Darmawan Analysis The Effect of Outrigger (Cadik) Variations

IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science
PAPER • OPEN ACCESS You may also like

- Dynamic Analysis of High-Rise Structures
Analysis The Effect of Outrigger (Cadik) Variations with Outrigger Structural System
Subjected To Lateral Loads
on Motion Response of Fishing Boat Using CFD Mohammed Sanaullah Shareef, Khaja
Musab Manzoor and Mohammed Muqeem
Method - Evaluation of the Efficiency of Single-

Outrigger Structural Systems in Tall
Buildings
To cite this article: Akbar Bagus Darmawan et al 2022 IOP Conf. Ser.: Earth Environ. Sci. 1081 B Marabi, S C Alih and I Faridmehr
012010
- Parametric study of position of an
outrigger-belt system through pushover
analysis
Aakash Gupta, Rajat Mohan and
Debabrata Podder
View the article online for updates and enhancements.
This content was downloaded from IP address 182.1.91.217 on 26/10/2023 at 08:28

The 3rd Maritime Safety International Conference (MASTIC) 2022 IOP Publishing
IOP Conf. Series: Earth and Environmental Science 1081 (2022) 012010 doi:10.1088/1755-1315/1081/1/012010
Analysis The Effect of Outrigger (Cadik) Variations on

Motion Response of Fishing Boat Using CFD Method
Akbar Bagus Darmawan1, Yeddid Yonatan Eka Darma1 and Jangka Rulianto1
1
State Polytechnic of Banyuwangi
akbarbagusd@gmail.com
Abstract. Jukung is a type of traditional fishing boat used as transportation for fishing activities
in Muncar, Banyuwangi, which has a wave as high as 2 m with a period of 4.6 s which is
classified as 2nd sea state. One of the boats used has a length of 7.2 m, width 0.75 m, and height
of 0.8 m. The characteristics of the hull which with an L/B ratio of 9.6 require outriggers to help
balance while sailing. The outrigger itself is a cylindrical component that is placed at a certain
distance on both sides of the boat. Since ancient times, the construction of outrigger boats has
been carried out by local artisans by relying on experience. This is certainly very risky because
it is not known for certain whether the construction, in this case, the outrigger can keep the boat
stable. For this reason, we researched the boat's motion using the CFD method to provide a
reference for the construction of the outrigger design. Using one of the existing boats with LOA
7.2 m, B 0.671 m, and H 0.8 m, and Vs 4.385 kt as a simulation model, we varied the outrigger-
centerline distance by 2.5 m and 2.8 m; diameters of 90 mm, 120 mm, and 150 mm; which tested
under conditions of full load and light load with the wave directions of headsea (180o),
headquarter (135o), and beamsea (90o), resulting in Response Amplitude Operator (RAO) as
follows. The model with an outrigger-CL distance of 2.8 m and diameter of 150 mm has the
lowest heaving value of 0.02 m/m at a frequency of 4.1 rad/s from the headsea direction, 0.44
m/m at a frequency of 3.7 rad/s from the headquarter direction, and 0.4 m/m at a frequency of
6.2 rad/s from the beamsea direction. This model also has the lowest value in pitching and rolling
responses from all directions with each value of 0.4 rad/m to 0.15 rad/m in pitching and relatively
0 rad/m in rolling responses.
1. Introduction
Based on observations on Muncar beach, Banyuwangi, the majority of local fishermen use jukung as a
means of transportation used in sailing. Jukung is a term for a type of small boat that is widely used as
a fishing vessel in Indonesia [1]. Jukung in Muncar has an outrigger that serves to maintain the stability
of the boat while sailing.
The construction of the outrigger jukung was carried out by local carpentry fishermen relying on
their experience and estimates in calculating the diameter of the outrigger and the distance between the
outrigger and the centerline of the hull, so it is not known for certain whether the outrigger used is
sufficient to keep the boat stable. This is quite risky considering that there are quite a several cases of
jukung sinking while sailing in the waters of Muncar due to outriggers that are unable to withstand the
waves.
Puspita's research [2] states that a boat with a length of 9.1m; 0.8m wide; 0.35m waterline; and an
outrigger with a diameter of 0.14m, has good seakeeping characteristics in the waters of Puger, Jember.
They used the Response Amplitude Operator (RAO) as a reference in determining how well the
Content from this work may be used under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 licence. Any further distribution
of this work must maintain attribution to the author(s) and the title of the work, journal citation and DOI.
Published under licence by IOP Publishing Ltd 1
characteristics of the boat's motion in facing waves. For this reason, in this study, a boat motion
simulation will be carried out on several outrigger variants using the CFD (Computational Fluid
Dynamic) method to determine the size and distance of the outrigger that is suitable for use on jukung
in the waters of Muncar, Banyuwangi.
2. Method
The methodology used in this research is a simulation-based method, which will be used to solve the
problem. More details are described as follows.
2.1. Hull Model

