Applied Ocean Research 111 (2021) 102642

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Applied Ocean Research

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/apor

Numerical investigation on the effect of trim on ship resistance by

RANSE method
Tat-Hien Le a, b, Mai The Vu c, Vu Ngoc Bich d, Nguyen Kim Phuong e, Nguyen Thi Hai Ha e,
Tran Quoc Chuan e, Tran Ngoc Tu e, *
a
Ho Chi Minh City University of Technology (HCMUT), Vietnam
b
Vietnam National University Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam
c
School of Intelligent Mechatronics Engineering, Sejong University, South Korea
d
Ho Chi Minh City University of Transport, Vietnam
e
Vietnam Maritime University, Hai Phong, Vietnam

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

Keywords: This paper presents the results of study effect of trim on resistance of US Navy Combatant DTMB 5415 model at
Trim optimization three different drafts and two Froude numbers by using unsteady RANSE method in conjunction with towing
RANSE tank tests. Firstly, the numerical results at zero trim condition were verified and validated with experimental
Ship resistance
data. Then, a series of resistance curves for different trim conditions at different drafts and speeds were per­
Ship draft
Ship speed
formed to produce data source to evaluate the influence of trim on ship resistance. Results denote that the
changing tendency of total ship resistance at different trim conditions varying with speed and draft combina­
tions, and the variation of pressure resistance component due to trim is considerably larger than frictional
resistance component. Finally, the paper provides details of flow characteristics around ship like wave patterns
on free surface, pressure distribution and skin friction on the hull surface, and free water surface in order to
explain the physical phenomenon of changing ship resistance at different trim condition.

1. Introduction
Nowadays, cutting down fuel consumption and carbon emissions are
the two most pressing concerns of the shipping industry due to their
relation to the reduction in operational cost of the marine traffic and to
the implementation of the requirement of Environmental Ship Index
from International Maritime Organization (IMO). As a result, optimi­
zation of ship performance during the ship design process to achieve
good hull form and propulsion system, so as to reduce resistance and
increase the propulsive efficiency have attracted more attention.
Nevertheless, for the existing vessel, there are not many possibilities to
change the hull form or improve the propulsion system. Of course, it
might be possible to do that but the costs would be unacceptable in most
cases. The most feasible measures to reduce fuel consumption of existing
ship like improvement in voyage execution, weather routing, well
maintenance, reduction of auxiliary power consumption, waste heat
recovery systems, speed control and trim optimization. Some of these
measures have been discussed in (Vettor and Soares, 2016) and (Ma
et al., 2017). Trim optimization is a new solution for energy saving
recommended by IMO without changing the hull shape, propeller or any
additional equipment. Trim optimization can be carried out by ballast­
ing or selecting proper loading plans. Research from FORCE (Reichel
et al., 2014) has been carried out trim tests for almost 300 commercial
vessels and pointed out that by operating under optimal trim conditions,
vessels can decrease the fuel consumption up to 15% for certain con­
ditions compared to even keel. Overall fleet operations, typical savings
can be ranged from 2 to 3%.
The methodology for studying trim optimization measure is based on
the fact that when a vessel is trimmed, the following parameters of ship
geometry will change compared to even keel condition: submerged hull
form, especially at bow and stern; wetted surface area; length of
waterline. All of these factors have effects on ship resistance at a specific
speed and loading condition. Thus, by studying influence of trim on
resistance of the vessel, ship designers will be able to provide the captain
with the best configuration for trim at a specific draft and speed from the
point of view minimum resistance.
The key for trim optimization measure is to predict the resistance
accurately and efficiently. There are two common methods used to

* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: tutn.dt@vimaru.edu.vn (T.N. Tu).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apor.2021.102642
Received 20 August 2020; Received in revised form 24 March 2021; Accepted 24 March 2021
Available online 16 April 2021
0141-1187/© 2021 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
T.-H. Le et al. Applied Ocean Research 111 (2021) 102642

