Professional Documents
Culture Documents
59-82
A computational fluid dynamics (CFD) code for surface-ship boundary layers, wakes, and wave
fields is extended by incorporating into it the capability of predicting sinkage and trim. The method
is described and results are presented for the naval combatant FF1052 and the Series 60, CB =
0.6 parent hull. Resistance, sinkage and trim, and wave profile on the hull are compared between
the calculations and the experimental data. The trends in the data are predicted correctly and
there is also good quantitative agreement overall between the calculations and the data.
Nomenclature
AP = aft perpendicular Fpz = nondimensionalized p = static pressure, non-
B = maximum molded vertical piezometric dimensionalized by pU2
breadth at design pressure force 15 = nondimensionalized
waterline Fr = Froude number, U o / 4 g L piezometric pressure,
4 = geometric coefficients ITTC = International Towing P + Z/Fr 2
C B = block coefficient Tank Conference Re = Reynolds number, UoL/~
CB = center of buoyancy lap = index in x-direction S = body-wetted surface a r e a
CF = center of flotation corresponding to T = design draft
CG = center of gravity X / L = 1.0 Ui = velocity components (U, V, W) in
CP = center of pressure /max, Jmax, Cartesian coordinates
C F = frictional-resistance kmax = size of grid in ~, rh (- U0 = reference velocity (ship speed)
coefficient directions ui, uj = Reynolds stress tensor
Cp = pressure-resistance ~,3, k = unit vector in Cartesian W = still-water displacement of hull
coefficient coordinate system x i = Cartesian coordinates (X, Y, Z)
C T = total resistance J = Jacobian Y+ = wall coordinate, U.rY/~
coefficient L = characteristic length
D W L = design waterline (ship length between Greek symbols
F = net heaving force on perpendiculars, L p p )
hull, nondimen- M = net trimming moment on 5a = incremental sinkage correction
sionalized by pU2L2/2 hull, nondimension- 5T = incremental trim correction
FB = nondimensionalized alized by pU3L3/2 p = fluid density
buoyancy force cr = nondimensionalized mean sink-
m = meter, unit for length
FFx = nondimensionalized n = unit vector normal to age, ( A Z F p + A Z A p ) / 2 L
axial frictional force T= nondimensionalized trim (positive
hull surface, with
F P = fore perpendicular components by bow), ( A Z F p -- A Z A p ) / L
FPx = nondimensionalized ~i = curvilinear coordinates (~, ~/, ~)
(nxz , ny), nzk )
axial pressure force = wave elevation
AZ = change in water level at hull
7 to 8%
increase
oOO OO
Relatively small O
= effects O
o
O
gQ Q g # g o o ooO
o
~ t10 9
O
o 4
Schoenherr Friclion Line
.o
3
Mark Condilon Temp.
O O Free 11.7C
Fixed 12.3.C
I , I I I
0.1 0.2 03
Froude n u m b e r
Fig. 2 Effects of sinkage and trim on total resistance of a Series 60, CB = 0.6
model, adapted from Ogiwara 8z Kajitani (1994)
to reproduce the appreciable effects of sinkage and trim seen in L. In the absence of any port-starboard asymmetry in the
the data. Lastly, some concluding remarks are made. flow, a "half-domain" solution suffices (i.e., the solution do-
main may exclude the half, Y < 0). Referring to Fig. 3, the
Computational method specified boundaries of the solution domain are: the body sur-
face, S b 07 : 1); the inlet plane, S i (~ : 1); the exit plane, Se
Herein, a brief description is provided, first, of the computa-
(~ -- i . . . . ); the symmetry plane, Sk (~ = 1 and parts of~ = 1);
tional method, CFDSHIP-IOWA. (For a detailed documenta-
the outer boundary, So (~ -- jmax); the multi-block interfaces,
tion of the method, including uncertainty anMysis and verifi-
Stub (~ = iap + 1 and ~ = iap + 2); and the free-surface, S
cation procedures, see Stern et al 1996.) This is followed by a
(~ = kmax; ~ = 1 too, for a full-domain simulation).
description of the manner in which the capability of account-
The RANS and kinematic free-surface boundary-condition
ing for sinkage and trim is incorporated into the method. In
particular, the points described are: the calculation of the hy- equations are solved using separate grids. The RANS grid is H-
drodynamic forces and moments on the ship hull; the determi- type with constant-X planes stacked to form a complete three-
nation of incremental sinkage and trim corrections necessary to dimensional grid (as in Fig. 3). The constant-X cross-plane
balance these forces and moments; and the interfacing of the grids are generated elliptically by solving a Poisson equation
sinkage and trim calculations with the flow solver. for the transformation between (Y, Z) and (~, ~). The initial
CFDSHIP-IOWA solves the unsteady, incompressible RANS grid extends to an elevation sufficiently above the design wa-
and continuity equations in Cartesian coordinates (X, Y, Z) us- terline (at Z = 0) to a l l o w for wave crests. As the wave field
ing the Baldwin-Lomax turbulence model. The equations a r e develops, the RANS grid is updated to conform to the free
transformed from the physical domain in Cartesian coordi- surface.
