You are on page 1of 8

X HSMV - Naples, October 2014

Unsteady characteristics of lift generated by small underwater

controlling fin
M. Yoshida
Kyushu University, Fukuoka, Japan
G. Oishi
Akishima Laboratories (Mitsui Zosen) Inc., Akishima, Japan
M. Kanda
Akishima Laboratories (Mitsui Zosen) Inc., Akishima, Japan
H. Iwashita
Hiroshima University, Hiroshima, Japan
H. Kihara
National Defense Academy of Japan, Yokosuka, Japan
T. Kinoshita
The University of Tokyo, Tokyo, Japan

ABSTRACT: The speed reduction, additional resistance or slamming caused by the large amplitude of the ship
motions, should be completely restricted for a high-speed oceangoing vessel because of the delivery punctuality and the high
value of the cargo. A promising ship form for such the oceangoing vessel is a so-called “Resonance-Free SWATH (RFS)”. It
has negative restoring moments due to the extraordinary small water plane area. As a consequence, the resonance peak is
removed from the motion response. The attitude of the RFS with negative restoring moments is adjusted by four pairs of
controlling fins attached to the fore and aft ends of the lower hulls. In the previous works, the quasi-steady values of the lift-
curve slope are usually adopted in the motion equations of the frequency domain. However, when working in waves, the
controlling fins are not in a steady state. The lift coefficient is no longer a constant. In addition, there exist a phase lag
between the movement of the attack angle and the fin-generated lift. In the present work, the theoretical prediction using the
frequency-domain 3D-Rankine Panel Method and the experiment to analyze the phenomena of the lift generation including
the phase lag and the interaction among the fins, the lower hulls and the struts have been carried out. The results show that
the unsteady characteristics of the fin-generated lift are functions of the encounter frequency or the reduced frequency. Also
the effects of the fore fins, the lower hulls and struts on the lift curve-slope of the aft fins are discussed.

1 INTRODUCTION maximum control gain and the lift itself.

A promising ship form for a fast oceangoing
The research and development on the seaworthiness
vessel which motion is reduced completely even in
of the oceangoing ship has been attempted actively
the rough sea is a so-called “Resonance-Free
before1), 2), 3). In some works, the effect of controlling
SWATH (RFS)10), 11)”. It has negative restoring
fins on the motion responses has been studied.
moments due to the extraordinary small water plane
However the value of quasi-steady state has been
area. Accordingly, the attitude of the RFS is adjusted
applied as an approximation of the fin-generated lift
4), 5), 6) by four pairs of controlling fins attached to the fore
, and the unsteady effects on the fin-generated
and aft ends of the lower hulls. As a result, the
lift have not been considered in most of studies.
motion responses of the RFS11) are significantly
When the control of the ship motions by means of
reduced compared with those of the mono-hull and
the fins is discussed, the unsteady characteristics
the trimaran.
such as the time lag and the interaction among the
In this study, some experimental and calculated
fins and the hulls are very important7), 8), 9), since
results regarding the hydrodynamic forces and
they have a profound effect on the magnitude of the
X HSMV - Naples, October 2014

moment acting on the fins attached to the RFS, −0.019 m. Four pairs of horizontal controlling fins
especially the unsteady characteristics of fin- and two pairs of vertical rudders are attached to the
generated lift, are presented and discussed. lower hulls. Each fin has the following
configuration: plane area A= 0.001518 m2, chord
2 EXPERIMENTS length c=0.0357 m (base side) or 0.0278 m (tip side),
span s=0.0478 m, aspect ratio s2/A=1.51 and the
2.1 Model and model basins
symmetrical wing profile of NACA0012.
In this study, experiments to measure the lift forces
acting on the fore and aft fins of the RFS advancing O P θ
in still water have been carried out. The motion of
hull is fixed, and the fore fins and the aft fins are 783

forced to rotate sinusoidally around their axes. The φ77

photograph of the RFS model is shown in Figure 1. 435
Also the principal particulars of the model are Detail of A
Detail of B
presented in Table 1. 35.7 35.7

166.7 833.3 833.3 166.7
(from C.L.) (from C.L.)