predict ship resistance that are model test and Computational Fluid Table 1
Dynamic (CFD) method. The latter is more efficient and convenient than Main characteristics of the DTMB.
the former in analyzing the flow field. Within CFD method, there are Descriptions Full Model
some approaches to solve hydrodynamics problems such as: potential scale
flow theory (panel code), Reynolds Averaged Navier-Stokes Equations Scale factor λ - 26.69
(RANSE) and Large Eddy Simulation (LES). Recently, the most popular Length between perpendiculars LPP(m) 142.0 5.320
one is RANSE, due to sufficient accuracy for engineering purposes at Length of waterline LWL(m) 120.0 5.320
reasonable computational time (Choi et al., 2010); Islam and Soares, Breadth B(m) 18.90 0.708
Draft T(m) 6.16 0.230
2019a). Thus, this paper’s focus is investigating the effect of trim Volume ∇(m3) 8425 0.455
configuration on ship resistance by numerical method, using RANSE Block coefficient CB 0.507 0.507
method. Wetted surface S(m2) 2949 4.14
There are some previous works that discuss the effect of trim on ship Longitudinal Center of Buoyancy From LCB (%LPP), -0.683
Midship fwd+
resistance using RANSE method, (Reichel et al., 2014; Iakovatos et al.,
2014; Shivachev et al., 2017; Sun et al., 2016; Islam and Soares, 2019b;
Park et al., 2015; Kim et al., 2013; Labanti et al., 2016; Tu et al., 2018).
Tu et al. (2018) provided detailed methodology for understanding in­
fluence of trim on ship resistance and used both Experimental Fluid
Dynamics (EFD) and RANSE CFD in model scale for assessing the in­
fluence of trim on the resistance of a vessel and showed good agreement
between the two methods. Islam and Soares (2019b) used RANSE for
studying effect of trim on resistance of container ship at different
operating conditions and concluded that the optimal trim angle for
minimum resistance varies considerably with ship speed and draft.
Iakovatos et al. (2014) carried out experimental tests in towing tank for
five ship models to evaluate effect of different trim angles on their
resistance. Based on the influence of trim on the resistance, Sun et al.
(2016) performed trim optimization on a 4250-TEU container ship by
using RANSE CFD together with EFD. Those previous studies mentioned
above provided a useful data source for the further research about in­ Fig. 2. Three test cases.
fluence of trim on ship performance. However, those studies are still
lacking the comparison between calculated and experimental results at Case 1: For design draft T = 0.230 m; Fr = 0.30 and 0.41; Trim =
different trim conditions, or analyzing the change in flow field around -0.055, -0.027, 0.000 and 0.055 m. This case was chosen in order to
the ship hull at different trims in order to fully understanding why the verify and validate the numerical results through experimental data,
ship resistance can be changed by different trims. which were carried out by Ship Design and Research Center CTO S.A,
This paper discusses the effect of trim configuration on ship resis­ Poland .
tance using RANSE method. The vessel used for investigation is US Navy Case 2: Draft = 0.192m; Fr = 0.30 and 0.41; Trim = -0.055, - 0.027,
Combatant, DTMB 5415 with appendages. The calculation is carried out 0.000 and 0.055 m.
at two loading conditions, at different speeds and for different initial Case 3: Draft = 0.173m; Fr = 0.41; Trim = -0.027, 0.000, 0.027,
trim configurations. The commercial solver Star–CCM+ is used. 0.055 and 0.082 m.
Case 2 and case 3 were selected in order to investigate variation of
2. Numerical simulations ship resistance for different trim at different drafts and Froude numbers.
Trim is defined as the difference between the draught at aft
2.1. Reference vessel perpendicular (TA) and forward perpendicular (TF):
Trim = TA − TF (1)
The vessel used in this paper is a US Navy Combatant DTMB with
appendages. The main reason for using this hull is that the hull geometry In convention (1), the positive value means trim by stern.
is a publish domain, and its extensive model test database exists for
resistance at different Froude numbers (Olivieri et al., 2001). The test for 2.3. Numerical setup
different trim angles were executed out by Ship Design and Research
Center CTO S.A, Poland (CTO, 2017). The computation was carried out A commercial CFD code Star-CCM+ was used in computations. The
at model scale λ = 26.69, i.e. the scale used in model tests, so as to enable setting was performed corresponding to setup in towing tank of Ship
direct comparison. The geometry of DTMB model is shown in Fig. 1 and Design and Research Center CTO S.A Poland as follow:
Table 1 presents the principal particulars of them.
12- Calm water condition;
12- The vessel is free to trim and sink;
2.2. Test cases
12- The displacement of the ship is constant for different trim angles
for the same case.
To investigate the effect of trim on ship resistance at different ship
12- The water parameters for case studies (density, viscosity) corre­
draft and ship speeds, the computations were performed for three cases
sponded to real value used in the experimental set up (water
as follow (see Fig. 2):
density ρ = 998.7 kg/m3, kinematic viscosity of water ν = 1.079
× 10− 6 m2/s).

For ship resistance simulation in general and ship resistance at

different trim in particular, due to the flow around the ship hull is
symmetric, hence in order to save computational time, only port side of
Fig. 1. Geometry of DTMB with appendages. the hull is simulated. The size of computational domain around ship hull

2
T.-H. Le et al. Applied Ocean Research 111 (2021) 102642

Table 2
The result of uncertainty analysis based on the mesh dependency.
Froude Number [-] 0.300 0.410

