Benchmark CFD validation data for surface combatant 5415 in PMM maneuvers – Part I: Force/moment/motion measurements

Abstract

Part I of this two-part paper presents benchmark CFD validation force/moment/motion measurements for surface combatant 5415 in planar-motion-mechanism (PMM) maneuvers. The experiments are conducted in the IIHR towing tank as part of an international collaboration for development/application of uncertainty analysis procedures and assessment of scale effects and facility biases. Stationarity and normality tests and statistical convergence errors, single and multiple run methods for obtaining the maneuvering mathematical model hydrodynamic derivatives, and the effects of heave, pitch and roll motions and fixed/free mount conditions are assessed. Assessment of the methods for obtaining the hydrodynamic derivatives is based on reconstructions of the measured force and moment time histories. Part 2 presents phase-averaged stereo PIV flow field measurements. The data is used as a test case at the SIMMAN 2008 and 2014 workshops on verification and validation of ship maneuvering simulation methods. navigational safety and the development of International Maritime Organization Standards forShip Maneuverability (Resolution MSC.137(76), IMO 2002) has significantly increased its importance. Maneuvering simulation methods have been largely system-based approaches using maneuvering mathematical models and experimental data for estimating the hydrodynamics derivatives since surge, sway, yaw and roll are of primary importance and require viscous effects, whereas heave and pitch are of secondary importance and can be predicted using inviscid methods.Recently, CFD methods have shown great promise for replacing experimental data for estimating the hydrodynamics derivatives and for free running simulations at both model and full scale. Significant progress has been made toward this goal by using Reynolds-averaged Navier-unsteady RANS (URANS)-, or Detached Eddy Simulation (DES)-based codes for various hull forms in captive or free-running maneuvers. A few of the latest examples include steady-drift or -turning simulations by Tahara et al. (2002) for Series 60, Simonsen and Stern (2005) for Esso Osaka, Hyman et al. (2006) for Athena R/V, Bhushan et al. (2011) for naval combatant 5415, and Xing et al. (2012) for a tanker hull form. Dynamic captive-maneuvering simulations were done by Cura Hochbaum (2006) for a twin-screw ferry, Di Mascio et al. (2007) for a tanker, Simonsen et al. (2012) for a container ship, and Sakamoto et al. (2012a,b) for a naval combatant. Free-running simulations such as turning circle or zigzag maneuvers have been done by Bhushan et al. (2009) and Carrica et al. (2013) for a naval combatant and Dubbioso et al. (2012) for a twin-screw tanker. Free running CFD simulations with system identification have recently shown promise for the best and most efficient approach for estimating the hydrodynamic derivatives (Araki et al., 2012). Current CFD research focuses on maneuvering in waves (Sadat-Hosseini et al., 2014) and capsize (Hosseini et al., 2011). The 24 th -27 th International Towing Tank Conference (ITTC) Maneuv...

Predictions of ship maneuverability based on virtual captive model tests

“…The Fourier sine and cosine coefficients in these expressions are given in Table 1 The 'Multiple-Run (MR)' approach (Yoon et al, 2015) is used to evaluate the hydrodynamic derivatives from these FS coefficients. This method uses curve-fittings of the mathematical models for sine and cosine coefficients similarly with the method for evaluating the derivatives of static captive tests mentioned above.…”

“…While all derivatives are available from the 0th-or the 1st-order coefficients, a few derivatives are also available from the higher order (the 2nd-or the 3rd-order) coefficients. The former is named as the MRL method (marked with an asterisk in Table 1) and the latter as the MRH method (Yoon et al, 2015).…”

Numerical Study of Hydrodynamic Derivatives and Course Stability under Ship-Bank Interaction

“…In Equations 4 and 5, the linear velocity For a detailed explanation of the approaches to identify the derivatives, the readers are referred to Yoon et al (2015). Substituting Equations 4 and 5 into the non-dimensional form of Equations 1 and 2 results in the following equations:…”

Benchmark CFD validation data for surface combatant 5415 in PMM maneuvers – Part II: Phase-averaged stereoscopic PIV flow field measurements

“…'The normality of data is examined by using a Chi-square goodness-of-fit test. Yoon et al (2015) provide more details of the methodology for each test.…”

“…For = and velocity components, theexpected values from the PIVmeasurements are essentially the coordinate transforms of the PMM velocities and to the ship-fixed coordinate system, where and are as in-Eqs. (1)and(2), respectively, thus = 3 × 10 5 sec 1 , and = 0.001 sec from a previous UA inYoon et al (2015). Through the propagations of these elemental uncertainties, = 0.005 and 0.002 are obtained for = and , respectively.From the present measurements, ̅ = -0.011 and = 0.003 are observed for and ̅ = 0.009 and = 0.006 for , and from Eq.…”