nates into the computationM domain in nonorthogonal curvi- In the grid-conforming process, the initial distribution of the
linear coordinates (~, ~, ~). The RANS equations are solved us- grid points along the ~ = constant, or girthwise lines, is saved.
ing finite-analytic spatial and first-order backward-difference As the free-surface elevation changes, the grid point on the
temporal discretization. The pressure equation is derived from free surface is moved to the new elevation and all the points
a discretized form of the continuity equation and solved us- below the free surface slide along the 7/ = constant line so as
ing second-order central finite differences. The exact nonlin- to maintain their initial relative distribution. This procedure
ear kinematic and approximate dynamic free-surface boundary plays an important part in the prediction of sinkage and trim
conditions are employed, and a body-free-surface conforming as shall be elaborated upon subsequently. An illustration of the
grid is used. The overall solution procedure is based on the free-surface conforming operation is reproduced in Fig. 4, which
two.step pressure-implicit-split-operator (PISO) algorithm. For shows the initial and adapted crossplane grids for the FF1052
steady flow, subiteration convergence is not required and time at an exemplary cross section.
serves as an iteration parameter. The kinematic free-surface boundary condition grid is two-
Figure 3 shows the multi-block grid system for the FF1052. dimensional and is updated iteratively to fit the wave-hull in-
The grid transforms into a simple rectangular parallelepiped tersection. It is different from the RANS grid in that instead
with equal grid spacing in the computational domain. The co- of high near-wall resolution, more points are distributed in the
ordinates are nondimensionalized by the characteristic length, outer flow to resolve the wave field. A bilinear interpolation
Sb
-0.05
Z/L
-0.10 ! .rl ~ - - - - _ _ . _ _ _
-------________
Sk--/ 7
-I.00 t I
0.0o 0.05 0.10 0.15/ ~ 0.90 0.95 1.00
So - - J Y/L
(a) block 1 crossplane at X / L = 0.05
Y/L
~mb
scheme is used to transfer the velocity field and wave eleva- and trim. If the pitching moment and the heaving force were
tion across the two different grids--the velocity field from the not zero, the ship would experience a rotational acceleration
uppermost plane of the RANS grid is interpolated onto the in the direction of the unbalanced moment as well as a verti-
free-surface grid and the wave elevation is interpolated from cal acceleration of its center of mass, with a coupling between
the free-surface grid onto the uppermost plane of the RANS these two modes. Eventually, it would attain a new position
grid. of stable equilibrium defined by a mean sinkage (at amidships)
A description of the manner in which the method is extended and trim.
for the problem of steady forward speed flow with sinkage and The procedure for the calculation of sinkage and trim is as
trim follows. follows. A converged solution is first obtained with the ship hull
held fixed at its design waterline. Next, the net heaving force
Formulation of the problem and the net trimming moment (about the center of gravity) on
A ship that is moving straight ahead with uniform velocity the hull are calculated and the sinkage and trim corrections nec-
in the "free to sink and trim" condition can continue in steady, essary to balance this force and moment are determined. Then,
unaccelerated motion only when the resultant vertical hydro- the hull is repositioned accordingly and the grid regenerated
dynamic force and the resultant trimming moment about its around the shifted hull. Further iterations are performed within
center of gravity vanish. A ship satisfying this condition is said the flow solver. This cycle is repeated until the hull attains a
to be in a state of static equilibrium or sailing with a sinkage stable configuration with no net heaving force and trimming
0i
0.0
-0.06 I
-0.08
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0 0.05 0.1 0.15
Y/L Y/L
(a) initial crossplane grid (b) conformed crossplane grid
Fig. 4 Free-surface conforming process
moment. A flowchart depicting the overall solution procedure over the wetted surface area. The fluid stress tensor is com-
is drawn in Fig. 5. prised of components due to pressure, viscous stress and tur-
bulence
Hydrodynamic forces and moments
Tij = --P(~ij + R e-1 (OUi/Oxj + OUj/OXz) - uiu j (1)
The hydrodynamic forces on the hull, shown in Fig. 6, can be
The third term in (1) does not contribute to the forces since the
obtained by integration of the normal and tangential stresses Reynolds stresses are zero on the hull surface. The fluid force is
then determined by carrying out, on the ~ = 1 computational
plane (which represents the hull surface), the integration
dS = Jv=ld~d( (4)
,No~
I Obtainincrementalsinkage comes from the first term in equation (1); the axial and vertical
and trim corrections
components of the pressure-resistance, when nondimensional-
ized by pUgL2/2, are
_ FFx.._~ ZFx
FP
Fig. 6 Hydrodynamic forces on a ship hull
tical pressure force (7) so that the buoyancy force is available of the hydrodynamic forces are taken, are determined from hy-
directly: drostatics: the RANS grid, which extends all the way up to the
deck, is conformed to the design waterline (i.e., ( = kinax, in
FB = 2 ./ (Z/Fr2)b~d~d( (8) the half-domain simulation, is set to the D W L , Z = 0) and the
total hydrostatic pressure force in the vertical direction is com-
The force due to wall-shear stress, FF, may be obtained di- puted using (8). Then, longitudinal equilibrium requires that
rectly by inserting the second term of (1) into (2). It is calcu- W equals FB and XCG equals XCB.