Total resistance [N] S1 (fine) 52.80 137.52

S 2 (mid) 53.14 137.97
S 3 (coarse) 53.59 138.56
Refinement ratio rG 1.414 1.414
Fig. 3. Y+ value on hull surface. Convergence ratio RG 0.756 0.763
Order of accuracy PG 0.809 0.782
The error 1.051 1.446
was set following the recommendations of ITTC (ITTC, 2014), as follow: δRE
Correction factor CG 0.324 0.311
the inlet boundary is located at 1.5Lpp from FP, the outlet boundary is Uncorrected uncertainty UG 2.473 3.493
located at 2.5Lpp after aft of AP. Lateral boundary is located at 2.5Lpp Corrected uncertainty UGC 0.711 0.996
away from the midship plane. The bottom and top boundaries are
located at 2.5Lpp and 1.25Lpp away from the free surface, respectively.
The boundary conditions were set up on the domain boundaries as dome and assigned particular cell size. To capture the exact flow
well as on the ship hull as follows: a constant velocity condition was used behavior near the walls of wetted surface, prism layers were used. The
on inlet, bottom and top; No-slip wall condition on the ship hull; at result of mesh generation is illustrated in Fig. 4.
outflow, the hydrostatic pressure was specified; Symmetry condition at
symmetry plane and side wall. The free surface is located at z = 0. The 3. Results and discussion
ship stern (aft perpendicular) is located at x = 0. The average Y+ value
on the submerged part of the hull was 60 (see Fig. 3). Therefore, the wall 3.1. Verification and validation study
function is applied to the wall treatment in order to reduce size of mesh.
The computation was performed using three-dimensional incom­ One of the key issues determining numerical accuracy is choosing
pressible viscous unsteady RANSE. The turbulence model applied in the grid and time step sizes. Thus, first of all, it is necessary to execute an
calculations was SST K-ω two equation-model because it solves two extensive verification for two input parameters: grid size and time step,
additional equations for the eddy viscosity, one for the turbulence ki­ according to the ITTC procedure (ITTC Specialist Committee, 2017) .
netic energy (k), and one for its dissipation rate (typically ε or ω). This Verification study for grid size and time step is conducted for two Froude
model has shown to be capable to predict ship hydrodynamics accu­ number (Fr = 0.30 and 0.41) at design draft T=0.23 and zero trim with
√̅̅̅
rately. Another reason is that these are the most applied by CFD re­ the refinement ratio ri equal to 2. Verification study for mesh sensi­
searchers (80% of the submissions for the Gothenburg 2010 Workshop tivity is performed with three grids, so that coarse (grid#3), medium
used k- ω two equation-model) (Yong et al., 2015). The 2-DOF motion (grid#2) and fine grid (grid#1) are corresponding to the cells number of
and VOF multiphase model are employed to handle heave and pitch 1.15, 2.32 and 4.75 million respectively, using coarse time steps. Veri­
motions and also the free surface wave flow around ship hull. Motion of fication study for time step is performed with three time steps coarse,
the hull is captured during the computation by using DFBI Equilibrium medium and fine are corresponding to the time step of Δt3 = 0.01L/V,
√̅̅̅
option, i.e. dynamic fluid-body interaction motion solver optimized for Δt2 = 0.01L/( 2V)and Δt1 = 0.005L/V, respectively (where V [m/s] is
fast heading towards steady state solution. Wave damping in the region the ship speed and L [m] is the characteristic ship length), using the fine
distanced about 1.25L away from the hull is applied to reduce the
resistance force fluctuation due to wave reflections within the domain.
A second order up-wind scheme is applied for the discretization of Table 3
The result of uncertainty analysis based on the time dependency.
convection terms in RANSE while the first order temporal scheme is used
for temporal discretization due to less computational time and shows no Froude Number [-] 0.300 0.410
oscillation of the result (Farkas et al., 2018). Total resistance [N] S1 (fine) 53.36 138.05
The mesh used in this study was trimmed hexahedral grids. The grid S 2 (mid) 53.24 137.88
generation process is driven by specifying base mesh size, relative to S 3 (coarse) 52.80 137.52
Refinement ratio rT 1.414 1.414
which all spacings are defined. The grids were refined around the Convergence ratio RT 0.273 0.472
appended (shaft brackets and stabilizer fins) and the hull region near the Order of accuracy PT 3.750 2.160
free surface. The grid near the free surface was refined to capture The error δRE -0.045 -0.0152
elevation of the waves precisely. To avoid using fine grid in unnecessary Correction factor CT 2.667 1.118
Uncorrected uncertainty UT 0.195 0.188
location (in front and behind of hull and at larger distance above, below
Corrected uncertainty UTC 0.075 0.018
and side of ship hull), local volume refinements was created to sonar

Fig. 4. The structure of mesh for whole domain, near free surface, in the wake and in the wave zone.

3
T.-H. Le et al. Applied Ocean Research 111 (2021) 102642

Fig. 6. Skin friction distribution on hull form for different mesh densities at
Froude number 0.41.

Table 4
Total uncorrected and corrected uncertainties using Ci based approach.
Froude number 0.30 0.41

UV 2.480 3.440
UVc 0.710 1.00

second-order schemes in space.

