Hindawi

Mathematical Problems in Engineering

Volume 2021, Article ID 6655971, 16 pages
https://doi.org/10.1155/2021/6655971

Research Article
Hydrodynamic Analysis of KVLCC2 Ship Sailing near
Inclined Banks

Weilin Luo , Bing Yang, and Yafeng Sun

School of Mechanical Engineering and Automation, Fuzhou University, Fuzhou, Fujian 350116, China

Correspondence should be addressed to Weilin Luo; wlluo@fzu.edu.cn

Received 28 November 2020; Revised 16 January 2021; Accepted 2 February 2021; Published 13 February 2021

Academic Editor: Mostafa S. Shadloo

Copyright © 2021 Weilin Luo et al. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License,
which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

The hydrodynamic forces of KVLCC2 ship sailing near inclined banks are calculated by using CFD based on RANS equation.
Corresponding CFD uncertainty analysis is conducted according to the procedure recommended by ITTC. An unstructured grid,
tetrahedral grid, is employed for discretization. To control the number of grids, global element scale factor is selected as the same
as refinement ratio. In numerical simulation, straightforward and oblique navigation conditions are investigated. The variation of
transverse force and yaw moment with the ship-shore distance, bank angle, water depth, and drift angle are analyzed. Both hull
model and hull-propeller-rudder model are considered in numerical simulation. The simulation results show the hydrodynamic
characteristics of ship sailing near inclined banks.

1. Introduction which are commonplace in harbors. Due to the asymmetric

flow field around a ship in the vicinity of an inclined bank,
Ship maneuverability is one of the most important ship the bank effect is obvious. A reliable hydrodynamic
hydrodynamic performances since it relates closely to the prediction can help determine how the ship can safely
safety and economy of ship navigation. In 2002, Interna- navigate in such a waterway.
tional Maritime Organization (IMO) promulgated the Ship It is known that simulation-free and simulation-based
Manoeuvrability Standard and recommended the prediction methods are available for the prediction of ship manoeu-
of ship manoeuvrability at the stage of ship design [1]. Since vrability [3]. Simulation-free methods come to the experi-
then, the study on the prediction of ship manoeuvrability has ments while the simulation-based methods refer to system-
been paid attention to increasingly. Meanwhile, advices on based manoeuvring simulation and computational fluid
the modification of the Standard have also been put forward dynamics- (CFD-) based manoeuvring simulation. In the
because the Standard can only be applied to the infinite experiments on ship manoeuvrability in narrow waters, a
waters and calm waters. Many studies have confirmed that representative work was conducted by Norrbin [4] who
ship manoeuvrability in restricted waters is quite different carried out the experimental research on the hydrodynamic
from that in infinite waters. Typical restricted waters refer to force on a tanker model when it moved along the vertical
narrow and/or shallow waters. Squat and/or bank suction bank, the sloping bank, and the stepping water bottom. He
phenomenon might occur in such waters, which form a analyzed the influence of the shape of the bank, the depth of
threat to the safety of ship navigation [2]. In order to avoid water, and the ship-bank distance on the ship’s transverse
the collision between ships and channel bottoms or banks, it force and the yaw moment and obtained the regression
is of great significance to study the hydrodynamic charac- formula from a large number of experimental data, which
teristics of the ships sailing in restricted waters and to predict provides an important reference for navigators, managers,
the ship manoeuvrability in restricted waters. In the study, and researchers. Lataire et al. [5] carried out an extensive set
the main concern is the ship manoeuvring hydrodynamics in of model tests to investigate bank effects induced by sloped
specific restricted waters, i.e., waters near inclined banks, surface-piercing as well as submerged banks. Gronarz [6]
2 Mathematical Problems in Engineering

