National Research Conseil national

1+ Council Canada de recherches Canada

institute for Institut de
Marine Dynamics dynamique marine

8I&L'9IO
IjJOQ Go asa ' ßOM1OIØ

SYMPOSIUM ON OWOJPMJSdOOII,S
JOOA
SELECTED TOPICS OF
ii3llSll3AJpjfl 303VNH331
MARINE HYDRODYNAMICS

St. JohnTs, Newfoundland

August 7, 1991

COMPARISON OF THE STRIP THEORY AND THE PANEL

METHOD IN COMPUTING SHIP MOTION WITH FORWARD SPEED

C.C. Ksiing arid Z. Hua.ng /

Depa.rtmeri ci Mechariical Eneering
Technical tierzity of Nova. Scotia.
-1;-!'i:. Nova. Scotia.

V
S

Canad
-J.

1+1 Reseasc Conseil nationai de recherches

Canada
Institute For Marne Institut de dynamique
Dynamics manne

SYMPOSIUM ON
SELEC1iI) TOPICS OF
MARINE HYDRODYNAMICS

St. John's, Newíoundlajyj

August 7, 1991

b
 COMPARISON OF THE STRIP THEORY AND THE PANEL
METHOD IN COMPUTING S} MOTION WITH FORWARD SPEED

C.C. thung and Z. Huang /

Department of Mechanical Engineerin
Technical t'nivexsity of Növa Scotia
Ñova Scotia

ABSTRACT advancing speed. According to the coc.ational re-

The motions of two ships, one is a full form - sults in Refs. [7] and [8], the panel me
.g vessel and the other is a container ship, are - 3-D zero-speed Green function would give becter results
pnzed and' presented in this paper. The coxriputa&i
based on the two-dimensional strip theory and the
t-e-dJmensjonal panel method. The panel method
mputing ship motion with forward speed is deiSed
by making use of the 3-D Creen function of zero-speed.
The numerical results from both methods are compared
a: different ninthng conditions.
L Introduction
The. strip theory has been widely used for seakeep-
ing analysis. However, the strip theory is based
three assumptions: (a) the hull fórin is slender and the
longitudinal geometrical, variation is small, (b) low
azd speed, and (c) high frequency of encounter.
aumptions limit the applications of the strip they
The complete and linearized boundary value pro
ir ship thotion in waves has been given by Newman
II in 1978. Until now, none of the solutions has b
und such that the' linearized body boundary concfitic
a.d free surface condition are completely satisfied. The
p.a.nel method using the, 3-D Creen function of forwa.-d
speed has been developed to compute the ship mo
as given in [2] and [3]. However, the numerical results
using the
than that using the 3-D nonzero-speed C function.
The computed results of ship motion using - strip the-
ory and the pane! method are presented. 'The copar-
isons are made for a full form fishing ves a.d a sleiider
container ship at different running cond-i
IL Formulatioú of the Panel Method
In the. panel method, the idea in R 6 is adopted
to formulate the.unsteady potential with -'-.rd speed.
Instead of the two-dimensional Green ft.con as given
in [6], the three-dimensional zero-speed G function.
which has 'no restriction on the slende of theship
- hull, is used.
11-1. Potential Functions
When a ship moving in regular waves. e unsteady
potential function can be decomposed
h' = (i +o + (1)
j=i
where is the incident wave potential.o i the diffrac-
tion potentia1,, is the radiation poten unit mo- -

have never been satisfactory because the Creen funcric tion and is the amplitude of the j me öf motion
ociy satisfies the simplified linear free.surface conditioc.. of the ship. The defibition of the ship and the
a.d because the steady flow in the boundary c'onditi coordinate system are shown in Fig. 1.
a:d in the hythodynamic:pressure is based on the - The incident wave potential used in
&rm flow.. work is in
the following formi
'The valldatjòn of the numerical methods is an -
portant work in order. to determine which nuniesical = " (2)
stherne is 'an effective one to obtain reliable results. h -

¿epends on the comparison between the numerical and
experimental data for various ships tinder different oea'
dltions (4] [5J. Based on the results of the valirk
sudies, the appropriate paneL number in the 3-D
method or the proper station number in the 2-D m-)iricl
where ( and w are the amplitude and freiii.cucy of the
incident waves, respectively p is the &ea.ion of the
wavenwnberkw2/g.;' ,
" '
wave propagation relative to the positrvex-s and the

ca. also be determined for asjiecified ship. The diffraction potential satisfies tbe owing con-
ditions: - -
In this paper, based on the theory derived by
Salvesen, et al. [6], a thrèe-dirni'cionaI panel rnet V24D=O, for z<O.
w devised by using the (3)
three-dimensional Green f-
tioni of zero-speed to compute ship motion with forward
((iw1 - U)2 + g-1i, = O, on: = 0, (4)