The uncertainty estimates for uncorrected (Ui) and corrected (Uic)
approach are defined as follow:
{[ ]⃒ ⃒
9.6(1 − Ci )2 + ⃒ ⃒
Ui = ⃒ 1.1 ⃒ δREi,1 , |1 − Ci | < 0.125 (6)
[2|1 − Ci | + 1]⃒δREi,1 ⃒, |1 − Ci | ≥ 0.125
{[ ]⃒ ⃒
2.4(1 − ⃒Ci )2 + ⃒ ⃒
Uic = ⃒ 0.1 δREi,1 , |1 − Ci | < 0.25 (7)
⃒ ⃒
Fig. 5. Wave elevation contour plot for different mesh densities at Froude [|1 − Ci |] δREi,1 , |1 − Ci | ≥ 0.25
number 0.41.
The results of uncertainty analysis based on the mesh and time de­
pendencies are described in Tables 2 and 3, respectively.
mesh. As can be seen from Tables 2 and 3, monotonic convergence was
Convergence ratio is determined as follows: observed for both Froude numbers at considered meshes and time steps.
εi,21 The influences of mesh densities on numerical results obtained from
Ri = (2)
εi,32 Table 2 can be explained by difference in the wave pattern around ship
and in skin friction distribution on hull form for different mesh densities
where: εi,21= Si,2 - Si,1 is the difference between solution achieved using (see Figs. 5 and 6.)
medium (Si,2) and fine (Si,1); εi,32= Si,3 - Si,2 is the difference between Next, the total corrected and uncorrected uncertainties are estimated
solution achieved using coarse (Si,3) and medium (Si,2) input parameter. by combining both the grid and time uncertainty, and presented in
There are three kinds of possible convergence conditions: divergence Table 4, where validation uncertainty (UV), and numerical uncertainty
(Ri > 1), oscillatory convergence (Ri < 0), monotonic convergence (0 < (USN) are determined as follows:
Ri < 1).
For monotonic convergence condition, numerical uncertainties and UV2 = UD2 + USN
2
(8)
errors are determined using generalized Richardson extrapolation (RE).
The order of accuracy (pi), the error (δRE) and correction factor (Ci) are
2
USN = UG2 + UT2 + UI2 (9)
estimated as follows: Where: UD – experimental data uncertainty (in this paper UD = 0); UG
( / ) – grid uncertainty; UT – Time-step uncertainty; UI – iterative uncertainty.
ln εi,32 εi,21
pi = (3) For a well-converged computation iterative uncertainty UI is tiny
ln(ri )
compared to the grid uncertainty UG. Hence in fact, with the re­
εi,21 quirements of both V&V methods, UI is negligible in the computation of
δREi,1 = p (4) USN (Larsson et al., 2013) .
ri i − 1
To validate the simulation predictions, the comparison between
ripi − 1 simulation prediction and experimental data provided Ship Design and
Ci = (5)
ripiest − 1

Where piest is an estimate for the limiting order of accuracy of the first Table 5
term as the grid and time-step sizes go to zero and the asymptotic range Comparison of simulation results with experimental data.
is reached. The estimated values piest can be based either on the assumed Froude number [-] 0.30 0.41
theoretical order of accuracy pkth or solutions for simplified geometry
Total ship resistance [N] Exp. Data 51.98 135.48
and conditions (Stern et al., 2001). In this study, the estimated value piest CFD data 52.80 137.52
is set to 2, since the governing equations are discretized with Deviation [%] -1.38 -1.51

4
T.-H. Le et al. Applied Ocean Research 111 (2021) 102642

Table 6 where: R0 – resistance at even keel; Rtrim – Resistance at different trims.

Ship resistance results at different trims and speeds in comparison to experi­
In case of analyzed vessel, it can be observed from Table 7 and the
mental data.
Figs. from 8 to 12 that:
Fr ΔT [m] RT [N] E%D - Generally, the ship resistance changes when ship runs at different
EFD CFD trim with the variation of different ship speeds and drafts in comparison
0.41 -0.055 139.15 139.90 -0.54 with even keel, but the amount of change is not large, around 2.0%. At
-0.027 136.55 137.96 -1.03 design draft (T = 0.23) and speed (Fr = 0.41), the optimum trim for
0.000 135.48 137.52 -1.51 minimum resistance is at even keel, it can be explained that vessels are
0.055 137.80 138.26 -0.33 traditionally designed optimized for a single condition, normally the
0.30 -0.055 52.26 53.20 -1.80
-0.027 51.98 52.50 -1.00
contract speed at the design draft. At other speed and draft combina­
0.000 52.08 52.80 -1.38 tions, optimum trims for minimum resistance are different.
0.055 52.28 53.28 -1.91 - The frictional resistance changing tendency due to different trim
conditions is similar and monotonically at different ship speeds and
drafts, and the amount of change is not large, around 1.5% for all three
Research Center CTO S.A, Poland was made. The comparison is per­
case studies. The frictional resistance increases gradually from the bow
formed for only combination of fine mesh and coarse time step in
trim to the largest stern trim for all three case studies. The variation of
Table 5.
frictional resistance can be partly explained by the variation in skin
It can be observed from Table 5 that the predicted total resistance for
both Froude numbers agrees well with the experimental data with de­
viation is less than 2.0%. The validation of these numerical simulations Table 7
is achieved as the error level (fine mesh and coarse time step) is smaller The percentages changes of resistance components at different trims relative to
than the uncorrected uncertainty. Therefore, the fine mesh and coarse the resistance of the even keel in three test cases.
time step were used in further studies. Fr [-] Trim CFD computation
[m]
RT [N] RF RP ΔRT ΔRF ΔRP
3.2. Experiment validations on resistance computations [N] [N] [%] [%] [%]

