Are you sure?
This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
2000JSC298
SEAKEEPING COMPUTATIONS USING THE SHIP MOTION
GREEN'S FUNCTION
BOIN J.P.*, BA M.** et GUILBAUD M.*
Laboratoire d'Etudes Aérodynamiques (UMR CNRS 6609)
*CEAT  Université de Poitiers, 43, rue de l’Aérodrome  86036 Poitiers Cedex France
**ENSMA, 1 rue Clément ADER, BP 40109, 86960 Futuroscope Chasseneuil Cedex France
Key words: Naval Hydrodynamics, Seakeeping, Diffractionradiation, Green function,
Frequency domain
Abstract
We present here a seakeeping boundary element method of computations using the diffraction
radiation with forward speed Green function in the frequency domain with an analysis of the
accuracy and computational time needed for the boundary integration. The results of an
analytical surface integration of the Green function and of its first and second derivatives have
been compared with a numerical procedure based on a Gauss method and further refinements
dependant of the relative location of the source and field points and to their distances to the
freesurface. The results are compared for a single panel and a field point in the whole
domain, which is divided in various zones where different techniques of integration are used.
These surface integration techniques are introduced in a panel method for seakeeping
computations adapted to the case of surfacepiercing bodies or ships in forced oscillations.
The results are also compared with results available from other calculation methods or from
test measurements for the DNV barge or a simple surfacepiercing flat plate.
Introduction
The study of the seakeeping for a ship is a very complex problem and no entirely satisfactory
solution has been yet obtained. Most of the studies are achieved using boundary element
method (B.E.M.) assuming inviscid fluid, the main physical phenomena being the wave
production and the RANSE methods requiring very high CPU time for unbounded fluid. To
solve the Laplace equation, the advantage of using the diffractionradiation with forward
speed Green function with respect to the corresponding function in an unbounded domain
(Rankine source), is the automatic satisfactory of the free surface boundary and radiation
conditions, leading to lower order system of equations to solve and avoiding any problem with
gravity waves reflection on the free surface grid boundaries as in the Rankine methods (for a
fine review of Rankine methods, see Sclavounos, 1996). Furthermore, these methods are able
to take into account very small wavelengths (no filtering due to the free surface grid). The
main difficulties are to compute the Green function and its surface integration, but the
progress of the computers and of the computation algorithms, see for example steepest descent
method (Ishawita and Ohkusu, 1989 or Brument and Delhommeau, 1997, Brument, 1998), the
Super Green functions (Chen and Noblesse, 1998) or an adaptative Simpson method (Ba and
Guilbaud, 1995) have overcame a part of the various difficulties, so it is today possible to
develop such a seakeaping computational code in the frequency domain with a good accuracy
and relatively moderate computational time.
We present here the development of such a code. It is necessary not only to control the
accuracy of the computations of the Green function and its first derivatives but also to check
the accuracy of the boundary integrals. The results of an analytical surface integration of the
function and of its first and second derivatives on planar panels have been compared with a
numerical procedure based on a Gauss method (with different number of Gauss points and
further refinements based on the relative location of the source panel and of the field points).
The comparison of the results, based on both the accuracy and the computational time, has led
to the division of the computational domain in various zones where different integration
methods are used. Seakeeping computations using this improved method of boundary inte
gration have been performed and results concerning added mass and damping coefficients and
pressure distribution on various models (flat plate, DNV barge) are presented and compared
with the results obtained by other methods and test measurements available in the literature.
Problem to solve
A righthanded coordinate system translating in the x direction with the steady forward speed
U of the body is chosen, so the undisturbed upstream velocity is Ux
; the xOy plane is the
undisturbed free surface and the z axis is vertically upwards. The water depth is infinite. The
irrotational flow of an incompressible and inviscid fluid bounded only by the free surface
around a surface piercing body moving at a constant forward speed is considered, so the
potential flow theory can be used. With convenient assumptions, steady and unsteady
components of the velocity potential can be uncoupled and only the last one will be treated
here in the frequency domain, (ϕ: spatial component of the harmonic velocity potential
defined by ( , ) ( )
i t
M t M e
ω
ϕ ϕ = ), ω being the circular frequency of encounter. The Froude
number based on the body length L is / F U gL = and L/ g ϖ ω = is the dimensionless
frequency. The potential ϕ satisfies the Laplace equation, the Kelvin linearized free surface
condition and a radiation condition at upstream infinity. Finally, the body condition on the
body S
B
has to be satisfied:
( ) ( ).
M B
M
M V OM n sur S
n
ϕ ∂
= + Ω∧
∂
(1)
where
V and
Ω are the body translation and rotation velocities. By applying the third Green's
formula to a domain bounded by the closed surface S=S
B
∪S
L
∪S
∞
(S
L
free surfaces
,
S
∞
control
surface surrounding the body, located away from it and below z=0), the potential ϕ at the field
point M(x,y,z) is obtained as a function of the potential and of its derivatives at the source
point M’(x’,y’,z’). The Green function of the problem G, is defined by Ba and Guilbaud,
1995, using the formulation of Guével and Bougis, 1982:
G M M t G M M G M M Conjg G M M e
i t
( , ' , ) ( , ' ) ( , ' ) ( ( , ' )) = ℜ + +
0 1 2
ω
m r
G M M
Lo
K g K g K K g K g K
d
1
1 1 1 1 1 2 1 2 1 2
0
2
1
1 4
( , ' )
( ) ( ' ) ( ) ( ' )
cos
=
+ − +
+
R
S

