Ocean Engineering 188 (2019) 106149

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

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

Maneuvering hydrodynamic derivatives and course stability of a ship close to

a bank
H. Yasukawa ∗
Hiroshima University, Japan

ARTICLE INFO ABSTRACT

Keywords: Captive model tests are conducted for a pure car carrier in the proximity of a sloped bank with variations in
Hydrodynamic derivatives water depth, distance between ship hull and bank, hull drift angle and heel angle. Using the hydrodynamic
Captive model test derivatives obtained, the check helm and hull drift angle required at equilibrium conditions are estimated.
Bank effect
Course stability of the ship sailing in the proximity of the bank is also studied based on a simplified analysis
Shallow water effect
method. In ℎ∕𝑑 = 1.2 where ℎ∕𝑑 means ratio of water depth ℎ to ship draft 𝑑, the check helm of the ship reaches
Check helm
Course stability
35◦ near 𝜂0 ∕𝐿 = 0.27 where 𝜂0 is the distance between the ship center line and the bank. Although this ship is
Pure car carrier course unstable in case of no rudder control, the ship becomes course stable in any water depths by employing
the autopilot with appropriate control gains. The present analysis method is useful for conventionally assessing
the course stability of a ship in the proximity of a bank.

1. Introduction hydrodynamic force derivatives of the ship moving in a channel with

The recent increase in size of the ships forces ships sometimes to
sail close to banks in ports and channels. For checking the navigational
safety of a ship sailing in such restricted water area, on the assumption
that the ship moves in parallel to the bank, the following investigation
is conducted:
1. Calculating the equilibrium condition of the ship (check helm,
hull drift angle, etc.) required for course keeping of the ship
sailing close to a bank.
2. Confirming the dynamic yaw stability (course stability) of the
ship at the equilibrium condition.
Fujino (1968, 1970) measured the hydrodynamic forces acting on
a ship moving in a channel with changing parameters such as water
depth, distance from the ship to the centerline of the channel, hull
drift angle, rudder angle, etc. in towing tank. Based on the measured
results, rudder deflection (check helm) and hull drift angle required
for overcoming the bank suction force were calculated, and the course
stability of a ship moving in the centerline of the channel was the-
oretically investigated. Eda (1971) carried out a similar study, and
discussed a guideline to indicate acceptable ship size relative to wa-
terway dimensions. Sano et al. (2012, 2014) derived a course stability
criterion for a ship off-centerline in a channel, and investigated the
course stability for an inland container ship based on the measured
variation of the parameters mentioned above. There seems to be still
few comprehensive studies about the navigation safety of the ship with
inclusion of detailed hydrodynamic force data, discussions about the
equilibrium conditions and course stability analysis, although there are
many studies about the force prediction of ships in restricted water
(Norrbin, 1974; Li et al., 2003; Vantorre et al., 2003; Lataire and
Vantorre, 2008; Yasukawa et al., 2009; Zou et al., 2011).
In this paper, an analysis of the course stability is presented for a
pure car carrier (PCC) in proximity of a bank. The analysis is based on
the method proposed by Sano et al. (2014), however, a modification
is made to the method to treat the problem conventionally. For the
analysis, the hydrodynamic derivatives are required. To capture those,
captive model tests are performed in deep and shallow water. Oblique
towing test (OTT) and circular motion test (CMT) are conducted. To
know the heel effect on the derivatives in shallow water, OTT and
CMT are also conducted with variation of the heel angle of the ship
model. Heel-related derivatives in shallow water were not published so
far, although the heel-related derivatives have been indicated in deep
water by, for instance, Yasukawa and Yoshimura (2014). Further, OTT
is conducted for capturing bank effect on the derivatives. The bank
is sloped 45◦ . Using the derivatives obtained, the course stability is
analyzed for the PCC close to the bank. The present analysis method
is useful for conventionally capturing the course stability of the ship in
the proximity of a bank.

∗ Correspondence to: Department of transportation and environmental systems, Hiroshima University, Kagamiyama 1-4-1, Higashi-Hiroshima, 739-
8527, Hiroshima, Japan.
E-mail address: yasukawa@naoe.hiroshima-u.ac.jp.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.oceaneng.2019.106149
Received 15 April 2019; Received in revised form 17 June 2019; Accepted 27 June 2019
Available online 11 September 2019
0029-8018/© 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
H. Yasukawa Ocean Engineering 188 (2019) 106149

Fig. 1. Coordinate systems and notations (left: vertical ship section view, right: horizontal plane view).

