Journal of
Marine Science
and Engineering
Article
Numerical Simulation on Dynamic Characteristics of
Longitudinal Launching of Large Container Ships
Kaihua Liu 1 , Yu Wang 1,2 , Zhifei Wu 1 , Juntao Pi 1 , Wie Min Gho 3 and Bo Zhou 1, *
Citation: Liu, K.; Wang, Y.; Wu, Z.; Pi,
J.; Gho, W.M.; Zhou, B. Numerical
Simulation on Dynamic
Characteristics of Longitudinal
Launching of Large Container Ships.
J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2022, 10, 1583.
https://doi.org/10.3390/
jmse10111583
Academic Editors:
Margareta Lutzhoft and
Apsara Abeysiriwardhane
Received: 12 September 2022
Accepted: 13 October 2022
Published: 26 October 2022
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral
with regard to jurisdictional claims in
published maps and institutional affil-
iations.
Copyright: © 2022 by the authors.
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland.
This article is an open access article
distributed under the terms and
conditions of the Creative Commons
Attribution (CC BY) license (https://
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/
4.0/).
J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2022, 10, 1583. https://doi.org/10.3390/jmse10111583
1 State Key Laboratory of Structural Analysis for Industrial Equipment, School of Naval Architecture
Engineering, Dalian University of Technology, Dalian 116024, China
2 COSCO Shipping Heavy Industry (Dalian) Co., Ltd., Dalian 116113, China
3 Maritime Production Research Pte. Ltd., Singapore 915806, Singapore
* Correspondence: bozhou@dlut.edu.cn
Abstract: The upsizing and rapid development of container ships has resulted in many large ships
launching in small slipways due to the lagging of advanced equipment. In particular, the dynamic
characteristics of these large ships in the longitudinal launching operation under restricted water
are yet to be studied in detail. In this study, a ship model to simulate the longitudinal launching
process of an 8500 TEU container ship was created based on the URANS method. The ship resistance
in calm water was determined and validated against the experimental data. The influence of the stern
appendage on the ship’s resistance and the flow field around the hull, with and without the aft poppet,
under various water-depth-to-draught ratios was analyzed. A comparison of the ship’s resistance
between the numerical and the experimental data shows that the difference is minimal, within 1.5%.
The numerical results revealed that the aft poppets change the flow pattern and effectively reduce the
pressure drag in the drifting stage. The shallow water causes a restraining effect on the ship. The
proposed analytical approach in the numerical analysis, considering the aft poppet and the water
depth, could provide a better simulation for a large ship’s longitudinal launching operation.
Keywords: ship resistance; ship launching; dynamic characteristics; aft poppets; stern appendage
1. Introductions
The improvement of shipbuilding technology and increasing import and export vol-
ume of international trade have resulted in modern container ships gradually developing
toward upsizing and rapidness. The orders for the construction of large container ships are
increasing, but the enhancement of the launching slipway equipment is still lagging.
The launch of large ships on small slipways is limited to water depth and slippage,
which can easily lead to accidents, such as stranding and collisions. The main engine and
superstructure in the stern of the ships to intensify squatting can be affected significantly
by water depth during the process of launching. Therefore, a study on the dynamic
characteristics of a container ship on launching in its longitudinal direction is required to
ensure a safe launch operation.
Currently, there are no relevant international standards and requirements on the
construction approach and ship hull for ship launching. There are also no clear standards,
and there are usually no actual arrangements of the shipyard (dock, slipway, etc.) and the
shipbuilding cycle to define the launch operational procedure.
The ship’s longitudinal launching is a complex process that can be divided into
four (4) stages [1], as shown in Figure 1. The first and the second stages involve the ship
sliding down until the stern contacts the water and floats. In the third stage, the stern floats
until the bow fulcrum leaves the slipway. In the final phase, the ship moves completely in
water until it stops. The ship’s parameters in the launch operational procedure constantly
change with time in each stage of the draught, speed, force, and moments.
https://www.mdpi.com/journal/jmse
 J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2022, 10, x FOR PEER REVIEW 2 of 19

J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2022, 10, 1583 the bow fulcrum leaves the slipway. In the final phase, the ship moves completely in water
2 of 18
until it stops. The ship’s parameters in the launch operational procedure constantly
change with time in each stage of the draught, speed, force, and moments.

Figure1.1.Four
Figure Four (4)
(4) stages
stages of
of longitudinal
longitudinalship
shiplaunching.
launching.

There are
There are traditional
traditional statics
statics and
anddynamics
dynamicsmethods methods forforship‐launching
ship-launching calculation.
calculation.
The static method considers the launched ship at a specific
The static method considers the launched ship at a specific position in a transient position in a transient state,
state,
which involves a force analysis on the use of launching and
which involves a force analysis on the use of launching and Bonjean curves to calculate Bonjean curves to calculate
reactionforces
reaction forcesat atsupports
supports during
during slippage
slippage and and displacement
displacementvolume, volume,indicated
indicatedasasStage Stage 3
3 in Figure 1. The dynamics method discretizes
in Figure 1. The dynamics method discretizes the displacement during the displacement during thethelaunching
launching
processto
process topredict
predict thethe velocity
velocity andandacceleration
accelerationininadditional
additional to to
reaction
reaction forces
forcesat supports
at supports
duringslippage
during slippage and and the
the displacement
displacementvolume volumeatateach eachdisplacement
displacement point.
point.
The dynamic
The dynamic method
methodcalculates
calculates thetheship’s launch
ship’s launch parameters,
parameters, with slippage
with slippageand ini‐and
tial launch velocity, and such as method is more accurate
initial launch velocity, and such as method is more accurate than the statics method than the statics method but isbut
more complicated. Most shipyards still employ the static method
is more complicated. Most shipyards still employ the static method for ship-launching for ship‐launching cal‐
culation. The process of longitudinal launching by Žgomba et al. [2] was carried out based
calculation. The process of longitudinal launching by Žgomba et al. [2] was carried out
on the numerical prediction of ship stability, stress, and fore and aft draughts through
based on the numerical prediction of ship stability, stress, and fore and aft draughts through
statics methods.
statics methods.
As computational technology advances, the finite element method (FEM) based on
As computational technology advances, the finite element method (FEM) based on
elastic body theory to obtain a more accurate result becomes popular in ship‐launching
elastic body theory to obtain a more accurate result becomes popular in ship-launching
calculation. The analysis provides a more reliable prediction of shear force, bending mo‐
calculation. The analysis provides a more reliable prediction of shear force, bending
ment, and deformation with launch velocity and slips before leaving the slideway. Some
moment, and deformation with launch velocity and slips before leaving the slideway. Some
examples of the research work performed on ship launching included the estimation of
examples
the coupling of the research
effect between workshipperformed on shipbased
hull and airbags launchingon FEM included
by Liu the estimation
et al. [3] and Liof et the
coupling
al. [4]; the prediction of forces, deformation, and slippage based on elastic beam calcula‐ [4];
effect between ship hull and airbags based on FEM by Liu et al. [3] and Li et al.
the
tionprediction
method, using of forces,
ANSYS deformation,
software, byand Zhong slippage
et al. [5];based
and on theelastic
simulation beamofcalculation
Wigley
method, using ANSYS software, by Zhong et al. [5]; and
ship and 46,000 DWT oil tanker based on the direct calculation method for longitudinalthe simulation of Wigley ship
and
ship46,000
launchingDWTbyoil Lintanker based onLin
[6]. However, the[6]direct calculation
proposed a more method for longitudinal
flexible calculation processship
launching
to directlyby Lin [6]. the
determine However,
curves forLinship
[6] proposed
launching awith more flexible
complex calculation
hull‐shape process to
configura‐
directly
tions. determine the curves for ship launching with complex hull-shape configurations.
The
The abovementioned
abovementioned research researchworksworks alsoalso obtained
obtained parameters
parameters through through the theo-
the theoreti‐
retical method,
cal method, or FEM,
or FEM, including
including velocity,
velocity, acceleration,
acceleration, and slippage and slippage
during theduring the ship-
ship‐launch‐
launching
ing process. process.
Computational
Computational Fluid FluidDynamics
Dynamics(CFD),(CFD),an aneffective
effectivenumerical
numericalmethod,method,is is widely
widely used
inused
ship-launching analysis. The predictive CFD methods are
in ship‐launching analysis. The predictive CFD methods are validated and calibrated validated and calibrated
against
againstthethetowing
towing tank experimental
experimentalresults results[7,8].
[7,8].It Itcould
could accurately
accurately determine
determine the the
flowflow
fieldand
field andthe the phenomenon
phenomenon of of mechanisms
mechanismsand andthus
thusprovide
provide a reference
a reference to select
to selecta damped
a damped
systemfor
system forthe
the ship
ship model
model in inthe
thelaunching
launchingprocedure
procedure[9]. The
[9]. The numerical
numerical andand experimental
experimental
assessment of
assessment of aa full-scale
full‐scale ship
shipmodel
modelby byFarkas
Farkasetetal.al.[10][10]was
was based
basedonon thethe
CFD CFD method
method
totodetermine
determine the the ship’s
ship’s resistance.
resistance.The Theresistance
resistanceofofintactintactand and damaged
damaged ship
shipmodels
models by by
Bašićetetal.
Bašić al.[11]
[11] was
was determined
determined by byusing
usingthe theRANS
RANSmethod. method.
Senjanovic et al. [12] used the overlapping-mesh method to simulate the ship motion
and surface waves of large oil tankers in lateral launching. It provided a more precise
pre-diction of the amplitude and phase of the first wave. However, Fitriadhy et al. [13]
used the CFD analytical approach to predict the ship’s performance of side launching. The
study considered several parameters, including the angle and length of the launch platform.
Güzel et al. [14] used the same method to examine the effect of hydrophobicity in reducing
 J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2022, 10, 1583 3 of 18