T

U
V

W

z
π
ξ ξ ξ ξ
τ θ
θ
π
(2a)
G M M
Lo
i
Z g Z g Z Z g Z g Z
d
i
Z g Z g Z Z g Z g Z
d
K i e e
K g K g K K g K
c
c
c c
c c c c
c
K K
c
c
2
3 2 3 2 3 4 2 4 2 4
0
3 1 3 1 3 4 3 4 3 4
3 3 3 3 3 4 1 4
1
4 1
4 1
2 1
( , ' )
( ) ( ' ) ( ) ( ' )
cos
( ) ( ' ) ( ) ( ' )
cos
( )
sin
( ) ( ' ) ( )
'
'
'
=
−
+ − +
−
+ −
+ − +
−
−
− +
+
+ − +
z
z
−
π
ξ ξ ξ ξ
τ θ
θ
ξ ξ ξ ξ
τ θ
θ
π
τ θ
α
ξ ξ ξ
θ
θ
θ α
ξ ξ
e j
g K
d
c c
1 4
2
1 4
( ' )
cos
ξ
τ θ
θ
θ α
π
−
R
S






T






U
V






W






+
z
(2b)
ℜ and ℑ are respectively the real and imaginary components. G
0
is the Rankine term very
often studied, so no treated here and:
( ) z z ' i x x ' cos (y y') sin
'
ξ
θ θ
ξ
 
( = + + − ± −

¸ ¸
\ .
.
The limits of integration for G
2
are if τ<0.25, θ θ α
c c c
= = =
'
0; if 0.25<τ<0.5,
1 '
1
cos , 0,
4
c c c
θ θ α ε
τ
−
 
= = =

\ .
and if 0.5<τ,
1 ' 1
1 1
cos , cos ,
4 2
c c c
θ θ α ε
τ τ
− −
   
= = =
 
\ . \ .
.
We have chosen ε=10
6
. These formulas involved the modified complex integral functions, g
1
,
g
2
and g
3
, defined by: g e
1 1
ξ ε ξ
ξ
b g b g = if 0<arg(ξ)<2π; g e E
2 1
ξ ξ
ξ
b g b g = if π<arg(ξ)<π;
g e i
3 1
2 ξ ε ξ π
ξ
b g b g = + if π<arg(ξ)<2π, with ε
1
(ξ)=E
1
(ξ) if ℑ ≥ ( ) ξ 0 , ε
1
(ξ)=E
1
(ξ)2iπ if ℑ( ) ξ <
0. The complex integral function is: E
e
t
dt
t
1
ξ
ξ
b g =
−
∞
z
if π<arg(ξ)<π and ℜ( ) ξ > 0. The poles
K
i
and Z
i
of eq.(2b) are given by:
1 2 3 4
2 2
2
2 2
1 2 cos ( 1) 1 4 cos
, 1 4; 1; 1
2 cos
1 2 cos ( 1) 4 cos 1
, 3, 4; 4
2 cos
τ θ τ θ
θ
τ θ τ θ
ϖ
θ
+ + − +
= = = = = = −
− + − −
= = =
i
i
i
i
i c
L
K i to L L L L
F
Z i K
F
Similar equations are obtained for the first and second derivatives (Ba and Guilbaud, 1995). It
is then possible to compute either ϕ from the Green's formula:
'
' '
1 ( , ')
( ) ( ') ( , ') ( ')
4
M
M M S
G M M
M M G M M M dS
n n
ϕ
ϕ ϕ
π
  ∂ ∂
= −

