You are on page 1of 7

11th International Conference on Fast Sea Transportation

FAST 2011, Honolulu, Hawaii, USA, September 2011

Hydrodynamic Forces on High-Speed Ships in Forced Vertical Motions


Hui Sun1, Odd M. Faltinsen1, 2
1
Centre for Ships and Ocean Structures, Norwegian University of Science and Technology, Trondheim, Noway
2
Department of Marine Technology, Norwegian University of Science and Technology, Trondheim, Norway
ABSTRACT often simply accounted for by including hydrostatic
A numerical method based on 2D+t theory was developed restoring forces in those approaches.
to study the unsteady hydrodynamic problem of a semi- A 2D+t method combined with BEM (Boundary Element
displacement ship at high forward speeds. The ship was Method) is proven to be efficient in solving the strongly
forced to oscillate in heave as it was advancing at a high nonlinear hydrodynamic problems for high-speed vessels.
speed. In the 2D+t theory, the original three-dimensional Nonlinearities in the free-surface conditions and gravity
(3D) problem was simplified as fully nonlinear two- effects can be easily included and it often demands less time
dimensional (2D) time-dependent problems in cross planes. than fully 3D computations. Many examples of the 2D+t
A boundary element method was used to solve the 2D theory are illustrated in Faltinsen (2005). Fontaine and
problems, in which a flow-separation model was applied to Tulin(1998) gave a good review of the evolution and
simulate the non-viscous flow separation from the round application of nonlinear 2D+t theory. Faltinsen & Zhao
bilge. The sectional hydrodynamic vertical forces were (1991) proposed a 2.5D theory, a different version of the
calculated by pressure integration. Thereafter, the evaluated 2D+t theory, where the steady flow could be nonlinear;
sectional added mass and damping coefficients were interactions between the nonlinear steady flow and the
compared with published experimental and numerical linear unsteady flow were considered through some
results. The local steady flow and unsteady flow were interaction terms. Later, Zhao et al. (1997) employed 2D+t
solved as a whole, so the interactions between them were theory to prismatic planing vessels at very high speed.
automatically included. The present calculations yielded Following Zhao et al.’s (1997) work, we extended the 2D+t
better agreement with the experiments than the earlier theory to be applied to the steady and unsteady problems of
numerical results by a 2.5D theory, especially for the lower prismatic planing vessels with effects of gravity in Sun &
frequencies. The three-dimensional effects neglected in the Faltinsen (2007a, 2007b) and to the steady motion of a
2D+t theory at the bow and the stern could be the reasons semi-displacement ship in Sun & Faltinsen (2010). In the
for the discrepancies at those positions between the present present work, the 2D+t theory is generalized to the unsteady
results and the experiments. problem for the semi-displacement ship with round bilges.
KEY WORDS The difficulties for the present problem are mainly related to
2D+t theory; high-speed ships; flow separation; forced the hull shape. First, the geometry of the hull is more
Oscillations complicated. One must have smooth lines of the hull and the
normal vectors must vary smoothly along the ship length.
1.0 INTRODUCTION This aspect has been discussed in Sun & Faltinsen (2010).
The hydrodynamics of high-speed vessels are increasingly Secondly, the flow separation from the round bilge induces
concerned when fast ships are more widely utilized. For complicated water flow, which demands careful numerical
normal displacement ships, the conventional strip theory treatments to control the flow separation in the simulations.
(see Salvesen et al. 1970) can give satisfactory results. More numerical efforts are needed for the present unsteady
However, its validity can be questioned for the semi- problem than for the steady problem. The calculated
displacement vessels (0.4-0.5<Fn<1.0-1.2) and the planing sectional added mass and damping coefficients are
vessels (Fn >1.0-1.2). (Those ranges for Froude number are compared with Keuning’s (1988) experiments and Faltinsen
given e.g. in Faltinsen 2005). A reason is the fact that the & Zhao’s (1991) calculations.
nonlinearities become more significant for higher-speed When we solve the steady problem, the present theory is
ships. Thus, some nonlinear models were developed for equivalent to the 2.5D theory in Faltinsen & Zhao (1991).
ships at higher speeds. For example, Zarnick (1978), Fujino However, for the unsteady problems, the present method is
& Chiu (1983) incorporate nonlinear effects in predicting different from their 2.5D theory in two aspects. First, the
the dynamic responses of high-speed ships in waves. steady and unsteady flows were separately solved in
Further, the effect of forward speed are not sufficiently Faltinsen & Zhao (1991) while in the present method the
considered in the conventional strip theory, neither in those steady and unsteady flows are simulated as a whole.
improved nonlinear models, because the forward speed in Secondly, the unsteady flow is assumed linear and solved in
the free-surface conditions is not considered in those the frequency domain in their method. However, in the
methods. In addition, the gravity effect on the water flow is present approach, the nonlinear free-surface conditions are

