0 views

- cfd_fullbrochure
- CFD ANALYSIS AND COMPARISON OF VERTICAL RIBBED TUBE WITH SMOOTH TUBE
- 1ebd9c3b 8bee 4a6c 8d8d 5fff84966bc4 Rina 1997 DynamicStabilityOfPlaningShips
- [Paper] Multiplicative vs. Additive Filtering for Spacecraft Attitude Determination
- 07-BTP v54 Andre Martins
- kurose_et_al_NumrSimofPCC_KONA_review.pdf
- Cfd Na Industria
- 2-Dimensional Cfd Simulation of the Air Flow Insid
- Zagreb_EPE-PEMC.pdf
- Thesis Openfoam 2d Airfoil
- Alcantarilla 10 i Cra 1
- cnls-lanl05
- Investigation of 2D Airfoils Equipped With a Trailing Edge Flaps MSc in Wind Energy
- Kalman Filter
- Real-time Estimation of Battery State-Of-charge With Unscented Kalman Filter
- Iavsd 2007 Zhou
- All Car Details
- Stem seal
- Thruster Offshore
- 11_1_1750

You are on page 1of 25

Improved Maneuvering-Based

Mathematical Model for Free-Running

Ship Motions in Following Waves Using

High-Fidelity CFD Results

and System-Identification Technique

and Frederick Stern

following and quartering waves are one of the most important topics to prevent

broaching; however current mathematical models show quantitative errors with the

experimental data while high-fidelity CFD simulations show quantitative agreement,

which provides the opportunity to improve the mathematical models for free run-

ning ship dynamics in waves. In this study, both maneuvering coefficients and wave

model in the mathematical model are improved utilizing system identification tech-

nique and CFD free running outputs. From turning circle and zigzag calm water CFD

free running data, the maneuvering coefficients are estimated. The wave correction

parameters are introduced to improve the wave model, which are found from a few

forced and free running CFD simulations in waves. The mathematical model with the

improved parameters shows much better agreement with experiments in both calm

water and waves than the original mathematical model. The original mathematical

model was based on the maneuvering coefficients estimated from several captive

tests and wave forces calculated from linear Froude-Krylov forces and diffraction

forces based on a slender ship theory.

Department of Naval Architecture & Ocean Engineering, Osaka University, Osaka, Japan

e-mail: araki@nmri.go.jp

H. Sadat-Hosseini · Y. Sanada · F. Stern (B)

IIHR—Hydroscience & Engineering, The University of Iowa, Iowa City, IA, USA

e-mail: frederick-stern@uiowa.edu

H. Sadat-Hosseini

e-mail: hamid.sadat@unt.edu

M. Araki

Ocean Engineering Department, National Maritime Research Institutes, Tokyo, Japan

H. Sadat-Hosseini

Department of Mechanical and Energy Engineering, University of North Texas, Denton, TX, USA

V. L. Belenky et al. (eds.), Contemporary Ideas on Ship Stability, Fluid Mechanics

and Its Applications 119, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-00516-0_6

