THE SIMULATION O F SHIP MANEUVERING AND C O U R S E KEEPING

WITH E S C O R T T U G

By

Ye Li

B.Eng., Shanghai Jiaotong University P.R.CHINA, 2000

A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULLFILLMENT O F

THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE O F

MASTER OF APPLIED SCIENCES

THE FACULTY O F GRADUATE STUDIES

DEPARTMENT O F MECHANICAL ENGINEERING

We accept this thesis as conforming

to required standard

THE UNIVERSITY O F BRITISH COLUMBIA

April 2004

© Y E LI,2004
 Library Authorization

In presenting this thesis in partial fulfillment of the requirements for an advanced

degree at the University of British Columbia, I agree that the Library shall make it
freely available for reference and study. I further agree that permission for
extensive copying of this thesis for scholarly purposes may be granted by the
head of my department or by his or her representatives. It is understood that
copying or publication of this thesis for financial gain shall not be allowed without
my written permission.

Ye Li 20/04/2004
Name of Author (please print) Date (dd/mm/yyyy)

Title of Thesis: The Simulation of Ship Maneuvering and Course Keeping

with Escort Tug

Degree: Master of Applied Sciences Year: 2004

Department of Mechanical Engineering

The University of British Columbia
Vancouver, BC Canada
 Abstract

Ship maneuverability and its prediction in the early design stage become
possible and important during the last 40 years as a result of some marine
accidents involving large ships. Maneuverability standards were developed
and proposed by the International Maritime Organization (IMO) which provides
the ship maneuvering performance criteria. Ship simulation technology in
particular simulation of ship maneuvering advanced well in recent years with
the advent of computers. Computer programs using either numerically
computed or experimentally determined hydrodynamics coefficients allowed
for maneuverability simulations of different vessel types. Relatively good
agreement was reported by various researchers between simulated results
and those obtained from real ship trials. It seems that simulation can now
identify acceptable ship maneuvering performance in calm seas. However the
effects of the wind and the currents are not that well studied and reported while
they are always important factors for ship maneuvering especially in restricted
waters.

The numerical simulation presented in this thesis classifies "good" ships

and "bad" ships according to the IMO's most current standards for ship
maneuverability. Subsequently, their course keeping ability in restricted area
are studied in calm seas, shallow water, and under wind and current conditions.
The simulation and validation work are done on ESSO OSAKA 278,000DWT
Tanker, a well tested ship for regular maneuvering test in past few years. Good
agreement has been obtained between results of simulation and sea trial.
Since a large portion of disasters happened around coastal areas in the past
few years, this Tanker's performance around Vancouver coast is simulated.

ii
Moreover, it is studied for the entrance in the Vancouver Harbor under wind

and current conditions. The range of current and wind speeds for "successful"

operation is then established. The effect of escort tugs on such an operation is

also quantified. This thesis shows that a performance improvement index can

be assigned to an escort tug for a given assignment. A detailed analysis and

comparison with available experimental results are provided.

Keyword: ship maneuvering, course keeping, IMO standard for ship

maneuverability, marine vehicle, Tanker safety, ESSO OSAKA, wind and
current effects, Vancouver Harbor, escort tug, ship simulation

iii
 Contents
Abstract ii

Contents iv

List of tables x
List of figures xi
Nomenclature xv
English xv
Greek , xviii
Special xix
Abbreviations xx
Acknowledgements xxiii
Chapter 1 Introduction 1
1.1 Background 1
1.2 Purpose of this work 5
1.3 Motivation 7
1.4 Overview of the thesis 10
1.5 Summary 12
Chapter 2 IMO Standards for Ship Maneuverability 13
2.1. History IMO Standards for Ship Maneuverability 13
2.2. Details of the four Ship Maneuverability Standards 17
2.2.1 Basic required tests 17
2.2.1.1 Turning tests 17
2.2.1.2 Zigzag tests 17
2.2.1.3 Full astern stopping tests 19
2.2.1.4 Test requirements 20
2.2.2 The detailed standard of the IMO criteria 22
2.2.2.1 Turning ability 22

iv
 2.2.2.2 Initial turning ability 22

2.2.2.3 Yaw-checking and course-keeping abilities (zigzag) 22

2.2.2.4 Stopping ability 23

2.2.2.5 Difference between last standards 23

2.3 Summary 24
Chapter 3 Modeling and Maneuvering 25
3.1 Introduction 25
3.1.1 General 25
3.1.2 Previous work in Naval LAB at UBC 26
3.2 Modeling and Dynamics of Marine Vehicles 27
3.2.1 Reference frames and fundamental definitions 27
3.2.2 Basic equation 34
3.2.3 Inertia hydrodynamics forces, moments and Added Mass 36
3.2.4 Force derivatives and coefficients 39
3.2.5 Governing Equation 43
3.2.5.1 Abkowitz 43
3.2.5.2 Maneuvering Models Group (MMG) 45
3.2.5.3 Comparison of Abkowitz and MMG models 45
3.3 Detailed and specialized ship model 46
3.3.1 Container 46
3.3.1.1 Background 46
3.3.1.2 Basic data of the Container ship 47
3.3.2 ESSO OSAKA 49
3.3.2.1 Introduction 49
3.3.2.2 Maneuvering Equation for ESSO OSAKA 51
3.3.3 Mariner 52
3.4 Summary 54
Chapter 4 Course keeping and Simulation 55

4.1 External Forces 55

4.1.1 Environmental forces 57
 4.1.1.1 Wind effect 58

4.1.1.2 Current effect 60

4.1.1.3 Restricted waterway 63

4.1.1.4 Waves 65

4.1.1.5 Other nature environmental forces 65

4.1.2 Manmade forces 65
4.1.2.1 Tug forces 66
4.1.2.2 Other manmade forces 67
4.1.3 Governing equation with environmental forces 68
4.2 System design and strategy for the ship sailing into a harbor 69
4.2.1 Analysis the real condition of the harbor 69
4.2.2 Analysis how the ship can sails into the harbor 71
4.2.3 Control system of this work 74
4.3 Detailed control algorithm 77
4.3.1 Introduction 77
4.3.2 PID strategy 80
4.3.3 The ship control equation 82
, 4.3.3.1 General 82
4.3.3.2 PID controller block 83
4.3.4 Filter 86
4.3.4.1 General 86
4.3.4.2 Filter block 86
4.3.5 Control parameters 87
4.4 Simulation 88
4.5 Summary 89
Chapter 5 Results Discussion and Analysis 90
5.1 Initial disturbance and perturbation 90
5.2 Simulation without external effects 90

5.2.1 Assumption according to IMO Standards 91

5.2.2 Container ship—"good" ship 91

vi
 5.2.3 Mariner ship—"bad" ship 98

5.2.4 Simulation of ESSO OSAKA 99

5.2.4.1 Simulation of ESSO OSAKA based on IMO standard for Ship

Maneuverability 99

5.2.4.2 Ship Speed Effect 107

5.2.4.3 Rudder Effect 108
5.2.4.4 Other Effects 110
5.3 Results under external forces 110
5.3.1 Basic assumption of the condition around Vancouver harbor 111
5.3.2 Discussion of the simulation results 112
5.3.2.1 Turning Circle 112
5.3.2.2 Zigzag 118
5.3.2.3 Comparison with real trial 122
5.3.2.4 Need for tug assistance 126
5.4 Results and discussions of Control work 128
5.5 Results and discussions of ship sailing into Vancouver Harbor 134
5.6 Summary 137
Chapter 6 Summary and Conclusion 139
6.1 Summary of the whole work 139
6.2 Conclusion 140
6.2.1 Existing maneuvering and course keeping model 141
6.2.2 Application of the model and the program in this thesis 141
6.3 Recommendations and future works 143
6.3.1 Recommendations 143
6.3.2 Future works 144
6.4 Commercial applications 145
6.4.1 General 145
6.4.2 Future works and recommendations for commercial application ..145

Bibliography 147
Appendix A Maneuvering characteristics 157

vii
 A.1 General Discussion 157

A.2 Detailed Fundamental Characteristics 158

A.2.1 Steady radius 158

A.2.2 Dynamically stable 158

A.2.3 Forces and moments during the maneuver 159

A.2.4 Trim effect 159

A.2.5 Unbalanced turn 159
A.2.6 The course-keeping ability and inherent stability 160
A.2.7 Hard-over turning ability ....163
A.2.8 The "crash-stop" ability 164
A. 3. Characteristics Defined 164
Appendix B Supplementary knowledge to Ship Maneuvering 167
B. 1 Frame Transformation 167
B.2 Definition 168
B.3 Derivation 169
B. 4 Propulsion forces 170
Appendix C Vessels data 172
C. 1 Container data 172
C.1.1 Hydrodynamic Force derivatives 172
C.1.2 Other Data 173
C.2 Mariner Class ship Data 174
C. 3 ESSO OSAKA Data 175
C.3.1 Hydrodynamic Force derivatives 175
C.3.2 Resistance data 176
C.3.3 Propulsion data 177
Appendix D External effects data 178
D. 1 Current data 178
D.2 Wind data 180

D.3Tug data 181

Appendix E Description and manual of the program 184

viii
 E.1 MATLAB part 184

E.2 SIMULINK part 187

Appendix F Explanation of softwares used in the thesis 188

ix
 List of tables
Table 2-1 Evolution of IMO Standard of Ship Maneuvering 14

Table 2- 2 Other works related IMO Standard for Ship Maneuvering 16

Table 3-1 Definition of 6DOF of Marine Vehicle 32

Table 3-2 Major data of container ship 47
Table 3-3 Hull and Rudder data of ESSO OSAKA 49
Table 3-4 Propeller data of ESSO OSAKA 50
Table 3-5 Propulsion Machinery data of ESSO OSAKA 50
Table 3-6 Major data of Mariner Class ship 53
Table 4-1 Example of vehicle control 78
Table 4-2 History of modern ship control technology 78
Table 5-1 Ship Speed Vs. Turning Circle 107
Table 5-2 Basic data of ESSO OSAKA sea trial 122
Table 5-3 Initial value of the ESSO OSAKA sailing into the harbor 129
Table C-1 Hydrodynamic force derivatives data of Container 172
Table C-2 Other data of Container ship 173
Table C-3 Mariner Class ship data 174
Table C-4 Hydrodynamic force derivatives of ESSO OSAKA 175
Table C-5 Resistance data of ESSO OSAKA 176
Table C-6 Propulsion data of ESSO OSAKA 177
Table D-1 Current data 178
Table D-2 Wind data 180
Table D-3 Tug force data 1 181
Table D-4 Tug force data 2 182
Table D-5 Other data of the Tug 182

X
 List of figures
Figure 1-1 An example of a manned-model simulator of Warsash Maritime

Center, UK (From Marine Board 1996) 2

Figure 1-2 View of a whole room full-mission simulator of STAR center Florida
USA (From Marine Board 1996) 3
Figure 1-3 View of control panel of a whole room full-mission simulator of
STAR center Florida, USA (From Marine Board 1996) 3
Figure 1-4 Nautical disaster in Spanish Coastal 7
Figure 1-5 Vessel are going out from Vancouver Harbor 8
Figure 1-6 Two freights are waiting for docking into the Vancouver Harbor 8
Figure 2-1 Definition used on Turning Circle Test (from MSC/Circ 1053) 18
Figure 2-2 Definition used on Zigzag Test (from MSC/Circ 1053) 19
Figure 2-3 Definition used on Full Astern Stop Test (from MSC/Circ 1053) ....20
Figure 3-1 Near surface ocean vehicle—DOLPHIN 26
Figure 3-2 Stationary (Inertia) reference frame 28
Figure 3-3 Stationary (Inertia) reference frame (from PNA III) 29
Figure 3-4 Moving (Ship) reference frame 29
Figure 3-5 Moving (Ship) reference frame (from PNA III) 30
Figure 3-6 Ship dynamics 31
Figure 3-7 An aircraft carrier turning (from Naval Post School USA) 36
Figure 4-1-1 Ship under environmental external forces effects 56
Figure 4-1-2 Ship under manmade external forces effects 57
Figure 4-1-3 Coefficients of wind force OCIMF(1977) 60
Figure 4-1-4 Coefficient of Current force OCIMF(1977) 62
Figure 4-1-5 Tugs are assisting a large vessel grounded outside a navigation
channel from Gray et al(2003) 66

Figure 4-1-6 Tug force model 67

Figure 4-2-1 Nautical Chart of Vancouver Harbor 70

Figure 4-2-2 Aerial view of the approach to Vancouver Harbor 70

Figure 4-2-3 Strategy of how a ship sailing into harbor 72

Figure 4-2-4 Lionsgate bridge at the first narrow 72

Figure 4-2-5 The control system 74

Figure 4-3-1 Control loop of ship autopilot by Segal (1960) 79

Figure 4-3-2 General feedback control loop 79
Figure 4-3-3 Non-interacting format PID 82
Figure 4-3-4 Interacting format PID 82
Figure 4-3-5 1 order Nomoto Equation
st
84
Figure 4-3-6 Autopilot system PID controller with Nomoto Equation 85
Figure 4-3-7 3 order LP filter
rd
...87
Figure 5-2-1 Initial Turning Test course of Container ship 93
Figure 5-2-2 Initial Turning Test yaw and speed of Container ship 94
Figure 5-2-3 Turning Circle Test course of Container ship 94
Figure 5-2-4 Turning Circle Test yaw and speed of Container ship 95
Figure 5-2-5 10/10 Zigzag Test yaw and speed of Container ship 95
Figure 5-2-6 10/10 Zigzag Test course of Container ship 96
Figure 5-2-7 20/20 Zigzag Test yaw and speed of Container ship 96
Figure 5-2-8 20/20 Zigzag Test course of Container ship 97
Figure 5-2-9 Full Astern Stopping test course of Container ship 97
Figure 5-2-10 Turning Circle Test course of Mariner 98
Figure 5-2-11 ESSO Turning Circle course 101
Figure 5-2-12 Speed and yaw of ESSO Turning Circle 102
Figure 5-2-13 Course of ESSO 20/20 Zigzag maneuver 102
Figure 5-2-14 Speed and yaw of ESSO 20/20 Zigzag maneuver 103
Figure 5-2-15 Course of ESSO 10/10 Zigzag maneuver 103
Figure 5-2-16 Speed and yaw of ESSO 10/10 Zigzag maneuver 104
Figure 5-2-17 Course of ESSO Initial Turning 104

Figure 5-2-18 Speed and heading angle of ESSO Initial Turning 105

xii
Figure 5-2-19 Course of ESSO Full Astern Stop 105

Figure 5-2-20 Speed and yaw ESSO Full Astern Stop 106

Figure 5-2-21 Relationship between ship speed and some important values
108

Figure 5-2-22 Relationship between rudder and some important values 109
Figure 5-3-1 a Course of ESSO OSAKA turning under wind effect 114
Figure 5-3-1 b Speed and yaw of ESSO OSAKA turning under wind effect.. 114
Figure 5-3-1 c ESSO OSAKA turning under wind effect from Barr's result(1980)
115
Figure 5-3-2a ESSO OSAKA turning course under current effect 115
Figure 5-3-2b Speed and yaw of ESSO OSAKA turning speed under current
effect 116
Figure 5-3-3a Course of ESSO OSAKA turning under overload wind and
current effects 116
Figure 5-3-3b Speed and yaw ESSO OSAKA turning speed under overload
wind and current effects 117
Figure 5-3-3c ESSO OSAKA turning under overload wind and wave effects
from Barr's result(1980) 117
Figure 5-3-4a Speed and yaw of ESSO OSAKA zigzag under wind effect... 119
Figure 5-3-4b Course of ESSO OSAKA zigzag under wind effect 120
Figure 5-3-5a Speed and yaw ESSO OSAKA zigzag under current effect...120
Figure 5-3-5b Course of ESSO OSAKA zigzag under current effect 121
Figure 5-3-6a Speed and yaw of ESSO OSAKA zigzag under wind and current
effects 121
Figure 5-3-6b Course of ESSO OSAKA zigzag under wind and current effects
122
Figure 5-3-7a Course of simulation compared with Crane (1979) 124

Figure 5-3-7b Speed and yaw of simulation compared with Crane (1979)... 125
Figure 5-3-7c Comparison result of Crane (1979) 126

XIII
Figure 5-3-8a Breaking force and Steering force for ESSO OSAKA 127

Figure 5-3-8b ESSO OSAKA turning circle with Escort tug assistance 128

Figure 5-4-1 a Course of entering harbor at an initial required angle of 1.2(rad)

130

Figure 5-4-1 b Heading angle--^> during the course 130

Figure 5-4-1c Yawing speed—r during the course 131

Figure 5-4-1d Rudder angle-<5 during the course 131

Figure 5-4-1 e x-distance during the course 132

Figure 5-4-1 f y -distance during the course 132

Figure 5-4-1 g Surge velocity u during the course..... 133

Figure 5-4-1 h Sway velocity v during the course 133

Figure 5-5-1 Possibility of ESSO OSAKA turning into the harbor 136

Figure 5-5-2 Zoom-in result of Possibility of ESSO OSAKA turning into the

harbor without tug assistance 136

Figure 5-5-3 Possibility of ESSO OSAKA turning into the harbor with tug

assistance 137
Figure A-1 Various kinds of motion stabilities (Arentzen, 1960) 161

Figure A-2 Ship stability performance after disturbance (From Fan 1988) ...162
Figure E-1 The flow chart of the program 186

xiv
 Nomenclature

English

Symbol Description

A Area

parameter a, (i = 1,2,3 or more) for propeller open water

characteristics
A L Longitudinal area of the hull

Aj Transverse area of the hull

\ Vertical area of the hull

B Ship breath

B Linear momentum B~(B ,B ,B )

x y z

B x Momentum in x direction

B y Momentum in y direction

B_ Momentum in z direction

C General constant or coefficient

C B Block coefficient

C T Total resistance coefficient

C Xc Current coefficient in x direction

C Yc Current coefficient in y direction

C Zc Current coefficient in z direction

C Xwd Wind coefficient in x direction

XV
c Wind coefficient in y direction

c Wind coefficient in z direction

D Ship depth or Diameter

D T Tactical diameter

D P Propeller diameter

F ForceF (X,Y,Z) vector

f General function

F Froude number " / , —

s Acceleration due to gravity

Center of Gravity of shipG (x ,y ,z )

c G G or General center of

reference frame

h Water depth

/ General moment of inertial

I x Moment of inertial along x axis

I y Moment of inertial along y axis

I z Moment of inertial along z axis

J Propeller advance ratio

K moment of momentum K(K ,K ,K )

X Y Z

K K coefficient of Nomoto Equation or Moment(see M)

K T Integral coefficient of PID control algorithm

K P p coefficient PID control algorithm

K D D coefficient of PID control algorithm

K T Thrust coefficient

L General length or Ship length

L bp Length between perpendiculars

L0A Over All Ship Length

M Moment(see M)

M Moment M (K,M,N) vector

m Mass

N Number of propeller blades or moment(see M)

n Revolution per unit time

P Ship rolling angular velocity

Q Ship pitching angular velocity

R General Radius

r Ship yawing angular velocity

T Ship Draught or T coefficent for Nomoto equation

T, I coefficient for PID algorithm^ = K p

/ K

T d D coefficient for PID algorithm^ = K /Kd p

t Time or thrust deduction factor

V Ship speed V(u,v,w) vector

V Ship nominal speed

V A Advance speed of propeller

u Ship serge speed

v Ship sway speed

 w Ship heave speed

w F Froude wake fraction coefficient

w p Wake fraction coefficient

X Force in x direction

X P Propeller thrust force

Y Force in y direction

Z Force in z direction

Greek

Symbol Description

a Angle of attack or Rotational angle along x axis

fi Drift angle or Rotational angle along y axis

5 Rudder angle

S c Required rudder angle

A Ship displacement or A finite increment

<P Velocity Potential

<f> Rolling angle

7 Rotational angle in z axis

V Rudder& propulsion coefficient of governing equation

X Added mass coefficients 2. (i, j = 1,2,3,4,5,6)

n Natural number pi

6 Angle of pitch / trim

xviii
P General density or Sea water density

p c Current density ,(Sea water density)

psMp Ship density also written as ps

p wd Density of air

co Angular velocity co(p,q,r)

co n Natural frequency

I Damping ratio

W Heading/yawing angle

W d Desired heading angle

y/ r Required heading angle

Special

V Ship displacement volume

A Aspect ratio

Change from stationary frame to moving frame (See Chapter

X
3 and Appendix B for details)

X' Dimensionless of any value X

x First time derivative of the variable

x Second time derivative of the variable

xix
 Abbreviations

ABS American Bureau of Shipping

ASCE American Society of Civil Engineers

ASME American Society of Mechanical Engineers

ASNE American Society of Naval Engineers

ATTC American Towing Tank Conference

AUV Autonomous Underwater Vehicle

CHS Canadian Hydrographic Service

DE Design Equipments (Sub organization of MSC)

DOF Degree(s) Of Freedom

OLPHIN D e e p
O f f s n
Logging Platform for Hydrographic
o r e

Instrumentation and Navigation

DWT Deadweight

FPSO Floating Production, Storage and Offshore loading units

GNC Guidance Navigation and Control

HSMB Hydronautics (Inc.) Ship Model Basin

IEEE Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers

IFAC International Federation of Automation Council

IMD Institute of Marine Dynamics(Sub Organization of NRC)

IMO International Maritime Organization

ISE International Submarine Engineering Ltd.

ISOPE International Society of Offshore and Polar Engineers

ITTC International Towing Tank Conference

KRISO Korea Research Institute of Ship and Ocean

LCB Longitudinal Center of Buoyancy

LCF Longitudinal Center of Floating

LQG Linear Quadratic Gaussian

LQR Linear Quadratic Regulator

. . S N . I S N International Conference on Maneuvering and Control of

MCMC . . . .....
Marine Vehicle

MMG Maneuvering Model Group

MSC Marine Safety Council(sub organization of IMO)

NRC National Research Council(Canada)

OCIMF the Oil Companies International Marine Forum

. •- International Conference on Offshore Mechanics and Arctic
OMAE _ .
Engineering

PID Proportional, Integral, Derivative(control)

PNA Principle of Naval Architecture (Book)

PMM Planar Motion Mechanism(test)

RINA Royal Institution of Naval Architects

RoRo Roll-On Roll-Off(Vessel)

ROV Remotely Operated Vehicle

RPM (Propeller)Revolution Per Minute

SNAME Society of Naval Architects and Marine Engineers

SNU Seoul National University

SOLAS International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea

STAR Simulation, Training And Research

T&R Technical and Research

UBC University of British Columbia

UK United Kingdom

USA United States of America

USCG USA Coast Guard

UUV Unmanned Underwater Vehicle

VLCC Very Large Crude Carrier

WG Working Group (sub organization of DE)

xxii
 Acknowledgements

With the completion of this thesis, I feel a great sense of happiness and

deep gratitude to all of the people who helped me to reach this point.

First of all, the greatest and sincere appreciates are given to the my advisor
who is also the chairman of the defense committee, Dr. Sander, M.Calisal,
Professor of Department of Mechanical Engineering, University of British
Columbia (UBC), for his kind supervision and guidance in both academic and
non academic fields. He has been advising me to extend my knowledge and
insight in naval architecture, general fluid mechanics and leading me into
control fields. I also learned life attitudes and experiences from him which are
also my important gains in my master studies.

Many thanks are made to the other two committee members Dr. Roya,
Rahbari from National Research Council and Mr. Jon, Mikkelson from
Department of Mechanical Engineering, UBC for their precious time and
suggestions on this work as they also kept showing interests the my work in its
early stage. All the faculty and staff in the mechanical department deserve my
sincere thanks and so do my colleagues in Naval Architecture and Offshore
Engineering Lab. Several of these individuals made particularly valuable
contributions at critical times throughout my Master studies. For example, Dr.
Dunwoody, the associated Dean of Faculty of Applied Sciences, UBC,
attended my presentations before the defense and gave me many useful and
precious suggestions while he is a very busy person.

I deeply appreciate and wish to acknowledge Dr. Kim and Dr.Choi from
Korea Research Institute of Ship and Ocean (KRISO) for providing those

xxiii
precious old unpublished tanker tests data and explanation, the Canadian

Hydrographic Service for providing the current data and Environment Canada

for wind data in Vancouver Area.

I also highly appreciate Mr. Alex C Landsburg, Maritime Administration

Program Manager of Department of Transportation USA and Chairman of
panel H-10 (ship controllability) of Society of Naval Architects and Marine
Engineers (SNAME) for explaining some unclear notes and giving useful
suggestion about ESSO OSAKA 278,000 DWT.

Finally, I would deeply appreciate those people who had helped and
encourage me during the work. Well, I can not list all their names and
contributions. They are friends, relatives, colleagues, teachers and others.

xxiv
 Chapter 1 Introduction

1.1 Background

Ship maneuvering is a relatively young scientific discipline in the naval

architecture and marine/ocean engineering field. However, there were some

nonsystematic works before last century. Davidson (1946) gave out a set of

complete maneuvering equations in which he addressed the complicated

relationships between turning ability and course keeping ability. This work later
became the milestone of ship maneuvering theory. In the following couple of

decades, with the development of ship transportation and ship building,

especially large tanker and container ships, the theory of ship maneuvering
was also developed. There were two major theories, one is by Abkowitz (1964)

and another is by (Maneuvering Models Group) MMG from Japan. Professor

Abkowitz is one of the pioneer scientists in ship maneuvering field. At the

Danish Maritime Institute, he first measured the forces acting on the ship as a

function of its motion. He then integrated the equations of motion to provide the
path of the ship while it performed some predefined standard maneuvers. This

thesis is based on Abkowitz's model.

In the following years, mathematical modeling and experimental techniques

have been advanced, some good works had been done by e.g. Eda and Crane

(1965) and Bardarson et al (1967), but the methods applied to solve the

equations of motions remained the same. In the 1970's, when the computers

were first introduced into this field, real time simulation becomes possible.