the impact loads acting on marine structures. A theoretical calculation in restricted waters
by Li et al. [15] was to study the effect of external forces due to wave-making and viscous
resistance. The flow field and the ship hydrodynamics on RANS equations derived by
Wang and Wang [16] showed that the ship motion parameters in lateral launching agreed
well with experimental values.
Most of the past research works focused on ship lateral launching. For a relatively
large ship’s longitudinal launching, the cause of the flow phenomenon before the ship hull
leaves the slipway and on the drifting stage is yet to be studied, particularly so on the effect
and mechanism of the stern appendages of large container ships at a large trim angle.
In this paper, a CFD model of an 8500 TEU container ship is established based on the
RANS equation to evaluate the dynamics characteristics of a large container ship in the
drifting stage under the limited water depth and large trim angle. Firstly, the ship resistance
in calm water is simulated and compared with the experimental data, followed by the
development of the ship speed-resistance curves and the flow fields of the hull with and
without the aft poppet at deep waters. The study includes the flow mechanism of the hull
with the aft poppet in the drifting stage to examine the influence of the aft poppet under
various H/T ratios. One of the objectives is to select a suitable longitudinal launching
scheme for a large container ship in the numerical analysis.

2. Numerical Modeling
Figure 2 illustrates the research methodology for numerical simulation of longitudinal
ship launching in two parts. The first part of the methodology is to input the parameters
in the dynamic equations by using MATLAB software to obtain the initial velocity and
draughts fore and aft in the drifting stage. The parameters include the main particulars of
J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2022, 10, x FOR PEER REVIEW 4 of 19
the ship, slipway, and environment. In the second part, the results obtained served as an
initial condition of numerical simulation to predict the velocity, resistance, and flow field of
the hull interacting with water based on the CFD method.

Figure 2. Overview of methodology for the ship’s longitudinal launching.

Figure 2. Overview of methodology for the ship’s longitudinal launching.
2.1. Theoretical Calculation of Ship Launching
2.1. Theoretical Calculation
The theoretical of Ship Launching
calculation includes the dynamic equations and the empirical formula
proposed
The theoretical calculation includestothe
by Semyonov et al. [17] determine
dynamicthe initial velocity
equations and ship formula
and the empirical fore and aft
draughts (refer to Phase 4 in Figure 1). Figure 3 shows the forces generated
proposed by Semyonov et al. [17] to determine the initial velocity and ship fore and in the process
aft
of sliding down the ship.
draughts (refer to Phase 4 in Figure 1). Figure 3 shows the forces generated in the process
of sliding down the ship.

J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2022, 10, 1583
2.1. Theoretical Calculation of Ship Launching
The theoretical calculation includes the dynamic equations and the empirical formula
proposed by Semyonov et al. [17] to determine the initial velocity and ship fore and aft
draughts (refer to Phase 4 in Figure 1). Figure 3 shows the forces generated in the process
4 of 18
of sliding down the ship.

Figure 3. 3.
Figure Reaction forces
Reaction of of
forces launching ship
launching onon
ship slipway.
slipway.

InInthe first
the phase
first phase (refer toto
(refer Figure 1),1),
Figure the ship
the is is
ship ininuniformly accelerated
uniformly motion,
accelerated motion,with
with
anan
initial velocity
initial velocity of of
0. The functional
0. The relationship
functional relationshipof the ship
of the motion
ship between
motion betweenvelocity, 𝑣, v,
velocity,
and
and slippage,𝑠,s,isisasasfollows:
slippage, follows: q
v= 2gs(tan β − f ), (1)
v  2gs(tan   fd )d, (1)
where β is the inclination angle of slipway, and fd is the coefficient of sliding friction.
where The
β is the inclination
motion angle
equations forofthe
slipway,
secondand
andfd third
is thephases
coefficient of sliding
(Refer friction.
to Figure 1) are in the
The motion equations
following expressions: for the second and third phases (Refer to Figure 1) are in the
following expressions: q
v = e−n ( E + v21 ), (2)
v  e  n ( E Zv12S) , (2)
2(tan β − f d )
E= FN en dS, (3)
m (1 + k ) S0
Z S
ρCS
n= W 2/3 dS, (4)
m (1 + k ) S0

where FN is the reaction of supports of slideway, W is the volume of displacement, S0 is the

initial displacement, CS is the fluid resistance, and k is the additional mass coefficient. W is
measured by importing the model into SolidWorks and is taken as 0.35.
The equations of motion are solved iteratively by using MATLAB programming; our
results are shown in Table 1. The step length is 0.1 m.

Table 1. Calculation results of the ship’s longitudinal launching.

Parameters Symbols Value

Draft fore dF (m) 0.1116
Draft aft dA (m) 9.8832
Initial velocity of drift stage v (m/s) 4.0589

2.2. Numerical Simulation of Flow Field

2.2.1. Governing Equations
The current research adopted the Unsteady Reynolds Averaged Navier–Stokes (URANS)
method to provide the governing equations with a closed relationship. The averaged
continuity and momentum equations are expressed in tensors and Cartesian coordinates
for incompressible flow, as follows [18]:

∂(ρui )
= 0, (5)
∂xi

∂(ρui ) ∂ ∂p ∂τ ij
+ (ρui u j + ui0 u0j ) = − + , (6)
∂t ∂xi ∂xi ∂xi
∂ui ∂u j
τ ij = µ( + ), (7)
∂x j ∂xi
J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2022, 10, 1583 5 of 18

where ρ is the fluid density, ρui u j is the Reynolds stresses, ui is the averaged velocity vector, and
p and τij are the mean pressure and the mean viscous stress tensor components, respectively.
The computational domain in the flow field is divided into a finite number of control
volumes by the Finite Volume (FV) method. The mathematical model is transformed into
algebraic equations after discretization and solution of governing equations, which are the
integral of transport equations defined in Equation (8):

d
Z Z Z Z
ρφdV + ρvφda = Γ∇φda + Sφ dV, (8)
dt V A A V

The equation is in terms of transient, convective flux, diffusive flux, and source. The
discretized convective flux in the equation is determined by using a central difference
and second-order upwind method, while the transient is on the implicit time-integration
scheme. The mass and momentum integral conservation equation is solved by using
a separated flow solver. A SIMPLE algorithm calculates the discrete-pressure–velocity
coupling equations. The derived algorithm is suitable for the solution and is still stable at a
large time-step, with the local Courant number exceeding 10.