92 M. Araki et al.

Maneuvering coefficients · Wave model · Free-running ship

List of Symbols

aH Rudder and hull hydrodynamic interaction coefficient in sway

B Ship breadth

b1,2,3,4 Tuning parameter for wave forces amplitude in sway

c1,2,3,4 Tuning parameter for wave forces amplitude in roll

CX Nondimensionalized drift wave force in surge

CY Nondimensionalized drift wave force in sway

CN Nondimensionalized drift wave moment in yaw

d Ship draft

d1,2,3,4 Tuning parameter for wave forces amplitude in yaw

Fr Froude number

g Gravitational acceleration

GZ Restoring arm in roll

Ix x Moment of inertia in roll

Izz Moment of inertia in yaw

Jx x Added moment of inertia in roll

Jzz Added moment of inertia in yaw

k Wave number

Kp Derivative of roll moment with roll rate

Kr Derivative of roll moment with yaw rate

KR Rudder force in roll

Ks Rotational index in nonlinear first order Nomoto’s model

Kv Derivative of roll moment with sway velocity

Kw Wave moment in roll

Di f

Kw Diffraction wave moment in roll

FK

Kw Froude-Krylov wave moment in roll

K rrr Derivative of roll moment with cubed yaw rate

K rr v Derivative of roll moment with squared yaw rate and sway velocity

K r vv Derivative of roll moment with squared sway velocity and yaw rate

K vvv Derivative of roll moment with cubed sway velocity

Kφ Derivative of roll moment with roll angle

L Ship length

lR Longitudinal position of rudder center from center of ship gravity

m Ship mass

mW D Shape parameter of Weibull distribution for wave drift forces/moment

mx Added mass in surge

my Added mass in sway

Nr Derivative of yaw moment with yaw rate

6 Improved Maneuvering-Based Mathematical Model … 93

Ns Nonlinear index in nonlinear first order Nomoto’s model

Nv Derivative of yaw moment with sway velocity

Nw Wave moment in yaw

Di f

Nw Diffraction wave moment in yaw

FK

Nw Froude-Krylov wave moment in yaw

Nrrr Derivative of yaw moment with cubed yaw rate

Nrr v Derivative of yaw moment with squared yaw rate and sway velocity

Nr vv Derivative of yaw moment with squared sway velocity and yaw rate

Nvvv Derivative of yaw moment with cubed sway velocity

Nφ Derivative of yaw moment with roll angle

p Roll rate

r Yaw rate

R Ship resistance

T Propeller thrust in surge

tR Rudder and hull hydrodynamic interaction coefficient in surge

Ts Time constant index in nonlinear first order Nomoto’s model

Tw Wave period

u Surge velocity

uw Wave particle velocity in surge

v Sway velocity

vw Wave particle velocity in sway

WC N Drift wave moment in yaw

WC X Drift wave force in surge

WCY Drift wave force in sway

xH Rudder and hull hydrodynamic interaction coefficient in yaw

XR Rudder force in surge

X rr Derivative of surge force with squared yaw rate

Xrv Derivative of surge force with yaw rate and sway velocity

X rr Derivative of surge force with squared sway velocity

Xw Wave force in surge

Di f

Xw Diffraction wave force in surge

FK

Xw Froude-Krylov wave force in surge

Yr Derivative of sway force with yaw rate

YR Rudder force in sway

Yv Derivative of sway force with sway velocity

Yw Wave force in sway

YwF K Froude-Krylov wave force in sway

Di f

Yw Diffraction wave force in sway

Yrrr Derivative of sway force with cubed yaw rate

Yrr v Derivative of sway force with squared yaw rate and sway velocity

Yr vv Derivative of sway force with squared sway velocity and yaw rate

Yvvv Derivative of sway force with cubed sway velocity

Yφ Derivative of sway force with roll angle

94 M. Araki et al.

gravity

zH R Height of rudder force application point in roll

αX Tuning parameter for drift wave force in surge

αY Tuning parameter for drift wave force in sway

αN Tuning parameter for drift wave moment in yaw

β1 Tuning parameter for wave particle velocity in surge

β2 Tuning parameter for wave particle velocity in sway

γR Flow straitening coefficient

δ Rudder angle

ε Rudder effectiveness coefficient

εa1,2,3,4 Tuning parameter for wave forces phase lag in surge

εb1,2,3,4 Tuning parameter for wave forces phase lag in sway

εc1,2,3,4 Tuning parameter for wave forces phase lag in roll

εd1,2,3,4 Tuning parameter for wave forces phase lag in yaw

ηW D Scale parameter of Weibull distribution for wave drift forces/moment

ζw Wave amplitudes

λ Wave length

ξG Longitudinal position of center of ship gravity from a wave trough

ρ Water density

φ Roll angle

ψ Yaw angle

ψ0 Tuning parameter for wave drift wave force phase lag in surge

ω Wave frequency

6.1 Introduction

Maneuverability and stability of a free running ship in waves are one of the most

important topics considered in the ship design. Especially, in severe following and

quartering waves, the ship is very likely to broach and capsize.

Mathematical models (MM) and recently computational fluid dynamic (CFD),

numerically solving Navier-Stokes equation including viscous effects, are used

to predict ship stability and maneuverability in calm water and waves. The MM

approach in this paper means an approach consisting of two layered sub systems.

In the lower layer, hydrodynamic forces mainly due to potential flow are calcu-

lated by solving partial differential equations of potential flow and hydrodynamic

forces mainly due to viscosity flow are estimated with captive model experiments or

empirical formulas. In the upper layer, ship motions are calculated by solving ordi-

nary differential equations with initial conditions. Since short computational time is

required to sweep out dangerous maneuvering and wave conditions from a huge num-

ber of suspect conditions, the MM method shows superior ability to the CFD; MM

needs less than a minute for one free running simulation using a personal computer

while CFD needs a few weeks or a month using a very expensive supercomputer.

6 Improved Maneuvering-Based Mathematical Model … 95

and rudder coefficients from captive model tests which are necessary for MM method

while CFD just needs ship geometry and propeller characteristics.

The MM free running simulations in calm water showed that MM was very sen-

sitive to the accuracy of the maneuvering coefficients such that the scatter in the MM

predictions were substantial for MM with coefficients estimated from different cap-

tive tests (Stern et al. 2011). Also, MM showed only qualitative agreement with model

experiment (ME) free running results in following and quartering waves while CFD

shows quantitative agreement (Sadat-Hosseini et al. 2011). Since CFD free running

simulation can provide not only ship motion but also total forces/moments acting

on the ship which are unknown during ME free running, it could give a chance to

modify and tune MM to reduce the disagreement with ME free running results in

calm water and waves.

Several mathematical models have been developed. Abkowitz (1964) developed a

mathematical model to describe the hydrodynamic forces/moments acting on the ship

with polynomial expressions using Taylor expansion on state variables. Christensen

and Blanke (1986) developed 2nd order modulus expansions, which represent the

hydrodynamic forces at angle of incidence: cross-flow drag. Recently a new maneu-

vering model was developed from first principles of low aspect-ratio aerodynamic

theory and Lagrangian mechanics (Ross et al. 2007). Meanwhile, the Maneuvering

Mathematical Modeling Group (MMG) (Ogawa and Kasai 1978; MMG 1980) devel-

oped a mathematical model, which explicitly includes the individual open water char-

acteristics of the hull/propeller/rudder and their interactions. Issues for improvement

include both wave terms in the mathematical model and methods for obtaining the

wave maneuvering coefficients. Usually, the maneuvering coefficients are assumed

constant, which could be realistic for high encounter frequency wave conditions. In

contrast, Son and Nomoto (1982) and Araki et al. (2010) showed a large variation

of maneuvering coefficients in following waves in which the encounter frequency is

very low.

System identification (SI) techniques are developed in control engineering to build

mathematical models for dynamical systems by estimating maneuvering coefficients.

The least square (LS) is the one of the simplest and the extended Kalman filtering

(EKF) (Lewis 1986) is one of the most widely used methods in engineering. Nonaka

et al. (1972) employed LS to estimate maneuvering coefficients from experimen-

tal free-running data with random rudder motions and the Abkowitz mathematical

model. However, the estimated maneuvering coefficients were not accurate, which

was due to some of the derivatives drifting to the wrong values known as the simulta-

neous drift problem (Kang et al. 1984). The constrained least square (CLS) method

using the generalized reduced gradient algorithm developed by Lasdon et al. (1978)

can help avoiding the simultaneous drift problem. EKF using full-scale trial data and

the Abkowitz mathematical model was employed by Abkowitz (1980). The zigzag

and turning simulation using estimated maneuvering coefficients showed reasonable

agreement with the data. Rhee and Kim (1999) employed EKF for free-running trial

data (zigzag, turning circle, large angle zigzag tests, etc.) and the MMG mathematical

model to find the best trial type for system identification. The maneuvering coeffi-

96 M. Araki et al.

cients reconstructed from the large angle zigzag test showed the smallest error with

the original coefficients. Zhang and Zou (2011) employed support vector machine,

one of the artificial intelligence methods, for zigzag test and the Abkowitz mathemat-

ical model for which the reconstructed coefficients showed close agreement with the

original maneuvering coefficients. Several other researchers (for instance Shi et al.

2009) have employed EKF to estimate ship maneuvering coefficients.

Most of the studies were conducted for calm water and experimental data were

used to improve the mathematical model by utilizing a system identification tech-

nique. The authors used CFD outputs to improve the mathematical model predictions

in calm water (Araki et al. 2012). Hydrodynamic and rudder maneuvering coeffi-

cients included in MM were estimated from turning circle and zigzag CFD free

running simulations trial data. The MM simulations using the predicted coefficients

showed much better agreement with ME free running than those using coefficients

estimated from captive model experiments and empirical prediction.

For maneuvering prediction in waves, the mathematical models often use the

hydrodynamic maneuvering coefficients estimated from the experimental captive

test in calm water. Also, the wave forces are considered as the summation of Froude-

Krylov and diffraction forces. These result in differences between MM predictions

and experimental free running data since the maneuvering coefficients variations due

to waves and wave drift forces are important for MM prediction in waves (Son and

Hamamoto 1982).

