Canad: Comparison of The Strip Theory and The Panel Method in Computing Ship Motion With Forward Speed
Canad: Comparison of The Strip Theory and The Panel Method in Computing Ship Motion With Forward Speed
8I&L'9IO
IjJOQ Go asa ' ßOM1OIØ
SYMPOSIUM ON OWOJPMJSdOOII,S
JOOA
SELECTED TOPICS OF
ii3llSll3AJpjfl 303VNH331
MARINE HYDRODYNAMICS
V
S
Canad
-J.
SYMPOSIUM ON
SELEC1iI) TOPICS OF
MARINE HYDRODYNAMICS
b
COMPARISON OF THE STRIP THEORY AND THE PANEL
METHOD IN COMPUTING S} MOTION WITH FORWARD SPEED
have never been satisfactory because the Creen funcric tion and is the amplitude of the j me öf motion
ociy satisfies the simplified linear free.surface conditioc.. of the ship. The defibition of the ship and the
a.d because the steady flow in the boundary c'onditi coordinate system are shown in Fig. 1.
a:d in the hythodynamic:pressure is based on the - The incident wave potential used in
&rm flow.. work is in
the following formi
'The valldatjòn of the numerical methods is an -
portant work in order. to determine which nuniesical = " (2)
stherne is 'an effective one to obtain reliable results. h -
¿epends on the comparison between the numerical and where ( and w are the amplitude and freiii.cucy of the
experimental data for various ships tinder different oea' incident waves, respectively p is the &ea.ion of the
dltions (4] [5J. Based on the results of the valirk
sudies, the appropriate paneL number in the 3-D
method or the proper station number in the 2-D m-)iricl wavenwnberkw2/g.;' ,
" '
wave propagation relative to the positrvex-s and the
ca. also be determined for asjiecified ship. The diffraction potential satisfies tbe owing con-
ditions: - -
In this paper, based on the theory derived by
Salvesen, et al. [6], a thrèe-dirni'cionaI panel rnet V24D=O, for z<O.
w devised by using the (3)
three-dimensional Green f-
tioni of zero-speed to compute ship motion with forward
((iw1 - U)2 + g-1i, = O, on: = 0, (4)
37
ô1 wave is
ÔD
Onen' on S, (5)
Pr = -p(-i, + U-) (15)
and qkk.
the r iaxion condition,
where U is the steady forward speed of the ship and The hydrodynarnic forces due to the radiated waves on
S is the mean wetted ship hull surface. The radiation the ship hull can be written as:
potential satisfies the following conditions:
F1 = - JjPrn1dS
V1=O, foc z<0, (6)
= PJjnidS(_ics
[(-iw( _U)2gJj =0, onz=O, (7)
+ U)E 77kk
= -ijn1 + Um1, on S, (8) = (16)
and
for
the radiation conditián,
Tj = PJjni(iwe + UL)hdS
where m, = 0, for j= 1,2,3,4; and rn5 = n3, m4 =
- =iAJk(i.) icEìBJk(w), (17)
From Ref. [61, the ôo and can be prsed. io
ternis of the zero-speed pocential and as: where Ajk(Wg) and Bjk(w) are added-mass and damp-
ing coefficients,respectively. Applying Stokes' theorem
(9) to (17) and aurcing n1 being a small quantity, we have
- o
5 +
5w
3, (11)
II-3. Wave Exciting FOrces and Moments
The hydrodynainic pressure due to the incident and "
diffracted wav is
A AO AO
W6 - - 1w
'
= -p(--iw,, + U-)(o, + to). (19)
Neglecting the ind, the diffraction potential and
the radiation potential of zero-speed can be obtained The wave exciting forces or momenrs acting on the ship
from: can be written as
= + !.. ..CL
where
e((z _C)coae4.(p_).sd9dk
= -pi
¡j jn1dS pujj -hn1dS
38
Stokes .heorem, we obtain the following exprezsi: given in Fig. 6 and Fig. 7. ¡t. can be seen that the panel
method is supes-lot to the strip method in this case.
= _üepJjoajdS+PUfjmJOS Fig. 8 and Fig. 9 show the motions of the con-
tainer ship. The experimental data are taken from ReL
forj=1,2,...6. (23) [12]. Both methods overpredict the heave motion, but
the panel method gives good results ed pitch motion.