After the 1980's, ship simulation has always been considered as a

prospective method to test a ship instead of a real trial at sea. These

1
simulations have evolved better and better. Consequently, the computer based

simulators are used all over the world and they are able to describe most ship

maneuverability problem in general level. Some good research were reported

by Doerffer(1980), Miller et al (1984) and Biancardi (1988 ). However, it took a

long time for the ship simulation technology to evolve as shown in Figure 1-1 to

Figure 1-3.

Figure 1-1 An example of a manned-model simulator of Warsash Maritime

Center, UK (From Marine Board 1996)

2
Figure 1-2 View of a whole room full-mission simulator of STAR center Florida

USA (From Marine Board 1996)

Figure 1-3 View of control panel of a whole room full-mission simulator of

STAR center Florida, USA (From Marine Board 1996)

3
 The input data for simulation are normally partly obtained from captive
model testing techniques and partly from the databases with information about
the maneuvering coefficients and/or full scale maneuvers. In the meantime,
researchers were still trying to improve the mathematical models and
experimental methods e.g. Hirano (1981), Gou (1981), Inoue et al(1981), Son
and Nomoto (1981), Kose (1982), Biancardi (1988), Pourzanjani(1990) and
Nishimoto et al (1995).

With the evolution and development of high speed computers and advance
programming languages and software, programming simulation became the
popular and easy way to replace or partly replace the traditional work with
hardware and external experimental results. People did many comparisons
and analysis with computer-based ship simulation and control work using
super computers e.g. Govindaraj et al (1981), Miller et al (1984), Webster
(1992), Barr (1993), Geer (1998) and Fossen (2000). Consequently, the
simulation work was moved onto PC and good results were reported by
Oltmann and Sharma (1984), Kobatashi (1988), Li and Wu (1990),
Janke-Zhao(1994), Lauvdal(1994), Izadi-Zamanabadi and Blanke (1999) and
Fossen (2001).

Furthermore, the computer based programs have been used for ship
maneuverability prediction work early in the design stage instead of former
traditional analytical methods, e.g. Masayoshi (1981), Inoue et al(1981 b),
Jiang and Schellin (1990) and Molland and Turnock(1994).

The simulation on a PC is the main approach in this thesis. It became not

only the method used to predict the behavior of complex ship system but also

a method to understand such a complex system and phenomena. One of the

important prediction techniques which will be used in this thesis, time domain

simulation, lets one control and monitor the system by numerical integration of

4
a set of equations of motions.

Normally the simulation quality will be affected by the following factors:

1) The quality of mathematical model we select. Normally, model A is

suitable to test A while model B is suitable to test B. That is to say, an
appropriate model should be introduced according to the requirement
of the tests.

2) The complexity of the model we select. That is, the number of the
independent variables and the formation of the equations.

3) The quality of the input data. This data may be subject to the test we
did to obtain them.

Normally, special coefficients are added to those equations in order to

minimize the errors and improve the results. These coefficients depend on
different rudder angle, heading angle, and so on.

1.2 Purpose of this work

During the last four decades, the ship size, especially for tankers, has

continuously increased. With that increase, the environmental risk, the ship

safety, and especially the tanker safety, have become a major concern. As a

result of these changes, many organizations and government offices became

involved in ship safety ( Crane (1973), Eda et al (1979), Doerffer(1980) and

Palomares(1994)). In particular, the International Maritime Organization (IMO)

developed standards for ship maneuverability and these advisory standards

are now accepted and used in a large number of countries. In additional,

5
individual countries have their own specific criteria. In this thesis, we will take

the IMO requirements as the main criteria for ship maneuvering.

The purpose of this thesis is to study the simulation of ship maneuvering

and course keeping performance in a real sea condition. The results of this
study are used to see if a ship (tanker) can enter into a harbor successfully
with an example of entrance to Vancouver Harbor. The new IMO Standards for
ship maneuverability is discussed and is the fundamental of the simulation
done in the thesis. Utilizing the simulation package, any ship with proper
hydrodynamic force coefficients can be evaluated and one can find out if she is
a "good" ship according to the final IMO Standards for ship maneuverability.

In summary, the purposes of this project can be written as following:

• An investigation of an inclusion of external effects into the model of

tanker maneuvering governing equations so as to understand and
study the PC based program better for ship maneuverability and
course keeping ability at sea.

• A systematic study of the current IMO Standard for Ship

Maneuverability and focus on tanker safety. Numerical simulation

work is employed to test a ship for IMO Standard.

• Investigation of the possibility that a ship can sail into the

Vancouver Harbor. It is an interesting problem to study since
Vancouver Harbor is one of the busiest and most important
harbors in Western Northern America, around the pacific rim.

6
1.3 Motivation

Various tanker accidents are well reported by the media as they usually

cause extensive damage to the environment. Recent disasters had happened

around touristic coastal areas of France and Spain as shown in figure 1-4 or in

environmentally sensitive area in Alaska and they are of major concern to the

public. The target of this study has been chosen as the Vancouver harbor, one

of the biggest ports of Canada and the Pacific Rim. Every year, more than

three thousand ships from all over the world and numerous yachts pass by or

dock in here as shown in Figure 1-5 and Figure 1-6. As the tidal currents and

wind conditions can be significant at the entrance to the harbor, the first

narrow, we decided to simulate and investigate the ship navigational and

maneuvering problems specifically around the Vancouver Harbor.

Figure 1-4 Nautical disaster in Spanish Coastal

7
8
 The numerical ship simulation is now well developed and it is a very
useful design tool for naval architects. The problem to test and judge if a ship is
a "good" ship before construction and without a sea trial in a real sea condition
even in towing tank is always an attractive and challenging topic. It is good to
know that the IMO Standard for Ship Maneuverability, was finalized in the year
of 2002 (MSC 76), while its explanation might be further modified in March
2004 (DE 47). These IMO requirements were used to identify "good" ships by
simulation for further studies.

At the Department of Mechanical Engineering, University of British

Columbia (UBC), Field (2000) and Ostafichuk (2004) worked on the simulation
and control of submarine maneuvering in six degrees of freedom (6DOF) and
Ratcliff (2004) worked on the escort tug performance. The experiences gained
from these studies are used in this thesis.

In the past few years, there are some work focusing on PC-based tanker
maneuverability simulation according to part of IMO standards for ship
maneuverability. Hasegawa and Sasaki (1997) did a java-based simulation
using ESSO OSAKA Tanker (at unknown displacement) for ship
maneuverability according to IMO interim standards for ship maneuverability
and gained good experience.

What's more, in the last decade, some modeling and experimental works
concerning Floating Production, Storage and Offshore Loading units(FPSO)
have been well reported by Martins et al(1999) and Sphaier et al (1998). All
these works are good references for the tanker study in this thesis.

9
1.4 Overview of the thesis

As a brief introduction and how to implement this work, an overview of the

thesis is presented here and it could help and guide the reader to select which

parts of this thesis the reader(s) like(s) to study.

Chapter 1 is the introductory part of the thesis. It focus the purpose of this
work and motivation why the author would like to do it. It also offers the reader
a general background to the study of ship maneuverability and the driving
forces which instigated the establishment of internationally standardized
performance criteria. There is also an overview of the thesis that you are
reading now.

Chapter 2 address ship maneuvering and safety, especially tanker safety

as well as the selection of an international standard concerning tanker safety
was selected. Consequently, the IMO standards for ship maneuverability were
employed and studied. The history of the IMO standards for ship
maneuverability is reviewed at the beginning and the detailed criteria and the
associated tests are discussed.

The purpose of Chapter 3 is to simulate the ship maneuvering performance

in on a PC. The modeling, maneuvering and dynamics of marine vehicles are

the core of this chapter. In fact, the modeling work is based on a full 6DOF

formulation for a marine vehicle, although the major test objective vessel is a

3DOF Tanker. Further more, the details of equations of three ships are given

after general modeling of marine vehicle. The ESSO OSAKA 278,000DWT

Tanker, the major test objective ship, is discussed more specifically as a

fundamental work for later chapters.

After the maneuvering studies in Chapter 3, Chapter 4 deal with the

10
modeling work for ship course keeping and control work. For the course
keeping problem, real conditions in Vancouver Harbor were selected with the
inclusion of external effects, both manmade and natural, namely tug
assistance and wind and current effects. Therefore, the governing equations
given in Chapter 3 are rewritten. With the new ESSO OSAKA governing
equations with wind and current effects, the design of the control system for
the ship entering into Vancouver Harbor was added. A pre distance and pre
turn strategy has been designed for the whole process and a PID control has
been employed as the core of the control loop. All the simulation results are
discussed in Chapter 5.

After the modeling, maneuvering, and control design work in Chapter 3 and
Chapter 4, all discussions are given in Chapter 5. At first, simulations of IMO
standards for ship maneuverability are given both "good" ships and a "bad"
ship. The relationships between tanker performance and internal factors,
rudder angle, ship speed and rudder rate are also discussed since they may
also be included in the control loop. Then, the simulation work of tanker course
keeping in Chapter 4 is shown and discussed. The simulations according to a
set of similar conditions of sea trials are applied, simulated, discussed and
compared with the sea trials and the results in section 5.2. Finally, the
possibilities of a tanker entering the harbor with and without tug's assistance
have been simulated and discussed in detail.

After the completion of most works, the conclusion of simulation is

presented in this chapter. Before the conclusions, a brief summary and review

of Chapter 1 to Chapter 5 is given prior to the conclusion. Final conclusions are

then presented based on discussion and analysis of the complete work. Finally,

some outlook of future goals of this work and recommendations to related work

are given as the ending of the main part of this thesis which exist as the

Chapter 6,

11
1.5 Summary

Considering the project is to study ship maneuvering and course keeping

work, the background and history of modern maneuvering theory is briefly
reviewed at beginning and purpose of the work has been given out secondly in
details that this work will focus on ship maneuvering and course keeping
performance around Vancouver Harbor based on the final IMO Standard for
Ship Maneuverability. The motivation is explained as the personal interests. At
last, the outline of every chapter of the thesis is listed that could help the
reviewer to read the thesis and give their suggestions.

12
 Chapter 2 IMO Standards for Ship
Maneuverability
2.1. History IMO Standards for Ship
Maneuverability

Ship transportation is perhaps one of the most international of all the

world's great industries and remains as one of the most dangerous. It has
always been recognized that the best way of improving safety at sea is by
developing international regulations that are followed by all shipping nations.
Since the mid-19 century, a number of treaties were adopted. Historically, in
th

the past thousand years, ship maneuvering performance had just traditionally
received little attention during the design stages of a civil ship. That is to say,
no one considered it as an important factor in the early design stages. Even for
the navy warships, there was also no uniform, systematic criterion. The
primary reason was the lack of maneuvering performance standards for the
ship designer to design for and for, regulatory authorities to enforce.
Consequently some ships were built with very poor maneuvering qualities that
have resulted in marine disasters, casualties and pollutions. Designers have
relied on the shiphandling abilities of human operators to compensate for the
deficiencies inherent in the maneuvering qualities of the hull. The
implementation of maneuvering standards will ensure that ships are designed
to a uniform standard, so that an undue burden is not imposed on shiphandlers
in trying to compensate for deficiencies in inherent ship maneuverability.

However, that is not to say that people do not care about the ship

maneuvering performance, especially when they are going to maneuver a new

ship. The requirement of a ship with an excellent, or at least a good

13
maneuvering performance has been recognized long ago, but these

performances were very difficult to be uniformly quantified and defined.

With the development of large tankers, concerns about the environmental

risks and ship safety increased. During the later 1960's, governments and
public had started to express their concerns on the safety issues of these ships
and these crew (Crane (1973), Eda et al (1979), Doerffer(1980) and
Palomares(1994) ). In the United States of America (USA), the federal
government passed the Ports and Waterways Safety Act in 1971 and Ports
and Tanker Safety Act in 1978. After the accidents of the TOREY CANYON
in 1967 and AMOCO CADIZ in 1978, the public and technical concerns
increased and significant research on ship safety followed. From 1971 on, IMO
published recommendations on rudder size standards mainly for ship
maneuverability and ship safety. Statistically, in 1970's there were about 200
ship wrecks per year and in total 1,200,000 DWT corresponding to about 0.4%
of the ships of the whole world, that is , about 50.000DWT was lost every two
weeks. The prime reasons for these losses, about 48% of the total wreck
DWT, were collision and grounding and most of them originating from
maneuvering problems, Baquero (1982). The IMO started many special sub
organizations for the ship maneuverability, such as Maritime Safety Committee
(MSC), subcommittee Design and Equipment (DE) and the Working Group
(WG).

The major evolution events of IMO concerning the Standard for Ship

Maneuverability are list in Table 2-1 as follows:

Table 2-1 Evolution of IMO Standard of Ship Maneuvering

Time Event Result

Before 1968 N/A N/A

14
 1968 DE 10 MSC.DE and WG started to concern
ship maneuverability standards
1971 Assembly 7 of IMO IMO addressed A 209 (7) which is
titled " Recommendation on
information to be included in the
maneuvering booklets"
Jan 10 th
,1985 MSC 50 of IMO IMO addressed MSC/Circ. 389 which
is titled " Interim Guidelines for
Estimating Maneuvering Performance
in Ship Design"
Nov., 1987 Assembly 15 of IMO IMO addressed resolution A.601(15),
entitled "Provision and Display of
Maneuvering Information on board
Ships"
Nov 1993 Assembly 18 of IMO IMO addressed resolution A.751 (18).
"Interim Standards for Ship
Maneuverability"
June 4 th
1994 MSC 63 of IMO IMO addressed MSC/Circ.644 titled
Explanatory notes to the Interim
Standards for ship maneuverability
March 2002 DE 45 of IMO IMO addressed the Draft MSC/Circ of
Explanatory Notes to the Standards
for Ship Maneuverability which
became MSC/Circ 1053 in the end of
the year.
Dec 4 2002
th
MSC 76 of IMO IMO addressed Resolution MSC
137(76) which is titled "Final
Standards for Ship Maneuverability"
Dec 16 2002
th
MSC 76 of IMO IMO addressed the new Explanatory
Notes to the Standards for Ship
Maneuverability-MSC/Circ 1053
March 2004 DE 47 of IMO IMO discussed the Explanatory Notes
and finalize it.

There are many other studies from all over the world which support or are

separated from IMO's work, such as International Convention for the Safety of

Life at Sea(SOLAS), United States Coast Guard(USCG), Society of Naval

Architects and Marine Engineers(SNAME) e.g. Landsburg et al(1982) and

Royal Institution of Naval Architects(RINA).

15
 Some major events in the development of codes and standards are listed in

the Table 2-2.

Table 2- 2 Other works related IMO Standard for Ship Maneuvering

Time Events
1972 Ports and Waterways Safety Act
1978 Ports and Tanker Safety Act
Sept. 1979 Report to the President outline USCG program for
considering maneuvering in design

At MSC 76, the Maritime Safety Committee adopted the final Standards for
Ship Maneuverability (Resolution MSC 136 (76)) on December 4, 2002. The
MSC also adopted a new set of Explanatory Notes to the Standards for Ship
Maneuverability (MSC/Circ. 1053) although there may be some changes in DE
47 which will be held in March 2004. These standards now supercede the
original Interim Standards and Explanatory Notes (MSC/Circ.644). One can
say now that the IMO Standard for Ship Maneuverability reached its current
form. Designers and researchers wrote their understandings and expressed
their concerns on IMO Standards for ship maneuverability. Some summary
work of Palomares(1994) address the IMO's role in the standards, Daidola et
al (2002) concerning MSC/Circ 644 and the prediction work of Gray et al
(2003) is worth noting.

In this thesis, the "IMO standard for ship maneuverability" will refer to the

current version of IMO standard for ship maneuverability namely, "final

Standards for Ship Maneuverability" (Resolution MSC.136 (76)) and new

Explanatory Notes to the Standards for Ship Maneuverability (MSC/Circ.1053).

Although it is called final standards, it might be changed in future as the world

transportation and environmental are changing day by day.

16
2.2. Details of the four Ship Maneuverability

Standards

As it was mentioned in section 2.1, there are lots of maneuvering

characteristic together with many tests, please refer to Appendix A or
MSC/Circ 1053 for details. In this section, the detailed criteria of IMO
standards for ship maneuverability will be discussed.

2.2.1 Basic required tests

According to those measures in MSC/Circ 1053 as shown in Appendix A,

following tests were considered as basic tests for the ship maneuvering
performance at DE 45/Annex 4 and MSC/Circ 1053.

2.2.1.1 Turning tests

A turning circle maneuver is to be performed to both starboard and port

with 35° rudder angle or the maximum design rudder angle permissible at the
test speed. The rudder angle is executed following a steady approach with
zero yaw rates. The essential information to be obtained from this maneuver is
tactical diameter, advance, and transfer as shown in Figure 2-1.

2.2.1.2 Zigzag tests

A zigzag test should be initiated to both starboard and port and begins by
applying a specified amount of rudder angle to an initially straight approach
("first execute"). The rudder angle is then alternately shifted to either side after
a specified deviation from the ship's original heading is reached ("second
execute" and following) as shown in Figure 2-2.

Two kinds of zigzag tests are included in the Standards, the 10710° and

17
20720° zigzag tests. The 10710° zigzag test uses rudder angles of 10° to

either side following a heading deviation of 10° from the original course. The

20720° zigzag test uses 20° rudder angles coupled with a 20° change of

heading from the original course. The essential information to be obtained from

these tests is the overshoot angles, initial turning time to second execute and

the time to check yaw.

TACTICAL OtAMETSH.
f
3

t\

/ \ 0Ht«a-i"v . -

j
Aepnaoft Qxna

Figure 2-1 Definition used on Turning Circle Test (from MSC/Circ 1053)

18
 mm

Figure 2-2 Definition used on Zigzag Test (from MSC/Circ 1053)

2.2.1.3 Full astern stopping tests

A full astern stopping test involves giving a full astern stopping order when

the ship is sailing under full forward power and the ship should turn to either

starboard or port with a very small rudder angle(normally, the value is 5°). This

test is shown as Figure 2-3. It used to determine the track reach of a ship from

the time an order for full astern is given until the ship is stopped dead in the

water and detailed discussion is well addressed by Clarke and Hearn (1994).

The full astern stopping test is the most complex test among the four standard

tests.

19
 Figure 2-3 Definition used on Full Astern Stop Test (from MSC/Circ 1053)

2.2.1.4 Test requirements

These descriptions of the three major conditions above are selected from
MSC/Circ 1053. There are also some other test requirements and the details
description can be found in MSC/Circ 1053 or Appendix A.

Compliance with the maneuvering criteria should be evaluated under

certain standard conditions. The standard conditions provide a uniform and

idealized basis against which the inherent maneuvering performance of all

20
ships may be assessed. These standards conditions are:

1) Deep, unrestricted water:

Maneuverability of a ship is strongly affected by interaction with

the bottom of the waterway, banks and passing ships. Trials should
therefore be conducted preferably in deep, unconfined but sheltered
waters. The water depth should exceed four times the mean draught
of the ship.

2) Full load and even keel condition:

The Standards apply to the full load and even keel condition. The
term "fully loaded" refers to the situation where the ship is loaded to
its summer load line draught (referred to hereafter as "full load
draught"). This draught is chosen based on the general
understanding that the poorest maneuvering performance of a ship
occurs at this draught. The full load draught, however, is not based
on hydrodynamic considerations but rather statutory and
classification society requirements for scantlings, freeboard and
stability. The result being that the final full load draught might not be
known or may be changed as a design develops.

3) Calm environment:

Trials should be held in the calmest weather conditions possible.

Wind, waves and current can significantly affect trial results, having

a more pronounced effect on smaller ships. The environmental

conditions should be accurately recorded before and after trials so

that corrections may be applied. Specific environmental guidelines

are outlined in MSC/Circ 1053.

21
2.2.2 The detailed standard of the IMO criteria

The final IMO standard for ship maneuverability, Resolution MSC137 (76)

is considered satisfactory if the following criteria are complied with:

2.2.2.1 Turning ability

The advance should not exceed four and half times the ship lengths (L) and
the tactical diameter should not exceed five times the ship lengths in the
turning circle maneuver.

2.2.2.2 Initial turning ability

With the application of 10 degrees rudder angle to port/starboard, the ship

should not have traveled more than two and half times ship lengths by the time
the heading has changed by 10 degrees from the original heading.

2.2.2.3 Yaw-checking and course-keeping abilities (zigzag)

1) The value of the first overshoot angle in the 10710° zigzag test should not
exceed:

a) 10° if L/V is less than 10 s;

b) 20° if L/V is 30 s or more;

c) (5 + 1/2(L/V)) degrees if L/V is 10 s or more, but less than 30 s, where L

and V are expressed in m and m/s, respectively.

2) The value of the second overshoot angle in the 10710° zigzag test should

not exceed:

a) 25°, if L/V is less than 10 s;

b) 40°, if L/V is 30 s or more; and

c) (17.5 + 0.75(L/V))°, if LA/ is 10 s or more, but less than 30 s.

22
3) The value of the first overshoot angle in the 20720° zigzag test should not

exceed 25°.

2.2.2.4 Stopping ability

The track reach in the full astern stopping test should not exceed fifteen
times ship lengths.

However, this value may be modified by the Administration or related

organization where ships of large displacement make this criterion
impracticable, but, as an upper limit, it should in no case exceed twenty ship
lengths. For ships with non-conventional steering and propulsion systems, the
Administration may permit the use of comparative steering angles to the
rudder angles specified by this Standard.

2.2.2.5 Difference between last standards

After discussion with many useful works results and evidences e.g. Japan
Netherlands, Korea (See DE 44/4 DE45 and DE45/3), the standards were built
so that they are simple, practical and do not require a significant increase in
trial time or complexity over that of current trial practice. Complex work were
not accepted (See DE 45/3/1).

Comparing the Final Standard (Resolution MSC. 137(76)) and Interim

Standard (Resolution A. 751(18)) the slight differences can be found as

follows:

1) The value of the second overshoot angle in the 10 degrees/10 degrees

zigzag test should not exceed:

a) twenty degrees if L/V is less than ten seconds;

23
 b) forty degrees if L/V is thirty seconds or more;

c) (17.5+0.75(L/V)) degrees if L/V is ten seconds or more, but less

than 30 seconds.

2) The recommended stopping distance is still not more than fifteen ship

lengths, but now the standard requires that the stopping distance does

not exceed twenty ship lengths.

The sea trial reporting form now includes entries for recording trim and
ballast condition.

2.3 Summary

In this chapter, the background and the history of IMO Standard for Ship
Maneuverability are reviewed. Then, major maneuvering characteristics are
listed and discussed in details while more detailed discussion are listed in
Appendix A. Those important terms were proposed into IMO Standards for
Ship Maneuverability and defined as current IMO Criteria. The four IMO criteria,
initial turning test, zigzag test, full astern stopping test and turning circle test
are given with figure and definition which will be used for the simulation
program to judge if the ship satisfies the current IMO Standard for Ship
Maneuverability. These work become good fundamentals of IMO standards
simulation, no external effect and the real sea condition trial simulation in
Chapter 5. In addition, the mathematical models are also discussed in details
in the next chapter.

24
 Chapter 3 Modeling and
Maneuvering

3.1 Introduction

3.1.1 General

In this section, some background and previous work of marine vehicle

modeling and simulation work will be given briefly.

Mathematical modeling is always a fundamental and important part of

vehicle simulation studies. It has been developed hundred of years ago since
people consider the ship as a dynamics system.

Human being started their work to control a marine vehicle in the early age,
as the oar was employed to guide the heading of the ship. The world oldest
ship oar system was found in Yuyao County, Zhejiang Province P.R.China
which is built in around 5000 B.C. It indicates that human being's history of
navigation is longer than 7000 years. The oldest word navigation log in China
was written in around 3500 B.C. while there are also figured logs around the
world.

Guidance Navigation and Control (GNC) system for vehicle are major

technologies to help the vehicle maneuver as required. Especially, GNC for

Marine Vehicle have the longer history than airplane and car since marine

transportation has a longer history.

25
3.1.2 Previous work in Naval LAB at UBC

In the Naval Architecture and Offshore Engineering (NA&OE) Lab at UBC,

there are some recent works of ocean vehicle simulation and modeling which
are mainly dealing with near water surface underwater vehicle
(AUV/ROV/UUV). These have been done by Ostafichuk et al(1999 & 2000)
and Field et al(1999 & 2000). And two graduate students had completed their
Master and PhD theses in this topic separately, which are Field's (2000) and
Ostafichuk's (2004). The name of the underwater vehicle in NA&OE Lab is
Deep Offshore Logging Platform for Hydrographic Instrumentation and
Navigation (DOLPHIN) as shown in Figure 3-1. The DOLPHIN was conceived
locally in 1981-1983 by International Submarine Engineering Ltd. (ISE) for the
Bedford Institute of Oceanography, in Bedford, Nova Scotia, Canada.

Figure 3-1 Near surface ocean vehicle—DOLPHIN

However, their works mainly focused on the control of actuators, while this

26
work will be different from their work with following points:

• The objective of the marine vehicle is different as this work

considers surface ships which are mainly 3DOF and 4 DOF

although the general modeling work is 6DOF.

• This work is about maneuvering and course keeping problem

while previous work focused on control.

• The control part of this work is based on PID while their works are
based on more advanced algorithms such as LQR and LQG.

3.2 Modeling and Dynamics of Marine Vehicles

Before starting the simulation work, the model of the marine vehicle should
be developed. In this part, marine vehicle modeling and hydrodynamics will be
discussed in details. All the terminologies in the discussion are based on the
ITTC ST02 (2002) and SNAME (1950).

3.2.1 Reference frames and fundamental definitions

When a ship moves on the sea, she can be regarded as a normal rigid

body which can be regarded as a 6DOF problem. In additional to normal linear

movement of a ship under a constant speed, there are also some other motion

such as in linear and angular accelerations. There might be two major

conditions for the latter part.