2. Hull force model of a ship in close proximity to a bank 2.2. Hull hydrodynamic force model

2.1. Coordinate systems Hydrodynamic forces acting on ship hull (𝑋𝐻 , 𝑌𝐻 , 𝑁𝐻 ) are ex-
pressed as:
Fig. 1 shows the coordinate systems and notation used in this paper. 𝑋𝐻 = (1∕2)𝜌𝐿𝑑𝑈 2 𝑋𝐻′ (𝑣′ , 𝑟′ , 𝜙, 𝜂 ′ ) ⎫
Consider a ship moving close to a bank. The ship moves in a straight ′
𝑚 ⎪
𝑌𝐻 = (1∕2)𝜌𝐿𝑑𝑈 𝑌𝐻 (𝑣′𝑚 , 𝑟′ , 𝜙, 𝜂 ′ ) ⎬
2 (3)
line along the bank wall. It is supposed that the bank’s horizontal shape 𝑁𝐻 = (1∕2)𝜌𝐿2 𝑑𝑈 2 𝑁𝐻′ (𝑣′ , 𝑟′ , 𝜙, 𝜂 ′ )⎪
𝑚 ⎭
is uniform, and the bank is starboard of the ship. The bank wall is
inclined 45◦ as shown in left figure of Fig. 1. The water depth ℎ is where 𝜌, 𝐿 and 𝑑 are water density, ship length and ship draft, respec-
assumed to be constant. tively. 𝑣′𝑚 is defined by 𝑣𝑚 ∕𝑈 , 𝑟′ is defined by 𝑟𝐿∕𝑈 and 𝜂 ′ is defined
by 𝜂∕𝐿. Here, 𝑋𝐻 ′ , 𝑌 ′ and 𝑁 ′ are expressed as:
Consider the space fixed coordinate system 𝑜0 − 𝑥0 𝑦0 𝑧0 where the 𝐻 𝐻
𝑥0 − 𝑦0 plane coincides with the still water surface and the 𝑧0 -axis is ′
𝑋𝐻 (𝑣′𝑚 , 𝑟′ , 𝜙, 𝜂 ′ ) = −𝑅′0 + 𝑋𝑣𝑣
′ ′2 ′ ′ ′
𝑣𝑚 + 𝑋𝑣𝑟 ′
𝑣𝑚 𝑟 + 𝑋𝑣𝑣𝑣𝑣 𝑣′4
𝑚
taken vertically downwards. The 𝑥0 -axis is taken in parallel to the bank ′ ′ ′ ′ ′
wall with a lateral distance 𝑊 from the bank toe at the sea bottom as + 𝑋𝑣𝜙 𝑣𝑚 𝜙 + 𝑋𝑟𝜙 𝑟 𝜙 + 𝑋𝜙𝜙 𝜙2 + 𝑋𝜂𝜂
′ ′2 ′ ′ ′
𝜂 + 𝑋𝑣𝜂 𝑣𝑚 𝜂 (4)
shown in Fig. 1. 𝑠 is the distance from the bank toe to the ship side. The 𝑌𝐻′ (𝑣′𝑚 , 𝑟′ , 𝜙, 𝜂 ′ ) = 𝑌𝑣′ 𝑣′𝑚 + 𝑌𝑟′ 𝑟′ + 𝑌𝑣𝑣𝑣
′
𝑣′3 ′ ′2 ′ ′
𝑚 + 𝑌𝑣𝑣𝑟 𝑣𝑚 𝑟 + 𝑌𝜙 𝜙
𝑦0 -axis is taken laterally as being the right-handed system. The ship is ′
+𝑌𝑣𝑣𝜙 𝑣′2 ′ ′ 2
𝑚 𝜙 + 𝑌𝑣𝜙𝜙 𝑣𝑚 𝜙
assumed to sail only in the region of 𝑦0 ≥ 0. If sailing in the region of ′ ′2 ′
𝑦0 < 0, the bank effect vanishes. +𝑌𝑟𝑟𝜙 𝑟 𝜙 + 𝑌𝑟𝜙𝜙 𝑟′ 𝜙2 + 𝑌𝜂′ 𝜂 ′ + 𝑌𝜂𝜂𝜂
′
𝜂 ′3
′
In addition, consider the horizontal body-fixed coordinate system +𝑌𝑣𝑣𝜂 𝑣′2 ′ ′ ′ ′2
𝑚 𝜂 + 𝑌𝑣𝜂𝜂 𝑣𝑚 𝜂 (5)
(Hamamoto and Kim, 1993) 𝑜 − 𝑥𝑦𝑧. The 𝑥-axis is taken toward ship’s ′
𝑁𝐻 (𝑣′𝑚 , 𝑟′ , 𝜙, 𝜂 ′ ) = 𝑁𝑣′ 𝑣′𝑚 + 𝑁𝑟′ 𝑟′ + 𝑁𝑣𝑣𝑣
′
𝑣′3 ′ ′2 ′
𝑚 + 𝑁𝑣𝑣𝑟 𝑣𝑚 𝑟 + 𝑁𝜙 𝜙
′
bow direction, the 𝑦-axis is taken laterally (positive to starboard) and
′
the 𝑧-axis vertically downwards. The 𝑥–𝑦 plane also coincides with the +𝑁𝑣𝑣𝜙 𝑣′2 ′ ′ 2
𝑚 𝜙 + 𝑁𝑣𝜙𝜙 𝑣𝑚 𝜙
