See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/282870504

System Based Simulation of Delft372 Catamaran Maneuvering Characteristics

as Function of Water Depth and Approach Speed

Conference Paper · August 2012

CITATIONS READS

2 360

3 authors, including:

Evgeni Milanov Frederick Stern

Bulgarian Ship Hydrodynamics Centre University of Iowa
14 PUBLICATIONS   43 CITATIONS    289 PUBLICATIONS   7,207 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Theoretic-experimental investigation of asymmetric behavior of propeller shafts and rudders during maneuvering of twin screw ship View project

“Hydrodynamics of Underwater Body Close to the Free Surface” View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Evgeni Milanov on 16 October 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.


System Based Simulation of Delft372 Catamaran
Maneuvering Characteristics as Function of Water Depth
and Approach Speed
E. Milanov¹, V. Chotukova¹, F. Stern²
(¹ Bulgarian Ship Hydrodynamics Centre, Bulgaria, ² IIHR-Hydroscience &
Engineering, the University of Iowa, USA)
ABSTRACT
This paper presents the results of system-based
maneuvering predictions of the Delft372 design
catamaran model for a set of water depth ratios and
Froude number values. The simulation results were
compared with the data, experimentally obtained by
means of a radio-controlled free running model.
Based on the analysis of standard maneuvers the
vessel maneuverability and directional stability in
the above navigation conditions have been
estimated.
INTRODUCTION
Numerical and experimental investigations on the
water-jet propelled fast Delft372 catamaran (DC)
maneuverability in a variety of navigational
conditions have been performed. This paper
describes the results of system based simulation of
the catamaran maneuvering characteristics and
course stability in shallow water for a range of
depth Froude number values.
Based on previously performed intensive PMM-
tests of the bare hull catamaran model (Zlatev et al,
2009), (Milanov et al, 2010) and of the appended
with water jet (WJ) model (Milanov et al, 2011),
the mathematical model has been modified
accounting for some effects related with shallow
water and critical speed of motion through fluid.
The numerical simulations were focused on
investigation of the main vessel maneuvering
qualities, namely turning ability and course stability
as a function of approach speed and under keel
clearance. Regarding the above two parameters
variation, the approach can be considered as
systematic - the simulations were carried out at
three h values: 7.4; 2.0, 1.5 and in the range
T radio controlled model also have been carried out in
0.45< Fnh <0.83, i.e. covering a rather large speed
range. Turning characteristics of the vessel were
simulated accounting for the above twofold
29th Symposium on Naval Hydrodynamics
Gothenburg, Sweden, 26-31 August 2012
dependency. As a result a degree and character of
the influences in question were established in a
systematic way. Special attention has been paid to
the problem of catamaran directional stability. As
reported, the results of preliminary stability levers
analysis (Milanov et al, 2010) show that the vessel
is inherently course unstable almost in the whole
region of h/T values and speeds considered with
possible exception of the shallowest case h =1.5.
T
To obtain more information about operational
course stability, i.e. with working water-jets, the
spiral curve characteristics as well as the zig-zag
maneuver kinematics were simulated. Consequently
a slight improvement of the catamaran directional
stability was found. Simulation results
benchmarking were done making use of purposely
performed free running maneuvering tests with the
catamaran model in deep and shallow water.
Validation studies show very good conformity of
simulated characteristics with direct measurements
in the case of lower Fnh values and satisfactory
results for high speed maneuvers.
THE DELFT372 CATAMARAN MODEL AND
TEST CONDITIONS
Delft372 catamaran model, originally used in TU-
Delft by Van’t Veer (1998) initially was subjected
to the two main types of tank tests – calm water
captive and free running maneuvering tests,
performed at BSHC facilities in Varna, Bulgaria in
deep and shallow water conditions. The raw
hydrodynamic data necessary for simulation model
coefficient identification of the DC in 3DOF
maneuvering motion are obtained from PMM tests,
while free running data are used for simulation
results assessment. The maneuvering tests with
deep and shallow water conditions.
The model PMM tests
In both mentioned test modes the Delft372
In captive mode of testing the model was free to
catamaran model with symmetrical demihulls shape
pitch and heave. By use of four 2-components
in overall length of 4m has been used - Figure 1.
modular strain gauges the forces in horizontal
model plane have been measured and yaw moment
calculated. On the Table 2 the general test matrix is
included. All PMM tests were carried out at 3 water
depth ratios, namely: 7.4; 2.0 and 1.5. During
dynamic tests in - particular in shallow water - the
condition for avoiding basin standing waves was
checked and subsequently the proper range of
kinematical parameter changes has been
determined.