∂ ∂
\ .
∫∫
(3a)
or, by applying the grad
M
operator to equation (3a), the following equation is obtained:
2
'
' '
( ) 1 ( ') ( , ') ( , ')
( ')
4
M
M M M M M S
M M G M M G M M
M dS
n n n n n
ϕ ϕ
ϕ
π
  ∂ ∂ ∂ ∂
= −

∂ ∂ ∂ ∂ ∂
\ .
∫∫
(3b).
In a first step, the waterline integrals and the surface ones on semiinfinite surface
extending from the trailing edge to model the lifting effects are not studied. By discretizing the
body in quadrilateral panels with area S
j
, equations (3a and b) lead to the following integral,
two of them having to be computed:
2
1 2 3
'
; ;
j j j
M M M S S S
G G
J Gds J ds J ds
n n n
′
∂ ∂
= = =
∂ ∂ ∂
∫∫ ∫∫ ∫∫
(4).
The method developed being a first order one, the potential and its derivatives have been
assumed to be constant on each elementary surface. The study of the accuracy will be
developed for the three integrals of equation (4), so either eq. (3a) or eq. (3b) can be used in a
panel method.
Methods of integration of the Green function ant its derivatives
Numerical integration for surface integral
A Gauss method of integration is used following a procedure already used (Ponizy et al.,
1998) for the wave resistance Green function. The number of Gauss points chosen is a
function of the ratio of the distance between the field point M
i
and the centre of gravity of the
panel M
j
to the largest diagonal (called diaL
j
with L=1,2) of the panel:
max( 1 , 2 )
ij i j j j
M M dia dia ρ = .
• For ρ
ij
> 10, a unique Gauss point is used;
• For 5<ρ
ij
<10, four Gauss points are used;
• For 1<ρ
ij
<5, the panel is divided into several triangles in function of the location of M
i
;
on
each triangle, the integration is performed by a seven points method, the total number of
Gauss points ranging from 14 to 224.
Analytical integration for surface integral
For a polygonal panel with m nodes, the surface integral can be transformed into a contour one
by use of the Stokes theorem, see for example Bougis, 1981:
( ) ( )
2
1
2
1 1
j
m
k k
k
k k k S
f f
d
I fds C
d
ζ ζ
ζ ζ ζ
+
= +
−
= =
−
∑
∫∫
(5).
To compute the coefficients C
k
the following properties for the modified complex exponential
integral have been used, calling
. ..
( ) and ( ) the first and second derivatives of the functions
with respect to the parameter ξ:
g
d
d
g g
j j j
ξ
ξ
ξ ξ
ξ
b g b g b g = = −
1
; g
d
d
g g
j j j
ξ
ξ
ξ ξ
ξ ξ
b g b g b g = = − +
2
2 2
1 1
and for the integration:
( ) ( ) ln
j j
g d g ξ ξ ξ ξ = +
∫
with 0<arg(ξ)<2π, for j=1,3; g d g
2 2 2
ξ ξ ξ ξ b g b g
z
= + ln with
π<arg(ξ)<π;
( ) ( ) ( ) 1 ln
j j
d g d g ξ ξ ξ ξ ξ ξ ξ = + + −
∫ ∫
with 0<arg(ξ)<2π, if j=1 or 3 and
d g d g ξ ξ ξ ξ ξ ξ ξ
2 2 2
1 b g b g b g
z z
= + + − ln with π<arg(ξ)<π, ln ln arg ξ ξ ξ = + i b g
with 0<arg(ξ)<2π,
ln ln arg
2
ξ ξ ξ = + i b g
with π<arg(ξ)<π.
The term G
0
, often studied in aerodynamic or Rankine hydrodynamic studies, will not
be studied here. For G
1
and G
2,
the following expressions are obtained:
{ } { }
2
1 2
1 0 1 2 1 1 2 2
1
0
1
/ ( / ) ' ( ' ' )
1 4 cos
j
m
n n n n
n n n n n n n
k k
i k k n k k
k
S
d
x Gds B L C K D K D C L K D K D
π
θ
π τ θ =
¦ ¹
( (
∂ ∂ = − + −
´ `
( (
+ ¸ ¸ ¸ ¸
¹ )
∑
∫∫ ∫
(6)
for n=0,1,2 where
0 0
0 2 1
/ , 1 and 1 Q x Q L L L ∂ ∂ = = = = − ,
0 1 2
, , Q Q Q Q Q Q = = =
.
{ } { }[ ]
2 0 1 2 3 4
1
/ (1/ )
j
n n n
i
S
x G ds L I I I I
π
∂ ∂ = + + +
∫∫
{ }
'
3 4
1 3 4 3 3 4 4
1
0
' ( ' ' )
4 cos 1
c m
n n n n
n n n n n
k k
k k n k k
k
i
I B C Z E Z E C L Z E Z E d
θ
θ
τ θ
=
− ¦ ¹
( (
= − + −
´ `
( (
− ¸ ¸ ¸ ¸
¹ )
∑
∫
'
2 2
1 2
2 3 4 3 1 4 2
1
' ( ' ' )
4 cos 1
c c
c
m
n n n n
n n n
k k
k k n k k
k
i
I B C Z F Z F C L Z F Z F d
θ α
θ
θ
τ θ
−
=
− ¦ ¹
( (
( = − + −
´ `
¸ ¸ ( (
− ¸ ¸ ¸ ¸
¹ )
∑
∫
( )
[ ]
1 1
' '
3 1 1
1
2 1
( ) '
' sin
k k k k
c c c c m
c n
c c k n k k k k k
k c c c c c
i
e e e e
I B K C L C
χ χ χ χ
π α
χ χ χ χ τ θ
+ +
+ +
=
 