© 2011 American Society of Naval Engineers 225


satisfied in the time-domain simulations, so the nonlinear and η3a and η5a are the amplitudes of oscillations in heave
effects in both the steady flow and the unsteady flow are and in pitch, respectively. Although the results to be
taken into account. We can see that our results manifest presented only involve heave motion, this theory is
better agreement with experiments especially for lower developed for both heave and pitch. The heave is positive
frequencies, at which interactions between the steady flow when it is upward and the pitch is positive when the bow is
and the unsteady flow is stronger. going up. The instantaneous trim angle is θ(t) = τ + η5(t)
A boundary element method described in Sun & Faltinsen where τ is the trim angle of the hull in the steady motion.
(2006, 2007a) was used to solve the 2D water flow in the A velocity potential φ(x,y,z,t) is introduced to describe the
2D+t theory. The thin jet running along the body surface water flow around the vessel. The velocity potential satisfies
and the separated jet were cut away to avoid numerical the three-dimensional Laplace equation. Fully nonlinear
difficulties. A flow separation model developed in Sun & free-surface conditions and exact body boundary conditions
Faltinsen (2006) was applied to simulate the non-viscous are satisfied in three dimensions as follows
flow separation from the round bilge. 
 nX X  nZ Z on the hull surface (2)
Some difference between the calculations and experiments n
can be seen near the stern and the bow. At those positions,
 1 2
there are 3D effects neglected in the 2D+t theory, which can   x   y2   z2   g  0 on z   ( x, y, t ) (3)
be the reason for the discrepancies. t 2
The 2D+t theory has been used to solve the seakeeping Dx  Dy  Dz 
 ,  ,  on z   ( x, y, t ) (4)
problem of prismatic planing vessels in Sun & Faltinsen Dt x Dt y Dt z
(2011) where we introduced the effects of incident waves.
Similarly, the present method can be developed to study the where n = (nX, nY, nZ) = (nx, ny, nz) is the normal vector on
wave induced motions of the semi-displacement ships. the hull surface expressed respectively in the hull-fixed
coordinate system and the Earth-fixed coordinate system, g
2.0 2D+t THEORY
is the acceleration of gravity and the free surface is
A ship is advancing forward at speed U as shown in Fig.1. expressed by z   ( x, y, t ) . The dot above X and Z means the
Two coordinate systems are introduced, i.e. an Earth-fixed first time derivative. At a given x-y-z position, the
coordinate system xyz and a hull-fixed coordinate system corresponding X- and Z- coordinates are changing with
XYZ. The xy plane is in the calm water surface and the z- time. From equation (1), one has
axis is pointing upwards. The ship is moving along the
negative x-direction. The origin of XYZ is fixed at the X   x g cos   zg sin   Z (5)
centre of gravity (COG) of the ship. The X-axis is pointing
to the stern and the Y-axis is towards the starboard. The Z   x g sin   z g cos   X  (6)
pitch angle θ is defined positive when the bow is going up.
The position of the COG in the Earth-fixed coordinate where the time derivatives can be expressed as x g = –U,
system is denoted as (xg, 0, zg). Initially, xg = 0 at t = 0. The z g  3 and   5 .
hull-fixed coordinates can be related to the Earth-fixed
coordinates by A slenderness ratio is now introduced as ε = d/L, where d is
the draft and L is the length of the hull. By using slender
 X  ( x  xg ) cos   ( z  z g ) sin  body assumption, one has ∂/∂x~O(ε), ∂/∂y~O(1), ∂/∂z~O(1).