The objective of the present work is to employ the system identification technique

with CFD outputs to improve MM predictions in following and quartering waves by

tuning the maneuvering coefficients and wave forces. Since the ultimate goal of this

study is to predict broaching with MM modified with SI, the 4DOF MM (Umeda

et al. 2008) which is popular for broaching prediction model is applied as a basic

MM for this study. The CLS system identification technique was used to estimate

the manoeuvring coefficients and the wave forces using CFD outputs. Herein, only

moderate wave conditions are considered which do not cause broaching. The wave

forces/effects are found from CFD simulations. First CFD free running simulations

in waves are executed. Second, CFD forced motion simulations in calm water are

performed with imposing exactly same motions as the free running simulation. The

wave forces/effects are estimated as the difference between the total force of the

first and second simulations. The CFD wave forces/effects are compared with the

conventional MM wave model based on slender body theory and used to tune MM

wave forces/effects by the system identification technique. The improved MM and

CFD free running simulation results are compared with that of ME. Here it should

be pointed out that the MM and CFD simulations are done before the ME data are

available.

6 Improved Maneuvering-Based Mathematical Model … 97

Model scale

Length (L) 3.147 m

Breadth (B) 0.384 m

Depth (D) 0.266 m

Draft (d) 0.112 m

Displacement (W) 72.6 kg

Metacentric height (GM) 0.0424 m

Natural roll period (Tφ) 1.644 s

Rudder area (AR) 0.012 m2 × 2

Block coefficient (Cb) 0.535

Vertical position of CoG from waterline −0.392 × d

(downward positive) (OG)

Radius of gyration in pitch (κyy) 0.25 × L

Maximum rudder angle (δmax ) ±35°

ONRTH model

WL

The 1/49 scaled model of ONR tumblehome (ONRTH), was developed at Naval

Surface Warfare Center Carderock Division (Bishop et al. 2005), appended with

skeg, bilge keels, rudders, shafts with propeller shaft brackets and twin propellers

was used for the free running experiments. The main particulars of the ONRTH ship

are listed in Table 6.1. The details of the body plan and the model are shown in

Figs. 6.1 and 6.2.

98 M. Araki et al.

Fig. 6.2 Bow and stern of the ONRTH model: a bow; b stern

6.2.2 ME Method

All ME free running data was acquired in IIHR wave basin. The wave basin has

dimensions of 40 × 20 m2 with 3 m water depth and is designed to test captive or

radio-controlled model scale ships.

The model launch system enables specification and replication of the free running

trial initial conditions. Roll, pitch, and yaw angles of the model ship were measured by

a fiber optical gyroscope. Meanwhile, the plane trajectory of the model was recorded

by the tracking system, which uses two-camera vision. The tracking cameras capture

two LED lights placed on the deck of the model. In order to increase the reliability and

accuracy of the 5DOF (Degree of Freedom) measurement and to enable measurement

for all 6DOF of the free running model, i.e. the heave motion, a 6DOF visual motion

capture system was added to the tracking system. A detailed description of the wave

basin and wavemakers, carriage model tracking, 6DOF visual motion capture and

free running 6DOF systems, model geometry and ballasting, and free running trials

tests in calm water and waves is provided by Sanada et al. (2012).

The experimental procedure was as follows. First, the model ship was fixed on

the launch system by electromagnetics while heave, roll, and pitch are free. After the

propeller starts to rotate, the model was accelerated by the launch system to reach

the target speed. Since the towing system acts as the hard spring there would be

small oscillations for the surge motion of the towed ship. After the ship was at the

target speed the model was towed for more distance until the bow was located on

the wave crest. Then the model was released and the rudder controller was activated

after few seconds to start maneuvering. The propeller rate was kept constant during

free running. The ME and CFD trial conditions are shown in Table 6.2.

6 Improved Maneuvering-Based Mathematical Model … 99

Test Nominal δ (deg) ψ *c (deg) H/λ λ/Lpp

Fr

ME Calm Turning 0.1, 0.2 25, 35 NA

water circle

Zigzag 0.1, 0.2 10, 20, 35 10, 20,

35

Large 0.2 35 90

angle

zigzag

Wave Zigzag 0.1, 0.2 20 20 0.02, 1.0

0.03

Straight 0.1, 0.2 NA NA 0.02, 1.0

running 0.03

Course 0.1, 0.2 Proportional 20 0.02, 1.0

keeping control, P 1 0.03

CFD Calm Turning 0.2 25 NA

water circle

Zigzag 0.2 20 20

Large 0.2 35 90

angle

zigzag

Wave Zigzag 0.2 20 20 0.02, 1.0

0.03

Straight 0.2 NA NA 0.02, 1.0

running 0.03

Course 0.2 Proportional 20 0.02, 1.0

keeping control, P 1 0.03

ψ *c Target yaw angle

The code CFDShip-Iowa v4 (Carrica et al. 2010) is used for the CFD computa-

tions. The CFDShip-Iowa is an overset, block structured CFD solver designed for

ship applications using either absolute or relative inertial non-orthogonal curvilinear

coordinate system for arbitrary moving but non-deforming control volumes. Tur-

bulence models include blended k-ε/k-ω based isotropic and anisotropic Raynolds

Averaged Navier Stokes (RANS), and (detached eddy simulations) DES approaches

with near-wall or wall functions. The discretized geometries of the twin propellers

were not included in the simulations. Instead, a simplified body force model is used

for the propeller which prescribes axisymmetric body force with axial and tangential

components.

The propeller model requires the experimental open water curves and advance

coefficients as input and provides the torque and thrust forces. The open water curves

100 M. Araki et al.

for ONRTH hull and

appendages

are defined as a second order polynomial fit of the experimental K T (J) and K Q (J)

curves. The advance coefficient is computed using ship speed with neglecting the

wake effects. Herein, two PID controllers are used. The heading controller acting on

the rudders are responsible to turn the rudders to keep the ship in the desired direction.

The speed controller acting on the body force propeller model is responsible to rotate

the propellers at appropriate propeller rate to keep the ship at the desired speed. The

heading controller uses P 1 for the proportional gain and zero for both the integral

and derivative gains mimicking the experimental setup which uses a proportional

heading control.

The CFD initial condition is different with ME in several ways. The CFD model

was accelerated with infinite rate to the target speed unlike ME. Then the model

was towed at target speed which was constant while the model was only free to

heave and pitch and not roll until the wave trough was located at midship. After

that, the model was released and rudder controller was activated immediately to

start maneuvering. The differences between ME and CFD setup might cause some

discrepancies between ME and CFD results.