(a) Side view


O x

35.7 F.V.
z 35.7 Detail of B
Detail of A
27.8 27.8
Figure 1. Overview of RFS model O y
26.1 φ77
166.7 166.7
Table 1. Principal particulars of RFS model 486

Length L (m) 2.0 (b) Plane and front view

Breadth B (m) 0.486
Figure 2. Plan of RFS model (unit: mm)
Draught d (m) 0.112
Water plane area Aw (m2) 0.0473 The experiments have been carried out at Ocean
Height of gravity center KG (m) 0.180 Engineering Basin in The University of Tokyo and
Longitudinal metacentric height GML (m) − 0.019 the Small Towing Tanks of Akishima Laboratories
Radius of gyration yy/L 0.207 (Mitsui Zosen).
Mass V (kg) 15.49
Advancing speed U (m/s) 1.918 2.2 Controlling fins
Froude number Fn 0.433
The assembling drawing of the controlling fins is
Reynolds number (hull) Re_hull 4×106
shown in Figure 3. The four sets of fin controlling
Reynolds number (fin) Re_fin 6×104
equipment are installed in the bow and stern ends of
both lower hulls, where the diameter of the lower
The RFS model consists of one upper deck, two hull is about 40 mm. The controlling equipment
struts and twin lower hulls as shown in Figure 2. The consists of DC servomotor, worm gear, fin axis and
cross section of the lower hull is circular with the potentiometer principally. The attack angle of four
maximum diameter of 0.077 m. The horizontal cross pairs of the movable fin equipment can be controlled
section of the strut is elliptical with a length of 0.783 independently. The maximum amplitude of the
m and the maximum breadth of 0.0385 m. The attack angle of each fin is limited to 20 deg, and the
height of the strut is approximately 0.154 m. The maximum frequency of fin oscillation is equal to 3.0
longitudinal metacentric height GML is equal to Hz.

X HSMV - Naples, October 2014

Also,  0or Kindicates the amplitude, the angular
frequency or the wave number of the incident wave
respectively. edenotes the encounter angular
frequency and g the gravity acceleration. s means
the steady wave field,  j the unsteady wave field.
For the steady potential s , the following boundary
conditions at the free surface S F , at the body
surface S H and at the wake sheets S W of the fins are

 2s 
U2 g s 0 on z=0 (5)
x 2
Figure 3. Assembly of controlling fins (unit: mm) s
 n1 on SH (6)
P  P   P   0 on SW (7)
2.3 Experimental conditions

The tests of measuring the fin-generated lift have Where n is the unit normal vector on the body
been carried out under the condition of advancing surface pointing into the fluid. Kutta condition that
speed of U=1.918 m/s (Fn=0.433) in still water. the pressure difference P  P   P  between the
During experiment, the fore and aft fins are forced to upside and downside of the wake sheet leading out
rotate sinusoidally in a frequency range of = 0-20 of the trailing edge of the underwater fin is equal to
rad/s with the rotating amplitude of 10 deg zero is described in Equation (7). On the other hand,
respectively. In the mode to control the heave for the unsteady potential  j , the following
motion, both fore and aft fins rotate in the same
boundary conditions are satisfied.
phase, while in the mode to control the pitch motion,
they rotate in the inverse phase.
 j  2 j  j
 e  j  i 2Ue
U 2 g 0
on z=0 (8)
3.1 Mathematical formulation  j U
 nj  m j ( j  1  6)
In this study, a three dimensional frequency-domain n ie
Rankine Panel Method (RPM) based on the potential 7 
on SH (9)
theory12),13) has been applied to calculate the  0
n n
hydrodynamic forces and moments.
P  P  P   0

on SW (10)
a) Boundary conditions  
Describing as r  ( x, y , z ), V   (  x  s ) ,
When the ship is advancing at the constant forward   
speed U in oblique regular waves encountered at the (n1 , n2 , n3 )  n, (n4 , n5 , n6 )  r  n (11)
  