37
 ô1 wave is
ÔD
Onen' on S, (5)
Pr = -p(-i, + U-) (15)
and qkk.
the r iaxion condition,
where U is the steady forward speed of the ship and The hydrodynarnic forces due to the radiated waves on
S is the mean wetted ship hull surface. The radiation the ship hull can be written as:
potential satisfies the following conditions:
F1 = - JjPrn1dS
V1=O, foc z<0, (6)

= PJjnidS(_ics
[(-iw( _U)2gJj =0, onz=O, (7)
+ U)E 77kk
= -ijn1 + Um1, on S, (8) = (16)
and
for
the radiation conditián,
Tj = PJjni(iwe + UL)hdS
where m, = 0, for j= 1,2,3,4; and rn5 = n3, m4 =
- =iAJk(i.) icEìBJk(w), (17)
From Ref. [61, the ôo and can be prsed. io
ternis of the zero-speed pocential and as: where Ajk(Wg) and Bjk(w) are added-mass and damp-
ing coefficients,respectively. Applying Stokes' theorem
(9) to (17) and aurcing n1 being a small quantity, we have

and = -PiJtJjnikdS+PUJjmi%kdS. (18)

for ¡=1,2,3,4, (10)

- o
5 +
5w
3, (11)
II-3. Wave Exciting FOrces and Moments
The hydrodynainic pressure due to the incident and "
diffracted wav is
A AO AO
W6 - - 1w

'
= -p(--iw,, + U-)(o, + to). (19)
Neglecting the ind, the diffraction potential and
the radiation potential of zero-speed can be obtained The wave exciting forces or momenrs acting on the ship
from: can be written as

= JjQ(G(î1w)dS (13) F1 -pzw, Jj(h o0)n1dS

where i = (x,y,z) is the field point, (= (,q,C) is

+ OD)72JdS
the source point, Q() is the strength of source, and
G(OE,1) ¡s the 3-D zero-speed Green functioa. =F(r)F5, forj=1,2,...6, (20)

= + !.. ..CL
where

e((z _C)coae4.(p_).sd9dk
= -pi
¡j jn1dS pujj -hn1dS

(14) = for j = 1,2,...6,

_PwJjjôinidS, (2]:)
here k, w/g, and c is the frequency of encountér.
In equation (13), the potential fùnctiôa has no Wa- are. the so called Froude-Krylov forces, and
erline integral and also lacks the effect steady waves.
?
'he evaluation of zero-speed Green's function is much = _icPjj0DflJdS
impler than that of nonzerosee(J Green's function [91
101.

II-2. Added-Mass and Damping Coefficients +PUjjnidS fori = 1,2...6, (22)

The hydrodynaniic pressure due to the radiated are the forces due to diffracted waves. Again, using the