2.2.2. Physics Modeling

The Shear Stress Transport (SST), k-ω, turbulence model by Menter [19] used a mixed
function and added a cross-diffusion term to effectively combine the far-field k-ε model
with the near-wall k-ω model [20,21]. The combined model solved the shortcomings of the
k-ω turbulence model in simulating the flow. The transport equations for kinetic energy, k,
and unit dissipation rate, ω, are as follows:

∂
(ρk) + ∇[(ρkv)] = ∇[(µ + σk µt )∇k] + Pk − ρβ∗ f β∗ (ωk − ω0 k0 ) + Sk , (9)
∂t
∂
(ρω ) + ∇[(ρωv)] = ∇[(µ + σω µt )∇ω ] + Pω − ρβ f β (ω 2 − ω02 ) + Sω , (10)
∂t
where µ is the dynamic viscosity, σω is the model coefficients, and fβ* and fβ are the free
shear and eddy current correction coefficients, respectively. The capture of the position
and shape of the free water surface was performed by using the Volume of Fluid (VOF)
method developed by Berberović et al. [22], with a sufficient mesh revolution between the
two phases of air and water in Equation (11):

αi Dρi 1
Z I Z Z
∂
αi dV + αi vda = ( Sαi − )− ∇(αi ρi vd,j )dV, (11)
∂t V A V ρi Dt V ρi

where a is the area vector, V is the mixed velocity, vd,j is the diffusion velocity, and Sai is the
custom source term of phase i.

3. Ship Geometry and Mesh Generation

The numerical study presented in this paper involves the simulation of an 8500 TEU
container ship model. The principal parameters for this model are in Table 2. The analysis
covers the resistance and velocity of the ship with and without the hull’s aft poppet under
deep- and shallow-water conditions based on the relevant numerical results generated
from CFD in the drifting stage and the influence of the ship’s aft poppet under various
water-depth-to-draught ratios.
Five types of computational domains were created, including one (1) for deep water
and four (4) for shallow water with different boundary conditions. The bottom of the
computational domain is modeled as the velocity inlet in deep water, while it is modeled
as the wall in shallow water.
 J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2022, 10, 1583 6 of 18

Table 2. The main parameters of 8500 TEU container ship model.

Main Particulars Symbols Value

Length between perpendiculars LBP (m) 300.5
Length overall LOA (m) 306
Breath molded BWL (m) 51.4
Depth molded D (m) 29.5
Launching weight M (t) 44,450
Longitudinal center of gravity LCG (m) 123.87
Vertical center of gravity VCG (m) 19.53

The calculation domain range was −2L BP ≤ X ≤ 2L BP , 0 ≤ Y ≤ 2L BP , and

−2L BP ≤ Z ≤ L BP , and the ship stern was in the positive x direction, consistent with the
actual end launching. The automatic meshing module generates the computation domain, 7 of 19
J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2022, 10, x FOR PEER REVIEW
surface, and volume mesh suitable for the FV method. The flow-separation phenomenon
influences the resistance and pressure drop on the hull’s surface. The trimmed and prism
meshes in the computational domain to solve the flow characteristics near the wall. The
grid
and cells’
the y+prism layer
value was meshes
abouton 60.the
Annear-wall
automaticsurface, orthogonal
surface facility to the wall
repair andboundary,
improvement o
and the y+quality
the mesh value was about
of the 60. An
surface automatic
mesh surface facility
was performed repairthe
to ensure andgeometry
improvementsurface was
of the mesh
enclosed. quality of the surface mesh was performed to ensure the geometry surface
was enclosed.
Meanwhile, to capture the flow accurately, appropriate mesh refinement was con
Meanwhile, to capture the flow accurately, appropriate mesh refinement was con-
ducted inincritical
ducted critical regions,
regions, suchsuch as the
as the bow,bow,
stern,stern, andsurface.
and free free surface. The
The total total
grid grid numbe
number
appliedtotoresistance
applied resistance validation
validation is 3.74
is 3.74 million,
million, with with the computational
the computational domaindomain
and gridand grid
nearthe
near thehull
hullshown
shown in in Figure
Figure 4. 4.

(a)

(b)
Figure4.4.Overview
Figure Overview of of computational
computational domain
domain and mesh:
and mesh: (a) position
(a) position arrangement
arrangement of computationa
of computational
domainand
domain and(b)
(b) longitudinal
longitudinal section
section of mesh.
of mesh.

4. Results and Discussion

The following section presents the detailed results and the flow field of the ship
launching process to compare with the existing experimental data. The results from the
J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2022, 10, 1583 7 of 18

4. Results and Discussion

The following section presents the detailed results and the flow field of the ship-
launching process to compare with the existing experimental data. The results from the
numerical simulation include the mechanism affecting the dynamic characteristics of the
large container ship in the fourth stage (refer to Figure 1).

4.1. Validation Study

Before carrying out the longitudinal-launching simulation, the ship resistance in
calm water developed by Yang et al. [23] and Park et al. [24] is simulated and compared
with the towing-tank test results to verify and validate the numerical method adopted
by Islam et al. [25]. The resistance test was carried out in the towing tank of the Dalian
University of Technology. The scale ratio, λ, of the ship model was 37.525 to measure
the ship resistance at different speeds. The ship speed (1.008 m/s) and the fore and aft
draught (0.3198 m) are used for the verification and validation studies, which are the ship
parameters equivalent to 12 knots and 12 m in full scale.
Table 3 shows the relevant environmental parameters. The object of the validation
study is the dimensionless resistance coefficient, Ct , expressed as follows:

RT
Ct = 1 2 0
, (12)
2 ρU0 S w

where RT is the total resistance of the model, U0 is the speed of the model, and SW is the
wetted surface.

Table 3. Parameters of experimental setup.

Particulars Symbols Value

Temperature Temp (◦ C) 15.8
Density ρ (kg/m3 ) 998.98
Kinematic viscosity v (m2 /s) 1.115 × 10−6
Depth DEXP (m) 4.2

The grid resolutions in fine, medium, and coarse mesh density are denoted as, N1 , N2 ,
and N3 , respectively, to assess the reliability of the ship model. The refinement factor of the
mesh density is defined as follows:
s
2 N1
r21 = , (13)
N2

The apparent order of the method is as follows:

1 ε 32
p= ln + q( p) , (14)
ln(r21 ) ε 21
p
r21 − s
q( p) = ln( p ), (15)
r32 − s
ε 32
s = 1 · sgn( ), (16)
ε 21
where ε 32 = φ3 − φ2 and ε 21 = φ2 − φ1 are the solution differences between coarse–medium
and medium–fine and correspond to the solution of the i-th input parameters.
The extrapolated solution is defined as follows
p
21 r21 φ1 − φ2
φext = p , (17)
r21 − 1
J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2022, 10, 1583 8 of 18

The definition of approximate and extrapolated relative errors is described as follows:

φ2 − φ1
e21
a = , (18)
φ1

12 − φ
φext 1
e21
ext = 12
, (19)
φext
The fine-grid convergence index is obtained from the following formulation:

1.25e21
a
GCI 21
f ine = p , (20)
r21 − 1

Subsequently, the resistance of the ship model simulating the full-scale container ship
in the drifting stage is verified. The experimental results are based on the conversion of the
resistance of the existing ship model according to the three-dimensional method proposed
by Hughes and the ITTC (1957) formula. Table 4 shows the required parameters to calculate
the spatial and temporal discretization errors. The resistance coefficient of the ship is the
key variable in the numerical analysis.

Table 4. Calculation of the discretization error for the verification study.

Spatial Convergence Temporal Convergence

N1 (∆t1 ) 6,795,241 0.05 s
N2 (∆t2 ) 3,742,260 0.1 s
N3 (∆t3 ) 2,079,624 0.2 s
r21 1.35 2.0
r23 1.34 2.0
ϕ1 0.0020060 0.0020072
ϕ2 0.0019892 0.0019927
ϕ3 0.0019549 0.0019758
ε32 −3.43 × 10−5 −1.69 × 10−5
ε21 −1.68 × 10−5 −1.45 × 10−5
s 1.0 1.0
e21
a 0.84% 0.72%
q 2.90 × 10−2 0.0
pa 2.475 0.221
ϕ21ext 2.054 × 10−3 2.022 × 10−3
e21
ext 2.64% 0.72%
GCI21 fine 3.00% 0.90%

As can be seen in Table 4, the numerical uncertainty for the spatial and temporal
convergence studies is 3.00% and 0.90%, respectively. Table 5 summarizes the comparison
of the results between the experimental and the numerical data.

Table 5. Comparison of ship resistance in calm water.

