0
Research Papers: Ocean Engineering

Numerical Prediction of Added Power in Seaway

[+] Author and Article Information
Vladimir Shigunov

DNV GL SE,
Brooktorkai 18,
Hamburg 20457, Germany
e-mail: vladimir.shigunov@dnvgl.com

Contributed by the Ocean, Offshore, and Arctic Engineering Division of ASME for publication in the JOURNAL OF OFFSHORE MECHANICS AND ARCTIC ENGINEERING. Manuscript received July 6, 2015; final manuscript received April 9, 2018; published online May 28, 2018. Assoc. Editor: Solomon Yim.

J. Offshore Mech. Arct. Eng 140(5), 051102 (May 28, 2018) (9 pages) Paper No: OMAE-15-1063; doi: 10.1115/1.4039955 History: Received July 06, 2015; Revised April 09, 2018

The paper describes a numerical approach to predict required added power for propulsion in waves. Such predictions are important to address fuel consumption in seaway and define suitable operating point and sea margin, as well as for routing optimization and hull performance monitoring. Added resistance and, in general, drift forces and moments due to waves are key input parameters for added power requirements. The three-dimensional Rankine source-patch method was used to compute them. The method solves the problem in the frequency domain, linearizing wave-induced motions around the fully nonlinear steady flow. The added power software combines added resistance and drift forces and moments in irregular waves with wind forces and moments, calm-water maneuvering forces and moments, rudder and propeller forces, and propulsion and engine model and provides associated resistance and power as well as changes in ship propulsion in waves. The approach is demonstrated for a container ship to compare predictions with full-scale data.

Copyright © 2018 by ASME
Your Session has timed out. Please sign back in to continue.

References

Söding, H. , and Shigunov, V. , 2015, “ Added Resistance of Ships in Waves,” J. Ship Technol. Res. – Schiffstechnik, 62(1), pp. 2–13. [CrossRef]
HSVA, 2010, “ HSVA Model Tests With a 8400 TEU Container Ship, Hamburg Ship Model Basin,” Hamburgische Schiffbau-Versuchsanstalt GmbH, Hamburg, Germany, Report No. WP 02/10).
Greenshields, C. J. , 2016, OpenFOAM User Guide Version 4.0, OpenFOAM Foundation Ltd., London.
Jensen, K. , 2007, “ Wind-Tunnel Tests With 8100 TEU Container Ship, FORCE Technology,” Report No. 2005185.
Blendermann, W. , 1993, “ Schiffsform und Windlast- Korrelations- und Regressions Analyse von Windkanalmessungen am Modell,” Institut für Schiffbau, Harburg, Germany, Report No. 533.
Söding, H. , von Graefe, A. , el Moctar, O. , and Shigunov, V. , 2012, “ Rankine Source Method for Seakeeping Predictions,” ASME Paper No. OMAE 2012-83450.
Söding, H. , Shigunov, V. , Schellin, T. E. , and el Moctar, O. , 2014, “ A Rankine Panel Method for Added Resistance of Ships in Waves,” ASME J. Offshore Mech. Arct. Eng., 136(3), p. 031601. [CrossRef]
Brix, J. E. , 1993, Manoeuvring Technical Manual, Seehafen Verlag, Hamburg, Germany.
Söding, H. , 1982, “ Prediction of Ship Steering Capabilities,” Schiffstechnik, 29, pp. 3–29.
Söding, H. , 1986, Kräfte am Ruder, Handbuch der Werften XVIII, Schiffahrtsverlag ‘Hansa’ Schroedter, Hamburg, Germany.
Kose, K. , 1982, “ On a New Mathematical Model of Manoeuvring Motions of a Ship and Applications,” Int. Shipbuilding Prog., 29(336), pp. 205–220. [CrossRef]
Shigunov, V. , 2016, “ Norming Maneuverability in Adverse Conditions,” ASME J. Offshore Mech. Arct. Eng, 139(1), p. 011101. [CrossRef]
CD-Adapco, 2011, Starccm+ User Guide, Version 6.02.008, Siemens PLM Software Inc., Plano, TX.
MAN, 2010, MAN B&W 60-35 ME-B-TII Type Engines, Engine Selection Guide, MAN. Available at https://marine.mandieselturbo.com/applications/projectguides/2stroke/content/printed/meb.pdf
GL, 2014, Guidelines to Assess High-Frequency Hull Girder Response of Container Ships, GL Rules for Classification and Construction. 1. Hull Structural Design Analyses. V. Analysis Techniques, DNV GL, Hamburg, Germany.
IACS, 2001, Standard Wave Data, International Association of Classification Societies, Rec. No. 34.
Michel, W. H. , 1999, “ Sea Spectra Revisited,” Mar. Technol., 36(4), pp. 211–227.
ITTC, 2012, “ Recommended Procedures and Guidelines,” Speed and Power Trials. Part 1: Preparation and Conduct, Rev. 1.0, Procedure 7.5-04-01-01.1.