U-4. Ship Motion in Regular Waves Therefore, the panel method would be preferred also for
Suppose the unsteady motion of the ship in regular slender ships.
waves in the j mode to be In order to investigate the, panel resolution effect,
computations west carried out for the .ing vessel with
forj=1,2.....6, (24) 174 panels and 230 panels, respectively. The' numerical
results are shown in Fig. 10 to Fig. 13. Fig. 10 and.
the equations of motion in regular waves can be written Fig. 11 are the heave and pitch motions at F,, = 0.19
in the following form: in the head seas. Fig. 12 and Fig. 13 are the heave
e and pitch mdtioas ¡t F,, = 0.38 in the head seas. The
+ Ajk) iBJk + CJk]qk = F_.1, results show that the difference due to these two panel
resolutions can be ignored. From to our experence, the
hull surface ax one. side of the ship with 21 stations is
for j=1,2.....6, (25) suggested to bue discretized into a mirr-nim of 5 panels
between every two stations. Further in-easing the panel
where Mj& are the components of the generalized mass resolution would not improve the ntimescal results for
matrix of the ship, Ak and are. the components of a mono-hull ship.
the added ¡nasa and damping coefficient matric, re-
spectii-ely, C,, are the ponents of the hydrostatic IV. Conclusions
restoring coefficient matrix, and F,,j are the components The following conclusions are draw-n based on the
of the complex amplitude vector of the exciting brees above computations and comparisons..
and moments. 1. For ships cl full form in head sea.v
UI. Comparisons and Discussiöns At low Freude numbers, the paoel method may
Two ships, a fishing ressel and a container ship, overpredict the peak value of heave moon but it may
are used in the present computation, L,,/B = 2.46 and give fairly good results of heave motion in the whole
V 187.4 in3 for the fi!Ihing vessel [11], and Lu/B = range of frequency and it gives muth better results of
8.385 and V =' 56,097 m3 for the container ship [121, pitch motion than that from the strip theory.
respectively. In order to reduce errors due to the logitu- At high Froude numbrs, the' panel method
dinal division of the ship hull in applying strip theory, is better than the strip theory. The sip theory will
22 stations are used for the fishing vessel and 23 stations underpredict the ship ¡notion. The panel method is rec-
for the container ship accding to the recommpnatioa ommerided för this case.
of the Sealceeping Commic:ec of the 19th ITTC [51- The 2. For ships of full form in oblique head seas, the panel
panel number is 174 for the fishing vessel and 190 for method is sùpesior to the strip theory. The strip theory,
the container ship, respectively. in general, undes-predicts the pitch motions.
Fig. 2 and Fig. 3 are the heave and pitch motions 3. For slender ships, the strip theory wonid overpredict
for the fishing vessel. The experimental data are taken the ship motions, especially in the ghborhood. of the
from Ref. [11]. The same hull offsets are used in the resonant frequency.
panel method and the strip theory. For the heave mo- 4. For an overafl evaluation, the panel method is su-
tion. both methods have no significant difference in the perior to the strip theory, especially for a full ship and
long wave range. The results of the panel method .açee for high Froude numbers. However, the panel method
With the experimental results better than that ci the. requires much more computer time, and the panel re-
strip theory. Rowever, the panel method oves-predicts sulotion also affects the compúted results. Normally,
the peak value, at the Fronde number 0.19. The strip With 200 paklels on a ship hull surface, the converged
theory gives lower values in the. pitch motion. Fig. 4 numerical results can be obtained.
and Fig. 5 show the motions at high Froude number,
Fn = 0.38. It can be se that satisfactory results have Reference
been obtained from the panel method. But the strip Newman, J. N.,.'The Theory of Ship Motion", Ad-
theory may give better results of pitch motion foc long vances in Applied Mechanics, VoL 18, 178.
waves. In view of the whole range of wave frequescy, the
panel method should be applied for high 'Froude nmother \ijisawa, Y. et aL,"Study on the Ch racteristics of
conditions. The ship motions in oblique head s are Hydrodynaxnic Forces and Motions on Large Offshore
Structures with Forward Speed in Waves", Proceedings
39
of the Nineth Interooa1 Conference on Offshore Me-
chanics and Arcc Êngineerrng, VoL 1, Houston, 1990.
Eua.ng, Z.and Hsiun,g, C. C., "Computing Ship Mo-
tion with Forward Speed in Wives by The Three Di-
mensiocal Sour Dtribution Method", Technical Re-
port NA-89-1, The Citre for Marine Vessel Design and
Research, Technical University of Nova Scotia, March
1989. J
Standing, R. Gi'he Verification and Validation
of Numerical. Mod, with !inples Taken from Wave
Diffraction Therzy, Wave Loading and Response", Pro- ,3HEAVE PtT4
ceedings of RJTAM Syniposium, Dynamics of Marine p.ea'v q4-AOI.t YAW
Vehicles and Strnes in Waves, London, 1990. Fig. i Ship Motion and Coordinate System
STAVI AXPtZTV'DE/TAVE AMPIITUDS
Report of tbe Seakeeping Committee, 19th ITTC, ¡ .6
Madrid, Spain, Seprexaber 1990. P! method (174 pa.)