angle of and the fluid is assumed to be irrotational  
( m1 , m2 , m3 )  ( n   )V , ( m4 , m5 , m6 )  ( n   )( r  V )
and ideal, the velocity potential  governed by
Laplace’s equation can be expressed as
Where, mj in Equation (12), which is a so-called m-
 ( x, y, z; t )  U [ x   s ( x, y, z )]  Re[ ( x, y, z )e iet ] (1)
term, is an influence term from the steady flow to
the unsteady flow on the body surface, that is, it
Where represents the effect of the forward speed on the
unsteady flow. Assuming that the influence of it is
gA small,
 (0  7 )  ie   j j (2)
0 j 1

0  ie Kz  iK ( x cos   y sin  ) (3) (m1 , m2 , m3 )  (0, 0, 0), (m4 , m5 , m6 )  (0, n3 ,  n2 ) (13)

 e   0  KU cos  (4)
In addition, the infinite water depth condition and
X HSMV - Naples, October 2014

the radiation condition at the infinite far field are Here Lf or La indicates the lift generated by the fore
satisfied for s and  j . or aft fin, (xf, yf, zf) or (xa, ya, za) the coordinate of
the fore or aft fin, and l0  z f  z a .
b) Hydrodynamic forces and lift forces
c) Kutta condition
The pressure in the unsteady flow
When the difference of the velocity potential
P( x, y, z; t )  Re[ p( x, y, z ) e iet ] (14) between the upside and downside of the wake sheet
SW in the unsteady problem is expressed by  j , the
is obtained by Bernoulli equation as follows. following equation is obtained.

 
p ( x, y,z )    (i e  U ) (15)  P    (i  e  U )  j ( x , y , z )  0
x on SW (21)

Then, integrating the pressure over the hull surface, e

Indicating k , the solution of Equation (21) is
the unsteady hydrodynamic forces and moments Fi U
are evaluated as follows. described as follows.

Fi   S p ( x, y , z ) n i dS , (i  1  6) (16)  j ( x, y , z )  A( y , z ) e ikx (22)


In this study, the hull has no oscillation and only the Accordingly,
fin rotates around its axis in still water. Accordingly,  j ( xT , yT , z T )   jT   jT  A( yT , z T ) e ikxT (23)
the diffraction problem is not solved and only the A( yT , zT )  (   ) e


 ikxT
radiation problem is discussed now. The boundary
condition at the body surface of Equation (9) is Where the coordinate at the trailing edge of the fin is
rewritten as follows. expressed as (xT, yT, zT), velocity potential at the
upside and downside of the trailing edge as T and
 5
0 on SH except for fin surface (17) T respectively. Substituting this into Equation (22),
 5 U U
 n 5  m 5  n 5  n 3 on fin surface  j ( x, yT , zT )  ( jT   jT ) e ik ( x  xT ) (25)
n i e i e
In the case of the steady problem, k in Equation (25)
 is equal to zero.
Where n means the unit normal vector which is
transformed into the coordinate system whose origin
is put at the rotating axis of the fin. And then, the 3.2 Numerical methods
hydrodynamic forces and moments produced by the Boundary conditions (5)-(7) and (8)–(10) are solved
pitch motion of the fin around its axis are calculated by using the boundary element method. In the case
as follows. of unsteady problem, the integral equation is derived
as follows:
Fi  U  5 
   e2 S   5   n i dS , (i  1, 3, 5)
5 H
 i e x   j ( P) G( P, Q)
 S  j (Q)dS
(19) 2 H n
  j (Q) 
 S    j (Q)  G ( P, Q)dS
Accordingly, the fin-generated lift force is calculated F
 n n 
as follows. G ( P, Q) (26)
 S  j (Q)dS
W n
1  F  F1 l0   j (Q)
Lf  F3  5   S
2  xf 
 H n
G( P, Q)dS
1 F  F1 l0 
La   F3  5 

