Ocean Engineering 190 (2019) 106435

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Ocean Engineering
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/oceaneng

Full-scale CFD simulations for the determination of ship resistance as a

rational, alternative method to towing tank experiments
K. Niklas *, H. Pruszko

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: Results of ship resistance predictions obtained from towing tank experiments are affected by the method used to
Ship extrapolate from a model scale to a ship scale. Selection of method to determine a form factor is subjective and
Calm water resistance the extrapolation method is accurate for typical hull forms. For innovative hull forms the proper method for
Towing tank
calculating the form factor is questionable. Moreover, the influence of the extrapolation method can be equally as
Form factor
CFD
important as the influence of a redesigned hull form itself. The paper presents novel numerical and experimental
Full scale methods used to predict ship’s total resistance in calm water. The results determined by towing tank experi­
ments, full-scale CFD simulations and ship’s sea trial measurements were compared. Depending on the method
used, the determined form factor differed by 19%. As a result, the predicted calm water resistance varied from
6% to 11% relatively to sea trials data. For innovative hull forms in particular, full-scale CFD simulations
should support the towing tank method. The results calculated by full-scale CFD varied from 10% to 4%
relatively to sea trials data depending on the assumptions on hull roughness and turbulence model. The towing
tank testing and full-scale CFD simulations can provide similar accuracy.

1. Introduction
Accurate determination of hull resistance is an important factor
when designing a ship’s propulsion system. In practice, it is especially
important to meet the contracted design speed requirement, which is
verified during the sea trials of a ship. Therefore, both computer simu­
lations and experimental methods for determining the hull resistance are
constantly being improved. The most commonly used methods for the
prediction of ship resistance are statistical regressions of model tests (i.e.
the Holtrop-Mennen method), towing tank testing at a model scale and
computer simulations (i.e. CFD).
The statistical regression methods are based on the results from
towing tank experiments. In some cases, sea trial data are also included.
For typical hull forms, these methods are usually very fast and accurate.
The main disadvantage of this method is that they are generally limited
to the standard, most commonly used hull forms. As a result, the
determination of a ship’s resistance for a hull form which differs from
those already being tested is less accurate. Furthermore, for new inno­
vative shaped hulls, the method cannot be used.
In general, experimental methods (towing tank testing) are believed
to be the most reliable and to give the most accurate predictions. Over
the years, much research has been carried out to improve the pre­
dictions. The most challenging part of predicting the total resistance by
means of the calm water towing tank tests is scaling the viscous forces.
Nowadays, it is estimated using the friction correlation line and form
factor. This method is described in detail in Section 4.2.1 and refers to
the International Towing Tank Conference guidelines (International
Towing Tank Conference (ITTC), 2017a, 2017b). Two of the main as­
sumptions of the form factor method are that the form factor is inde­
pendent of speed and it is the same for a ship and a model. However,
several authors have indicated shortcomings in this approach. Min and
Kang (2010) carried out experiments on a series of geo-sim models to
assess the influence of the Reynolds and Froude number on the value of a
form factor. It was found that, contrary to the aforementioned as­
sumptions, the form factor does depend on the Reynolds and Froude
number. Before that, a similar study was described by García-G� omez
(2000), where it was found that for all the tested geo-sim series, the form
factor increased with the size of the model. Lee et al. (2018) analysed
form factors of the KCS, KVLCC2 and KLNG using numerical simulations.
Suggestions of suitable corrections for the form factor estimation were
presented. Another aspect of scaling viscous forces is the choice of a
friction line from the numerous alternatives, the most widely used being
the ITTC-57 friction line. Eça and Hoekstra (2008) presented their own
friction line based on the results of CFD simulations of a flat plate. Katsui
et al. (2005) and Grigson (1993) also developed different friction lines
for the purpose of calm water resistance prediction of ships. According
to Raven et al. (2008), if any of those two was used, then the form factors