lated instead in a way that exploits the fact that the normal The effective locations of the hydrodynamic forces (i.e., XCB,
shear stress is identically zero. In this approach, the magnitude X P z , ZFx and Z p x ) are calculated by taking simple first mo-
of the wall-shear stress vector is first calculated: : ments of the elemental forces about the corresponding axes and
dividing the respective moments by the total force. However,
I~-~ I = Re OlO~l (9) since ZCG is not determined from hydrostatics as easily, it was
assumed to be at the level of the design waterline in the calcu-
where Re is the Reynolds number and O]U__I/On is the hull- lations. An equivalent physical experiment with a ship model
normal velocity gradient which is evaluated using the veloc- free to sink and trim, therefore, would have to have the towing
ity magnitude a t - - a n d the distance t o - - t h e first grid point of[ point at the same transverse location as the model's longitudi-
the hull. Next, the wall-shear stress vector is aligned with the nal center of buoyancy (in still water) and at a height above
hull-tangential contravariant velocity components at the same the keel line equal to the still-water floating draft.
location: With a knowledge of the system of forces and their effec-
tive locations, the net heaving force, F, and the net trimming
U1 moment, M, on the hull can be computed
~-~ = l~-~ol (10)
~/U 12 ~- U 22 -}- V 32
F=FB-W+Fpz (15)
Tw, = 0 (11)
M = F B ( X c G -- XCB ) -[- Fpz(XCG -- X p z )
U3 + FFx (ZcG - ZFx ) + Fex (ZcG - Z p x ) (16)
~-~ = I~-,oI (12)
x/U 12 + U 22 + U 32
In the convention adopted, an upward acting force is taken as
Using transformation relations, ~'wx, 7wv, and Twz are ob- positive, as is a counterclockwise moment about the transverse
tained and these are integrated over the hull surface for the axis passing through the ship's center of gravity.
frictional resistance
Sinkage and trim corrections
FFx = / S "rwxdS (13) In the right-handed coordinate system shown in Fig. 6, the
ship is assumed to float initially at an even-keel draft with its
design waterline coinciding with the undisturbed free surface
FFz = ~S TwzdS (14) (Z = 0). The mean sinkage and the trim are defined from
measurements of the change in the water level (with respect to
Although calculated, FFz is typically very small. Lastly, FFy = the undisturbed free surface) at the fore and aft perpendiculars:
0, since the calculations are symmetrical about the centerplane.
The still-water displacement of the hull, W, and the longitu- O"= ( A Z F p + A Z A p ) / 2 L (17)
dinal position of the center of gravity, about which the moments w = (AZFp - AZAp)/L (18)
t Nondimensionaiized by L2.
* Nondimensionalized by pU2L2/2.
+ Nondimensionalized by L.
# Nondimensionalized by pU2SDWL/2.
bous bows and cruiser s t e r n s - - c o u l d be resolved only approxi- In the original method, T a h a r a &: Stern (1994) evaluated
mately, in a staircase-like fashion. Further, the extension of the the resistances using successive one-dimensional integrations
m e t h o d for sinkage and t r i m calculations was, at the outset, t h a t combined the use of the J a c o b i a n and cubic-spline-fitted
faced with a key consideration: whereas for the fixed-condition data. However, the scheme based on successive one-dimensional
calculations only the resistances [equations (6) and (13)] were trapezoidal-rule integrations using the J a c o b i a n was found to
quantities of interest, for the meaningful prediction of sinkage be the most accurate of all in S u b r a m a n i ' s (1996) s t u d y - -
and trim, it was i m p e r a t i v e t h a t all of the h y d r o d y n a m i c forces supporting Stern et al's (1996) and T a h a r a 8z S t e m ' s (1996)
[equations (7), (8), (15), and (16), in addition] be determined selection of the same scheme for their resistance calculations.
as accurately as possible. Therefore, careful consideration was It was therefore chosen for use in the ensuing sinkage and t r i m
given to errors arising out of g e o m e t r y approximations and the calculations.