1) Regular maneuvering movement:

This means that the ship operator uses ship maneuvering and

27
 control system, normally just the rudder and propeller, to change the

heading of the ship regardless of the effects of wind, wave and

current.

2) Irregular movement:

This means those movements which are affected by disturbances

from wind, wave and current. This is a really complex situation that is

beyond the control and maneuvering of the ship operator.

In order to study the motion of the ship, especially for those complex

situations, the coordinate reference system has to be chosen appropriately.

There are different reference systems and they will be discussed in the

following parts.

Figure 3-2 Stationary (Inertia) reference frame

28
 / _ jmrnmst* aets BSgpiw rut SAVT*

TRANSVERSE
V
SHIP'S HWOtNC
^ cosine*
\cooitoiNAre

f>0«ItlCN fck
'•OF 3HHF ft? Tl»&,t
T I N M W T no
SHIP'S. p*rm

Figure 3-3 Stationary (Inertia) reference frame (from PNA III)

Earth-fixed
W \ \ \

u (surge)

Figure 3-4 Moving (Ship) reference frame

29
 Figure 3-5 Moving (Ship) reference frame (from PNA III)

Traditionally, there are three different systems, stationary, moving and semi

stationary reference frame which are given as follows:

1) Stationary(inertial) reference frame:

Figure 3-2 and Figure 3-3 show the stationary reference frame in 3D

and 2D separately. Stationary reference frame means a Cartesian

coordinates which is fixed on the earth, the x y plane is horizontal and

0 0

z„axis is positive in the upward direction.

2) Moving(ship) reference frame:

Figure 3-4 and Figure 3-5 show the moving reference frame in 3D and

2D separately. A moving reference frame means the Cartesian coordinates

whose origin is at the center of gravity point of the marine vehicle. The x

axis is located at the center line plane and is parallel with base plane and

positive to the head of the vehicle and the z axis is positive in upward

30
 direction. Approximately, x,y and z axis can be regarded as the

moment's axis of the marine vehicle.

3) Semi Stationary Reference Frame:

Semi Stationary Reference Frame means the Cartesian coordinates

whose x axis is the same as marine vehicle speed-V. Obviously, it

superimposes on the Moving Reference Frame when the vehicle in the

equilibrium condition.

In this thesis, only the first two reference frames are discussed and
employed, although the last one is also useful. As was mentioned before, the
vehicle can be considered as a rigid body with 6DOF, the difference between
these two reference frames are listed in the following Table 3-1, and definitions
of angles are given in Figure 3-6.

u (surge)

Figure 3-6 Ship dynamics

31
 Table 3-1 Definition of 6DOF of Marine Vehicle

Position and Force and Name

Description Velocity
Angle Moment
DOF M S M s M s
1 X X
o u dx 1 dt
0 X Surge

2 y y 0
V dy 1 dt
a Y Sway

3 z w dz 1 dt
0 z z. Heave

4 a p d(j)l dt K Roll

5 fi e q dQIdt M M 0
Pitch/trim

6 7 r dyj 1 dt N No Yaw

M=Moving frame S=Stationary frame

There are also some other definition methods. For example, sometime

people also use cb{co ,o) ,o) ) to representco(p,q,r),

x 2 3 use the name "ship

reference frame" instead of "moving frame" and use the name "inertia frame"

instead of "stationary frame". Please refer to Appendix B and Nomenclature for

details.

Before the discussion of the basic equations of motions, there are some

important fundamental equations and definitions that should be discussed.

The mass of the marine vehicle is m.

The velocity of center of gravity is V(w,vandw denote the components

of V on the moving reference frameG - xyz).

The angular velocities of the center of gravity are <y [p,qand r denote

32
the components of & on the moving reference frame G-xyz).

The external forces are F(X,Y and Z , denote the components of F

on the moving reference frame G-xyz).

The moments of the external forces about the center of gravity is M

(K,M and N, denote the components of M in the moving reference frame

G-xyz).

More detailed definition and supplementary descriptions are given in

Appendix B.

According to the fundamental relationship between moving and stationary

frame as shown in the Appendix B, the relationship between the stationary
(inertia) frame and moving (ship) frame can be written as follows:

dB (IB _ -
— = + COXB (3-2-1)
dt dt

^ =^ + cdxK+VxB (3-2-2)
dt dt

where B(B ,B ,B )tieno\e

x y z the linear momentum of the marine vehicle and

k(K ,K ,K )
x y z denote the moment of momentum of the marine vehicle about

the center of gravityG. B denotes the change of B from inertia frame to

ship frame and K denotes the change of k from inertia frame to ship frame.

Actually, it is easier to remember and to use tixB if it is written into matrix

format as follows

33
 J k
coxB - \ q r = i(qB -rB )+](rB -pB )
z y x z + k(pB -qB )(3-2-3)
y x

\B„ B.. B,

According to the definition, the relationship of B and K with F and M

can be written as follows:

^- = F (3-2-4)
dt

— =M (3-2-5)
dt

Using these basic definitions and relationships, together with those

supplementary knowledge and derivations in Appendix B, the basic equations
of motion can be obtained as in section 3.2.2.

3.2.2 Basic equation

In this part, the derivation of basic equations of motion of rigid body will be
given and discussed.

According to the Newton's law, the basic equation of 6DOF vehicle motion

in moving(ship) frame can be obtained and each of them is defined as follows,

m(u + qw --rv) = X (surge)

m(v + ru- pw) = Y (sway)
m(w + pv - qu) = Z (heave)
(3-2-6)
I P + V -~I )qr = K
X Z
y (roll)
-I )rp = M
z (pitch)

V + (VI )pq x =N (yaw)

where
X denotes the total forces in the x direction;
Y denotes the total forces in the y direction;

34
 Z denotes the total forces in the z direction;
ii: denotes the turning moments around the x axis;
M denotes the turning moments around the y axis;

N denotes the turning moments around the z axis;

I denotes the mass moment of inertia of the ship about the x axis;
x

l denotes the mass moment of inertia of the ship about the y axis;
y

I denotes the mass moment of inertia of the ship about the z axis;
z

u denotes the ship speed in the x axis which is surge velocity;

v denotes the ship speed in the y axis which is sway velocity;

w denotes the ship speed in the z axis which is heave velocity;
p denotes the rolling velocity;

<? denotes the pitching velocity;

r denotes the yawing velocity.

These equations are the fundamental equations used in this thesis and

please refer to Appendix B for the supplementary knowledge and notation of

the motion of marine vehicle.

As the objective vessel is a big surface vessel ship and it is maneuvered on

a calm water surface, the heave, roll and sway are expected to be very small

so that they can be neglected in general.

Consequently, Equation 3-2-6 can be further simplified into following

expression as form of 3DOF:

m(u - rv) = X (surge)

m(v + ru) = Y (sway) (3-2-7)
Ir = N (yaw)

This form will be applied into the major vessel ESSO OSAKA 278,000DWT

in this thesis.

35
 Particularly, for some types of surface vessels, such as a container ships, a

Ro/Ro vessel and high speed navy warships (as shown in Figure 3-7), the

rolling angle is larger when the vessel is being maneuvered, therefore one

should consider Equation 3-2-6 together with Equation 3-2-7, that is to say,

4DOF ( w = q = 0);

m(u — rv) = X (surge)

m(y + ru) = Y (sway)
(3-2-8)
Ip = K
x (roll)
Ir = N
z (yaw)

This 4DOF equation is applied in the container ship model which will be

discussed later.

Figure 3-7 An aircraft carrier turning (from Naval Post School USA)

3.2.3 Inertia hydrodynamics forces, moments and

Added Mass

As Equation 3-2-6, Equation 3-2-7 and Equation 3-2-8 will be used to solve

36
the marine vehicle maneuvering problem, the external effects (forces,

moments) on the marine vehicle have to be known. These effects include

mainly two parts:

1) The hydrodynamic forces and moments of the hull, propeller, rudder

and so on when the vessel is in calm water.

2) With external effects, those hydrodynamic forces and moments

induced by environmental effects such as wave, current, wind and

manmade forces by towing line and so on.

In the following part, those effects in calm water will be discussed and idea

of added mass will be given briefly.

As the objective ship is the ESSO OSAKA Tanker which is represented as a

3 DOF marine vehicle and so as to save some paper space, from section 3.2.3

to section 3.2.5, all the derivations focus on equation of 3DOF.

Considering a surface marine vehicle moving in an infinite deep water

along with G-xy plane, the momentum can be written as follows:

B =A v
y 22
(3-2-9)

where ^,-the virtual mass of the ship when the body accelerates in x

direction;
A -the virtual mass of the ship when body accelerates in y direction;
22

A -the virtual mass moment of inertial of the ship when body rotate
66

along with z axis.

When the rigid body is moving in the ideal fluid, the hydrodynamic forces

are proportional to the acceleration. This ratio is called, the virtual mass which

37
is the sum of added mass and real mass.

No matter what kind of shape the rigid body has, the added mass

coefficients (added mass, added mass moment, added mass momentum) can

be written as a matrix:

/I], A 1 3 Aj4 /l 1 5
^16

X 22 A 23 ^24 ^-25 ^-26

^31 ^32 ^34 ^35 ^ 6

K\ Kl ^-43 ^44 ^45 ^-46

K\ ^-52 A 5 3 A 5 4
^-55 ^56

K\ ^62 ^63 ^-64 ^65 ^66.

If velocity potentials, <p, exist for various motions, one can define:

J s
an

Where the first integer refer to the direction of force and the second integer

refer to the direction of motion. S is the wetted surface area, <p ,<p and(p x 2 3

velocity potentials and g)^,<p and<p 5 6 are the rotational velocity potentials.

Added mass coefficients can be also obtained by experiments or by empirical

data approximation algorithms.

Here, the idea of added mass will not be further discussed in detail as it can

be easily found in many marine hydrodynamics text books such as Newman

(1977) and the idea of added mass and detail theory is not the focus point in

this thesis.

The equation of the motion for marine vehicle maneuvering can be written

as follows:

38
 Rewriting Equation 3-2-1 and Equation 3-2-2, putting them together, we

have Equation 3-2-11 as follows:

dB dB _ -
— = — + COXB
dt dt
(3-2-11)
dK _ dK
+ coxK+VxB
dt dt

Using Equation 3-2-9 and Equation 3-2-11, Equation 3-2-10 can be

rewritten into component form as follows:

• X, = A u-A rv
n 22

•Y, = A v + A ru
22 n (3-2-12)
•N, = A r + (A
66 22 -An)uv

Although these equations can be easily simplified, it is hard to get the

precise data for those added mass values. Normally, one can calculate the
additional forces by using the forces which will be discussed in section 3.2.4.

3.2.4 Force derivatives and coefficients

After the forces and the added mass coefficients are stated, it is obvious
that it is important to find a good method to find the forces on a ship so as to
solve those governing equation such as Equation 3-2-6 to Equation 3-2-8.

Considering a ship moving in an infinitely open, deep and calm water, the

force on the ship hull (not including rudder and propeller) depends on hull

shape and ship moving performance. For a certain ship whose shape is rigid,

the force will depend on the moving performance as follows:

3 9
 F = f(y,m (3-2-13)

The rudder forces depend on S and S and the propeller forces depend

on the propeller revolutionary speed- n. Consequently, if ship-rudder-propeller

is considered as an integrated system which is given firstly by Abkowitz (1964),
the force equation can be written as follows:

F = f(y,CD,8,8,n) (3-2-14)

Regularly, the propeller forces will be considered and obtained by other

tests as shown in section 3.3.2 the governing equation for ESSO OSAKA,
Equation 3-3-3. Simply, the system can be regarded as a ship-rudder system
as follows:

F = f(V,cd,S) (3-2-15)

To solve this problem, normally, these equations are expended by using

Taylor series expansions, keeping the first order expansion, they can be
written as follows:
X =X +X Au 0 u

Y=Y + Y Au + N v + Y r + Y 8
0 u v r s
(3-2-16)
N = N + N Au + N v + N r + N 8
0 u v r s

where
dx
X,
" du u=u v=r=5=0
Qt

ou u-Ur. ,v=r=<5=0

O U
\u=u ,v=r=S=0
0

are called force derivatives.

40
 Because all those forces and parameters are dimensional, normally, it is

necessary to represent them into dimensionless forms as follows:

X' = X' +X' Au' 0 u

Y' = F ' + Y' Au' + N' v' + Y'/ + Y^S

0 u v
(3-2-17)
N = N' + N' 0 u AM' + N' v' + N' r' + N' S
v r S

where these dimensionless forces and moments are defined as follows:

X
X' = -
-pV L 2 2

(3-2-18)
-pV L 2 2

2
N
N' = -
-pV L 2 3

The dimensionless velocities are defined as follows:

(3-2-19)
V

r = r-
V

The dimensionless force derivatives are defined as follows:

Y Y
V — u
V — v

Y Y
y> _ r V' — S

1*8
r
1
1
1
2 _

pvu pVL 2

(3-2-20)

-prt -PVL'

41
 where, L is the ship length, normally, it denotes L , the length between bp

perpendicular, p is the density of the sea water and V is the ship speed at

the center of gravity.

However, the first order equations are far from enough to describe a
complex movement as the requirement of ship maneuvering and course
keeping studies. Considering that the purpose of this thesis is to study some
large rudder angle maneuvering, the nonlinear parameter items have to be
considered. Empirically, 3 order of Taylor series is enough and the Equation
rd

3-2-17 can be written like follows:

X=X +X y+X vr
0 v vr + Xr rr
i

Y=Y r + Y y
r v + Y v r + Y vr + Y r
wr
2
vrr
2
rrr
3
(3-2-21)
N = Nv+Nr +Nyv r v +N vr
vvr
2
+ N vr
vrr
2
+ N r
rrr
3

Where,
37 3

Y =
™ dv 3
u=u ,v=r=0
0

dN 3

N =
dv 3

U=UQ ,v=r=0

dY
3

Y =
rrr
dr 3
u=u ,v=r=0 0

dN 3

N „ =•
r
dr 3

u=u ,v=r=0 n

are odd force derivative

42
 3 73

dv dr
2

w=H ,v=r=0
o

dN 3

TV...,. =
dv dr 2

u=u ,v=r=0 0

Y - d
' Y

vrr
dvdr 2

«=M ,v=r=0
0

dN 3

N =
w r
dvdr 2

u=« ,v=r=0
o

are even force items.

Every force derivative has its own meaning that indicates a ship's
characteristics. Normally they can be obtained from modeling tests or empirical
approximation e.g. Abkowitz (1980) and Inoue et al (1981).

3.2.5 Governing Equation

After the theory and method of how to get these forces and moments have
been discussed in section 3.2.3 and section 3.2.4, the final form of the
governing equations used in the program will be discussed in following part.

As was discussed in Chapter 1 about the history and category of

maneuvering model, the model can be classified as an integrated system and
individual system by Abkowitz (1964) and MMG.

3.2.5.1 Abkowitz

As it was discussed in Chapter 1 and section 3.2.4, Abkowitz (1964)

considered the ship, rudder, propeller as an integrated system,

Combining Equation 3-2-8 and Equation 3-2-15 we can have

43
 (m-X.)u = f (u,v,r,8)
x

(m-Y-)v + (mx -Y-)r = G f (u,v,r,8)

2
(3-2-22)
(mx -N.)v G + (I -N.)r z = f (u,v,r,8)
3

where f (u,v,r,8),f {u,v,r,&) { 2 and / 3 (w, v , r , <5) are given as follows:

f (u,v,r,S)
l = X +X Au 0 u + 1_ j X Au +] X Au +±X y
: uu
2
: uuu
3
v

+ (L Xrr+mXG y L S +^X v Au
+ Xss
2
mu
2
+ ^X r Au rru
2

1_
+ TX S AU 5SU
2
+ (X vr + m)vr + X vS vS + X rS rS + X vrAu vru

f (u,v,r,S)
2 = Y +Y Au + YuM + Y v + jY v
0 u v w
3
+V rr vr 2

D 2
+ \Y vS vSS
2
+Y vAu vu + \Y vAu +(Y - )r
vuu
2
r mu + ^Y y rr

2 2 6
1 1 (3-2-23)
+ -F„..,rv +-Y rS 2
rSS
2
+Y„.rAu + -Y„,„rAu 2
+Y S +' X -Y^S
s 888*-
3

2 6

+ -Y^Sv 2
+-Y^Sr 2
+ Yx,SAu
Su + -Y .,.SAu
Suu 1
x 1
2
+ vrS'
Y„ vrS rX

Mu,v,r,S) = N +N Au 0 u + N M +N v u
2
v +j N v y +|iV vr vrr
2

+ ^Wv» <* v 2 + N
V U V A U
+
-\N VAU VUU
2
+(N -mx u)r r G + \N r r y
1 1 o

+ -\N rv m
2
+ ^N rS rSS
2
+N rAu ru + ^-N rAu ruu
2
+N 8 x + jN m S 3

2 2 2 o
1 1
+ -N^ dy +-N^Sr +N^SAu
' Srr
v
2 2
1 + 5uu-Nx,,,SAu +N^
' vrSxvrS
2
1

u v SX . v dY , v dY . „ dN . n .
Here, X = — = -A ,Y> = — = -A u ll 22 ,Y, = — = -A , N = — = -A and 26 t 62
du ov or ov

AT d N
7

Normally these equations are used in the non-dimensional form and this

model is used for most modeling work in this thesis.

44
3.2.5.2 Maneuvering Models Group (MMG)

Here the MMG model will be discussed briefly while it is not used in this

thesis for ESSO OSAKA.

The governing equations for MMG will be given as following:

m(u -rv) = X = X +X +X
H p R

m(v + ru) = Y -Y H +YR

(3-2-24)
If =z N +N
H R

where the subscripts H, P and R refer to Hull Propeller and Rudder

respectively.

There are some good works using the MMG model, especially those
Japanese papers, e.g. Hasegawa and Sasaki (1997) and so on.

3.2.5.3 Comparison of Abkowitz and MMG models

Both Abkowitz and MMG focus on a marine vehicle system. Here, the

comparison of these two models will be simply discussed.

MMG considers the marine vehicle system based on ship hull, rudder and

propeller respectively, that is to say, it is made up by the three single

subsystems while Abkowitz model does not. Abkowitz model just considers the

ship as one integrated system.

Therefore, using the MMG model, it is easier and more concise to express

the interaction between ship rudder, and propeller than using Abkowitz model.

Also, it is easier to be revised for maneuverability design.

However, using the Abkowitz model, it is easier to get the whole model and

easier to get the hydrodynamic forces data. Therefore, if the purpose of the

45
work does not focus on the detailed interaction between hull and propeller and

rudder effects, Abkowitz model is a better choice.

In past couple of decades, there are more works focusing on propeller and

rudder interaction, e.g. Oltmann and Sharma (1984) and Molland and Turnock

(1994).

Normally, with different experimental method and different simulation

requirements, the hydrodynamic force derivatives people use might be a little
bit different from Equation 3-2-23 and/or Equation 3-2-24, the specified
equation will be given in section 3.3 for specific ship for these two models.

3.3 Detailed and specialized ship model

In the following part, the maneuvering governing equations of specified

vessels will be given. The vessels are a Container ship and a Mariner ship and
the major objective tanker ESSO OSAKA 278,000 DWT will be discussed in
details.

3.3.1 Container

3.3.1.1 Background

Before the code is tested for larger tanker, a high-speed single-screw

container is chosen as a simple example. It is a container ship originally

designed for SR 108 Project by Japan Shipbuilding Research Association

(See SR Report No 211 1975). It is really a classical type large vessel because

many maneuverability characteristics analysis and simulation works had been

down on this type before such as Matsumoti and Suemitsu(1980), and

Nomoto(1981). It is a good ship for old standards. Therefore, it is expected to

satisfy the New IMO Standard for Ship Maneuverability.

46
3.3.1.2 Basic data of the Container ship

Here is the basic data of the container ship that is going to be discussed

and simulated:

Table 3-2 Major data of container ship

L 175.00m

B 25.40m

d F 8.00m

d A
9.00m

V 21,222 m 3

KM 10.39m

KB 4.6154m

cB
0.559

A R
33.0376 m 2

A 1.8129

D P
6.533m

V 8m/s

Maximum rpm for full astern stopping 72

Maximum rudder angle 35°

This mathematical modeling governing equation of this container ship

comes from Nomoto's work (1981). Here, the detailed maneuvering equations

with hydrodynamic derivatives are given as follows:

47
 (m + m )ii - (m + m )vr = X x y

(m + m )v + (m + m )ur + m a r-m I <p =Y

y x y y y y

(I + J )r + m a v = N-Yx
z z y y G

(I +J )</>-m I v-m I ur + WGMcj) = K

x x y y x x 0

The governing Equation 3-3-1 is a little different from the Equation 3-2-9

since the center of gravity is at a different point from the center of the hull,

therefore there are sure differences from standard reference frame.

The right hand sides of above equation's hydrodynamic force derivatives

equations for the Container ship are given as follows:

x = | L V [X 2
2
'(«')+ a - tyr'(J)+ x'„vY+x;y + 2
xy 2

+ X' <p +c F' smS]

H>
,2
RX N

Y = ^L v [Yy+Yy+Y;f+Y;f+Y; y
2 2
v
3
+ry 3
+Y; y '+Y; y '
v
2
r r r
2

+ Y^ + Y' v'<p' + Y' / <P' + Y' r>' + (l + a )F' cos S]

m
2
rr
2
m
2
H N

N=^L v [Ny+N'y+N$+N;#+N' y
2 2
vv
3
+ N' y + N' y r
rr
3
vv
2
(3-3-2)

+ K yr'
r
2
+ N'vvy <t>+AV>'
2 2
+ W
+ K^r'(p' + (x' + a x' ) F ; COS S]
2
R H H

K = ^L V 2 2
[Ky+Ky+Ktf+w+K' y v
3
+ K' y + * > ' V
rr
3

+ K'„ v Y + K' / <p + K'^v'4,' + K' / <t>'

2
vv
2 2
rr
2

+ K'r'f +(l 2
+ a y F^cosS] H R

The model above is MMG model. With all hydrodynamic force derivatives

data, the equations were solved. These data are given in Appendix C. The

results of simulation will be given in Chapter 5.

48
3.3.2 ESSO OSAKA

3.3.2.1 Introduction

ESSO OSAKA 278.000DWT is a classical and well tested tanker ship used
for many research works in the field of ship maneuverability. In this part, it will
be discussed here in details.

There are many research papers related to the ESSO OSAKA no matter
what DWT they are, e.g. Williem and Thomas(1972) for ESSO OSAKA
190,000DWT, Crane (1979) for 278,000 DWT, some for 280,000DWT and
others. The summary work was reported by Barr(1993) and The Specialist
Committee on ESSO OSAKA(2002).

According to the study reported in proceedings of the 23 ITTC (2002) and

rd

after consultation with Mr. Alex Landsburg, the Maritime Administration

Program Manager of Department of Transportation USA and Chairman of
panel H-10 (ship controllability) of SNAME, ESSO OSAKA 278,000 DWT was
selected as a major objective ship for the studies of ship maneuverability and
course keeping ability.

Table 3-3 to Table 3-5, give the major data of ESSO OSAKA 278.000DWT

and are taken from Crane(1979).

Table 3-3 Hull and Rudder data of ESSO OSAKA

Hull and Rudder

Length overall 343m
Length between perpendiculars 325m
Breadth molded 53m
Depth molded • 28.30m

49
 Assigned Summer Freeboard
22.09m
draft .extreme
Designed load draft molded 22.05m
Full load displacement at assigned
328,880mt
summer freeboard draft
Block coefficient, summer freeboard
0.831
draft
Bow Bulbous type
Stern Transom type
Number of rudders 1
Rudder area 119.817m 2

Draft molded at trial 21.73m

Draft extreme at trial 21.79m
Trim in still water at trials 0
Displacement at trials 319,400mt
Longitudinal CG at trials;
10.30m
Forward of amidships

Table 3-4 Propeller data of ESSO OSAKA

Propeller
Single, right-handed, 5 blades
Diameter 9.1m
Propeller pitch 6.5m
Expanded area 44.33m 2

Projected area 37.22m 2

Disk area 65m 2

Pitch ratio 0.715

Expanded area ratio 0.682
Projected area ratio 0.572
Rake angle 4 degree 24 min

Table 3-5 Propulsion Machinery data of ESSO OSAKA

Propulsion Machinery
Hitachi Impulse 2 Cylinder Cross-Compound Main Steam Turbine
Continuous full output 36,000hp at 82 rpm
Service output 35,000hp at 81 rpm
Main Turbine Contros (Bridge Telegraph)
Revolution
Program
Operation Feedback Note
Control
Control

50
 Inaccurate rpm
Yes below 60 rpm
indicator
Ahead Yes
No 60 rpm and Real rpm
above indicator
Real rpm
Astern Yes Yes
indicator
Astern full
Crash astern No No revolutions
quickly attainable

3.3.2.2 Maneuvering Equation for ESSO OSAKA

As it is really a well studied tanker, the various mathematical models are

well developed. The popular algorithms are the one reported by Hydronautics
Ship Model Basin (HSMB 1980), the one reported by Dr. Kim (1988) in Korea
Research Institution of Ship and Ocean (KRISO) and the one reported by Dr.
Rhee et al (1993) in Seoul National University (SNU) (See ITTC 23 2002 for
rd

detail).

From the discussion of the special committee of ESSO OSAKA(2002) and

Ship Maneuverability in 22 nd
ITTC (1999) and 23 ITTC (2002), it is observed
rd

that the formulation by from KRISO is suggested to be the best one for this
ship.