The free model is appended with skeg, bilge keels, superstructure, rudders, rudder

roots, shafts, and propeller brackets same as the ME model but not appended with

actual propellers. The computational grids are overset with independent grids for the

hull, superstructure, appendages, refinement, and background, and then assembled

together to generate the total grid. The total number of grid points is 12.1 M for free

model simulations. Details of the grids are shown in Table 6.3 and Fig. 6.3. The free

running in waves and calm water verification studies have been done (Sadat-Hosseini

et al. 2011; Araki et al. 2012) which showed quantitative agreement with ME results.

6.2.4 MM Method

4DOF maneuvering mathematical model was used for the MM simulations as shown

in Eqs. (6.1)–(6.5). The low encounter frequency model (Umeda et al. 2008) is 4DOF

surge-sway-roll-yaw model and is modified especially for surge equation and rudder

6 Improved Maneuvering-Based Mathematical Model … 101

Name Size (grid points) # of procs Type

Hull S/Pa 199 × 61 × 104 12 (×2) Double O

(1.26 M ×2)

Skeg S/P 61 × 49 × 40 1 (×2) O

(0.12 M ×2)

Bilge keel S/P 99 × 45 × 50 2 (×2) H

(0.23 M ×2)

Rudder root collar S/P 121 × 35 × 28 1 (×2) O

(0.12 M ×2)

Rudder root gap S/P 121 × 51 × 19 2 (×2) Conformal to collar

(0.12 M ×2)

Rudder outer S/P 61 × 36 × 55 1 (×2) Double O

(0.12 M ×2)

Rudder inner S/P 61 × 36 × 55 1 (×2) Double O

(0.12 M ×2)

Rudder gap S/P 121 × 51 × 19 2 (×2) Conformal to inner

(0.12 M ×2) and outer

Shaft collar S/P 39 × 50 × 57 1 (×2) O

(0.11 M ×2)

Shaft proper S/P 74 × 41 × 37 1 (×2) O

(0.11 M ×2)

Shaft tip S/P 110 × 117 × 100 12 (×2) O with end pole

(1.29 M ×2)

Strut outer S/P 69 × 34 × 50 1 (×2) O

(0.12 M ×2)

Strut inner S/P 69 × 34 × 50 1 (×2) O

(0.12 M ×2)

Superstructure 165 × 61 × 85 8 Wrap

(0.86 M)

Refinement 145 × 81 × 113 12 Cartesian

(1.33 M)

Background 213 × 84 × 113 20 O

(2.02 M)

Total (12.1 M) 116

a S/P Starboard/Port

model (Araki et al. 2012). The model is developed in horizontal body axes which

are shown in Fig. 6.4.

+ X rr (u)r 2 + X R (δ, u, v, r ) + X W (6.1)

102 M. Araki et al.

+ Yvvv (u)v 3 + Yvvr (u)v 2 r + Yvrr (u)r 2 v

+ Yrrr (u)r 3 + Y R (δ, u, v, r ) + YW (6.2)

(Ix x + Jx x ) ṗ m x z H ur + K v (u)v + K r (u)r + K p (u) p + K φ (u)φ

− mgG Z (φ) + K vvv (u)v 3 + K vvr (u)v 2 r + K vrr (u)r 2 v

+ K rrr (u)r 3 + K R (δ, u, v, r ) + K W (6.3)

(Izz + Jzz )ṙ Nv (u)v + Nr (u)r + Nφ (u)φ + Nvvv (u)v + Nvvr (u)v r

3 2

Here

[K v K r K vvv K vvr K vrr K rrr ]T z H [Yv Yr Yvvv Yvvr Yvrr Yrrr ]T (6.5)

iment and the thrust is estimated from propeller open water tests in calm water as

described in Umeda et al. (2008). Roll restoring moment (mgGZ) is estimated from

hydrostatic calculations in calm water. Maneuvering coefficients including heel-

induced hydrodynamic derivatives are estimated from calm water captive model

experiments (Hashimoto et al. 2008). Roll damping is estimated from roll decay

model tests (Umeda et al. 2008). For the ONRTH, the values of correction coef-

ficients for rudder are empirically developed from other model experiments (Kose

et al. 1981). The empirical values are also used for the interaction force coefficients

induced on the hull by rudder nominal force. All maneuvering and rudder coeffi-

cients are listed in Table 6.4. In wave cases, the wave forces X w , Y w , K w , and N w are

calculated from linear Froude-Krylov forces and diffraction forces based on slender

ship theory for zero encounter frequency. It is known that the wave particle velocity

affects the rudder and propeller inflow speed which is important for the maneuver-

ability in waves. Therefore the effects of wave particle velocity to propeller thrust

and rudder force are taken into account.

6 Improved Maneuvering-Based Mathematical Model … 103

Table 6.4 Values of original and SI-calm maneuvering and rudder coefficients used in 4-DOF

nonlinear MM

Coef. Original SI-calm Coef. Original SI-calm

ε 1.0 0.75 Y vrr −0.80 0.32

γR 0.70 0.55 Y rrr 0.174 0.080

l R /L −1.00 −0.95 Yφ −5.1E−04 −6.5E−04

tR 0.30 0.10 J xx 4.1E−05 0.0001

aH 0.25 0.23 zH 0.852 1.08

zHR /d 0.854 0.802 Kp −0.243 −0.203

x H /L −0.45 −0.52 Kφ 6.3E−04 1.0E−03

mx 0.0131 0.0 J zz 0.0079 0.0059

X vv −0.0858 −0.070 Nv −0.0932 −0.0851

X vr 0.0522 0.065 Nr −0.0549 −0.0395

X rr −0.0213 −0.025 N vvv −0.532 −0.492

my 0.109 −0.070 N vvr −0.629 −0.805

Yv −0.30 −0.20 N vrr −0.139 −0.121

Yr −0.0832 0.07 N rrr −0.00446 −0.0065

Y vvv −1.77 −2.0 Nφ −0.00511 −0.00989

Y vvr 0.262 0.32

However, the MM simulations using these coefficients and wave model show

some discrepancy with the ME free running in calm water and waves. The authors

tuned the calm water maneuvering and rudder coefficients values using the SI with

CFD free running results in calm water. The results showed better agreement with the

ME calm water data (Araki et al. 2012). The values of tuned coefficients are shown

in Table 6.4. Herein, the wave model is tuned using the SI technique with CFD free

running and captive results in waves.