numerical evaluation of the forces. Secondly, while the integration scheme chosen was the same,
Firstly, five different numerical integration schemes were se- a refinement was m a d e over Stern et al (1996) and T a h a r a &
lected and tested for accuracy by performing some analytical Stern (1996) in terms of how the forces were evaluated, so as to
calculations. Only a s u m m a r y of the s t u d y is provided here; for account for the g e o m e t r y approximations properly. This refine-
details, the reader is referred to S u b r a m a n i (1996). T h e schemes ment and its effect on the calculated resistances are explained
tested involved: (a) simple s u m m a t i o n s using the trapezoidal below, following a detailing of the status of the integration
rule, (b) successive one-dimensional integrations (using either scheme for the hydrostatics calculations.
the trapezoidal rule or Simpson's rule) along the length and
the girth, (c) s u m m a t i o n of the area elements based on the Ship hydrostatics
J a c o b i a n of the transformation, (d) successive one-dimensional In an application to the ship forms of i n t e r e s t - - t h e Series 60,
trapezoidal-rule integrations using the Jacobian, and (e) suc- CB = 0.6 hull and the F F 1 0 5 2 - - t h e chosen integration scheme
cessive one-dimensional integrations along the length and the was used to calculate the wetted hull surface area, the still-
girth, using cubic-spline-fitted data. water displacement, the longitudinal center of buoyancy, and
T h e schemes were tested by c o m p u t i n g the surface areas and, the axial hydrostatic pressure force. These hydrostatic partic-
where applicable, the axial hydrostatic force in still fluid (a ulars are presented along with the ship d a t a in Table 1 (the
q u a n t i t y theoretically zero) for simple two- and three-dimen- conditions and grids for these calculations are described in the
sional b o d y shapes and comparing the percentage differences of next section, along with the main results).
the calculations from the analytical results. For a b e t t e r assess- T h e calculated surface area (up to the DWL) is off by 0.2%
ment, the calculations were performed on three grids: a coarse from the d a t a for the Series 60, CB = 0.6 and by - 0 . 3 8 % for
51 1 51 grid, a m e d i u m 101 1 101 grid, and a fine the FF1052, a hull form considerably more complex. (Note t h a t
201 1 201 grid. in contrast to the s t a n d a r d form of the Series 60, CB = 0.6, the
FF1052 has a pronounced bow, a sonar dome, transom stern, related to the complexities of the hull and the use of a nonbody-
and a skeg. This results naturally in additional g e o m e t r y de- fitted grid.
scription errors, considering the use of a non-body-fitted grid.) N o t w i t h s t a n d i n g t h a t such fine-grid numerical integrations
T h e calculated still-water displacement (equivalent to the un- are generally more accurate t h a n those c o m m o n l y employed in
derwater volume, or, exactly, the vertical hydrostatic pressure the design process, 4 the minimization of these hydrostatic er-
at rest) and the position of the longitudinal center of buoy- rors is important. This is because the axial hydrostatic error
ancy are also closer to the d a t a in the case of the Series 60, adds directly to other errors in the total resistance (e.g., due
CB = 0 . 6 - - t h e displacement is within 1% of the d a t a of Todd to iterative and grid convergence), while errors in the other
(1963) and the center of buoyancy is accurate to less t h a n 0.1%.
hydrostatic forces and their effective locations propagate to er-
T h e calculations for the FF1052, compared to the particulars
provided in West (1964), show errors of about 4 and 3%, re- rors in the calculation of sinkage and t r i m through equations
spectively, in the displacement and the center of buoyancy. In (15), (16), (23), and (24). However, these propagated errors,
the ensuing h y d r o d y n a m i c calculations, therefore, one can ex- and also the uncertainty in the total resistance due to the com-
pect a higher uncertainty in the calculations of the transverse bined effects of g e o m e t r y description and numerical integration
m o m e n t s for the FF1052, from the adding up of the uncertain- errors, are difficult to estimate. It may be noted t h a t the more
ties in the calculations of the h y d r o d y n a m i c forces and their recent versions of C F D S H I P - I O W A incorporate a free-surface
effective locations. a d a p t a t i o n scheme t h a t is compatible w i t h curvilinear three-
T h e calculations also show a nonzero still-water axial hy- dimensional body-fitted grids (Paterson et al 1998). As such,
drostatic pressure force (herein nondimensionalized based on the uncertainties due to g e o m e t r y approximations would be
the surface area up to the DWL, to enable an assessment minimized greatly, if not eliminated altogether.