38
 Stokes .heorem, we obtain the following exprezsi:
= _üepJjoajdS+PUfjmJOS
forj=1,2,...6. (23)
U-4. Ship Motion in Regular Waves
Suppose the unsteady motion of the ship in regular
waves in the j mode to be
forj=1,2.....6, (24)
the equations of motion in regular waves can be written
in the following form:
e and pitch mdtioas ¡t F,, = 0.38 in the head seas. The
+ Ajk) iBJk + CJk]qk = F_.1,
for j=1,2.....6, (25)
where Mj& are the components of the generalized mass
matrix of the ship, Ak and are. the components of
the added ¡nasa and damping coefficient matric, re-
spectii-ely, C,, are the ponents of the hydrostatic
restoring coefficient matrix, and F,,j are the components
of the complex amplitude vector of the exciting brees
and moments.
UI. Comparisons and Discussiöns
Two ships, a fishing ressel and a container ship,
are used in the present computation, L,,/B = 2.46 and
V 187.4 in3 for the fi!Ihing vessel [11], and Lu/B =
8.385 and V =' 56,097 m3 for the container ship [121,
respectively. In order to reduce errors due to the logitu-
dinal division of the ship hull in applying strip theory,
22 stations are used for the fishing vessel and 23 stations
for the container ship accding to the recommpnatioa
of the Sealceeping Commic:ec of the 19th ITTC [51- The
panel number is 174 for the fishing vessel and 190 for
the container ship, respectively.
Fig. 2 and Fig. 3 are the heave and pitch motions
for the fishing vessel. The experimental data are taken
from Ref. [11]. The same hull offsets are used in the
panel method and the strip theory. For the heave mo-
tion. both methods have no significant difference in the
long wave range. The results of the panel method .açee
With the experimental results better than that ci the.
strip theory. Rowever, the panel method oves-predicts
the peak value, at the Fronde number 0.19. The strip
theory gives lower values in the. pitch motion. Fig. 4
and Fig. 5 show the motions at high Froude number,
Fn = 0.38. It can be se that satisfactory results have
been obtained from the panel method. But the strip
theory may give better results of pitch motion foc long
waves. In view of the whole range of wave frequescy, the
panel method should be applied for high 'Froude nmother
conditions. The ship motions in oblique head s are
39
given in Fig. 6 and Fig. 7. ¡t. can be seen that the panel
method is supes-lot to the strip method in this case.
Fig. 8 and Fig. 9 show the motions of the con-
tainer ship. The experimental data are taken from ReL
[12]. Both methods overpredict the heave motion, but
the panel method gives good results ed pitch motion.
Therefore, the panel method would be preferred also for
slender ships.
In order to investigate the, panel resolution effect,
computations west carried out for the .ing vessel with
174 panels and 230 panels, respectively. The' numerical
results are shown in Fig. 10 to Fig. 13. Fig. 10 and.
Fig. 11 are the heave and pitch motions at F,, = 0.19
in the head seas. Fig. 12 and Fig. 13 are the heave
results show that the difference due to these two panel
resolutions can be ignored. From to our experence, the
hull surface ax one. side of the ship with 21 stations is
suggested to bue discretized into a mirr-nim of 5 panels
between every two stations. Further in-easing the panel
resolution would not improve the ntimescal results for
a mono-hull ship.
IV. Conclusions
The following conclusions are draw-n based on the
above computations and comparisons..
1. For ships cl full form in head sea.v
At low Freude numbers, the paoel method may
overpredict the peak value of heave moon but it may
give fairly good results of heave motion in the whole
range of frequency and it gives muth better results of
pitch motion than that from the strip theory.
At high Froude numbrs, the' panel method
is better than the strip theory. The sip theory will
underpredict the ship ¡notion. The panel method is rec-
ommerided för this case.
2. For ships of full form in oblique head seas, the panel
method is sùpesior to the strip theory. The strip theory,
in general, undes-predicts the pitch motions.
3. For slender ships, the strip theory wonid overpredict
the ship motions, especially in the ghborhood. of the
resonant frequency.
4. For an overafl evaluation, the panel method is su-
perior to the strip theory, especially for a full ship and
for high Froude numbers. However, the panel method
requires much more computer time, and the panel re-
sulotion also affects the compúted results. Normally,
With 200 paklels on a ship hull surface, the converged
numerical results can be obtained.
Reference
Newman, J. N.,.'The Theory of Ship Motion", Ad-
vances in Applied Mechanics, VoL 18, 178.
\ijisawa, Y. et aL,"Study on the Ch racteristics of
Hydrodynaxnic Forces and Motions on Large Offshore
Structures with Forward Speed in Waves", Proceedings
 of the Nineth Interooa1 Conference on Offshore Me-
chanics and Arcc Êngineerrng, VoL 1, Houston, 1990.
Eua.ng, Z.and Hsiun,g, C. C., "Computing Ship Mo-
tion with Forward Speed in Wives by The Three Di-
mensiocal Sour Dtribution Method", Technical Re-
port NA-89-1, The Citre for Marine Vessel Design and
Research, Technical University of Nova Scotia, March
1989. J
Standing, R. Gi'he Verification and Validation
of Numerical. Mod, with !inples Taken from Wave
Diffraction Therzy, Wave Loading and Response", Pro- ,3HEAVE PtT4
ceedings of RJTAM Syniposium, Dynamics of Marine p.ea'v q4-AOI.t YAW
Vehicles and Strnes in Waves, London, 1990. Fig. i Ship Motion and Coordinate System
STAVI AXPtZTV'DE/TAVE AMPIITUDS
Report of tbe Seakeeping Committee, 19th ITTC, ¡ .6
Madrid, Spain, Seprexaber 1990. P! method (174 pa.)
I.'
Salvesen, N., Tuzk, E.O. and F8ltinsen,O.,"Sbip Mo- 1.2
tions and Sea L." Thansactioas of SNAME, Vol.78,
1970. 0.3
Hsiu.ng, C. C. and Huang, Z.,"A New Approdi to 0.6
Computational Seakeeping Prediction", Technical Re- 0.4
port NA-90-8. The Centre for Marine Vessel Design and 0.2 O expeent
Research. Tech.aca1 University of Nova Scotia, October
1990. o
LS 2 2.3 3 3.3 4 4.3
Beck, R. F. and Loken1 A. E.,"Three-Djrnensjonaj Ef- WAVE LENGTH/SHIP LENGTH
fects in Ship ReLative Motion Problens", J.S.R, VoL33, ?. 2 !
No.4, Dec. 1989.
Mota tjc the r8 VeI (F. a = L80°)