* Corresponding author. Gdansk University of Technology, Faculty of Ocean Engineering and Ship Technology, Narutowicza 11/12, 80-233, Gdansk, Poland.
E-mail address: karol.niklas@pg.edu.pl (K. Niklas).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.oceaneng.2019.106435
Received 10 April 2019; Received in revised form 31 July 2019; Accepted 15 September 2019
Available online 20 September 2019
0029-8018/© 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
K. Niklas and H. Pruszko
Abbreviations
BWL Beam on waterline
CF Friction resistance coefficient
CFD Computational Fluid Dynamics
D Propeller diameter
FN Froude number
ITTC International Towing Tank Conference
1þk Form factor
kS Hull roughness
k Roughness height
kþ Roughness Reynolds number
KT Thrust coefficient
KQ Torque coefficient
KCS KRISO (Korea Research Institute for Ships and Ocean
Engineering) Container Ship
KVLCC2 KRISO Very Large Crude Carrier
KLNG KRISO Liquefied Natural Gas
LWL Waterline length
of a ship and the model were found to be equal.
The inaccuracies and doubts mentioned above are the reasons why
CFD simulations are gaining attention. This method allows the perfor­
mance of full scale calculations and is free from scaling errors. However,
there are other concerns related to this modern approach, such as the
modelling of a free surface of water, modelling turbulence, boundary
conditions, and model discretisation. That is why the results derived
from CFD simulations are often questioned and are expected to be
validated by experiment. Stern et al. (2001) and Wilson et al. (2001)
focused on developing a method to assess uncertainty and errors in
numerical simulations. Eça and Hoekstra (2005b) investigated the in­
fluence of grid topology on the accuracy of numerical results. They also
ran studies on the influence of turbulence models on viscous forces (Eça
and Hoekstra, 2008). Full-scale CFD simulations of ship resistance pre­
dictions can be accurate, giving 5% agreement with a model scale
extrapolation (Haase et al., 2016). The findings of the International
Towing Tank Conference (ITTC), 2014 presents a paper that summarises
the recent state of the art regarding CFD modelling of calm water
resistance and describes the recommended procedures. Although the
most common use of the CFD is prediction of a ship’s performance in
calm water, the potential application of the method in marine hydro­
dynamics is much wider. Recent investigation of a full-scale CFD
self-propulsion simulation proved great accuracy and applicability of
the calculation method for a hull-propeller-rudder hydrodynamic per­
formance prediction (Ponkratov and Zegos, 2014, 2015; Sun et al.,
2017). Other studies used CFD simulation for the determination of the
roll damping coefficient, which is important in predicting a ship’s sea­
keeping performance (Yang et al., 2012). Ship motions and added
resistance were calculated for a high speed trimaran by Wu et al. (2011).
The application of full-scale CFD to predict a seakeeping performance of
V-shaped bulbous bow ship redesigned to modern X-bow hull form was
presented in (Niklas and Pruszko, 2019a). The effect of wave periods on
added resistance and ship motions in a head sea was analysed by Seo
et al. (2017). The added resistance predicted from CFD simulations
made significant differences to the experimental data, from 4% up to as
much as 42%. Other examples found applications of CFD in analysing
selected and specific hydrodynamic problems, such as wind loads acting
on a ship’s superstructure (Janssen et al., 2017), performance of marine
propellers (Dubbioso et al., 2017), propeller bearing loads (Dubbioso
et al., 2017), the effect of sea waves on propulsion performance (Taskar
et al., 2016) and wave loads acting on offshore structures (Niklas, 2017;
Raed et al., 2015, Wang et al., 2016b).
Finally, the method for an estimation of ship’s resistance is taking
2
Ocean Engineering 190 (2019) 106435
LOA Overall length
MARIN Maritime Research Institute Netherlands
MARINTEK Norwegian Marine Technology Research Institute
n Propeller revolution
Re Reynolds number
RF Friction resistance
RT Total resistance
S Wetted surface
t Thrust deduction
TA Draft on aft perpendicular
TF Draft on fore perpendicular
V Volume displacement
w Wake fraction
ΔCF Added resistance due to surface roughness
η0 Open water propeller efficiency
ηH Hull efficiency
ηR Relative rotative efficiency
measurements on a full-scale ship during sea trials. Ponkratov and Zegos
(2015) described the procedure of such an experiment and compared the
results with towing tank predictions and CFD computations. The results
pointed to the fact that the CFD was able to predict thrust, torque and
required power with high accuracy. Discrepancies between the mea­
surements and computations did not exceed 3% for all measurements
except one, when the difference between the KT measured by one out of
two strain gauges and that calculated by the CFD was equal to 7.12%.
Results from the towing tank experiment, extrapolated to full scale in
accordance with the ITTC78 method, showed noticeably higher dis­
crepancies (3% up to 9%). In 2016, Lloyds Register of Shipping organ­
ised the world’s first workshop on full scale hydrodynamic computer
simulations. In this case, participants validated the CFD results against
data provided from sea trials. The workshop demonstrated that a ship’s
speed could be predicted within approximately 4% of actual trial speeds
(D. Ponkratov, 2017).
However, at present, most of the research on predicting a ship’s
resistance by using CFD simulations is being validated against towing
tank experiments. Even though, the ship’s resistance prediction
extrapolated from a scale of the model tested in a towing tank is
burdened with various assumptions, that can lead to an inaccurate re­
sults. This research confronts the results of the ship’s resistance in calm
water obtained using modern methods.
2. Aim and scope of the work
There is a provocative and well-known saying: ‘Everybody apart
from the person who carried out the experiment believes in the exper­
iment. At the same time, nobody believes in CFD simulations except the
person who performed them’. The authors of this article believe that
novel, full-scale CFD simulations can predict the total calm water
resistance with similar uncertainty as by using other methods, including
towing tank testing. It especially applies to innovative hull forms, for
which the extrapolation of the results from the towing tank scale to full
scale might be inaccurate.
The aim of this article is to compare the results of ship’s total resis­
tance prediction in calm water obtained by different methods and
compare them to full scale measurements taken during sea trials.
The scope of the research included the Holtrop-Mennen (H-M)
regression method, towing tank experiments, full-scale Computational
Fluid Dynamics (CFD) simulations. All of the results were compared to
the measurements obtained during ship’s sea trials. The influence of
different form factors and friction lines was quantified. For the
K. Niklas and H. Pruszko
assessment of a form factor, the Prohaska method, MARINTEK formula,
Gross-Watanabe formula and CFD method were used. Two friction lines
were analysed: the ITTC-57 friction line and Grigson friction line. As a
result of the towing tank experiments, eight different curves of resis­
tance were obtained. The purpose of this was to show how the definition
of a form factor and friction line affects the results of ship’s total resis­
tance prediction. For the CFD method, a verification study of four
different resolution meshes was carried out. Also the influence of hull
roughness was analysed by two methods: Holtrop-Mannen and CFD
simulation. The results are presented in Section 6 and discussed in
Section 7. The conclusions are presented in Section 8.
3. Case study ship
For the purpose of the research, the ‘Nawigator XXI’ (IMO 9161247)
was selected as a case study ship. She is a research and training vessel
which usually operates on the Baltic Sea. The main ship data are pre­
sented in Table 1. The body lines of the ship are presented in Fig. 1. The
ship represents modern, V-shaped bulbous bow, with a mid-ship section
with cylindrical insertion and a transom stern.
4. Ship’s resistance prediction in calm water
The resistance prediction for the case study ship was performed using
the most commonly applied methods, which will be briefly discussed in
the following subsections, Section 4.1 to 4.3.
4.1. Statistical regression method by Holtrop-Mennen
The method proposed by Holtrop and Mennen (1982) was developed
on the basis of the statistical analysis of numerous model experiment
results and full-scale ship measurements gathered by MARIN. A
regression analysis led to the establishment of a set of equations that
allowed for the prediction of total resistance in the primary stage of ship
design. It applies to vessels whose dimensions and form coefficients are
within a defined range, close to those from model testing.
The total resistance of a ship might be divided into:
RTotal ¼ RF ð1 þ kÞ þ RAPP þ RW þ RB þ RTR þ RA (1)
where:
RF – Frictional resistance defined by ITTC-1957 friction formula
1 þ k – Form factor describing viscous resistance of a ship in relation
to RF
RAPP – Resistance of appendages
RW – Wave-making and wave-breaking resistance
RB – Pressure resistance of bulbous bow near the free surface
RTR – Resistance of wetted transom
RA – Model – ship correlation resistance
The great advantage of this method is that very little time is required
to obtain a result of hull resistance prediction for a particular ship.
Unfortunately, the results may be treated only as an approximation and
Table 1
Main data of the case study ship.
Name Nawigator XXI
IMO no. 9161247
Displacement D [m3] 1110
Waterline length LWL [m] 55.68
Breadth B [m] 10.5
Draught Tmidship [m] 3.14
Longitudinal centre of buoyancy LCB [%] 47
Wetted Surface A [m2] 677
Block coefficient CB [-] 0.607
3
Ocean Engineering 190 (2019) 106435
a primary estimate. Furthermore, this method cannot be applied to
unconventional hull forms or for whose dimensions are different from
the specified range.
4.2. Model testing in a towing tank
4.2.1. Fundamentals of towing tank experiments
The methodology of towing tank experiments is based on the
assumption that if the Froude number, geometrical, kinematical and
dynamical similarity are maintained, then forces related to wave-
making might be scaled directly from the model to the ship. According
to the theory of William Froude, the resistance of a ship might be divided
into two components, independent of each other: a residuary resistance
depending solely on the Froude number, and a frictional resistance
depending on the Reynolds number and being proportional to the fric­
tion resistance of an equivalent flat plate. As it is impossible to preserve
both Froude number and Reynolds number similarities, it is more
practical to just use the former in laboratory conditions. Recently, the
Froude method has been modified by introducing the form factor. As a
consequence of the newer method, the total model resistance is divided
into wave resistance and viscous resistance.
Despite many experiments and much research focused on scaling
viscous forces, it still remains a challenge. The ITTC recommended that a
method using form factor (1 þ k) should help in assessing those forces
more accurately, as it takes into account the 3D viscous effects that occur
on the surface of a ship. Form factor (1 þ k) is assumed to be the same for
the model and the ship and is constant, regardless of a ship’s speed.
According to the ITTC method, the total resistance coefficient of a
ship is defined as:
CTS ¼ ð1 þ kÞCFS þ ΔCF þ CA þ CW þ CAAS (2)
Where:
CFS – Frictional resistance of the ship defined according to the ITTC
-1957 model-ship correlation line
ΔCF – Roughness allowance
CA – Correlation allowance
CW – Wave resistance coefficient obtained from model tests, defined
as:
CW ¼ CTM CFM ð1 þ kÞ (3)
The recommended formula for the ship-model friction correlation
line is ITTC-1957 and is defined as follows:
0:075
CF ¼ (4)
ðlog10 Re 2Þ2
However, several other correlation lines have been proposed. One of
them is the Grigson line (Grigson, 1993), that is defined as follows:
h i 0:075
CF ¼ 1:32 þ 0:02816ðlog Re 8Þ 0:006273ðlog Re 8Þ2
ðlogRe 2Þ2
(5)
For 108 < Re < 109 and:
h � i 0:075
CF ¼ 0:93 þ 0:1377 log Re 6:32 0:06344ðlog Re 6:3Þ2
ðlogRe 2Þ2
(6)
For 1.5⋅106 < Re < 2⋅107
The currently recommended and most common procedure for eval­
uating a form factor is an experimental method, according to Prohaska
(1966). It involves towing the model at a very low speed ðFr � 0:1 �0:2Þ
at which wave resistance can be neglected. Viscous resistance is assumed
to be equal to the total resistance measured and then use 1 þ k ¼ CCVF
(International Towing Tank Conference (ITTC), 1975). Other methods of
K. Niklas and H. Pruszko Ocean Engineering 190 (2019) 106435

Fig. 1. Body lines of the case study ship.