studied the effects of drift angle, ship-bank distance, and ship Generally speaking, the V&V of CFD in ship manoeu-
speed on near-bank navigation of ships in shallow water by vring is a hot topic in the community of ship hydrody-
towing-type tank tests and analyzed the coupling effect of namics. Nevertheless, to improve the feasibility of CFD in
transverse force and yaw moment. Compared with exper- the prediction of ship manoeuvrability, some issues need to
iment-based simulation-free method, the main advantage of be further addressed. Firstly, more study should be per-
simulation-based approach to predicting ship manoeu- formed with respect to unstructured grids since the present
vrability is the lower expense. Ship manoeuvring mathe- procedure recommended by ITTC mainly focuses on
matical model-based simulation or CFD-based direct structured grids. Secondly, even though structured grids are
simulation are available. The main difficulty with mathe- adopted, how to define the refinement rate of grids in the
matical model-based simulation is the expression of bank boundary layer needs to be further studied. Inappropriate
effect induced force/moment in the mathematical model. refinement rate might make the near-wall grids unmatched
CFD-based direct simulation provides an effective way to with turbulence model. As a result, both the calculation
calculate the hydrodynamic forces and moments of ships in accuracy and convergence cannot be guaranteed. In the
restricted waters. Since the beginning of the new century, study, unstructured grids are used and the global element
CFD technique has developed rapidly and there have been scale factor is taken as the same as refinement ratio to control
many achievements of CFD application to the prediction of the number of grids. Grid independence analysis is con-
ship manoeuvrability in restricted waters. In the study on ducted after the unstructured grids are generated. Corre-
bank effect on ship manoeuvrability, Lo et al. [7] applied sponding CFD uncertainty analysis is conducted according
CFD to simulate the unsteady motion of ships and analyzed to the procedure recommended by ITTC. The hydrody-
the influence of ship speed and ship-bank distance on yaw namic forces of KVLCC2 ship sailing near inclined banks are
angle and transverse force. Wang [8] studied the viscous flow calculated based on RANS equations. RNG turbulence
field of several ship types in shallow water and shallow model is adopted. Direct and oblique navigation conditions
narrow channels during oblique motion, rotary motion, and near inclined banks are investigated. In direct navigation
near bank navigation. Zou et al. [9, 10] addressed the hull case, the variation of transverse force and yaw moment of
squat phenomenon of ships sailing near the bank in shallow KVLCC2 hull with the ship-shore distance, bank angle, and
water. Zhang et al. [11, 12] analyzed the hydrodynamic water depth are analyzed. Also the transverse force and yaw
characteristics of KCS container ships sailing along sloping moment of hull-propeller-rudder model are calculated. In
river banks. oblique navigation case, the variation of transverse force and
Although CFD has presented its powerful calculation yaw moment with the bank angle, water depth, and drift
ability in ship manoeuvring hydrodynamics, the verification angle is analyzed.
and validation (V&V) of this method is of great importance to
confirm the feasibility of this kind of numerical prediction
method, which is also the purpose of series of international
2. Physical Problems and Numerical Methods
workshops SIMMAN 2008, 2014, and coming 2021. In 1997, 2.1. Problem Description. As shown in Figure 1, a ship is
Coleman and Stern [13] introduced the uncertainty analysis sailing in the vicinity of a bank. The bank slope is constant
to ship CFD. In 2002, International Towing Tank Conference with angle θ along the longitudinal direction. The rectan-
(ITTC) recommended the corresponding procedure for the gular coordinate system o − xyz is attached to the ship and
V&V of CFD [14]. During the last decade, the uncertainty the Earth-fixed coordinate system is o′ − x′ y′ z′ . The origin
analysis of ship CFD has been increasingly paid attention to. of attached coordinate system is located at the center of
Simonsen and Stern [15] addressed the V&V of RANS ma- gravity. h is the water depth w.r.t. the longitudinal section in
neuvering simulation of tanker Esso Osaka. Kim et al. [16] center plane. η is the ship-shore distance.
conducted V&V of RANS simulation of a submarine SUB-
OFF. Tahara et al. [17] evaluated CFD as a tool for KCS hull
form design along with application of two RANS equation 2.2. Governing Equation. For incompressible fluid, the
solvers. Uncertainty analysis in CFD for resistance and flow continuity equation and N-S equation can be described as
field was performed by Zhang et al. [18]. Zou et al. performed
the V&V of numerical predictions of hydrodynamics on ∇ · u � 0,
KVLCC2 ship in shallow waters [19] and narrow waters [20].
Yang et al. [21] presented the results of uncertainty analysis zu 1 (1)
for resistance and wave profile of KCS computed by RANS +(u∇)u � − ∇p + ]Δu,
zt ρ
and DES methods was verified and validated. Zhu et al. [22]
performed CFD uncertainty analysis for simulation of roll where ∇ is the Nabla operator; Δ is the Laplace operator;
motions for a 3D ship DTMB 5512. Simone et al. [23] pre- u � (u, v, w) is the fluid velocity vector; p is the pressure; ρ is
sented a numerical roll damping assessment of the intact the density of the fluid; and ] is the viscosity coefficient of
DTMB 5415 naval ship at zero speed. Islam and Soares [24] fluid movement. The Reynolds average method is used to
performed an uncertainty analysis by using OpenFOAM for decompose the variables in the above equation into the sum
four different ship models: KCS, DTC, KVLCC2, and JBC. of the time-averaged component and the fluctuating com-
Hrvoje et al. [25] presented the CFD validation and grid ponent. Then, the continuity equation and N-S equation
sensitivity studies on full-scale ship self-propulsion. become the following equations in terms of tensor:
Mathematical Problems in Engineering 3