Y  y (1) Further, ∂/∂X ~O(ε) , ∂/∂Y~O(1), ∂/∂Z ~O(1) and it is
 Z  ( x  x ) sin   ( z  z ) cos  assumed that the pitch angle is small. The Froude number is
 g g
assumed as O(1). Neglecting the terms of the order of O(ε2)
in the governing equation and the boundary conditions
given in equations (2)-(4), one can reduce the 3D problem to
Z time-dependent 2D problems in Earth-fixed vertical planes
U Y z y
as the ship is penetrating the planes from the right to the left.
We call those planes as cross planes. The velocity potential
θ
X0  ( y, z, t ) satisfies the 2D Laplace equation in the yz
x coordinates and the following boundary conditions.
X

 nX X  nZ Z on the hull surface (7)
N
Fig. 1. Coordinate systems.
 1 2
  y  z2   g  0 on z   ( x, y , t ) (8)
t 2
The ship can be moving steadily forward or forced to
oscillate in heave or pitch motions. The heave and pitch Dy  Dz 
 ,  on z   ( x, y , t ) (9)
motions are given as η3= -η3a sin(ωt) and η5 = -η5a sin(ωt) Dt y Dt z
(t>=0) respectively, where ω is the frequency of oscillations

226 © 2011 American Society of Naval Engineers



where N =( ny, nz ) is the projection of the normal vector to  1 2
p  pa         gz (12)
the vertical 2D plane. t 2
When the ship is advancing steadily or with oscillations in where pa is the atmospheric pressure and ρ is the water
heave and/or pitch, the flow field is symmetric about the x-z density. The ∂φ/∂t is calculated by
plane in 3D and symmetric about the z-axis in the cross
  d  
plane. As shown in Fig.2, only one half domain is    VP  (13)
considered. Thus, at y = 0, there is a symmetry line t  dt  P
boundary. Zero normal velocity condition is fulfilled on this
where dφ/dt is evaluated by tracking a point P on the section
boundary. In addition, the rigid bottom boundary condition 
and the far-field conditions will be satisfied. in the plane and VP is the velocity of the point.

3.0 NUMERICAL IMPLEMENTATION


In the computations, the time-dependent 2D problem
z Ship section described in the last section is solved in a series of cross
planes intersecting the hull surface. The procedure of doing
the calculations and the numerical methods will be
explained as follows.
y
Ω Truncation 3.1 Calculation procedures
Symmetry line boundary The numerical simulation can be done in the following
Bottom
steps:
1) Select a number of equally spaced cross planes in
the Earth-fixed coordinate system, such as in Fig. 3
where the number of planes is 20;
Fig. 2. The fluid domain in a 2D vertical plane. 2) Initialize the calculations in each plane;
3) Solve the boundary integral equation in each plane
For a steady problem, one has X  U cos  and Z  U sin  by using the 2D BEM;
from equations (5) and (6), so the body boundary condition 4) Advance the hull forward and update the hull
can be written as surface and the free surface;
 5) Treat the thin jet and the flow separation;
 nX U cos   nZ U sin   Unx (10)
N 6) Save the results at each plane;
where nx is the x-component of the normal vector to the 7) Step forward to the next time step;
ship surface expressed in the Earth-fixed coordinate system. 8) If the ship advances forward for a distance equal to
This body boundary condition agrees with the one presented the interval of the cross planes, then we stops the
in Faltinsen & Zhao (1991). If we focus our attention at a calculations at the last plane behind the ship and
cross plane in front of the advancing ship, then as the ship is introduce a new plane in front of the ship and
penetrating the plane, we can see in the plane a scenario of a initialize the calculation in the new plane. Go to
2D body moving vertically on the free surface. Both the step 3);
vertical speed and the shape of the body are varying in the 9) Stop the calculation when the simulation lasts for a
plane. For a prismatic planing hull, i.e. a hull with constant long enough time.
cross-section and straight keel, we can see in the cross plane
the water entry of a wedge (Zhao et al.’s 1997, Sun & At t = 0, the hull is travelling at a constant speed with a
Faltinsen 2007a). given trim angle and a given sinkage. The initial free-
surface positions and the velocity potential on the free
In the unsteady problem, the body boundary condition can surface are taken from the calculations of the steady
be written as problem. The free surface is updated at each time step by
 integrating the free-surface conditions in equations (8) and
 nX  U cos   3 sin   Z5 
N (11) (9). The calculated sectional forces at the cross planes are
 nZ  U sin   3 cos   X 5  used to approximate the sectional force distribution along
the ship (Fig. 3), which is denoted as F32D(x). At the bow,
At each time step, the sectional vertical force at a given the sectional force is assumed to change linearly from the
cross plane is obtained by integrating the pressure properly frontmost hull-water intersection position xbow to the plane
on the section surface. From Bernoulli’s equation, one can 20. The vertical force at a given hull-fixed X-position can be
write the pressure as obtained by interpolation.