The mathematical model chosen is the one accepted by ITTC 1978 and the
data used for validation are from Kim (1988) and KRISO, which is given as
follows:

51
m(u-vr-x r ) G
2
= X.u + X vr + [X vr vv +X vvn (77 - l)]v

+ [X rr +X rrTJ (77 - l ) ] r + [X 2
ss +X SSn (77 - 1)]S 2

- (Re sis tan ce) + (Thrust)

m(v -ur + x r) = Y + Y (77 - I) + y. v + Y r

G a 0J] f

+ P" + vn 07 - l)]v + 17, +

v
Y
07" Vfr

+vr M +Y Mn (77 - l)]v|v|+[F M +y r | r | l | (77 - l)]r

+O f 2
+ F r | v | + [F, +
|v| (77 - 1 ) ] £ (3-3-3)

// + mx (v + wv) = 7Y + 7V (77 - 1 ) + N-v + N-r

G 0 07?

+ W +N v vr} (77 - l)]v + [Nr + Nr1J (77 - l)]r

+ [^v|v| + N Mn (77 - l)]v|v| + [TV | r | + NMn (77 - l)]r

+ iV v r r v r + /V2
r|v| r | v | + [/V, + / V ^ (77 - 1)]S

+ N SS+N Sv
sm dvv
2

For the first of the above equations we assume that the ship resistance and

propeller thrust can be obtained from towing tank tests. All published and

unpublished data are given in Appendix C.

3.3.3 Mariner

The Mariner Class Cruise ship is a popular sea going ship in past few years

while it became near coastal ship and many people took it as a research ship

especially for experiments and simulation, such as Chislett and Stroem-Tejsen

(1965), Li and Wu (1990) Lauvdal (1994) and Skjetne and Fossen(2001).

52
 Table 3-6 Major data of Mariner Class ship

171.80 m

Lbp 160.93 m

B 23.17 m

T 8.23 m

V 18541 m 3

V 15 kn

The governing equations by Chislett and Strom-Tejsen(1965) are given as

follows:

(m' - X' ) A i i ' = X' Au' + X Au'

u u uu
2
+ X' Au" um + X' Av'
n
2

+ X' Ar'rr
2
+ X ' Ar'Av' +
r v X' A8'
SS
2
+ X' Au'AuSS S' 2

+ X' Av'AS'
vS + X' Au'Av'A5'
uv5

( m ' - Y - ) A v ' + (m'x' -Y-)Ar G = 7 > ' + T 'Ar' r +CAv' 3

+ T ' A v ' A r ' + y '„ A v ' A w ' +

v v r
2
v Y' Ar'Au' + YgAd' +
n Y^AS"

+ Y^Au'AS' + Y.'„,
' uuS Au' AS' x
2
+ Y'^Av'AS'
vS8 L 2
+ Y'„xAv' AS'
vv8 L 2

+ (T ' + F ' „ A ' + T ' „ „ A ' )

0 0 M 0 M
2

(m'x' - N'- ) A v ' + ( / ; - N'. )Ar' = N' Av' + N' Ar' + N' Av'
G v r vvv

+ A M A v ' A r ' + N'Av'Au 2

+ N'Ar'Au' + N'AS' + N'888 AS

+ N' Au'AS' + N',...

uS
' uuS
Au' AS' + N'^Av'AS'
v88 x
2
L
2
+ \vSNixAv' AS'
L
2

+ (N' +N' Au' 0 0u + Kuu^ )

The simulation results are given in Chapter 5 and the hydrodynamics force

derivative data are given in Appendix C.

53
3.4 Summary

As the studies of modeling and maneuvering of ship in chapter 1, there are

lots of modeling methods such as MMG and Abkowitz(1964) while the latter

one is chosen for the objective ship test.

At beginning of Chapter 3, the detailed mathematical work of the marine

vehicle model is presented step by step from the choice of the reference frame
to derivation of the governing equation.

Through the study of Proceeding of ITTC 22 ,23 nd rd

and recent related
papers, especially after consulting with Mr. Alex Landsburg, the Maritime
Administration Program Manager of Department of Transportation USA and
Chairman of panel H-10 (ship controllability) of SNAME, ESSO OSAKA
278,000DWT is selected as the objective ship for detailed and further studies.

Based on the modeling and governing equation, three ships have been
discussed and the governing equations with hydrodynamics derivatives have
been available where the ESSO OSAKA has been discussed in more detail as
Equation 3-3-3.

Finally, using ESSO OSAKA as the test ship, simulation work based IMO

Standard for Ship Maneuverability has been done which gives a good

agreement with the sea trials although the environmental effects are not

considered in this chapter and we know that the ship is a "good "IMO class

Tanker that can be discussed for further studies in later chapters.

54
 Chapter 4 Course keeping and
Simulation

In this chapter, the course keeping problem will be discussed as a further

study for marine vehicle modeling and maneuvering in Chapter 3. What's more,
as the objective for this work is to study the tanker performance entering into
the Vancouver harbor, the control algorithm used will be discussed and a
specified strategy will be designed for this case and the condition of Vancouver
Harbor will be briefly studied concerning the requirements of this simulation.

4.1 External Forces

All the forces in the differential equations in Chapter 3 are for the conditions
when the ship sails in calm water. That is to say, all discussions above are ship
generated forces.

Besides those internal forces such as thrust, interactions between rudder

and propeller, resistance in calm water and so on, there are other important

class of forces acting on marine vehicles in the real condition. These are the

external forces.

Ship maneuverability and course keeping ability will be significantly

affected by external forces which can be divided into two parts:

1) Environmental forces such as wind, current, wave and ice generate

forces on the ship moments. Normally, as shown in Figure 4-1-1, they
would be the disturbing factors on the marine vehicles playing a

55
negative role in maneuvering, although the marine vehicle can benefit

from them sometimes.

Figure 4-1-1 Ship under environmental external forces effects

56
 Figure 4-1-2 Ship under manmade external forces effects

2) Manmade forces such as tugboat force and drag force to some near
surfaces underwater vehicle, pulling force by boat tracker and so on.
Normally, as shown in Figure 4-1-2, they are positive factors to the
marine vehicles, playing a good role in maneuvering and course
keeping.

In the following part, these external forces will be discussed in details one
by one.

4.1.1 Environmental forces

In this part, environmental forces will be discussed in details. There are

some general works concerning all the environmental forces e.g. Ewing (1990),

Jiang and Schellin (1990), Li and Wu (1990) and Martins et al (1999).

57
4.1.1.1 Wind effect

1) Basic description

Wind force is a common and important environmental force on the

ocean surface. It is generated from the difference between air pressure
and temperature in the atmosphere.

It affects the ship structure above the waterline. However, those

waves and currents induced by wind also affect some near surface
underwater marine vehicle. Here only its direct effect to surface vessel,
the part above the waterline will be discussed.

2) Wind model

Generally, a wind (and/or current) force model is an experimentally

and statistically determined algorithm based on a great deal of
experimental data and statistical analysis. There are many published
algorithm, such as the ones published by the Oil Companies
International Marine Forum (OCIMF, 1977), Van Berlekon et al (1974),
and Wagner (1967).

Considering the marine vehicle in this project is a larger

vessel-Tanker, the model of OCIMF (1977) will be employed. The

OCIMF model is one of the best models for tanker studies since this

algorithm focuses on Very Large Crude Carrier (VLCC), tanker and

FPSO shapes. However, OCIMF (1977) only describes in the form of

3DOF. For the modeling work, it is necessary to have a more general

model which is suitable to any type of marine vehicle. Consequently, the

6DOF model should be derived and finally given as follows:

58
 f
o A

HWd xV Wd xAj.
7600
'V/d
Y\vd ~ ^Ywd x xV^xA,
7600
f
o ^
^Wd ~ C Zwd X HWd
7600 (4-1-1)
ywd
K\Vd ~ C X xV* d xA xBv

7600
Kwd

r
D
HWd ^
M\vd ~ ^Mwd X xV^xAj-xT
7600
r
O A

N-Wd ~ C Nwd x HWd xVj xA xL

d L bp

7600

Where X ,Y ,Wd Wd Z ,K , Mwd Wd Wd N Wd denote the forces and moments

affected by wind, C ,C ,C ,C ,C ,C
Xwd Ywd Zwd Kwd Mwd Nwd denote the

coefficients of wind effects p Wd density in wind medium, V means wd

wind velocity at 10 meter elevation.(refer to nomenclature for details)

A sample of C Xwd is shown in Figure 4-1-3 from OCIMF (1977), rest

of the five wind effect coefficients can be also obtained by experiments

or real trial.

59
 WIND ANGLE OF ATTACK 0 W

Figure 4-1-3 Coefficients of wind force OCIMF(1977)

4.1.1.2 Current effect

1) Basic description

Current force is another important environmental force to the surface

and near surface marine vehicle. It is generated by the wind, tide,

difference between temperatures of closed ocean areas.

Mathematically, its simulation effect is stronger than that of the wind's,

however wind can induce strong currents (also waves, but waves'

60
mechanics effect will not be discussed in this thesis) and it is hard to
find a weather that there is only strong wind but no current and waves
except experimental conditions. Therefore, it is hard to say which one
affects the ship motion severely. Some good studies were reported by
Bucher (1989), Grue (1986) and Sphaier et al (1998).

2) Current model

Basically, the current model is the same form as the wind model that
current model is also an experimental and statistical algorithm based on
a great deal of experimental data and statistical analysis while it affects
the part of the ship below the waterline.

For the same reasons as for wind force calculation, OCIMF (1977)
model will be employed and its 3DOF model can be extended to 6DOF
form as follows:

f
Pc ^
X - Cxc X
xV fx Aj.
c
C

v 7600 y

f
_Pc_^
xV*xA
7600 L

~
x
xV x^, c
2

7600
v y
(4-1-2)
' Pc 'xV fx A xB
K
C - KcC X

7600 J
c v

\
M c =C x Mc
xV^xAj XT
7600
r
_P^ xV xA xLBP
N =C x G L
7600
c Nc

Where X ,Y ,Z ,K ,M > c
c c c c c
N
denote the forces and moments

generated by current, C ,C ,C ,C ,C ,C Xc Yc Zc Kc Mc Nc denote the coefficients

61
of current effects p c means the density of the fluid, namely the sea

water and V means the speed of currents.

c

Just as the coefficient of wind force, a sample result of coefficient of

current force, C Yci is given in Figure 4-1-4. There are some differences

between current coefficients and wind coefficients as the current

coefficients are more complex as the depth of the water must be
considered.

Figure 4-1-4 Coefficient of Current force OCIMF(1977)

62
4.1.1.3 Restricted waterway

1) General:

Normally, the restricted waterway means a shallow water area or a

very confined channel, canal and so on. Basically, the waves and
currents induced by the marine vehicle will not disperse completely that
they will return as reflection and affect the ship. The ship can not do
large range action in these areas and all condition would be different
from open areas. It is a very interesting topic and many good works for
ship maneuvering in confined channel and channel design had been
well done. These include Kray(1973), Inglis et al (1981), Abkowitz and
Zheng (1984), Webb and Hewlett (1992) and Varyani et al (1997a). Also,
some good works for shallow water effects have been reported by
Yeung (1978) and Varyani et al (1997b).

Actually, even though the same ship is used, the hydrodynamic

forces derivative coefficients are significantly different between open
shallow water and deep water area, so be those coefficients of other
restricted waterway.

2) Shallow water effect

As the ESSO OSAKA 278,000 DWT is considered in this thesis, a

famous tanker which is well trialed in shallow water area by Crane
(1979), shallow water effect should be added into the mathematical
modeling work. Not only the Kim's (1988) model from KRISO but also
others models (SNU model and HSMB model) recommended by ITTC
(2002) for ESSO OSAKA did not consider the shallow water effects.
Since the comparison which will be given in chapter 5 is between the
simulation and a real trial in the shallow water area, the shallow water

63
effects have to be considered.

Mathematically, taking the sway term as an example, the left hand

side of the governing equation is m(v+ru) and the right hand side

should have the terms with derivative respect to z such as terms

like Y r z
rrz
2
. Since none of those models has it, we should add

appropriate term in the right hand side.

The solution in this thesis is to combine this problem with the current
model together that use the current effect term to represent both current
effect and shallow water effect which is shown as follows:

Y =f(V ,C )
c c Yc

C =g(H/D)
Yc

where V ,H and D denote current speed, water depth and ship draft
C

separately.

As was shown in section AAA.2, the current effects strongly depend

on the water depth, especially in the shallow water area. Therefore, the
quasi zero speed current condition is employed to approximate the calm
water shallow water effects.

Mathematically, in this thesis, three items will be added in the right

hand side, which are

X = f (V ,C )
l c Xc

Y = f (V ,C )
2 c Yc

N = f (Y ,C )
3 c Nc

where V -> 0. c

Actually, in the real trial, there may have been some current and

wave effects and it is not absolute calm (zero speed current and no

64
 wave).

4.1.1.4 Waves

Ocean surface wave is a complicated and interesting topic to a surface

marine vessel or those underwater vehicles near the ocean surface. However,
modeling surface wave is a very complex task. Some good works were
reported by Eda and Crane (1965), Grue(1986), McCreight (1986), Griffin
(1988), Ambrossovski and Rumyantsev(1994), Sphaier et al(1998), and
Timour (2001). Basically, random wave noise model with or without a filter
could be employed to simulate wave effects on ships. The mechanical effects
to marine vehicle will not be discussed in this thesis. It will be the future work to
discuss its in detail about wave's interaction and ship motions on it.

4.1.1.5 Other nature environmental forces

Besides those four major environmental forces, there are many other
different types of environmental forces, say, ice effect, indirect forces from
interaction between other marine vehicles(for instance, the wave induces by
other marine vehicle passing by), effects from marine animals and so on. They
are all parts of environmental forces but not as important as those considered
in this thesis. Consequently, they are not considered in this thesis.

4.1.2 Manmade forces

Manmade forces were born with the ship as origin propulsion and guidance

tools when ancient human being used their hand or wood sticks pull in the

water to move the ships. They improve with human being's intelligence and

requirements.

65
4.1.2.1 Tug forces

As the ships became larger in recent years especially, tankers are built

larger and are required to deliver goods faster, a greater demand is shown on

the performance of the tugs which handle them. This is especially apparent in

coastal area where ship system failure or human error such as bad

maneuvering can lead to nautical disaster, such as grounding, collision and

result in devastating environmental impact.

A specialized class of tug, the escort tug, has been developed to assist the

larger ship for maneuvering or mooring which is discussed by Gray (2003) as

shown in Figure 4-1-5.

Figure 4-1-5 Tugs are assisting a large vessel grounded outside a navigation

channel from Gray et al(2003)

As the goal of this work is to study a ship sailing around the outside

Vancouver harbor, an open deep water area, tugs are employed by many

transportation companies and ship builders such as Robert Allen Ltd. are also

investigating and producing it. Therefore, in this thesis, tug effect will be

considered as an assistance to the large tanker.

66
 Regularly, the tug can provide a breaking force and a steering force which

are shown in Figure 4-1-6.

Figure 4-1-6 Tug force model

The tug employed in this work is produced locally by Robert Allen Ltd. and

tested at the Institute of Marine Dynamics (IMD) and data are obtained from

experiments of Ratcliff (2004).

4.1.2.2 Other manmade forces

There are many different types of manmade forces to the marine vehicle

such as towing forces by workers in the bank, drag force by workers in the

bank, human power marine vehicle and so on. With the development of

technologies and requirements of human being, the types of manmade forces

are increasing. Generally speaking, they have the same characteristics no

matter how they were made that they are serving for the marine vehicle or they

help people and satisfy the requirements.

67
4.1.3 Governing equation with environmental forces

As the goal of this work is to study the ship maneuvering and course
keeping at the entrance of the Vancouver Harbor, one must include the
external effects of the wave and current forces on the ship. These forces need
to be added to the early governing equations. As the purpose is to study the
ship performance around Vancouver harbor, considering the real weather and
bathymetric condition, wind and current effects are considered to be rather
important.

With Equation 4-1-1 and Equation 4-1-2 of wind and current models given
in above paragraphs, the governing equation, Equation 3-2-8 can be changed
into the basic equations as follows:

m(u + qw — rv) = X + X c + X Wd

m(v + ru — pw) = Y + Y + Y c Wd

m(w + pv - qu) -Z +Z c +Z Wd .
I (4-1-3)
I p + (I -I )qr
x z y = K + K +K c Wd ? V
'

I q + (I -I )rp
y x z = M+M + c M Wd

I r + (I -I )pq
z y x =N + N +N
c Wd

where X,Y,Z,L,M,N denote the forces and moments in calm water,

X ,Y ,Z ,K ,M > c
c c c c c
N
denote the forces and moments generated by currents

and X ,Y ,Z ,K ,M ,N
Wd Wd Wd wd wd Wd denote the forces and moments produced by

the wind.

For the same reason as before, for the large tanker, the equations can be

simplified into the form of 3 DOF:

68
 m(u - ru) = X + X c + X Wd

m(v + ru) = Y +Y C +Y wd (4-1-4)

Ir = N +
z N +N c wd

This would be the final governing equations which are used in this

simulation program for course keeping.

The tug force is not added into these equations for the study is to consider
the tug force we need and the number of the tugs we need but not the detailed
performance of tugs.

4.2 System design and strategy for the ship

sailing into a harbor

In this section, the plan to simulation is discussed. Most nautical disasters

happen near the harbor or coastal area. Related problems have been studied
by many researchers in past few years e.g. Webb and Hewlett (1992) and
Gray et al (2003). Vancouver Harbor is taken as the example to study as we
are more familiar with it.

4.2.1 Analysis the real condition of the harbor

Normally, the control strategy has to be designed according to the real

problem. Therefore, the real condition of the harbor should be studied in

details. Actually, the coefficient of the current force in the governing equations

(Equation 4-1-3) also have to be set according to the local depth of the water

around Vancouver Harbor which can be found in Figure 4-2-1 and in section

4.1.1.2.

69
 Figure 4-2-1 Nautical Chart of Vancouver Harbor

Figure 4-2-2 Aerial view of the approach to Vancouver Harbor

 Vancouver harbor is one of the biggest ports of Canada. Every year there

are more than three thousand ships from all over the world and numerous

yachts which passed by or docked here.

Basically, all the characteristics of wind and current such as speed and
direction change with the season. As the goal of this study is the ship course
keeping performance, the worst case is employed as the condition in order to
get a more general result to fit into any weather condition around Vancouver
harbor.

Statistically, according to the data from Canadian Hydrographic Services

(CHS) and Environment Canada (refer to Appendix D) and the worst weather
condition in Vancouver Harbor exists in February and November every year.
Consequently, the maximum values in the system are 65kn for the wind speed
while 5.5kn for the current speed.

4.2.2 Analysis how the ship can sails into the harbor

Normally, in the good weather, a ship enters into the harbor along with the

regular waterway as shown in Figure 4-2-1 or Figure 4-2-3 which has the most

open water area, water depth and other conditions. However, there are also

always some bad weather conditions around Vancouver harbor which may not

let the ship be able to sail through the waterway.

Basically, the ship will sail directly into harbor/channel, after she reaches an

appropriate distance, then she will turn her heading angle. Finally, she will

enter into the harbor/channel ( the first narrow as shown in Figure 4-2-4)

straightly and successfully.

71
Figure 4-2-3 Strategy of how a ship sailing into harbor

Figure 4-2-4 Lionsgate bridge at the first narrow

72
 As the plan shown in Figure 4-2-3, a prediction of the time when the ship

should turn and judgment to the relative position of the ship to the harbor is set,

this is under the assumption that the original ship heading angle is heading

directly to the harbor (first narrow). That is to say, the prediction subprogram

will be executed before the simulation. Concretely, as the time of t = 0, the

simulation system has known the relative position of the ship into the harbor

and predicts an estimated time t p when ship should turn and angle y/ that
p

ship should turn. Consequently, during the simulating, the ship will go as a

quasi straight line (it will be a straight line if the environmental effects say wind

and currents are ignored), when t = t , the ship will turn for yr . If everything
p p

is okay, the ship will be entering the harbor successfully.

However, there are always some unpredictable and inherent bad factors
which means the ship can not enter the harbor successfully:

1) Environmental effects such as wind and current;

2) Original ship position and speed;

3) Any other factors may cause the ship can not enter the harbor

such as mechanical performance in the ship.

Therefore, following assumptions have been made for the ship simulation:

1) There is no other marine vehicle in the water area, so there will not

be any detour problem and no interaction from other marine

vehicle.

2) The original ship's heading angle is directly heading into the

73
 entrance of the harbor.

3) No sudden external effects and unpredictable mechanical or

marine engineering problem exist.

4) No other special problem.

Therefore, we just discuss the position and speed of the ship and their

effect to the result if the ship can enter the harbor.

4.2.3 Control system of this work

As the idea of ship entering into the harbor was discussed in above section,

the detailed system should be designed according to the requirement of the

design.

Before the detailed control algorithm and individual blocks are discussed,
the whole control system of this work will be discussed here.

output

h:;;;n 1:;:;;
all values and course
Initial Pertubation Esso Ossaka
heading angle with noise

Figure 4-2-5 The control system

74
 As it is shown in Figure 4-2-5, the whole control system is made up of 5

major parts and they are listed as follows:

1) Initial Position

The Initial Position part is the major input of the control system which
provides the initial position of the marine vehicle according to the reference
frame that the "first narrow" is the center the reference frame. Then the
system can evaluate the time and distance before the vehicle turning into
the harbor according to the strategy in section 4.2.2. That is to say, the
input is the position of the marine vehicle and the output is the time and the
required turning angle.

2) Reference Model (filter)

This is an important part to the PID controller part. It works as the input
of the PID Controller and the Nomoto equation, which will be discussed in
section 4.3 in detail. The simple 3 order low pass filter model has been
rd

employed as Equation 4-3-10 for this system; it is good for the non complex
PID control loop and 1 order Nomoto's Equation. The input is the required
st

turning angle and the output are the desired heading angle, desired
heading speed and desired heading acceleration. The detailed discussion
will be given in section 4.3.

3) PID Controller (Autopilot part)

The PID Controller is the key part of this Control system. It will be

introduced and discussed in section 4.3.2. It works together with the

Nomoto equation as the autopilot part of the control system. The inputs are

the desired heading angle, desired heading speed, desired heading

75
 acceleration, feedback of heading angle and feedback of heading speed

while last two terms are with noise. The output is the rudder angle.

4) Marine Vehicle Model(Vessel model)

The Marine Vehicle Model is another major input of the system it is

made up of two parts. One is the Objective (test) Vessel Model and

another is the initial perturbation of the vehicle such as speed, acceleration,

propeller rudder parameter. One can easily change to other marine

vehicles as required. This block is just a MATLAB file shell to run the

mathematical model of the marine vehicle which is the combination of

Equation 3-3-3 and Equation 4-1-4 which is written in MATLAB file. The

input is the desired rudder angle and the outputs which will be given in

result output block are the heading angle~v , the yawing speed—r, the

real rudder angle- 3 , the x -distance, the y -distance, the surge

velocity—u and the sway velocity- v .

5) Result Output

After two different feedbacks, the Result Output part can be obtained

which is the last part of the system. One can easily find that it provides all

the output results you want to see and can monitor every value of the

Objective Vessel in time domain. The feedbacks are heading rate and

heading angle with noise which work in the PID controller part. All the

unknown values in Equation 3-3-3 can be obtained in output.

76
4.3 Detailed control algorithm

As a next step in the study, the entrance to Vancouver harbor under wind

and current is simulated. The control strategy to be used in the simulation of

the decisions of the captain is of course one of the most important parts of the

simulation of ship sailing the harbor. In this part, the control strategy used is

presented.

4.3.1 Introduction

Vehicle Control System (VCS) design is a procedure of dynamics creating.

The whole system can mainly be divided into four parts which are

1) Plants

The plant in VCS is the vehicle itself, also the dynamics system in
the control loop.

2) Inputs

The inputs of the VCS are the requirement orders from the captain

or commander. Normally, there are two types of inputs: single input

and multiple inputs, in this work, both single input and multiple inputs

are employed.

3) Outputs

The outputs of the VCS are the requirement order and related

values of the vehicle. There are also two types of outputs: single

output and multiple outputs, and the multiple outputs is employed in

77
 my program.

4) Sensors

The sensors in the VCS are the instruments to monitor how the

vehicle follows the requirement order for feedback.

Table 4-1 Example of vehicle control

Plant Inputs Outputs Sensors

Car Wheel angel Heading GPS
GPS
Marine Vehicle Rudder angel Heading
Gyrocompass
Rudder, Elevator GPS, Altimeter
Aircraft Heading altitude
etc. etc

There are some other important parts in the whole system, for example, the
disturbance. There are always disturbances in the whole feedback system.
They will be discussed in details in later parts of this thesis.

Modern ship control has been developed for more than one hundred years
along with the control theory. From the end of 19 century, the first electrically
th

driven gyroscope was demonstrated by G.M. Hopkins.

Table 4-2 History of modern ship control technology

Time People Event

Early 1900 H.Anschutz North seeking gyro
1911 E. Sperry "Metal Mike"
1922 Minorsky PID
1963 Kalman LQG
1965—now Combination methods more and more

Normally the control loop of ship, as shown in Figure 4-3-1 by Segal (1960)

is regarded as the classical template of ship control, although there might be

78
slight change in different versions.

...tWFOBMAT>ONsON;;SHIP;S:PATW< .

lOESlRED HELMSMAN STEERING

1 OR GEAR
AUTOPILOT; RUBBER 6RUDOER
INGLE
EXTERNAL-.
RUDOER ANGLE INDICATION DISTURBANCES

Figure 4-3-1 Control loop of ship autopilot by Segal (1960)

Feedback control loop shown in Figure 4-3-2 is a good algorithm for ship

control compared with feed forward loop.