still water surface. Therefore, the origin 𝑜 is located at the midship +𝑁𝑟𝑟𝜙 𝑟 𝜙 + 𝑁𝑟𝜙𝜙 𝑟 𝜙 + 𝑁𝜂′ 𝜂 ′ + 𝑁𝜂𝜂𝜂
′ ′2 ′ ′ 2 ′
𝜂 ′3
position on the still water surface. The heading angle 𝜓 is defined as the ′
+𝑁𝑣𝑣𝜂 𝑣′2 ′ ′ ′ ′2
𝑚 𝜂 + 𝑁𝑣𝜂𝜂 𝑣𝑚 𝜂 (6)
direction between 𝑥0 -axis and 𝑥-axis, and the roll angle is denoted by
𝜙. Clockwise rotation is positive for roll when looking from ship’s stern 𝑅′0 is the resistance coefficient in straight moving, and 𝑋𝑣𝑣
′ , 𝑌 ′ , 𝑁 ′ etc.
𝑣 𝑣
to the fore direction. 𝑢 and 𝑣 denote the velocity components of 𝑥-axis are called hydrodynamic derivatives on maneuvering. The terms with
and 𝑦-axis directions respectively, and 𝑟 the yaw rate around 𝑧-axis. subscript 𝜙 are the derivatives related to the roll/heel effect, and the
𝛿 denotes the rudder angle. The center of gravity 𝐺 is approximately terms with subscript 𝜂 are the derivatives related to the bank effect. All
located at the position (𝑥𝐺 , 0, 𝑧𝐺 ). Then, the lateral velocity component the derivatives are obtained by the tank tests using a ship model as a
at 𝑜-position 𝑣𝑚 is expressed as: function of the water depth.
Roll moment except roll restoring moment 𝐾𝐻 is expressed as
𝑣𝑚 = 𝑣 − 𝑥𝐺 𝑟 + 𝑧𝐺 𝜙̇ (1) (Hirano and Takashina, 1980):
√
Total velocity 𝑈 is defined as 𝑈 = 𝑢2 + 𝑣2𝑚 , and the hull drift angle 𝐾𝐻 = −𝑌𝐻 𝑧𝐻 (7)
at 𝑜-position 𝛽 is evaluated by 𝛽 = tan−1 (−𝑣𝑚 ∕𝑢). Note that 𝜓 coincides
𝐾𝐻 is expressed by multiplying the lateral force 𝑌𝐻 to the vertical
with 𝛽 when the ship moves to the direction of 𝑥0 -axis as shown in
acting points 𝑧𝐻 .
Fig. 1. Lateral deviation of the ship centerline at midship position from
𝑥0 -axis is denoted by 𝜂. Between 𝜂 and the velocity components, 𝑢 and
3. Studied ship
𝑣𝑚 , the following relation is hold as

𝜂̇ = 𝑢 sin 𝜓 + 𝑣𝑚 cos 𝜓 (2) A pure car carrier (PCC) was selected as studied ship in this paper.
Table 1 shows the principal particulars of PCC for both full-scale ship
Here, the dot notation is used to represent the ordinary differential with and the model used in the tank tests. The scale ratio of the ship model is
respect to time 𝑡. 1/90. The load condition is full load, even keel. In the table, 𝐵 denotes

2
H. Yasukawa Ocean Engineering 188 (2019) 106149

Fig. 2. Body plan of a PCC.