against the total resistance d a t a which is presented usually in To summarize: considering t h a t the hydrostatic calculations
this form). While quite small for the Series 60, CB = 0.6 [less with the present integration scheme are satisfactorily close to
t h a n 1% of the total resistance coefficient, CT obtained from a the data, one may expect the h y d r o d y n a m i c forces and mo-
towing t a n k experiment (Longo &: Stern 1996)], the hydrostatic ments calculated with the chosen integration scheme to be suf-
error is significant for the FF1052 [4 to 7% of the experimental
ficiently accurate for the successful prediction of sinkage and
CT (West 1964)]. (Note t h a t since the FF1052 calculations at trim, assuming of course t h a t the flow field is predicted accu-
the two Froude numbers are on the same 207 x 60 x 40 grid, the
axial hydrostatic forces have to be of the same absolute magni- rately.
tude. T h e different error percentages in their comparisons with
the total resistance d a t a are primarily due to the Fr? t e r m in 4It is well known that inviscid panel codes must necessarily cor-
the d e n o m i n a t o r t h a t appears as a result of the nondimension- rect for a similar (usually larger) calm-water hydrostatic error for a
alization.) Again, the increased error for the FF1052 is directly reasonable estimation of the hydrodynamic forces.
fine grid of distribution 360 x 60 x 30 (648 000 grid points). Al- 0 lO00 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000
though Tahara &: Stern reported that the differences between
Iteration number
the solutions obtained using the two grids were small, both
grids were used herein so as to determine the effects of grid Fig. Z Iterative convergence for the FF1052 at Fr = 0.29 (20"? x 60
resolution on the prediction of sinkage and trim. 40 grid): residual o f axial velocity
I.OxlO -03
rr. O.OxlO+OO
. . . . . . . . ~: =- =--Z ~]L L_- L LI'L- L_ I-;
~ -1.OxlO -03
>
t"
-2.0x 10.03
Z
_3.0xlO "3
-4.0x 10 .03 , , , , , I , , , , I I I I I
4000 4500 5000 5500 6000
Iteration number
(a)
1'2x104 . . . . 1
I ' ' I ' ' ' '
8.0xlO -05
4.0xlO "5
e-
O.OxlO+
E !
iI '<, I ........ ILL
iI
-4.0x 10-05 I
11
E
I
,g .8.0xlO 5 I
ii
Z
I
iI
.1.2x10-o4 /
_l.6xlO "4 , , , I . . . . I . . . . I . . . .
4000 4500 5000 5500 6000
I t e r a t i o n number
(b)
Fig. 8 Vanishing of: (a) net heaving force, and (b) net trimming moment for the FF1052
at Fr = 0.29
n u m b e r for t h e i r e x p e r i m e n t s differed greatly, unlike L o n g o &= FF1052 and effect of Froude number
S t e r n ' s , from t h a t of t h e n u m e r i c a l s i m u l a t i o n . Nevertheless,
In a slight v a r i a t i o n of t h e a d o p t e d s o l u t i o n p r o c e d u r e (re-
t h e i r d a t a shall b e used h e r e u n d e r for a fuller discussion of t h e
call Fig. 5)~ a converged s o l u t i o n of t h e flow field a r o u n d t h e
t r e n d s a s s o c i a t e d w i t h sinkage a n d t r i m .
F F 1 0 5 2 a t Fr ---- 0.29 a n d 0.39 was first o b t a i n e d w i t h t h e
Next, t h e c a l c u l a t i o n s w i t h sinkage a n d t r i m are d e s c r i b e d hull fixed, before i n i t i a t i n g a n y a d j u s t m e n t s for sinkage a n d
in d e t a i l for only one case, t h a t of t h e F F 1 0 5 2 a t Fr = 0.29; t r i m . A l t h o u g h t h e sinkage a n d t r i m c o r r e c t i o n s m a y b e g i n to
for t h e o t h e r t h r e e cases, only t h e n o t a b l e results are p r e s e n t e d b e applied before a converged s o l u t i o n in t h e hull-fixed con-
a n d discussed. Nonetheless, in t h e process are e x a m i n e d b o t h , d i t i o n is a t t a i n e d , d o i n g so in a s t e a d y - s t a t e c a l c u l a t i o n such
t h e F r o u d e n u m b e r effects o n sinkage a n d t r i m ( t h r o u g h t h e as t h i s m a y b e wasteful c o m p u t a t i o n a l l y . Yet, if t h e p r o c e d u r e
results for t h e F F 1 0 5 2 ) a n d t h e effects of grid r e s o l u t i o n o n t h e were t o b e e x t e n d e d for c a l c u l a t i n g b o d y m o t i o n s in a sea-
c a l c u l a t i o n s ( t h r o u g h t h e results for t h e Series 60, CB = 0.6). keeping s i m u l a t i o n - - a s is p o s s i b l e - - i t would of course b e nec-
0.003
0.002
It
D
0.001 [
0.000 I ' i
-0.001 I I I I [
...... ........
,
.........
i
[]
I
: .....i ....i .....i ......