Case 1 (Draft = 0.230m; Fr = 0.30 and 0.41; Trim = -0.055, - 0.027, 0.000 and 0.055
In order to further validate applicability of the numerical calculation m)
procedure at different speeds and trims, Table 6 and Fig. 7 show com­ 0.41 -0.055 139.9 61.16 78.74 -1.73 -0.99 -2.31
-0.027 137.96 60.84 77.12 -0.32 -0.46 -0.21
parisons of total resistance results of model tests with the calculations at
0.000 137.52 60.56 76.96 0.00 0.00 0.00
different trims and speeds for design draft. The predicted total resistance 0.055 138.26 60.10 78.16 -0.54 0.76 -1.56
agrees well with the experimental data with tolerance is less than 2.0%. 0.30 -0.055 53.20 33.92 19.28 -0.76 -1.47 0.46
Moreover, it can be recognized in Fig. 7 that, the tendency of changes of -0.027 52.50 33.64 18.86 0.57 -0.63 2.63
0.000 52.80 33.43 19.37 0.00 0.00 0.00
ship resistance at different trims and speeds between simulation and
0.055 53.28 33.02 20.26 -0.91 1.23 -4.59
experiment results are similar. This is very important for applying CFD Case 2 (Draft = 0.192 m; Fr = 0.30 and 0.41; Trim = -0.055, - 0.027, 0.000 and 0.055
in trim. Therefore, the numerical calculation method adopted in the m)
simulation is suitable for total ship resistance calculation of DTMB 0.30 -0.055 43.04 29.92 13.12 0.83 -0.81 4.37
model in various conditions including speed and trim. -0.027 42.66 29.80 12.86 1.71 -0.40 6.27
0.000 43.40 29.68 13.72 0.00 0.00 0.00
0.055 44.19 29.42 14.77 -1.82 0.88 -7.65
3.3. Trim effect at different ship drafts and speeds 0.41 -0.055 107.68 54.36 53.32 -0.49 -0.89 -0.08
-0.027 106.66 54.14 52.52 0.47 -0.48 1.43
0.000 107.16 53.88 53.28 0.00 0.00 0.00
The results of changes of ship resistance components at different 0.055 109.54 53.50 56.04 -2.22 0.71 -5.18
trims in comparison with even keel in three cases are summarized in Case 3 (Draft = 0.173 m; Fr 0.41; Trim = - 0.027, 0.000, 0.027, 0.055 and 0.082 m)
Table 7 and from Figs. 8–12. The form of relative increase of resistance 0.41 -0.027 96.59 50.95 45.64 -0.61 -0.24 -1.02
are defined as follow: 0.000 96.01 50.83 45.18 0.00 0.00 0.00
0.027 95.2 50.66 44.54 0.84 0.33 1.42
(R0 − RTrim ) 0.055 94.42 50.50 43.92 1.65 0.63 2.80
ΔR, % = .100% (10) 0.082 96.16 50.20 45.96 -0.16 1.23 -1.73
R0

Fig. 7. Resistance comparisons between the calculation results and the experimental results at different trims and speeds.

5
T.-H. Le et al. Applied Ocean Research 111 (2021) 102642

Fig. 8. The percentages changes of resistance components relative to the total Fig. 11. The percentages changes of resistance components relative to the total
resistance of the even keel in Cases 1 at Fr = 0.30. resistance of the even keel in Cases 2 at Fr = 0.41.

Fig. 9. The percentages changes of resistance components relative to the total

Fig. 12. The percentages changes of resistance components relative to the total
resistance of the even keel in Cases 1 at Fr = 0.41.
resistance of the even keel in Cases 3.

Fig. 10. The percentages changes of resistance components relative to the total
resistance of the even keel in Cases 2 at Fr = 0.30.

friction coefficient distribution on hull form due to change the trim

(shown in Fig. 13). It can be observed from Figs. 14–16 that, the skin
friction coefficient at the bow region changes monotonically and similar
at different ship speeds and drafts. This coefficient increases gradually
from the largest bow trim to the largest stern trim. The skin friction
coefficient has the minimum and maximum value at trim of -0.055 m
and +0.055 m, respectively for case studies 1 and 2. Meanwhile, it has Fig. 13. Skin Friction coefficient distribution on the hull form in Case 1 at Fr
= 0.41.
the minimum and maximum value at trim value of -0.027 m and +0.082
m, respectively for case study 3. At the stern region, the skin friction
coefficients fluctuate and has approximately same amplitude. However,