2  Where
xa 
X HSMV - Naples, October 2014

P  ( x, y, z ), Q  ( x, y, z) (27) Where  *j ( k ) indicates the value of the velocity
G ( P, Q ) 
, r  PQ potential  j of k-th panel and
4 r
G( Pk , Q) 
Next expression is obtained from Equation (25). G * (k , l )  
 *   S (l )  G( Pk , Q)  dS (35)
Gn (k , l )  
 n 
 j (Q)  ( jT   jT ) eik ( x xT ) (29)
Here Pk denotes the representative position of the k-
The velocity potentials  j (Q) on the free-surface, the th panel and S (l ) the area of the l-th panel. Also, 
hull- surface and the fin-surface are unknowns in the has only of the value in the case that l lies on the
integral equation (26). In this study, the spline finite panel next to the trailing edge, and then l is equal to
element method14) developed by Sclavounos and +1 on the top surface panel, -1 on the under surface
Nakos is adopted to solve the free-surface problem. panel. In the result, Equation (33) is reduced to the
That is, the velocity potential  j on the free-surface simultaneous equation in which  *j and  m are
z=0 is described as follows. regarded as unknowns.


 j ( x, y )    m Bm ( x, y ) 4
m 1
4.1 Unsteady characteristics of fin-generated lift
Here B m ( x, y ) is the two-dimensional cubic B-spline The experimental results of measuring the fin-
function,  m the spline coefficients and N F the generated lift for the RFS model are presented in
number of panels on free-surface. Then, the free- Figure 4. In the figure, CL3 indicates the lift-curve
surface condition is expressed as follows. slope with respect to the attack angle operated in the
heave control mode while CL5 denotes that in the
 j  j pitch control mode. The unsteady characteristics of
NF 2
   m  C k B m ( x, y ) (31) the fin-generated lift such as the time lag of
n z m 1 k 0 x k generating lift (i.e. the phase lag) and the interaction
among the fore fins, the aft fins, the struts and the
Where lower hulls are shown in the figure. As a whole, the
amplitude of the lift-curve slope gets smaller slightly
1 and the phase lag becomes larger slightly as the
C0   K e , C1  i 2 , C2  (32)
K0 frequency  increases. This is the feature, which is
e2 U e g generally as predicted. Considering the figure in
Ke  ,  , K0  2 (33)
g g U detail, it can be seen as follows. The amplitude of
the lift-curve slope of the aft fin has periodical
Assuming that the surface SF , SH or SW consists of fluctuation in both cases of the heave and pitch
control modes, while there exists no fluctuation for
NF , or NW panels respectively and the value of
NH that of the fore fin. Also, as regarding the phase lag,
the velocity potential is constant in each panel, the there seems to be same feature. It is understood that
integral equation (26) is discretized as follows. the lift-generation of the aft fin is affected by the
wake sheet of the fore fin in general. Furthermore,
 *j (k ) NH
 NW
 regarding the hollow and hump of the periodic
   *j (l ) G n* (k , l )   *j (l )  G * (k , n) e ik ( xn  xT )  fluctuation with respect to the frequency there
2 l 1  n 1 
seems to be inverse feature in the amplitude and the
  m N H
phase lag of the lift-curve slope when comparing the
m  N H 1
control modes of heave and pitch.
 *
NH NF 2
k  Next, the calculated results are also shown in
  G n (k , l ) Bm  N H  G (k , l )  C k k Bm  N H 

x Figure 4. The calculation has been carried out on the

l  N H 1  k 0 
N H  (l )* condition that the wake sheet of the fore fin pass 25
  G * (k , l ) mm above the aft fin. This is confirmed by the

l 1 n visualization experiments of the flow around the aft

(34) fin.
X HSMV - Naples, October 2014

150 Exp Fore fin
Cal Fore fin
4 100

Phase lag of CL3 (deg)

|CL3| (1/rad)

Exp Fore fin -100

1 Cal Fore fin
0 5 10 15 20 0 5 10 15 20
 (rad/s)  (rad/s)

150 Exp Aft fin
Cal Aft fin
4 100

Phase lag of CL3 (deg)

|CL3| (1/rad)