assessing the form factor are based on regression methods and the sta­ data was 500 Hz. The towing tank was equipped with a wave maker,
tistical analysis of numerous hull forms tested by research facilities. Two damping beach and wave probe to measure free surface elevation. The
of these that have been investigated more closely are: tests were carried out with the use of a model at a scale of 1:25. The most
important of the model data are presented in Table 2.
CB
k ¼ 0:017 þ 20⋅ pffiffiffiffiffiffi (7) The model had no initial heel, drift and trim angle and it was bal­
LB2 ⋅ BT
lasted according to draft marks. The required values of the radius of
(Gross and Watanabe, 1972) and inertia and longitudinal and vertical centers of gravity were obtained
using the pendulum method. The range of speed for which the model
k ¼ 0:6φ þ 75φ3 (8)
was tested was 0.5 m/s to 1.6 m/s, at 0.1 m/s increments. It corre­
MARINTEK, where: sponded to range of Reynolds number between 1.07⋅106 and 3.34⋅106.
In order to stimulate turbulent flow the trip wire was attached at the
CB pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
φ¼ ðTAP þ TFP ÞB (9) bow of the model. The prediction of the ship’s total resistance followed
LWL
the ITTC-78 procedure described above, with the form factor being
The notation CB is a block coefficient, L, B and T are the ship’s main assessed on the basis of the Prohaska method. For the purpose of
dimensions (Length, Breadth and Draft, respectively), and TFP and TAP is research the form factor was additionally determined by other methods
the draft at the fore and aft perpendicular. This formula was used i.e. by as described in Section 4.2.1 and Section 4.3.3. The effect of hull
Bøckmann and Steen (2016). The last approach for assessing the form roughness was included in the towing tank testing according to pro­
factor is CFD simulation, as described in Section 4.3. Recently, Wang cedure described in Section 4.2.1. The roughness allowance ΔCF as
et al., 2016a showed that CFD method can give reasonable 1 þ k values specified in Eq. (2) was included. In described case it was calculated
for different ship types. based on Bowden – Davison formula:
The variety of methods for assessing the form factor might lead one � �13
to conclude that choosing the correct approach is not that straightfor­ ΔCF ¼ 105
ks
0:64 (10)
ward. Molland, Turnock and Hudson (2011) discussed the difficulties LWL
and inaccuracies in evaluating the form factor using the experimental Hull roughness according to ITTC (2017) was assumed to be
method. Also, calculations of the form factor presented in Section 6 kS ¼ 150 μm, thus ΔCF ¼ 0.821⋅10 3. Fig. 2 presents the experimental
showed that regression methods gave results that significantly differed setup of the model. The results of the experiments and uncertainty
from each other. analysis are presented and discussed in Section 6.
Another important aspect is the considerable influence of a given
friction line on the predicted value of total resistance. Eça and Hoekstra
4.3. CFD simulation method
(2005a) discussed the differences resulting from the choice of alterna­
tive friction lines. According to their findings the standard extrapolation
4.3.1. Fundamentals
method may underestimate the full scale resistance by 10%. Based on
Numerical methods allow us to solve discretised governing equations
their conclusions, this article presents calculations of total resistance for
of mass, momentum and energy conservation that are commonly known
both the ITTC-1957 and Grigson line.
as Navier-Stokes equations. Depending on problem complexity, different
For the purpose of avoiding the aforementioned scaling issues, the
simplifications might be applied. For naval applications, where the fluid
Computer Fluid Dynamics simulations can be an advantageous alter­
is assumed to be incompressible, only mass and momentum continuity is
native method for the prediction of ship resistance. The CFD simulations
can be performed directly, at a full scale and so an extrapolation of re­
sults from model to ship scale is then avoided. The advantages and Table 2
disadvantages of this method are discussed below, in Section 4.3. Main model data for towing tank testing.
Model scale 1:25 Full scale
4.2.2. Towing tank experiments of the case study ship Overall length LOA [m] 2.408 60.21
The experiments were carried out in the towing tank of Gdansk Beam on waterline BWL [m] 0.420 10.50
University of Technology. The basin was 40 m long, 4 m wide and 3 m Waterline length LWL [m] 2.227 55.68
Draft on fore perpendicular TF [m] 0.126 3.15
deep. The maximum speed of the towing carriage was 2.5 m/s. The
Draft on aft perpendicular TA [m] 0.126 3.15
model was attached to the carriage by a single post with two degrees of Volume displacement V [m3] 0.0711 1110.20
freedom (pitch and heave). The sampling frequency of the measured Wetted surface S [m2] 1.0839 677.50

4
K. Niklas and H. Pruszko Ocean Engineering 190 (2019) 106435

Fig. 2. Model of the case study ship for towing tank testing.
considered. Nowadays, the most commonly applied method is the Finite
Volume Method. It involves discretisation of the computational domain
surrounding the object of interest, in this case a ship, and iteratively
solves governing equations in every mesh cell. The numerical simula­
tions have many advantages, one of which is the possibility of
computing the flow around a full-scale ship. This means that the prob­
lem of scaling viscous and pressure forces does not exist. It is worth
noting that the results are determined independently from the afore­
mentioned methods and can be used to support the towing tank tests.
Raven et al. (2008) indicate that simulations can help to assess the form
factor by running double body simulations, or choosing the correct
friction line by running multiple simulations for geo-sim models.
However, this method is still not always considered to be reliable
enough. One of the reasons for that is limited knowledge about turbu­
lence and how to correctly model it. Eça and Hoekstra (2008) reports
investigation into friction coefficient of flat plate with use of seven
different turbulence models. The differences in the friction resistance in
percentage of the value obtained from the Katsui et al. (2005) proposal
were between 5% and 7% for different Reynolds number. Most of the
models failed to predict transition from laminar to turbulent flow. Due to
a lack of computational resources, it is not possible to perform Direct
Numerical Simulations for flows with higher Reynolds numbers. As a
result, much more robust but less accurate approaches are still applied.
The most popular are turbulence models, based on Unsteady Reynolds
Averaged Navier-Stokes Equations (URANS). The method is based on the
assumption that instantaneous velocity might be represented in terms of
mean and fluctuating components. Those values are inserted into
Navier-Stokes equations are then averaged. The process of averaging
causes an additional, previously unknown term – Reynolds stress – to
appear in the equations and it is written as follows:
∂ðρui Þ
¼0
∂xj
4.3.2. Numerical model for full-scale CFD simulations of the case study ship
To perform CFD calculations, STAR CCM þ software was used. The
solver uses the finite volume method. In order to capture the interface
between phases, a surface capturing VOF (Volume of Fluid) model was
applied and the realisable k–ε with all y þ wall treatment model of
turbulence was used. This model offers a good compromise between
robustness and accuracy. The model is also a frequent choice when using
STAR CCM þ software, i.e. (Tezdogan et al., 2015), (Kim et al., 2017).
For spatial discretisation, a second order, upwind numerical scheme was
used for convection term, and a first order scheme was used for temporal
discretisation. To compute motions of a ship as a response to fluid forces,
the model of DFBI (Dynamic Fluid Body Interaction) was applied.
The setup of the numerical domain is presented in Fig. 3 and Table 3.
The size of the domain and a ship position was specified in order to avoid
reflection from the side and downstream boundary and also to capture
the Kelvin wave pattern. Additionally, to minimise the reflections of
waves on the side and outlet boundaries, numerical wave damping was
applied. The discretisation of the volume was performed according to
recent ITTC recommendations. Standard refinements in the areas of free
surface, wake and near the hull were applied (see Fig. 4). Mesh resolu­
tion in the region of the ship’s boundary resulted in a value of yþ within
a range of 30–200. An approach with a symmetry plane was used and the
total number of volumetric cells was equal to 2.4 M. The verification
studies were carried out for speed of 10 knots for two coarser meshes,
with a total cell number equal to 1.0 M and 0.5 M cells and one finer
mesh with 6 M cells. Verification followed the Generalised Richardson
Extrapolation Method (ITTC, 1999). Base size of element was system­
pffiffiffi
atically changed by the factor of 2 in X, Y and Z direction in each mesh.
Differences in obtained value of total resistance between the base and
fine mesh was equal to 1.2%. Thus it was decided to use base mesh
having 2.4 M cells instead of the finest. Results of verification study was
presented in Table 7 in Section 6, where mesh 1 corresponds to the finest
grid and mesh 4 to the coarsest.
The full scale ship simulations were run for range of speed between 5
and 12 knots, which corresponds to Froude number between 0.11 and
0.26 and Reynolds number between 1.05⋅108 and 2.52⋅108.
4.3.3. Numerical assessment of a form factor 1 þ k
For the sake of comparison, the form factor of case study vessel was
computed using CFD simulations. Validation of the numerical model
was based on the comparison between a friction resistance coefficient
and ITTC-57 formula. Grid dependence test was performed to assess the
sensitivity of the results on the value of yþ. Kouh et al. (2009) described
the numerical model and procedure to obtain the form factor numeri­
cally. Double body simulation of underwater part of the hull was per­
formed. Symmetry plane was applied on the top surface of the domain,
the slip wall boundary condition was assigned to the bottom and side
(11)

∂ðρui Þ ∂ � ∂p ∂τ Top – Velocity

þ ρui uj þ ρu’ u’ ¼ þ ij (12) inlet boundary
∂t ∂xi ∂xi ∂xi
2.2 L L 2.1 L

Where p is pressure, ρ is fluid density, ρu ’u’j are Reynolds stresses, ui are

‘ ‘
i
averaged components of velocity vector in the Cartesian system of co­ 1.5 L

ordinates, and are the mean viscous stress tensor components and are
‘
τij Pressure Velocity
outlet inlet
defined as follows: boundary boundary
� �
∂ui ∂uj
τij ¼ μ þ (13) 2L
∂xj ∂xi
In order to close the new system of equations, the Reynolds stresses
tensor needs to be modelled using a turbulence model. Over the years,
Bottom – Velocity
many turbulence models have been defined and it requires some inlet boundary
knowledge and experience from the user to choose and specify it
correctly. Fig. 3. Setup of a numerical domain for the CFD simulations (ship resistance on
calm water).