Fig. 3. Side view of a PCC model.
right of the moving bottom, the wave absorbers installed in the tank
sides are placed. Although there is a gap between the moving bottom
and the tank wall, it has been confirmed that the gap effect can be
ignored by using the central part of the moving bottom. This comes
from that the ship model is smaller than the size of the moving bottom,
and the ship speed is slow in shallow water tests.

Table 1 4.1.1. Outline

Principal particulars of a PCC. The tests were carried out using a PCC model shown in Fig. 3 in the
Full-scale Ship model condition with rudder and without propeller. In the tests, surge force
𝐿 (m) 180.00 2.000 (𝑋𝐻 ), lateral force (𝑌𝐻 ), yaw moment around midship (𝑁𝐻 ) and roll
𝐵 (m) 32.20 0.358 moment (𝐾𝐻 ) were measured using a four-component dynamometer.
𝑑 (m) 8.20 0.091
The measurements were carried out in heave and trim fixed condition
∇ (m3 ) 26 000 0.036
𝑥𝐺 (m) −2.53 −0.028 in order to eliminate the effect of squat. The roll moment was measured
𝐶𝑏 0.547 0.547 only in case of 𝜙 = 0◦ . Ship speed 𝑈 in the deep water was 0.651 m/s
𝐺𝑀 (m) 1.25 0.014 (equivalent to 12.0 kn for full-scale ship, Froude number 𝐹𝑛 = 0.147),
𝐾𝑀 (m) 15.60 0.173 and the speed in ℎ∕𝑑 = 1.5 and 1.2 was 0.325 m/s (equivalent to 6.0
𝐴𝑅 ∕(𝐿𝑑) 1/39.5 1/39.5
kn for full-scale ship, 𝐹𝑛 = 0.074). The measurements were made for
𝐻𝑅 (m) 7.200 0.080
the hull drift angle 𝛽 from −20◦ to 20◦ every 5◦ , non-dimensional yaw
rate 𝑟′ from −0.3 to 0.3 with the step 0.1, and heel angle 𝜙 of 0◦ , 5◦
and 10◦ .
the breadth, ∇ the displacement volume, 𝐶𝑏 the block coefficient, 𝐺𝑀 The four-component dynamometer was arranged above the still wa-
the metacentric height, 𝐾𝑀 the metacenter height above baseline, ter surface since internal space of the ship model was limited. Then, the
𝐴𝑅 ∕(𝐿𝑑) the rudder area ratio, and 𝐻𝑅 the rudder span length. Fig. 2 moment component due to centrifugal force (inertia force component)
shows the body plan of the ship, and Fig. 3 shows the side view of the is induced in the measured roll moment, which was deducted from
PCC model used in the tank tests. the measured roll moment using other measured force components. By
converting the resulting roll moment, the roll moment around 𝑥-axis
4. Captive model tests located on the still water surface was obtained. Static restoring roll
moment was deducted from the results.
4.1. Tests with variation of heel angle in shallow water
4.1.2. Test results
To capture the heel effect on the hydrodynamic force characteristic Figs. 4–6 show the surge force, the lateral force and yaw moment
in deep and shallow water, oblique towing test (OTT) and circular coefficients (𝑋𝐻′ , 𝑌 ′ and 𝑁 ′ ) of 𝜙 = 0◦ and 10◦ in three different water
𝐻 𝐻
motion test (CMT) with variation of the heel angle were carried out depths. In the figures, dotted lines represent the fitting results using
in the Hiroshima University Towing Tank (length: 100 m, width: 8 Eqs. (4) to (6). Table 2 shows the hydrodynamic derivatives obtained.
m, water depth: 3.5 m). OTT and CMT are the tests to measure the Absolute values of 𝑌𝑣′ , 𝑁𝑣′ and 𝑁𝑟′ increase with decrease of water depth.
hydrodynamic forces acting on the ship model in oblique moving This is a typical shallow-water effect in the hydrodynamic derivatives.
and/or steady turning. In addition, absolute values of 𝑌𝜙′ and 𝑁𝜙′ also increase with decrease
The water depths were changed by a vertically moving bottom of water depth.
equipped to the tank as 38.5, 1.5 and 1.2 in ℎ∕𝑑. The case of ℎ∕𝑑 = 38.5 Next, the vertical acting point of the hull lateral force is considered.
is called ‘‘deep’’. The moving bottom consists of separated bottoms Fig. 7 shows the roll moment coefficient 𝐾𝐻 ′ versus the lateral force

divided into seven in the longitudinal direction. The overall length of coefficient 𝑌𝐻′ with 𝜙 = 0◦ in three different water depths. Inclination
the moving bottom is about 21 m, and the width is 5 m. At the left and of 𝐾𝐻′ to 𝑌 ′ means the vertical acting point of the lateral force 𝑧′ (≡
𝐻 𝐻

3
H. Yasukawa Ocean Engineering 188 (2019) 106149

′
Fig. 4. Surge force coefficient (𝑋𝐻 ), lateral force coefficient (𝑌𝐻′ ) and yaw moment coefficient (𝑁𝐻
′
) versus hull drift angle (𝛽) of 𝜙 = 0◦ and 10◦ in deep water.

′
Fig. 5. Surge force coefficient (𝑋𝐻 ), lateral force coefficient (𝑌𝐻′ ) and yaw moment coefficient (𝑁𝐻
′
) versus hull drift angle (𝛽) of 𝜙 = 0◦ and 10◦ in ℎ∕𝑑 = 1.5.

𝑧𝐻 ∕𝐿). In the figure, the results are classified to three categories such as
OTT results (‘‘Pure Sway’’ in the graph), CMT results without 𝛽 (‘‘Pure
Yaw’’) and CMT results with 𝛽 (‘‘Sway+Yaw’’). Mean lines of 𝐾𝐻 ′ versus
𝑌𝐻′ are drawn for each in the figure. Table 3 shows the non-dimensional
vertical acting point 𝑧′𝐻 for each. Each value is quite different. In deep
water, 𝑧′𝐻 is positive for ‘‘Pure Sway’’. On the other hand, 𝑧′𝐻 is negative
for ‘‘Pure Yaw’’, and this means the vertical acting point is located
above the free-surface. In ‘‘Sway+Yaw’’, 𝑧′𝐻 is positive, but the value
is about 60% of the value in ‘‘Pure Sway’’. Thus, the vertical acting
point of the hull lateral force takes different values according to the
maneuvering mode such as oblique moving and turning. Similar results
in deep water were indicated by Fukui et al. (2016). In shallow water,
𝑧′𝐻 changes to negative direction as a whole. It is considered that this
comes from the effect of not only the lateral force component acting on
the hull but also the vertical force component which was neglected in
this analysis. However, the detailed mechanism is not clear at present.