− −
− −
( = + 
¸ ¸

− −
\ .
∑
2
2
1 2
4 3 4 3 1 4 2
1
1
' ( ' ' )
1 4 cos
c c
m
n n n n
n n n n
k k
k k n k k
k
I B C K H K H C L K H K H d
π
θ α
θ
τ θ
=
+
¦ ¹
( (
( = − + −
´ `
¸ ¸ ( (
− ¸ ¸ ¸ ¸
¹ )
∑
∫
,
where: ( )( )
k k 1 k k 1 k
k
C
q ir sin x x (p ir sin )(y y )
C'
θ θ
+ +
¦ ¹
= − − − −
´ `
¹ )
∓ . M x y z
k k k k
, ,
c h
is the node
k of a panel with M
m+1
=M
1
; the outer unit normal to the panel is
n p q r
ext
= , , b g . So:
D
g d
jk
j
k
j
k
j
k
j
k
=
−
zz
+
+
1
1
1
( ) ξ ξ
χ χ
χ
χ
j=1,2; E
g d
jk
j
k
j
k
j
k
j
k
=
−
zz
+
+
2
1
1
( ) ξ ξ
χ χ
χ
χ
j=3,4, F
g d
k k k
k
k
1
1
3
1
3
3
3
1
=
−
zz
+
+
( ) ξ ξ
χ χ
χ
χ
,
F
g d
k k k
k
k
2
3
4
1
4
4
4
1
=
−
zz
+
+
( ) ξ ξ
χ χ
χ
χ
; H
g d
k k k
k
k
1
3
5
1
5
5
5
1
=
−
zz
+
+
( ) ξ ξ
χ χ
χ
χ
, H
g
k k k
k
k
2
1
6
1
6
6
6
1
=
−
zz
+
+
( ) ξ
χ χ
χ
χ
.
Quantities ( )' are deduced from the ( ) ones by replacing χ by χ'.
χ
χ
θ θ
j
k
j
k
j k k k
T
Lo
z z i x x y y
'
cos sin
R
S

T

U
V

W

= + + − ± −
c h c h
, j=1 to 6; T
j
=K
j
if j=1,2 T
j
=Z
j
if j=3,4
and T
j
=K
j2
if j=5,6;
χ
χ
θ θ
c
k
c
k
c k k
c
k
c
K
Lo
z z i x x y y
'
cos sin
R
S