5
K. Niklas and H. Pruszko Ocean Engineering 190 (2019) 106435

Table 3 analysed cases. The mesh resolution in the closest proximity to the hull
Setup of a numerical domain for the CFD simulations (ship resistance on calm was modified by systematically increasing number of prism layers from
water). 8 to 12.
Boundary Position Boundary Condition By running simulations without free surface the form effects might be
Inlet 2.12 Lpp in front of a ship Velocity inlet
obtained. The wave resistance does not contribute to the total resistance.
Outlet 2.2 Lpp behind a ship Pressure outlet All the forces acting on the hull are due to viscosity and are dependent
Symmetry Symmetry plane of a ship Symmetry on the Reynolds number (Oliveira et al., 2018). The form factor is
Side 2.2 Lpp from symmetry plane Velocity inlet defined as:
Top 1.5 Lpp above free surface Velocity inlet
Bottom 2 Lpp below free surface Velocity inlet CV
1þk ¼ (14)
CF0
In this case the Reynolds number was equal to 3.09⋅108, thus the
friction coefficient computed according to ITTC-57 formula, see Eq. (4)
was equal to CF0 ¼ 1.781⋅10 3. Table 4 presents grid dependence study,
validation and values of a form factor 1 þ k.
It can be noticed that for all three meshes a very good agreement of
friction coefficient CF with ITTC-57 friction line was obtained. However,
it was observed that strong dependence of the results on value of y þ
occurred. With increasing mesh resolution the values of friction coeffi­
cient CF approached the CF0 value.

4.3.4. Treatment of hull roughness

Fig. 4. Volume element mesh for the CFD simulations (ship resistance on
calm water).
walls, remaining surfaces were treated as an inlet and outlet. Size of the
domain was as following: 4.2 LPP in X-direction, 1.8 LPP in Y-direction
and 1.2 LPP in Z-direction. Except using single phase model, remaining
numerical schemes were identical as specified in section 4.3.2. In Fig. 5
the computational mesh was presented. In the grid dependence study
the total cell count altered between 3.0 M cells and 3.39 M cells for three
In many cases the hull roughness may not be taken into account in
the numerical simulations of ship performance. A good example can be
comparative analysis of an influence of hull shape modifications on a
calm water resistance. In such case the effect of hull roughness may be
omitted as it was presented i.e. in (Huang and Yang, 2016), (Zhang et al.,
2018), (Niklas and Pruszko, 2019b).
However, in case of comparison between the CFD based resistance
prediction and full scale sea trials the increase of friction resistance due
to hull roughness might play an important role. In this article two
different approaches were applied to take into account the effect of hull
roughness. In the simplified method calm water simulations were run
with assumption that hull surface is hydraulically smooth. The rough­
ness allowance was computed using formula proposed by (Holtrop and
Mennen, 1982). According to this formula, the increase of a friction
resistance was equal ΔCF ¼ 0.657⋅103 and it was speed independent.
Therefore, appropriate increase in total resistance due to roughness for
each speed was obtained by multiplying ΔCF by ½ ρv2.
For the sake of comparison the second approach for a hull roughness
treatment was used. The calm water simulation of the case study vessel
including effect of a hull roughness were performed. Extensive
description of fundamentals lying behind roughness modelling may be
found inter alia at: (Eça and Hoekstra, 2011; Schultz, 2007). The nu­
merical model for simulations with hull roughness was very similar to
those described in Section 4.3.2, however some modifications were
applied. The k-ω SST turbulence model was used instead of k-ε. Similar
approach was applied by Demirel et al. (2014) and Eça and Hoekstra
(2011) to perform calculations of the flow over a flat plate using k-ω SST.
Demirel et al. (2017) applied it to compute the total resistance and
friction resistance increase of KCS hull due to different heights of hull
roughness.
The effect of the flow around the rough surface is an increase of
turbulence. As a result the variation of velocity profile and decrease of
fluid velocity in log-law region might be observed. The classic function
of velocity profile proposed by Millikan (1938) can be transformed into
equation:

Table 4
Grid dependence study.
Mesh: No of cells Yþ CF CF CF0 CV 1þk
CF0
3 3
Coarse 3.03 M 210 1.847⋅10 3.64% 2.310⋅10 1.296
3 3
Medium 3.19 M 125 1.831⋅10 2.76% 2.281⋅10 1.280
Fig. 5. Volume element mesh for the CFD simulations to derive a form factor 1 3 3
Fine 3.39 M 80 1.822⋅10 2.23% 2.259⋅10 1.268
þ k.

