Effect of Water Depth On Motions in Beam Seas For A Typical Landing Craft

Trans RINA, Vol 151, Part B1, Intl J Small Craft Tech, 2009 Jan-Jun
EFFECT OF WATER DEPTH ON MOTIONS IN BEAM SEAS FOR A TYPICAL

LANDING CRAFT
A Rolls, M Renilson and G Macfarlane, Australian Maritime College, Australia
S Cannon, Defence Science and Technology Organisation, Australia
SUMMARY
A set of model experiments have been conducted at the Australian Maritime College to investigate the effect of water
depth on the motions of a typical landing craft in beam seas. Tests were conducted at different wave heights in two
water depths: deep, corresponding to a depth to draught ratio of 9.0; and shallow, corresponding to a depth to draught
ratio of 1.5.
The influence of non-linearity on model motion, particularly in roll, was determined, as was the effect of water depth. It
was shown that the motions in shallow water were significantly different to those in deep water.
NOTATION
B
D
f
g
H
h
k
L
T
x3
= Ship model beam (mm)

= Ship model moulded depth (mm)
= Wave frequency (Hz)
= Gravitational constant (m/s2)
= Wave height (mm)
= Water depth (mm)
= Radius of gyration (mm)
= Ship model length (mm)
= Ship model draught (mm)
= Heave magnitude (double amplitude) (mm)
x3
= Non dimensional heave, x3 =
x4
x3
H
= Roll magnitude (double amplitude) (rad)
x4
= Non dimensional roll, x4 =
x4 Norm
= Normalised roll (rad/mm), x4 Norm =
= Ship model displacement (kg)

= Wave frequency (rad/s)
x4 g
2H
x4
H
INTRODUCTION
Landing craft are a maritime platform used by many

Navies throughout the world. One particular role is to
transport materiel from a mother ship, such as an LPD
(Landing Platform, Dock) to shore [1]. In order to
achieve this activity the naval architect is typically
limited to producing a hull form that resembles a flat
bottomed, monohull vessel1. The landing craft also has
relatively high buoyancy for its principal parameters,
thereby enabling a range of cargoes to be carried,
together with a relatively low draught which enables the
cargo to be delivered close to the shore. With this role in
mind it is imperative that the motion behaviour of a
1
Alternative hull forms such as catamarans and

hovercraft are possible, but not considered typical.
2009: The Royal Institution of Naval Architects
landing craft is known both in deep water (i.e. close to

the mother ship) and whilst moving in shallow water
towards the shoreline.
It is well known that in shallow water a ships motions in
waves are influenced by water depth. However, most of
these studies have focused on large vessels operating in
channels [2, 3], which is clearly a different scenario to
that of a landing craft approaching a beach. Van
Oortmerssen [2] developed a numerical method based on
a potential theory, Green function method at zero speed,
while Andersen [3] investigated a similar problem using
strip theory as well as fluid finite element methods at
slow speeds.
Svendsen and Madsen [4] on the other hand use a
simplified approach to examine the motions of a
rectangular cross-section vessel in pure beam seas at zero
speed, a similar situation to the experiments carried out
in the current project. However, even this is a significant
simplification of the complex problem of a landing craft
operating in shallow water. Their work did consider
extremely shallow water such as that being experienced
by a moored vessel.
Van Oortmerssen [2] suggests that there are two
principal effects of shallow water on motions. Firstly,
the incident waves are influenced by the restricted depth,
hence the wave forces and moments acting on the vessel
will be different. Secondly, the hydrodynamic
coefficients of the ship are changed by the close
proximity of the vessel to the sea floor. He states that the
influence of limited water depth can be first noticed at
approximately h/T=4, and can be considered significant
at a ratio of 2.
Inglis and Price [5] also conducted an investigation
examining the motions of a slender vessel in shallow
water. The model used in this numerical investigation
was fine form with an L/B ratio of 9 and B/T ratio of 3.5.
The results of this study suggest that one effect of a
reduction of water depth is a reduction in roll resonance
frequency.
Table 1.1 Test program (model scale values)