I.'
Salvesen, N., Tuzk, E.O. and F8ltinsen,O.,"Sbip Mo- 1.2
tions and Sea L." Thansactioas of SNAME, Vol.78,
1970. 0.3
Hsiu.ng, C. C. and Huang, Z.,"A New Approdi to 0.6
Computational Seakeeping Prediction", Technical Re- 0.4
port NA-90-8. The Centre for Marine Vessel Design and 0.2 O expeent
Research. Tech.aca1 University of Nova Scotia, October
1990. o
LS 2 2.3 3 3.3 4 4.3
Beck, R. F. and Loken1 A. E.,"Three-Djrnensjonaj Ef- WAVE LENGTH/SHIP LENGTH
fects in Ship ReLative Motion Problens", J.S.R, VoL33, ?. 2 !
No.4, Dec. 1989.
Mota tjc the r8 VeI (F. a = L80°)
Ye, H. and Esiig, C. C.,'Motions and Sea Loads PIT i_1/!4!E SWPE
1.4
of a floating Body with Zero Forward Speed", Techni- Ql psd method (174 peoda)
cal report NA-86-1. Dept. of Mechanical Engineering, 12
o
Technical University of Nova Scotia. Feb. 1986.
Ye, H. and Hsinng, C. C.,"Computing Hydrody- 0.3
narnic Coefficienns and Wave Exciting Forces on a Float- grip theoty
0.6
ing Body with Sv Forward Speed by 3-D Flow The- -
4
ory", Technical R.e.,ort NA-86.2, Department of Me- 0.4
z
-
0.6
o
1.5 2 2.3 3 3.3 4 4.3
WAVE LENGTH/SHIP LENGTH
4! Motk to, the Thbig VI (F. 0. 180')
40
ptTC AMPUTUD/WAYE SWPE. !r!ÇH A.MPUTUoE/.*vt Swpe
1.2
paieI met (174 pe*s)
.t1p theory
0.8
o - etbod (190 peocia)
0.6
o
¿.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 oz 0.6 1 1.4. 1.
WAVE LENGTH/SNIP LENGTH WAVE LENGTH/SH]P LENGTH
Fig. 5 Piicb Moio for ib. r.hzg Vs1 (F. O.*i 180) Fig. 9 Pitch Mcsce (or the Cøcia (F,, = 0.245, = 180°)
1.2
HEAVE Agpt rTJD!/vAvE AJaUTDE
*
- atziptheoc1
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
o
1.5 2 2.5 3 2.5 4
1.5 2 2.6 S 3.5 4 45
WAVE LENGTH/SmP LENGTH
WAVE LENGTH/SHIP LENGTH
Fig. 10 Hese Modo. (or the ghi. Y (F = 0.19.p = 180°)
Fig. 6 He*ve Uoio (or the Tibiag Vmi (F = O.iIp =
r
o - ctbod (174
--! e
peo)
1.4
¡.2
PIT AMPUTUDE/AYE .0Pg
0.6- 0.8
strip theory
0.6
0.41
0.4
e
0.2
0.2
ftre - - e p...I. -
I 1.5 2 2.5 ¿ '.5 2 2.5 3 3_3
3 3.5 4 43 4 4.5
WAVE LENGTH/SHIp LENGTH WAVE LENGTH/SHIP LENGTH
Pig. 11 Pitch Modo. for ib. Fishing V tF. = L19,s = 180°)
Fig. T Pitch Modeo for the Fiebi*g Ve1 (F. = O.iS,p = U)
HEAVE AMPI. UDE/WAVE AMPUTUDE
12 HEAVE AMPUTUDE/VAVE A3CPLZTU
'r
0.8 E- 1.5
0.6'-
04
2 0.3
o
02 0.6 1 1.4
¡.3 2 2.5 S 3.3 4 4.5
WAVE LENGTH/SHIP LENGTH
WAVE LENGTH/SHIP LENGTH
Fig. 6 Heate Modos foe the Coct.jc,er Sbip (F.
= oj Fig. 12 E. Modo. fo. the .bin V (F. = 0.3$,t = 180°)
41
PITCH £UTUD/W! .O?E
2
¡.5
0.5
Ips 130 psasi.
o
¡5 z z.z 3 s.s
WAVE LENGTH/SHIP LENGTH
r. 13 Pitch Mos k ths rbg VI (P O.SS,p 180')
42