I [ I I
0.005 . . . . I . . . . I . . . . _[
Experiment (West 1964)
I Incremental correction
0.O04 - - -A- - Cumulative correction
~ Numbersin paranthesesindicatepercentagechange I
:'''" bet. . . . . . . tionsfor sinkageand trim -[
0.oo3
0.002
.&-
0.001
essary to d e t e r m i n e in a t i m e - a c c u r a t e m a n n e r the corrections The iterative convergence of the sinkage and t r i m calcula-
in the hull's position. For added convenience here, the existing tions to the final state of stable equilibrium can be studied
coarse grid, fixed-condition solutions of Stern et al (1996) were through an inspection of, besides Fig. 7, Figs. 8 and 9 - - a l l of
used as the starting point for the sinkage and t r i m calculations. which are for Fr = 0.29. As shown in Fig. 8, the overall effect
T h e fixed-condition resistances, however, were duly corrected as of the flow field in the fixed condition is such t h a t there is a net
described previously and summarized in Table 2. Convergence downward heaving force and also--reflecting the strong trim-
[corresponding to the criterion, R E S < 10-4; see equation by-bow characteristics of the FF1052 at this ~ ' o u d e n u m b e r
(25)] in the fixed condition was satisfied in 4000 iterations. This (recall Fig. 1 ) - - a large t r i m m i n g m o m e n t by the bow. These
is depicted in Fig. 7, which shows the convergence history of necessitate, through the coupled equations (23) and (24), the
the axial velocity. The c o m p u t a t i o n a l requirements on a C R A Y positive sinkage and t r i m corrections seen in Fig. 9. W i t h the
C-90 were 36 megawords of m e m o r y and 20 hours of C P U time. incorporation of the first corrections for sinkage and trim, the
0.003 [ 1:3. . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
d
~o
.,
0.002
0.001
0.000
-0.001 I I I , I
(a)
0.005 ' I
0.003
o
0.002
e-~
-0.001 , , , , I , , , , I , ,
4000 4500 5000
Iteration n u m b e r
(b)
Fig. 10 Evolution of: (a) sinkage, and (b) trim corrections for FFI052 at Fr = 0.39
residuals (as d e m o n s t r a t e d in Fig. 7) spike up by over an or- and induces t r i m corrections by the stern for a few stages, be-
der of magnitude. U p o n performing 500 additional iterations fore reversing directions and diminishing, as the pressure dis-
t h r o u g h the flow solver, t h e y fall back towards the original lev- tribution on the hull stabilizes. T h e entire sequence lasts eight
els. This p a t t e r n of increases and decreases in the residuals stages (and 2000 additional iterations in all) and results in a
following adjustments for sinkage and t r i m continues until sta- converged cumulative t r i m by the bow, as shown in Fig. 9.
ble equilibrium is a t t a i n e d - - w h e n the net heaving force and The 0.39 Fr calculation shows different convergence charac-
t r i m m i n g m o m e n t (Fig. 8), and hence the incremental sinkage teristics in progressing to a state of stable equilibrium. Ow-
and t r i m corrections (Fig. 9), converge to zero. ing to the smaller t r i m characteristic of the FF1052 at this
Interestingly, the net initial heaving force is almost com- Froude n u m b e r (again, recall Fig. 1), a converged cumulative
pletely balanced by the first (sinkage) correction; as a result, sinkage and t r i m are obtained in only four stages (using 1300
the subsequent sinkage corrections are almost negligible. W i t h additional iterations), as shown in Fig. 10. T h e additional it-
further iterations, however, a net t r i m m i n g m o m e n t persists erations within the flow solver for a converged solution with
0
~ 3 . 0 x 1 0 3
L)
._~ 2 . 0 x l O 3
I
o=
"3
1.Ox 10 .03
D
0 . 0 x l 0 +oo . . . . I . . . . I . . . . I . . . .
4000 4500 5000 5500 6000
Iteration number
(a)
5.0x 10.03 . . . . I . . . . I ' ' '
N u m b e r s in p a r a n t h e s e s indicate p e r c e n t a g e c h a n g e
b e t w e e n corrections for s i n k a g e a n d trim
= 4 . 0 X 1 0 -3
(.)
~D
0D 3 . 0 x 1 0 -3
~D
D
2 . 0 X 1 0 "3
[.-. N u m b e r s in p a r a n t h e s e s indicate p e r c e n t a g e c h a n g e
r..) b e t w e e n corrections for s i n k a g e a n d trim
~_r 8 . 0 X 1 0 "3
~D
"U
6.0x10_o3
O
(..)
N 4 . 0 x l O "3
. . . . . . [] . . . . . . . . . . [] . . . . . . . . . - 0 ........... f
!
"~ 2 . 0 x 10 "3
O 19.9% i n c r e a s e w i t h
sinkage and trim
0 . 0 x l 0 + . . . . I . . . . I . . . . I . . . .