T

U
V

W

= + + − ± −
c h c h
.
Concerning the first derivatives, coefficients (..
.
) are deduced from the previous ones by
replacing the two integrations by a unique one. For the second derivatives, the coefficients (..
..
)
involved only the functions g
j
. Furthermore, we have the following relations: x
1
=x, B=icosθ,
B
c
=icosθ
c
if i=1;x
2
=y, B=isinθ, B
c
=isinθ
c
if i=2 and x
3
=z, B=B
c
=1 if i=3.
Results of the integrations on a single panel
X
Y
 6 0  5 0  4 0  3 0  2 0  1 0 0 1 0
0
1 0
2 0
3 0
4 0
0 . 0 5
0 . 0 4 5
0 . 0 4
0 . 0 3 5
0 . 0 3
0 . 0 2 5
0 . 0 2
0 . 0 1 5
0 . 0 1
0 . 0 0 5
0
X
Y
 6 0  5 0  4 0  3 0  2 0  1 0 0 1 0
0
1 0
2 0
3 0
4 0
0 . 1 6
0 . 1 4
0 . 1 2
0 . 1
0 . 0 8
0 . 0 6
0 . 0 4
0 . 0 2
0
 0 . 0 2
 0 . 0 4
 0 . 0 6
 0 . 0 8
 0 . 1
a Function G
1
X
Y
 6 0  5 0  4 0  3 0  2 0  1 0 0 1 0
0
1 0
2 0
3 0
4 0
0 . 0 1 5
0 . 0 1 4
0 . 0 1 3
0 . 0 1 2
0 . 0 1 1
0 . 0 1
0 . 0 0 9
0 . 0 0 8
0 . 0 0 7
0 . 0 0 6
0 . 0 0 5
0 . 0 0 4
0 . 0 0 3
0 . 0 0 2
0 . 0 0 1
0
X
Y
 6 0  5 0  4 0  3 0  2 0  1 0 0 1 0
0
1 0
2 0
3 0
4 0
0 . 1 6
0 . 1 4
0 . 1 2
0 . 1 0
0 . 0 8
0 . 0 6
0 . 0 4
0 . 0 2
0 . 0 0
 0 . 0 2
 0 . 0 4
 0 . 0 6
 0 . 0 8
 0 . 1 0
b Function
1
/ G x ∂ ∂
X
Y
 6 0  5 0  4 0  3 0  2 0  1 0 0 1 0
0
1 0
2 0
3 0
4 0
0 . 0 1 5
0 . 0 1 4
0 . 0 1 3
0 . 0 1 2
0 . 0 1 1
0 . 0 1
0 . 0 0 9
0 . 0 0 8
0 . 0 0 7
0 . 0 0 6
0 . 0 0 5
0 . 0 0 4
0 . 0 0 3
0 . 0 0 2
0 . 0 0 1
0
X
Y
 6 0  5 0  4 0  3 0  2 0  1 0 0 1 0
0
1 0
2 0
3 0
4 0
5 0
6 0
0 . 0 5
0 . 0 4 3 5
0 . 0 3 7
0 . 0 3 0 5
0 . 0 2 4
0 . 0 1 7 5
0 . 0 1 1
0 . 0 0 4 5
 0 . 0 0 2
 0 . 0 0 8 5
 0 . 0 1 5
c Function
2 2
1
/ G x ∂ ∂
Figure 1 Absolute errors and computational time differences between analytical and numerical
integration methods for function G
1
on a horizontal plane z=.01 (F=0.2; ϖ=1.4; τ=0.28)
Figures 1 present the results of the difference between analytical and numerical
integrations of G
1
(graph a), ∂G
1
/∂x (graph b), and ∂
2
G
1
/∂x
2
(graph c), on a square panel with
unit side parallel to axis x, submerged (upper part) of z=0.01, at Froude number F=0.2, non
dimensional frequency ϖ=1.4 (reference length is L=1), and Brard parameter τ=0.28. Other
derivatives give similar results and lead to the same conclusions. The left parts of the graphs
show the contours of the absolute values of the difference between the two methods of
integration and the right ones of the CPU time (negative values correspond to faster analytical
integration). As the various functions are even with y, only results for y≥0 are presented. The
graphs show a Vshaped zone where it is quite difficult to obtain a good accuracy (error is
about 0.5%) with the numerical integration; the shape of this zone is dependent of the flow
parameters as it will be shown later. Outside of this zone, very good agreement between
numerical and analytical integrations can be observed. The mean computational time of the
analytical integration is about identical to the time required for a numerical integration with 4
Gauss points. For field points close to the panel, the agreement between both methods is quite
good because, for the numerical integration, the number of the Gauss points increases till 244
leading to a CPU time of about 0.16s instead of 4µs (time is for a DEC Alpha 255233
workstation) for the analytical one. The time contours are almost circular close to the origin;
the 0 value contour has a radius of about r=10mm and the numerical integration becomes
more and more efficient as r increases.
X
Y
 6 0  5 0  4 0  3 0  2 0  1 0 0 1 0
0
1 0
2 0
3 0
4 0
0 . 2
0 . 1 8
0 . 1 6
0 . 1 4
0 . 1 2
0 . 1
0 . 0 8
0 . 0 6
0 . 0 4
0 . 0 2
0
X
Y
 6 0  5 0  4 0  3 0  2 0  1 0 0 1 0
0
1 0
2 0
3 0
4 0
0 . 2
0 . 1 6
0 . 1 2
0 . 0 8
0 . 0 4
0
 0 . 0 4
 0 . 0 8
 0 . 1 2
 0 . 1 6
 0 . 2
a Function G
2
X
Y
 6 0  5 0  4 0  3 0  2 0  1 0 0 1 0
0
1 0
2 0
3 0
4 0
0 . 5
0 . 4 5
0 . 4
0 . 3 5
0 . 3
0 . 2 5
0 . 2
0 . 1 5
0 . 1
0 . 0 5
0
X
Y
 6 0  5 0  4 0  3 0  2 0  1 0 0 1 0
0
1 0
2 0
3 0
4 0
0 . 2 5
0 . 1 5
0 . 0 5
 0 . 0 5
 0 . 1 5
 0 . 2 5
 0 . 3 5
 0 . 4 5