Load disturbance Measurement noise

CZD G D

CD ^Ch+jIn Out In Out

Input * 1
Output
Controller Process
Feedback

Figure 4-3-2 General feedback control loop

There are various popular and pioneering strategies applied in ship control

problems such as robust control, fuzzy control, and neural network application

etc. They are all very advanced and fine strategies based on general control

theory and some very successful applications in ship simulation are reported

by Amerongen(1984), Djouani and Hamam (1996), Kvam et al (2000),

79
Encarnacao et al (2000) and Whalley and Ebrahimi (2003). However, they are

far beyond a Master thesis work with a non-control background student like

this author doing thesis on ship maneuvering and course keeping field.

In the following parts, the control system design of the simulation work will
be discussed although it is a simple one especially for those reviewers with
excellent control background.

4.3.2 PID strategy

The core control algorithm which is used in the simulation is widely used
Proportional Integral Derivative (PID) control. All the works concerning ship
control in this thesis are based on PID.

PID control is a classical and useful algorithm in modern control system. Dr.
Minorsky started to use it from 1922 and it became popular since then.

Normally, it is easy to find the standard "textbook" version of the PID

algorithm in any reference book e.g. Seborg et al (1989) and Astrom and
Hagglund (1988) which is described as:

(4-3-1)

where u is the control variable and e is the control error that defined as

e = y - y. The control variable is then a sum of three items;

c

1) The first one is P-term : Proportional to the error

2) The second one is l-term: Proportional to the integral of the error

80
3) The last one is D-term: Proportional to the derivative of the error

The controller parameters are proportional gain K , integral time 7;and

p

derivative time T . d

Note: Normally, K is written asA: and these three parameters will be

p

together defined as follows:

K =K
P

K =KxT
d d

However, in order to be differentiated from the K of Nomoto's model(1957)

which is the classical definition of Ship Maneuvering coefficients in Equation

4-2-4, K p with subscript will be used to replace K.

Equation 4-3-1 given above was the standard "textbook" version; however,
it is seldom used in practice field because the much better performance is
obtained by modified algorithms with Laplace transfer function as following:

F
1 ^
G(s) = K, 1+ + sTd
(4-3-2)
V ^ j

Equation 4-3-2 has been selected as the form of PID control in this thesis.

Also, there is a slightly different version from Equation 4-3-2 which is the most

common one in the commercial controller. It is described as follows:

81
 G'(s) = K' 1+ - (4-3-3)
ST;

Normally, there are two types of PID control loops, non-interacting and

interacting versions which are shown in Figure 4-3-2 and Figure 4-3-4

separately. The non-interacting type is employed in this work.

Input ' 1 Jf^-^ Output

Non interacting

Figure 4-3-3 Non-interacting format PID

C2v
Input Output
Interacting

Figure 4-3-4 Interacting format PID

4.3.3 The ship control equation

4.3.3.1 General

After the discussion of PID control which is used in this control system, a

ship response equation has to be selected.

Based on the complicated maneuvering equations, control equation was

82
obtained by Nomoto et al (1957).

The 1 order model is given as follows

Ty) +y) = KS (4-3-4)

Normally, it can also be written as follows

Tr + r = Kb (4-3-5)

Actually, the 1 order equation is the simplified version of 2 order Nomoto

equation.

For some complicated situations, such as extremely wandering channel,

severe wind, current, waves with unstable directions, and some other situation
requiring the vessel to turn the rudder frequently, the 1 order control equation
st

was advanced into a 2 nd

order model by Nomoto et al(1957).

The 2 nd
order model is given as follows

T,T yf + (Tj + T )f + KH (iff) = K(8 + T S)

2 2 B 3
(4-3-6)

Normally, like the 1 order equation, it can also be written as follows

T T r + (T +T )f + KH (r) = K(S + T S)
x 2 x 2 B 3
(4-3-7)

where the linear term y/ has been replaced with a function H (y>) . B

Assuming that r = r ss is constant in steady -state where subscript" ss" means

steady-state, that is,r' = r = 6 - 0. This implies that the r-S curve will be a
single-valued function.

4.3.3.2 PID controller block

In the case of ship entering Vancouver harbor, a 1 order model is chosen

st

83
for this simulation.

As the rudder angle S is the input of the Mathematical model of the

Marine vehicle, the Equation 4-3-4 can be written as follows:

S^f + ^yr (4-3-8)

K K

The Equation 4-3-8 is the form of 1 order Nomoto equation in the PID
st

controller (autopilot) block of the control system which is shown as Figure

4-3-5.

heading speed

Figure 4-3-5 1 order Nomoto Equation

st

However, as it was stated above, the 1 Nomoto equation is a simplified

st

version of Equation 4-3-6. Actually, both 1 order and 2 st nd

order equations have
somewhat difference with experimental data. Therefore, the PID controller is
introduced into this block as follows

G(s) = K P &4-w)+—&j-v)+T ty -v)\

r
d d d (4-3-9)
sT :
J

where yi d means the desired heading angle

The Equation 4-3-9 is based on the Equation 4-3-2 while the difference is

the differential — — term is known as y/ -y). Therefore, there is no

d

dt

84
requirement to add an ' V in this transfer equation.

Together with Equation 4-3-8 as shown in Figure 4-3-6, the final autopilot

equation can be written as follows:

f 1
l
>
\
I T
S = K, Wd-v)+ — &d -wY^iWd-w) +—Y + —V (4-3-10)
sT t J K K

velocity acceleration

Figure 4-3-6 Autopilot system PID controller with Nomoto Equation

So, the problem is changed to decide K coefficient and T coefficient.

Physically, the indices K and T represent ratios of nondimensional
coefficients as follows:

_ yaw inertia
yaw damping '

is the time constant of the system and represent the ship course keeping ability
and responsiveness to the rudder.

_ turning moment
yaw damping

is related to the rudder effectiveness or strength and represent the ship turning

ability.

85
 They can be obtained from model tests such as zigzag test and other

special maneuvering tests and/or solving the Equation 4-3-5.

4.3.4 Filter

4.3.4.1 General

As it is known to all, a modern autopilot system like which is discussed in

section 4.3.3, must have both course-keeping and course-changing

capabilities which can be obtained by using the reference model to calculate

the desire values of y ,tf ,y

d d d (also can be written as y/ ,rd d and r j a n d s o

on (the first three states have been employed in the filter) which are required
by course-keeping and course-changing, finally,

y/ = constant
d (4-3-11)

mathematically it is
limy/ (t)=y/
d (4-3-12)

(->°o

4.3.4.2 Filter block

In this system, because only three statesy ,r d d and r d have been

employed for the requirement of PID control system, although there are many

other filters can be selected, the 3 rd

order Low Pass Filter is good and

introduced in the system and it is given as follows.

— {s) = T - ^ 5- (4-3-13)
yr r (s + o)„)(s 2
+2Cco s + co )
n
2
n

where the reference y/ r is the operator input (the required turning angle

which is shown in section 4.3.3), £ is the relative damping ratio, and co is the n

natural frequency.

86
 Figure 4-3-7 shows the reference block according to Equation 4-3-13.

spring

Figure 4-3-7 3 m
order LP filter

With yj ,rd d and r , the PID control which is shown in Figure 4-3-6 can be
d

executed.

4.3.5 Control parameters

As the whole system discussed above, there are some special parameters

which should be decided in the control loop and marine vehicle model as

ESSO OSAKA. They are obtained by tuning, following guideline and/or

statistical database.

1) For the control system, the PID controller is employed. The P, I and

D parameters K ,T p t and T d for PID controller are decided as 10,

50 and 1000 after tuning.

2) Both feedbacks with noise are set as 1 for the control system which

87
 indicates there is no noise.

3) For 1 order Nomoto Equation 4-3-5 of the ESSO OSAKA, K and

st

T are 0.0185 and 110.

4) For the reference block, the relative damping ratio £ is 1, and

co ,the natural frequency is 0.1.

n

Actually, there are also some other parameters should be set or selected
such as the propeller rpm, thrust coefficients and so on. However, they are
fixed in the marine vehicle modeling part and no relationship with the control
work. Therefore, they will not be discussed here ( see Appendix for details).

4.4 Simulation

In order to fully examine and verify the quality of the mathematical model of
an given marine vehicle, it is necessary to perform a simulation program based
on it. In this thesis work, the ship maneuvering and course keeping simulation
is a time domain package. Considering the ESSO OSAKA as an example, the
governing Equations(Equation 3-3-3) combined with Equation 4-1-4 are solved
and integrated in time that those dynamics variables are obtained as streams
in the time domain.

The core part, the governing Equation 3-3-3 combined with Equation 4-1-4

are coded and packaged as one file, using the simulation software MATLAB®

provided by Mathworks Inc. All the IMO standards tests are obtained by

accessing this core file as outside functions. The code was then validated by

using published experimental data. The outputs are the IMO tests results as

shown above. The convenience is that the ship data are input into a single file

88
while tests requirement are other files. Therefore, one can change it to any

vessel as long as the ship data are available. Please refer to Appendix E for

detailed description of the simulation package.

MATLAB® is a very useful software that it provides lots of built-in functions

and procedures which can be used for design and construction of the
simulation work. And the control part is run under the circumstance of

simulink® that is also provided by Mathworks Inc. It provides lots of useful

blocks that can be useful design and tuning of control system and make the

procedure easier and faster.

4.5 Summary

As the further and complementary work of Chapter 3, the mechanics model

of the marine vehicle is studied extensively here. The external forces have
been analyzed and discussed at the beginning. Considering the thesis work
focuses on Ship course keeping performance around Vancouver Harbor, wind
and current effects are added and OCIMF Model was employed for the Tanker
Governing Equation. Because the purpose of the work is to study the
possibility of the tanker performance, investigate how to increase the
possibility and safety, the tug assistance is discussed, and added into the
mathematical model.

It appears that there are many control algorithms and lots of them have

been used for ship control studies. PID algorithm is employed and a control

strategy of entering the harbor has been designed later. After this, all

fundamental works of the project have been finished.

89
 Chapter 5 Results Discussion and
Analysis
In this chapter, all the results of the simulation work in Chapter 3 and
Chapter 4, especially the ship sails into Vancouver harbor are discussed and
analyzed. As it has been mentioned before, ESSO OSAKA 278,000DWT is
selected as the objective marine vehicle. Therefore, in the following parts, all
the discussion and analysis concerning ESSO OSAKA is just about ESSO
OSAKA 278,000DWT Tanker but not of other displacements DWT.

5.1 Initial disturbance and perturbation

In this part, the initial disturbance and perturbation of the marine vehicle is
discussed. As discussed in Chapter 4, Figure 4-4-4, in the marine vehicle
model block, there is initial disturbance and perturbation as the inputs to the
marine vehicle. Although user can take zero into all initial value, sometime in
the real problem there always initial disturbance and perturbation.

However, as the initial conditions of the vessel in this work are at a certain

point of the vessel's way into the harbor but not come out from a dock or start

from a stationary condition, the vessel is in its fairly equilibrium condition

already. Therefore, there is no need to discuss this problem in detail here. The

simple example of initial disturbance will be discussed in Figure 5-3-7b of

section 5.3.2.3.

5.2 Simulation without external effects

In this part, the simulation results without external forces will be discussed.

90
Those entire basic tests are without any external forces in the calm water, and
the assumption according to current IMO standards for ship maneuverability
will be given at the first. Then, the simulation of IMO standards for ship
maneuverability will be discussed for three vessels, two "good" ships, the
simple example container ship and detailed discussed example ESSO OSAKA
and one "bad" ship, Mariner class ship. Particularly, for the major objective test
vessel ESSO OSAKA, some other important factors are analyzed in detail as
the fundamental discussion for course keeping work.

5.2.1 Assumption according to IMO Standards

In order to evaluate the performance of a ship, maneuvering trials should

be conducted to both port and starboard and at conditions specified below:

1) Deep and unrestricted water;

2) Calm environment;

3) Full load (summer load line draught), even keel condition;

4) Steady approach at the test speed.

For the validation the program, the following assumptions have to be made:

1) The disturbance affected by the interaction between rudder propeller

stern and other parts is negligible.

2) The changes of center of gravity induced by motion of liquids or other

matters on the vessel are negligible.

5.2.2 Container ship—"good" ship

As stated in Chapter 3, before the major test objective vessel, ESSO

OSAKA is discussed; a simple example container ship is given in this

91
section first.

1) Initial Turning test:

Figure 5-2-1 and Figure 5-2-2 show the results of simulation for
initial turning test. From this simulation, we can easily find that the
distance ship traveled is 271 m, 1.55 times the ship length which is
175m. This distance is much less than the IMO criteria which is
two and half times ship lengths. So we decided that the ship
satisfies IMO criteria for Initial Turning test.

2) Turning Circle test:

Figure 5-2-3 and Figure 5-2-4 show the results of simulation for
turning circle test. From this simulation, we can find that the
tactical diameter of ship is 712m, 4.06 times the ship length which
is 175m. This length is much less than the IMO criteria, five times
ship lengths. The advance is 570m, or 3.25 times the ship length,
which is much less than it in the IMO criteria four and half times
ship lengths. Therefore we claimed that the ship satisfies IMO
criteria for Turning Circle test.

3) Zigzag test:

Figure 5-2-5 to Figure 5-2-8 show the results of simulation for

zigzag test. From this simulation, we can easily find that the

overshoots are less than 10 degrees both 10/10 and 20/20. They

are both much less than IMO criteria. Consequently, we concluded

that the ship satisfies IMO criteria for Zigzag Test.

92
 Note: the rudder changing rate is set as infinite here for the

comparing with rudder changing rate in later chapters.

4) Full Astern Stopping Test:

Figure 5-2-9 shows the result of simulation for full astern

stopping test. From this simulation, we can find that the distance
ship traveled is 1282m, 7.33 times the ship length which is 175m.
This value is much less than it in the IMO criteria fifteen times ship
lengths. We can say that the ship satisfies IMO criteria for Full
Astern Stopping test.

Generally Speaking, this container ship is a good ship that satisfies IMO
criteria; we can conclude that she can go well in normal sea condition.

initialtuming test

100 -

80 —

-60 • j;-"••••• :,v..,,W ,, ;,,....„..4;:..v;.,,..v

-100 h-^~-^-^.v.:.-i'-:-..

0 50 100 150 200 250

x-position

Figure 5-2-1 Initial Turning Test course of Container ship

93
 yaw angle y (cleg)

15 20
time (s)

speed U (m/s)
8.02

15 20
time (s)

Figure 5-2-2 Initial Turning Test yaw and speed of Container ship

Turning circle (* = rudder execute, o • 90 deg heading)

600 800
x-position

Figure 5-2-3 Turning Circle Test course of Container ship

 Zig-zag test
1 r

0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 4500

x-position

Figure 5-2-6 10/10 Zigzag Test course of Container ship

yaw angle v (cleg)

I

— *c .

- /r \\ ...
\
... \
\
\

)• II I iI i I I
0 100 200 300 400 500 600
time (s)
speed U (m/s)

time (s)

Figure 5-2-7 20/20 Zigzag Test yaw and speed of Container ship
 Zig-zag test

500: 1000 1500 .2000: 2500. 3000" 3500 4000 4500

x-position

Figure 5-2-6 10/10 Zigzag Test course of Container ship

yaw engle v (ccg)

igure 5-2-7 20/20 Zigzag Test yaw and speed of Container ship
:
 Zig-zag test

1500}

1000,

500

-500

-1000

500 1CC0 '1500 2000 2500 3000 3500

x-position

Figure 5-2-8 20/20 Zigzag Test course of Container ship

astemstop test

600

500

400

300

"1200jr

100

-100

-200

200; 400 600 1000.

x-position

Figure 5-2-9 Full Astern Stopping test course of Container ship

5.2.3 Mariner ship—"bad" ship

As a "good" IMO class ship has been stated, a "bad" ship example could be

given for comparison.

The ship length is 160.93meter. According to the IMO criteria, the tactical
diameter should not exceed five times the ship length, nearly 805m, which is
less than the simulation result of the Mariner 1100m in Figure 5-2-10.
Obviously, the Mariner does not satisfy the IMO criteria for turning circle test.
That is to say, we can conclude that the Mariner Class ship is not a good ship
under the final IMO Standard for ship maneuverability. However, its rudder
size might be changed and could possibly satisfy the IMO Standards.

Bad ship Turning :circle;(*;=.rudder:execute,;p = 90 deg heading);

x-position

Figure 5-2-10 Turning Circle Test course of Mariner

98
5.2.4 Simulation of ESSO OSAKA

This thesis is based on IMO Standard for Ship maneuverability which has

been discussed in chapter 2. The major test objective vessel is ESSO OSAKA.

In this section, the simulation of ESSO OSAKA of IMO Standard for ship

maneuverability and other tests without external effect will be discussed.

What's more, from this section, all discussions are focused on ESSO OSAKA

tanker.

5.2.4.1 Simulation of ESSO OSAKA based on IMO standard for

Ship Maneuverability

ESSO OSAKA is always the highlight vessel of many ship maneuvering

research group or technical committees. Its performances under the tests set
by IMO for the Standard of Ship Maneuverability are discussed in following
parts

In the following part, we do the similar simulation test for IMO Standard for

Ship Maneuverability as the results shown for the container ship in Section

5.2.2 while the rudder effects are concerned. However, as ESSO OSAKA is

selected as the major test objective ship for the program of course keeping and

other programs, it is further discussed.

1) Turning Circle:

Figures 5-2-11 and Figure 5-2-12 show the results of simulation for

Turning Circle test. From this simulation, we calculated that the tactical

diameter of ship is 1488m, 4.33 times the ship length, 343m. This length

is much less than the required IMO criteria of five times the ship length.

99
 The advance is 922m or 2.69 times the ship length. This value is also

much less than the IMO criteria of four and half times the ship length.

So we concluded that the ship satisfies the Turning Circle test of IMO

criteria.

2) Zigzag Test

a) General discussion

Figure 5-2-13 to Figure 5-2-16 show the results of the

simulation for the Zigzag test. From this simulation, we can easily
find that the overshoots are less than 10 degrees for both 10/10
degree and 20/20 degree zigzag test. The overshoots are much
less than the values required by the IMO criteria. So we decided
that the ship satisfies the requirements of IMO criteria for Zigzag
Test.

b) Rudder rate effect

Compared with Figure 5-2-5 to Figure 5-2-8 of the Container

ship in section 5.2.2, we can see the difference that the rudder rate
in this simulation is set at a regular value, while in section 5.2.2 is
nearly infinite. It is obvious that the slower is the rudder rate, the
larger is the overshoot.

3) Initial Turning Test

Figure 5-2-17 and Figure 5-2-18 show the results of the simulation

for Initial Turning tests. From this simulation we found that the distance

the ship traveled is 588 m, or 1.72 times the ship length. This distance is

100
 much less than the requirement of the IMO criteria which is two and half

times the ship length. Therefore, we conclude that the ship satisfies the

Initial Turning test of IMO criteria.

4) Full Astern Stop

Figure 5-2-19 and Figure 5-2-20 show the results of the simulations
for full astern stop. From this simulation we found that the distance ship
traveled is 2311 m or 6.74 times the ship length. This value is much less
than the requirement of the IMO criteria which is fifteen times the ship
length. Our conclusion was that the ship satisfies the Full Astern
Stopping test of IMO criteria.

Esso Osaka Turning circle (* = rudder execute, o = 90 deg heading)

x-position

Figure 5-2-11 ESSO Turning Circle course

101
 Figure 5-2-12 Speed and yaw of ESSO Turning Circle

Esso QsakaZig-zag test

2000 r

1500;

1000J-.

500}

-500 ;-

1000+-

15004
I
500- 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 4500
x-position

Figure 5-2-13 Course of ESSO 20/20 Zigzag maneuver

 yaw angle v (deg)
30

/ \ / / A \N
— V
20 — 5
c "
100r
10

1/ X \ j
. 1 \1 / L
0

-10
• \ \ ; /
-20 \ \ / /
\ V X

-30 i i T - ^

I 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400

time (s)

speed U (m/s)
4.2 I I I
| speed m/s |

3.8

3.6f

3.4 j ] r~
200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400
time (s)

Figure 5-2-14 Speed and yaw of ESSO 20/20 Zigzag maneuver

Zig-zag test
2000 ~T~. 1—: r~ r

1500

1000

500

J
1
s

-500

-1000

-1500

0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 4500 5000
x-position

Figure 5-2-15 Course of ESSO 10/10 Zigzag maneuver

103
 yaw angle (deg)
1 1

— V

A \ \
/ /
A
/
100r

/ \

\ \:/V • /
\ /
is 1\ // _

/
/ i \ \
\_
v /

i i >* t

200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400

time (s)

speed U (m/s)
4.05
j speed m/s |

3.95 h

3.9

3.85 i i i i <
200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400
time (s)

Figure 5-2-16 Speed and yaw of ESSO 10/10 Zigzag maneuver

Esso initialturnlng test

200

150

100

50

8
i o

-50

-100 h
-150

-200
100 200 300 400 500
x-position

Figure 5-2-17 Course of ESSO Initial Turning

104
 .yaw angle n>. (deg)

150
time (s)

speed U (m/s)
4:01

3.99 h

3 98--

3.97
-150
time (s)

Figure 5-2-18 Speed and heading angle of ESSO Initial Turning

Esso Osaka astemstop test

1Q00J-

800

1000 1500
x-position

Figure 5-2-19 Course of ESSO Full Astern Stop

 Figure 5-2-20 Speed and yaw ESSO Full Astern Stop

With the results of simulations for the four IMO standard tests, we
established that this tanker can be claimed to satisfy the requirements of IMO
Standard for maneuverability. This ship can be considered to be a "good" ship.
These results are also used as a validation of the numerical simulation code.

Generally saying, following conclusions can be drawn:

1) The objective ship, ESSO OSAKA 278,000DWT Tanker is a "good"

IMO Class ship according to the current IMO Standard for Ship

Maneuverability.

2) The Code can not only work for 4 DOF ship (Container) but also 3DOF

ship, Tanker and Mariner. Actually the code can work well for 6 DOF

marine vehicles such as ROV, AUV and UUV. While in general one

106
 prefers comparison of the experimental results with the numerical

predictions, the code was considered to be able to identify "good"

ships for maneuvering.

5.2.4.2 Ship Speed Effect

As the objective area is the quasi open water area, the relationship
between ship speed and the tanker performance is not difficult to find. Figure
5-2-21 and Table 5-1 show that the simulation results of relationship between
ship speed and important values of turning circle tests. We can see that the
tactical diameter, advance and transfer do not change (there is less than 0.1
percent change per knot) with the ship speed to a large extent. That is
because the ship speed will affect the turning speed, therefore in regular
speed, the diameter will not change much. Actually, it even does not change.
The only value changing much is the steady radius R which is defined as^/
s

while the faster the ship speed, the smaller steady radius, because of the
changing speed of yawing rate is higher than changing speed of serge speed.

Mathematically, it can be written as follows:

Therefore, the steady radius is larger when the speed is higher.

Table 5-1 Ship Speed Vs. Turning Circle

Ship speed Transfer advance diameter

2 729 917 1498
3 729 919 1498
4 730 920 1499
5 731 923 1500
6 732 925 1501
7 733 927 1502
8 734 929 1504

107
 4.5
A, „ - A - = — - A =ii= A.

Transfer
E' '= Advance
CD
I Tactical Diameter
3.5-
,.CL

m
B 3.0
a>

f « •= :.•= •
TO
—
I 2.5

—•,——^^-p a
^•V ' | '• | ' | ' :| • .1 ' I. ••' ;1 1

2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Ship Speed (m/s)

Figure 5-2-21 Relationship between ship speed and some important values

5.2.4.3 Rudder Effect

Rudder effect is another important factor of the surface marine vehicle

especially tanker.

In earlier chapters, the effect of rudder changing rate had been discussed

and it can be also found in SNAME T&R Report R-22(1976) for some other

similar test.

In this part, the relationships between rudder angle and the three values,

Tactical Diameter, Transfer and Advance are discussed. As the performance of

ESSO OSAKA is well known, there is no need to do test in port side since the

value of port side always smaller than them in starboard side because of the

108
geometry's characteristics of the ship.

Figure 5-2-22 shows the simulation results of relationship between rudder

angle and three important values of turning circle test. We can see the all three
values decrease when rudder angle increases and the changes are bigger and
faster in 5 degree to 10 degree. What's more, from Figure 5-2-22, we can see
that, the ship satisfies IMO Standards for Ship Maneuverability when the
rudder angle is smaller than 35 degree but bigger than 27 degree. That is good
news for ship owner since the tanker can have more reserve ability if its
maximum rudder angle is 35 degree. Actually, 35 degree is the minimum
maximum rudder angle for larger tanker and the regular maximum rudder
angle is around 5 degree larger than 35 degree.

28-,

5 10 15 20 25 30 35

Rudder Angle (degree);

Figure 5-2-22 Relationship between rudder and some important values

109
5.2.4.4 Other Effects

There are some other internal effects which affect the ship performance in

the maneuvering and course keeping action such as hull rudder and propeller

interaction, which is a little bit complex topic. Mathematically, as MMG model,

the force can be divided into parts, Hull, Rudder, Propeller and interaction

between them. The modeling work can be then made and equations can be

derived.

Basically, in this program, one can get this kind of results by changing the

hydrodynamics derivatives of rudder, propeller and hull such as Y , 0

Y
s > &v>
Y N
6vr a r i ( i
s 0 o n t 0
approximate the change of the interaction or add

coefficients to approximate better results to reduce the difference between the

experimental and simulation's value just as 77, in Equation 3-3-3.

However, this is not a precise method although it works well in some cases.

Therefore, it would not be discussed in this thesis in details.

5.3 Results under external forces

In this part, the simulation results of some basic tests under external effect

will be discussed and compared with some experimental and authorized

results to see if the program runs well with the external effects model given in

Chapter 4.

110
5.3.1 Basic assumption of the condition around
Vancouver harbor

As the governing equations had been discussed in the course keeping part
of Chapter 4, the importance of wind and current effects were presented and
tanker safety problems are always related to the external effect. We will
directly discuss the result here.