4000 . 4500 5000 5500 6000
Iteration number
(c)
Fig. l l Convergence history o f resistances for FF1052 at Fr = 0.29
~2
0
0
0 3.0x 10 .03
0
< ...................... ~ ............ -O- . . . . . . . . . . . . q ....... -<
2 . 0 x 1 0 .03
I
1.0xl0 .03 I
0 . 0 x l 0 *0o / , I . . . . I , ,
4000 4500 5000
Iteration number
(a)
5 . 0 x 1 0 .03 I I
Numbers in parantheses indicate percentage change
,,..a
between corrections for sinkage and trim
c- 4 . 0 x 1 0 .03
O
0 3 . 0 x 1 0 .03
0
o
2 . 0 x 1 0 .03
~
(
1 . 0 x 1 0 .03
0 . 0 x l 0 + . . . . I . . . . I , ,
4000 4500 5000
Iteration number
(b)
1.0xlO-2f I I
Numbers in parantheses indicate percentage change
between corrections for sinkage and trim
8"0X10-3f
"O
~2 6.0X 10 .03
O
e..)
..a
4 . 0 x 1 0 .03I
. . . . I . . . . I , ,
0 . 0 x l 0 +
4000 4500 5000
Iteration number
(c)
Fig. 12 Convergence history o f resistances for FF1052 at Fr ---- 0.3g
0.030
' ' ' I ' ' ' I ' ' ' I ' ' ' I ' ' '
0.015
O.OlC
0.005
\ o i
\ 0 0 0 0 :.:=.-.-.~
~ _ _ o .0~---~-~ ..........
0.000
-~" .... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ~ o
-0.005
-0.010 , , , I , , , I , , , I
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
X/L
VJL
0.010
\ ,~, O "
0.o05 "'., "~,, o~.~ :
'..." o ~ ............i
":..,'-, ____o. o ............ :
o.ooo ......... ----~''~-- o ............. -
-0.005
which was set at the level of the design draft. The effects on Series 60, CB = 0.6 and effect of grid resolution
the trim prediction of these possible differences are unknown.
As with the calculations for the FF1052, existing fixed-condi-
The effects of sinkage and trim on the wave profile on the
tion solutions--Tahara & Stern's (1994) Fr = 0.316 solutions
hull can be gauged from Figs. 13 and 14, which are respec-
tively for the Froude numbers 0.29 and 0.39. In validating their on the previously described medium and fine grids--were used
fixed-condition calculation using the free-condition wave pro- as the starting point for the sinkage and trim calculations for
file data of West (1964), which were measured with respect to the Series 60, CB = 0.6. A converged solution in the fixed con-
the design waterline, Stern et al (1996) accounted for sinkage dition had been obtained in 20 000 iterations on the medium
and trim by vertically translating and rotating their calculated grid and in 5000 iterations on the fine grid. The computa-
wave profile (measured with respect to the undisturbed free tional requirements for these calculations were: 17 megawords
surface) by the experimental sinkage and trim values. The re- of memory and 40 hours of CPU time on a CRAY YMP for
sulting comparison still showed the features of the flow to be the medium grid calculation and 35 megawords of memory and
well predicted by the calculation. The present 0.29 Fr calcula- 32 hours of CPU time on a CRAY C-90 for the fine grid cal-
tion (plotted as might be measured about the design waterline) culation. Point-wise grid convergence between the medium and
not only excludes the uncertainty due to sinkage and trim but fine grids is assessed through Fig. 15, which compares the sur-
also shows considerable improvement; the mid-body wave crest, face pressure, the friction velocity, and the centerline velocity
particularly, is predicted better. However, there are still slight at the free-surface plane and the center-plane across the two
deviations in the magnitude and phase; also, the bow shoulder- grids. Some small differences, which may have an important
wave trough is underpredicted slightly and displaced a little to effect on the present calculations, can be seen between the two
the aft. Little difference is seen, though, between the present grids. Notably, the surface pressure at the free-surface plane
0.39 Fr calculation and that of Stern et al (1996), suggesting and the center-plane show higher bow peaks with the fine grid
that the changes in the wave profile due to sinkage and trim (and slight increases in the stern peaks as well), indicating a
at this higher Froude number are essentially in the physical greater bow-down trimming moment due to the pressure. The
change of the hull's position rather than in the resulting flow. bow and stern shoulder profiles at the free-surface are steeper,
With no uncertainty on account of the sinkage and trim, the too, implying similar differences in the wave profile along the
calculation shows very good agreement indeed with the data, al- hull. The centerline velocity also shows differences at the free-
though some differences persist: an underprediction of the bow surface plane in the wake region. The friction velocity profiles
wave (also predicted to lie more aft), an underprediction of the show little change between the two grids.