6
T.-H. Le et al.
Fig. 14. Skin Friction coefficient at Z = 0.115m in Case 1 with Fr = 0.41.
Fig. 15. Skin Friction coefficient at Z = 0.096 m in Case 2 with Fr = 0.30.
Fig. 16. Skin Friction coefficient at Z = 0.0865 m in Case 3.
its minimum and maximum values are observed at different locations
along the ship length due to different trim values. Within the rest part of
the ship, the skin friction coefficients are almost the same.
- Tendency and level changes of the pressure resistance component
for different trim conditions are different at different ship speeds and
drafts, and its level change is considerable larger than that of frictional
resistance component. Besides, the variation trend of the pressure
resistance is similar to the total resistance. The variation of the pressure
resistance can be partly explained by the changes in wave pattern in
volume fraction distribution and in the pressure distribution with
changing trim. As can be seen from Figs. 17–19 that, the wave profile
along the ship length changes monotonically and are similar in all three
case studies. At the location of the first wave crest near the ship bow and
at the stern region, the wave height reduces gradually from the largest
bow trim to the largest stern trim. The wave has the biggest and smallest
7
Applied Ocean Research 111 (2021) 102642
Fig. 17. Comparison of the wave profile in Case 1 at Fr = 0.41.
Fig. 18. Comparison of the wave profile in Case 2 at Fr = 0.30.
Fig. 19. Comparison of the wave profile in Case 3 at Fr = 0.41.
value when the trim is -0.055 and +0.055 m, respectively for case
studies 1 and 2. With case study 3, it has the biggest and the smallest
values when the trim is -0.027 m and +0.082 m, respectively. For the
second crest near the ship bow, the wave height increases gradually
from the bow trim to the largest stern trim. The wave is the smallest
when the trim is -0.055 m and biggest when it is +0.055 m for case
studies 1 and 2, and it is smallest when the trim is -0.027 m and biggest
when it is +0.082 m for case study 3. The changes in the volume fraction
of air on the free water surface also provide some explanation for the
variation in the ship resistance with respect to different trim conditions.
Fig. 20 illustrates the differences in the distribution of volume fraction of
air, especially at the bow and stern regions at different trim conditions.
The volume fraction of air at the bow and stern regions increases
gradually from the largest stern trim to the largest bow trim. The
smallest and biggest value of this is at the trim of +0.055 and -0.055 m,
respectively for case studies 1 at Fr = 0.41. The resulting changes in the
pressure distribution also provide some explanation for resistance
changes in trim conditions. Figs. 21 and 22 show the difference in total
pressure coefficient distribution on the hull form at different trim con­
ditions. As can be observed from Figs. 23, 25 and 27 that, the total
pressure coefficients of three case studies at Z = 0.115 m, 0.096 m and
T.-H. Le et al.
Fig. 20. Free water surface in Case 1 at Fr = 0.41.
Fig. 21. Total pressure coefficient distribution on the hull form in Case 1 at Fr
= 0.41.
0.0865m, respectively change monotonically and similarly. At the bow
region, the total pressure coefficient reduces gradually from the largest
bow trim to the largest stern trim. This coefficient is the biggest when
the trim is -0.055 m and smallest when it is +0.055 m. At the location
from X/L = 0.5 to 0.85 along the ship length, the total pressure coeffi­
cient increases gradually from the largest bow trim to the largest stern
trim. This coefficient is the smallest when the trim is -0.055 m and
biggest when it is +0.055 m. At location from stern of the ship to X/L =
0.5 along the ship length, the total pressure coefficient has the approx­
imately same value. For cases study 3, the total pressure coefficient
changes non-monotonically at the bow region of a ship, the absolute
value of this coefficient reduce gradually from stern trim +0.082 m to
the stern trim +0.055 m, and then increases gradually from stern trim
+0.027 m to largest bow trim -0.027 m and from trim by stern 0.055 m
to 0.027 m total pressure coefficient changes the sign. At the location
from X/L = 0.5 to 0.85 along the ship length, the total pressure
8
Applied Ocean Research 111 (2021) 102642
Fig. 22. Total pressure coefficient distribution on the
hull form in Case 2 at Fr = 0.30.
coefficient increases gradually from the largest bow trim to the largest
stern trim. The total pressure coefficient is the smallest when the trim is
-0.027 m and biggest when it is +0.082 m. The total pressure coefficient
in the rest area of the ship has not changed much.
However, it can be concluded that in case of analyzed vessel, it is not
straightforward to predict how (and by how much) the resistance will
change just by study in the visualizations of the results. The difference in
resistance is rather a result of differences in pressure pattern, distributed
evenly across the hull surface. For example, the total pressure co­
efficients of three case studies at Z = 0m are shown in Figs. 24, 26 and