© 2011 American Society of Naval Engineers 227


the field point P in the fluid domain Ω. By letting the field
U
point P approach S, an integral equation can be obtained.
Now we assume that at a certain time instant the φ on the
free surface and the ∂φ/∂n on the body surface are known.
Solving the integral equation, one can obtain the velocity
potential φ on the body surface and the normal velocity
∂φ/∂n on the free surface. The free-surface elevation and the
velocity potential on the free surface for the next time
instant can be updated by integrating the free-surface
21 20 … 6 … 2 1
F32D
conditions with respect to time.
Linear In the BEM, the thin jet along the body surface is cut off.
approximation
When the water flow separates along the round bilge in the
cross plane, a flow separation model described in detail in
Obtained by
section 3.3 is applied in the BEM solver. The separated
the BEM water represents a jet flow along the sides of the section that
x
will turn over to hit the water surface underneath. To
xbow x20 … x6 … x2 x1 circumvent the simulation of the water-water impact and
thus induced vorticties, we cut away the separated thin jet
before it falls onto the underlying water surface.
Fig. 3. Numerical strategies of the 2D+t calculations.
3.3 Non-viscous flow separation model
When a new plane is introduced, we need to specify the Non-viscous flow separation can happen from the round
initial conditions in this plane. Mackie (1962)’s solution of bilge of the hull. As the jet is running fast around the bilge
the water entry of a sharp wedge is employed here to give with large curvature, the speed of the running jet can be so
the initial conditions of the elevation and velocity potential high that the pressure on the jet-hull interface relative to the
of the free surface as follows. A small distance of the atmospheric pressure outside the jet becomes negative.
section has submerged into the water. This treatment When the area with pressure lower than atmospheric
follows Maruo & Song (1994). pressure is large enough, the air can easily ventilate the jet-
 1  hull interface and make the jet leave the body surface, which
1 1
z (y)  ln(1  2 )  2 y tan ( )  2  (14) means the flow separation occurs. This nonlinear
 y y  phenomenon needs special treatments.
 1 y  ( z   )2 The flow separation model proposed in Sun & Faltinsen
2 0 y  ( z   ) 2
 ( y)  ln d (15)
(2006) is applied here. In that paper, the model was
where y  y / s , z  z / s ,    /(Vs ) , s is the submergence employed to simulate the water impact of a circular
cylinder. At each time step, the pressure on a section surface
of the wedge, V is the water entry speed of the wedge,
needs to be determined. Then the size of the section surface
   / 2   is half the apex angle of the thin wedge and where the pressure is lower than pa is checked. If the size is
 is the deadrise angle. For the present hull shape, V is larger than a specified value, we then change this part of
approximated by V=U tan45º=U. Since this approximation water-body interface as free surface, say, the segment AB in
only affects the initial conditions, the final results will not Fig. 4. The boundary AB is then updated to its new position
be apparently influenced by the approximation of V. A1B1 by using the free-surface conditions (8) and (9), and
3.2 2D boundary element method A1 is attached to the body surface. The velocities of the
points on AB follow from a local analytical solution around
The 2D boundary value problem expressed by the Laplace the separation position, rather than their velocities on the
equation and the boundary conditions in Eqs. (7)-(9) is body surface. We then connect A1B1 with the updated free
solved by a boundary element method (BEM) described in surface B1C1 to form the new free surface A1B1C1. The
Sun & Faltinsen (2006, 2007a). Straight line elements are point A1 is the separation position, i.e. the new water-hull
used to discretize the closed boundary S, which consists of intersection, which locates near the point where the
the body surface, the free surface, the truncation boundary, calculated pressure on the section changes from positive to
the bottom surface and the symmetry line surface (Fig. 2.). negative. Thus the flow separation is forced to occur
Variables change linearly on each element. Green’s second numerically.
identity gives
In the unsteady problem studied in this paper, the oscillatory
 G  P, Q   Q  vertical velocity of the ship section adds to complexity in
2 P   Q  G  P, Q   dsQ (16) the flow separation especially for the higher frequency
S 
nQ nQ  cases. The separated flow may reattach to the hull surface.
where the Green function G(P,Q) = log r(P,Q) and r(P,Q) is This is simply treated by ignoring the thin air cavity
the distance from a source point Q on the fluid boundary to enclosed and setting a new water-body intersection.