6
K. Niklas and H. Pruszko Ocean Engineering 190 (2019) 106435

1
U þ ¼ lnðyþ Þ þ B ΔU þ (15) KQ ¼
Q
(18)
κ ρD5 n2
in which κ is the von Karman constant, yþ is the non-dimensional normal vs
distance from the boundary, B is the smooth wall intercept and ΔUþ is JS ¼ (19)
nD
the roughness function.
In the software STAR CCMþ (Siemens PLM Software, 2017) the ve­ PE ¼ Rv (20)
locity profile is defined as:
PD ¼ M ω (21)
1
uþ þ
trb ¼ lnðE’y Þ;
κ PD η0 ηH ηR ¼ PE (22)
Where E’ ¼ Ef and f is the roughness function defined as slightly K
Relative rotational efficiency ηR ¼ KQ0 ¼ KKT0
TS
and hull efficiency ηH ¼
QS
expanded version of the expression (Cebeci and Bradshaw, 1977) and 1 t
were quasi-efficiencies that helped to describe propeller-hull inter­
1 w
given by equation: action (Dudziak, 2008). The procedure for determining resistance was
8 1 →kþ < ksmooth
þ similar to that for self-propulsion tests, described inter alia in Molland
>
> et al. (2011). However, due to a lack of data for directly calculating
>
> " ! #a
>
< kþ þ
ksmooth thrust and thrust deduction, the following assumptions were made:
f¼ A þ þ þ Ckþ þ
→ksmooth < kþ < krough
þ
(16)
>
> krough ksmooth
>
>
>
: 1) The full-scale ship wake fraction was calculated by the formula:
A þ Ckþ → kþ > krough
þ
J0
1 w¼ (23)
Js
where
2 � þ � 3 where J0 was read from the open water propeller chart and JS was
4π log kþ ksmooth
a¼ � . �5 calculated according to sea trial data. The values of w were also calcu­
2 log kþ
lated using both Holtrop-Mennen and BSRA (British Ship Research As­
þ
rough ksmooth
sociation) regression formulae. The wake fraction, calculated according
The first line in Eq. (16) applies to hydraulically smooth surface. The 0:52
to Eq. (23), was equal to: w ¼ 1 0:733 ¼ 0:29. According to the BSRA
middle line refers to roughness function for transition regime and the
formula, the wake fraction was equal to wBSRA ¼ 0.30, whereas accord­
third to fully rough regime, where kþ is roughness Reynolds number
ing to the H-M formula, the form factor was equal to wH-M ¼ 0.276.
defined as: kþ ¼ kUv τ . The notation Uτ is friction velocity and v is kine­
Agreement with the BSRA method was met, thus it can be assumed that
matic viscosity. According to Demirel et al. (2014) the roughness func­ the BSRA thrust deduction formula provided sufficiently accurate results
tion of hull coating might be represented by one simple model. For this to use for further calculations.
reason the flow regime was assumed to be fully rough. Height of hull
roughness ks was chosen according to ITTC guidelines (ITTC, 2017). As 2) Relative rotation efficiency was calculated and compared using both
the specific coating material was unknown it was assumed to be equal: Holtrop-Mannen and BSRA formulae. According to the first method,
kS ¼ 150 μm. The value of roughness Reynolds number kþ for which the relative rotation efficiency was equal to ηR H M ¼ 1:002 and, ac­
rough regime occurs was assumed to be kþ >5. Coefficients A and C in cording to the latter, ηR BSRA ¼ 1:015. The values were very similar
Eq. (16) were modified to fit the roughness function proposed by however, it has already been noted that the BSRA formula gave a
Demirel et al. (2017) and were equal to 0.2 and 0.22 respectively. The very accurate prediction of wake fraction. Thus, it was assumed that
purpose was to ensure that flow is fully rough and roughness function for for further calculations the value of relative rotational efficiency
given range of kþ was as close as possible to proposed model. The same (obtained by the BSRA formula) will be used.
mesh was used as described in Section 4.3.2. It satisfied the condition
that height of first cell need to be bigger that roughness height (Eça and Total resistance of a full scale ship, assessed on the basis of on-board
Hoekstra, 2011). The results of CFD simulations are presented in Section measurements, was estimated following the procedure presented in
6. Fig. 6. Values in the boxes correspond to one run, however, the same
procedure was applied to estimate resistance for two remaining ship’s
5. Power measurements during ships sea trials speeds.
The uncertainty of the shaft torque measurements was 1%. The po­
Several measurements for three different pitch angles of propeller sitions of the ship were assessed using an on-board DGPS system. Ship
were taken during sea trials on the case study ship Nawigator XXI. The positioning error was less than 3 m and a time measurement error was
measurements followed the ITTC procedure (International Towing Tank less than 10 5% and, therefore, the estimated error of speed measure­
Conference (ITTC), 2017b). The recorded data included wind speed and ment taken on two nautical miles did not exceed 0.2%. Corrections for
direction, draft at watermarks, speed towards water and ground, course the weather conditions were made according to ITTC guidelines (ITTC,
over the ground, air and water parameters, water depth, wave height, 2017b). For each run, the added wave and wind resistances were
period and direction, shaft torque and shaft rotational velocity. Finally, calculated separately. Salinity and water density variations were found
some general information was recorded about the ship and its propul­ to be negligible. The sea trials were carried out in a region free of cur­
sion. Wave height was estimated on the basis of an observation by an rent, so this factor was not taken into account. The estimated added
experienced duty officer and this agreed with the value estimated on the resistance uncertainty, due to weather conditions, did not exceed 2%.
basis of wind speed. The torque on shaft was measured by a strain gauge Total resistance was assessed using regression formulae to obtain values
system. The shaft rotation speed was measured by optical sensor. In of thrust deduction and relative rotational efficiency. The value of total
order to estimate the average resistance for design speed, the sea trial ship resistance estimated in this section was further used in the
results were applied to the following formulae: comparative analysis between different methods.
T
KT ¼ (17)
ρD4 n2

7
K. Niklas and H. Pruszko Ocean Engineering 190 (2019) 106435

for Froude number FN ¼ 0.24 are presented.

Measurements: torque and revolutions of a propeller shaft, average
speed on 2 Nm distance
Calculation of torque coefficient KQ=0,033, J0=0.52, KT0=0.21,
0=0.54 read from propeller open water characteristics
Calculation of effective wake fraction w=0.30
Calculation of thrust deduction based on BSRA formula t=0.216
Calculation of hull efficiency =1.11
Calculation of relative rotational efficiency based on BSRA formula
=1.015
Calculation of resistance from transformed equation for ship
effective power 0 =
Estimation of added resistance due to weather conditions
Total calm water ship resistance RT
Fig. 6. Calculation procedure of total ship resistance.
The results of calm water resistance derived from CFD simulations
are presented in Table 6. The increase of friction resistance due to hull
roughness according to two methods was included as described in sec­
tion 4.3.4. The pressure resistance components were very similar. The
decrease in range of 2.5% for simulations with hull roughness was
observed. The superstructure was modelled directly, therefore allow­
ance for air resistance was not included.
Results obtained by the CFD simulations were verified and validated
against towing tank results extrapolated according to ITTC-78 proced­
ure. In Table 7 and Table 8 the verification study for a vessel speed of 10
knots is presented.
Results of total resistance determined by towing tank testing and
extrapolated to a full scale with the use of different form factors and
friction lines are presented in Table 9. The ITTC-78 procedure was used
to extrapolate the towing tank results to a full scale. Roughness allow­
ance was computed according to Eq. (10).
Fig. 9 shows the total resistance predictions obtained by towing tank
testing using different formulae for the form factor and the friction line.
The curves showing results of uncertainty analysis in respect to ITTC-57
friction line and Prohaska method were included. These were compared
to the results from full-scale CFD simulations including hull roughness.
The results obtained by ship’s sea trials were marked with a red crosses
and related to three vessel speeds: 10.95 knots (FN ¼ 0.242), 12.30 knots
(FN ¼ 0.271) and 13.00 knots (FN ¼ 0.286). The resistance determined
from sea trials followed the procedure presented in Section 5.
Table 10 presents comparisons of the results extrapolated from
towing tank experiments, calculated by the full-scale CFD simulations
and ships sea trials measurements. Relative differences between the
values obtained by different methods and these from ship’s sea trials
were calculated.

6. Results 7. Discussion

Results of the CFD simulations, towing tank experiments and sea Following section is focused on the discussion of the results pre­
trials are presented in this section. As already mentioned several form sented in the paper.
factors of different values were either calculated or obtained experi­
mentally. The form factors according to Prohaska, MARINTEK and Gross
7.1. Form factor 1 þ k
and Watanabe were described in Section 4.2.1. The numerical assess­
ment of form factor was described in Section 4.3.3. The obtained values
It was observed that values of the form factor may significantly differ
are presented in Table 5. All of them were used to extrapolate the results
depending on the method being used. According to Table 5 the highest
of towing tank experiments to a full scale. The values of 1 þ k factor
values of 1 þ k were obtained using Prohaska method and the lowest
evaluated by different methods vary significantly from each other.
according to formula proposed by MARINTEK. The relative difference
Besides standard validation procedure the components of a total
between these methods was 19.4%. The form factor obtained by CFD
resistance were checked. In Fig. 6 plots of three friction lines proposed in
literature and values of friction coefficient obtained from CFD simula­
Table 6
tions are presented. Solid and dashed lines represent standard friction
Results of total resistance and its components obtained by full-scale CFD
lines: ITTC-57 and Grigson line respectively. The squares points were
simulations.
used for notation of numerical friction line proposed by Eça and Hoek­
stra (2008) evaluated with the use of standard k-ω model acc. to Wilcox. Speed Friction Friction Roughness Total Total
resistance resistance allowance resistance resistance
The results of CFD simulations described in this paper were marked as with with acc. to H-M inc. inc.
circles. Values of CF from CFD were calculated as shear stress on wetted Roughness Roughness roughness roughness
surface of hull in the x-direction divided by ½ ρ v2 S. allowance allowance allowance allowance
During the towing tank experiments the total resistance was acc. to H-M acc. to ( acc. to H- acc. to (
Demirel M Demirel
measured. Thus it was not possible to compare values of pressure
et al., 2017) et al.,
resistance directly. However, the wave pattern was recorded that 2017)
enabled to make a visual comparison of the wave pattern between the
Vs RF RF ΔRF Rt Rt
CFD simulations and towing tank testing. In Fig. 8 both wave patterns
[knots] [kN] [kN] [kN] [kN] [kN]

5 5.04 5.05 1.47 8.94 7.48

Table 5 7 9.50 9.51 2.88 17.72 14.84
8 12.30 12.46 3.76 23.80 20.20
The value of form factor determined by different methods.
9 15.14 15.46 4.76 30.16 25.72
Form factor METHOD 10 18.68 19.21 5.90 39.41 34.04
11 22.22 23.29 7.13 50.76 44.70
Prohaska MARINTEK Gross and Watanabe CFD
12 26.44 27.62 8.49 65.11 57.79
1 þk 1.371 1.105 1.253 1.268 13 31.11 33.05 9.97 91.95 82.80