Grid Grid Quantity Resistance Coefficient (Ct) Error (%)

N3 2.079 0.0019549 3.17
N2 3.742 0.0019892 1.47
N1 6.795 0.0020060 0.64
EFD — 0.0020189 —

The numerical results agree well with the experimental data, with errors for the grids
N1 and N2 of not more than 1.5%. Note the numerical methods adopted in the current
study effectively predict the ship resistance in full scale. Considering the accuracy and the
computation time, the ship model would be on the grid N2 for the numerical simulation.
J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2022, 10, 1583 9 of 18

The force condition in the fourth phase (refer to Figure 1) is relatively simple and
is affected only by the buoyancy force of water, ship resistance, and ship gravity. For
launching large container ships on a small slipway, it is necessary to understand the
influencing factors of launching in restricted waters, especially the influence of the ship’s
aft poppet and water depth on the flow field and variation.
J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2022, 10, x FOR PEER REVIEW 10 of 19
4.2. Influence of Ship Aft Poppet
J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2022, 10, x FOR PEER REVIEW 10 of 19
In this paper, the numerical study is used to simulate the process of the launch of the
ship model in the drifting stage. The initial conditions are the forward and aft draughts
model
and the is fixed before
launching the analysis.
velocity determined Thefrom
resistance and themethod.
the dynamic flow fieldThe of the ship model
attitude were
of the ship
model
at eightis fixed
speeds before
in thethe analysis.
range of 0.5 The
to resistance
4.0 m/s. Theand the flow
numerical field of
analysis
model is fixed before the analysis. The resistance and the flow field of the ship model werethe
of ship
the model
full‐scalewere
ship
at eight
atmodel speeds
conducted
eight speeds in the
in the range
byrange of
usingofthe0.5 to
CFD.
0.5 to 4.0 m/s. The
The results
4.0 m/s. numerical analysis
showedanalysis
The numerical of the
no inconsistency full‐scale
in ship
of the full-scale ship
re‐
ship
model
sistance
model conducted
and flow
conducted byby using
field
using thethe
causedCFD.CFD.
by The
various
The results
scaled
results showed
showedratios. Innotheinconsistency
no inconsistencyprocess in ship re‐
of longitudinal
in ship resistance
sistance
and flow and
launching, field flow
causedfield
steel‐wire bycaused
ropes wereby
various various
fixed
scaled thescaled
toratios.
sixIn ratios.
ship
the aft In the
poppets,
process process ofaslongitudinal
indicated
of longitudinal No. 1 to No.
launching,
launching,
6, and the steel‐wire
hull (Figureropes
5). were fixed to the six ship aft poppets, indicated
steel-wire ropes were fixed to the six ship aft poppets, indicated as No. 1 to No. 6, and as No. 1 to No.
the
6, and the
hull (Figure 5).hull (Figure 5).

(a) (b)
(a) (b)
Figure 5. Schematic diagram of ship aft poppet: (a) longitudinal profile view and (b) back elevation
view. Schematic diagram of ship aft poppet: (a) longitudinal profile view and (b) back elevation
Figure 5.5. Schematic
Figure diagram of ship aft poppet: (a) longitudinal profile view and (b) back elevation view.
view.
Forlaunching
For launchingoperations
operationsininrestricted
restrictedwaters,
waters,aaplank,
plank,ororaasteel
steelplate,
plate,perpendicular
perpendicular
totothe For launching
thelaunching operations
launchingdirection
directionatatthe in restricted
therudder waters,
rudderposition a plank,
positionisistotoreduce or a steel
reduceslippage plate,
slippageafter perpendicular
afterentering
enteringthethe
to the The
water.
water. launching
Thestudy direction
studyanalyzed
analyzedtheat the
the rudderofof
variation
variation position is to reduce
shipresistance
ship resistance withslippage
with after
velocityand
velocity andthe entering
the the
flowfield
flow field
water.
underthe
under The study analyzed
theconditions
conditions thehull
ofofship
ship variation
hull of
bothwith
both withship resistance
and
and withoutwith
without velocity
theaft
the aftpoppet
poppetand
totothe flow field
examine
examine the
the
under the
influence conditions
and of
mechanism ship
of hull
stern both with
appendage and
on without
the the
slippage
influence and mechanism of stern appendage on the slippage in the drifting stage.aft
in poppet
the to
drifting examine
stage. the
influence and mechanism of stern appendage on the slippage in the drifting stage.
4.2.1.
4.2.1.Ship
ShipResistance
ResistanceCurve
Curve
4.2.1.Figure
Ship Resistance
Figure66shows
showstheCurve
thevariation
variationofofship
shipresistance
resistancewithwithvelocity
velocityininthethefourth
fourthphase
phase(refer
(refer
totoFigure 1)
Figure under
6 showsthe ship
the hull
variation both
of with
ship and without
resistance withthe
Figure 1) under the ship hull both with and without the aft poppet. aft poppet.
velocity in the fourth phase (refer
to Figure 1) under the ship hull both with and without the aft poppet.

Figure6.6.Schematic
Figure Schematicdiagram
diagramofofship
shipresistance
resistancecurves.
curves.
Figure 6. Schematic diagram of ship resistance curves.
In the whole drift stage, as shown in Figure 6, the hull with the aft poppet has a higher
shipIn the whole
resistance driftwithout
than stage, asit.shown in Figure
However, 6, the hull
the influence ofwith the aft
the hull poppet
with has
the aft a higher
poppet on
ship resistance
the ship’s than without
resistance it. However,
gradually weakenedthe influence
with of the hull
the decreased with
speed. Atthe
theaft poppet
launch on
speed
the ship’s
of 4.0 andresistance gradually
0.5 m/s, the weakened
ship resistance withwith
the the
hulldecreased speed.
with the aft At the
poppet waslaunch speed
2.61 and 1.28
 J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2022, 10, x FOR PEER REVIEW 11 of 19

J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2022, 10, 1583 by installing a stern appendage due to the high launching speed in the drifting stage.10Fig‐ of 18

ure 7 shows the velocity field and the streamline distribution at various ship speeds with
the hull, both with and without the aft poppet.
In the whole drift stage, as shown in Figure 6, the hull with the aft poppet has a higher
4.2.2.resistance
ship Flow Fieldthan Distribution
without it. However, the influence of the hull with the aft poppet
on the The ship’s
weightresistance gradually weakened
of the superstructure and thewithmainthe decreased
engine speed.
of a large At theship
container launchis
speed of 4.0 and 0.5 m/s, the ship resistance with the hull with the aft
mainly concentrated in the stern, resulting in a large trim angle and inducing a certain poppet was 2.61 and
1.28
angletimes
in thethat withoutofit,the
direction respectively.
incoming flow.
The above results showed
The velocity field distribution a significant
surrounding difference
the hullindecreases
ship resistance
with theduelaunching
to the aft
poppet.
speed after The theship
bowresistance
fulcrum isincreased
separatedand fromreduced slippage
the slipway (Figurewith the The
7a–h). hulldistribution
with the aft
poppet. The results
of streamlines also indicate
surrounding the hullthat
withthetheslippage
aft poppet of atlarge ships
various couldwas
speeds effectively
similar tobe
reduced
that withoutby installing a stern
the aft poppet. appendage
The direction of due
thetostreamlines
the high launching
in the far speed in the
field was drifting
parallel to
stage.
the ship’sFigure 7 shows
motion. The the velocityand
streamline field
theand
shipthe streamline
velocity weredistribution at various
identical. Despite ship
the wall
speeds
boundary withinfluencing
the hull, boththewith and without
distribution the aft poppet.
streamlines, the velocity distribution was con‐
sistent with the boundary layer.
4.2.2. Owing
Flow Field Distribution
to a certain angle induced between the hull and the incoming flow after the
water The weight
flowed of thethe
through superstructure
lower end of and the main
the stern, engine
vortices andof a large
vortex container
shedding ship is
occurred
mainly concentrated
at the lower part of thein hull,
the stern, resulting
resulting in a large
in increased trim angle
pressure and moving
resistance inducingalong
a certain
the
angle in the
ship hull directionspeeds.
at various of the incoming flow.