4
H. Yasukawa Ocean Engineering 188 (2019) 106149

′
Fig. 6. Surge force coefficient (𝑋𝐻 ), lateral force coefficient (𝑌𝐻′ ) and yaw moment coefficient (𝑁𝐻
′
) versus hull drift angle (𝛽) of 𝜙 = 0◦ and 10◦ in ℎ∕𝑑 = 1.2.

′
Fig. 7. Roll moment coefficient (𝐾𝐻 ) versus lateral force coefficient (𝑌𝐻′ ) in three different water depths.

Table 2 Table 3
Hydrodynamic derivatives. Comparison of vertical acting points of lateral force 𝑧′𝐻 in three different water
ℎ∕𝑑 Deep 1.5 1.2 ℎ∕𝑑 Deep 1.5 1.2 depths.
ℎ∕𝑑 Deep 1.5 1.2
𝑅′0 0.0223 0.0297 0.0333 ′
𝑋𝑣𝜙 0.029 0.005 −0.380
′
𝑋𝑣𝑣 −0.034 −0.135 0.322 ′
𝑋𝑟𝜙 0.014 −0.086 −0.061 𝑧′𝐻 in Pure Sway 0.022 0.000 −0.008
′ + 𝑚′
𝑋𝑣𝑟 0.215 0.365 0.155 ′
𝑋𝜙𝜙 −0.021 0.065 0.121 𝑧′𝐻 in Pure Yaw −0.070 −0.108 −0.107
𝑦
′
𝑋𝑣𝑣𝑣𝑣 0.359 1.770 0.054 𝑌𝜙′ 0.013 0.044 0.144 𝑧′𝐻 in Sway+Yaw 0.013 −0.007 −0.013
′ ′
𝑌𝑣 −0.287 −0.912 −1.888 𝑌𝑣𝑣𝜙 0.043 2.966 4.699
′
𝑌𝑟′ − 𝑚′𝑥 0.021 0.017 0.080 𝑌𝑣𝜙𝜙 0.132 −3.749 −7.715
′ ′
𝑌𝑣𝑣𝑣 −1.66 −4.14 −1.05 𝑌𝑟𝜙𝜙 −0.348 0.739 2.533
′
𝑌𝑣𝑣𝑟 0.223 1.89 3.61 𝑌𝑟𝑟𝜙 0.188 0.897 2.264 ship centerline and bank wall were carried out. The bank model was
𝑁𝑣′ −0.080 −0.136 −0.300 𝑁𝜙′ −0.011 −0.059 −0.108 arranged on the moving bottom of the tank. Fig. 8 shows a ship model
′
𝑁𝑟′ −0.049 −0.097 −0.160 𝑁𝑣𝑣𝜙 −0.350 −0.850 0.183 moving in the proximity of the bank model.
′ ′
𝑁𝑣𝑣𝑣 −0.182 −1.093 −1.565 𝑁𝑣𝜙𝜙 −0.173 −0.604 −1.947
′ ′
𝑁𝑣𝑣𝑟 −0.743 −1.835 −1.167 𝑁𝑟𝜙𝜙 0.128 0.444 1.315
𝑁𝑟𝑟𝜙 −0.029 0.019 0.267 4.2.1. Outline
The tests were carried out using the same PCC model. In the tests,
surge force, lateral force, yaw moment around midship and roll moment
4.2. Tests for capturing bank effect on hydrodynamic forces
were measured for a fixed model in the motions using a four-component
dynamometer. The roll moment was measured only in case of 𝛽 = 0◦ .
To capture the bank effect on the hydrodynamic force character- Ship speed 𝑈 in ℎ∕𝑑 = 1.5 and 1.2 was 0.325 m/s (equivalent to 6.0 kn
istics in shallow water, OTT tests with variation of distance between for full-scale ship, 𝐹𝑛 = 0.074).

5
H. Yasukawa Ocean Engineering 188 (2019) 106149

Table 4
Distance from the bank toe to ship side 𝑠, and lateral deviation of ship centerline 𝜂 in
the model tests.
𝑠 (mm) 540 360 180 100 0
(𝑠∕𝐿) (0.27) (0.18) (0.09) (0.05) (0.00)
𝜂 (mm) 180 360 540 620 720
(𝜂∕𝐿) (0.09) (0.18) (0.27) (0.31) (0.36)

Table 5
Hydrodynamic derivatives related to 𝜂 ′ .
ℎ∕𝑑 1.5 1.2
′
𝑋𝜂𝜂 −0.040 −0.066
′
𝑋𝑣𝜂 −0.036 −0.087
𝑌𝜂′ 0.009 0.028
′
𝑌𝜂𝜂𝜂 0.738 0.679
′
𝑌𝑣𝑣𝜂 −0.585 0.721
𝑌𝑣𝜂𝜂 −0.718 −0.293
𝑁𝜂′ −0.012 −0.039
Fig. 8. A picture of the ship model moving in the proximity of the bank model. ′
𝑁𝜂𝜂𝜂 −0.154 −0.344
′
𝑁𝑣𝑣𝜂 −1.307 −1.923
′
𝑁𝑣𝜂𝜂 −0.056 0.031
In the tests, the distance from the bank toe to the ship side 𝑠 was
changed as shown in Table 4. 𝑠 = 0 means that the ship side position
coincides with the bank toe position at the sea bottom. Based on the
lateral velocity (𝑣′ ) which is defined as − sin 𝛽. In the figure, dotted
measured data of the lateral force and yaw moment, 𝑊 was set to
lines represent the fitting results using Eqs. (4) to (6). A vertical shift
be 0.45𝐿 (899 mm in the model) as the position where the force and ′ and 𝑁 ′ with changing 𝜂∕𝐿, although 𝑌 ′ does not
is observed in 𝑋𝐻 𝐻 𝐻
moment become zero. 𝜂 is calculated using the formula: 𝜂 = 𝑊 −𝑠−𝐵∕2.
change very much. Then, the hydrodynamic derivatives related to 𝜂 are
Table 4 also shows the values of 𝜂. In the tank tests, 𝜂∕𝐿 was changed
shown in Table 5.
as 0.09, 0.18 and 0.27, and for each, 𝛽 was changed as −10◦ ∼ 10◦ with
interval 5◦ . The tests were also added in the conditions of 𝜂∕𝐿 = 0.31 Fig. 10 shows hydrodynamic force coefficients acting on the ship
hull with 𝛽 = 0◦ when moving parallel to the bank. 𝑋𝐻 ′ is negative,
and 0.36 for only 𝛽 = 0◦ .
i.e. the resistance acting on the hull. With increase of 𝜂∕𝐿, the absolute
value of 𝑋𝐻 ′ increases slightly. 𝑌 ′ , i.e. the bank suction force, increases
4.2.2. Test results 𝐻
′ ), lateral force with increase of 𝜂∕𝐿. 𝑁𝐻 ′ is negative, i.e. the bow-out moment from
Fig. 9 shows test results of surge force coefficient (𝑋𝐻
′ ′ the bank acts on the ship hull. The shallow water effect on 𝑁𝐻 ′ is more
coefficient (𝑌𝐻 ) and yaw moment coefficient (𝑁𝐻 ) with three different
𝜂∕𝐿 in ℎ∕𝑑 = 1.5 and 1.2. The horizontal axis is non-dimensionalized significant.