z z′ Cμ ρη3 1 − η/η0 􏼁 ε2
η Rε � · , (5)
1 + βη3 k
o o′
y θ y′
where η0 ,Cμ , and β are constants and η and Sij are deter-
mined by
h
􏽱����� k
η � 2Sij Sij ,
ε
(6)
1 zui zuj
Sij � 􏼠 + 􏼡.
2 zxj zxi

Figure 1: Coordinate systems. 2.4. Computation Domain and Boundary Condition.

KVLCC2 ship model is selected as the investigated object,
which is one of the benchmark ship models recommended
zui by ITTC, as shown in Figure 2. To validate the CFD cal-
� 0, (2) culation results by comparing with experimental data, the
zxi
ship model in CFD calculation is also taken as the same as
zui zu zp z zu provided by INSEAN (the towing tank in Rome, Italy). The
ρ + ρuj i � − + 􏼠ρ] i − ρu′iuj′􏼡, (3) main particulars of the ship model are shown in Table 1. The
zt zxj zxi zxj zxj speed of the vessel is U � 0.533m/s, with length-based
Froude number Fr � 0.0643.
where −ρu′iuj′ is the Reynolds stress term. Equation (3) is the
Figure 3 presents the computation domain and corre-
so-called RANS equation, which needs to be closed by
sponding boundary condition settings.
adding a turbulence model.
(1) Inlet. The calculation area starts from the location
with a distance of one ship’s length upstream of the
2.3. Turbulence Model. Two kinds of two-equation turbu- bow and is set as the velocity inlet boundary; the
lence model are in common use, i.e., the k − ε model and specific turbulence parameters include the turbu-
k − ω model. In the study, the RNG k − ε turbulence model is lence intensity and turbulence viscosity ratio, with
employed, which is derived by a statistical method called the values 2% and 2, respectively.
Renormalization Group Theory. Compared with the stan- (2) Outlet. The calculation area ends at the location with
dard k − ε model, the RNG k − ε turbulence model gains a distance of 2 times the ship’s length downstream of
better adaptability, accuracy, and credibility since it corrects the stern and is set as outflow boundary; it is assumed
the turbulent viscosity and considers the rotation and that the flow is fully developed at outlet.
swirling flow in the average flow. After adding an additional
term to the ε−equation, the RNG k − ε model can reflect the (3) Free Surface. Due to the low speed of the ship
time average strain rate of main flow and the spatial co- (Fr � 0.0643), the effect of wave making on the free
ordinate function to improve the calculation accuracy of surface can be ignored. Therefore, it is set as the
rapid deformation flow as well. boundary of symmetry surface.
The transportation equation of RNG k − ε turbulence (4) Surface Boundary. Both the hull surface and the
model is as follows: bottom of channel are set as no-slip wall condition.
z z z μ zk (5) Other Boundaries. The vertical plane on the left side
(ρk) + ρkui 􏼁 � 􏼢􏼠μ + t 􏼡 􏼣 + GK − ρε, of the ship is located one time the length of the ship,
zt zxi zxj σ k zxj
which is also set as the symmetric boundary
condition.
z z z μ zε
(ρε) + ρεui 􏼁 � 􏼢􏼠μ + t 􏼡 􏼣
zt zxi zxj σ ε zxj
2.5. Computational Grid. In the study, a kind of un-
ε ε2 structured grid, tetrahedral grid, is used in the whole fluid
+ C1ε GK − C2ε ρ − Rε , domain. The grids near the hull and in the stern area are
k k
(4) densified. The height of the first-level grid node of the
boundary layer grid is appropriately set so that y+ falls
where k is the turbulent kinetic energy; μ and μt are the within the range of [30, 300]. Consequently, the wall
dynamic viscosity and turbulent viscosity, respectively; GK is function method is used to simulate the near-wall
a production of turbulent kinetic energy; σ k , σ ε C1ε , C2ε are boundary layer flow situation. Figure 4 presents the
model constants; ε is the turbulence dissipation; and the generation of grids around the ship on the undisturbed
additional term Rε is calculated as free surface.
4 Mathematical Problems in Engineering