Condition
Number
Nominal
Wave Height
(mm)
20
20
1
2
Water Depth
h/T
(mm)
9.0
900
9.0
900
9.0
900
40
9.0
900
60
1.5
150
20
1.5
150
40
1.5
150
60
Nominal
Wave Frequencies
(Hz)
Preliminary Tests Only
0.5, 0.6, 0.7, 0.8, 0.9, 1.0, 1.1,
1.2, 1.3, 1.4, 1.5, 1.6
0.5, 0.6, 0.7, 0.8, 0.9, 1.0, 1.1,
1.2, 1.3, 1.4, 1.5, 1.6
0.5, 0.6, 0.7, 0.8, 0.9, 1.0, 1.1,
1.2, 1.3, 1.4, 1.5, 1.6
0.5, 0.6, 0.7, 0.8, 0.9, 1.0, 1.1,
1.2, 1.3, 1.4, 1.5, 1.6
0.5, 0.6, 0.7, 0.8, 0.9, 1.0, 1.1,
1.2, 1.3, 1.4, 1.5, 1.6
0.5, 0.6, 0.7, 0.8, 0.9, 1.0, 1.1,
1.2, 1.3, 1.4, 1.5, 1.6
Run Numbers
4 to 34
35 to 56
57 to 81
82 to 94
95 to 116 and
156 to 159
117 to 135 and
153 to 155
135 to 152
Figure 1.1 Body plan view of the model.

The study by Inglis and Price did suggest that the
hydrodynamic damping coefficients may have been
underestimated; resulting in unrealistically high
magnitude roll motions and this could be corrected by
considering additional fluid damping contributions.
The experiments were conducted in regular beam seas in

deep and shallow water for a range of wave heights.
This current investigation forms part of a larger study
into the development of stability regulations for landing
craft.
The research described above considers large and/or

slender vessels operating in a port environment such as
shipping channels. With this in mind, this paper
describes a set of model experiments that have been
conducted at the Australian Maritime College (AMC) to
investigate the influence of water depth on vessel
motions, in particular those associated with landing craft.
TEST PROGRAM
The complete test program for the present study is shown

in Table 1.1. Note that all dimensions and results refer to
model scale only.
The model was constructed at a scale of 1:10. Principal

particulars are provided in Table 3.1 and the body plan is
shown in Figure 3.1. Note that all dimensions and results
refer to model scale only.
acquisition cards and recorded on an HP computer. The

data acquisition process was controlled by Labview
based software developed in-house. The digital video
motion data was recorded using Qualisys Track Manager
software and then post-processed using a Microsoft
Excel spreadsheet developed in house.
MODEL PARTICULARS
FACILITY DETAILS
The Model Test Basin is situated on the Australian

Maritime College campus in Launceston, Tasmania,
Australia. The basin is 35m long by 12m wide with a
variable water depth between 0 to 1.0m. The floor of the
basin is level to within +/- 10mm from horizontal.
Table 4.1 Model Principal Particulars
Length overall
LOA
2410
Moulded beam
B
638
Moulded depth
D
272
Draught
T
100
Displacement
100.59
Vertical centre of VCG
210
gravity
Longitudinal centre LCG
1023
of gravity
Radius of gyration in
k
227
roll
mm
mm
mm
mm
kg
mm
mm
mm
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
6.1 ANALYSIS PROCEDURE

As the wavemaker did not always generate exactly the
required wave height the results for the nominal wave
heights were obtained by interpolation. The non
dimensional response from each run was plotted as a
function of wave height, as shown in Figure 6.1. The
value at each of the nominal wave heights was extracted
for use in the frequency dependent plots.
The non-dimensional roll and heave motions from the
deep water tests are shown in Figures 6.2 and 6.3
respectively. The error bars that are shown in these
figures represent 5% error bars. The 5% value has been
determined with experience from previous testing and
from the stated accuracy of the instruments that have
been used. This is the error associated with the model
experiment, and not with extrapolation to full scale.
The basin has a multi-element piston type wavemaker at

one end and a wave absorber at the other.
6.2 EFFECT OF WAVE HEIGHT ON MOTIONS IN

DEEP WATER (h/T = 9.0)
The basin also has an eight camera three dimensional

digital video tracking system supplied and installed by
Qualisys of Sweden.
The effect of the wave height in deep water can be seen

in Figures 6.4 and 6.5 for the non dimensional roll and
the non dimensional heave respectively. As can be seen,
there is a fair degree of non-linearity, particularly around
the roll resonance peak.
INSTRUMENTATION
5.1 WAVE PROFILES

Water surface elevation was measured using capacitance
type wave probes through a multi-channel wave probe
monitor.
The two wave probes were both positioned
approximately 500mm out from the side of the basin, the
first approximately 5.1m from the wavemaker and the
second transversely in line with the centre of the model.
5.2 MOTIONS
The models motion was measured in all six degrees of
freedom by a non-contact digital video motion tracking
system. The calibration of this system utilises a series of
16 permanent reference markers that have been surveyed
into position [6].
5.3 DATA ACQUISITION SYSTEM
The signals from the wave probes were digitised using
National Instruments PCI-6036E multifunction data
6.3 EFFECT OF WAVE HEIGHT ON MOTIONS IN

