) (6e) The righting arm curve is formulated as GZ ϭ C1f ϩ C3f3 ϩ C5f5 quintic polynomials. J. Table 3 shows the principal particulars of a vessel taken from Zborowski and Taylan (1989). Results and discussions For the purpose of analysis of linear and nonlinear rolling motion of ships. vanishing angle of stability and area under GZ curve are determined by well known Krylove’s method. two vessels that differ in hydrostatic and stability characteristics have been considered. fv Eqs. (I44 ϩ A44) (6a) 3Afv 4w2 f Ϫ1 . 2 fv GMf2 v ͫ 4Afv 3w2 f m5 ϭ Ϫ 4 Ϫ1 . Venkata Ramana Reddy / Ocean Engineering 30 (2003) 1305–1317 1309 w2 f ϭ m3 ϭ ⌬GM . (7a)–(7c) are solved after a careful study of the righting arm curve for a particular loading condition of the ship. The curve of statical stability obtained based on Krylove’s method satisﬁes the IMO standards. The stability characteristics of the RO–RO ship.S. angle of vanishing stability. Fig. Figs. Table 1 shows the principal particulars of a RO–RO ship. fv GMf2 bL ϭ bN ϭ BL . df 4 (3AfvϪGMf2 v). Afv as follows: C1 ϭ C3 ϭ d(GZ) ϭ GM. fv. GM. 1 and 2 show the body plan and isometric view of a RO–RO ship. f4 v (7a) (7b) (7c) 3 C5 ϭ Ϫ 6(4AfvϪGMf2 v). GM. viz. 3 shows the GZ curve obtained based on Krylove’s method. (I44 ϩ A44) BN . 3.
It is interesting to note that the present simulation agrees very well with the method suggested by Bhattacharyya (1978). For the analysis of linear rolling motion of a RO–RO ship. a range of wave heights varying from 2 to 8 m have been considered. Venkata Ramana Reddy / Ocean Engineering 30 (2003) 1305–1317 Fig. in beam sea condition. ranging from 0 to 2. Body plan of a RO–RO ship.40 rad/s. (1) was solved using the fourth order Runge–Kutta method. Surendran. Isometric view of a RO–RO ship. RTF is deﬁned as the ratio of roll amplitude to the maximum wave slope. The roll response of the ﬂoating body is at a maximum in the lower frequency range. 1. The published literature gives a closed form solution to this linear dynamic problem.1310 S. based on strip theory. in regular sinusoidal waves. The resonance can be noticed at an encounter frequency value of 0.4 rad/s. J. Eq. Fig. 4 shows a typical plot of roll angle against time for a particular wave height of 6 m and for different frequencies of wave. . Fig. 2. Fig. 5 shows the plot of roll transfer function (RTF) against encounter frequency of wave (we).
Venkata Ramana Reddy / Ocean Engineering 30 (2003) 1305–1317 1311 Table 1 Principal particulars of a Ro–Ro ship S. 8. 10. 5.145 mrad 0. 6. B.00 m 18. D.98 m 4. Principal particulars Length overall Length between perpendiculars Breadth Depth Draught Displacement Transverse metacentric height Vertical center of gravity Vertical center of buoyancy Block coefﬁcient Symbol LOA LBP B D T ⌬ GM KG KB Cb 192. angle of maximum stability.40 m 0.00 m 7. area under GZ curve until 40°. .66 m A. J.60 m 177.50 m 22012 t 2. Restoring arm curve of a RO–RO ship.12 mrad 0. Surendran. E.265 mrad 0. 3.03 mrad 0. area under GZ curve until 30°. no. 7. Table 2 Comparison between IMO criteria and the RO–RO ship Norm A B C D E F IMO code 0.66 m 13. metacentric height.055 mrad 0.03 mrad Ͼ25° Ͼ0. 2. F. maximum righting arm. 3.60 Fig. 1.S. 4.09 mrad 0. C. 9.60 m 28.15 m The RO–Ro ship 0.12 mrad 40° 2. area under GZ curve between 30° and 40°.
4.1312 S. Surendran. Time series plots of roll motion in beam sea condition (wave height of 6 m). J. Venkata Ramana Reddy / Ocean Engineering 30 (2003) 1305–1317 Fig. .
6 shows the results for various frequencies of encounters. It can be seen that the published results and the present results are matching.S. 7. Eq. Surendran. Principal particulars Length between perpendiculars Breadth Draught Displacement Transverse metacentric height Vertical center of gravity Vertical position of metacenter above the keel Block coefﬁcient Symbol LBP B T D GM KG KM Cb 29. . 5. 3. ranging from 0 to 2. 7 shows the results as per present approach. Fig. 6.01 m 200 t 0. (5) was solved using the fourth order Runge–Kutta method.20 m and for different frequencies of wave.53 m 2. no 1 2.60 Fig. 8. Fig. Venkata Ramana Reddy / Ocean Engineering 30 (2003) 1305–1317 1313 Table 3 Principal particulars of test vessel S.65 m 0. J. Linear roll response for regular waves. in beam sea condition. The resonance occurs at an encounter frequency value of 0. the method is found to be versatile for any conditions. Fig. 5. in regular sinusoidal waves.92 rad/s.30 m 2.40 rad/s. 4. Zborowski and Taylan (1989). Although single wave is considered for the purpose of comparison.83 m 5. 6 shows a typical plot of roll angle against time for a particular wave height of 2.35 m 2. All are nonlinear roll responses. Table 3 shows the principal particulars of a test vessel taken from Ref. The encounter frequency variation inﬂuences the roll response of the ship. which are highly sensitive to the initial conditions.