8
K. Niklas and H. Pruszko Ocean Engineering 190 (2019) 106435

Table 7
CFD verification study for the vessel speed of 10 knots.
Study Grid refinement Order of accuracy Correction factor Grid size uncertainty Grid size error Corrected grid Corrected simulation
ratio RG [-] PG [-] CG [-] UG [%] δ�G [%] Uncertainty UGC [N] value SC [kN]

Grid 1- 0.70 1.01 0.74 1.83% 1.36 184.5 38.38

3
Grid 2- 0.44 2.35 0.74 0.86 0.80 87.51 38.89
4

7.2. CFD simulation

Table 8
CFD validation study for the vessel speed of 10 knots.
According to Fig. 7 the CFD simulations slightly overestimated the
Error Validation uncertainty Data uncertainty UD Simulation numerical friction resistance. However, it was very similar to the friction line
E UV [%] [%] USN [%]
evaluated by Eça and Hoekstra (2008). The relative difference was be­
[%]
tween 0.8% and 2.2%. For the ITTC-57 friction line the discrepancy
8.85 2.55 2.4 0.9
varied between 6.2% and 4.1%. It is worth noticing that actually greater
differences occurred between friction lines presented in the literature
and acc. to Gross & Watanabe were close to each other. There is a strong rather than between numerical ones. It allows to conclude that friction
confidence in the reliability of the form factor value obtained by means resistance computed by the CFD was with a good accuracy.
of CFD calculations. According to Table 4 very good agreement of fric­ In Fig. 8 wave patterns obtained by means of CFD simulations and
tion resistance with friction line was achieved. Generally, for the ana­ recorded during towing tank tests were compared. It allowed to assess
lysed case study ship which represents typical hull form (V-shaped qualitatively the predicted free water surface elevation. Height of the
bulbous bow and transom stern) the differences between the values of bow and front shoulder waves were similar and occurred in the same
the form factors were significant. The lower 1 þ k factor values result in region. In both pictures minor trough can be observed in the region of
higher total resistance values after extrapolation to a full scale. the midship and it is followed by low-crested transverse wave. Systems
of divergent waves were very similar.

Table 9
Results of total resistance determined by towing tank testing and extrapolated to a full scale with the use of different form factors and friction lines.
EFD: ITTC-57 friction line EFD: Grigson friction line

1 þk Prohaska MARINTEK Gross & Watanabe CFD Prohaska MARINTEK Gross & Watanabe CFD

Vs Rt Rt Rt Rt Rt Rt Rt Rt

[knots] [kN] [kN] [kN] [kN] [kN] [kN] [kN] [kN]

5 8.81 10.39 9.51 9.41 8.95 10.42 9.59 9.49

7 16.09 18.93 17.35 17.17 16.25 18.90 17.41 17.23
8 20.83 24.41 22.42 22.19 20.90 24.27 22.38 22.15
9 27.12 31.51 29.07 28.79 26.98 31.18 28.82 28.54
10 35.86 41.14 38.20 37.86 35.31 40.46 37.58 37.24
11 47.92 54.16 50.69 50.29 46.75 52.96 49.49 49.10
12 64.20 71.46 67.42 66.96 62.17 69.58 65.44 64.99
13 85.80 94.15 89.51 88.97 82.68 91.40 86.54 86.02

Fig. 7. Comparison of friction resistance coefficient CF determined by different methods.

9
K. Niklas and H. Pruszko Ocean Engineering 190 (2019) 106435

Fig. 8. Wave pattern recorded during towing tank testing (left) and calculated by CFD simulation (right) for Froude number FN ¼ 0.24.

Fig. 9. Total ship resistance prediction determined by four methods: Holtrop-Mennen formula, towing tank testing (EFD) using different form factors and friction
lines, full-scale CFD simulations using different roughness allowance and ship’s sea trials.

For each of the simulations the convergence was carefully checked.
Residuals of turbulence dissipation rate for all simulations dropped by
six orders of magnitude, while the residuals of turbulence kinetic energy
dropped by the three orders of magnitude. The residuals of momentum
dropped by two or three orders of magnitude, depending on the speed.
The highest values of residuals occurred for continuity and VOF model.
On the other hand, according to STAR CCM þ User Guide (Siemens PLM
Software, 2017) the level of residual decrease is strongly influenced by
initial guess. Therefore it is believed that drop by one order of magni­
tude is a result of initial solution being close to the discretised equation.
The variation of total resistance value at the final stage of simulation
was the highest for slow speed cases and was equal to 0.8% for 5 knots.
For higher speed cases the variation was even lower and did not exceed
0.2% for the speed of 11 knots.
7.3. Roughness allowance
According to Table 7 the increase in friction resistance due to hull
roughness predicted by means of CFD calculations is much smaller than
according to Holtrop – Mannen method. For the speed lower than 8
knots the effect of hull roughness was negligible. It was more noticeable
for higher Reynolds number. For speed of 11 knots relative increase in
friction resistance was equal to 4.8%, whereas for 13 knots it was equal
to 6.2%. Roughness model was based on the one proposed by Demirel
et al. (2017). Results were compared with findings presented in afore­
mentioned article. For Reynolds number of 2.29⋅109 the increase in
friction resistance of the KCS model was equal 7.4%. However it was
confirmed that effect of roughness increases with Reynolds number.
Yeginbayeva and Atlar (2018) used Bowden-Davidson’s equation and
Towsin’s formula to compare roughness allowance of the KCS with re­
sults obtained experimentally and scaled using Granville procedure. It
was found that both formulae significantly over predicts the increase of
friction resistance. The obtained results were in agreement with those
findings. It is interesting though, that the approach using CFD simula­
tions including wall roughness under predicts the total resistance
compared to estimations from sea trials. Large sensibility on the values