SHALLOW WATER (h/T = 1.5)
The vessel type that the model is based on performs a
large portion of its role in shallow water conditions. The
vessels response in these conditions is given in Figures
6.6 and 6.7. The water depth was 150mm model scale
corresponding to a depth to draught ratio of 1.5.
The effect of wave height in shallow water can also be
seen in Figures 6.6 and 6.7 for the non dimensional roll
and the non dimensional heave respectively. As with the
deep water there is some non-linearity. It is interesting to
note that the roll resonance peak is not apparent. This is
assumed to be because the relationship between
wavelength and frequency in shallow water is not the
same as that in deep water. Hence, the conventional
method of non dimensionalising the roll motion, based
on the deep water slope, may not be appropriate. Instead,
the results showing the normalised roll motion, obtained
by dividing roll magnitude by wave height are given in
Figure 6.8.
1.8
NonDimensional RollandHeaveResponse
h/T=1.5
WaveFrequency=0.9Hz(modelscale)
1.6
Roll
1.4
Heave
Non Dimensional Value
1.2
1.0
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.0
0
20
40
60
80
Wave Height mm (model scale)
Figure 6.1 Method used to obtain results at each nominal wave frequency.
3.5
NonDimensional RollResponse
h/T=9.0
NominalWaveHeightH =20mm(modelscale)
3.0
NonDimensionalValue
2.5
2.0
1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
WaveFrequencyHz(modelscale)
Figure 6.2 Non dimensional roll in deep water, nominal 20mm wave height.
1.2
NonDimensional HeaveResponse
h/T=9.0
Nominal WaveHeightH =20mm(modelscale)
1.0
NonDimensionalValue
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.0
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
Figure 6.3 Non dimensional heave in deep water, nominal 20mm wave height.
3.5
h/T=9.0
VariousNominalWaveHeights
3.0
Condition 2 - Nominal Wave Height = 20mm

NonDimensionalValue
2.5
2.0
1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2
Wave Frequency Hz (model scale)
Figure 6.4 Non dimensional roll in deep water.
1.4
1.6
1.8
1.2
h/T=9.0
1.0

NonDimensionalValue
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.0
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
Figure 6.5 Non dimensional heave in deep water.

3.5
h/T=1.5
3.0

Nondimensionalvalue
2.5
2.0
1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
Figure 6.6 Non dimensional roll response in shallow water.
1.2
h/T=1.5
1.0

Nondimensionalvalue
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.0
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
Figure 6.7 Non dimensional heave response in shallow water.

0.35
Normailised RollResponse
h/T=1.5
0.30

rollmagnitude/waveheight
0.25
0.20
0.15
0.10
0.05
0.00
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.2
Figure 6.8 Normalized roll response in shallow water.
1.4
1.6
1.8
0.35
h/T=1.5and9.0
NominalWaveHeightH=20mm(modelscale)
0.30
h/T = 1.5
h/T = 9.0
0.25
0.20
0.15
0.10
0.05
0.00
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
Figure 6.9 Normalized roll response, nominal 20mm wave height.

0.35
h/T=1.5and9.0
0.30
h/T = 1.5
h/T = 9.0
0.25
0.20
0.15
0.10
0.05
0.00
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
0.35
h/T=1.5and9.0
0.30
h/T = 1.5
h/T = 9.0
0.25
0.20
0.15
0.10
0.05
0.00
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8

1.2
h/T=1.5and9.0
1.0
h/T = 1.5
h/T = 9.0
Nondimensionalvalue
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.0
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.2
1.4
Figure 6.12 Non dimensional heave response, nominal 20mm wave height.
1.6
1.8
1.2
h/T=1.5and9.0
1.0
h/T = 1.5
h/T = 9.0
Nondimesnionalvalue
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.0
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
1.2
h/T=1.5and9.0
1.0
h/T = 1.5
h/T = 9.0
Nondimensionalvalue
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.0
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
6.4 EFFECT OF WATER DEPTH