 0 . 5 5
 0 . 6 5
 0 . 7 5
b Function
2
/ G x ∂ ∂
X
Y
 6 0  5 0  4 0  3 0  2 0  1 0 0 1 0
0
1 0
2 0
3 0
4 0
0 . 5
0 . 4 5
0 . 4
0 . 3 5
0 . 3
0 . 2 5
0 . 2
0 . 1 5
0 . 1
0 . 0 5
0
X
Y
 6 0  5 0  4 0  3 0  2 0  1 0 0 1 0
0
1 0
2 0
3 0
4 0
0 . 2
0 . 1 7 5
0 . 1 5
0 . 1 2 5
0 . 1
0 . 0 7 5
0 . 0 5
0 . 0 2 5
0
 0 . 0 2 5
 0 . 0 5
c Function
2 2
2
/ G x ∂ ∂
Figure 2 Absolute errors and computational time differences between analytical and numerical
integration methods for function G
2
on a horizontal plane z=.01 (F=0.2; ϖ=1.4; τ=0.28)
Figures 2 show similar results for G
2
and its derivatives. These computations are more
difficult to perform than the previous ones, with difficulties located nearly in the same zone
that for G
1
. The error, quite higher, is about 10% for G
2
but may grow till 150% for the second
derivatives, for X=Y≈10mm. Here, only a numerical integration with at least 14 Gauss points
can give correct results but it requires higher CPU time than an analytical one. It is worthwhile
to notice here that computations involving G
2
require less computational time than the
corresponding ones for G
1
whatever is the integration method, numerical or analytical.
X
Z
60 50 40 30 20 10 0 10
5
4
3
2
1
0
0.05
0.045
0.04
0.035
0.03
0.025
0.02
0.015
0.01
0.005
0
X
Z
60 50 40 30 20 10 0 10
5
4
3
2
1
0
0.05
0.045
0.04
0.035
0.03
0.025
0.02
0.015
0.01
0.005
0
X
Z
60 50 40 30 20 10 0 10
5
4
3
2
1
0
0.05
0.045
0.04
0.035
0.03
0.025
0.02
0.015
0.01
0.005
0
a Function G
1
b Function
1
/ G x ∂ ∂ c Function
2 2
1
/ G x ∂ ∂
Figure 3 Absolute errors between analytical and numerical integration methods on a vertical
plane x=y, function G
1
X
Z
60 50 40 30 20 10 0 10
5
4
3
2
1
0
0.05
0.045
0.04
0.035
0.03
0.025
0.02
0.015
0.01
0.005
0
X
Z
60 50 40 30 20 10 0 10
5
4
3
2
1
0
0.05
0.045
0.04
0.035
0.03
0.025
0.02
0.015
0.01
0.005
0
X
Z
60 50 40 30 20 10 0 10
5
4
3
2
1
0
0.05
0.045
0.04
0.035
0.03
0.025
0.02
0.015
0.01
0.005
0
a Function G
2
b Function
2
/ G x ∂ ∂ c Function
2 2
2
/ G x ∂ ∂
Figure 4 Absolute errors between analytical and numerical integrations on a vertical
plane x=y, function G
2
Figures 3 and 4 show the results of the integration on a vertical plane oriented with 45°
with respect to the xaxis (where the main difficulties have been observed previously). The
error is quite weak except close to the free surface (z and z' are here very close to 0 and the
error may become quite high) for G
1
and G
2
. The numerical integration is more efficient than
the analytical one, the Gauss points being never too close of the free surface, contrary to the
analytical integration where a part of the contour is exactly on the free surface.
Results presented on figures 1 and 2 show important numerical errors in a dihedral
zone limited by angles α
min
and α
max
with respect to x axis and which are functions of the
Brard parameter τ. In this zone, it is not possible to accurately compute the various integrals
involved, particularly for G
2
, in these computations except for high depths of immersion.
I
I
I
I
I I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I II
I
I I I
I
I
I
I
tau
0.5 1 1.5
80
90
100
110
120
130
140
150
160
170
180
alphamincomputation
alphamaxcomputation
alphamin= f (tau)
I
Deg
Figure 5 Characteristic angles α
min
and α
max
versusτ .
We have tried to determine these limiting angles and their dependence on the pa
rameter τ for values ranging from 0.27 to 1.5 by various regression, but we succeed only for
α
min
, α
max
being also function of the Froude number. For a constant value of τ, α
max
increases
with the forward speed, but always α
max
≤160°. Figure 5 plots α
min
and α
max
versus τ; symbols
correspond to numerical tests and curves to the limits obtained by regression. For τ<0.27, the
whole domain has to be taken into account, giving α
min
=0° and α
max
=180°. On the free
surface, z=0, Gauss integration gives better accuracy than analytical one because the Gauss
points are always under the free surface but a branch of the panel contour is always on the free