Jukung Jenggirat Tangi is a boat that was used in the waters of Muncar, Banyuwangi. This boat is used
as a model in the simulation.
Figure 1. Jukung Jenggirat Tangi.
The boat with a speed of 4.385kt is 7.2m long; 0.75m wide; a height of 0.8m; with an outrigger 9.2m
long; 0.09m diameter; and 2.8m from the centerline of the hull. To create a 3D model of this boat, there
are several steps as follows.
2.1.1. Hull point measurement. This measurement is carried out using a laser distance meter (LDM) by
determining the vertical line of each station on the boat, then taking shots at 7 points on each station.
The LDM results are the distance measured from the tool to the point on the boat and the angle of the
shot.
Figure 2. Boat’s hull shooting scheme.
2
2.1.2. Linesplan drawing. The results are then drawn on CAD software to create a drawing of the boat’s
station, which is combined into a body plan. This body plan drawing is then projected up and to the side
to become a linesplan.
Figure 3. Linesplan drawing.
2.1.3. 3D model design. 2D drawings or linesplan and their sizes ae used as the basis for creating 3D
models in the modeler software.
Figure 4. 3D model.
2.1.4. Model validation. Model validation was carried ou to ensure that the 3D model had the same size
and parameters as Jukung Jenggirat Tangi. In practice, the tolerance value used is 0.5%.
Figure 5. Outrigger on the jukung.
3
The outrigger used has a brayungan and a brayungan support as a supporting component to connect the
outrigger to the boat’s hull. Puspita’s research [2] states that jukung boats with a T/B value of 0.44 have
good motion using outriggers with a diameter of 0.4T, while Santoso’s research [3] said that the distance
of the outrigger also affects the boat motion.
Table 1. Model validation of the jukung.
Model Field Gap Tolerance

Components Gap Status
3D Data (%) (%)
LWL (m) 6.571 6.57124 0.00024 0.0037 0.5 Passed
B (m) 0.671 0.67064 0.00036 0.0537 0.5 Passed
T (m) 0.3 0.3 0 0 0.5 Passed
H (m) 0.8 0.8 0 0 0.5 Passed
Displacement Volume
0.5344 0.5349 0.00050 0.0915 0.5 Passed
(m3)
Displacement Weight (T) 0.5210 0.5218 0.00080 0.1616 0.5 Passed
Cb 0.394 0.395 0.00100 0.1808 0.5 Passed
2.2. Boat motion response

Ships/boats that are above sea level will always get external force, especially waves that cause the ship
to experience free motion as shown in the figure below [4].
Figure 6. Six degrees of freedom of the ship.
In obtaining wave treatment, the ship experiences two types of motion, there are rotational motion and
translational motion. Rotational motion is an angular motion that includes rolling (angular movement
according to the X-axis in the form of swinging to the starboard and the portside), pitching (angular
movement according to the Y-axis in the form of nodding by the bow and the stern), and yawing motion
(angular motion according to the Z-axis of rotation). Meanwhile, translational motion is a regular motion
along its axis. These motions include surging (movement about the X-axis), swaying (movement about
the Y-axis), and heaving (movement about the Z-axis) [5].
2.3. Response Amplitude Operator (RAO)