A constrained least square (CLS) method using generalized reduced gradient algo-

rithm (Lasdon et al. 1978) is used for SI. The CLS method provided reasonable

maneuvering coefficients from CFD calm water maneuvers (Araki et al. 2012). To

predict wave forces/effects, it is necessary to extract the wave forces/effects from

total hydrodynamic forces. To achieve this purpose, first 6DOF CFD free running

simulations in waves are executed. Second, CFD forced motion simulations in calm

water are performed with imposing exactly same motions as the free running simu-

lation. Thus the wave forces/effects are estimated as the difference between the total

force of the first and second simulations.

104 M. Araki et al.

ψC 20° course keeping towed free

maneuver in following waves

with nominal Fr 0.20, wave

steepness 1/50 and wave

length to ship length ratio 1.0

Figure 6.5 shows the extracted CFD wave forces/effects during ψC 20° course

keeping maneuver in quartering waves with nominal Fr 0.20, wave steepness 1/50

and wave length to ship length ratio 1.0. During the free running, the model is

imposed with constant forward speed Fr 0.20 and constant yaw angle 20° until

8.02 s then released to start course keeping maneuvers. Here the “MM” is the wave

forces computed by MM wave model.

It is shown that MM overestimates surge wave force and underestimates sway,

roll, and yaw wave forces. Although definitions of wave forces are different, these

tendencies are found in previous research by Hashimoto et al. (2011) as well where

they compared MM and captive ME wave exciting forces for ONRTH. Moreover the

MM waveforms seem to be different from CFD waveforms especially after the model

is released. This could because that MM wave model merely includes the Froude-

Krylov and diffraction forces while CFD wave force includes all wave effects not

just Froude-Krylov and diffraction forces but also wave drift forces and maneuvering

6 Improved Maneuvering-Based Mathematical Model … 105

the wave correction parameters are estimated by SI methods to tune MM wave model

based on Eqs. (6.6)–(6.8).

X W a1 X WFK

+ kζw a2 sin(kξG + εa2 ) · X vv · v 2

+a3 sin(kξG + εa3 ) · X vr · vr + a4 sin(kξG + εa4 ) · X rr · r 2 + WC X

Di f

YW b1 YWF K + b2 YW + kζw (b3 sin(kξG + εb3 ) · Yv · v

+b4 sin(kξG + εb4 ) · Yr · r ) + WCY

Di f

K W c1 K WF K + c2 K W + kζw (c3 sin(kξG + εc3 ) · K v · v + c4 sin(kξG + εc4 ) · K r · r )

Di f

NW d1 N WF K + d2 N W + kζw (d3 sin(kξG + εd3 ) · Nv · v

+d4 sin(kξG + εd4 ) · Nr · r ) + WC N (6.6)

where

WC X ρgζw2 B 2 /L · sin(ψ/2 + ψ0 ) · 1 − e−10Fr · C X (Tw )

WCY ρgζw2 B 2 /L · sin ψ · CY (Tw )

WC N ρgζw2 B 2 · sin ψ · C N (Tw ) (6.7)

mW D Tw m−1 Tw m

C X,Y,N (Tw ) α X,Y,N · exp − (6.8)

ηW D ηW D ηW D

u w β1 · ζw ω cos ψe−kz cos(kξG + kx cos ψ)

vw −β2 · ζw ω sin ψe−kz cos(kξG + kx cos ψ) (6.9)

The new wave model includes the major maneuvering coefficients variations and

wave drift forces. For the simplification the wave drift coefficients shown in Eq. (6.8)

are expressed as the Weibull distribution respect to wave periods. The shape and

scale parameter mWD , ηWD of Eq. (6.8) are determined from the Yasukawa’s research

(2006). Also the normal force of CFD rudder is used to tune the wave particle velocity

effects to propeller and rudder as shown in Eq. (6.9).

Here a, b, c, d, ε in Eq. (6.6), ψ 0 in Eq. (6.7), α in Eq. (6.8), and β in Eq. (6.9)

are tuned by the SI. These SI procedures are repeated to the other cases: straight

running and 20/20 zigzag with nominal Fr 0.20, wave steepness 1/50 and wave

length to ship length ratio 1.0. The original wave correction coefficients and the

tuned coefficients are shown in Table 6.5.

106 M. Araki et al.

Table 6.5 Original wave Coef. Orig SI-wave Coef. Orig SI-wave

correction coefficients and the

coefficients estimated by SI a1 1.0 0.758 c1 1.0 1.26

using extracted CFD wave a2 0.0 16.33 c2 1.0 0.355

forces/effects data a3 0.0 0.855 c3 0.0 0.510

a4 0.0 0.132 c4 0.0 0.195

εa2 0.0 0.391 εc3 0.0 −0.99

εa3 0.0 3.21 εc4 0.0 1.03

εa4 0.0 0.0 d1 1.0 1.43

αX 0.0 −46.3 d2 1.0 0.403

b1 1.0 1.35 d3 0.0 1.01

b2 1.0 0.423 d4 0.0 0.213

b3 0.0 2.18 εd3 0.0 0.982

b4 0.0 0.496 εd4 0.0 −0.99

εb3 0.0 −0.552 αN 0.0 −2.50

εb4 0.0 0.810 ψ0 0.0 0.301

αY 0.0 −106.2 β1 1.0 0.643

β2 1.0 0.425

Runnings

shown in Fig. 6.6. Here “MM-Orig.” indicates the MM simulation using the maneu-

vering coefficients estimated from captive model test and rudder coefficients pre-

dicted from empirical charts (Kose et al. 1981). “MM-SI-calm” indicates MM sim-

ulation using maneuvering and rudder coefficients estimated by SI using CFD calm

water maneuvering data (Araki et al. 2012). Figure 6.6a shows the trajectories of

turning circle tests (δ 25°, Fr 0.20), Fig. 6.6b shows zigzag tests (ψc /δ 20/20,

Fr 0.20) trajectories, and Fig. 6.6c shows large angle zigzag tests (ψc /δ 90/35,

Fr 0.20).

The steady state variables and turning parameters for turning circle and 1st, 2nd

overshoot angles and K s , T s , N s steering quality indices for zigzag cases (ABS 2006)

for both CFD and MM predictions are compared against ME ones and the overall

errors are plotted in Fig. 6.7. The steering quality indices are computed from nonlinear

first order Nomoto’s model (Norrbin 1963) shown in Eq. (6.10). As shown in Figs. 6.6

and 6.7, the errors of MM-SI-calm are much smaller than that of MM-Orig.