(a) (b)

(c) (d)

(e) (f)

Figure 7. Cont.
J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2022, 10, 1583 11 of 18
J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2022, 10, x FOR PEER REVIEW 12 of 19

(g) (h)
Figure 7. Velocity field distribution: (a) 4.0 m/s, (b) 3.5 m/s, (c) 3.0 m/s, (d) 2.5 m/s, (e) 2.0 m/s, (f) 1.5
Figure 7. Velocity field distribution: (a) 4.0 m/s, (b) 3.5 m/s, (c) 3.0 m/s, (d) 2.5 m/s, (e) 2.0 m/s,
m/s, (g) 1.0 m/s, and (h) 0.5 m/s. (Note: Upper object in the figure for the hull without the aft poppet
(f) 1.5 m/s, (g) 1.0 m/s, and (h) 0.5 m/s. (Note: Upper object in the figure for the hull without the aft
and the lower object for the hull with the aft poppet.)
poppet and the lower object for the hull with the aft poppet.)
The distribution of streamlines of the hull with the aft poppet was relatively compli‐
The velocity field distribution surrounding the hull decreases with the launching
cated because of the stern appendage. The velocity field distribution in the far field was
speed after the bow fulcrum is separated from the slipway (Figure 7a–h). The distribution
similar to that of the hull without the aft poppet. The aft poppet blocked the water near
of streamlines surrounding the hull with the aft poppet at various speeds was similar to
the wall during the backward flow. Some water is trapped between the aft poppets, re‐
that without the aft poppet. The direction of the streamlines in the far field was parallel to
sulting in a low‐velocity distribution near the aft poppets. Additionally, vortices and vor‐
the ship’s motion. The streamline and the ship velocity were identical. Despite the wall
tex shedding were observed at the No. 1 aft poppet after the incoming flow through the
boundary influencing the distribution streamlines, the velocity distribution was consistent
stern poppet. The blocking of water flow at the No. 1 aft poppet under the current trim
with the boundary layer.
angle causes the vortices to accumulate at the far end of the stern. The accumulation of
Owing to a certain angle induced between the hull and the incoming flow after the
these vortices would lead to the difference in pressure distribution at the front and rear
water flowed through the lower end of the stern, vortices and vortex shedding occurred at
ends of the aft poppet, which further increased the pressure resistance of the ship in
the lower part of the hull, resulting in increased pressure resistance moving along the ship
launching.
hull at various speeds.
The velocity field at lower launch speed near the stern poppets was stable (Figure
The distribution of streamlines of the hull with the aft poppet was relatively compli-
7g,h). The vortex at the No. 2 aft poppet occurred after the No. 1 aft poppet due to the
cated because of the stern appendage. The velocity field distribution in the far field was
accumulated vortex in its rear end. The reduced vortices in the front and rear poppets
similar to that of the hull without the aft poppet. The aft poppet blocked the water near the
cause the pressure difference to reduce the pressure resistance of the ship model. There‐
wall during the backward flow. Some water is trapped between the aft poppets, resulting in
fore, the impact of the aft poppet on the hull in the fourth phase at a lower ship speed was
a low-velocity distribution near the aft poppets. Additionally, vortices and vortex shedding
minimal.
were observed at the No. 1 aft poppet after the incoming flow through the stern poppet.
Figure 8 shows the contours of the streamline distributions near the ship hull with
The blocking of water flow at the No. 1 aft poppet under the current trim angle causes the
aft poppets according to the turbulent kinetic energy. The distribution of turbulent kinetic
vortices to accumulate at the far end of the stern. The accumulation of these vortices would
energy near the ship stern remained the same at high launch speeds (greater than 1.0 m/s),
lead to the difference in pressure distribution at the front and rear ends of the aft poppet,
owing to the angle of inclination in the process of launching (Figure 8a–c).
which further increased the pressure resistance of the ship in launching.
The velocity field at lower launch speed near the stern poppets was stable (Figure 7g,h).
The vortex at the No. 2 aft poppet occurred after the No. 1 aft poppet due to the accumulated
vortex in its rear end. The reduced vortices in the front and rear poppets cause the pressure
difference to reduce the pressure resistance of the ship model. Therefore, the impact of the
aft poppet on the hull in the fourth phase at a lower ship speed was minimal.
Figure 8 shows the contours of the streamline distributions near the ship hull with
aft poppets according to the turbulent kinetic energy. The distribution of turbulent kinetic
energy near the ship stern remained the same at high launch speeds (greater than 1.0 m/s),
owing to the angle of inclination in the process of launching (Figure 8a–c).
The vortices formed after the current from the stern flowed through the lower part of
the No. 1 aft poppet (a)
along the hull and diminished. This formation (b) of vortices continued
to extend from the stern to the bow. Other aft poppets were in the wake area of the
No. 1 aft poppet. Since the No. 2 and No. 3 aft poppets were closer to the No. 1 aft poppet,
and especially to the No. 2 aft poppet, the vortex shedding at these locations influenced
the turbulent kinetic energy distribution. The kinetic energy distribution surrounding the
No. 4 to No. 6 aft poppets remained identical. The maximum turbulent kinetic energy was
near the vortex core of vortex shedding formed by the No. 1 aft poppet.

J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2022, 10, x FOR PEER REVIEW
J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2022, 10, 1583
cause the pressure difference to reduce the pressure resistance of the ship model. There‐
fore, the impact of the aft poppet on the hull in the fourth phase at a lower ship speed was
minimal.
Figure 8 shows the contours of the streamline distributions near the ship hull with
aft poppets
according to the turbulent kinetic energy. The distribution of turbulent kinetic
13 of 19
energy near the ship stern remained the same at high launch speeds (greater than 1.0 m/s), 12 of 18
owing to the angle of inclination in the process of launching (Figure 8a–c).

J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2022, 10, x FOR PEER REVIEW 13 of 19

(a) (b)
(c) (d)
Figure 8. Distribution of turbulent kinetic energy: (a) 4.0 m/s, (b) 3.0 m/s, (c) 2.0 m/s, and (d) 1.0
m/s.