Figure 1. Catamaran body lines Table 2. Captive model tests program

Model hull main particulars are given in Table 1. Dynamic

Test type Static tests
tests
Table 1. DC model particulars Motion parameter Value Value
Propulsion ratio η 0.2 -1.3 1.0
Main Dimension Symbol Model -4;-2;0;2;4;
Drift angle (deg) 0; 4; 8
Length between 6;8;10;12
LPP [m] 3.993
perpendiculars Nozzles steering 0;3;5;10;15; 0
Breadth /demihull/ B [m] 0.319 angle (deg) 20
Draft at midship T [m] 0,200 Reverse duct
0;25;50;100 0
Displacement volume Δ [m3] 0.205 lowered (%)
Longitudinal C.B. LCB [m] -0,107 Sway acceleration 0.02;0.04;
0
Wetted surface area, bare vdot (-) 0.06
S [m2] 1.565
hull Yaw rate r (-)
0.02;0.04;
(pure and with drift 0
The model was appended with water jet drive, 0.06
6°, 12°)
designed and tested at BSHC [Georgiev, 2010]. The
jet stream is deflected horizontally by outlet nozzle Yaw acceleration 0.018;0.036
0
while in vertical plane - by reverse bucket – Fig. 2. rdot (-) 0.053
This way full control of catamaran maneuvering 0.02;0.04;
motion is achieved. Surge acceleration
0 0.06;0.08;
udot (-)
0.10

Free running tests

A quite extensive experimental program of free

running maneuvering tests in deep and shallow
water has been realized in BSHC Maneuvering &
Sakeeping Basin – Table 3.

Table 3. Free running tests program

Test type h/T Fnh

Turning 12.5; 2.0; 1.5 < 0.31- 0.83>
Pull-out 12.5; 2.0; 1.5 < 0.31- 0.83>
Spiral 2.0; 1.5 < 0.72- 0.83>
Zig-zag 12.5; 2.0; 1.5 < 0.31- 0.83>
Crash-stop 12.5; 2.0; 1.5 < 0.31- 0.83>

Figure 2. Water jet flow control by nozzle and

bucket
All free running tests have been carried out at X-equation – propulsion force
model propulsion point with WJ impeller constant
RPM. PMM experimental data for DC shows that
resulting propulsion force in straight forward
MATHEMATICAL MODEL motion – Figure 3 - can be represented in the best
way by a 3rd order polynomial as a function of
The mathematical model of the ship maneuvering J0
motion used in simulations is of conventional form
propulsion ratio η= yielding derivatives
J
presented by system of ordinary differential X 0 , X η , X ηη and X μηη .
equations in Cauchy form – equations (1) - (3). The
integral hydrodynamic system “hull + propulsor + h/T=2.0 Fnh=0.60 h/T=2.0 Fnh=1.0
steering device” has been considered.
h/T=2.0 Fnh=1.27 h/T=1.5 Fnh=0.6
h/T=1.5 Fnh=0.8 h/T=1.5 Fnh=1.0
Longitudinal force
m(u& − vr − xG r ) = X u& + X vv v + X rr r +
2 2 2 0.006
X' [-]

+ X vr vr + X 0 + X ηη + X ηηη 2 + X ηηηη 3 +
0.004
0.002
+ X δδδ 2 + X δδηδ 2η + X δδδδδ 4 + X δδδδηδ 4η (1) 0
-0.002 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5
eta=J0/J [-]
Lateral force -0.004
. .
m(v + ur + xG r) = Yr& r& + Yv& v& + Yv v + Yvvv v +
3 -0.006

+ Yr ur + Yrrr r 3 + Yr v r v + Yδ δ + Yδη δη + Figure 3. X- force coefficient versus propulsion