228 © 2011 American Society of Naval Engineers


Section coefficients in the static position with trim and sinkage were
surface used to calculate the added mass.
B1
5.0 Numerical results
B
Before the ship is forced to oscillate, it is advancing at a
A1
Free constant speed (Fn = 1.14) with constant trim angle τ =1.62º
surface and constant sinkage z0=-0.004m. Fig. 6 shows the free-
A surface elevations around the ship sections from station 0 to
station 19. The pictures for station 0-8 are shown on the left
C C1 side, while the rest on the right side. We can see the flow
Initially calm free surface separation from the round bilge. The separated water
gradually comes down under the effect of gravity and
Fig. 4. Non-viscous flow separation from the round bilge. propagates away from the ship. More discussions on the
results for steady motions can be found in Sun & Faltinsen
(2010). The free-surface elevations shown in Fig. 6 together
with the velocity potential on the free surfaces will then
used as the initial conditions in the 20 cross planes in the
unsteady simulations.

Free surface
0.2 Hull surface

0.1

Fig. 5. The body plan of Keuning’s (1988) model.


z (m)

0.0

4.0 Keuning’s model


Keuning[1]’s model test is studied in this paper. The body
plan of the model is shown in Fig. 5. The main particulars -0.1

are given as follows. The length of the waterline is L = 2


meters. The breadth of the waterline is 0.25 m. The draft is -0.3 -0.2 -0.1 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3

0.0624m. The displacement is 0.01248m3. The block y (m)


coefficient is 0.396. Two advancing speeds, corresponding Fig. 6. Free-surface profiles in steady planing.
to two Froude numbers Fn = U/(gL)1/2= 0.57 and 1.14, were
used in the model tests. Here the case with Fn = 1.14 is
studied. The model was divided into seven segments of In the calculations for the unsteady problem, 20 equally-
equal length of 0.285 meters. On each segment the dynamic spaced cross planes are used at any time instant. As the ship
vertical force was measured. When the model was running moves forward, new planes are continuously added and the
steadily on the calm water, its trim angle and sinkage were planes left behind the ship are discarded accordingly. Now
set by referring to the experimental data from some other we introduce a hull-fixed X0-coordinate. It coincides with
model tests. The trim angle is τ =1.62 degrees. The value of the X-axis as shown in Fig. 1, but with origin at the aft-
sinkage was not directly given in Keuning (1988). However, perpendicular and it positive direction towards the bow.
from the figure of measured wave profile along the model in Given a hull-fixed X0-position, one can interpolate the
the report, the sinkage is digitized as z0=-0.004m. In doing sectional vertical force at this position. The time history of
so, the center of rotation in trim is assumed to locate in the the sectional vertical force at a given X0-position can be
midship and at the waterline. The negative value means that expanded as a Fourier series
the model is moved downwards. In the forced oscillation 

tests, the model was forced to oscillate in heave from the f (t )  C0   [Csn sin( nt )  Ccn cos( n t )] (17)
mean position with the given trim and sinkage. The n 1

amplitude of the heave motion was η3a=0.01m. The various where C0, Csn and Ccn (n=1,2,3…) are constants. The
oscillation frequencies were ω = 4, 5, 6, 7, 9, 11, 13, 15 sectional added mass coefficient a33 and the damping
rad/s. Keuning (1988) presented the sectional added mass coefficient b33 can be estimated from the amplitudes of the
a33 and sectional damping coefficient b33 for the seven first harmonic Cs1 and Cc1 as
segments. The in-phase component and the quadrature
 Cs1  c333 a 
component of the dynamic forces were measured. The in- a33  (18)
phase component and the measured restoring force  23a