Before detailed discussion, some assumptions specify for the Vancouver

Harbor have to be made as follows:

1) Actually there might be little difference between the current angle and
wind angle of attack, normally, one degree or two. However, as the
wave effect and interaction between wind and current are both ignored,
their effective angles of attack can be considered as the same value.
The wind and current direction is -30 degree.

2) The worst wind and current speed is 65kn and 5.5kn based on the
results from Canadian Hydrographic Service and Canadian
Department of Environment.

3) As there is no obvious current and wind speed variation in time in this

specified area, both speed values have been set as constants.

4) The water depth data are obtained from the nautical chart by the

Canadian Hydrographic Service.

Actually for assumption 3, those values can also be set as function of

position as follows:

111
where V means those speed values such as current speed and wind speed.

It just takes some more lines code of judgment subroutine in the program,

but constants will make the results have more representatives as they are

shown in later part of the thesis.

5.3.2 Discussion of the simulation results

As it known, the turning circle test is a very important test for the ship both
with external forces and without external forces. And as it had been discussed

in Chapter 4, the strategy for the tanker to entering the harbor is a pre distance

and pre turn calculation with the turning into the harbor, therefore, the turning
circle is more important in this work.

5.3.2.1 Turning Circle

In this section, the turning circle test with external forces will be discussed.

The result of ESSO OSAKA turning under the wind effect is shown at first.

Figure 5-3-1 a and Figure 5-3-1 b show the simulation results of turning circle

test under wind effect that wind direction is -30 degree, which is a regular

direction of the wind near the Vancouver harbor during the heavy weather

times, the wind speed is set 50kn and the ship speed is set as 4m/s(7.8 kn). It

is easy to see that under the wind effect the ship turns in an elliptic path and it

trends to the left compared with Figure 5-2-11. That is an evidence to support

the wind effect especially its direction. What's more, we can see that second

turn is more elliptical than the first one.

112
 Figure 5-3-2a and Figure 5-3-2b show the simulation results that of turning
circle test under current effect that current direction is -30 degree which is the
regular direction of the current near the Vancouver harbor during the bad
weather times, the current speed is set as 1kn and the ship speed is
4m/s(7.8kn). The shape of the ship course does not change as much as it's
under wind effect but the speed and yaw rate change more and oscillatory.

Figure 5-3-3a and Figure 5-3-3b show the simulation results that the tanker
can not complete the circle when combined wind and current effects are too
strong.

As it is mentioned before, there are lots of published papers and research

works focusing on this tanker. The results of Figure 5-3-1 a and Figure 5-3-3a
can be, at least compared qualitatively with results shown in Figure 5-3-1 c and
Figure 5-3-3c separately, representing the results of Barr and Martin (1980)
which discuss its performance under the wind effects.

It is hard to compare those couples published results quantitatively and get

a percentage error as the authors did not provide enough data.

113
 E S S O O S A K A Turn Circle under Wind effect of 30 degree@50kn
-4

500
xfposition-

Figure 5-3-1 a Course of ESSO OSAKA turning under wind effect

yaw rate r (deg/s)

speed U (m/s)

35

2.5

1:5
500 1000 1500 2000 2500 •3000 3500 4000
time (s)

Figure 5-3-1 b Speed and yaw of ESSO OSAKA turning under wind effect

114
Figure 5-3-1 c ESSO OSAKA turning under wind effect from Barr's result(1980)

E S S O O S A K A Turn circle under Current Effect of 30 degree© 1kn

:XrpOSitJOrt;

Figure 5-3-2a ESSO OSAKA turning course under current effect

 yaw rate r (deg/s)

-0:4.,
' 0 : 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000
time (s)

speed U (m/s)

.500 1000; 1500 ,2000 2500 3000 3500 4000

time (s)

Figure 5-3-2b Speed and yaw of ESSO OSAKA turning speed under current
effect

ESSO tring Turning Circle under.strong wind:and^current .combined,effect

-200

-400

-600

-800

'-1000:

-1200-

•-1400

-1600h

-400 -200 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600
;x-position

Figure 5-3-3a Course of ESSO OSAKA turning under overload wind and
current effects

116
 yaw rate r (deg/s)

150O
time (s)
speed U (m/s)
4.5

3.5

2;5.
:

24-

1,5
500: 1000 1500
time (s)

Figure 5-3-3b Speed and yaw ESSO OSAKA turning speed under overload
wind and current effects

Figure 5-3-3c ESSO OSAKA turning under overload wind and wave effects
from Barr's result(1980)

117
5.3.2.2 Zigzag

In this part, some same simulations under wind and current effects will be

done for zigzag test, which is another important ship test (see chapter 2 and

chapter 3 for detailed description and discussion).

According to those maneuvering tests in IMO Standard for ship

Maneuverability, there are two types of zigzags test, 10/10 and 20/20. 10/10
Zigzag Test for the external effects simulation will be shown here.

Figure 5-3-4a and Figure 5-3-4b show the simulation results of the zigzag
performance of ESSO OSAKA under wind effect that wind direction is 30
degrees while wind speed is 50kn. Obviously, the second starboard overshoot
increases more due to the wind effect, when compared with Figure 5-2-5 and
Figure 5-2-6 without external effect.

Figure 5-3-5a and Figure 5-3-5b show the simulation results of zigzag
performance of ESSO OSAKA under current effect. The current direction is 30
degrees while the current speed is 1kn. Obviously, the speed change is rather
oscillatory due to the current effect, when compared to Figure 5-2-5 and Figure
5-2-6 without external effects. And the yaw rate and overshoot change slightly
compared with the results without external effects in section 5.2.4.

Figure 5-3-6a and Figure 5-3-6b show the simulation results of the zigzag

performance of ESSO OSAKA under combined wind and current effects. The

wind direction is 30 degrees while wind speed is 50kn and current direction is

30 degrees while current speed is 2kn. Obviously, the ship can not turn back

after second overshoot of starboard due to the overload external effects.

Generally saying, we can see that the simulation program runs well and at

118
least quantitatively has a good agreement with other simulation results which

had been regarded as good results compared with real situation. The wind

force change the shape of the ship's course more while current force changes

the ship speed and yaw rate more and make them much more oscillatory.

yaw angle v (deg)

1 1 1 1

r
— w
c
5

i / \ } \ i 100r

\ ' /

1 1 1 1
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400
time (s)

speed U (m/s)
1 1 1 1
|
1
speed m/s [

! ;
— :
-

11 i ii i i i i i ii : I
'0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400
time (s)

Figure 5-3-4a Speed and yaw of ESSO OSAKA zigzag under wind effect

119
 Zig-zag test under wind effect of 30 degree@50kn

1500

1000

500

o
Q.
*. 0

-500

-1000

500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500

x-position

Figure 5-3-4b Course of ESSO OSAKA zigzag under wind effect

yaw angle iy (deg)

15
— <v
10 — 8
c "
100r
5

0 /
/.'
-5

-10

-15 I

i 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400

time (s)

speed U (m/s)
4.02
speed m/s
4

3.98

3.96

3.94

3.92
200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400
time (s)

Figure 5-3-5a Speed and yaw ESSO OSAKA zigzag under current effect

120
 Zig-zag test under current effect
2000

1500

1000h

500

-500

-1000

-1500

500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 4500 5000
x-position

Figure 5-3-5b Course of ESSO OSAKA zigzag under current effect

yaw angle iy (deg)

20 I
— " M>
— c 8

10 100r

0 l/\
-10 \
-20
200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400
time (s)

speed U (m/s)

600 800 1200 1400

time (s)

Figure 5-3-6a Speed and yaw of ESSO OSAKA zigzag under wind and current
effects

121
 Zig-zag test under combined effect of overload wind and current

15004-

1000

-100Q

-1500H

500; 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500: 4000

^position-

Figure 5-3-6b Course of ESSO OSAKA zigzag under wind and current effects

5.3.2.3 Comparison with real trial

In section 5.2, the four tests of IMO Standards for Ship Maneuverability
have been done. Especially, the turning circle tests results of ESSO OSAKA
were shown in Figure 5-2-11 and Figure 5-2-12 and discussed in section 5.2.4.
As a next step of the validation, the results of the simulations are compared
with the experimental ship trials. The external wind effect and other condition
as shown in Table 5-2 are included in the simulation in order to try to make the
simulation closer to the real trials studied and reported by Crane (1979).

Table 5-2 Basic data of ESSO OSAKA sea trial

Wind Effects 11.9kn and - 15 degree

Tanker Speed 7.2 kn
Propeller 39 rpm as constant
Tanker rudder -34 degree

122
 Mathematically, this is similar to the simulation done earlier and presented

in Figure 5-2-11 and Figure 5-2-12 in section 5.2.4, but the wind effect and the

changes in rudder angles are properly represented in this case.

The tactical diameter obtained with these conditions is 1564 meter. This
value is obtained from Figure 5-3-7a. The simulation results are then
compared with the experimental tactical diameter reported by Crane (1979) in
Figure 5-3-7c, which is 1591 meter. The difference between these numbers is
1.7 percent. One can claim that a good agreement has been obtained between
the results of simulation done at UBC and the full scale experimental results.

There are obviously still some differences possibly due to following

reasons:
1) The test is in a shallow water area that water depth to draft ratio is
equal to 1.2. However, the governing equation model by Kim (1988)
did not consider the shallow water effects. Actually, none of the
mathematical models for ESSO OSAKA recommended by ITTC
(2002) considers the shallow water effects. We introduced shallow
water effects into the formulation by using OCIMF (1977) current
model which considering the water depth in details. We used the
quasi zero speed current condition to approximate the calm water
shallow water effects. Consequently, there might be some difference
between this methodology and the result of sea trial (refer to Chapter
4 for detailed methodology).

2) There should be some current effects which at least generated by the

wind, but the possible current strength was not reported.

The wind and current effects are then increased substantially to quantify

the effects of these parameters on ship maneuvering.

123
 Figure 5-3-7b shows the simulation results of yaw rate and speed. As the
requirement propeller rpm is 37 and the expected trial speed is 7.2 kn. The
initial disturbance and perturbation can be found at the beginning part of the
speed that the speed is rather constant after about 100 second and it has a
strong perturbation at very beginning seconds. That is because the initial
speed is set a somewhat higher than 7.2 kn.

E S S O turning circle under 11.9kn wind and 34 degree of rudder

-200 0 200/ 400; 600 800 1000 '1200 1400"

x-position

Figure 5-3-7a Course of simulation compared with Crane (1979)

124
 yaw rate r (deg/s)

-o.i :•

-0:2

-0.3r-

-0:4.',
' 0 500: 1000 1500
time (s)

speed U (m/s)
37 r ~ 1

3.695I

3.69 r

3.685

3.68 \ _
3.675
500 1000 1500
time (s)

Figure 5-3-7b Speed and yaw of simulation compared with Crane (1979)

125
 -4— 2 Km

"I I ' l l j. i i
Figure 5-3-7c Comparison result of Crane (1979)
r !, f I
5.3.2.4 Need for tug assistance

As it had been discussed in Chapter 4, a tug is a great help for a ship in bad

conditions. In this part, the result of the need for tug assistance will be

discussed with as example.

In this section, one escort tug, designed locally by Robert Allan Ltd. is

included in this work. Figure 5-3-8a shows the breaking force and steering

force that a tug can provide to ESSO OSAKA when it is turning under the

126
conditions given in Table-5-2(refer to Figure 5-3-7a Figure 5-3-7b and Figure

5-3-7c). Figure 5-3-8b shows the result of ESSO OSAKA turning circle with

escort tug assistance. The tactical diameter is 1547m here compared with

1564m in Figure 5-3-7a. In this case, the escort tug compensates all forces in

x and y direction but not the torque. With the tug's assistance, the tanker

can now maintain a better performance and increase its safety limitation in bad
weather. Through this simulation, the number of escort tug necessary for safe
maneuvering can be estimated.

3
Steering force
2-

1-

Q-

-1

o -2-1

-3-

-4- Breaking force

-5:-

-200; 0 ,200 400 600 800 1000 1 200 1400 1600 1800 2000
Time(Second)

Figure 5-3-8a Breaking force and Steering force for ESSO OSAKA

127
 Tuming circle with tug assistance-underthe sea trial condition
;

x-position

Figure 5-3-8b ESSO OSAKA turning circle with Escort tug assistance

5.4 Results and discussions of Control work

The control strategy is the one of the most important parts in the entering

harbor work. In this part, the performance of the control strategy will be

discussed.

During the simulation, ESSO OSAKA was required to turn 1.2 (rad) in to the
harbor under conditions of wind and current combined effects. The wind speed
chosen for simulation was 30 kn and coming from -30 degrees and current
speed is 1 kn coming from 30 degrees as well. The initial conditions for the
ship are given in Table 5-3.

128
 Table 5-3 Initial value of the ESSO OSAKA sailing into the harbor
u 4 m/s (7.8 kn)
V 0 m/s
W 0 rad
r 0 rad/s
Pre turn time 1s

Normally, we can see that the tanker sails straight at beginning until the

turning time. Figure 5-4-1 a shows the ship course as a result of simulation for

the ship entering in the harbor. In this case, the ship sails straight only just in

the very first second and enters in the regular turning water way as shown in

Figure 4-3-3. The heading angle used in simulation is given in Figure 5-4-1 b.

The yawing rate used in simulation is given in Figure 5-4-1 c. The rudder angle

used in simulation is given in Figure 5-4-1 d. The travel lengths in jtand y

direction of the simulation are shown in Figure 5-4-1 e and Figure 5-4-1 f. The
speeds of u and v of the simulation are shown in Figure 5-4-1 g and Figure
5-4-1 h.

From the pre-turning analysis, we know that the angle the ship should turn
is 1.2(rad) shown in Figure 5-4-1 b. From the result of simulation, we can see
that the heading angle is about 1.24(rad) after the 300 second. If we take the
th

300 second as a measure, we know that the error is about 3.3 percent in
th

turning angle. What's more, the error will be smaller as the time increases.

129
 X Y Plot

1800 2000
XAxis

Figure 5-4-1 a Course of entering harbor at an initial required angle of 1.2(rad)

' 0 100 200 300 400 500. 600" 700 800 900 1000
time (second)

Figure 5-4-1 b Heading angle-^ during the course

130
 1000
time(second)

Figure 5-4-1 c Yawing speed—r during the course

0.7,

0.6

0.5

.g -j I I i L ! j L 1 1 1 1
*0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000
time (second)

Figure 5-4-1 d Rudder angle-S during the course

131
 .3000

-E

time (second)'

Figure 5-4-1 e x-distance during the course

Figure 5-4-1 f y -distance during the course

132
 il L j ii i i i J i i I
0 100; 200 300: 400: 500. 600 700 800 900 1000
time(second)

Figure 5-4-1 g Surge velocity u during the course

0.25

_0 •) I ( i 1 L ii ii j i i 1
:
0 100 200 300 400 : 500 600; 700 800 900 1000
time(second)

Figure 5-4-1 h Sway velocity v during the course

5.5 Results and discussions of ship sailing into

Vancouver Harbor

After selecting various combinations of wind and current strengths, for

entering the harbor, one can obtain the possibility of a safe entrance into the
harbor by a given ship based on the strategy of pre turning discussed in
Chapter 4. A safe entrance means that the vessel is able to enter into the
harbor successfully through an appropriate waterway. The possibility if the
tanker can turn into the harbor is discussed here.

As it is stated before, the reported severe maximum wind condition around

Vancouver harbor is 65 kn from (-30 degrees) and the strength of tidal current
is around 5.5kn (-30 degrees). In Figure 5-5-1, consequently, the upper limit of
wind and current speeds are selected somewhat higher than maximum data
values as 80 kn and 6 kn as the scales of vertical and horizontal axes. Figure
5-5-1 shows three distinct areas which are labeled as safe, unsafe and
unknown. One can see that the "unknown" area covers a band where the
current speed is in the interval from 1.8 kn to 2.4 kn while wind speed is 0 kn.
And this unknown band can be defined as the limit of the safe operation. In
order to obtain more precise results, one can take more combinations of
current and wind effects in a certain area as shown Figure 5-5-2 which is called
finer mesh of the combination. Figure 5-5-2 shows a zoom-in area result where
wind speed is 0 kn to 20 kn and current speed is 1.75 kn to 1.95 kn. The limit of
the safe operation is 1.825 kn to 1.85 kn of current speed compared with 1.8
kn to 2.4 kn in Figure 5-5-1 while the wind speed is Okn. That is to say, we can
obtain a more precise result if we make a finer mesh of the combination.

As the tug's assistance was discussed in section 5.3.2.4, with the tug's

assistance, the tanker can, now maintain a better performance and increase its

134
safety limitation in bad weather. As a final simulation, Figure 5-5-3 shows that
such a tug can provide great assistance to ship course keeping and increases
the maneuvering performance of a ship at the entrance to a harbor. The limit of
the safe operation increases to 2.15 kn to 2.175 kn of current speed while the
wind speed is Okn compared with 1.825 kn to 1.85 kn without tug assistance
which is shown in Figure 5-5-2. Roughly, considering the difference of the
whole area between Figure 5-5-1 and Figure 5-5-3, the possibility of safe
operation increases about thirty-six percent with one escort tug compared to
the results obtained without help by escort tug under the same condition.

Generally saying, the possibilities of safe entrance into Vancouver harbor

with and without escort tug assistance can be obtained through Figure 5-5-1
and Figure 5-5-3. And from these results of the simulation, it is easy to find that
the current effect is stronger than wind effect for the ESSO OSAKA tanker in
Vancouver Harbor. It is difficult for ESSO OSAKA to enter into Vancouver
Harbor nearly 2/3 of the current condition even without wind. On the other
hand, it can enter in all condition of wind if no current in Vancouver harbor.

135
 Possibility of E S S O Osaka Turning into Vancouver Harbor

6.0 i 1 1 1 1 1 1

5.4 -

4.8 -

4.2 -
£ 3 . 6 \-

0 0 i 1 1 1 1 1 1 '
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
Wind Speed(kn)

Figure 5-5-1 Possibility of ESSO OSAKA turning into the harbor

Possibility of E S S O Osaka Turning into the Vancouver Harbor

1.951 1 1 r 1 i 1

1.925 f-

1.9k

;l I I I I I i I J
0 2.5 5 7.5 10 12.5 15 17.5 20
Wind Speed(kn)

Figure 5-5-2 Zoom-in result of Possibility of ESSO OSAKA turning into the
harbor without tug assistance

136
 Possibility with assistance from one tug
2.3

2.275 -

2.25 -

2.225 -

Wind Speed(kn)

Figure 5-5-3 Possibility of ESSO OSAKA turning into the harbor with tug
assistance

5.6 Summary

As the final results discussion chapter, all results of simulation have been
discussed. Some effects induced by important factors such as ship speed and
rudder angle were analyzed and discussed in detail.

From all the results above, following summaries can be obtained:

1) The simulation results without external effects were given at the

beginning. With hydrodynamic force derivatives data and governing

equations, some ships are tested in the simulation program based on

the final IMO Standard for Ship Maneuverability. After these

simulations, the test ships can be identified as "good" and "bad" IMO

137
 class ships. In addition, some important factors to ship performance are

also discussed.

2) The modeling work is good not only for the no external force effects but
also with external force effect. The result has good agreement with the
sea trial and a qualitatively good agreement with experimental trial and
other authorized simulation.

3) With PID control, the control loop works well the error is 3.3 percent at

the 300 second under a regular speed.

4) The possibilities of safe entrance for a tanker going into the harbor
have been obtained with and without escort tugs assistance.

138
Chapter 6 Summary and Conclusion
All the works from Chapter 1 to Chapter 5, have been presented step by
step, from the basic introduction, fundamental theory, modeling and
maneuvering theory, course keeping simulation and control until the final result.
In this chapter, summary and conclusion of the whole work above will be
finalized and drawn.

In this chapter, all summary, conclusion and future works are in technical
work and/or related field. The commercial content will be discussed in
Appendix E.

6.1 Summary of the whole work

As the results of this study have been finalized at Chapter 5, all the main

results will be reviewed again here.

1) At the beginning, in Chapter 1, in the introduction section, the

background, motivation and purpose of the thesis are given.

2) In Chapter 2, IMO Standards for ship Maneuverability were

reviewed and discussed. Starting from the evolution and original

conception of IMO Standard, the detailed criteria and tests have

been discussed.

3) In Chapter 3, Modeling and Maneuvering of Marine Vehicle were

discussed. Starting from definitions of reference frames, the marine
vehicle is considered as a 6 DOF rigid body, the basic equations
have been given. With the added mass and hydrodynamic force

139
 derivatives, the governing equations were given later in their

standard format. The detailed governing equations were given for

the 3 test ships while ESSO OSAKA was discussed much more in

detail.

4) In Chapter 4, Course keeping and Control of the simulation were

discussed. Starting from the discussion of external forces on the
ship, the OICMF (1977) model is employed together with the
Equation 3-3-3 in Chapter 3, the final governing equations for course
keeping were derived in this chapter and the tug model was added
as well. A pre distance and pre turn strategy and PID, the core
algorithm in the control system were designed for simulating a ship
entering into a harbor at the end of this chapter.

5) In Chapter 5, All results of simulation were discussed in this chapter.

Simulation results of two "good" and one "bad" IMO Class Ships are
given at the beginning of this chapter. Then, important course
keeping results and the simulation of ESSO OSAKA entering the
Vancouver Harbor were discussed. Starting from discussion and
comparison to some standard tests under wind and current effect
with some published results. The whole simulation system has been
proved as a good combination of current and wind prediction
program. With the strategy designed in Chapter 4, the conditions for
a ship sail safely into the Harbor with and without escort tug are
given at last at this Chapter.

6.2 Conclusion

As the displacements of tanker disaster become larger and larger in recent

years as well as the transport of biohazard substances rises, attention has

140
been increasingly focused on the requirements of proper prediction of ship

maneuverability and course keeping performance in order to enhance the

safety. This thesis, of course, increases the interest in the numerical

maneuvering and course keeping simulation programs, which are powerful

engineering tools for the investigation of the ship maneuverability and course

keeping performance especially the performance around harbor.

6.2.1 Existing maneuvering and course keeping model

The conclusion of this study of different kinds of maneuvering and course

keeping simulation theories applied nowadays, is that state of art method for
ship maneuvering and course keeping simulation covers the full mission
simulators, based on numerical solution of the governing equations with full
hydrodynamics data from experiments. These data can be obtained regularly
from the tests done with a Planar Motion Mechanism (PMM).

Considering the most current IMO Standard for Ship Maneuverability, the
well studied and documented tanker ESSO OSAKA 278,000 DWT is employed
as an objective vessel. The available mathematical models are mainly the
three, SNU, KRISO and HSMB models. The model of KRISO is selected and
revised for the IMO Standard test.

6.2.2 Application of the model and the program in this

thesis

This simulation program based on suitable captive model test data appears

to be capable of simulating and predicting with suitable accuracy the ship

maneuvering and course keeping performance.

141
 The simulation program produces valid results using comparisons with
experimental data for all four IMO Standard ship maneuvering tests, namely:
the turning circle test, the zigzag maneuver test, the full astern test, and the
initial turning test. The simulations for the above tests are all performed at calm
water conditions, with no external wind and current effects. Specifically, the
test results for ESSO OSAKA 278,000DWT have been used for validation.
This ship can be judged to be a "good" ship as the simulation suggests that
she satisfies all of the IMO requirements. The previous studies of PC based
maneuvering simulation had worked on turning circle and zigzag but were not
specific enough. Rudder effects and propeller effects have been considered
into this study and the simulation results have been advanced and are more
close to the real trial. This advance work is not only done to ESSO OSAKA, it
also can be used to other vessel as long as the hydrodynamics data are
provided. Other simulation results of "good" ship example and "bad" ship
example are also given.

Concerning the ship course keeping performance under external effects,

the wind and current forces have been considered in detail, as one of the goals
of this study is to identify the limits of safe entrance into Vancouver Harbor,
where the wind and current forces could be significant. The model of OCIMF
has been used for the simulation of the wind and current forces together with
the maneuvering equations which were reported by Kim (1998). The
simulation results and the results of real trials showed a good agreement and
the error is about 1.7 percent for significant lengths. The important factors
which might affect ship performance are discussed.

With the help of PID control, the simulation of safe entrance of a tanker into

the Vancouver harbor was done, including wind and current forces. The

conditions used included the worst weather conditions reported for the

Vancouver Harbor in recent years. The current effect is found to be more

142
important and severe than the wind effects for this harbor. The tug assistance

that was simulated proved to be significant, improving the safety at harbor

entrance. The simulation is able to quantify the effectiveness of an escort tug

in wind and current conditions.

6.3 Recommendations and future works

The simulation work presented in this paper can not only benefit those
seeking to learn about ship maneuvering but it can also be used as a building
block for future simulation programs.

6.3.1 Recommendations

There are lots of researchers doing related work in the ship maneuvering
fields as shown in the references in earlier chapters. Some recommendations
of this thesis might be useful for their reference.

1) Rudder and propeller interaction should be considered in the

governing equation. The adjustment of rudder and/or propeller
would be easy to apply into the vessel so as to improve its
maneuverability or change a "bad" ship into a "good" ship.

2) Wave effect could be added into the governing equation as so to

make the result of simulation more close to the sea trial.

3) The control strategy could be advanced although PID is a good

algorithm for ship autopilot problem.

4) The control strategy of the tug can be studied for improving the

assistance to the tanker entering into the harbor.

143
 5) Ship model test in towing tank could be done as the data in this work

is somewhat old and not precise enough in some parts. This test

must be done if one plans to re do the modeling work especially for

multiple rudders or propellers assistance and MMG model can be

employed.

6.3.2 Future works

As the extension of this thesis' work, the numerical simulation of a "good"

tanker entering into a harbor successfully, some of the future works are listed
as follows and the recommendations above might be considered as well:

1) The ship maneuverability and course keeping ability in Fraser River

approaches to Juan de Fuca Strait for various weather conditions
should be quantified.