Ts ṙ + Ns r 3 + r K s δ (6.10)

6 Improved Maneuvering-Based Mathematical Model … 107

CFD, MM-Orig., and

MM-SI free running in calm

water: a δ 25° turning

circle; b 20/20 zigzag; c

90/35 large angle zigzag

108 M. Araki et al.

free running results: “T25”

30

δ 25° turning circle; “Z20”

20/20 zigzag; “Z90” 90/35 25

zigzag; “Global Av.” average

20 CFD

E%D

of T25, Z20, and Z90 errors

15 MM-SI-calm

MM-Orig.

10

0

T25 Z20 Z90 Global Av.

Figure 6.8 shows the comparison between CFD, MM-SI-calm and MM-SI-wave

straight running in following waves with nominal Fr 0.20, wave steepness 1/50 and

wave length to ship length ratio 1.0. Here “MM-SI-calm” indicates MM simulation

using maneuvering and rudder coefficients estimated by SI from CFD calm water

maneuvering data (Araki et al. 2012) with original wave model. “MM-SI-wave”

indicates MM simulations using same maneuvering and rudder coefficients with

“MM-SI-calm” but with new wave model shown in Eq. (6.6) which is the improved

wave forces using CFD wave forces/effects data.

In Fig. 6.8, CFD shows remarkable agreement with ME especially for the surge

and pitch motions. It is showing possibility to replace ME free running test with CFD

simulations even in wave conditions. Here heave and pitch motions for the 4DOF

(surge-sway-yaw-roll) MM are assumed to be the same as the static equilibrium

positions of the ship in waves. MM shows larger heave and pitch motion than those

of CFD and ME which indicates that 6DOF model could be desirable. In surge

motion, CFD successfully reproduce the nominal speed loss due to waves. The MM-

SI-calm fails to express the nominal speed loss and the surging amplitudes are larger

than that of CFD and ME. The MM-SI-calm cannot represent nominal speed loss

because the wave drift terms are not included in the MM-SI-calm model. Meanwhile

MM-SI-wave successfully predicts nominal speed loss and surging amplitude within

high degree of accuracy.

and Quartering Waves

Course keeping and zigzag simulations in wave conditions are shown in this section.

The simulation procedure is as follows. First the model is accelerated to the target

ship speed with 2DOF (heave and pitch). After the model reaches to the speed, the

6 Improved Maneuvering-Based Mathematical Model … 109

Fr=0.20

θ [deg]

Fig. 6.8 Straight running in following waves with nominal Fr 0.20, wave steepness 1/50, and

wave length to ship length ratio 1.0

model is towed with constant speed for a while and released when the bow is located

on the wave crest. The rudder control starts just after the model is released. In the

ME, it should be noted that the towing time was very short because of the limitation

of the facility’s size. Moreover it was 3DOF (heave, pitch and roll) during towing in

ME.

Figure 6.9 shows the comparison between CFD and MM-SI-calm ψC 20° course

keeping in quartering waves with nominal Fr 0.20, wave steepness 1/50 and wave

length to ship length ratio 1.0. Here the ME and CFD rudder control start just after

the model is released at a wave trough.

In the trajectory, CFD course deviation shows good agreement with ME which

indicates that CFD well predicts the wave drift force. Although the ME shows wobbly

trajectory compared to CFD due to large oscillations for sway motions. Due to the

sway motion error, the roll motions show some difference between ME and CFD

while the error is much smaller than that of sway motion. However CFD successfully

predicts the surge and yaw motions in quartering waves. Paying attention to CFD and

MM results, MM-SI-calm shows small course deviation compared to that of CFD.

110 M. Araki et al.

keeping maneuver in

quartering waves with

nominal Fr 0.20, wave

steepness 1/50, and wave

length to ship length ratio 1.0

ψ [deg]

δ [deg]

6 Improved Maneuvering-Based Mathematical Model … 111

From the state variables comparisons, it is clear that MM-SI-calm has some dis-

crepancy on the wave forces and wave drift effects compared to CFD and ME.

MM-SI-calm’s wave model overestimates the surge wave force and underestimates

the sway, roll, and yaw wave forces. The MM-SI-wave shows better agreement with

CFD than MM-SI-calm for state variables and the trajectory. The wave drift effects

can be seen in sway motion prediction which improves the prediction of the course

deviation.

Figure 6.10 shows the comparison between ME, CFD and MM 20/20 zigzag in

following and quartering waves with nominal Fr 0.20, wave steepness 1/50 and

wave length to ship length ratio 1.0. The CFD results show good agreement with

shifted ME for trajectory, surge, and yaw motions. In sway motion, CFD seems

underestimating the wave force compared to ME which could explain the discrepancy

of the roll motions. MM-SI-calm shows qualitative agreement with ME maneuver but

not quantitative. MM-SI-calm overestimates surge wave force and underestimates

sway, and yaw wave forces. The MM-SI-calm prediction of the zigzag trajectory is

very close to the one predicted in calm water shown in Fig. 6.6b. This is due to the

fact that the maneuvering coefficients oscillations and drift forces induced by waves

are neglected in MM-SI-calm. The MM-SI-wave improves the prediction as it shows

the oscillations on the state variables induced by the waves. Also, the speed loss is

predicted well in MM-SI-wave such that the trajectory shows good agreement with

CFD and ME ones.

6.5 Conclusions

System identification method using CFD free running data is shown to be an efficient

approach for estimating maneuvering, rudder, and wave correction coefficients in the

MM. Araki et al. (2012) show the reasonable maneuvering and rudder coefficients

can be obtained from a few CFD free running data in calm water. However, the MM

still shows some error predicting the ship motion in waves. The original MM includes

the Froude-Krylov and diffraction forces as the wave forces and the wave particle

velocity as the wave effect on the propeller and rudder which clearly fails to predict

the oscillation amplitudes and the wave drift effects. Therefore the MM wave model

is improved by adding correction parameters for Froude-Krylov, diffraction forces,

and wave particle velocity. Moreover, effects of wave drift forces and maneuver-

ing coefficient variations due to waves are taken into account and these correction

parameters are predicted by CLS using the extracted CFD wave forces/effects data.

The extracted CFD wave forces/effects data are generated from the CFD free running

data in waves and CFD forced motion data in calm water. The MM simulations using

the new wave model and estimated wave correction coefficients show much better

agreement with CFD than the MM simulations using the original wave model. The

CFD simulations are validated with ME free running results; CFD mostly shows

quantitative agreement with ME which shows the possibility of replacing ME free

running trials with CFD simulations.

112 M. Araki et al.

quartering waves with

nominal Fr 0.20, wave

steepness 1/50, and wave

length to ship length ratio 1.0 wave

δ

6 Improved Maneuvering-Based Mathematical Model … 113

the mathematical model. Araki et al. (2013) improved the mathematical models for

the wave forces, maneuvering coefficients variations, and rudder forces. However,

the wave model provided too stable motions in severe waves and is unable to pre-

dict the instabilities such as broaching. Yoneda et al. (2017) and Mizumoto et al.

