Full scale self-propulsion computations using discretized propeller for the KRISO container ship KCS

Numerical Simulation and Experimental Studies on Aft Hull Local Parameterized Non-Geosim Deformation for Correcting Scale Effects of Nominal Wake Field

“…In addition, given the lack of experimental data for the wake field of the target-scale model (LPP = 50.95 m), the reliability of the flow-fie ld calculations can be validated with the help of the resistance data results. The error is less than 5% (table 7) when converting the resistance value of the target-scale model to a full-scale KCS ship [19], meeting the accuracy requirement of the resistance calculation.…”

“…(9). The exact value of the total resistance coefficient for a full scale ship (LPP = 230 m) was adopted from the CFD calculation results of a previous study [19].…”

“…The committee believed that the CFD method is the most reliable method of prediction of full-scale nominal wake field [17]. With the rapid development of CFD technology and computer hardware level, the calculation of full-scale nominal wake field has become possible in present theory [18][19][20], and the missing part is only the verification of the real ship data.…”

Effect of ship hull form on the resistance penalty from biofouling

“…constant form factor of K = 0.1, as previously reported for the KCS hull (Castro et al 2011;Demirel et al 2017). A double-body simulation on the KCS hull geometry would enable the form factor K to be determined more accurately for each speed, directly from the comparison between hull resistance without a free surface (C W = 0) and numerical flat plate resistance (Raven et al 2008;Kouh et al 2009).…”

“…These methods include the CFD results for the equivalent flat plate from Demirel et al (2017) and own calculations using the Granville method, as described in Schultz (2007) using the roughness function given by Demirel et al (2017). Additionally, each of these results (the CFD flat plate, and the Granville method) are further multiplied by a form factor (1+K) = 1.1 (Castro et al 2011;Demirel et al 2017), to determine whether such operation brings about any improvement in terms of accuracy.…”