1 Exp Aft fin -100

Cal Aft fin
0 5 10 15 20 0 5 10 15 20
 (rad/s)  (rad/s)
(a) Heave control mode

150 Exp Fore fin
Cal Fore fin
4 100
Phase lag of CL5 (deg)

|CL5| (1/rad)


1 Exp Fore fin -100

Cal Fore fin
0 5 10 15 20 0 5 10 15 20
 (rad/s)  (rad/s)

150 Exp Aft fin
Cal Aft fin
4 100
Phase lag of CL5 (deg)

|CL5| (1/rad)


Exp Aft fin -100

1 Cal Aft fin
0 5 10 15 20 0 5 10 15 20
 (rad/s)  (rad/s)
(b) Pitch control mode

Figure 4. Unsteady characteristics of lift acting on fore or aft fin

X HSMV - Naples, October 2014

Now, it can be understood that the calculated and 5 CONCLUSIONS

the experimental results in the case of the amplitude
One of the important problems to determine the
of the lift-curve slope agree well with each other
seaworthiness of the RFS in waves is the effect of
while the calculated results demonstrate only the
the lift generated by the small underwater
tendency of the experimental results in the case of
controlling fins on the ship motion responses,
the phase lag.
especially the negative influence of the unsteady
Next, considering the lift-curve slope with respect
characteristics of the lift on the magnitude of the
to the attack angle in the steady state, it is expressed
control gains for ship motions.
In this study, the experiments in the model basin
and the theoretical calculations by using the
C L  ( kW ( B )  k B (W ) )(C L )W (36) frequency-domain 3D-Rankine Panel Method to
evaluate the unsteady lift characteristics have been
based on the body-fin effect4), 15), where carried out.
Firstly, it is observed that the amplitude and the
(C L ) W ( B ) (C L ) B (W ) phase lag of the lift curve slope for the aft fin have
kW ( B )  , k B (W )  (37)
(C L ) W (C L  ) W periodical fluctuations with respect to the angular
frequency in both cases of the heave and pitch
in which the subscript W represents the case of the control modes, while there exists no fluctuation for
fin alone, B(W) the case of the lift on the body that of the fore fin. This is caused by the influence of
induced by the fin, and W(B) the case of the lift on the wake sheet of the fore fin.
the fin induced by the body. For low aspect ratio fins, Secondly, the calculated results for the amplitude
of the lift coincide very well with the experimental
(CL)W is evaluated by Whicker and Fehlner 16) as
results, while the calculated results for the phase lag
demonstrate only the tendency of the experimental
1.8  Ae results.
(CL )W  per radian (38)
1.8  Ae 2  4 Thirdly, regarding the magnitude of the lift-curve
slope in the steady state, it can be seen that the
and average value is approximately equal to 3.2 1/rad in
the experiments. This is equivalent to the value that
is predicted by the previous studies of the
Ae  ( r0  ) /c (39) aerodynamics.
where Ae is the effective aspect ratio, r indicates the
This study has been performed by the assist of grant-
radius of the body, r0 denotes the transverse distance
in-aid for scientific research (No. 23246151), Japan
from the body axis to the tip of the fin and c
Society for the Promotion of Science.
represents the average chord length of the fin. As r is
0.02375 m, r0 is 0.07155 m and c is 0.0318 m in the
case of the RFS model, it is obtained Ae = 2.0 and
then (CL)W = 2.44 1/rad. Also kW(B) or kB(W) is equal 1) Takarada, N., Takezawa, S., Hirayama, T., Wang, X.,
Kobayashi, K. and Sakurai, H. (1992) R&D of a
to 0.93 or 0.35 respectively in accordance with the displacement-type high speed ship (Part 4: Seakeeping
study of Pitts et al15). Accordingly, the lift-curve qualities in high speed range), Journal of the Society of Naval
slope in the steady state, CL , is calculated as 3.12 Architects of Japan, Vol. 171, 73–82.
1/rad from Equation (36). On the other hand, in
Figure 4, it can be seen that the experimental results 2) Papanikolaou, A., Zaraphonitis, G. and Androulakakis,
of the CLare approximately equal to 3.2 1/rad when M. (1991) Preliminary design of a high-speed SWATH
passenger/car ferry, Journal Marine Technology, SNAME, Vol.
the frequency close in on the steady state =0 rad/s,
28, No. 3, 129–141.
especially in the case of the fore fins. From this, it
can be confirmed that the estimation of the fin- 3) Armstrong, T. and Holden, K. (2003) A new generation of
generated lift by means of aerodynamics theory large fast ferry – from concept to contact reality, 7th
works well in the hydrodynamic problem. International Conference on Fast Sea Transportation
(FAST2003), 75–84.