(2018) conducted more studies to improve the wave model for severe condition. In

future, more experiments and simulations will be conducted in IIHR wave basin and

National Research Institute of Fisheries Engineering (Japan) to facilitate the mathe-

matical model improvement for conditions with higher ship speed and tougher waves

including irregular waves near to broaching conditions. The CFD and experimental

studies will be used to include not only the wave drift force but also the nonlinear

wave effects including the memory effect functions (Mikami and Kashiwagi 2009)

and the rudder and propeller exposing effects in the mathematical model.

Acknowledgements This research was sponsored by the Office of Naval Research Grant N000141-

21-05-6-8 and NICOP Grant N00014-09-1-1089 under the administration Dr. Patrick Purtell. The

CFD simulations were conducted utilizing DoD HPC. The authors are grateful to Mr. K. Tanimoto

and Ms. K. Takagi of Osaka University and Mr. A. Hanaoka of The University of Iowa, IIHR for

assistance conducting the experiments.

References

Aerodynamic Laboratory, Report No. Hy-5.

Abkowitz M. A., 1980, Measurement of Hydrodynamic Characteristics from Ship Maneuvering

Trials by System Identification, SNAME Transactions, 88, 283–318.

American Bureau of Shipping, 2006, Guide for Vessel Maneuverability, Houston, TX.

Araki, M., Umeda, N., Hashimoto, H., Matsuda, A., 2010. “Broaching prediction using an improved

system-based approach”. Proceedings of 28th Symposium on Naval Hydrodynamics, pp. 56–68.

Araki, M., Sadat-Hosseini, H., Sanada, Y. Tanimoto, K., Umeda, N., and Stern, F., 2012, Estimat-

ing Maneuvering Coefficients Using System identification Methods with Experimental, System-

based, and CFD Free-running Trial Data, Ocean Engineering, 51:63–84.

Araki, M., Sadat-Hosseini H., Sanada, Y., Umeda, N., and Stern, F., 2013, “System Identification

using CFD Captive and Free Running Tests in Severe Stern Waves,” Proceedings 13th Interna-

tional Ship Stability Workshop, Brest, France, September 23 – 26.

Bishop, R., Belknap, W., Turner, C., Simon, B., Kim, J., 2005, Parametric investigation on the

influence of GM, roll damping, and above-water form on the roll response of model 5613, Report

NSWCCD-50-TR-2005/027.

Carrica, P. M., Huang, J., Noack, R., Kaushik, D., Smith, B., Stern, F., 2010, “Large-scale DES com-

putations of the forward speed diffraction and pitch and heave problems for a surface combatant”,

Computer & Fluids, 39(7):1095–1111.

Christensen, A., Blanke, M., 1986. A Linearized state-space model in steering and roll of high-speed

container ship. Technical Report 86-D-574, Servolaboratoriet, Technical University of Denmark.

Hashimoto, H., Umeda, N., and Matsuda, A., 2011, “Broaching prediction of a wave-piercing

tumblehome vessel with twin screw and twin rudder”, Journal of Marine Science and Technology,

16(4):448–461.

114 M. Araki et al.

Hashimoto, H., Stern, F., and Sadat-Hosseini, H., 2008, An application of CFD for advanced broach-

ing prediction (2ndReport), Conference Proceedings of the Japan Society of Naval Architects and

Ocean Engineers, Vol. 6, pp. 237–240.

Kang, C.G., Seo, S.H., Kim, J.S., 1984. “Maneuverability analysis of ship by system identification

technique”. SNAK, 21, No.4.

Kose, K., Yumuro, A., Yoshimura, Y., 1981, “Concrete of mathematical model for ship maneuver-

ability”, Proceedings of 3rd Symposium on Ship Maneuverability, Society of Naval Architects of

Japan, pp. 27–80, (in Japanese).

Lasdon, L. S., Waren, A. D., Jain, A., Ratner, M., 1978, Design and testing of a generalized reduced

gradient code for nonlinear programming, Journal of ACM Transactions on Mathematical Soft-

ware, Volume 4 Issue 1.

Lewis, F. L., 1986, Optimal Estimation –with an introduction to stochastic control theory, John

Wiley & Sons, Inc.

Mikami, T., Kashiwagi, M., 2009, “Time-domain strip method with memory-effect function con-

sidering body nonlinear wave-body interactions (2nd report)”, Journal of Marin Science and

Technology, 14(2) 185–199.

Mizumoto, K., Stern, F., Araki, M., Umeda, N., 2018, “CFD-based system identification for improv-

ing a system-based simulation model of broaching in stern quartering waves (tentative title)”,

Proceeding of 13th International Conference on Stability of Ships and Ocean Vehicles STAB

2018, Kobe, Japan, 92–98.

MMG, 1980. MMG report V. Bulletin of Society of Naval Architects of Japan. 616, 565–576.

Nonaka, K., Mori, M., Matsumoto, N., 1972. “Estimating Maneuvering Coefficients from Free-

Running Trials”. Proceedings of 20th Meetings of Ship Research Institute.

Norrbin, N. H., 1963, “On the design and analysis of zig-zag test on base of quasi linear fre-

quency response”, Technical Report B104-3, The Swedish State Shipbuilding Experimental Tank,

Gothenburg, Sweden.

Ogawa, A., Kasai, H., 1978. “On the mathematical model of maneuvering motion of ship”. Inter-

national Shipbuilding Progress 25 (292), 306–319.

Rhee, K. P., Kim, K., 1999, A new sea trial method for estimating hydrodynamic derivatives, Journal

of Ship & Ocean Technology 3, (3), 25–44.

Ross, A.,.T., Perez, and T., Fossen, 2007. A novel maneuvering model based on lowaspect-ratio lift

theory and Lagrangian mechanics. Proceedings of the IFAC Conference on Control Applications

in Marine System (CAMS).

Sadat-Hosseini, H., Carrica, M. P., Stern, F., Umeda, N., Hashimoto, H., Yamamura, S., Mastuda,

A., 2011, “CFD, system-based and ME study of ship dynamic instability events: surf-riding,

periodic motion, and broaching”, Ocean Engineering, Vol. 38, Issue 1, pp. 88–110.

Sanada, Y., Tanimoto, K., Takagi, K., Sano, M., Yeo, D.J., Toda, Y., Stern, F., 2012, “Trajectories

of local flow field measurement around ONR tumblehome in maneuvering motion”, Proceedings

of 29th Symposium on Naval Hydrodynamics, Gothenburg, Sweden.