10
K. Niklas and H. Pruszko Ocean Engineering 190 (2019) 106435

of roughness height and roughness model parameters was observed.
Chosen roughness model and its parameters should correctly represents
the real-life conditions, what is difficult to assess. Another aspect is the
presence of hull surface manufacturing imperfections i.e. welds, surface
deflections which are not taken into account by numerical roughness
model. It means that CFD simulations with modelling wall roughness are
difficult to perform due to lack of confidence in the input parameters.
7.4. Ship total resistance
The results of total resistance presented in Fig. 9 and Table 10
enabled formulation of the following findings.
For the ship’s operational speeds from 11 to 13 knots the variation
between the extreme values of the total resistance predicted from towing
tank testing using different form factors and friction lines was between
6% and 11% relative to full scale sea trial measurements. The main
reason for this resulted from the form factor 1 þ k. The highest values of
predicted total resistance of the case study vessel were obtained using
the MARINTEK form factor and the lowest values by using the Prohaska
method. However, this should not be treated as a general rule. It shows
that an adopted method of calculating form factors can have a signifi­
cant influence on the accuracy of hull resistance prediction. Choice of
the friction line has smaller impact on the results, but is still present.
According to Table 9 for a speed of up to 9 knots, the Grigson formula
gave higher values of friction resistance than the ITTC-57 friction line, as
the slopes of the two lines are different. For higher speeds the relation
was opposite. The towing tank testing was performed for Reynolds
number between 1.07⋅106 and 3.34⋅106. The results of residual drag
coefficient determined for higher Reynolds number, which are possible
to obtain with the use of bigger towing tanks, can be more accurate.
The results of total resistance calculated with the use of full-scale
CFD were also compared to the results obtained from ship’s sea trials.
The maximum relative difference of predicted total resistance for the
operational speeds from 11 to 13 knots was between 10% and 4%. The
source of the results variation was different approach to the modelling of
hull roughness and different turbulence model being used. The CFD
simulations including hull roughness according to H-M and k-ε turbu­
lence model overestimated the total resistance from 0.9% to 4.4% in
relation to ship’s sea trial data. Whereas using hull roughness modelling
according to Demirel et al. (2017) and k-ω turbulence model under­
estimated the total resistance from 6%, up to 10%. It is difficult to assess
to what extend the discrepancies result from roughness model and what
is the influence of different turbulence model applied.
The divergence of results obtained using both the towing tank
method and the CFD was similar. Moreover in each method the influence
of analysed assumptions was relatively high. It is worth to notice, that
the values of total resistance obtained from ship’s speed trials are also
the estimates calculated from the power measurements.
8. Conclusions
The paper addressed novel numerical and experimental methods
used to predict ship’s total resistance in calm water. The results deter­
mined by towing tank experiments, full-scale CFD simulations and ship’s
sea trial measurements were analysed.
For the towing tank testing, the influence of selecting different fric­
tion lines and form factors on the results of a ship’s total resistance were
discussed. The results were analysed and lead us to formulate the
following conclusions. The existing formulae, used to assess the value of
form factor and friction line, result in significant differences in predicted
ship resistance. Numerous approaches have been proposed to determine
the 1 þ k factor. In fact, the choice of method is often subjective and
depends on the experience of a researcher, or assumptions that have
been developed in a given towing tank. In many cases only one variant of
a friction line and form factor is being analysed. This may lead to a
significant decrease in an accuracy of a ship’s resistance prediction. In
this paper it was proven that different methods used to determine the
form factor (despite being perfectly correct) and selection of a friction
line lead to major differences in the predicted ship’s total resistance. For
the ship’s operational speed from 11 to 13 knots the calm water resis­
tance obtained by towing tank testing (EFD) varied from 6% to 11%
relatively to sea trials data. Since the analysis was performed for a
typical hull form another aspect is worth to notice. The formulae for
calculating the form factors were evaluated over the years using
regression analysis based on relations between the main dimensions and
hull form coefficients of existing models/ships. For innovative hull
forms which differ from those that have already been tested, the
calculated form factor can be questionable. As a consequence, the
extrapolated value of ship resistance may be inaccurate. In such cases
the determination of a form factor using both methods (Prohaska and
CFD) seems to be the most reliable, because they are independent and
directly reflect to a specific hull form. The article has shown that the
choice of the method used to determine the 1 þ k factor has a great
influence on the results of the ship’s resistance prediction.
The problem of extrapolation from a model scale to a ship scale can
be avoided using the full-scale CFD simulations. The presented work
indicates that the towing tank testing should be supported by CFD
simulations to decrease uncertainty of the analysis. The results of calm
water resistance predicted by the presented full-scale CFD varied from
10% to 4% relatively to the ship’s sea trials. Differences in the obtained
values resulted from the assumptions used to model a hull roughness and
from the selection of a turbulence model.

Table 10
Calculated differences in ship total resistance predictions obtained by towing tank experiments and full-scale CFD simulations.
EFD: ITTC-57 friction line EFD: Grigson friction line Full scale Full scale CFD inc. Ship’s
CFD inc. ΔCF ΔCF acc. to ( sea trial
Prohaska MARINTEK Gross & CFD Prohaska MARINTEK Gross & CFD
acc. to H-M Demirel et al.,
Watanabe Watanabe
2017)

v ¼ 10.95 knots (FN ¼ 0.242)

Total resistance 47.92 54.16 50.69 51.3 46.75 52.96 49.49 50.08 50.76 44.7 49.67
RT [kN]
RT RT sea trial 3.5% 9.0% 2.1% 3.3% 5.9% 6.6% 0.4% 0.8% 2.2% 10.0% -
RT sea trial
v ¼ 12.30 knots (FN ¼ 0.271); interpolation of EFD and CFD
Total resistance 72.24 79.94 75.66 75.17 69.81 77.72 73.31 72.83 72.7 65.29 72.03
RT [kN]
RT RT sea trial 0.3% 11.0% 5.0% 4.4% 3.1% 7.9% 1.8% 1.1% 0.9% 9.4% -
RT sea trial
v ¼ 13.00 knots (FN ¼ 0.286)
Total resistance 85.8 94.15 89.51 88.97 82.68 91.4 86.54 86.02 91.95 82.8 88.04
RT [kN]
RT RT sea trial 2.5% 6.9% 1.7% 1.1% 6.1% 3.8% 1.7% 2.3% 4.4% 6.0% -
RT sea trial