Figures

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 1

Coordinate system and definitions

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 10

Components of added resistance due to wind as percentage of calm-water resistance at design speed: terms proportional to vw2 (—) and 2vwvs (- - - and - · - · -)

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 9

Added resistance components as percentage of calm-water resistance at design speed for a postpanamax container vessel versus significant wave height when wind speed is given by Eq. (11); head seaway, ship speed of 14.0 (top) and 20.0 (bottom) knots

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 8

Wind speed versus significant wave height according to Eq. (11)

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 7

Added resistance as percentage of calm-water resistance at design speed of a post-panamax container vessel at forward speed 20 knots in sea state 4, average over all wave periods in GL PAX wave climate (—) [15] and in Nord-Atlantics winter wave climate (- - -) [16]

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 6

Added resistance due to waves for a postpanamax container vessel as percentage of calm-water resistance at design speed versus peak wave period and significant wave height in irregular short-crested waves: head waves (top) and waves 60 deg off-bow (bottom)

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 5

As in Fig. 3, but for stern-quartering seaway

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 4

As in Fig. 3, but for beam seaway

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 3

Measured added delivered power as percentage of maximum continuous rating of engine (MCR) for two postpanamax sister container vessels (▲ and ▪) versus computations (lines) in bow-quartering seaway depending on significant wave height

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 2

x- (top) and y- (bottom) forces on twisted rudder of container ship in propeller race at forward speed of 4.0 knots and 7.5 deg drift angle as functions of propeller thrust and rudder angle computed with model [8] (lines) and RANS-CFD simulations (symbols) at rudder angles 0 deg (—, ▪), 10 deg (- - -, ▲), and 20 deg (- · - · -, •)

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 11

Wind resistance as percentage of calm-water resistance at design speed

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 12

Added resistance due to waves as percentage of calm-water resistance at design speed

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 13

Added resistance of a postpanamax container vessel as percentage of calm-water resistance at design speed versus significant wave height, taking into account shift of wind direction from wave direction

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 14

Rudder resistance as percentage of calm-water resistance at design speed

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 15

Total (calm-water, wind, waves and rudder) resistance as percentage of calm-water resistance at design speed

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 16

Propeller efficiency η0=Tva/PD in seaway as fraction of propeller efficiency in calm water

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 17

Required delivered power in seaway as percentage of MCR

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 18

Added resistance components of a postpanamax container vessel as fraction of calm-water resistance at design speed versus significant wave height from solutions with free and restrained drift

Tables

Errata

Discussions

Some tools below are only available to our subscribers or users with an online account.

Related Content

Customize your page view by dragging and repositioning the boxes below.

Related Journal Articles
Related eBook Content
Topic Collections

Sorry! You do not have access to this content. For assistance or to subscribe, please contact us:

  • TELEPHONE: 1-800-843-2763 (Toll-free in the USA)
  • EMAIL: asmedigitalcollection@asme.org
Sign In