+ Yδηη δη 2
(2) ratio

X-equation – resistance force due drift

Yawing moment
. .
Experimentally determined resistance force in static
I z r + mxG ( v + ur ) = N r& r& + N v& v& + N v v + drift angle test shows quite large scattering, in
N vvv v 3 + N r r + N rrr r 3 + N r v r v + N δ δ +
hT=2 Fnh=1.0 hT=2 Fnh=1.27
N δη δη + N δηη δη 2 (3)
hT=1.5 Fnh=0.8 hT=1.5 Fnh=1
J
with propulsion ratio term: η = 0 . 0.0002
J v' [-]
0
Some modifications of the equation terms have -0.3 -0.2 -0.1 0.0 0.1
been made on the basis of tank test results which -0.0002
are described in the next section. -0.0004

-0.0006
PMM DATA ANALYSIS
-0.0008
X' [-]
PMM data processing to obtain hydrodynamic -0.001
derivatives has been performed in accordance with
the procedure described in (Goodman et all, 1976).
The set of hydrodynamic coefficients are estimated Figure 4. X- force coefficient versus drift
separately for each constant h/T and Fnh values
that the present analysis is valid for fixed water particular for critical and supercritical Fnh values -
depth and initial approach speeds. Corresponding Figure 4. Even this standard quadratic derivative
cross-coupling terms related with h/T and Fnh in X vv has been used mainly due to relatively small
maneuvering equations are subject of near future
contribution of this equation term.
analysis.
X-equation – resistance force due steering angle
Despite the above assumptions, mainly due to the
strong influence of the above parameters on
Specific, as proved by experimental data behavior
of the dependency X {δ ,η } in the whole range of
hydrodynamic forces & moment measured some
changes have been introduced as follows.
h/T and Fnh values has been found – Figure 5.
 shallow water cases have been estimated, as given
in Table 4.
h/T=2.0 Fnh=1.0
eta=0.86 1.15
1.44 1.72 Table 4. Hydrodynamic coefficients
0.002 X' [-] Coefficie Deep h/T=2.0 h/T=1.5
0.001 nt*10^5 water
0.000 X u& -55 -63 -63
-0.40 -0.20 0.00 0.20 0.40
-0.001
X0 -179 3 -97
-0.002

-0.003 Xη -206 -257 -48

-0.004 X ηη 604 2653 114

steering angle [rad]
X ηηη -240 -29 5

Figure 5. X-force coefficient versus steering angle X νν -1150 -794 -430

at set of propulsion ratios X δδ -150 -178 -1660

Fit of higher order has been applied: X δδη 1120 946 2400
X = X 0 + X δδ δ + X δδδδ δ 4 when
2
cross- X δδδδ 1740 1156 9130
coupling terms with propulsion ratio are obtained in
X δδδδη -7910 -5914 -14460
a form X δδη δ 2η , X δδδδη δ 4η .
X rr 12 47 24
Y, N equations – control force and moment due X νr + m -2800 -1800 -440
steering angle
Yν& -700 -660 -565
Near linear dependency of control force and Yr& 133 163 490
moment as a function of catamaran nozzles
horizontal deflections has been established. Yν -2042 -2329 -5945
Expected combined influence of steering angle with
Yννν -71780 -126702 -126940
static drift was not found – in Figure 6. As seen
from the figure graphs, the function Y {δ } - similar Yδ 53 49 -28
behavior Yδη -480 -80 34

Yδηη 126 186 279

Drift angle=0 deg
Drift angle=6 deg Yr − m 290 360 650
Drift angle=12 deg
deep w ater Yrrr 514 1205 2398
0.02 Y' [-] Yv r -7390 -3690 -4690
0.01
Nν& -140 -100 50
0.01
N r& -94 -41 -19
0.00
-0.01 Nν -1016 -1195 -2149
-25 -20 -15 -10 -5 0 5 10 15 20 25 Nννν -13460 -27701 -32030
Steering angle [deg]
Nδ -45 -8 -61

Figure 6. Side control force for 3 static drift angles

N δη 168 7 72

N δηη -12 -58 -128

has also N {δ } - are equidistant for the set of static
drift angle settings of 0°, 6° and 12° therefore no
Nr 81 220 250
combined terms in steering angle and drift are used. N rrr 4 6 231

As a result of experimental data processing a set of Nv r -1920 -615 -520

hydrodynamic coefficients for the deep and two
SIMULATIONS

With the coefficients provided in Table 4 and the

mathematical model defined by equations (1) - (3)
the catamaran model standard maneuvers for the set
of water to depth ratios and approach speed were
simulated. The WJ impeller RPM is kept to be
constant with model propulsion point during
simulations and the rate of WJ nozzles deflection is
20 deg/s.