2) As the continuity work of this thesis, the ship maneuvering and

course keeping problems in the restricted waterway, insider the
harbor should be studied.

3) The mooring and docking problem could be studied as the final

stage of a ship entering a harbor.

4) The interaction between ships should be studied as there are

normally at least two ships in the area of inside harbor as shown in

Figure 1-5 and Figure 1-6.

144
6.4 Commercial applications

As stated in section 6.2 and section 6.3, the program can be used for
simulating ship planar motion with wind and current effects together with escort
tug assistance. All technical conclusions and recommendations were covered.
In additional, in this section, the commercial applications and value will be
discussed.

6.4.1 General

At present time, the program might not be used as a commercial software

as it does not yet have user friendly pre and post processes. However, after
some improvements or those future works, the software can be upgraded. The
software can be used for education in the fields of ship maneuvering, course
keeping and ship dynamics. It can be used for testing if a ship is a "good" ship.
It can be used for ship maneuverability prediction. What's more, it might be
used as a simple game.

6.4.2 Future works and recommendations for

commercial application

In this section, the future works and recommendations for commercial

applications are given:

• With more detailed data, compared with sea trial and captain's

experience, expertise system could be developed. A joy stick

control can be added to the program.

• The program, now, is still based on experimental data. With the

145
numerical solution work for ship hydrodynamics force derivatives,

the program can be more complete. Simulations can be done

and the ships can be evaluated before the ship hull is built.

• Friendly user interface could be designed using VB or VC++

so that the program can be more commercialized.

• More real condition could be applied so that the program could

be more commercialized.

146
 Bibliography
1) 15 ITTC(1978)
th

2) 22 ITTC(1999)
nd

3) 23 ITTC (2002)
rd

4) A 751 (18) (IMO)

5) Abkowitz, M.A. (1964) "Lectures on ship hydrodynamics : steering and
manoeuvrability" Hydro- and Aerodynamics Laboratory Report No 5
6) Abkowitz. M.A.(1980) "Measurement of Hydrodynamics Characteristics
from Ship Maneuvering Trials by System Identification " SNAME
Transaction Vol. 88 1980 pp 283-318
7) Abkowitz .M.A and Zheng C(1984) " Trajectory Predictions for a ship
moving in a canal" Report No. MIT-OE-84-8 July 1984 MIT
8) Ambrossovski,V.M and Rumyantsev S N (1994)" Numerical simulation of
non regular wave disturbance in ship simulation problem" International
conference on Manuevering and control of marine vehicle 1994 pp
135-145
9) Amerongen V J (1984)" Adaptive Steering of ship" Automatica Vol 20 No. 1
1984 pp 3-14
10) Astrom, K. J. and Hagglund T (1988) " Automatic Tuning of PID
Controllers" Instrument Society of America(ISA), Research Triangle Park,
North Carolina, USA
11) Baquero, A (1982) " An Analysis of the Behavior of Ships under
Steering—Hydrodynamics and Design Feature" El Pardo Tanker Report
No.66 1982
12) Bardarson, H.R., Wagner, L. and Chislett, M.S. (1967) "The effect of
rudder configuration on turning ability of trawler forms, model and full scale
test with special reference to a conversion to purse-seiners" Technical
Report Hy-9, Hydro- and Aerodynamics Laboratory, Lyngby, Demark

147
 March 1967.
13) Barr, R. (1993)"A review and comparison of Ship Maneuvering Simulation
Methods". SNAME Transaction Vol 101 1993 pp 609-635

14) Bar. R. & Martin L. L (1980) "Discussion and reply --Ship Maneuvering
and Control in Wind" SNAME Transaction Vol 88 1980 pp257-281

15) Berlekom, W. B. V. and Goddard, T. A. (1972) " Maneuvering of Large

Tankers" SNAME Transaction Vol. 80 1972 pp 264-298
16) Biancardi, C.G. (1988 )" On a simplified mathematical model for an
onboard maneuvering simulator and its potential applications to ship
control" International Shipbuilding progress V 35 No 401 1988 pp81-95
17) Bucher, W. E. (1989) "Dynamics Positioning of a Floating OTEC Plant
Using Current-Derived Forces" Marine Technology Vol 26 No 3 July 1989
pp 233-244
18) Chislett, M. S. and Strom-Tejsen,J.(1965) "Planar Motion Mechanism Tests
and Full-Scale Steering and Maneuvering Predictions for Mariner Class
Vessel", Technical Report Hy-6, Hydro- and Aerodynamics Laboratory,
Copenhagen, Demark.
19) Clarke, D. and Hearn, G.E.(1994) " The IMO Criterion for Ship Stopping
Ability" The 3 rd
international conference on maneuvering and control
marine craft 7-9 Sept 1994 pp 9-19
20) Crane, C. L. Jr. (1973)" Maneuvering Safety of Large Tankers : Stopping
Turning, and Speed selection" Transaction of SNAME Vol. 81 1973
21) Crane, C. L. Jr. (1979) "Maneuvering Trials of a 278,000-DWT Tanker in
Shallow and Deep Waters" SNAME Transaction Vol. 87 1979 pp 251-283
22) Daidola, J .Wayne, L. and Barr. R (2002) "Evolution of IMO Standard
for maneuverability" SNAME Transactions Vol 110 2002 pp395-411
23) Davidson, K.S.M and Shift. L.I. (1946)" Turning and Course Keeping
Qualities of Ships" SNAME Transaction 1946

24) DE44/4 (2000) Japan-Revision of the interim Standards for ship

manoverability, 1 Decemeber, 2000
st

148
25) DE 44/4/1 (2000) Note by the secretariat Compilation of maneuvering Data,
12 December 2000
th

26) DE 44/4/2 (2000) Republic of Korea- Ship maneuvering Data, 20 th

December, 2000

27) DE 45 (2002)Netherlands Proposal for the revision of the interim

Standards for ship maneuverability, undated distributed at DE 45 March
2002
28) DE 45/3 (2001) Republic of Korea" Proposal for the revision of the interim
Standard for ship maneuverability, 14 December 2001
th

29) DE 45/3/1 (2002) Japan -"Criteria on the overshoot angles in zigzag test
(Assembly resolution A. 751 (18))," January 2002
30) DE 45/3/2 (2002)Japan Revision of Assembly resolutions A. 751(18) and
MSC/Circ. 644" 11 January 2002
,h

31) DE46 (2003)

32) Djouani.K. and Hamam, Y. (1996)" Feedback Optimal Neural Network
Controller For Dynamic Systems-A Ship Maneuvering Example"
Mathematics and Computers in Simulation Vol 41 1996 pp 117-127
33) Doerffer, J.W.(1980)" Standardization of ship maneuvering characteristics"
Computer Applications in Shipping and Shipbuilding Vol 8 1980 pp
163-169
34) Eda, H. (1971) "Directional Stability and Control of Ships in Restricted
Channels" Transaction of SNAME Vol. 79 1971
35) Eda, H. and Crane, C. L. Jr. (1965) " Steering Characteristics of Ships in
Calm Water and Waves" Transaction of SNAME Vol. 73 1965
36) Eda, H., Falls.R. and Walden, D.A.(1979) "Ship Maneuvering Safety
Studies" SNAME Transaction Vol. 87 1979 pp 229-250
37) Encarnacao, P., Pascoal, A. and Arcak, M.(2000) " Path Following for
autonomous marine craft" the 5 International conference on Maneuvering
th

and control of marine vehicle 2000

38) Ewing, J.A.(1990) " Wind, wave and current data for design of ships and

149
 offshore structures" Marine Structure No 3 1990 pp 421-459
39) Fang, M. C. and Kim, C. H. (1986) "Hydrodynamically coupled motion
motions of two ships advancing in oblique waves" Journal of Ship
Research Vol.30 No.3 Sept 1986 pp 159-171

40) Field, A. I. (2000) "Simulation, Modeling and Control of a Near Surface

Underwater Vehicle" [M.A.Sc Thesis]
41) Field, A.I., Cherchas, D.B. and Calisal, S.M. (2000)"Optimal Control for an
Autonomous Underwater Vehicle", World Automation Congress 2000,
Maui, Hawaii, June 11-16, 2000; also appeared in Intelligent Automation &
Control, Recent Trends in Development & Applications, Vol. 9, TSI Press
Series, 2000; also in textbook SURT 2000, Spring, 2001
42) Field, A.I., Ostafichuk, P.M., Cherchas, D.B. and Calisal, S.M.(1999)
"Feedback Control Methods for an Underwater Vehicle", 5th Canadian
Marine Hydromechanics and Structures Conference, St. John's
Newfoundland, July 8-9, 1999.
43) Fossen, T. I. (2000). A Survey on Nonlinear Ship Control: From Theory to
Practise, Plenary Talk, Proceedings of the 5th IFAC Conference on

Manoeuvring and Control of Marine Craft, 2000, Aalborg, Denmark

44) Fossen T.I.(2001). Matlab GNC Toolbox (Vers. 1.6). Marine Cybernetics
AS, Trondheim. <www.marinecybernetics.com>
45) Gray, W. O, Waters, J. K., Blume A. L. and Landsburg, A. C.(2003)
"Channel Design and Vessel Maneuverability : Next Steps" Marine
Technology Vol. 40 No.2 April 2003 pp 93-105
46) Geer, D.W.(1998) " Total Ship real time control "Naval Engineers Journal
Vol 110 1998 pp 225-234
47) Govindaraj.T and Arnott, D. R. (1981) " Maneuvering a large ship:
comparison of a control theoretic model of the pilot and real time
simulation" Joint Automatic control conference 1981

48) Griffin, O. M. (1988) "Ship Wave Modification by a Surface Current Field"

Journal of Ship Research, Vol. 32 No. 3 Sept 1988 pp 186-193
150
49) Grue, J (1986) "Time-Periodic Wave Loading on a Submerged Circular
Cylinder in a current" Journal of Ship Research Vol. 30 No.3 Sept 1986
153-158

50) Guo. C.S. (1981)"Nonlinear Theory of Ship Maneuvering" Journal of Ship

Research Vol. 25 No. 1 March 1981 pp 21-43

51) Hasegawa, K. and Sasaki, Y. (1997) "Java-based simulation tool for ship
maneuvering" 4 th
International conference on Maneuvering and control of
marine vehicle 1997 pp139-144
52) Hirano.M. (1981) " Practiacal Calculation Method of ship maneuvering
motion at intial design stage" Naval Architecture and Ocean Engineering
Vol 19 1981 pp68-80
53) Inglis, R.B. Mikelis, N.E. Price,W.G. and Waite, J.B.(1981)" Comparison of
Restricted Open water ship maneuvering acceleration derivatives
evaluated by finite element an boundary integral methods" International
shipbuilding Progress Vol. 28 No. 320 April 1981
54) Inoue.S. Hirano.M. and Kijima, K. (1981a)" Hydrodynamic derivatives on
ship maneuvering" International shipbuilding Progress V 28 No 321 1981
pp112~125
55) Inoue.S., Hirano,M., Kijima, K. and Tskshina, J.(1981b) " Practical
Calculation method of ship maneuvering motion" International shipbuilding
Progress V 28 No 325 Sept 1981
56) ITTC Symbols and Terminology List (ITTCST00) 1999 prepare by 22 nd

ITTCST group.
57) ITTC Symbols and Terminology List (ITTCST02) 2002 prepare by 23 rd

ITTCST group
58) Izadi-Zamanabadi R. and Blanke M. (1999), A Ship Propulsion System
Model for Fault-Tolerant Control, Control Engineering Practice, 7(2), pp
227-239

59) Janke-Zhao, Y. J.(1994) "Maneuvering Motion Simulation of Twin-Screw

Ships" Schiffstechnik Vol 41 1994 pp 3-16

151
60) Jiang, T. and Schellin, T. E.(1990) " Motion prediction of a single-point
moored tanker subjected to current wind and waves" Journal of Offshore
Mechanics and Arctic Engineering Vol 112 Feb 1990 pp 83~90

61) Kazuhiko, H. and Yoshimichi, S.(1997) " Java-Based simulation Tool For
Ship Maneuvering" IFAC the 4 International Conference on Maneuvering
th

and Control of Marine Crafts 1997 (MCMC 97')

62) Kim,S.Y. (1988) "Development of Maneuverability Prediction Technique"
KIMM Report No. UCE.337-1082.D.

63) Kray, C. J.(1973) " Design of ship channels and maneuvering areas"
Journal of the waterways, harbors and coastal engineering,Vo 99 Feb
1973pp89-110
64) Kobatashi, E. (1988) " Simulation study on ship maneuverability of low
speed" Mitsubishi Technical Bulletin Vol 180 1988
65) Kose, K. (1982)" On a New Mathematical Model of Maneuvering motions
of a Ship and its applications" International shipbuilding Progress V 29 No
336 Aug 1982 pp 205-220
66) Kvam, K., Ohtsu, K. and Fossen, T. I. (2000)" Optimal Ship Maneuvering
Using Bryson and Ho's Time Varying LQ Controller" IFAC the 5 th

International Conference on Maneuvering and Control of Marine Crafts

1997(MCMC 00')
67) Landsburg, A. C . , Card, J. C , Crane, C. L. Jr., Alman, P. R., Bertsche, W.
R., Boylston, J. W., Eda, H., Keith, V. F., McCallum, I. R., Miller, E. R. Jr.
and Taplin, A.(1983) " Design and Verification for Adequate Ship
Maneuverability" SNAME Transaction Vol. 91 1983 pp 351-401
68) Lauvdal, T. (1994) "Matlab Simulation Program for Marine and Flight
Vehicles" NTH Report No. 94-43-W <www.ntno.no>

69) Lewis, E.V.(1988) "Principles of Naval Architecture" SNAME

70) Li, M. and Wu, X. (1990)" Simulation calculation and comprehensive

assessment on ship maneuverabilities in wind wave current and shallow
water" Journal of hydrodynamics pp No 4 1990 59-72

152
71) Martin, L. L. (1980)" Ship Maneuvering and Control in Wind" SNAME
Transaction Vol. 88 1980 pp 257-281

72) Martins.M.R., Brinati, H.L, Aranha, J.A.P. and Leite, A.J.P.(1999)

" Influence of the wave current interaction on drift loads in FPSO" 9 th

International Offshore and Polar Engineering Conference 1999 pp259-264

73) Masayoshi.H. (1981)" Practical Calculation Method of Ship Maneuvering

Motion at Initial Design Stage" Naval Architecture and Ocean Engineering
Vol 19 1981 pp 68-80
74) Matsumoto, N. and Suemitsu, K. (1980): The Prediction of Maneuvering
Performances by Captive Model Tests, J of Kansai S.N.A., Japan No. 176
(1980) (in Janpanese)
75) McCreight, W.R. (1986)" Ship maneuvering in waves" 16 Symposium on
th

Naval Hydrodynamics, 1986

76) Miller, E. R. Jr., Van, D. P., Lord, R.S. and Conrad, R.E.(1984) " Use of
Real-time maneuvering simulations in the contract design evaluation of a
salvage ship" Naval Engineers Journal Vol 96 1984 pp 53-58
77) Molland, A.F. and Turnock, S.R.(1994)" Prediction of ship rudder-propeller
interaction at low speeds and in four quadrants of operarion" International
conference on Maneuvering and control of marine vehicle 1994 pp319-333
78) MSC76 (2002)
79) MSC/Circ 644 (1993)
80) MSC/Circ 1053 (2002)
81) Newman, J.N. (1977) "Marine Hydrodynamics" MIT Press Cambridge MA
82) Nishimoto.K., Brinati,H.L. and Fucatu, C. H. (1995) " Analysis of Single
point moored tanker using maneuvering hydrodynamics model"
Proceedings of the 14 international conference on offshore mechanics
th

and arctic engineering( OMAE) 1995 pp 253-261

83) Nomoto, K., Taguchi, T. , Honda, K. and Hirano, S. (1957) "On Steering
Qualities of Ships" Technical Report International shipbuilding progress Vol
4 No 35

153
84) Oltmann, P. and Sharma, S. D. (1984) " Simulation of Combined Engine
and Rudders Maneuvers Using an Improved Model of
Hull-Propeller-Rudder Interactions" 15 Naval Hydrodynamics symposium
th

1984.

85) Ostafichuk, P. M. (2004) [Pete's PhD thesis in preparation]

86) Ostafichuk, P.M., Field, A.I., Calisal, S.M., and Cherchas, D.B.(1999)
"Low-Speed Wind Tunnel Flow Visualization for the Study of Submarine
Control Surface Effectiveness", 5th Canadian Marine Hydromechanics and
Structures Conference, St. John's Newfoundland, July 8-9, 1999.
87) the Oil Companies International Marine Forum (OCIMF) (1977)
" Prediction of Wind and Current Loads on VLccs" 1977
88) Palomares.M. (1994) "The Role of IMO in setting Maneuvering standards"
IFAC MCMC 94'
89) Pourzanjani, 1(1990). " Formulation of the force mathematical model of
ship maneuvering" International shipbuilding Progress Vol 37 No 409 1990
pp 5-32
90) Radko, T.(2001)" Ship waves in a stratified fluid" Journal of Ship Research
Vol. 45 No.1 March 2001 pp 1-12
91) Ratcliff, A. (2004) [ MASC Thesis in preparation]
92) Seborg,D.E., Edgar.T. and Mellichamp, F. (1989): "Process Dynamics and
Control" Wiley, New York USA
93) Segel, L.(1960) " Ship Maneuverability as Influenced by transient
Response to the Helm" First Symposium on Ship Maneuverability, DTRC
Report 1461 Oct 1960
94) Skjetne, R. and Fossen, T. I. (2001). "Nonlinear Maneuvering and Control
of Ships", Proc. of Oceans 2001 MTS/IEEE conference, Vol. 3 , pp. 1808
-1815, November, 2001
95) SNAME T&R Bulletin 1-5 (1950) "Nomenclature for treating the motion of a
submerged body trough a fluid" 1950.

96) SNAME T&R Bulletin 1-94 (1990)"Design workbook on ship

154
 maneuverability" 1990
97) SNAME T&R Report R-22(1976)" Effect of Rudder Rate on Maneuvering
Performance of a Large Tanker" 1976

98) Son, and Nomoto, (1981) "On the Coupled Motion of Steering and Rolling
of a High Speed Container Ship" Naval Architecture and Ocean
Engineering Vol 150 No.20 1981 pp 73-83

99) The Specialist Committee on ESSO OSAKA(2002) "Final Report and

Recommendations to 23 ITTC" Proceeding of 23 ITTC(2002) Vol 2.
rd rd

100) Sphaier, S.H., Ferhandes, A . C , Pontes, L.G.S. and Correa,S.H.(1998)

"Waves and current influence in the FPSO dynamics" 8 th
International
Offshore and Polar Engineering Conference 1998 pp278-283
101) SR 125 (1975): Research on Seakeeping Performances of
Super-High-Speed Container Ships, SR Report No. 211 1975 (in
Japanese)
102) Timour, R. (2001) " Ship waves in a stratified fluid" Journal of Ship
Research Vol 45 No 1 2001 pp1-12
103) Van Berlekon, W.B., Trangardh, P. and A.Dellhag(1974) Large
Tankers-Wind Coefficients and Speed Loss Due to Wind and Sea. In:
Meeting at the Royal Institution of Naval Architects, April 25 1974, London.
pp41-58
104) Varyani,K.S., Hamoudi.B., Hannah, S. and McGregor, R.C. (1997a)
" Effect of propeller and rudder parameters on shallow water maneuvering
simulation of full form ships" 4 th
International conference on Maneuvering
and control of marine vehicle 1997 pp 145-148
105) Varyani,K.S., Hamoudi.B. and McGregor, R.C. (1997b) "Interactive
forces between three ships in a restricted waterway" Effect of propeller and
rudder parameters on shallow water maneuvering simulation of full form
ships" 4 th
International conference on Maneuvering and control of marine
vehicle 1997 pp 149-155

106) Wagner,V.B.(1967) "Windkrafte an Uberwasserschiffen". In Schiff und

155
 Hafen Heft 12 19 Jahrgang. Pp 894-900 (in German)

107) Whalley, R. and Ebrahimi, M. (2003) " Optimum Ship

Steering-Stabilization Control" Journal of Ship Research Vol. 47 No.3 Sept

2003 pp 237-246

108) Webb D. W. and Hewlett, J. C.r(1992)" Ship Simulation of the Huston

Ship Channel" PORTS' 92 Vol 1 pp 898-911

109) Webster W.C. (1992)"Shiphandling simulation Application to Waterway
Design" National Academy Press 1992
110) Williem B. V. B. and Thomas A. G.(1972)"Maneuvering of Large
Tankers" SNAME Transaction Vol 80 1972 pp264-298
111) Yeung,R.W.(1978) " On the interaction of slender ships in shallow
water" Journal of fluid mechanics. Vol 85 1978

156
 Appendix A Maneuvering characteristics

In this part, those important maneuvering characteristics are discussed and

most of them selected from MSC/Circ 1053 or other official documents.

Practically, there are really hundreds of maneuvering characteristics in the

whole world no matter in which ocean and country and it is also an important
reason why the standard was not uniform in the past time, therefore IMO tried
to make select some regular as the major characteristics. Those addressed by
the new IMO Standards for ship maneuverability and the Explanatory Notes to
the Standards for Ship Maneuverability are typical measures of performance
quality and handling ability that are of direct nautical interest. Every one of
them can be reasonably well predicted at the early design stage and measured
or evaluated from simple trial-type maneuvers and tests.

A.1 General Discussion

According to the MSC/Circ1053, in the following part of discussion, the

assumption of these topics is made that the ship has normal actuators for the

control of forward speed and heading (i.e., a stern propeller and a stern

rudder). However, most of the definitions and conclusions also apply to ships

with other types of control actuators although they will not be discussed in this

thesis.

In accepted terminologies, discussion mainly concerned with two problem:

one is the stability of steady-state motion with "fix controls" and another is the

time-dependent modify steady motion, make the ship follow a prescribed path

or initiate an emergency maneuver.

157
A.2 Detailed Fundamental Characteristics

These detail fundamental characteristics have been discussed and

selected by DE of IMO times by times since MSC/Circ 389 though MSC/Circ
644 till MSC/Circ 1053. It seems the results now are finalized although they will
be slightly changed after DE 47 March 2004. In this part, some of them will be
given and discussed here while most of which are selected from
MSC/Circ1053:

A.2.1 Steady radius

At a given propeller speed rpm and rudder angle 5, the ship may take up a
certain steady motion. In general, this will be a turning motion with constant
yaw rate r, speed V and drift angle B (please refer to Chapter 3 for detail
symbol definitions with illustrations). The radius of the turn is then defined by
the following relationship, expressed in consistent unit:

R = y/r.

Obviously, this particular ship-rudder angle configuration can be regarded

as "dynamically stable in a turn of radius R". Consequently, a straight course
may be viewed as part of a very wide circle with an infinite radius,
corresponding to zero yaw rate.

A.2.2 Dynamically stable

Most ships, perhaps, are "dynamically stable on a straight course" (usually

referred to as simply "dynamically stable") with the rudder in a neutral position

close to midship. In the case of a single screw ship with a right-handed

propeller, this neutral helm is typically of the order of rudder angle is one

degree (i.e., one degree to starboard). Other ships which are dynamically

unstable, however, can only maintain a straight course by repeated use of

158
rudder control. While some instability is fully acceptable, large instabilities

should be avoided by suitable design of ship proportions and stern shape.

A.2.3 Forces and moments during the maneuver

The motion of the ship is governed mainly by the propeller thrust and the
hydrodynamic and mass forces acting on the hull and these are the key things
in the simulation problem. During a maneuver, normally, the side force due to
the rudder is often small compared to the other lateral forces. However, the
introduced controlling moment is mostly sufficient to balance or overcome the
resultant moment of these other forces. In a steady turn there is complete
balance between all forces and moments acting on the hull. Some of these
forces seem to "stabilize" and others to "destabilize" the motion. Thus the
damping moment due to yaw, which always resists the turning, is stabilizing
and the moment associated with the side force due to sway is destabilizing.
Any small disturbance of the equilibrium attitude in the steady turn causes a
change of the force and moment balance. If the ship is dynamically stable in
the turn (or on a straight course) the net effect of this change will strive to
restore the original turning (or straight) motion.

A.2.4 Trim effect

It is well understood that a change of trim will have a marked effect mainly

on the location of the centre-of-pressure of the side force resulting from sway.

This is easily seen that a ship with a stern trim, a common situation in ballast

trial condition, is likely to be much more stable than it would be on an even

draught.

A.2.5 Unbalanced turn

If motion is not in an equilibrium turn, which is the general case of motion,

159
there are not only unbalanced damping forces but also hydrodynamic forces

associated with the added inertia in the flow of water around the hull.

Therefore, if the rudder is left in a position the ship will search for a new stable

equilibrium. If the rudder is shifted (put over "to the other side") the direction of

the ship on the equilibrium turning curve is reversed and the original yaw

tendency will be checked. By use of early counter-rudder it is fully possible to

control the ship on a straight course with helm angles and yaw rates well within

the loop.

A.2.6 The course-keeping ability and inherent stability

The course keeping ability is a very important characteristic in ship

maneuvering research, which is also called "path keeping" or "directional
stability" sometimes and it is a major topic in this thesis. The concept of course
keeping is strongly related to the concept of inherent stability. Obviously, it
depends on the performance of the closed loop system including not only the
ship and rudder but also the course error sensor and control system. Therefore,
the acceptable amount of inherent dynamic instability decreases as ship speed
increases and covers more ship lengths in a given period of time. And it is
because a human helmsman will face a certain limit of conceptual capacity
and response time. This fact is reflected in the IMO Standards for ship
maneuverability where the criterion for the acceptable first overshoot in a
zigzag test includes a dependence on the ratio L/V, a factor characterizing the
ship "time constant" and the time history of the process which will be discussed
in the later part of this chapter.