The vortices formed after the current from the stern flowed through the lower part
of the No. 1 aft poppet along the hull and diminished. This formation of vortices continued
to extend from the stern to the bow. Other aft poppets were in the wake area of the No. 1
aft poppet. Since the No. 2 and No. 3 aft poppets were closer to the No. 1 aft poppet, and
especially to the No. 2 aft poppet, the vortex shedding at these locations influenced the
turbulent kinetic energy distribution. The kinetic energy distribution surrounding the No.
4 to No. 6 aft poppets (c) remained identical. The maximum turbulent (d) kinetic energy was
near the vortex core of vortex shedding formed by the No. 1 aft poppet.
Figure8.8.Distribution
Distributionof ofturbulent
turbulent kinetic
kinetic energy:
energy: (a)
(a) 4.0
4.0 m/s,
m/s, (b) 3.0 m/s,
m/s,(c) 2.0
2.0m/s, and (d)(d)
1.01.0 m/s.
Figure
m/s.
The flow velocity near the stern decreased with (b)the3.0
launch (c)
speed. m/s, and
The vortices gen‐
erated at the No. 1 aft poppet do not escape from the hull after shedding but continue to
The flow velocity near the stern decreased with the launch speed. The vortices
flowTheback along formed
vortices the aft poppets. The distribution of turbulent kinetic energy around
part the
generated at the No. 1 aft after
poppet thedo current from the
not escape fromstern
theflowed
hull after through
sheddingthe lower
but continue
No. 2 to No. 6 aft poppets is affected but different from that
of the No. 1 aft poppet along the hull and diminished. This formation of vortices continued at higher launch speeds.
to flow back along the aft poppets. The distribution of turbulent kinetic energy around the
The from
to extend abovethestudystern showed
to the bow. that the aft
Other presence
poppetsofwere sternin appendages
the wake areasignificantly
of the No. 1 im‐
No. 2 to No. 6 aft poppets is affected but different from that at higher launch speeds.
proves
aft poppet. the Since
pressurethe No.resistance
2 and No. at the
3 aftstern and effectively
poppets were closerreduces
to the No. the1 slippage,
aft poppet,especially
and
The above study showed that the presence of stern appendages significantly improves
in the casetoofthe
especially theNo.high initial
2 aft velocity
poppet, of launching.
the vortex shedding at these locations influenced the
the pressure resistance at the stern and effectively reduces the slippage, especially in the
turbulent kinetic energy distribution. The kinetic energy distribution surrounding the No.
case of the high initial velocity of launching.
44.3.
to Influence
No. 6 aft ofpoppets Water Depthremained identical. The maximum turbulent kinetic energy was
near the vortex
Launching
4.3. Influence core ofDepth ofshedding
vortex
operations
of Water formed by
large container theon
ships No.small
1 aft slipways,
poppet. in which the water
The flow velocity near the stern decreased with the launch speed. The vortices gen‐
depth is usually limited, are
Launching of prone to accidents, such as collision and grounding. theFurther‐
erated at the No.operations
1 aft poppet large
do notcontainer
escape from shipstheonhullsmall
afterslipways,
sheddingin butwhich
continue water
to
more,isthe
depth under‐keel
usually limited, clearance
are prone attothe stern is such
accidents, insufficient
as and and
collision affected by the Further-
grounding. shallow‐
flow back along the aft poppets. The distribution of turbulent kinetic energy around the
water effect
more, [26]. Therefore, it at
is necessary istoinsufficient
have an appropriate tidebyheight to ensure the
No. 2 theto No.under-keel clearance
6 aft poppets is affectedthebutsterndifferent from that andat affected
higher launch thespeeds.
shallow-water
safe launch
effect The
[26].above operation
Therefore, of the ship.
studyitshowed
is necessarythat theto have an appropriate
presence tide height
of stern appendages to ensure the
significantly im‐safe
launch
proves The thePermanent
operation
pressure of the International
ship. at the stern
resistance Association of Navigation
and effectively reduces the Congresses
slippage, (PIANC)
especially uses
thethe
in ratio
Thecase of
of water
Permanent
the high depth
initialtovelocity
International draught, H/T, as
Association
of launching. the standard
of Navigation to measure
Congresses different
(PIANC) useswater
the
depths,
ratio of water where H/Tto draught,
depth 3.0 is deep H/T, as the1.5
water, standardH/T to 3.0measureis medium
different deep
waterwater, and
depths,
H/TInfluence
where
4.3. H/T1.5 > isof3.0
shallow
is deep
Water water.
Depth water, 1.5 < H/T < 3.0 is medium deep water, and H/T < 1.5 is
shallow The water operations
water.
Launching depth withofthe largetide near theships
container launching
on small slipway
slipways, is 15inm, withthe
which anwater
H/T ratio
of about
The 1.5
water (Figure
depth 9), classified
with the tideas shallow
near the water.
launching The simulations
slipway
depth is usually limited, are prone to accidents, such as collision and grounding. Further‐ is 15 in
m, shallow
with an water
H/T were
ratio
based
ofmore,
abouttheon the settings
1.5under‐keel of
(Figure 9),clearance deep water,
classifiedatasthe adjusting
shallow
stern water. the z‐position
The simulations
is insufficient of the
and affected seabed.
in shallow The numerical
water were
by the shallow‐
analysis
based
water on
effect is on
the [26].the
settings ship
Therefore, resistance,
of deep water,
it is mechanism,
adjusting
necessary to have theanand flow field
z-position
appropriate of tide
theunder
seabed.
heightdeep
toTheand shallow‐
numerical
ensure the
water
analysis
safe conditions
launch is on with
the ship
operation the
the hull
ship.with
ofresistance, aft poppetsand
mechanism, to study the influence
flow field under deep of water depth on
and shallow-
water conditions
ship‐launching
The Permanent withInternational
dynamics. the hull with aft poppets
Association of to study the Congresses
Navigation influence of(PIANC) water depth uses on
ship-launching
the ratio of water depth to draught, H/T, as the standard to measure different water
dynamics.
depths, where H/T 3.0 is deep water, 1.5 H/T 3.0 is medium deep water, and
H/T 1.5 is shallow water.
The water depth with the tide near the launching slipway is 15 m, with an H/T ratio
of about 1.5 (Figure 9), classified as shallow water. The simulations in shallow water were
based on the settings of deep water, adjusting the z‐position of the seabed. The numerical
analysis is on the ship resistance, mechanism, and flow field under deep and shallow‐
water conditions with the hull with aft poppets to study the influence of water depth on
Figure 9. Arrangement for finite‐water‐depth condition.
Figure 9. Arrangement
ship‐launching dynamics.for finite-water-depth condition.
 J.J.Mar.
Mar.Sci. Eng. 2022, 10, xxFOR PEER REVIEW 14 of
of 19
19
J. Mar. Sci.Sci.
Eng.Eng. 2022,
2022, 10,10,
1583FOR PEER REVIEW 14 13 of 18

4.3.1. Ship
4.3.1.Ship
4.3.1. Resistance
Resistance Curve
ShipResistance Curve
Curve
The
The numerical
Thenumerical
numerical study study
study involves
involves the
involves the ship‐hull
the ship-hullmodel
ship‐hull model without
modelwithout aft
withoutaft poppets
aftpoppets
poppetstoto
to simulate
simulate
simulate
the variation
thevariation
variationof of ship
ofship resistance
ship resistance with
resistance with speed under the influence of water
with speed under the influence of waterdepth. depth. Figure
Figure 10
10
the depth. Figure 10
summarizes
summarizesthe the ship
ship resistance
the ship resistance curves
curves of the ship‐hull model and shallow‐
shallow‐
summarizes resistance curves of the ship-hull modelunder under deep‐ and
deep- and shallow-
water conditions.
waterconditions.
conditions. It ItIt showed
showed that
that the
the ship resistance at each waters was
was
water showed that the ship resistance at eachspeed
speedininshallow
shallowwaters
waters was
higher
higher than
than in
in deep
deep waters,
waters, with
with an increase of 19.6% to 31.6% due to the water‐depth
water‐depth
higher than in deep waters, with an increase of 19.6% to 31.6% due to the water-depth
effect. However,
effect.However,
However,the the distribution
distribution of
thedistribution of each speed interval was uniform.
effect. of each speed interval wasrelatively
relativelyuniform.
uniform.

Figure10.
Figure
Figure 10.Comparison
10. Comparison of
Comparison of ship
of ship resistance
ship resistance curves
resistance curvesunder
underdeep andshallow
deepand shallowwaters.
waters.

Forthe
For
For thecase
the case of
case of large
large ships
ships in
ships in the
the
the fourth
fourthphase
phase(refer
(refertotoFigure
Figure1),1),the flow
the flow
flow field
field
field near
near
near
the
the ship’s
theship’s bottom
ship’s bottom was compressed
bottom was compressed and accelerated. The reduced
compressed and accelerated. The reduced waterpressurewater pressure
pressurebelow
below
below the
thethe
hullcauses
hull
hull causesship
causes shipsinkage
ship sinkage and
sinkage and tipping.
tipping.
Theviscous
The
The viscousresistance
viscous resistance reflects
reflects the
the influence
influenceofofthe shallow-watereffect
theshallow‐water effecton
onondrag.
drag.
drag. The
TheThe
shearresistance
shear
shear resistance increases
resistance increases with
increases with the
with the
the wetted
wettedsurface
surfacedueduetotothetheship’s
ship’ssinkage
sinkage and
andandtipping.
tipping.
tipping.
Theship
The
The shipresistance
ship resistanceincreases
resistance increases with
increases with a large
large pressure
pressure gradient.
gradient.
In
In the
the current
current
In the current numerical
numerical simulation,
simulation, the ship’s floatation
floatationand
simulation, the ship’sfloatation
the ship’s anddraught
and draught
draught under
under
under shallow
shallow
shallow
waters
waters are
are fixed
fixed conditions.
conditions. As
As the
the change
change of
of ship
ship resistance
resistance under
under
waters are fixed conditions. As the change of ship resistance under shallow water compared shallow
shallow water
water com‐
com‐
topared
pared to deep
deeptowater water
deep water was minimal,
was minimal,
was minimal, the actual
the actual
the actual situation
situation
situation of the
of the
of the ship
shipship sinkage
sinkage
sinkage andand
and tipping
tipping
tipping inin
in
the
the shallow
the shallow
shallow waters waters
waters
couldcould
could not
notnot
bebebe accurately captured.
accuratelycaptured.
accurately Figure
captured.Figure 11 shows
Figure 11 shows
showsthethe variation
thevariation of
variationofof ship
ship
ship
resistancewith
resistance
resistance withspeed
with speed in
speed in different
different conditions.
conditions.
conditions.

Figure 11. Ship resistance curves under deep- and shallow-water conditions.
 Figure 11. Ship resistance curves under deep‐ and shallow‐water conditions.