Evaluation of boat motion is only carried out on oscillatory motion. Of the six motions of the ship,
three motions are truly pure oscillatory motions, there are heaving, pitching, and rolling. This is because
4
the motions will return the ship to its original position when the ship is not in a state of equilibrium.
Thus, the motion works under the influence of a force or a turning moment. This is different from the
three other ship motions, which are surging, swaying, and yawing, the ship does not return to its original
position when it is not in a balanced position unless there is a back force or moment that causes it to
work in the opposite direction [6]. The results of the prediction of ship motion are generally displayed
in the form of a comparison between the amplitude of the incident wave and the amplitude of a particular
mode of motion, which serves as a function of the change in wave frequency. The amplitude comparison
is called the Response Amplitude Operator (RAO) [2].
RAO is the ratio between the amplitude of the ship's motion (both translational and rotational) to the
wave amplitude at a certain frequency [7]. RAO for translational motion is a direct comparison between
the amplitude of the ship's motion with the wave amplitude, both of which are in units of length. For
rotational motion, the RAO value is the ratio between the amplitude of the rotational motion to the slope
of the wave which is the product of the wavenumber. So, to get the motion value on the CFD, it is
necessary to reprocess the results of the motion value [8].
The general form of the response graph of a ship’s motion which has a stiffness factor, in this context
are heave, roll, and pitch, due to the excitation of harmonic wave loads is more clearly shown in the
following figure.
RAO =  1/ 0
Sub-Critical Critical Super-Critical
Frequency,  (rad/s)
Figure 7. The general form of RAO graph.
Referring to the figure above, Djatmiko’s research [9] explains that the response curve for the ship’s
motion can be divided into three areas, there are sub-critical, critical, and super-critical. The low-
frequency portion, or wavelength (with the period), is called the sub-critical region. In this area, the
marine structure will move following the pattern or contour of the long wave elevation, so that the
amplitude of the motion is approximately equivalent to the wave amplitude, which is known as
contouring. In the hydrodynamic correlation equation, in the low-frequency region, the motion will be
dominated by the stiffness factor.
The second is the critical region, covering the mid-arm of the curve on the low-frequency side to the
top of the curve and extending to the mid-arm of the curve on the high-frequency side. The peak of the
curve is at the natural frequency, which is the resonance region, so the motion response is magnified, or
the motion amplitude will be several times greater than the wave amplitude. Hydrodynamically in the
natural frequency region, the motion will be dominated by the damping factor.
Third, is the super-critical region, namely the region of high-frequency (waves with a short period). In
this area, the response to motion will be reduced. The higher the frequency or the denser the crests of
the successive waves, the effect such as ocean structures moving over relatively flat water will occur.
Therefore, the motion of marine structures is referred to as platforming. In terms of hydrodynamic
correlation, in this high-frequency region, the motion will be dominated by the mass factor.
5
2.4. Waves direction toward the ship

The direction of the waves in Figure 8 is divided into five directions towards the ship, the five directions
are head sea at an angle of 180o, bow quarter at an angle of 135o and 225o, a beam sea at an angle of 90o
and 270o, a stern quarter at an angle of 45o and 315o, and stern sea at an angle of 0o [4].
Figure 8. Waves angle orientation.
2.5. Waves in the waters of Muncar

Based on data from the Indonesian Meteorology, Climatology and Geophysics Agency (BMKG) on
June 17th, 2021, it was stated that the wave amplitude value in the waters of Muncar, Banyuwangi ranged
from 1.25 meters to 2.50 meters as shown in the following figure.
Figure 9. Wave height in the waters of Muncar.
According to Romadhoni’s research [10], regarding the conditions of wave characteristics that have
been determined by WMO (World Meteorological Organization) in the Sea State Code and also shown
by Yim’s research [11] in table 2 below, this value belongs to state 2 with a period of 4.6s.
6
Table 2. WMO sea state.
Sea State Significant Spectral Peak

Code Wave Height (m) Period (s)
1 0.5 2.4
2 2.0 4.6
3 4.0 6.0
4 6.5 7.5
5 10.0 8.9
6 16.0 10.8
7 30.0 13.6
8 50.0 17.0
9 100.0 22.4
3. Result and discussion
3.1. Model variants

Following the planning of outrigger variations, six models were made with variations as shown in table
3 below and also in the following figures as the display of the variants.
Table 3. Outrigger variations for the model.
Distance of Outrigger Outrigger

No. Models
to the Centerline of Hull Diameter
1 Original (2.8m) Original (0.09m) RD-2800-0090
2 Original (2.8m) 0.12m RD-2800-0120
3 Original (2.8m) 0.15m RD-2800-0150
4 2.5m Original (0.09m) RD-2500-0090
5 2.5m 0.12m RD-2500-0120
6 2.5m 0.15m RD-2500-0150
Figure 10. Outrigger variation scheme.
7
Figure 11. Display in perspective view.
Figure 12. Display in front view.
8
3.2. Resistances
Before analyzing the boat motion, another simulation was carried out to determine the resistance of each
model. In hydrodynamic terms, resistance is the magnitude of the fluid force acting on the ship in such
a way that it opposes the motion of the boat. Resistance in the shipping world is very important to be
calculated accurately [12]. By using the Holtrop method, the resistance graph is obtained as follows.
Figure 13. Resistances graph for six models.
Based on the graph above, it can be seen that the farther the outrigger distance and the larger the
diameter, the resistance value will also increase. However, the difference of each model's value at a
speed (Vs) of 4.385 kt is not significant, with the lowest value on the RD-2500-0090 model of 0.117 kN
and the highest value on the RD-2800-0150 model of 0.154 kN. The difference between the lowest and
the highest value is only 0.037 kN, so the resistance does not significantly affect the model selection.
Table 4. Resistance of each model in kN.