Turning maneuvers

Deep water case

Deep water DC turning characteristics are shown in
Figures 7-9. The predicted trajectory and rate of
turn in both maneuvers agree well with direct
measurements, while the linear speed reduction and
heading in zig-zag motion - not too well.
Figure 9. Time histories of steering angle, heading
and yaw rate in 20°/20° zig-zag - deep water
Shallow water - h/T=2.0 case
Predicted development of kinematical parameters
of catamaran model during turning and zig-zag
motions in shallow water (h/T=2.0) are in quite
good conformity with directly measured on free
sailing model, only in regard to the ship’s advance
there is a difference - Figures 10-12.

Figure 7. Trajectories of 20 deg starboard turn-

deep water

Figure 10. Trajectories of 20 deg starboard turn

- h/T=2.0

Figure 8. Time histories of yaw rate & speed

of 20 deg starboard turn -deep water

Figure 11. Time histories of yaw rate & speed

of 20 deg starboard turn –h/T=2.0
Figure 12. Time histories of steering angle, Figure 15. Time histories of steering angle,
heading and yaw rate in 20°/20° zig-zag heading and yaw rate in 20°/20° zig-zag
- h/T=2.0 - h/T=1.5.0

Shallow water - h/T=1.5 case In principle the simulated catamaran turning

Catamaran maneuverability in shallowest water
case is illustrated by graphs of Figures 13-15.
trajectories are in good conformity with
experimental data regarding the steady turning
diameter, but the corresponding path placements
differ. One explanation may be the difficulty in the
estimation of the cross-coupling term X vr .
Generally, it can be pointed out that during PMM
tests with yaw rate and drift angle the scatter of
experimental data related with x-direction
measurements at higher speeds is more
pronounceable while the recorded absolute force
changes are small. Also, it seems that the presence
of course instability makes the simulation model
more sensitive to the accuracy of the estimation of
the coefficients.

Catamaran course stability problem

The investigated Delft372 catamaran has no skegs

Figure 13. Trajectories of 20 deg starboard turn or other stabilizing surfaces. During initial
- h/T =1.5
h/T=2.0 - sim h/T=2.0 - exp
h/T=1.5 - sim h/T=1.5 - exp

20
yaw rate [deg/s]

15

10

0
-20 -15 -10 -5 0 5 10 15 20
-5

-10

-15

-20
Figure 14. Time histories of yaw rate & speed steering angle [deg]
of 20 deg starboard turn – h/T=1.5

Figure 16. Spiral curves in shallow water

catamaran project investigations, i.e. when bare hull
PMM tests have been carried out the directional
stability analysis gave indications about strong
inherent instability starting from deep water case
and some improvement for the shallowest case of
h/T=1.5 (Milanov, 2010 and 2011). Simulation
results and experimental data again show high
degree of lack of directional stability in service, i.e.
in fully appended with propulsion and control
devices case. This fact is confirmed in Figure 16.
Similar results have been reported by Ishiguro
(1993).
motion with maximum yaw rate are given in Tables
5 – 13. The test condition h/T=7.4 has been taken
into consideration.
Table 5. Bias limits for FX at 10° static drift
Term Frh=0.50
2 0.041
B β ,Fx [N]
2 0.04
B align,Fx [N]