′
Fig. 9. Surge force coefficient (𝑋𝐻 ), lateral force coefficient (𝑌𝐻′ ) and yaw moment coefficient (𝑁𝐻
′
) with changing distance between ship centerline and bank wall (𝜂) in ℎ∕𝑑 = 1.5
and 1.2.

6
H. Yasukawa Ocean Engineering 188 (2019) 106149

′
Fig. 10. Surge force coefficient (𝑋𝐻 ′
), lateral force coefficient (𝑌𝐻′ ) and yaw moment coefficient (𝑁𝐻 ) when ship model moves straight in parallel to the bank.

Here, 𝑣′𝑚 , 𝜓, 𝛿, and 𝜂 ′ are expressed as:

⎫
𝑣′𝑚 = 𝑣′0 + 𝛥𝑣′ ⎪
𝜓 = 𝜓0 + 𝛥𝜓 ⎪
(10)
𝛿 = 𝛿0 + 𝛥𝛿 ⎬ ⎪
𝜂′ = 𝜂0′ + 𝛥𝜂 ′ ⎪
⎭
In Eq. (10), subscript 0 means the steady term, and putting 𝛥 means the
unsteady term. All the terms except 𝜂0′ are assumed to be 𝑂(𝜀) where
𝜀 is small quantity. It is assumed that 𝜂0′ is given. From Eq. (2), 𝑣′𝑚 is
expressed as:

𝑣′𝑚 = −𝜓 + 𝜂̇ ′ + 𝑂(𝜀2 ) (11)

′
Fig. 11. Roll moment coefficient (𝐾𝐻 )
versus lateral force coefficient (𝑌𝐻′ ) when ship
model moves straight in parallel to the bank.
Therefore, = −𝜓0 and𝑣′0 = −𝛥𝜓 + 𝛥𝜂̇ ′ . From Eqs. (8) and (9), the
𝛥𝑣′
steady terms are obtained as follows:
′ ′
𝑌𝛿′ 𝛿0 + 𝑌𝑣∗ 𝑣′0 + 𝑌𝜂∗ 𝜂0′ = 0 (12)
Next, the vertical acting point of the hull lateral force (bank suction ′ ′
′ 𝑁𝛿′ 𝛿0 + 𝑁𝑣∗ 𝑣′0 + 𝑁𝜂∗ 𝜂0′ =0 (13)
force) is considered. Fig. 11 shows the roll moment coefficient 𝐾𝐻
′ ◦
versus the lateral force coefficient 𝑌𝐻 with 𝛽 = 0 in different water where
′ to 𝑌 ′ means the vertical acting point of
depths. Inclination of 𝐾𝐻 𝐻 𝑌𝑣∗
′
= ′ 𝜂 ′2
𝑌𝑣′ + 𝑌𝑣𝜂𝜂 ⎫
the suction force 𝑧′𝐻 . 𝐾𝐻 ′ is roughly proportional to 𝑌 ′ . Mean lines
′
0 ⎪
𝑁𝑣∗ ′ 𝜂 ′2
𝑁𝑣′ + 𝑁𝑣𝜂𝜂
𝐻
′ versus 𝑌 ′ are drawn in the figure. 𝑧′ is 0.046 in ℎ∕𝑑 = 1.5, = 0
⎪
of 𝐾𝐻 𝐻 𝐻 ∗′ ′ 𝜂 ′2 ⎬ (14)
′
and 0.027 in ℎ∕𝑑 = 1.2. 𝑧𝐻 is positive in both, and this means that 𝑌𝜂 = 𝑌𝜂′ + 3𝑌𝜂𝜂𝜂 0 ⎪
′
the vertical acting point of the suction force is located below the free- 𝑁𝜂∗ = 𝑁𝜂′ + 3𝑁𝜂𝜂𝜂′ 𝜂 ′2 ⎪
0 ⎭
surface, although it was negative in ℎ∕𝑑 = 1.2 without the presence of
From Eqs. (12) and (13), check helm (𝛿0 ) and non-dimensionalized
the bank as shown in Table 3. When the ship moves in close proximity lateral velocity (𝑣′0 ) can be calculated by the following formulas:
to the bank, the acting point shifts downwards due to the bank effect. ( ′
′ ′ ′ ′ ′ )
𝑌𝜂∗ 𝑁𝑣∗ − 𝑁𝜂∗ 𝑌𝑣∗ 𝑁𝑣∗ 𝑁𝜂∗
∗′
𝛿0 = 𝜂0′ = 𝜂 ′
𝐶 𝜂 𝑌 − (15)
5. Course stability analysis of the ship close to a bank 𝑌𝑣∗′ 𝑁𝛿′ − 𝑁𝑣∗′ 𝑌𝛿′ 0 𝑣
𝑌𝑣∗′ 𝑌𝜂∗′
′ ′ ( ′ ′ )
𝑌𝜂∗ 𝑁𝛿′ − 𝑁𝜂∗ 𝑌𝛿′ 𝑁𝛿 𝑁𝜂∗
The course stability of the ship sailing close to a bank is discussed 𝑣′0 = −𝜂0′ ′ ′ = −𝜂 ′
𝐶 𝑌 ′
− (16)
0 𝜂 𝛿 𝑌𝛿′
using the hydrodynamic derivatives obtained. 𝑌𝑣∗ 𝑁𝛿 − 𝑁𝑣∗′ 𝑌𝛿′ 𝑌𝜂∗′
′ ′ ′
where 𝐶𝜂 ≡ 𝑌𝜂∗ ∕(𝑌𝑣∗ 𝑁𝛿′ − 𝑁𝑣∗ 𝑌𝛿′ ). 𝛿0 is proportional to the difference
5.1. Motion equations
between longitudinal acting point of the hull lateral force in oblique
′ ′
motion (𝑁𝑣∗ ∕𝑌𝑣∗ ) and the longitudinal acting point of the bank suction
It is assumed that ship speed 𝑈 is given and the surge-coupling ′ ′
force (𝑁𝜂 ∕𝑌𝜂 ). 𝑣′0 is proportional to the difference between the longi-
∗ ∗
effect is negligible. The roll-coupling effect is also neglected since the tudinal acting point of the rudder force (𝑁𝛿′ ∕𝑌𝛿′ ) and the longitudinal
ship speed is slow and the heel/roll angle is small. Then, the motion ′ ′
acting point of the bank suction force (𝑁𝜂∗ ∕𝑌𝜂∗ ).
equations with respect to sway and yaw are expressed as: Next, from Eqs. (8) and (9), the unsteady terms are obtained as
(𝑚′ + 𝑚′𝑦 )𝑣̇′𝑚 + (𝑚′ + 𝑚′𝑥 )𝑟′ + 𝑚′ 𝑥′𝐺 𝑟̇′ = 𝑌𝐻′ + 𝑌𝛿′ 𝛿 (8) follows:
( ) ′ ′
( )
(𝐼𝑧′ + 𝐽𝑧′ + 𝑚′ 𝑥′2 ̇′ + 𝑚′ 𝑥′𝐺 (𝑣̇′𝑚 ′ ′
+ 𝑁𝛿′ 𝛿 (9) 𝑚′ + 𝑚′𝑦 𝛥𝜂̈′ + 𝑚′ 𝑥′𝐺 𝛥𝜓̈ ′ = 𝑌𝑣∗ 𝛥𝜂̇ ′ + 𝑌𝜂∗ 𝛥𝜂 ′ + 𝑌𝑟′ − 𝑚′𝑥 + 𝑚′𝑦 𝛥𝜓̇ ′
𝐺 )𝑟 +𝑟 )= 𝑁𝐻
′
In the equations, Eq. (8) is non-dimensionalized by division of (1∕2)𝜌 −𝑌𝑣∗ 𝛥𝜓 + 𝑌𝛿′ 𝛥𝛿 (17)
( ) ∗′ ̇ ′ ∗′
𝐿𝑑𝑈 2 , and Eq. (9) is non-dimensionalized by division of (1∕2)𝜌𝐿2 𝑑𝑈 2 . 𝑚′ 𝑥′𝐺 𝛥𝜂̈′ + 𝐼𝑧′ + 𝐽𝑧′ + 𝑚′ 𝑥′2 ̈′
𝐺 𝛥𝜓 = 𝑁𝑣 𝛥𝜂 + 𝑁𝜂 𝛥𝜂
′