Speed (kt)
Model
0.987 1.973 3.015 4.001 4.385
RD-2500-0090 0.008 0.027 0.058 0.098 0.117
RD-2500-0120 0.008 0.030 0.065 0.110 0.131
RD-2500-0150 0.009 0.033 0.073 0.123 0.145
RD-2800-0090 0.008 0.028 0.062 0.104 0.123
RD-2800-0120 0.009 0.032 0.069 0.117 0.139
RD-2800-0150 0.010 0.035 0.077 0.130 0.154
3.3. RAO numerical simulation

Numerical computation of hydrodynamic factors which include added mass coefficient, damping,
stiffness, excitation force, and wave diffraction can be done by applying strip theory, where
hydrodynamic problem solving is carried out on each 2D section of the hull of the submerged floating
building and then integrates it towards the longitudinal floating building [9]. The simulation this time
uses the numerical method of strip theory which uses a measure hull method based on Lewis mapping
theory to calculate the hydrodynamic characteristics of each cross-section [13]. The numerical
parameters used include load line, frequency limit, vessel speed, wave directions, and wave
characteristics, which are shown in the following table.
9
Table 5. Parameter used for numerical simulation.
Parameters Value Parameters Value

Load line Wave Characteristics
Full load 0.3m Type Jonswap
Light load 0.2m Char. Height 2.0m
Frequency limit 21 frequencies Modal Period 5.493s
Vessel Speed 4.385kt Average Period 4.6s
Wave Direction
Head sea 180o
Headquarter 135o
Beam sea 90o
The numerical simulation results include RAO graphs and boat motion displays, which are shown in
the following figures.
Head Sea (180o) Head Quarter (135o) Beam Sea (90o)

RD-2500-0090 RD-2500-0090 RD-2500-0090
Figure 14. Display of simulation results in three directions of incoming waves using numerical methods.
Figure 15. RAO heaving graph at full load condition using numerical method.
10
Figure 16. RAO pitching graph at full load condition using numerical method.
Figure 17. RAO rolling graph at full load condition using numerical method.
3.4. RAO CFD (computational fluid dynamic) simulation

CFD method is a method to determine the characteristics of fluid dynamics computationally. The stages
of applying this method start from design, modeling, application of conditions, then simulation
according to the model and conditions used. Parameters used in this simulation include load line,
frequency range, vessel speed, wave directions, and wave characteristics. This method uses units of m/s
for vessel speed and uses a range for frequencies with values of 0.369rad/s (low) and 8.269rad/s (high).
11
Table 6. Parameter used for CFD simulation.

Parameters Value Parameters Value
Load line Wave Direction
180o; 135o; 90o; 45o; 0o;
Full load 0.3m All Directions
-45o; -135o; -90o; -180o
Light load 0.2m Wave Characteristics
Frequency range Height 2.0m
Lowest 0.369rad/s Period 4.6s
Highest 8.269rad/s
Vessel Speed 2.364m/s
From the simulation, the ship motion display and RAO graphic data are obtained with the parameters
shown in table 6 above, which are shown in the following figure.
Head Sea (180o) Head Quarter (135o) Beam Sea (90o)

RD-2500-0090 RD-2500-0090 RD-2500-0090
Figure 18. Display of simulation results in three directions of incoming waves using CFD methods.
Figure 19. RAO heaving graph at full load condition using CFD method.
12
Figure 20. RAO pitching graph at full load condition using CFD method.
Figure 21. RAO rolling graph at full load condition using CFD method.
3.5. Simulation results validation

Ghadimi et al [14] stated in their study that a maximum error of 8.16% can indicate the fact that the
simulation runs quite well, so, in this paper, we use a tolerance of 10% for simulation error.
Table 7. Data of the simulation results validation.