28. It can be observed that its pressure pattern has clearly difference
trends in comparison with those obtained at Z = 0.115 m, 0.096 m and
0.0865 m mentioned above. Specifically, at Z = 0, from location 0.9 to
0.97 the total pressure coefficient increases gradually from the largest
bow trim to the largest stern trim for cases study 1 and 2. This coefficient
attains the biggest and smallest value when the trim is -0.055 m and
+0.055 m, respectively. For case study 3, from location 0.4 to 1.0 the
total pressure coefficient reduces gradually from the largest stern trim to
the largest bow trim. This coefficient is biggest when the trim is +0.082
m and smallest when it is -0.027 m.
The presence of fluctuation phenomenon in skin friction
(Figs. 14–16), in wave profile (Figs. 18 and 19), and in the total pressure
coefficients results (Figs. 23, 25, 27) at some locations along the ship
hull can be partly explained by insufficient mesh resolution at those
locations (see Fig. 29). After refining the mesh at these locations (see
Fig. 30), the obtained results in wave profile and total pressure coeffi­
cient become smoother (see from Figs. 31- 34), while their mean values
are virtually the same as the ones obtained before local mesh refine­
ment. Thus, it can be observed that locally refining the mesh to eliminate
local fluctuations has no effect on resulting global values (RT, RF and RP)
but it increases the number of cells hence increases the computational
time. Therefore, if the convergence of global results is proven by mesh
refinement study, further refinement of the mesh to eliminate local
fluctuations is not vital from engineering point of view; it can only
improve the quality of the visualizations.
T.-H. Le et al.
Fig. 23. Total pressure coefficient at Z = 0.115 in Case 1 with Fr = 0.41.
Fig. 24. Total pressure coefficient on Fore-body at Z = 0 m in Case 1 with Fr
= 0.41.
Fig. 25. Total pressure coefficient at Z = 0.096m in Case 2 with Fr = 0.30.
4. Conclusions
In this study, the three-dimensional incompressible viscous unsteady
RANSE method has been utilized to investigate the trim effect on DTMB
ship resistance at different ship speeds and drafts. To assess this effect,
three case studies at different trim with different ship operating condi­
tions (speeds and drafts) are performed. Therefore, the following con­
clusions can be made:
9
Applied Ocean Research 111 (2021) 102642
Fig. 26. Total pressure coefficient distribution on Fore-body at Z = 0 m in Case
2 with Fr = 0.30.
Fig. 27. Total pressure coefficient at Z = 0.0865m in Case 3.
Fig. 28. Total pressure coefficient on Fore-body at Z = 0 in Case 3.
- There is a good agreement between CFD and model testing, which is
illustrated in the similar changing tendency of ship resistance at
different trims and speeds between simulation and experimental results.
This shows the capability of CFD in application of RANSE in trim
investigation. Furthermore, it also provides more details on the char­
acteristics of the flow around the ship hull such as the distribution of
pressure on the hull surface, wave patterns on free surface, and etc.,
T.-H. Le et al.
Fig. 29. The structure of mesh before refine.
Fig. 30. The structure of mesh after refine.
Fig. 31. Comparison of wave profile before and after refine mesh for case study
2 at Fr = 0.3 and Trim = -0.055 m.
Fig. 32. Comparison of wave profile before and after refine mesh in fluctuation
region for case study 2 at Fr = 0.3 and Trim = -0.055 m.
which are definitely helpful in explaining the physical phenomenon of
changing ship resistance at different trim.
- The ship resistance changes at different trims in comparison with
even keel condition. The impact level of trim on ship resistance depends
on the hull form, draft and speed of the vessel. Estimating the optimal
trim angle is therefore a dynamic process.
- The resistance components analysis shows that changing level of
the pressure resistance component corresponding to different trim
10
Applied Ocean Research 111 (2021) 102642
Fig. 33. Comparison of total pressure coefficient before and after refine mesh
for case study 2 at Z = 0.094m, Fr = 0.3 and Trim = -0.055 m.
Fig. 34. Comparison of total pressure coefficient before and after refine mesh in
fluctuation for case study 2 at Z = 0.094 m, Fr = 0.3 and Trim = -0.055 m.
conditions is considerably larger than frictional resistance component.
- In each case studies of analyzed vessel, there is the existence of a
certain non-zero trim angle case, providing lower resistance than even
keel cases excluded case of design draft and speed (case study one at Fr
= 0.41), it can be explained that vessels are traditionally optimized for
only one condition, which is normally the contract speed at the design
draft. Therefore, studying trim optimization is necessary in the design of
the ship as well as during ship operation at sea since the actual voyage
conditions often differ significantly.
- Analyzing the change in flow field around the ship hull at different
trims provides a fully understanding of why the ship resistance can be
changed by different trims.
- Based on research results of study effect trim on ship resistance