The various kinds of motion stability associated with ships are classified by

attributes of their initial state of equilibrium that are retained in the final path of

their centers of gravity. It is well classified as 6 types by Arentzen(1960) which

is shown in Figure A-1.

1 6 0
 \ 1 w I 1 ;

QftlOtMAt STHAIBWT ">_C

S. MNAL PATH IS STRAIGHT BUT

I STRAIGHT U N € STftfilHTY X^OtRECTlOM CHANGED

ORIGINAL STftAJCHT FINAL "ATM,!AM« _

OiRCCTION AS
LINE PATH ^""V >>^"
ORIGINAL. *ATM 8UT
H DIRECTIONAL STABILITY OlFTEftKNT «J5iriON
v

_ (WITH COMRJEX STABILITY INDEXES)

ORtGINAt STRAIGHT
FINAL'PATH. SAME AS CASE *

Tj DIRECTIONAL STA8lli|TYc ;

(VWH ftBit STA8ILTY INDEXES)

FINAL PATH, SAM€ ~

^ OmtC T\QN ANO f»OS< TlOW A3
tlMt-PATM; "*>v >^ ^ S ^ - ^ ' o f N G i N A L PATH

JSf POSITIONAL MOTION STABILITY

—" INDICATES INSTANTANEOUS DISTURBANCE ^

Figure A-1 Various kinds of motion stabilities (Arentzen, 1960)

Mathematically, in Figure A-2, the motion stability can be classified by

Fan(1988) as follows:

1) The ship can keep its original way after the disturbance.

Mathematically, t -><*>,Ar -> 0,Ay/ -> 0 and Ay —> 0 which is G

called "position stability".

2) The heading angle is the same as the original angle but the way is

not the same( that is to say the final way is parallel to the original

161
 one. Mathematically, t - > oo,Ar -> 0,Ay/ -> 0 but Aj * 0 namely
G

"directional stability". .

3) The ship keeps the direction of a new water way. Mathematically,

t -> °°,Ar -> o,Ay> -> constant and Ay ^0
G namely, "linear

stability".

4) The ship goes in a curvilinear waterway, t^><*>,Ar *0,Ay/ *0

and AyG * 0.

Figure A-2 Ship stability performance after disturbance (From Fan 1988)

Obviously, a ship with position stability must have linear stability and
directional stability. A ship with directional stability must have linear stability.
The ship without linear stability does not have either of position stability and
directional stability.

In terms of control engineering, the acceptable inherent instability or

stability may be expressed by the "phase margin" available in the open loop. If
the rudder is oscillated with a certain amplitude, ship heading also oscillates at
the same frequency with a related amplitude. Due to the inertia and damping in

162
the ship dynamics and time delays in the steering engine, this amplitude will be
smaller with increasing frequency, meaning the open loop response will lag
further and further behind the rudder input. At some certain frequency, the "unit
gain" frequency, the response to the counter-rudder is still large enough to
check the heading swing before the oscillation diverges (i.e., the phase lag of
the response must then be less than 180°). If a manual helmsman takes over
the heading control, closing the steering process loop, a further steering lag
could result but, in fact, he will be able to anticipate the swing of the ship and
thus introduce a certain "phase advance". Various studies suggest that this
phase advance may be of the order of 10° to 20°. At present time, there is no
straightforward method available for evaluating the phase margin from routine
trial maneuvers.

Obviously, the course-keeping ability will depend not only upon the
counter-rudder timing but also on how effectively the rudder can produce a
yaw checking moment large enough to prevent excessive heading error
amplitudes. The magnitude of the overshoot angle alone is a poor measure for
separating the opposing effects of instability and rudder effectiveness,
additional characteristics should therefore be observed. So, for instance, "time
to reach second execute", which is a measure of "initial turning ability", is
shortened by both large instability and high rudder effectiveness.

A.2.7 Hard-over turning ability

Hard over turning ability always exists in aircraft maneuver or ship

maneuver problem. It is mainly an asset when maneuvering at slow speed in

confined waters. However, a small advance and tactical diameter will be of

value in case emergency collision avoidance maneuvers at normal service

speeds are required.

163
A.2.8 The "crash-stop" ability

The crash stop is also a pretty important performance of a marine vehicle

which is known "crash-astern" maneuver as well. It is mainly a test of engine
functioning and propeller reversal. The stopping distance is essentially a
function of the ratio of astern power to ship displacement. A test for the
stopping distance from full speed has been included in the Standards in order
to allow a comparison with hard-over turning results in terms of initial speed
drop and lateral deviations.

A . 3 . C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s Defined

From the description in Chapter A, one can find that there are still too many
characteristics to be considered although IMO had selected them from much
more larger number of maneuvering characteristics. However, one have to
choose what is important from them to save work and get a better efficient.
Therefore, the IMO Standards for ship maneuverability identify significant
qualities for the evaluation of ship maneuvering characteristics. Each has been
discussed above and is finally selected and defined below as written in
MSC/Circ 1053:

1) Inherent dynamic stability:

A ship is dynamically stable on a straight course if it, after a small

disturbance, soon will settle on a new straight course without any

corrective rudder. The resultant deviation from the original heading will

depend on the degree of inherent stability and on the magnitude and

duration of the disturbance.

2) Course-keeping ability:

164
The course-keeping quality is a measure of the ability of the steered

ship to maintain a straight path in a predetermined course direction

without excessive oscillations of rudder or heading. In most cases,

reasonable course control is still possible where there exists an

inherent dynamic instability of limited magnitude.

3) Initial turning/course-changing ability:

The initial turning ability is defined by the change-of-heading response

to a moderate helm, in terms of heading deviation per unit distance
sailed (the P number) or in terms of the distance covered before
realizing a certain heading deviation (such as the "time to second
execute" demonstrated when entering the zigzag maneuver).

4) Yaw checking ability:

The yaw checking ability of the ship is a measure of the response to

counter-rudder applied in a certain state of turning, such as the
heading overshoot reached before the yawing tendency has been
cancelled by the counter-rudder in a standard zigzag maneuver.

5) Turning ability:

Turning ability is the measure of the ability to turn the ship using

hard-over rudder. The result being a minimum "advance at 90° change

of heading" and "tactical diameter" defined by the "transfer at 180°

change of heading". Analysis of the final turning diameter is of

additional interest.

165
6) Stopping ability:

Stopping ability is measured by the "track reach" and "time to dead in

water" realized in a stop engine-full astern maneuver performed after a

steady approach at full test speed. Lateral deviations are also of

interest, but they are very sensitive to initial conditions and wind

disturbances.

166
 Appendix B Supplementary knowledge to Ship

Maneuvering

In this part, the supplementary knowledge, fundamental equations and

derivation of chapter 3 are given here and all definition are based on work in
chapter 3.

B.1 Frame Transformation

Considering a certain vector(point) from the stationary frame to moving

frame, the time derivatives can be expressed as follows:

— = —+ d)x (B-1)
dt dt
the position vector for the point on the body can be written as follows:

7=7 + 7 (B-2)

Equation B-1 represents the relationship between stationary (inertia) frame

and moving (ship) frame which is the most important equation used for the
derivation of governing equations.

If the translation of the moving frame is excluded from the motion, the

moving frame and the stationary frame can be assumed to coincide at a given

time,t. if the moving frame is then rotated by an angle of a the relationship

between stationary and moving frame can be expressed as follows:

fx*<>
} I 0 0
y
0
0 cos a: -sin a y
0 sin a cos a

167
B.2 Definition

Some important definitions are given mathematically,

The ship mass is one of the important values in the governing equations

which is expressed as follows:

The center of gravity is given as follows:

(B-5)

III***™
_v

Normally, a ship hull can be described as follows:

z= ±f(x,y) (B-6)

By the choice of coordinates, moments and product of inertias are:

^-jj\(y 2
+ z }> dv'
2
ship

i y=jj!(x
y
2
+ z )y dv
2
sup

U =]]]& +
(B-7)
i^\\\xyPs dv hiP

lyz = jJjyZPsHipdV
I
vc=\\\zxp dV ship

For symmetrical ships about the centerplane one can assume that

lyz = o. However, the above statement is based on the assumption that

168
p shjp is a symmetrical function which may not always be the case.

Simply, people always use I lo r e p l a c e , I t o replace I

x y w and I z to

replace l.
zz

B.3 Derivation

Before the derivation, a useful relationship in vector calculation is given as

follows:

<yx((f5x? )=(<y-F )y-(0^-60%

G G (B-8)

Using the equation B-1, the momentum is expressed as follows:

— (mV )=mV + mcdxV (B-9)
dt

mV + mdJxV=F (B-10)

Together with equation B-10, the Equation 3-2-6 can be derived.

Considering Equation 3-3-3 and Equation 3-3-4, the change of the left hand

side is stated as the change of the center of the frame from center of the

gravity to center of the hull, the form of the governing equations are changed.

This is also used in Equation 3-3-2 while it is expressed as m ,m ,J x y x and

J as the change of the center of frame.

The complete governing equations with the center of the frame at the

center of hull are given as follows:

169
 m\u + qw-rv + qz -ry +(qy + yz )p-(q 2
+r )c ]=X2
G G G G G
(surge)
m\y + ru-pw + rx -pz G G + (rz G + px )q-(r G
2
+ p )y
2
G ]=Y (sway)
m\w + pv -qu + py G - qx c + (px G + qy )--(p G
2
+ q )z ]=
2
G
z
(heave)

I,P + 'l^ + I
J +
Vz-I )qr y + I M -r )
y
2 2
+ I* pq-I P z xy
r
+
m[y G (w + pv- qu)- z (y + ru-
G pw)]= K
(
" H )
(B-11)

Iy P + I q + lyj
X y + (/, - h W + I* ( -P )+ z
r2 2
txyV - lyiVP + (pitch)
m\z G (u + qw- rv)- x (w + pv - qu )]= M
G

(yaw)
KP +M + J- + Uy ~h)P4
l
+ lyzPr - h q z
r
+
m[x (y + ru — pw)-
G y (u + qw — rv)]= ./V
G

B.4 Propulsion forces

As it stated in Equation 3-3-3 in Chapter 3, the thrust force can be obtained

from tests and the calculation method is explained here:

X p = (1 - t)T = pD^n 2
(1 - t)K T (B-12)

T = K pn D* T
2
(B-13)

K T = a +a J l 1 +aJ 3
2
(B-14)

7=-^_ (B-15)
nD p

V =U(l-w )
A P (B-16)

w F = - ^ - (B-17)
l — Wp

where t denotes the thrust deduction factor, n denotes the propeller

revolution, D p denotes the propeller diameter, J denotes the propeller

advance ratio,K T denotes the thrust coefficient, a,,a 2 and a 3 denote the

constants for propeller open characteristics parameter.

170
 V is the advance speed of propeller and w
A p denotes the wake fraction

and w F is Froude wake fraction. Sometime, people also use u p replace the

With the experiment data of K T from open channel test, the thrust x p

can be obtained.

171
 Appendix C Vessels data

In this part, all ship hydrodynamics data and other major data will be given

separately.

C.1 Container data

C.1.1 Hydrodynamic Force derivatives

Table C-1 Hydrodynamic force derivatives data of Container

valuexlu 5
valuexlO 5
ValuexlO" 5
ValuexlO -5

-42.26

-1160 K -385.45 K 30.26

K -386

K -311

Y' 4605 N' -1905.8 K'

A
vvtp
-120.12

Y' 304 N' -537.66 V 7.93

Y' -10900 149.2 K

'wv 284.3
vvv

Y; 242 K -222 K -30.26

x' rr 20

Y'
rvv
2140 K m
-4240 K
'rw -55.8

Y' -4050 156 KL 105.65

rrv

Y' 177 N'rrr -229 -4.62

rrr

Y' 932.5 -385.92 K'

"-rrip
-24.3

172
 Y' -136.8 N' 241.95 V 3.57

-6.3 -14.24 K 0

0 N
i 21.3 K -2.1

-20

C. 1.2 Other Data

Table C-2 Other data of Container ship

79.1 F n 0.2 a H 0.237 e 0.921

n 118.6 F 0.3 f
-0.48 K 0.631
n
x H

0.71 0.088 (v'>0)

158.2 F n 0.4 C
RX

(1-0 0.825 t
0.033 0.193(v'<0)
Zr

(1-",) 0.816 0 -0.156

x' -0.5 C
pr 0 C
Rrrr -0.275

K -0.526 I 1.09 C
Rrrv 1.96

m 0.00792 K 0.0000176 K 0.000419

m' x 0.000238 K 0.0000034 < 0.05

0.007049 K 0.000456

K 0.0313 0.1(F„<0.1)

K 0.0313 0.2(F„ >0.2)

0.527-0.4557 F„(0.1<F„ <0.2)

173
C.2 Mariner C l a s s s h i p Data

Table C-3 Mariner Class ship data

ValuexlO -5
valuexlu 5
ValuexlO" 5

-840

Y; -1546 -23

Y; 9 m -83

K -184

-110

Y' -556 -278

1
uS

X'uuu -215

Y' 278 Ks u
-139
1
uuS

X'UVS
93

X' ssu
-190

Y; -1160 K -264

K -1160 K -264

xi -899

x: s
93

Y' -8078 K m
1636
vvv

Y' 15356 K r -5483

vvr

Y' 1190 -489

Y' -4 Kss 13

174
 Y; -499 -166
AC

Y; U
-499 K -166

798

18

Y' 278 K -139

-95

Y' -90 N' 45

1
S55
n
8S8

Y'
1
0
-4 K -3

Y' -8 N
0u 6
l
0u

Y' -4 3

C.3 E S S O O S A K A Data

C.3.1 Hydrodynamic Force derivatives

Table C-4 Hydrodynamic force derivatives of ESSO OSAKA

ValuexlO -5
valuexlO 5
ValuexlO -5

K -138.5

Y; -1423.5 K -29.1

Y; 39.7 K -47.5

Y; -1930.9 K -761.2

K 0 Y; V
-4368.1 K 118.2

K 1530.1

175
 561.4 K -322.0

X'rr 133.1 r 206.5 K -113.6

rr

Y' 326.7 K -147.6

X
'ss -134.0 Y' 0 0
ss
1

Y' -3428.2 Krr 338.2

vrr

-148.6

Y' 321.8 K -361.7

rv
Y' -2281.3 N
L -109.9

Y" 2 K -1.0
1
0

Y' -349.2 K -28.7

X
'vvr, 0 Y' 0 24.1
VVTJ

Y' 54.7 K n
-9.6

0 Y' 0 Km 0

Y' 411.4 -163.7

I
Sr,

X
SSn -158.7

Y' 2.0 K -1.0

I
0rj

C.3.2 Resistance data

Table C-5 Resistance data of ESSO OSAKA

V (knot) C xlO"
T
3
N (rpm)

1.993 2.287 10.87

2.999 2.198 16.14
4.000 2.140 21.34

176
 4.990 2.097 26.45
6.997 2.035 36.78
8.375 2.003 43.85
9.856 1.976 51.45
12.403 1.961 64.79
15.207 2.005 80.29

C.3.3 Propulsion data

Table C-6 Propulsion data of ESSO OSAKA

0.050 0.3309
0.100 0.3142
0.150 0.2956
0.200 0.2756
0.250 0.2554
0.300 0.2347
0.350 0.2135
0.400 0.1917
0.450 0.1687
0.500 0.1447
0.550 0.1208
0.600 0.0962
0.650 0.0708
0.700 0.0439
 Appendix D External effects data

In this appendix, all the external effects data in this thesis are given

separately.

D.1 Current data

The data of November 5 2002 are listed here as a sample, the full data will
th

be available upon request.

Table D-1 Current data

Date time angle speed (m/s)

2002-11-5 0:00 315 0.086
2002-11-5 0:15 135 0.227
2002-11-5 0:30 135 0.535
2002-11-5 0:45 135 0.833
2002-11-5 1:00 135 1.118
2002-11-5 1:15 135 1.386
2002-11-5 1:30 135 1.633
2002-11-5 1:45 135 1.856
2002-11-5 2:00 135 2.051
2002-11-5 2:15 135 2.216
2002-11-5 2:30 135 2.349
2002-11-5 2:45 135 2.449
2002-11-5 3:00 135 2.514
2002-11-5 3:15 135 2.544
2002-11-5 3:30 135 2.539
2002-11-5 3:45 135 2.5
2002-11-5 4:00 135 2.427
2002-11-5 4:15 135 2.322
2002-11-5 4:30 135 2.187
2002-11-5 4:45 135 2.025
2002-11-5 5:00 135 1.839
2002-11-5 5:15 135 1.632
2002-11-5 5:30 135 1.407
2002-11-5 5:45 135 1.168
2002-11-5 6:00 135 0.92

178
2002-11-5 6:15 135 0.666
2002-11-5 6:30 135 0.411
2002-11-5 6:45 135 0.158
2002-11-5 7:00 314 0.088
2002-11-5 7:15 315 0.323
2002-11-5 7:30 315 0.544
2002-11-5 7:45 315 0.748
2002-11-5 8:00 315 0.931
2002-11-5 8:15 315 1.09
2002-11-5 8:30 315 1.224
2002-11-5 8:45 315 1.33
2002-11-5 9:00 315 1.407
2002-11-5 9:15 315 1.455
2002-11-5 9:30 315 1.472
2002-11-5 9:45 315 1.46
2002-11-5 10:00 315 1.418
2002-11-5 10:15 315 1.349
2002-11-5 10:30 315 1.254
2002-11-5 10:45 315 1.134
2002-11-5 11:00 315 0.993
2002-11-5 11:15 315 0.833
2002-11-5 11:30 315 0.658
2002-11-5 11:45 315 0.471
2002-11-5 12:00 315 0.276
2002-11-5 12:15 315 0.076
2002-11-5 12:30 135 0.124
2002-11-5 12:45 135 0.32
2002-11-5 13:00 135 0.509
2002-11-5 13:15 135 0.687
2002-11-5 13:30 135 0.851
2002-11-5 13:45 135 0.996
2002-11-5 14:00 135 1.12
2002-11-5 14:15 135 1.22
2002-11-5 14:30 135 1.294
2002-11-5 14:45 135 1.341
2002-11-5 15:00 135 1.358
2002-11-5 15:15 135 1.345
2002-11-5 15:30 135 1.302
2002-11-5 15:45 135 1.228
2002-11-5 16:00 135 1.124
2002-11-5 16:15 135 0.992
2002-11-5 16:30 135 0.834
2002-11-5 16:45 135 0.65
 2002-11-5 17:00 135 0.445
2002-11-5 17:15 135 0.22
2002-11-5 17:30 315 0.02
2002-11-5 17:45 315 0.273
2002-11-5 18:00 315 0.534
2002-11-5 18:15 315 0.799
2002-11-5 18:30 315 1.064
2002-11-5 18:45 315 1.325
2002-11-5 19:00 315 1.577
2002-11-5 19:15 315 1.818
2002-11-5 19:30 315 2.042
2002-11-5 19:45 315 2.246
2002-11-5 20:00 315 2.426
2002-11-5 20:15 315 2.58
2002-11-5 20:30 315 2.704
2002-11-5 20:45 315 2.797
2002-11-5 21:00 315 2.856
2002-11-5 21:15 315 2.88
2002-11-5 21:30 315 2.869
2002-11-5 21:45 315 2.821
2002-11-5 22:00 315 2.738
2002-11-5 22:15 315 2.62
2002-11-5 22:30 315 2.468
2002-11-5 22:45 315 2.284
2002-11-5 23:00 315 2.07
2002-11-5 23:15 315 1.83
2002-11-5 23:30 315 1.566
2002-11-5 23:45 315 1.281

D.2 W i n d data

The data of November 5 2002 are listed here as a sample, the full data will
th

be available upon request.

Table D-2 Wind data

Date Time Degree Speed (m/s)

2002-11-5 0am 50 4
2002-11-5 1am 320 4
2002-11-5 2am N/A 0

180
 2002-11-5 3am N/A 0
2002-11-5 4am 130 4
2002-11-5 5am 90 6
2002-11-5 6am 120 6
2002-11-5 7am 140 4
2002-11-5 8am 90 6
2002-11-5 9am 90 7
2002-11-5 10am 90 15
2002-11-5 11am N/A 0
2002-11-5 12pm 340 4
2002-11-5 1pm 180 4
2002-11 57 2pm 230 13
2002-11-5 3pm 200 4
2002-11-5 4pm 300 4
2002-11-5 5pm 60 6
2002-11-5 6pm 190 9
2002-11-5 7pm 90 11
2002-11-5 8pm 80 20
2002-11-5 9pm 60 17
2002-11-5 10pm 110 11
2002-11-5 11pm 60 13

D.3 T u g data

According to the discussion in Chapter 4 the breaking force and steering

force can be obtained from following table:

Table D-3 Tug force data 1

6kn 8kn
R theta beta R theta Beta
tonnes deg deg tonnes deg Deg
98 0 60 133 0 45
105 5 65 136 5 50
103 10 75 130 10 50
102 15 80 134 15 55
102 20 85 130 20 60
106 25 90 126 25 65
109 30 95 122 30 70
112 35 100 119 35 75

181
 114 40 105 116 40 80
115 45 110 115 45 90
116 50 115 130 50 100
116 55 120 135 55 105
116 60 125 139 60 110
116 65 130 141 65 115
117 70 135 144 70 120
111 75 145 139 75 120
109 80 150 146 80 125
107 85 155 147 85 135
104 90 175 140 90 135

Table D-4 Tug force data 2

10 kn 12 kn
R theta beta R theta Beta
tonnes deg deg tonnes deg Deg
151 0 35 126 0 20
146 5 35 205 5 30
154 10 40 209 10 35
183 15 45 205 15 35
187 20 50 209 20 40
183 25 50 257 25 45
184 30 55 255 30 45
178 35 55 263 35 50
174 40 60 258 40 55
168 45 65 254 45 55
166 50 50 251 50 50
167 55 50 252 55 50
169 60 50 255 60 45
175 65 45 265 65 45
178 70 45 273 70 45
188 75 45 275 75 50
198 80 45 270 80 55
199 85 50 252 85 80
197 90 55 271 90 90

Table D-5 Other data of the Tug

Item Lwl T AL Bwl D CB SKEG

Value 38.196 3.8052 125.5151 14.202 1243.382 0.587158 TRUE
Item Tmax Be cr I AL AR L
Value 6.7986 3.929445 10.17 0.703 32.01765 0.964501 23

182
Item GMt Y FB FBr f max PROP PPx
Value 2.63988 30.5 2.43 0 18.89122 TRUE 9.882
Item LP BPmax TPx TPz hmax R N
Value 2.7 100 5.7 4.41 130 1025.9 1.19E-06

183
 Appendix E Description and manual of the

program

The program is made up of and running two parts MATLAB® and

SIMULINK®.

E.1 M A T L A B part

The four tests of the final IMO standards for ship maneuverability are
simulated on the console of MATLAB. One can choose the test ship and which
criteria to be tested. The core marine vehicle file named ESSO.m is written in
MATLAB according to Equation 3-3-3 and Equation 4-1-4 together with Tug
assistance. What's more, there are four switches in this ESSO OSAKA ship

model file:

The first switch is current effect.

1)
This switch can decide if there is current effect.

The second is wind effect.

2)
This switch can decide if there is current effect.

The third one is the propeller switch.

3)
This switch can decide if there is propeller speed change.

The last one is tug assistance.

This switch can decide if there is tug assistance.

184
 One can select which effect is applied into the vessel. With these three

switches, one can test the vessel compare with real trial and analyze the tug

assistance.

According to the IMO standards for ship maneuverability, there are four
files (Eturncircle.m, Einitial.m, Ezigzag.m and Estop.m) to access if and they
ask ESSO OSAKA to do appropriate simulation. One can write other files to
ask ESSO OSAKA to do other tests as their requirements.

Figure E-1 shows the simple flow chart of the program as a supplementary
explanation for the description of the program.

185
 Decide a test and its condition

Check the test requirement

Yes it is

No, Check if it is standard test

No
Standard tests
No
Yes
Create new
Modify the IMO Test Simulation file
Test file
As the requirement

Open the E S S O . m file

Setting Internal Values Set Environmental Effects

Initial Velocity, Propeller Wind Effect, Current
revolution and so on Effect Tug Assistance

Modify E S S O . m

Run Desired Test simulation file

Change all files to standard format

Yes

Quit

Figure E-1 The flow chart of the program

E.2 SIMULINK part

As the control system is well discussed in Chapter 4, the system will not be
discussed here more. With the PID control system, the vessel can goes into
the harbor. Considering a certain vessel e.g. ESSO OSAKA in the thesis, the
marine vehicle MATLAB file is set in the marine vehicle block, K and T are set
together with the certain vessel, the only input is the initial position and then
the user can see the result after running Simulink. Finally, with the possibility
analysis file, the result can be obtained.

All files will be available after thesis submission.

187
Appendix F Explanation of softwares used in the
thesis

Besides the acknowledgements in the beginning of the thesis, there are

some other individuals (software) should be credited.

The thesis is written with Microsoft® Office XP and Office 2000 Word and
Excel by Microsoft Corporation. The final file is made into Portable Document
Format (PDF) using Adobe® Acrobat 5.0 by Adobe systems Inc. Some figures
in the thesis are made by hands and AUTOCAD® 2002 by Autodesk Inc. The
data analysis and process are made by using Origin® 6.1 by OriginLab
Corporation. The simulation programs were being coding and running in
MATLAB® 6.5 and SIMULINK® 5.0 release 13 by MATHWORKS Inc together
with the Simulink toolbox and Aerospace GNC toolbox by MATHWORKS Inc
and Marine GNC toolbox by Marine Cybernetics AS. The operating systems
used in this process are Microsoft® Windows XP Home Edition and Windows
2000 by Microsoft Corporation. Some other softwares were used during the
processing of the thesis, although they are not listed.

188