As known, another measure of ship motion stability 2 0.273

Bcalib,Fx [N]
in horizontal plane is the first overshoot angle value
of zig-zag tests. Experimentally estimated in free 2 4.356
B acquis,Fx [N]
running tests and predicted by simulations values of
this maneuvering index are given on Table 5. The B Fxmeasured = B Fx [N] 4.364
IMO standard limit value of 25° is recommended
for the ships in length over 100m and can be used
as a base.
Table 6. Uncertainties for X ′ at 10° static drift
Table 4. First overshoot angle in 20°/20° zig-zag
Term Frh=0.50
1st overshoot angle IMO 2 2 1.2.10-7
θ Fxmeasured B Fxmeasured
Simulated Measured limit
2 2 1.1.10-7
value θ ρB ρ
deep 48° 58° 2 2 3.92.10-8
h/T=2.0 50° 47° < 25° θ Tm B Tm
h/T=1.5 31° 28° 2 2 9.8.10-11
θ Lpp B Lpp
2 2 1.95.10-9
It’s clear that only in the shallowest water the θ Uc B Uc
catamaran horizontal motion is approaching a stable BX ′ 0.0048
condition. On the other hand, for the given
catamaran design this is quite understandable PX ′ 0.00007
having in mind the hull form and absence of any
U X′ 0.0011
fins, skegs or other stabilizing appendages.
X′ -0.018
Also, taking into account that DC experimental data U X ′ in % X ′ 6.33
are intended for benchmarking of CFD simulations
the fact of vessel course instability in some sense
has a positive meaning, assuming that stable course
keeping is particular equilibrium case of the Table 7 Bias limits and uncertainties for X ′ by
generally unstable motion. rmax =0.06
Term Frh=0.50

UNCERTAINTY ANALYSIS
BFx [N] 1.74
Fx [N] 140.6
PMM experimental data BFx in % of Fx [N] 1.23

The PMM experimental data uncertainty B X ′ [-] 0.0075

assessment covers the measured forces and moment PX ′ [-] 0.00006
of 3DOF motion. The estimation procedure follows
Simonsen (2004 ) approach and the ITTC U X ′ [-] 0.0075
recommended procedure (2008). Detailed X ′ [-] 0.383
description of the procedure applied for Delft372
catamaran PMM results can found in BSHC report
U X ′in % X ′ 1.96
(Chotukova and Milanov, 2009). The results of UA
for longitudinal & lateral forces Fx, Fy and yaw
moment Mz obtained at static drift and pure yaw
 Table 8. Bias limits for FY at 10° static drift Table 11. Bias limits for M Z at 10° static drift
Term Frh=0.50
Term Frh=0.50
2 0.93
B β , F [N] 2 0.093
Y B β ,M [Nm]
2 0.04 Z
B align, F [N] 2 0.04
Y B align,M [Nm]
2 0.273 Z
Bcalib, F [N] 2 0.273
Y Bcalib,M [Nm]
2 1.96 Z
B acquis, F [N]
Y 2 0.174
B acquis ,M [Nm]
B Fymeasured = B F [N] 2.186 Z
Y B Mzmeasured = B [Nm] 0.985
M
Z

Table 9. Uncertainties for Y ′ at 10° static drift

Table 12. Uncertainties for N ′ at 10° static drift

Term Frh=0.50
2 2 3.96.10-5 Term Frh=0.50
θ Fymeasured B Fymeasured 2 2 6.05517E-07
θ M measured B M measured
2 2
θ ρB ρ
1.57.10-7 z z
2 2 2.134.10-5
2 2 2.812.10-6 θ ρB ρ
θ Tm B Tm
2 2 5.363.10-6
2 2 6.89.10-9 θ Tm B Tm
θ Lpp B Lpp
2 2 1.345.10-8
2 2 1.392.10-7 θ Lpp B Lpp
θ Uc B Uc
2 2 2.68.10-7
BY ′ 0.0065 θ Uc B Uc

BN ′ 0.00525
PY ′ 0.00016

UY′ 0.0065 PN ′ 0.00016

Y′ 0.151 UN′ 0.00525

U Y ′in %Y ′ 4.3
N′ 0.21
U N ′in % N ′ 2.5

Table 10. Bias limits and uncertainties for Y ′ by

Table 13. Bias limits and uncertainties for N ′ by
rmax =0.06
rmax =0.06
Term Frh=0.50
Term Frh=0.50
BFy [N] 0.68
B Mz [Nm] 1.32
Fy [N] 7.85 Mz [Nm] 17.66
BFy in % of Fy 8.66 B Mz in % of Mz 7.47

BY ′ [-] 0.00073 BN ′ 0.00062

PY ′ [-] 0.00034 PN ′ 0.00021

U Y ′ [-] 0.0008
UN′ 0.00065
Y ′ [-] 0.0214
N′ 0.0133
U Y ′in %Y ′ 3.78
U N ′in % N ′ 4.92