surface (z=0), as already explained previously.
We want to control the accuracy of the various integrations of the Green function and
its derivatives on a single panel, but it is not necessary to have a better accuracy than the one
of the function (10
3
). The error of the analytical boundary integration is also checked by the
Simpson Adaptative method for the Fourier integration and are similar to the one of the Green
function. From numerical tests, we have determined zones where the analytical integration is
more efficient than the numerical one (better accuracy and/or weaker computational time).
Figure 6 is a schematic representation showing the various zones using the parameter R
0
(equal to 10 times the source panel diagonal), the characteristic angles being given by the
following expressions:
if τ < 0.27 , α
min
= 0° , α
max
= 180°; if τ > 0.27 , α
τ
min
.
.
= − ⋅
−
−
160 72
0 52
0 2
e
d i
, α
max
= 160°.
Figure 6 Characteristic subdomains
R
0
FS z=0
α
min
α
max
(0)
(1)
(2)
(2)
(3)
So the integration methods chosen for the integration of the terms G
1
and G
2
of the Green
function and of their first or second derivatives on the source panel are summarized in table 1:
Zone G
1
and derivatives G
2
and derivatives
0 1 Gauss point 1 Gauss point
1 Z=0 numerical
Z<0 analytical
Z=0 numerical
Z<0 analytical
2 numerical Z=0 numerical
Z<0 analytical
3 numerical numerical
Table 1 Integration techniques in the various domain zones
Numerical results of seakeeping computations
Comparison of with simple Gauss method of integration
T(s)
5 10 15 20
2.05E+08
2.1E+08
2.15E+08
2.2E+08
2.25E+08
2.3E+08
2.35E+08
CM33
T(s)
5 10 15 20
0
2E+07
4E+07
CA11
T(s)
5 10 15 20
0
5E+06
1E+07
1.5E+07
2E+07
CA33
T(s)
5 10 15 20
0
2E+07
4E+07
6E+07
8E+07
1E+08
1.2E+08
Brument andal.
Fullynumerical method
Present method
CM11
Figure 7 Addedmass and damping coefficients for the DNV barge
The integration method defined in table 1 has been used in a sea keeping code using
only a source distribution in equation (2b) without waterline integral. Figure 7 plots added
mass (CM11 and CM33) and damping (CA11 and CA33) coefficients for the DNV barge at
F=0.34. The results obtained show only few differences between a fully numerical method or
the present method (table 1), probably due to the improvement of the calculations of surface
integrals. The main differences can be seen for heave for period T between 10 and 20s, but the
agreement is excellent. The results are in good agreement with those obtained by Brument and
Delhommeau, 1997, taking into account that our method neglects the waterline integral which
must have a certain importance for a body as this barge.
re
1.51642
1.34693
1.17744
1.00795
0.838461
0.66897
0.499479
0.329988
0.160498
0.00899313
0.178484
0.347975
0.517466
0.686956
0.856447
1.02594
1.19543
present method
fully numerical method
7.7 h CPU
14.9 h CPU
Figure 8 Wave amplitude around a flat plate in sway motion (top: fully numerical
method, bottom present method) (AR=0.5; F=0.32; ϖ=2; τ=0.64)
Figure 8 shows the wave amplitudes around an aspect ratio AR=0.5 surface piercing
flat plate at F=0.32 and ϖ=2 in forced sway motion with 128 panels. The graph upper part
corresponds to calculation with numerical Gauss method of integration and the lower one to
the present technique to compute the integrals (table 1). Differences may be observed only in
the near field but the CPU time is reduced from 14.9 to 7.7h (for 1500 points on the free
surface). Finally figure 9 presents the relative error on respectively the wave pattern (fig.9a)
and the pressure (fig.9b) amplitudes around the same flat plate. The errors are located in the
near field, close to the free surface and to the trailing edge of the body.
X
0.5 0.25 0 0.25 0.5
MOD
0.2723
0.2555
0.2387
0.2218
0.2050
0.1881
0.1713
0.1544
0.1376
0.1207
0.1039
0.0870
0.0702
0.0534
0.0365
0.0197
0.0028
Pressure
amplitude
error
module
0.8671
0.8140
0.7609
0.7078
0.6547
0.6016
0.5486
0.4955
0.4424
0.3893
0.3362
0.2831
0.2300
0.1770
0.1239
0.0708
0.0177
Waves