© 2011 American Society of Naval Engineers 229


Cc1 similar ship model. However, the results for ω = 9 was not
b33  (19) given in Faltinsen & Zhao (1991), so we could not compare
3a
the results for this frequency.
where c33 is the sectional restoring force coefficient, which It is noticed that the present numerical method encounters
is defined in the same way as in the experiments. The ship numerical difficulties for very high frequencies, such as for
model is first settled in its static position with the given trim ω = 15 rad/s. Frequent detachment and reattachment of the
and sinkage, then the sectional restoring force coefficient is water flow along the hull occur at around station 7 and
calculated by c33 = ρgswp, where swp is the breadth of the station 8 and causes many jumps in the time series of the
waterline at the section. sectional forces. Smaller time steps can be used to improve
The sectional hydrodynamic coefficients at 20 hull sections the accuracy of the results and then reduce the occurrence
with X0=0~1.9m are calculated. The coefficients at and amplitude of the jumps. Because those jumps occur
X0=2.0m are simply approximated as zero. The numerical with very short time duration, the time integrations in
results for the three different frequencies ω = 5, 11, 15 rad/s calculating Cs1 and Cc1 suppress the effects of the jumps.
are shown in Fig. 7 (added mass coefficients) and Fig. 8 Actually, the 2D+t theory is not suitable for very high
(damping coefficients). The experimental results are the frequencies in principle because the incident wavelength
average values on each segment in the model tests. should be O(L) or larger.
In general, the present numerical results agree well with the
experimental results for all frequencies studied here. If we 100

look closely at the bow and the stern, we will see some rad/s
difference. At the stern, the added mass is underestimated at 50

lower frequencies and overestimated at the higher


frequencies by our numerical method. The predicted
a33 (kg/m)
0

damping coefficients at stern are higher than the


experimental values for all the frequencies. Due to the flow -50

separation from the transom stern, the pressure at the stern


should be atmospheric pressure. However, the 2D+t theory -100

predicts higher pressure on the stern, which will result in


hydrodynamic coefficients different from the experiments.
0,0 0,5 1,0 1,5 2,0
X0-distance from stern (m)
At the bow, the averaged added mass is negative on the first 40

two segments starting from the fore perpendicular. The rad/s


calculated negative added mass values are much lower. The
3D effect at the bow causes the water near the bow to run up 20

along the stem relative to the initial calm water level. This
a33 (kg/m)

change can affect the hydrodynamic forces near the bow.


Therefore, the difference in a33 near the bow can be caused 0

by the 3D effects.
The numerical results in Faltinsen & Zhao (1991) are also -20

presented in Fig. 7 and Fig. 8. The present numerical results 0,0 0,5 1,0 1,5 2,0
show obvious better agreement with experiments than their X0-distance from stern (m)
results for the lower frequency ω = 5 rad/s. The agreement 40
with experiments for ω = 11 rad/s and 15 rad/s looks rad/s
similar, although the a33 by Faltinsen & Zhao (1991) shows
a little better agreement for ω = 15 rad/s. Keuning (1988) 20

found through his analysis that the influence of the local


a33 (kg/m)

steady flow on the added mass is stronger for lower


frequencies. The improvements in the present results for the 0

lower frequency imply that the interaction between steady


and unsteady flow is better accounted for than those in -20
Faltinsen & Zhao (1991). They solved the steady and
unsteady flow separately and considered the interactions 0,0 0,5 1,0 1,5 2,0
X0-distance from stern (m)
through some interaction terms; however, the steady and
unsteady flow is solved as a whole in the present method.
The nonlinearities in the unsteady flow were neglected in Fig. 7. Sectional heave added mass coefficients. Solid lines:
their method, but it is not clear whether this effect is experiments by Keuning (1988); Lines with symbol: the
important. Nonlinear effects should be the largest around the present numerical results; Dashed lines: numerical results by
natural frequency when one considers the responses in Faltinsen & Zhao (1991).
regular waves. The natural frequency for heave is around ω
= 9 according to Blok & Beukelman (1984)’s results for a
230 © 2011 American Society of Naval Engineers
rad/s
the unsteady flow and the local steady flow is better
300
accounted for in the present method for the lower frequency.
The present method can be further developed to predict the
200
vertical motions of high-speed vessel in head sea. Care must
b33 (kg/(sm))