The ship resistance with the hull with aft poppets was slightly larger than without
aft poppets, with an increase of about 7%. However, the ship’s resistance in shallow wa‐
ters was reduced by about 50% from that of the deep waters. The results showed the effect
J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2022, 10, 1583 of aft poppets in reducing the increased resistance due to the water‐depth effect. In14the
of 18
following section, the flow field near the hull under shallow‐ and deep‐water conditions
is discussed to study the influence of water depth on the resistance of stingers.
The ship resistance with the hull with aft poppets was slightly larger than without aft
4.3.2. Flow
poppets, Field
with anDistribution
increase of about 7%. However, the ship’s resistance in shallow waters
Figure 12byshows
was reduced aboutthe 50%velocity fieldofdistribution,
from that with streamlines
the deep waters. The resultsinshowed
deep‐ andtheshal‐
effect
low‐water
of conditions
aft poppets (H/T the1.5).
in reducing The velocity
increased fielddue
resistance near
to the
the wall in deep effect.
water-depth waters In
pre‐
the
sented three‐dimensional
following section, the flow flow characteristics.
field near The shallow-
the hull under incomingand flow passing through
deep-water theis
conditions
stern and aft
discussed poppets
to study thecauses the vortices
influence of waterto evolve
depth onand
the form.
resistance of stingers.
The distribution of streamlines in the far field is parallel to the direction of ship mo‐
4.3.2. Flowdistribution
tion. The Field Distribution
was relatively sparse, and the velocity was almost identical. The
distribution
Figure 12 ofshows
streamlines due tofield
the velocity the blocking effect
distribution, surrounding
with streamlines the
inwall
deep-is and
moreshallow-
com‐
plicated.
water Some vortices
conditions (H/T were
= 1.5).onThe
the velocity
hull between
field aft
nearpoppets.
the wallMost vortices
in deep surrounding
waters presented
the stern end causeflow
three-dimensional a pressure differenceThe
characteristics. on incoming
the front and flowrear of thethrough
passing same aftthepoppet.
stern As
and
a result,
aft poppetsthecauses
resistance
the on the same
vortices ship speed
to evolve significantly increased.
and form.

(a) (b)

(c) (d)

J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2022, 10, x FOR PEER REVIEW 16 of 19

(e) (f)

(g) (h)
Figure12.
Figure 12. Distribution
Distributionofofvelocity
velocityfield
fieldand
andstreamlines: (a) 4.0
streamlines: (a) m/s, (b) 3.5
4.0 m/s, (b)m/s,
3.5 (c) 3.0 m/s,
m/s, (d)m/s,
(c) 3.0 2.5
m/s, (e) 2.0 m/s, (f) 1.5 m/s, (g) 1.0 m/s, and (h) 0.5 m/s. (Note: Upper object in the figure
(d) 2.5 m/s, (e) 2.0 m/s, (f) 1.5 m/s, (g) 1.0 m/s, and (h) 0.5 m/s. (Note: Upper object in the figurefor the hull
without aft poppet and the lower object for the hull with aft poppet.)
for the hull without aft poppet and the lower object for the hull with aft poppet.)

The figure showed that the flow velocity in shallow water is much higher than in
deeper water. The increased flow velocity and the reduced pressure attributed to the cur‐
rent flowed backward through the ship’s bottom, and the distribution of streamlines be‐
came denser. A pressure difference at the ship’s bottom led to a downward movement of
J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2022, 10, 1583 15 of 18

The distribution of streamlines in the far field is parallel to the direction of ship motion.
The distribution was relatively sparse, and the velocity was almost identical. The distribu-
tion of streamlines due to the blocking effect surrounding the wall is more complicated.
Some vortices were on the hull between aft poppets. Most vortices surrounding the stern
end cause a pressure difference on the front and rear of the same aft poppet. As a result,
the resistance on the same ship speed significantly increased.
The figure showed that the flow velocity in shallow water is much higher than in
deeper water. The increased flow velocity and the reduced pressure attributed to the
current flowed backward through the ship’s bottom, and the distribution of streamlines
became denser. A pressure difference at the ship’s bottom led to a downward movement
of vortices on the hull surface. Note that excessive flow velocity has not resulted in the
evolution and development of the vortex.
Vortices were formed after water flowed through the No. 1 aft poppet in deep water.
These vortices were partially attached to the hull surface between No. 1 and No. 2 aft
poppets (Figure 12a–f). For the case of shallow-water conditions, part of the vortices
continued to move backward along the lower surface of the aft poppet and interacted and
merged with the vortices between the No. 2 and No. 3 aft poppets. The interaction of these
vortices affected the vorticity field distribution near the other aft poppets. The shape of
vortices in shallow water was relatively slender than in deep water.
The pressure difference between aft poppets and the additional pressure resistance
generated by aft poppets was reduced in shallow water. In shallow water, the hull with aft
poppets showed less resistance than the hull without aft poppets. However, the change of
ship resistance at low speeds is small. The interaction of vortices was observed at No. 2 aft
poppet. Additionally, the sinkage and tipping of the ship due to the shallow-water effect
resulted in the reduced distance between the hull and seabed, increased flow velocity, and
vorticity-distribution changes.
The following simulations presented the velocity field distribution at various water-
depth-to-draught ratios under H/T values of 4.0, 3.0, 2.0, 1.5, and 1.2.
Figure 11 shows the velocity field and streamline distribution surrounding aft poppets
at a ship speed of 4.0 m/s. The flow velocity increased with decreasing H/T ratio as the
water compressed. The maximum flow rate was at the lowest point of the stern.
The vortices formed and accumulated on the hull face between aft poppets (Figure 13a,b).
The shape of the vortices becomes obvious after H/T exceeding 3.0. The aft poppets
significantly improve the pressure resistance of the ship to launch.
The vortices between the No. 1 and No. 2 aft poppets affected the shape and vorticity
field distribution in the vicinity (Figure 13c,d). The increased resistance due to the aft
poppets was suppressed and reduced in shallow water. The ship launching at shallow
water with less than 1.5 was particularly significant. The excessive flow at the ship’s
bottom affected the evolution and development of vortices. The vortices concentrated on
the stinger with a slender shape. The pressure difference was minimal. The ship model
friction resistance improved with the resistance of the hull with aft poppets due to the
shallow-water effect.
In summary, the launching operation of large container ships should consider a
suitable tidal height and the shallow water effect to suppress the increasing resistance due
to the damping effect of the stern appendage.
J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2022, 10, 1583 16 of 18
J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2022, 10, x FOR PEER REVIEW 17 of 19

Figure 13. Velocity field and streamline distribution at various H/T values.
Figure 13. Velocity field and streamline distribution at various H/T values.
5. Conclusions
The
Thedynamic
vortices characteristics
between the No. of 1the launching
and No. 2 aftship
poppetswereaffected
developed based and
the shape on the CFD
vorticity
method
field distribution in the vicinity (Figure 13c,d). The increased resistance due to the aftship,
and MATLAB programming. The ship model is a full-scale 8500 TEU container pop‐
with
petsits initial
was launchingand
suppressed velocity andin
reduced floatation
shallow calculated
water. Theby MATLAB.
ship launching Theathydrodynamic
shallow water
characteristics
with less than and1.5the flow
was field of thesignificant.
particularly ship model Theare determined
excessive flow by using
at the theship’s
commercial
bottom
CFD software
affected STAR-CCM+,
the evolution andconsidering
development theoffluid viscosity.
vortices. The vortices concentrated on the
The with
stinger verification
a slender of shape.
the ship model
The is ondifference
pressure the ship resistance
was minimal. compared
The ship with thatfric‐
model of
the experimental results. The results show that the ship model agrees
tion resistance improved with the resistance of the hull with aft poppets due to the shal‐ very well with the
experiment data, with an error of grid and time-step settings of less than 3%. The ship
low‐water effect.
modelIn is summary,
subsequently theused to determine
launching operation theoflaunching ship resistance
large container in theconsider
ships should drifting stage
a suit‐
toable
provide a reference for the selection of a damped system of the ship
tidal height and the shallow water effect to suppress the increasing resistance model to simulate
due ato
large containereffect
the damping ship inof longitudinal launching.
the stern appendage.
The ship model also considers the stern appendages and the hull with and without
aft
5. poppets
Conclusions under deep-water conditions. The comparison of the ship’s resistance curves
and the velocity field distribution indicated that the stern appendages could influence the
The dynamic characteristics of the launching ship were developed based on the CFD
ship resistance and the flow field surrounding the ship wall. However, the distribution of
method and MATLAB programming. The ship model is a full‐scale 8500 TEU container
streamlines at the stern with the hull with aft poppets is more complicated. A large number
ship, with its initial launching velocity and floatation calculated by MATLAB. The hydro‐
of vortices around the poppet surface causes the pressure resistance to increase.
dynamic characteristics and the flow field of the ship model are determined by using the
The weight of the superstructure and the main engine of the large container ship on its
commercial CFD software STAR‐CCM+, considering the fluid viscosity.
stern induced a large trim angle and will be subject to the shallow-water effect in launching
The verification
in restricted waters. The ofnumerical
the ship model
resultsisshowed
on the ship
that resistance compared
the hull resistance in with thatwater
shallow of the
experimental results. The results show that the ship model agrees very
is higher than in deep water. The water depth suppresses the resistance-increasing effect of well with the ex‐
periment data, with
the ship during launching. an error of grid and time‐step settings of less than 3%. The ship model
is subsequently used to determine
Vortices accumulated the launching
on the surface observedship resistance
between in the drifting
aft poppets stageofto
for the case
shallow-water conditions. The vorticity field distribution in the vicinity of stern appendages a
provide a reference for the selection of a damped system of the ship model to simulate
large container ship in longitudinal launching.
J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2022, 10, 1583 17 of 18