Ye, H. and Esiig, C. C.,'Motions and Sea Loads PIT i_1/!4!E SWPE
1.4
of a floating Body with Zero Forward Speed", Techni- Ql psd method (174 peoda)
cal report NA-86-1. Dept. of Mechanical Engineering, 12
o
Technical University of Nova Scotia. Feb. 1986.
Ye, H. and Hsinng, C. C.,"Computing Hydrody- 0.3
narnic Coefficienns and Wave Exciting Forces on a Float- grip theoty
0.6
ing Body with Sv Forward Speed by 3-D Flow The- -
4
ory", Technical R.e.,ort NA-86.2, Department of Me- 0.4
z
-

chanical Engineerixg. Technical University of Nova ScÖ- O pen

0.2
tia. Apr11 1986.
Narppinen, T.On the Effect of Wide Beam on Ses- ¡.5 2 2.5 $ 3.5 4 4.3
keeping Cia ..srics óf Small Fishing Vessels", Rept. WAVE LENGTH/SHIP LENGTH
LTR.SH-361, Dec 1983.
r. 3 Pua Moo@ (or the Thing Ve1 (F = O.l9.p = 180')
Flokstar C.Ciparison of Ship Motion Theories
with Experimeunç foe a Container Ship", LS.P., VoL21,
1974. RLVE a.trruDE,'vAve AiUD2

Inglis, R.. B. and Price, R. C.,"Compa.rison of Cal-

:ulated. Responsees foc Arbitrai,j Shaped Bodies Using 1.3
rwo and TI e-Di.Th,IOflal Theories', I. S. P., voL 27,
o. 307, 1080.

0.6

o
1.5 2 2.3 3 3.3 4 4.3
WAVE LENGTH/SHIP LENGTH
4! Motk to, the Thbig VI (F. 0. 180')

40
 ptTC AMPUTUD/WAYE SWPE. !r!ÇH A.MPUTUoE/.*vt Swpe
1.2
paieI met (174 pe*s)
.t1p theory
0.8
o - etbod (190 peocia)
0.6

strip theory o -. ...-..- 0.4

G p.riaeoi
0.2

o
¿.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 oz 0.6 1 1.4. 1.
WAVE LENGTH/SNIP LENGTH WAVE LENGTH/SH]P LENGTH
Fig. 5 Piicb Moio for ib. r.hzg Vs1 (F. O.*i 180) Fig. 9 Pitch Mcsce (or the Cøcia (F,, = 0.245, = 180°)

HEAVE AMPUTUDE/WAVE JUTUDE

- ethc (174 r--) 1.4

1.2
HEAVE Agpt rTJD!/vAvE AJaUTDE

*
- atziptheoc1
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
o
1.5 2 2.5 3 2.5 4
1.5 2 2.6 S 3.5 4 45
WAVE LENGTH/SmP LENGTH
WAVE LENGTH/SHIP LENGTH
Fig. 10 Hese Modo. (or the ghi. Y (F = 0.19.p = 180°)
Fig. 6 He*ve Uoio (or the Tibiag Vmi (F = O.iIp =

?TTB &MPUTUDE,'wAyE SWP!L

r
o - ctbod (174

--! e
peo)
1.4

¡.2
PIT AMPUTUDE/AYE .0Pg

0.6- 0.8
strip theory
0.6
0.41
0.4
e
0.2
0.2
ftre - - e p...I. -
I 1.5 2 2.5 ¿ '.5 2 2.5 3 3_3
3 3.5 4 43 4 4.5
WAVE LENGTH/SHIp LENGTH WAVE LENGTH/SHIP LENGTH
Pig. 11 Pitch Modo. for ib. Fishing V tF. = L19,s = 180°)
Fig. T Pitch Modeo for the Fiebi*g Ve1 (F. = O.iS,p = U)
HEAVE AMPI. UDE/WAVE AMPUTUDE
12 HEAVE AMPUTUDE/VAVE A3CPLZTU

'r
0.8 E- 1.5

0.6'-

04

2 0.3

o
02 0.6 1 1.4
¡.3 2 2.5 S 3.3 4 4.5
WAVE LENGTH/SHIP LENGTH
WAVE LENGTH/SHIP LENGTH
Fig. 6 Heate Modos foe the Coct.jc,er Sbip (F.
= oj Fig. 12 E. Modo. fo. the .bin V (F. = 0.3$,t = 180°)

41
 PITCH £UTUD/W! .O?E
2

¡.5

0.5
Ips 130 psasi.

o
¡5 z z.z 3 s.s
WAVE LENGTH/SHIP LENGTH
r. 13 Pitch Mos k ths rbg VI (P O.SS,p 180')

42