be taken in dealing with the flow separation and attentions


100
should be paid to the 3D effects at the bow and the stern
REFERENCES
0
Faltinsen, O.M. (2005). Hydrodynamics of High-Speed
0,0 0,5 1,0 1,5 2,0 Marine Vehicles. New York: Cambridge University
X0-distance from stern (m) Press.
Faltinsen, O.M., Zhao, R. (1991). "Numerical Prediction of
300 rad/s ship Motions at High Forward Speed." Phil. Trans. R.
Soc. Lond., Vol. 334, pp.241-252.
200 Fontaine, E., Tulin, M.P. (1998). “On the prediction of
b33 (kg/(sm))

nonlinear free-surface flows past slender hulls using


2D+t theory: the evolution of an idea.” RTO AVT
100
symposium on Fluid Dynamic Proflems of Vehicles
Operating near or in the Air-Sea Interface, Amsterdam,
0
The Netherlands, October, 1998.
Fujino, M., Chiu, F.C. (1983). “Vertical motions of high-
0,0 0,5 1,0 1,5 2,0
X0-distance from stern (m)
speed boats in head sea and wave loads.” J Soc Nav
Arch Japan 154:151-162
300 rad/s Keuning, J.A. (1988). Distributon of Added Mass and
Damping along the Length of a Ship Model Moving at
High Forward Speed, Delft University of Technology
200
Report No.817-P
b33 (kg/(sm))

Maruo, H., Song, W. (1994). "Nonlinear Analysis of Bow


100 Wave Breaking and Deck Wetness of a High-Speed Ship
by The Parabolic Approximation." Proc. 20th
0 Symposium on Naval Hydrodynamics, University of
California, Santa Barbara, California.
0,0 0,5 1,0 1,5 2,0 Salvesen, N., Tuck, E.O., Faltinsen, O.M. (1970). “Ship
X0-distance from stern (m)
Motions and sea loads.” Trans. SNAME 78: pp.250-287.
Fig. 8. Sectional heave damping coefficients. Solid lines: Sun, H., Faltinsen, O.M. (2006). “Water Impact of
experiments by Keuning (1988); Lines with symbol: the Horizontal Circular Cylinders and Cylindrical Shells.”
present numerical results; Dashed lines: numerical results by Appl. Ocean Res. 28, 299-311.
Faltinsen & Zhao (1991). Sun, H., Faltinsen, O.M. (2007a). "The Influence of Gravity
on the Performance of Planing Vessels in Calm Water."
6.0 CONCLUSIONS J. Eng. Math., Vol. 58, pp.91-107.
A 2D+t theory was applied to simulate the forced oscillation Sun, H., Faltinsen, O.M. (2007b). "Hydrodynamic Forces on
in heave of a semi-displacement ship at high forward speed. a Planing Hull in Forced Heave or Pitch Motions in
The results for the steady motion were given as the initial Calm water." Proc. 22nd International Workshop on
conditions for the solution of unsteady problem. Water Waves and floating Bodies, Plitvice, Croatia.
Hydrodynamic pressure was calculated and integrated to Sun H., Faltinsen O.M. (2010). “Numerical study of a semi-
calculate the sectional hydrodynamic forces. Therefore the displacement ship at high speed.” Proceedings of 29th
sectional added mass and damping coefficients obtained International Conference on Ocean, Offshore and Arctic
form the sectional hydrodynamic forces are compared with Engineering, Shanghai, China, 2010.
the experimental results for different oscillation frequencies. Sun, H., Faltinsen, O.M. (2011). “Dynamic motions of
Generally good agreement is obtained. Discrepancies are planing vessels in head sea.” Journal of Marine Science
noticed near the bow and the stern, which can be caused by and Technology, DOI : 10.1007/s00773-011-0123-4.
the three-dimensional effects neglected in the 2D+t theory. Zarnick, E.E. (1978). A nonlinear mathematical model of
Strongly nonlinear free-surface flow, such as the jet running motions of planing boat in regular waves. David W.
up along the hull and the flow separation from the round Taylor Naval ship R&D Centre,USA,DTNSRDC-78/032
bilge, were simulated in the present method. The Zhao, R., Faltinsen, O.M., Haslum, H.A. (1997). “A
interactions between the nonlinear steady and unsteady flow Simplified Nonlinear Analysis of a High-Speed Planing
were taken into account automatically because they were Craft in Calm Water.” Proc. Fourth International
solved as a whole. By referring to an earlier work based on a Conference on Fast Sea Transportation (FAST'97),
similar 2.5D method, we can see that the coupling between Sydney, Australia.

© 2011 American Society of Naval Engineers 231