wave crest that lies at about X/L = 0.32, a slightly higher wave In consonance with these findings, the difference in the calcu-
trough at X/L = 0.6, and a slightly underpredicted transom lated resistances between the two grids (Table 3) is mainly in
wave. the pressure-resistance, with the frictional-resistance showing
Lastly, it may be noted that sinkage and trim do not influence little change. The uncertainty in the pressure-resistance be-
the overall flow field much. Comparisons of the wave-elevation tween the two grids is a substantial 8.8%, leading to an un-
contours for the different ship attitudes, and also of the axial certainty of 3.7% in the total resistance, with the fine grid
velocity contours, crossplane vectors and pressure contours at result comparing better with the data. Considering that the
select crossplanes, indicate that while there are quantitative frictional resistance is apportioned uniformly over the hull sur-
differences in the near-field, qualitatively, the differences due face whereas the pressure-resistance is concentrated largely at
to sinkage and trim are negligible (Subramani 1996). the bow and the stern, these differences between the two grids
0.15
i
~-)~ 0.10
~ 0.05
o.oo -I'
~ -0.05
= -0.10
-0,15
. . . . . . . I . . . . I . . . . I . . . . I , , I , , , , I . . . . I . . . . I . . . .
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0
X/L X/L
. . . . I . . . . I . . . . I . . . . I . . . .
~.0.15
>2
.9
0 0.10
09
;>
0
U 0.05
. . . . I . . . . I . . . . I . . . . I . . . .
0.00
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
X/L X/L
1.0 ' ' ~'~1 . . . . I . . . . I . . . . I . . . . t ' '~-. I . . . . I . . . . I . . . . I . . . . I
,.J
..)
0.8 --
0 0.6
09
>
0.4
0.2
, , , , I . . . . I . . . . I . . . . I ,, . . . . , I , , , , , i , , I . . . .
0.0 '''
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0
X/L X/L
(a) free-surface plane (b) center-plane
Fig. 15 Pointwise grid convergence for the Series 60, Cs = 0.6 at Fr = 0316: surface pressure, friction
velocity, and centerline velocity
are clearly due to the effects of improved grid resolution, which and 17. Figure 16 shows the evolution of the sinkage and trim
was by design concentrated near the bow and the stern. corrections with iterations and Fig. 17 shows the convergence
The progression of the calculations to the final state of sta- histories of the resistances starting from the fixed-condition so-
ble equilibrium is demonstrated for the fine grid in Figs. 16 lution. The calculated resistances with sinkage and trim, for
0.004
................. D ................ C] . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . [3 . . . . -'77-- - - "
0.0031
;
t-
0.002
0.001
0.000
-0.001 , , , I , , , , I , , , , I I I
0.005 I ' I
Experiment (Longo and Stern 1996)
I Incremental correction
---A-- Cumulative correction
0.004 Numbers in parantheses indicate percentage change between
correctmns for sinkage and trim
i.a
0.003
0
0.002
0O01Z
........... i ....................
-0.001 , , , , I . . . . I . . . . I , ,
4.0x10 "3
9
0
o 3.0x10 -~
0
2.0x10 -3
I
0 1 . 0 x l 0 -3
.~, N u m b e r s in p a r a n t b e s e s indicate p e r c e n t a g e c h a n g e
ej
b e t w e e n c o r r e c t i o n s for s i n k a g e a n d trim
i i I r i
0 . 0 x l 0 ~
5000 5500 6000 6500
Iteration number
(a)
5.0x10 -3 I I I
.) 4.0x10 -3
O
J
3.0x10 3
1.)
J
2.0x10 ~
1.0x 10 .03
Numbers in parantheses indicate percentage change 1
between corrections for sinkage and trim
1
0 . 0 x l 0 *
5000 5500 6000 6500
Iteration number
(b)
1.0x 10 -2
L)
8.0x 10 -03
.) 6.0x 10 .03
O
)
4.0x10 -3
6.6% increase with
sinkage and trim
I
2.0x 10 .03
O Numbers in parantheses indicate percentage change
[-.,
between corrections for sinkage and trim
0 . 0 x l 0 + . . . . I . . . . I . . . . f , ,
5000 5500 6000 6500
Iteration number
(c)
Fig. 17 Convergence history of resistances for Series 60, CB = 0.6 at Fr = 0.316 (360
60 30 grid)
O0 0
g 0
J "'~'0
",X7 %7 0 0
".V //
-0.01
I I I I I I I I n I I I I I I I t I I I I
-0.02
0 0.25 0.5 0.75 1
X/L
(a)
0.002
@
A A A ~A
O0
-0,002
-0.004
T . . . . I . . . . I I I I I I . . . . T
0 0.25 0.5 0.75 1
X/L
(b)
Fig. 18 Series 60, Cs = 0.6 at Fr = 0.316 (360 x 60 x 30 grid): (a) wave profiles
along hull, and (b) changes in wave profiles with sinkage and trim