Wave Details CFD Numeric Gap Gap Tolerance Status
Direction Freq Height (%) (%)
Head sea 1.3 rad/s 2m 0.98 1.04 0.042 5.7751 10 Passed
Headquarter 1.3 rad/s 2m 0.96 1.02 0.043 5.7747 10 Passed
Beam sea 1.3 rad/s 2m 0.91 0.94 0.010 3.1109 10 Passed
The RAO heaving values of the RD-2800-0150 model at full load for the head sea, headquarter, and
beam sea directions are 0.984 m/m, 0.963 m/m, and 0.910 m/m using the CFD method, respectively.
This result has an average difference of 4.887% when compared to the results using the numerical
13
method. As can be seen in the table above, this difference meets the tolerance value of 10%, so the
parameters used are appropriate and the simulation results obtained can be accounted for.
3.6. Results of analysis

The results of the RAO analysis of heaving motion in the direction of the head sea (180o) show that the
RD-2800-0150 model has the lowest value of 0.02m/m at a frequency of 4.1rad/s. With the headquarter
direction (135o) the model RD-2500-0090 has the lowest value of 0.33m/m at a frequency of 4.5rad/s
and the model RD-2800-0150 is 0.44m/m at a frequency of 3.7rad/s. With the direction of the beam sea
(90o), the model RD-2800-0150 also has the lowest value of 0.4m/m at a frequency of 6.2rad/s.
The results of the RAO analysis of the pitching motion in the direction of the head sea (180o) show that
the RD-2800-0150 model has the lowest value of 0.4rad/m at a frequency of 2.45rad/s, while at a
frequency of 3.7rad/s, this model has a value of 0.07 rad/m. With the direction of the headquarter (135o)
the model RD-2800-0150 has the lowest value of 0.15rad/m at a frequency of 4.1rad/s. With the
direction of the beam sea (90o) the RD-2800-0150 model has the lowest value at each resonance and
decreases at high frequencies.
The results of the RAO analysis of rolling motion with the direction of the head sea (180o) show that
each model has a relatively low value close to 0 rad/m at each frequency, but is different from the RD-
2500-0120 model which has a higher value than the other models of 0.039 rad/m at a frequency of
5.36rad/s. With the direction of the headquarter (135o) the model RD-2500-0090 has the highest value
of 0.26rad/m at a frequency of 3.7rad/s. Then, with the direction of the beam sea (90o) the model with a
variant of the outrigger-CL distance of 2.8m has a stable value at low frequencies up to 6.19rad/s.
Table 8. Result of the analysis.
Models Descriptions
Jukung model with the outrigger-center distance of 2.8m and
RD-2800-0090 -
outrigger diameter of 90mm
RD-2800-0120 -
Jukung model with the outrigger-center distance of 2.8m and Has the best
RD-2800-0150
outrigger diameter of 150mm RAO motion
RD-2500-0090 -
RD-2500-0120 -
RD-2500-0150 -
4. Conclusion
Based on the results of the analysis and discussion of the research topics that have been carried out, the
following conclusions can be drawn.
• Based on the results of the redrawing of the model and its variations, there were 12 outrigger
jukung models according to the existing Jenggirat Tangi boat with LWL 6.571m, B 0.671m, T
0.3m, and H 0.8m. Along with variations of outriggers with diameters of 90mm, 120mm, and
150mm, as well as outrigger distances of 2.5m, and 2.8m CL.
• The boat model with FRP (Fiber Reinforced Plastic) material has parameters following the 1964
BKI rules regarding Rules for Fiberglass Reinforced Plastic Ships with an ivory distance of
0.36m, side hull skin thickness 20mm, bottom hull thickness 20mm, and girder thickness 8mm.
14
• The model with an outrigger-CL distance of 2.5m and an outrigger diameter of 150mm has a
good heaving motion with the lowest values in the direction of the head sea, headquarter, and
beam sea direction. This model also has the lowest pitching and rolling motion in the three
directions of incoming waves, so this model is recommended for use in the waters of Muncar,
Banyuwangi.
5. References
[1] Nasty A Z, Syahril S and Nabawi R A 2019 Stabilitas kapal jukung dengan jenis lambung pelat
datar Jurnal AERASI 1 68–75
[2] Puspita H I D 2017 Analisa gerakan kapal ikan bercadik semi-circular di perairan puger jember
Jurnal Elemen 4 94–101
[3] Santoso B, Helmi M and Nurhasanah N 2017 Optimasi panjang cadik kapal nelayan 3gt Jurnal
IPTEK 21 11–6
[4] Romadhoni R 2016 Analisa olah gerak kapal di gelombang reguler pada kapal tipe axe bow
KAPAL: Jurnal Ilmu Pengetahuan dan Teknologi Kelautan 13 61–8
[5] Rudiyansah H, Sulisetyono A and Ali B 2013 Analisa pengaruh seakeeping terhadap kinerja dan
kenyamanan kapal ro-pax berbasis uji model di perairan laut jawa Jurnal Teknik POMITS 2
1–6
[6] Hutauruk R M and Rengi P 2014 Respons gerakan kapal perikanan hasil optimisasi terhadap
gelombang Jurnal Perikanan dan Kelautan 19 13–22
[7] Hidayat I N, Zakki A F and Manik P 2019 Analisa performa fin stabilizer untuk memperbaiki
gerakan rolling pada kapal longline 90 gt Jurnal Teknik Perkapalan 7 248–54
[8] Heriyanty E, Hadi E S and Kiryanto K 2019 Analisa seakeeping ponton berbentuk prisma segi
enam pada gelombang reguler dengan simulasi computational fluid dynamic (cfd) Jurnal
Teknik Perkapalan 7 548–56
[9] Djatmiko E B 2012 Perilaku dan operabilitas bangunan laut di atas gelombang acak (Surabaya:
ITS-Press)
[10] Romadhoni R 2019 Analisa seakeeping ferformance kapal cepat model planing hull chine
INOVTEK POLBENG 9 30–7
[11] Yim S C, Nakhata T and Huang E T 2004 Coupled nonlinear barge motions, part ii: stochastic
models and stability analysis 23rd International Conference on Offshore Mechanics and
Arctic Engineering (Vancouver B.C., Canada: OMAE2004-51131) pp 1–10
[12] Hadi E S 2009 Komparasi hull performance pada konsep design kapal ikan multi fungsi dengan
lambung katamaran KAPAL: Jurnal Ilmu Pengetahuan dan Teknologi Kelautan 6 212–7
[13] Bentley 2013 Maxsurf motion user manual (Bentley System, Incorporated 2013)
[14] Ghadimi P, Pourmostafa M and Najafi S 2020 Investigating the response amplitude operator of
a heaving pontoon under the influence of a submerged trapezoidal breakwater Advances in
Civil Engineering 2020
15