amplitudeerror
a) wave pattern b) pressure distribution
Figure 9 Influence of the integration method on the accuracy of the computations
(same conditions as figure 8)
Conclusion
We have presented here a study of the accuracy of the boundary integrals dealing with
the diffractionradiation with forward speed Green function and its first and second
derivatives. This work is a first step to develop a sea keeping method of computation using a
panel method with control of the accuracy of the surface integration. An integration technique
mixing both analytical and numerical Gauss methods (with variable Gauss point numbers) has
been defined. The analytical method uses a Stokes theorem. The whole computational domain
has been divided into four zones where the method of integration has been chosen taken into
account both the accuracy and the computational time.
The first zone is upstream of the body
and limited downstream by the angle α
min
with xaxis out of a vertical cylinder zone which is
the second one (with radius 10 times the panel diagonal and is of infinite extent in the –z
direction) around the centre of gravity of the source panel; the third one is downstream, in a
dihedral zone limited by angles α
min
and α
max
and the last one downstream of this last angles.
The values of these angles have been defined as a function of the Brard parameter τ. Finally,
close to the freesurface, a numerical integration method has been chosen because no Green
function computations are required on the free surface, contrary to the analytical method for
which a branch of the contour is on this surface. This integration technique has been
introduced into a velocity based panel method using only source distribution (no lifting
effects) and neglecting the waterline integral. Results for DNV barge in surge and pitch
motions or a surface piercing flat plate in sway motion have shown good agreement with other
results showing very few discrepancies with respect to a fully numerical Gauss integration
method for global coefficients, but a better representation of the near wave pattern and of the
pressure distribution close to the freesurface and to the body trailing edge. Furthermore, the
computational time to calculate the wave pattern has been divided by a factor of about 2.
Work is on progress to compute flows around other ship models as Wigley or Series60 hulls,
to calculate accurately the waterline integral and to introduce lifting effects in the code.
References
Ba, M, and Guilbaud, M (1995). "A fast method of evaluation for the translating and pulsating
Green’s function", Ship Technology Research, Vol. 42, pp. 6880.
Bougis, J (1981). "Etude de la diffractionradiation dans le cas d'un flotteur indéformable
animé d'une vitesse moyenne constante et sollicité par une houle sinusoïdale de faible
amplitude", Thèse de doctorat, Université de Nantes.
Brument, A, and Delhommeau, G (1997). "Evaluation numérique de la fonction de Green de
la tenue à la mer avec vitesse d'avance", Proc. of the 6
èmes
Jour. de l'Hydrodynamique, Nantes
(France), pp. 147160.
Brument, A (1998). "Evaluation numérique de la fonction de Green de la tenue à la mer",
Thèse de doctorat, Université de Nantes.
Chen, XB, and Noblesse, F (1998). "Super Green functions", 22
nd
Symposium on Naval
Hydrodynamics, Washington (USA ), Thursday/Friday session, pp. 139153.
Guével, P, and Bougis, J (1982). "Ship motions with forward speed infinite depth", Int. Ship.
Progress, Vol. 29, pp. 103117.
Iwashita, H, and Ohkusu, M (1989). "Hydrodynamic Forces on a Ship Moving at Forward
Speed in Waves", J.S.N.A. Japan, Vol. 166, pp. 87109.
Ponizy, B, Guilbaud, M and Ba, M (1998). "Numerical computations and integrations of the
wave resistance Green's function", Theoretical and Computational Fluid Dynamics, Vol.12,
N°3, pp. 179194.
Sclavounos, PD (1996). "Computations of wave ship interaction", Advances in Marine
Hydrodynamics , edited by M.Okhusu, Computational Mechanics Publication, U.K..
This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?