Accuracy of simulation method
The simulation studies have been performed in
Matlab environment that solution of the set of
ordinary differential equation of maneuvering
motion has been obtained by use of Matlab build-in
step-variable solver ode45, based on the Runge
Kutta (4, 5) integration method. According to the
product description, at each step the solver
estimates the local error e in the ith component of
the solution. This error must be less than or equal to
the acceptable error, which is a function of the
specified relative tolerance, RelTol, and the
specified absolute tolerance, AbsTol, namely:
e(i ) ≤ max[Re lTol * abs( y (i)), AbsTol (i )]
In the present numerical simulations the relative
error tolerance solution parameter RelTol of 1e-3
that applies to all components of the solution vector
was chosen while the absolute error tolerances
parameter AbsTol that apply to the individual
components of the solution vector in value of 1e-6
has been used.
Regarding free running tests till preparation of the
present paper the uncertainty analysis of the data
measured has not be completed and this work is
planned to be done in near future.
CONCLUDING REMARKS
In this paper, the results from system based
simulations compared with free running data of
Delft372 catamaran for several navigation
conditions were presented. Briefly, it can be
concluded that:
ƒ Simulated catamaran maneuvering
characteristics are in relatively good
compliance with the corresponding free
running model test measurements
ƒ Catamaran has high turning ability
(SD<2.5L) in whole range of h/T and Fnh
values
ƒ However, in the range the vessel is very
unstable on course with some tendency
for improvement in very shallow water
(h/T=1.5)
REFERENCES
Zlatev, Z., Milanov, E., Chotukova, V., Stern, F.
Combined Model-Scale EFD-CFD Investigation of
the Maneuvering Characteristics of High Speed
Catamaran, Proceeding of the FAST’2009
Conference, Athens, Greece, 2009, pp.449-462.
Milanov, E., Zlatev, Z., Chotukova, V., Stern, F.
Numerical and Experimental Prediction of the
View publication stats
Inherent Course Stability of High Speed Catamaran
in Deep and Shallow Water, Proceeding of the 28th
ONR Symposium on Naval Hydrodynamics,
Pasadena, USA, 2010
Milanov, E., Chotukova, V., Stern, F. Experimental
and Simulation Studies on Fast Delft372 Catamaran
Maneuvering and Course Stability in Deep and
Shallow Water, Proceedings of the FAST’2011
Conference, Honolulu, Hawaii, USA, 2011
Van’t Veer, R., Experimental Results of Motions,
Hydrodynamic Coefficients and Wave Loads on the
372 Catamaran Model”, TU Delft Rep. 1129, Delft,
Netherlands, 1998
Georgiev, S., Milanov, E., “Model Tests of
Waterjet Propelled Delft372 Catamaran”, BSHC
Rep. KP092006/01, Varna, Bulgaria, 2010
Goodman, A. Gertler, M.,Kohl R., Experimental
Techniques and Methods of Analysis Used at
Hydronautics for Surface-Ship Maneuvering
Predictions, Proceeding of the 11th ONR
Symposium on Naval Hydrodynamics, London,
UK, 1976
Ishiguro, T., Uchida, K.,Manbe, T., Michida, R. A
Study on the Maneuverability of the Super Slender
Twin Hull, Proceedings of the Second International
Conference on Fast Sea Transportation FAST’93,
Tokyo, Japan, 1993
Simonsen, C., D., PMM Model Test with DDG51
Including Uncertainty Assessment, Force
Technology Rep. ONRII187 01, Lyngby, Denmark,
2004
ITTC –Recommended Procedures and Guidelines-
“Forces and Moment Uncertainty Analysis,
Example for Planar Motion Mechanism Test”,
Manoeuvring Committee of 25th ITTC, Fukuoka,
Japan, 2008
Chotukova, V., Milanov, E., Uncertainty Analysis
of the PMM Tank Test Experimental Results,
BSHC Rep. B091202, Varna, Bulgaria, 2009
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This work was performed under the project,
financed by ONR grant N62909-10-1-7149. The
authors wish to acknowledge project supervisor
Dr.P.Purtell for his contiguous support of this
research.