Here, 𝑚 is ship’s mass, and 𝐼𝑧 is moment of inertia for yaw. 𝑚𝑥 , ( ′ ) ′

+ 𝑁𝑟 − 𝑚′ 𝑥′𝐺 𝛥𝜓̇ ′ − 𝑁𝑣∗ 𝛥𝜓 + 𝑁𝛿′ 𝛥𝛿 (18)
𝑚𝑦 , and 𝐽𝑧 denote added mass for surge, added mass for sway, and
added moment of inertia for yaw, respectively. 𝑌𝛿′ and 𝑁𝛿′ are steering- Eqs. (17) and (18) are coupled-linear differential equations with un-
induced lateral force (rudder force) coefficient and steering-induced known variables 𝛥𝜓 and 𝛥𝜂 ′ which are the base equations for discussing
yaw moment coefficient, respectively. course stability.

7
H. Yasukawa Ocean Engineering 188 (2019) 106149

Table 6 Fig. 13 shows calculation results of check helm 𝛿0 and heading

Rudder force and virtual mass coefficients. angle 𝜓0 (≡ −𝑣′0 ) versus 𝜂0 ∕𝐿. With increase of 𝜂0 ∕𝐿, 𝛿0 increases, and
1.5 1.2 this tendency is more significant in ℎ∕𝑑 = 1.2. 𝛿0 reaches 35◦ near
𝑌𝛿′ −0.050 −0.050 𝜂0 ∕𝐿 = 0.27 in ℎ∕𝑑 = 1.2. If the ship sails any closer to the bank wall,
𝑁𝛿′ 0.025 0.025 there is a collision risk with the bank due to insufficient rudder force.
𝑚′ + 𝑚′𝑥 0.232 0.301
𝑚′ + 𝑚′𝑦 0.413 0.544
On the other hand, 𝜓0 is quite small. However, it is important to note
𝐼𝑧′ + 𝐽𝑧′ 0.0262 0.0293 that the ship stern may come into contact with the bank if the steering is
mistaken, because the bank suction force and the bow-out yaw-moment
act on the ship hull. The reason why 𝛿0 increases significantly with
′ ′
increase of 𝜂0 ∕𝐿 is that 𝑁𝜂∗ ∕𝑌𝜂∗ changes significantly with 𝜂0 ∕𝐿, and
For modeling the autopilot, the rudder angle 𝛥𝛿 is assumed to be ∗′ ∗ ′
𝑁𝑣 ∕𝑌𝑣 is positive and almost constant (see Eq. (15)). Additionally,
expressed as a PD-controller as follows: the reason why 𝜓0 is smaller than 𝛿0 by one order of magnitude is that
′
𝛥𝛿 = −𝐺1 𝛥𝜓 − 𝐺2 𝛥𝜓̇ ′ (19) the absolute value of 𝑌𝛿′ is smaller than that of 𝑌𝑣∗ by one order of
magnitude mainly. Where the water depth changes from ℎ∕𝑑 = 1.5 to
where 𝐺1 and 𝐺2 are control gains. ℎ∕𝑑 = 1.2, check helm 𝛿0 becomes significantly large. The helmsman
Then, the characteristic equation of Eqs. (17) and (18), where 𝜆 must pay attention to the change for safe navigation.
denotes the solution, is expressed as follows: Fig. 14 shows calculation results of 𝐷1 , 𝐷2 , and 100𝐷5 in both
ℎ∕𝑑 = 1.5 and ℎ∕𝑑 = 1.2, for 𝐺1 = 𝐺2 = 0. In ℎ∕𝑑 = 1.5, 𝐷2 is always
𝐷4 𝜆4 + 𝐷3 𝜆3 + 𝐷2 𝜆2 + 𝐷1 𝜆 + 𝐷0 = 0 (20) positive, 𝐷1 is partially negative and 𝐷5 is fully negative. In ℎ∕𝑑 = 1.2,
where 𝐷1 and 𝐷2 are always positive, and only 𝐷5 becomes negative. When
discussing the course stability of ships in proximity of a bank, 𝐷5 is
𝐷4 = (𝑚′ + 𝑚′𝑦 )(𝐼𝑧′ + 𝐽𝑧′ + 𝑚′ 𝑥′2 ′2 ′2
𝐺 ) − 𝑥𝐺 𝑚 (21) the most important. This is the same as the analysis result by Sano
𝐷3 = −(𝑚 ′
+ 𝑚′𝑦 )(𝑁𝑟′ − 𝑚′ 𝑥′𝐺 − 𝑁𝛿′ 𝐺2 ) − (𝐼𝑧′ + 𝐽𝑧′ + 𝑚′ 𝑥′2 ∗′ et al. (2014) for an inland container ship. In case of no rudder control
𝐺 )𝑌𝑣
′
(𝐺1 = 𝐺2 = 0), this ship is course unstable.
+ 𝑥′𝐺 𝑚′ (𝑁𝑣∗ + 𝑌𝑟′ − 𝑚′𝑥 + 𝑚′𝑦 − 𝑌𝛿′ 𝐺2 ) (22) To improve the course instability, rudder control gains for autopilot
′ ′ change as follows:
𝐷2 = 𝑌𝑣∗ (𝑁𝑟′ − 𝑚′ 𝑥′𝐺 − 𝑁𝛿′ 𝐺2 ) − (𝑌𝑟′ −𝑚 ′
− 𝑚′𝑦 − 𝑌𝛿′ 𝐺2 )𝑁𝑣∗
′
−𝑌𝜂∗ (𝐼𝑧′ + 𝐽𝑧′ + 𝑚′ 𝑥′2
𝐺)
1. 𝐺1 = 𝐺2 = 0 (No control)
∗′ ∗′ 2. 𝐺1 = 𝐺2 = 4 (Control with mild sensitivity)
+ 𝑁𝛿′ 𝐺1 (𝑚′ + 𝑚′𝑦 ) + 𝑥′𝐺 𝑚′ (𝑁𝜂 − 𝑌𝑣 − 𝑌𝛿′ 𝐺1 ) (23)
3. 𝐺1 = 𝐺2 = 6 (Control with high sensitivity)
′ ′
𝐷1 = 𝑌𝜂∗ (𝑁𝑟′ − 𝑚′ 𝑥′𝐺 − 𝑁𝛿′ 𝐺2 ) − (𝑌𝑟′ − 𝑚′𝑥 + 𝑚′𝑦 − 𝑌𝛿′ 𝐺2 )𝑁𝜂∗
According to Eda (1971), the control of 𝐺1 = 𝐺2 = 4 is called as
′ ′
−𝐺1 (𝑌𝑣∗ 𝑁𝛿′ − 𝑁𝑣∗ 𝑌𝛿′ ) (24) ‘‘Control with mild sensitivity’’ and that of 𝐺1 = 𝐺2 = 6 as ‘‘Control
′ ′
𝐷0 = (𝑌𝑣∗ + 𝑌𝛿′ 𝐺1 )𝑁𝜂∗ − 𝑌𝜂∗ (𝑁𝑣∗ + 𝑁𝛿′ 𝐺1 )
′ ′
(25) with high sensitivity’’. Fig. 15 shows calculation result of 100𝐷5 in both
ℎ∕𝑑 = 1.5 and ℎ∕𝑑 = 1.2. For 𝐺1 = 𝐺2 = 0, 100𝐷5 is fully negative and
Motion stability can be examined by Routh–Hurwitz stability crite- this ship is course unstable. Changing the gains to 𝐺1 = 𝐺2 = 4 and
rion, according to which, necessary conditions for the course stability 𝐺1 = 𝐺2 = 6, the line of 100𝐷5 shifts vertically upward, and the value of
are written as: 100𝐷5 becomes positive. For 𝐺1 = 𝐺2 = 4 in ℎ∕𝑑 = 1.2, 100𝐷5 becomes
fully positive and the ship is course stable. Although 𝐷1 was partially
𝐷0 , 𝐷1 , 𝐷2 , 𝐷3 , 𝐷4 > 0 (26) negative without rudder control in ℎ∕𝑑 = 1.5 as shown in Fig. 14, 𝐷1
𝐷5 ≡ 𝐷3 𝐷2 𝐷1 − 𝐷32 𝐷0 − 𝐷4 𝐷12 > 0 (27) becomes positive by employing the autopilot with small gains.