The effect of water depth on motions can be seen in
Figures 6.9 to 6.14. For these plots the roll motions have
been normalised as discussed above for convenient
comparison between water depths.
As can be seen, the magnitude of the peak roll response
is similar in the two water depths, however this occurs at
different frequencies. Hence, the vessel roll motions in
irregular waves would be expected to be significantly
different in shallow water compared to the motions in
deep water.
The heave motions are noticeably less in shallow water
for almost the complete frequency range. Again, this
means that the motions in irregular waves would be
significantly different in shallow water compared to deep
water.
7
CONCLUDING COMMENTS
Model experiments have been conducted at three

different wave heights in two water depths: deep,
corresponding to a depth to draught ratio of 9.0; and
shallow, corresponding to a depth to draught ratio of 1.5.
The influence of non-linearity on model motion,
particularly in roll, was evident, as was the effect of
water depth. It was shown that the motions in shallow
water were significantly different to those in deep water.
8
REFERENCES
1.
Hopman, J (2000), The HNLMS Rotterdam The

First RNLN LPD. How a long standing
requirement finally became a reality. Warship
2000 RINA London.
van Oortmerssen, G. (1976), The motions of a ship
in shallow water, Ocean Engineering. 3(4), pp.
221-255.
Andersen, P. (1979), Ship motions and sea loads in
restricted water depth, Ocean Engineering. 6(6),
pp. 557-569.
Svendsen, I.A. and P.A. Madsen (1981), The
dynamics of wave induced ship motions in shallow
water, Ocean Engineering. 8(5), pp. 443-479.
Inglis, R.B. and Price, W.G. (1980), Motions of
Ships in Shallow Water, Transactions, Royal
Institution of Naval Architects, pp. 269-284
Qualisys Track Manager - Marine Manual,
Qualisys Motion Capture Systems, 2005.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.

Effect of Water Depth On Motions in Beam Seas For A Typical Landing Craft

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Effect of Water Depth On Motions in Beam Seas For A Typical Landing Craft

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Trans RINA, Vol 151, Part B1, Intl J Small Craft Tech, 2009 Jan-Jun

EFFECT OF WATER DEPTH ON MOTIONS IN BEAM SEAS FOR A TYPICAL

= Ship model beam (mm)

= Non dimensional heave, x3 =

= Non dimensional roll, x4 =

= Normalised roll (rad/mm), x4 Norm =

= Ship model displacement (kg)

Landing craft are a maritime platform used by many

Alternative hull forms such as catamarans and

2009: The Royal Institution of Naval Architects

landing craft is known both in deep water (i.e. close to

Table 1.1 Test program (model scale values)

Figure 1.1 Body plan view of the model.

The experiments were conducted in regular beam seas in

The research described above considers large and/or

The complete test program for the present study is shown

2009: The Royal Institution of Naval Architects

The model was constructed at a scale of 1:10. Principal

acquisition cards and recorded on an HP computer. The

The Model Test Basin is situated on the Australian

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

6.1 ANALYSIS PROCEDURE

The basin has a multi-element piston type wavemaker at

6.2 EFFECT OF WAVE HEIGHT ON MOTIONS IN

The basin also has an eight camera three dimensional

The effect of the wave height in deep water can be seen

5.1 WAVE PROFILES

2009: The Royal Institution of Naval Architects

6.3 EFFECT OF WAVE HEIGHT ON MOTIONS IN

Wave Height mm (model scale)

2009: The Royal Institution of Naval Architects

Condition 2 - Nominal Wave Height = 20mm

Condition 4 - Nominal Wave Height = 60mm

Wave Frequency Hz (model scale)

Figure 6.4 Non dimensional roll in deep water.

2009: The Royal Institution of Naval Architects

Condition 2 - Nominal Wave Height = 20mm

Figure 6.5 Non dimensional heave in deep water.

Condition 5 - Nominal Wave Height = 20mm

Figure 6.6 Non dimensional roll response in shallow water.

2009: The Royal Institution of Naval Architects

Condition 5 - Nominal Wave Height = 20mm

Figure 6.7 Non dimensional heave response in shallow water.

Condition 5 - Nominal Wave Height = 20mm

Figure 6.8 Normalized roll response in shallow water.

2009: The Royal Institution of Naval Architects

Figure 6.9 Normalized roll response, nominal 20mm wave height.

Figure 6.10 Normalized roll response, nominal 40mm wave height.

2009: The Royal Institution of Naval Architects

Figure 6.11 Normalized roll response, nominal 60mm wave height.

2009: The Royal Institution of Naval Architects

2009: The Royal Institution of Naval Architects

6.4 EFFECT OF WATER DEPTH

Model experiments have been conducted at three

Hopman, J (2000), The HNLMS Rotterdam The

2009: The Royal Institution of Naval Architects

You might also like