Shi, C., Zhao, D., Peng, J., Shen, C., 2009. “Identification of ship maneuvering model using extended

kalman filtering”. International Journal Marine Navigation and Safety of Sea Transportation 3

(1), 105–110.

Son K. H., Nomoto K., 1982, Combined behavior of manoeuvring and roll motion in following

wave, Journal of the Society of Naval Architects of Japan, Vol.152, pp. 207–218.

Stern, F., Agdrup, K., Kim, S. Y., Hochbaum, A. C., Rhee, K. P., Quadvlieg, F., Perdon, P., Hino,

T., Broglia, R., and Gorski, J., 2011, “Experience from 2008 – the first workshop on verification

and validation of ship maneuvering simulation methods,” Journal of Ship Research, vol. 55, No.

2, pp. 135–147.

Umeda, N., Matsuda, A., Hashimoto, H., Yamamura, S., and Maki, A., 2008, “Model experiments

on extreme motions of a wave-piercing Tumblehome vessel in following and quartering waves”,

Journal of the Japan Society of Naval Architects and Ocean Engineers, Vol. 8, pp. 123–129.

Yasukawa, H., 2006, Simulation of Ship Maneuvering in Waves (1st report: turning motion), Journal

of the Japan Society of Naval Architects and Ocean Engineers, Vol. 4, pp. 127–136, (in Japanese).

6 Improved Maneuvering-Based Mathematical Model … 115

Yoneda, S., Hashimoto, H., Matsuda, A., Tahara, Y., Terada, D., Stern, F., 2017, “Investigation on the

improvement of estimation accuracy of wave-exciting forces acting on ships in stern quartering

waves”, Conference Proceedings of the Japan Society of Naval Architects and Ocean Engineers,

Vol. 24. (in Japanese).

Zhang, X.G., Zou, Z.J., 2011. “Identification of Abkowitz model for ship maneuvering motion using

epsilon-support vector regression”, Journal of Hydrodynamics, Ser. B 23 (3), 353–360.

- cfd_fullbrochureUploaded byvivekcshekar
- CFD ANALYSIS AND COMPARISON OF VERTICAL RIBBED TUBE WITH SMOOTH TUBEUploaded byIJIERT-International Journal of Innovations in Engineering Research and Technology
- 1ebd9c3b 8bee 4a6c 8d8d 5fff84966bc4 Rina 1997 DynamicStabilityOfPlaningShipsUploaded bySeyed Mehdi Hoseiny
- [Paper] Multiplicative vs. Additive Filtering for Spacecraft Attitude DeterminationUploaded byzerosum09
- 07-BTP v54 Andre MartinsUploaded byjulian1972mx
- kurose_et_al_NumrSimofPCC_KONA_review.pdfUploaded byArzu Akar
- Cfd Na IndustriaUploaded byBernardo Brener
- 2-Dimensional Cfd Simulation of the Air Flow InsidUploaded byreifer
- Zagreb_EPE-PEMC.pdfUploaded byIvan Kljaković
- Thesis Openfoam 2d AirfoilUploaded byvictoria
- Alcantarilla 10 i Cra 1Uploaded byhenrydcl
- cnls-lanl05Uploaded bySaher
- Investigation of 2D Airfoils Equipped With a Trailing Edge Flaps MSc in Wind EnergyUploaded byMason925
- Kalman FilterUploaded byClara Garrido P
- Real-time Estimation of Battery State-Of-charge With Unscented Kalman FilterUploaded byJosé Perez
- Iavsd 2007 ZhouUploaded byKuldeep Singh
- All Car DetailsUploaded byvenkat_09
- Stem sealUploaded byGuru Samy
- Thruster OffshoreUploaded byVipul Kumar
- 11_1_1750Uploaded byramihey
- Ch 9 Longitudinal DynamicsUploaded byFeeling_so_fly
- 1-s2.0-S1877705812002160-mainUploaded byAllal Senhaji
- Boulard 2002 Crop CoefUploaded byRE AC
- Identification of Continuous-time linear aircraftUploaded bypdr0_ILB
- Aircraft Design BookUploaded byashok pandiyan
- CFDUploaded byAnonymous zwnFXURJ
- ManoeuvringUploaded byhossam
- MAE4242_Ch10_Aircraft Flight Dynamics EOM.pdfUploaded byMatthew Austin
- TR3_4_5_NUFOAM_NUMPOOL_SAFIR2014(1)Uploaded bySamarul Meu
- Meteodyn Complex Terrain Modeling CFD Software Bolund Hill Round Robin TestUploaded byMeteodyn_Urbawind

- NI CaseStudy Cs 14543Uploaded byJassi Zorr
- Engdyn 2014.1 ManualUploaded by16marius
- MKlein_CV_022715Uploaded byMatthew Klein
- TransportUploaded byAnibal Almeida
- Odor Track ProposalUploaded byVaishali Wagh
- A Sensitivity-based Approach for Static and Dynamic Load Parameter EstimationUploaded bysajs201
- Can SimulatorUploaded byJosé Luiz Citolino
- Broch CIMflex Screen(100592 B) 0508Uploaded byVikram Kedambadi
- hydro_ug.pdfUploaded byRajesh Ch
- NotesUploaded bypavankumar001
- Analyses of Diesel Use for Mine Haul and Transport OperationsUploaded byMichael Adu-boahen
- Desktop Radiance TutorialUploaded byDimas Bertolotti
- A Garbage Can Model_SummaryUploaded byAshish Khattry
- 10.1.1.4.9309Uploaded byAndreea Ion
- Artigo 2003 Fracture Fatigue ProcessesUploaded bySagar Deshpande
- 11390Uploaded bySilentJman
- FlareTot - Total Flare AnalysisUploaded byArjun Kapoor
- 111111Uploaded byAbu Naser
- AspenTech Course Catalog 01_2012.pdfUploaded byAnonymous pcywjGyw
- Circuit Modeling for EMCUploaded byshawnr7376
- 4680_tcm1023-79817Uploaded byh_eijy2743
- Keysight Propsim Virtual Drive Testing BrochureUploaded bystanpjames2309
- 3G Protocol Test Engineer ResumeUploaded byJohn William
- Campus IISc DetailsUploaded byVivek Bela
- WP4-CZ_EN_TEXTUploaded byBasil Oguaka
- Robot StabilizationUploaded byMyameSirame
- PID1775207Uploaded byMokhalad M. Mohammed
- Managing ChangeUploaded byhassan_401651634
- Project_2 WitnessUploaded byPaula
- paper2 (1)Uploaded bysadmanu