If these conditions are satisfied, the course instability theoretically
never occurs. 𝐷4 , 𝐷3 , and 𝐷0 become hydrodynamically positive for
common ships, so that we have to check the sign of 𝐷1 , 𝐷2 , and 𝐷5 .
5.2. Analysis result
The course stability analysis of the PCC sailing close to a bank is
carried out using the formulas mentioned above. As the hydrodynamic
derivatives, the measured data obtained in the captive model test men-
tioned in previous section are used. Table 6 shows the rudder force and
virtual mass coefficients used in the analysis. Virtual mass coefficient
such as 𝑚′ + 𝑚′𝑥 , 𝑚′ + 𝑚′𝑦 , and 𝐼𝑧′ + 𝐽𝑧′ were determined according to
Yoshimura (1986), and were assumed to be constant in variation of
𝜂0 ∕𝐿. 𝑌𝛿′ and 𝑁𝛿′ in the table were determined with reference to the
tank test data by Sano et al. (2014).
′ ′ ′ ′ ′ ′
Fig. 12 shows the calculation results of 𝑌𝑣∗ , 𝑁𝑣∗ , 𝑁𝑣∗ ∕𝑌𝑣∗ , 𝑌𝜂∗ , 𝑁𝜂∗ ,
∗′ ∗ ′ ∗ ′ ∗ ′
and 𝑁𝜂 ∕𝑌𝜂 versus 𝜂0 ∕𝐿, which are calculated using Eq. (14). 𝑁𝑣 ∕𝑌𝑣
means the longitudinal acting point of lateral force in oblique towing
′ ′
condition, and 𝑁𝜂∗ ∕𝑌𝜂∗ means the longitudinal acting point of the bank
′ ′
suction force. In both ℎ∕𝑑 = 1.5 and 1.2, absolute values of 𝑌𝑣∗ , 𝑌𝜂∗ , and
∗′ ∗ ′ ∗ ′
𝑁𝜂 increase with increase of 𝜂0 ∕𝐿. As a result, 𝑁𝜂 ∕𝑌𝜂 also increases.
′ ′
Change of 𝑁𝜂∗ ∕𝑌𝜂∗ to positive direction means that the longitudinal
′ ′
acting point shifts forwards. Compared with those, change of 𝑁𝑣∗ ∕𝑌𝑣∗
with increase of 𝜂0 ∕𝐿 is small, and this value is always positive.
6. Concluding remarks
In this paper, an analysis of the course stability was presented for a
pure car carrier (PCC) in proximity to a bank. The analysis is based on
the method proposed by Sano et al. (2014); however, a modification
is made to the method to treat the problem conventionally. For the
analysis, the hydrodynamic derivatives are required. To capture those,
captive model tests were performed in deep and shallow water. Oblique
Towing Test (OTT) and circular motion test (CMT) were conducted with
variation of the heel angle of the ship model to know the heel effect of
the derivatives. Further, OTT was conducted for capturing bank effect
on the derivatives. Using the derivatives obtained, the course stability
was analyzed for the PCC in bank proximity.
In ℎ∕𝑑 = 1.2, the check helm reaches 35◦ near 𝜂0 ∕𝐿 = 0.27 where
𝜂0 is the distance between the ship center line and the bank. The
helmsman must pay attention to the steering for safe navigation in this
situation. Additionally, this ship is course unstable in case of no rudder
control in any water depths, however, the ship becomes course stable
by employing the autopilot with gains 𝐺1 = 𝐺2 = 4 which is called
as ‘‘Control with mild sensitivity’’ (Eda, 1971). The present analysis
method is useful for conventionally assessing course stability of a ship
in the proximity of a bank.
Finally, it is added that the hydrodynamic derivatives data provided
in this study are useful for the maneuvering simulations of the ship in
restricted water.

8
H. Yasukawa Ocean Engineering 188 (2019) 106149

′ ′ ′ ′ ′ ′ ′ ′
Fig. 12. 𝑌𝑣∗ , 𝑁𝑣∗ , 𝑁𝑣∗ ∕𝑌𝑣∗ , 𝑌𝜂∗ , 𝑁𝜂∗ , and 𝑁𝜂∗ ∕𝑌𝜂∗ versus 𝜂0 ∕𝐿.

Fig. 13. Check helm (𝛿0 ) and heading angle (𝜓0 ) versus 𝜂0 ∕𝐿.

Fig. 14. 𝐷1 , 𝐷2 , and 100𝐷5 versus 𝜂0 ∕𝐿 (𝐺1 = 𝐺2 = 0).

Fig. 15. 100𝐷5 in three different control gains.

9
H. Yasukawa Ocean Engineering 188 (2019) 106149

Acknowledgments Li, D.Q., Ottoson, P., Tragardh, P., 2003. Prediction of bank effects by model tests and
mathematical mod-el. In: Proc. International Conference on Marine Simulation and
Ship Maneuverability (MARSIM’03), Vol. 3. Kanazawa, pp. 803–814.
This study was supported by JSPS KAKENHI Grant Number
Norrbin, N.H., 1974. Bank effects on a ship moving through a short dredged channel.
JP26249135. The author expresses his sincere gratitude to Mr. R. In: Proc. 10th Symposium on Naval Hydrodynamics. Cambridge, pp. 71–88.
Sakuno for his assistance with the tank tests in deep and shallow water. Sano, M., Yasukawa, H., Hata, H., 2012. Experimental study on ship operation in close
proximity to bank channel. In: Proc. International Conference on Marine Simulation
References and Ship Maneuverability (MARSIM’12). Singapore.
Sano, M., Yasukawa, H., Hata, H., 2014. Directional stability of a ship in close proximity
to channel wall. J. Mar. Sci. Technol. 19 (4), 376–393.
Eda, H., 1971. Directional stability and control of ships in restricted channels. Trans.
Vantorre, M., Delefortrie, G., Eloot, K., Laforce, E., 2003. Experimental investi-
SNAME 79, 71–116.
gation of ship-bank interaction forces. In: Proc. International Conference on
Fujino, M., 1968. Experimental studies on ship manoeuvrablity in restricted waters –
Marine Simulation and Ship Maneuverability (MARSIM’03), Vol. 3. Kanazawa, pp.
Part I. Int. Shipbuild. Prog. 15 (168), 279–301.
815–823.
Fujino, M., 1970. Experimental studies on ship manoeuvrablity in restricted waters –
Yasukawa, H., Kawamura, S., Tanaka, S., Sano, M., 2009. Evaluation of ship-bank
Part II. Int. Shipbuild. Prog. 17 (186), 45–65.
and ship-ship interaction forces using a 3D panel method. In: Proc. International
Fukui, Y., Yokota, H., Yano, H., Kondo, M., Nakano, T., Yoshimura, Y., 2016. 4-DOF
Conference on Ship Manoeuvring in Shallow and Confined Water: Bank Effects.
mathematical model for manoeuvring simulation including roll motion. J. Japan
Antwerp, pp. 127–133.
Soc. Nav. Archit. Ocean Eng. 24, 167–179, (in Japanese).
Yasukawa, H., Yoshimura, Y., 2014. Roll-coupling effect on ship maneuverability. Ship
Hamamoto, M., Kim, Y., 1993. A new coordinate system and the equations describing
Technol. Res. 61 (1), 16–32.
manoeuvring motion of a ship in waves. J. Soc. Nav. Archit. Japan 173, 209–220,
Yoshimura, Y., 1986. Mathematical model for the manoeuvring ship motion in shallow
(in Japanese).
water. J. Kansai Soc. Nav. Archit. Japan (200), 41–51, (in Japanese).
Hirano, M., Takashina, J., 1980. A Calculation of ship turning motion taking coupling
Zou, L., Larsson, L., Delefortrie, G., Lataire, E., 2011. CFD Prediction and validation
effect due to heel into consideration. Trans. West-Japan Soc. Nav. Archit. (59),
of ship-bank interaction in a canal. In: Proc. 2nd International Conference on Ship
71–81.
Manoeuvring in Shallow and Confined Water: Ship To Ship Interaction. Trondheim,
Lataire, E., Vantorre, M., 2008. Ship-bank interaction induced by irregular bank
pp. 413–422.
geometries. In: Proc. 27th Symposium on Naval Hydrodynamics, Vol. 2. Seoul,
pp. 511–524.

10