Time series plots of roll motion in beam sea condition (wave height of 2. Venkata Ramana Reddy / Ocean Engineering 30 (2003) 1305–1317 Fig. J.20 m).1314 S. Surendran. 6. .
J. The interaction with the nonlinear damping and nonlinear restoring moment is seen from the response. 9 shows the variation of roll amplitude with B2 damping. 8.40 rad/s. respectively. respectively. Fig. (7a)–(7c). and quintic restoring moment for the RO–RO ship with the principal particulars as per Table 1. Figs. Fig. Nonlinear roll response for regular waves. Fig. 8 shows the nonlinear roll response with B1 damping for a regular sinusoidal wave of height 6 m in beam sea condition.5° at an encounter frequency of 0. This roll angle is well within the stability range of the RO–RO ship. The maximum roll angle is seen to be 17. 7. B2 and B3 type damping given in Eqs. The coefﬁcients C1.S. (3a)–(3c). Venkata Ramana Reddy / Ocean Engineering 30 (2003) 1305–1317 1315 Fig. 8–10 show the variation of roll amplitudes with B1. Surendran. Roll amplitude with B1 type damping and quintic restoring moment. C3 and C5 have been calculated as per Eqs. .
etc. In this case the roll response is raised to 22. Fig. bilge keels. Damping is seen to be lesser than the previous case. Fig. Roll amplitude with B3 type damping and quintic restoring moment. J. . The dramatic changes in roll response are due to the cross-sectional shape of the ship. Surendran. The maximum roll angle is seen to be almost same as the case of B2 damping. Further simulation carried out for higher wave heights shows larger roll responses. Venkata Ramana Reddy / Ocean Engineering 30 (2003) 1305–1317 Fig. 10.5°. but they are well within the range of stability. B1. Hence. the effect due to B2 and B3 damping is found to be the same. They are all dampening the roll motion. Therefore. B2 and B3 justify the representation for damping. Roll amplitude with B2 type damping and quintic restoring moment. 9. 10 is for B3 damping with quintic restoring moment.1316 S.
G. 1989. 2000. The effect of nonlinear damping and restoring in ship rolling. Surendran. 915–932. J.. 1989. Taylan. Konstantopoulos. J. Wiley. New Jersey.. 2000. 178–185. Conclusions Analytical methods are formulated for the roll motion of ship. Ocean Engineering 27. Dynamics of Marine Vehicles.Y. Three types of possible damping are considered based on the literature survey. J. 2001. J.. New York. Zborowski. Harrison. A realistic approach to semisubmersible stability... 327–328. Journal of Ship Research 22.. 1989. Applied Ocean Research 11. 1982.. The simulation of ship motions and capsizing in severe seas.. Linear and nonlinear approaches are tried. Taylan. Mathematical modeling of roll motion of a catamaran in intact and damage conditions in beam waves. R. The result of the present approach very well agrees with the published results. A number of cases have been worked out.. 1988. 1985. Vince.. Solutions are obtained using the fourth order Runge–Kutta method. Ocean Engineering 28. Roll response of a ship under the action of a sudden excitation. . Welaya. 921–932. M. A. In: SNAME Spring meeting/STAR Symposium. 127–135. 95–128. C. USA. May 28–June 2. C.B. Venkata Ramana Reddy / Ocean Engineering 30 (2003) 1305–1317 1317 4. Francescutto. J. A technical note on empirical calculation of roll damping for ships and barges. J.S. Transactions SNAME 93. Seattle. 153–166. 2000. A note on the form of ship roll damping. Chakrabarti. pp. New Orleans.F.H. third ed. Vassalos.R.. Roll response of semisubmersibles with nonlinear restoring moment characteristics. De Kat.. M. Wiley series.A. D. A.. Albett. References Bhattacharyya. Transactions SNAME 117.. 1978. Odabasi. Dalzell. LA. 1978. Lewis... Paulling. A. Y. SNANE. The restoring arm curve is represented by quintic polynomial. J.. Witz. N. 362–368..O.. Principles of Naval Architecture. In: Proceedings of the Tenth International Offshore and Polar Engineering Conference. International Shipbuilding Progress 29. S. Kuo. Evaluation of small vessels’ roll motion stability reserve for resonance conditions.
This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
We've moved you to where you read on your other device.
Get the full title to continue listening from where you left off, or restart the preview.