11
K. Niklas and H. Pruszko
It can be summarized that the towing tank testing and full-scale CFD
simulations can provide similar accuracy. A very important observation
is that in both methods the source of uncertainty of the results obtained
is different. Therefore, the comparison of results determined with the
use of two independent methods seems to be an optimal choice. Perhaps
the new version of the saying mentioned in Section 2 will be: ‘Everybody
believes in the results from towing tank experiments and CDF simula­
tions when they confirm each other’.
Acknowledgements
The research was supported by the National Center for Research and
Development (NCRD) within the project SmartPS: MARTECII/SmartPS/
4/2016. The research was supported by the Academic Computer Centre
in Gdansk (CI TASK). All support is highly appreciated by the authors.
Authors thank the reviewers for their valuable comments.
References
Bøckmann, E., Steen, S., 2016. Model test and simulation of a ship with wavefoils. Appl.
Ocean Res. 57, 8–18. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apor.2016.02.002.
Cebeci, T., Bradshaw, P., 1977. Momentum Transfer in Boundary Layers. Hemisphere
Publishing/McGraw-Hill.
Demirel, Y.K., Khorasanchi, M., Turan, O., Incecik, A., Schultz, M.P., 2014. A CFD model
for the frictional resistance prediction of antifouling coatings. Ocean. Eng. https://do
i.org/10.1016/j.oceaneng.2014.07.017.
Demirel, Y.K., Turan, O., Incecik, A., 2017. Predicting the effect of biofouling on ship
resistance using CFD. Appl. Ocean Res. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apor.2016.12.00
3.
Dubbioso, G., Muscari, R., Ortolani, F., Di Mascio, A., 2017. Analysis of propeller bearing
loads by CFD. Part I: straight ahead and steady turning maneuvers. Ocean. Eng. 130,
241–259. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.oceaneng.2016.12.004.
Dudziak, J., 2008. Teoria Okrętu (Second). Fundacja Promocji Przemysłu Okrętowego i
Gospodarki Morskiej, Gdansk.
Eça, L., Hoekstra, M., 2005. On the accuracy of the numerical prediction of scale effects
on ship viscous resistance. In: International Conference on Computational Methods
in Marine Engineering MARINE 2005.
Eça, L., Hoekstra, M., 2005. On the influence of grid topology on the accuracy of ship
viscous flow calculations. In: 5th Osaka Colloquium on Advanced Research on Ship
Viscous Flow and Hull Form Design by EFD and CFD Approaches, pp. 1–10 (Osaka).
Eça, L., Hoekstra, M., 2008. The numerical friction line. J. Mar. Sci. Technol. 13,
328–345. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00773-008-0018-1.
Eça, L., Hoekstra, M., 2011. Numerical aspects of including wall roughness effects in the
SST k-ω eddy-viscosity turbulence model. Comput. Fluid. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
compfluid.2010.09.035.
García-G� omez, A., 2000. On the form factor scale effect. Ocean. Eng. 27 (1), 97–109.
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0029-8018(98)00042-0.
Grigson, C.W.B., 1993. An accurate smooth friction line for use in performance
prediction. Transactions of the Royal Institution of Naval Architects 135, 149–162.
Gross, A., Watanabe, K., 1972. Form factor, appendix 4, report of performance
committee. In: 13th ITTC. Hamburg.
Haase, M., Zurcher, K., Davidson, G., Binns, J.R., Thomas, G., Bose, N., 2016. Novel CFD-
based full-scale resistance prediction for large medium-speed catamarans. Ocean.
Eng. 111, 198–208. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.oceaneng.2015.10.018.
Holtrop, J., Mennen, G.G., 1982. An approximate power prediction method. Int.
Shipbuild. Prog. 29, 166–170. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13398-014-0173-7.2.
Huang, F., Yang, C., 2016. Hull form optimization of a cargo ship for reduced drag.
J. Hydrodyn. 28 (2), 173–183. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1001-6058(16)60619-4.
International Towing Tank Conference (ITTC), 1975. Form Factor According to
Prohaska.
International Towing Tank Conference (ITTC), 2014. ITTC – Recommended Procedures
and Guidelines ITTC Quality System Manual Recommended Procedures and
Guidelines Practical Guidelines for Ship CFD Applications ITTC – Recommended
Procedures and Guidelines.
International Towing Tank Conference (ITTC), 2017. 1978 ITTC Performance Prediction
Method. ITTC – Recommended Procedures and Guidelines 1978 ITTC Performance
Prediction Method, 7.5-02-03-.
International Towing Tank Conference (ITTC), 2017. ITTC Quality System Manual
Recommended Procedures and Guidelines Preparation , Conduct and Analysis of
Speed/Power Trials 7.5-04-01-01.1.
ITTC, 1999. CFD, Resistance and Flow Uncertainty Analysis in CFD Exapmles for
Resistance and Flow.
ITTC, 2017. 1978 ITTC Performance Prediction Method. ITTC – Recommended Procedures
and Guidelines 1978 ITTC Performance Prediction Method, 7.5-02-03-.
Janssen, W.D., Blocken, B., van Wijhe, H.J., 2017. CFD simulations of wind loads on a
container ship: validation and impact of geometrical simplifications. J. Wind Eng.
Ind. Aerodyn. 166, 106–116. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jweia.2017.03.015.
Katsui, T., Asai, H., Himeno, Y., Tahara, Y., 2005. The proposal of a new friction line. In:
Fifth Osaka Colloquium on Advanced CFD Applications to Ship Flow and Hull Form
Design. Osaka.
12
Ocean Engineering 190 (2019) 106435
Kim, M., Hizir, O., Turan, O., Day, S., Incecik, A., 2017. Estimation of added resistance
and ship speed loss in a seaway. Ocean. Eng. 141, 465–476. https://doi.org/10.101
6/j.oceaneng.2017.06.051.
Kouh, J.S., Chen, Y.J., Chau, S.W., 2009. Numerical study on scale effect of form factor.
Ocean. Eng. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.oceaneng.2009.01.011.
Lee, Y.-G., Ha, Y.-J., Lee, S.-H., Kim, S.H., 2018. A study on the estimation of the form
factor for a full-scale ship. Brodogradnja 69.
Millikan, C.B., 1938. A critical discussion of turbulent flows in channels and circular
tubes. In: Proceedings of the Fifth International Congress for Applied Mechanics,
Held at Harvard University and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology,
September 12-16.
Min, K.S., Kang, S.H., 2010. Study on the form factor and full-scale ship resistance
prediction method. J. Mar. Sci. Technol. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00773-009-00
77-y.
Molland, A.F., Turnock, S.R., Hudson, D.A., 2011. Ship resistance and propulsion:
practical estimation of ship propulsive power. Ship resistance and propulsion:
practical estimation of ship propulsive power. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780
511974113.
Niklas, K., 2017. Strength analysis of a large-size supporting structure for an offshore
wind turbine. Pol. Marit. Res. 24 (s1). https://doi.org/10.1515/pomr-2017-0034.
Niklas, K., Pruszko, H., 2019. Full scale CFD seakeeping simulations for case study ship
redesigned from V-shaped bulbous bow to X-bow hull form. Appl. Ocean Res. 89,
188–201. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apor.2019.05.011.
Niklas, K., Pruszko, H., 2019. Prediction of ship resistance with the use of full- scale CFD
simulations. In: Bensow, R., Ringsberg, J. (Eds.), MARINE 2019 - Computational
Methods in Marine Engineering VIII. International Center for Numerical Methods in
Engineering (CIMNE), Gothenburg, pp. 706–717.
Oliveira, D., Larsson, A.I., Granhag, L., 2018. Effect of ship hull form on the resistance
penalty from biofouling. Biofouling. https://doi.org/10.1080/08927014.2018
.1434157.
Ponkratov, D. (Ed.), 2017. Proceedings: 2016 Workshop on Ship Scale Hydrodynamic
Computer Simulations. Lloyd’s Register, Southampton.
Ponkratov, D., Zegos, C., 2014. Ship scale CFD self-propulsion simulation and its direct
comparison with sea trial results. In: Proceedings of the International Conference on
Computational and Experimental Marine Hydrodynamics.
Ponkratov, Dmitriy, Zegos, C., 2015. Validation of ship scale CFD self-propulsion
simulation by the direct comparison with sea trials results. In: Fourth International
Symposium on Marine Propulsors. Texas.
Prohaska, C.W., 1966. A simple method for evaluation of form factor and low speed wave
resistance. In: Report of the Performance Committee, 11th ITTC. Tokyo.
Raed, K., Karmakar, D., Soares, C.G., 2015. Uncertainty modelling of wave loads acting
on semi-submersible floating support structure for offshore wind turbine. In:
Renewable Energies Offshore – Guedes Soares, pp. 945–951 (Ed.) ©, (2001).
Raven, H.C., Van Der Ploeg, A., Starke, A.R., Eça, L., 2008. Towards a CFD-based
prediction of ship performance - progress in predicting full-scale resistance and scale
effects. Transactions of the Royal Institution of Naval Architects Part A: International
Journal of Maritime Engineering.
Schultz, M.P., 2007. Effects of coating roughness and biofouling on ship resistance and
powering. Biofouling. https://doi.org/10.1080/08927010701461974.
Seo, S., Park, S., Koo, B.Y., 2017. Effect of wave periods on added resistance and motions
of a ship in head sea simulations. Ocean. Eng. 137, 309–327 (October 2016). https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.oceaneng.2017.04.009.
Siemens PLM Software, 2017. User Guide Star CCMþ v12.04.
Stern, F., Wilson, R.V., Coleman, H.W., Paterson, E.G., 2001. Comprehensive approach to
verification and validation of CFD simulations—Part 1: methodology and
procedures. J. Fluids Eng. https://doi.org/10.1115/1.1412235.
Sun, S., Li, L., Wang, C., Zhang, H., 2017. Numerical prediction analysis of propeller
exciting force for hull–propeller–rudder system in oblique flow. Int. J. Nav. Archit.
Ocean. Eng. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijnaoe.2017.03.005.
Taskar, B., Yum, K.K., Steen, S., Pedersen, E., 2016. The effect of waves on engine-
propeller dynamics and propulsion performance of ships. Ocean. Eng. 122, 262–277.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.oceaneng.2016.06.034.
Tezdogan, T., Demirel, Y.K., Kellett, P., Khorasanchi, M., Incecik, A., Turan, O., 2015.
Full-scale unsteady RANS CFD simulations of ship behaviour and performance in
head seas due to slow steaming. Ocean. Eng. 97, 186–206. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.oceaneng.2015.01.011.
Wang, J., Yu, H., Zhang, Y., Xiong, X., 2016. CFD-based method of determining form
factor k for different ship types and different drafts. J. Mar. Sci. Appl. 15 (3),
236–241. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11804-016-1372-8.
Wang, L., Quant, R., Kolios, A., 2016. Fluid structure interaction modelling of horizontal-
axis wind turbine blades based on CFD and FEA. J. Wind Eng. Ind. Aerodyn. 158,
11–25. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jweia.2016.09.006.
Wilson, R.V., Stern, F., Coleman, H.W., Paterson, E.G., 2001. Comprehensive approach to
verification and validation of CFD simulations—Part 2: application for rans
simulation of a cargo/container ship. J. Fluids Eng. 123 (4), 803–810. https://doi.or
g/10.1115/1.1412236.
Wu, C.S., Zhou, D.C., Gao, L., Miao, Q.M., 2011. CFD computation of ship motions and
added resistance for a high speed trimaran in regular head waves. Int. J. Nav. Archit.
Ocean Eng. 3 (1), 105–110. https://doi.org/10.3744/JNAOE.2011.3.1.105.
K. Niklas and H. Pruszko
Yang, B., Wang, Z.C., Wu, M., 2012. Numerical simulation of naval ship’s roll damping
based on CFD. Procedia Eng. 37, 14–18. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.proeng.2012.0
4.194.
Yeginbayeva, I.A., Atlar, M., 2018. An experimental investigation into the surface and
hydrodynamic characteristics of marine coatings with mimicked hull roughness
ranges. Biofouling. https://doi.org/10.1080/08927014.2018.1529760.
13
Ocean Engineering 190 (2019) 106435
Zhang, S., Zhang, B., Tezdogan, T., Xu, L., Lai, Y., 2018. Computational fluid dynamics-
based hull form optimization using approximation method. Engineering Applications
of Computational Fluid Mechanics. https://doi.org/10.1080/19942060.2017.1
343751.