X HSMV - Naples, October 2014

4) Lee, C. M. (1976) Theoretical prediction of motion of

Small-Waterplane-Area, Twin-Hull (SWATH) ships in waves,
DTNSRDC Report, SPD–76–0046.

5) Lee, C. M. and Curphey, M. (1977) Prediction of motion,

stability, and wave load of Small-Waterplane-Area Twin-Hull
Ships, SNAME Transactions, Vol. 85, 9–4130.

6) Matsushima, M., Nakamura, H. and Kunitake Y. (1982)

Seakeeping of A Semi-Submerged Catamaran (SSC) Vessel,
Transactions of the West-Japan Society of Naval Architects,
Vol. 63, 97–114.

7) Nishiyama, T. (1962) Unsteady hydrofoil theory, Part 1

Characteristics of hydrofoil moving at constant speed under
sinusoidal waves, Journal of the Society of Naval Architects of
Japan, Vol. 112, 1-14.

8) Nishiyama, T. (1962) Unsteady hydrofoil theory, Part 2

Characteristics of hydrofoil performing heave and pitch while
moving at constant forward speed in still water, Journal of the
Society of Naval Architects of Japan, Vol. 112, 14-19.

9) Kyozuka, Y., Hori, T. and Koterayama, W. (1990)

Unsteady Hydrodynamic Forces on a Lifting Body (Second
Report, Interaction of Lift between Body and Wing), Journal of
the Society of Naval Architects of Japan, Vol. 168, 243–251.

10) Yoshida, T., Fujita, Y. and Fujino, M. (2000) A proposal

of the CS-Swath as a Transocean High Speed Ship,
Transactions of RINA, Vol.142 (B), 136–149.

11) Yoshida, M., Kihara, H., Iwashita, H., Kanda, M. and

Kinoshita, T. (to be published) Superior seaworthiness of a
Resonance-Free fast oceangoing SWATH, Trans RINA, Intl J
Maritime Eng.

12) Elangovan, M., Iwashita, H., Saito, H. and Ito, A. (2008)

Seakeeping Estimations of Fast Ships with Transom Stern,
Journal of the Japan Society of Naval Architects and Ocean
Engineers, Vol. 7, 195-206.

13) Iwashita, H., Hidaka, Y., Suenaga, M. and Shibata, H.

(2002) A study on the hydrodynamic interaction between
submerged lifting and non-lifting bodies advancing in waves,
Journal of the Society of Naval Architects of Japan, Vol. 192,

14) Sclavounos, P. D. and Nakos, D. E. (1988) Stability

analysis of panel method for free-surface flow with forward
speed, 17th Symposium on Naval Hydrodynamics, The Hague.

15) Pitts, W. C., Nielsen, J. N. and Kaattari, G. E. (1959)

Lift and center of pressure of wing-body-tail combinations at
subsonic, transonic, and supersonic speeds, National Advisory
Committee for Aeronautics, Report 1307.

16) Whicker, L. F. and Fahlner, L. F. (1958) Free-Stream

Characteristics of a Family of Low-Aspect-Ratio, All-Movable
Control Surfaces for Application to Ship Design, David Taylor
Model Basin Report 933.