symmetrically for various hull shape. It is possible to make simplified
guidelines for how to choose a helpful trim angle for minimum resis­
tance, but it requires high costs and would be unacceptable in some
cases.
5. Further work
The present study only limited on studying effect of trim on ship
resistance in calm water conditions. Therefore, to prevent the risks of
applying this solution in the ship operation, in the further works, this
research will be extended to investigate the influence of trim on ship
performance in actual sea conditions as well as considering its effect on
the change of green water on deck, stability and strength, maneuver­
ability of the ship and overall safety.
T.-H. Le et al.
Declaration of Competing Interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial
interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence
the work reported in this paper.
Acknowledgments
This research is funded by Vietnam National University Ho Chi Minh
city (VNU-HCM) under grant number B2021-20-05.
The authors are grateful to the Vietnam Maritime University and
Ship Design and Research Center CTO S.A., Poland for providing
necessary research facilities during conducting this research work.
References
CTO, 2017. Towing Tank Experiments of Trim Optimization for DTMB Model.
ITTC, 2014. Recommended Procedures and Guidelines 7.5-03-02-04 [Online]. Available.
https://ittc.info/media/4198/75-03-02-04.pdf [Accessed].
ITTC Specialist Committee, 2017. Recommended Procedures and Guidelines -
Uncertainty Analysis in CFD Verification and Validation Methodology and
Procedures [Online]. Available: https://www.ittc.info/media/8153/75-03-01-01.
pdf [Accessed].
Choi, J., Min, K.-S., Kim, J., Lee, S., Seo, H., 2010. Resistance and propulsion
characteristics of various commercial ships based on CFD results. Ocean Eng. 37,
549–566.
Farkas, A., Degiuli, N., Martić, I, 2018. Assessment of hydrodynamic characteristics of a
full-scale ship at different draughts. Ocean Eng. 156, 135–152.
Iakovatos, M., Liarokapis, D., Tzabiras, G., 2014. Experimental investigation of the trim
influence on the resistance characteristics of five ship models. Development in
Marine Transportation and Exploitation of Sea Resources.
Islam, H., Soares, C.G., 2019a. Uncertainty analysis in ship resistance prediction using
OpenFOAM. Ocean Eng. 191, 105805.
Islam, H., Soares, G., 2019b. Effect of trim on container ship resistance at different ship
speeds and drafts. Ocean Eng. 183, 106–115.
11
Applied Ocean Research 111 (2021) 102642
Kim, H., Choi, S., Hong, C., Yoo, S., Seo, J., Hwangbo, S., 2013. In: Development and
Application of Trim Optimization Techniques Using a Evaluation System (Solution)
Based on the RANS for Improvement of EEOI. The Twenty-third International
Offshore and Polar Engineering Conference. International Society of Offshore and
Polar Engineers.
Labanti, J., Islam, H., Guedes Soares, C., 2016. CFD assessment of Ropax hull resistance
with various initial drafts and trim angles. Maritime Technology and Engineering III.
Taylor & Francis Group, London, pp. 325–332.
Larsson, L., Stern, F., Visonneau, M., 2013. Numerical Ship Hydrodynamics: an
Assessment of the Gothenburg 2010 Workshop. Springer.
Ma, Z., Chen, H., Zhang, Y., 2017. Impact of waste heat recovery systems on energy
efficiency improvement of a heavy-duty diesel engine. Arch. Thermodyn. 38, 63–75.
Olivieri, A., Pistani, F., Avanzini, A., Stern, F., Penna, R., 2001. Towing Tank
Experiments of Resistance, Sinkage and Trim, Boundary Layer, Wake, and Free
Surface Flow Around a Naval Combatant INSEAN 2340 Model. Iowa Univ Iowa City
Coll of Engineering.
Park, H.-S., Seo, D.-W., Han, K.-M., Kim, D.-H., Ha, T.-B., 2015. A study on resistance
performance for various trim conditions and bulb shapes on a container ship under
slow steaming. In: ASME 2015 34th International Conference on Ocean, Offshore
and Arctic Engineering. American Society of Mechanical Engineers Digital
Collection.
Reichel, M., Minchev, A., Larsen, N., 2014. Trim optimisation-theory and practice.
TransNav 8.
Shivachev, E., Khorasanchi, M., Day, A.H., 2017. Trim influence on Kriso Container Ship
(KCS): an experimental and numerical study. In: ASME 2017 36th International
Conference on Ocean, Offshore and Arctic Engineering. American Society of
Mechanical Engineers Digital Collection.
Stern, F., Wilson, R.V., Coleman, H.W., Paterson, E.G.J.J.F.E, 2001. Comprehensive
approach to verification and validation of CFD simulations—part 1: methodology
and procedures. J. Fluids Eng. 123, 793–802.
Sun, J., Tu, H., Chen, Y., Xie, D., Zhou, J., 2016. A study on trim optimization for a
container ship based on effects due to resistance. J. Ship Res. 60, 30–47.
Tu, T.N., Kraskowski, M., Chien, N.M., Anh, V.T., Luu, D.L., Phuong, N.K., 2018.
Numerical study on the influence of trim on ship resistance in trim optimization
process. Nav. Eng. J. 130, 133–142.
Vettor, R., Soares, C.G., 2016. Development of a ship weather routing system. Ocean Eng.
123, 1–14.
Yong, Z., Zhi, Z., Li, Z., Tianlin, W.J.J.O.M.S., 2015. Turbulence model investigations on
the boundary layer flow with adverse pressure gradients. J. Mar. Sci. Appl. 14,
170–174.