Darmawan Analysis The Effect of Outrigger (Cadik) Variations

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Darmawan Analysis The Effect of Outrigger (Cadik) Variations

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science

PAPER • OPEN ACCESS You may also like

Method - Evaluation of the Efficiency of Single-

This content was downloaded from IP address 182.1.91.217 on 26/10/2023 at 08:28

Analysis The Effect of Outrigger (Cadik) Variations on

2.1. Hull Model

Figure 1. Jukung Jenggirat Tangi.

Figure 2. Boat’s hull shooting scheme.

Figure 3. Linesplan drawing.

Figure 5. Outrigger on the jukung.

Table 1. Model validation of the jukung.

Model Field Gap Tolerance

2.2. Boat motion response

Figure 6. Six degrees of freedom of the ship.

2.3. Response Amplitude Operator (RAO)

Sub-Critical Critical Super-Critical

Figure 7. The general form of RAO graph.

2.4. Waves direction toward the ship

Figure 8. Waves angle orientation.

2.5. Waves in the waters of Muncar

Figure 9. Wave height in the waters of Muncar.

Table 2. WMO sea state.

Sea State Significant Spectral Peak

3. Result and discussion

3.1. Model variants

Table 3. Outrigger variations for the model.

Distance of Outrigger Outrigger

Figure 10. Outrigger variation scheme.

Figure 11. Display in perspective view.

Figure 12. Display in front view.

Figure 13. Resistances graph for six models.

Table 4. Resistance of each model in kN.

3.3. RAO numerical simulation

Table 5. Parameter used for numerical simulation.

Parameters Value Parameters Value

Head Sea (180o) Head Quarter (135o) Beam Sea (90o)

3.4. RAO CFD (computational fluid dynamic) simulation

Table 6. Parameter used for CFD simulation.

Head Sea (180o) Head Quarter (135o) Beam Sea (90o)

3.5. Simulation results validation

Table 7. Data of the simulation results validation.

3.6. Results of analysis

Table 8. Result of the analysis.

You might also like