at 1.5 < H/T < 3.0 was significantly affected by water depth. The vortices between the
appendages interact and form a slender vortex, resulting in decreased pressure resistance.
At shallow-water conditions with H/T < 1.5, the excessive flow rate at the ship’s bottom
prevents the evolution and development of the vortices. The formation of vortices resulting
in a slender shape on the wall between aft poppets increases the resistance due to the
shallow-water effect.
This paper provides a limited study on the practical means to determine a damped
system of ship model to simulate a large container ship in longitudinal launching, using
the CFD method. The numerical results indicated that the stern appendages and water
depth could influence the increasing resistance of the ship’s longitudinal launching. For a
large container ship launched in a small slipway under restricted water, a proper design of
aft poppets at the ship stern could effectively increase the ship resistance due to the high
launching speed in the drifting stage.
Future work will cover the influence and optimization of the aft poppet configurations
and the study on the suppression of the ship’s longitudinal launching due to water depth
and slippage in shallow water, the increasing ship resistance due to stern appendages, and
the effect of tide for safe and effective launch operation.

Author Contributions: Conceptualization, K.L. and B.Z.; methodology, B.Z. and Y.W.; formal analy-
sis, Z.W. and J.P.; validation, B.Z.; writing—review and editing, W.M.G. All authors have read and
agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding: This research was funded by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (Grant
Nos. 52071059, 52192692, and 52061135107); the LiaoNing Revitalization Talents Program (Grant Nos.
XLYC1807190 and XLYC1908027); the Dalian Innovation Research Team in Key Areas (No. 2020RT03);
the Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities (No. DUT20TD108); and the State Key
Laboratory of Ocean Engineering (Shanghai Jiao Tong University) (Grant No. GKZD 010081).
Institutional Review Board Statement: Not applicable.
Informed Consent Statement: Not applicable.
Data Availability Statement: Some or all data, models, or codes generated or used during this study
are available from the corresponding author upon request.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References
1. Sheng, Z.; Liu, Y. Principle of Naval Architecture, 1st ed.; Shanghai Jiao Tong University Press: Shanghai, China, 2003.
2. Žgomba, D.; Turk, A.; Hadjina, M.; Hadjina, D.; Margić, I. Longitudinal Ship Launching. J. Mar. Trans. Sci. 2020, 3, 239–249.
[CrossRef]
3. Liu, J.; Yu, L. Numerical investigation on nonlinear contact coupling during ship launching process by an array of airbags. Ocean
Eng. 2022, 255, 111481. [CrossRef]
4. Li, H.; Fang, X.; Yu, L. Research on safety of ship launching with airbags under extreme condition of airbag explosion. Ship Eng.
2017, 39, 59–63+79.
5. Zhong, J.; Cheng, Y.; Liu, J.; Zeng, G. Elastic calculation of ship end launching using ANSYS. J. Ship Mech. 2007, 05, 752–758.
6. Lin, S.; Sun, J.; Zeng, J.; Xie, D. A direct calculation method for ship longitudinal launching curves. Chin. J. Ship Res. 2016,
11, 128–134.
7. Farkas, A.; Degiuli, N.; Martić, I. Assessment of hydrodynamic characteristics of a full-scale ship at different draughts. Ocean Eng.
2018, 156, 135–152. [CrossRef]
8. Degiuli, N.; Farkas, A.; Martić, I.; Zeman, I.; Ruggiero, V.; Vasiljević, V. Numerical and experimental assessment of the total
resistance of a yacht. Brodogradnja 2021, 72, 61–80. [CrossRef]
9. Zhao, C.; Wang, W.; Jia, P.; Xie, Y. Optimisation of hull form of ocean-going trawler. Brodogradnja 2021, 72, 33–46. [CrossRef]
10. Farkas, A.; Degiuli, N.; Martić, I.; Dejhalla, R. Numerical and experimental assessment of nominal wake for a bulk carrier. J. Mar.
Sci. Technol. 2019, 24, 1092–1104. [CrossRef]
11. Bašić, J.; Degiuli, N.; Dejhalla, R. Total resistance prediction of an intact and damaged tanker with flooded tanks in calm water.
Ocean Eng. 2017, 130, 83–91. [CrossRef]
12. Senjanovic, I.; Katavić, J.; Vukcevic, V.; Vladimir, N.; Jasak, H. Launching of ships from horizontal berth by tipping tables—CFD
simulation of wave generation. Eng. Struct. 2020, 210, 110343. [CrossRef]
J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2022, 10, 1583 18 of 18

13. Fitriadhy, A.; Malek, A.M. Computational fluid dynamics analysis of a ship’s side launching in restricted waters. J. Mech. Eng. Sci.
2017, 11, 2993–3003. [CrossRef]
14. Güzel, B.; Korkmaz, F.C. Reducing water entry impact loads on marine structures by surface modification. Brodogradnja 2020,
71, 1–18. [CrossRef]
15. Li, H.; Yu, H.; Li, X.; Ren, H. Dynamic analysis of longitudinal ship launching in restricted water. Shipbuild. China 2009, 50, 61–66.
16. Wang, W.; Wang, Y. Dynamic analysis for ship launching based on CFD method. J. Dalian Marit. Univ. 2009, 35, 1–4.
17. Blagoveschensky, C.N. Manual of Ship Theory, 1st ed.; National Shipbuilding Literature Press: Leningrad, Russia, 1950.
18. Ferziger, J.H.; Perić., M.; Street, R.L. Computational Methods for Fluid Dynamics, 4th ed.; Springer: Cham, Germany, 2020.
19. Menter, F.R. Two-equation eddy-viscosity turbulence modeling for engineering applications. AIAA J. 1994, 32, 1598–1605.
[CrossRef]
20. Wilcox, D.C. Turbulence Modeling for CFD, 2nd ed.; DCW Industries Inc.: La Canada, CA, USA, 1998.
21. Wilcox, D.C. Formulation of the k-ω turbulence model revisited. AIAA J. 2008, 46, 2823–2838. [CrossRef]
22. Berberović, E.; Van Hinsberg, N.; Jakirlić, S.; Roisman, I.; Tropea, C. Drop impact onto a liquid layer of finite thickness: Dynamics
of the cavity evolution. Phys. Rev. E 2009, 79, 036306. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
23. Yang, K.; Duan, W.; Huang, L.; Zhang, P. A prediction method for ship added resistance based on symbiosis of data-driven and
physics-based models. Ocean Eng. 2022, 260, 112012. [CrossRef]
24. Park, S.; Park, S.; Rhee, S.; Lee, S.; Chol, J. Kang, S. Investigation on the wall function implementation for the prediction of ship
resistance. Int. J. Nav. Archit. Ocean. Eng. 2013, 5, 33–46. [CrossRef]
25. Islam, H.; Rahaman, M.; Akimoto, H.; Islam, M. Calm Water Resistance Prediction of a Container Ship Using Reynolds Averaged
Navier-stokes Based Solver. Procedia Eng. 2017, 194, 25–30. [CrossRef]
26. Zhang, W. Shallow water effect on ship and its empirical calculation method. Nav. Arch. Ocean Eng. 2019, 35, 6–12.