3. Verification and Validation of the

Numerical Method
To verify the numerical method in the study, the hydro-
dynamics of KVLCC2 ship model sailing at a constant
forward speed with U � 0.533m/s in shallow water with h �
1.5T (where h is water depth and T is draft; corresponding
Figure 2: Profile of the KVLCC2 ship. depth-based Froude number FH � 0.206) are calculated and
compared with the test data [26]. Three sets of grids are
adopted, respectively: coarse,
√� medium, and fine. The mesh
Table 1: Main particulars of the KVLCC2 ship. refinement ratio is set as 2, as recommended by ITTC.
Global element scale factor is set as the same value to control
Item Symbols Full scale Model scale the number of grids.
Scale ratio 1:1 1:45.714
Perpendicular length Lpp (m) 320 7
Waterline length Lwl (m) 325.5 7.1204 3.1. Verification. According to the procedure recommended
Breadth B (m) 58 1. 269 by ITTC, the numerical uncertainty of ship viscous flow
Draft T (m) 20. 8 0. 455 calculation USN consists of iterative uncertainty UI and grid
Breadth coefficient CB 0. 8098 0. 8098
uncertainty UG [14]:
Displacement ∇ (m3) 312622 3. 2724 􏽱�������
Wetted surface area S (m2) 27320 13.0129
USN � U2G + U2I . (7)

The iterative uncertainty is determined by [27]

􏼌􏼌 􏼌􏼌
UI � L∞ (Δϕ) � max􏼐􏼌􏼌Δϕi 􏼌􏼌􏼑, 1 ≤ i ≤ NP , (8)

Ship
where NP represents the number of grid nodes and Δϕ is the
local change of the flow quantity. Table 2 lists the com-
–U
Symmetry
parison of iteration with respect to coarse, medium, and fine
Outflow grids. S1, S2, and S3 stands for coarse, medium, and fine grids,
respectively.
Velocity inlet
The convergence of iteration is mainly judged by the
variation of iterative residual. Usually, a reduction of the
No-slip wall
residuals by 3 orders of magnitude after iteration indicates at
Symmetry
least qualitative convergence. Figure 5 presents the iteration
history by using medium grids. As can be seen, from the
Figure 3: Computation domain and boundary.
initialization of the flow field to the end of iteration, the
residuals are reduced by 3 to 4 orders of magnitude com-
pared to the initial iteration.
To analyze the grid uncertainty UG , a metric convergence
rate RG is firstly defined as
ε
RG � G23 , (9)
εG12
where εG12 denotes the difference between numerical results
of coarse and medium grids while εG23 denotes the difference
between numerical results of medium and fine grids. Grid
convergence depends on the value of RG in three cases: (1)
Figure 4: Grids on the undisturbed free surface. RG < 0, oscillation convergence; (2) 0 < RG < 1, monotonic
convergence; and (3) RG > 1, divergence. Based on the
calculation results presented in Table 2, the convergence rate
2.6. Numerical Method. The commercial solver FLUENT is RG can be calculated as RG � 0.6578, which means the
used for calculation, in which the finite volume method is monotonic convergence. By defining the order of accuracy
utilized to discrete governing equations. The speed-pressure
coupling equation is calculated by using the pressure-based ln R−1
G
PG � , (10)
separation algorithm SIMPLEC. To obtain high numerical ln rG
accuracy, the second-order upwind scheme is used for
and estimated numerical error
momentum, turbulent kinetic energy, and turbulent dissi-
pation rate. The underrelaxation factor is taken as the default εG23
δ∗REG � PG , (11)
value. rG − 1
Mathematical Problems in Engineering 5

Table 2: Iterative uncertainty analysis in resistance calculation by E � D − S. (14)

using three sets of grid.
Coarse Medium Test result where D is the experimental result and S is the numerical
Item Fine (S3 ) result. It is noted that results of D and S have been presented
(S1 ) (S2 ) (S)
in Table 2.
Grid
quantity
897231 1689704 3076847 The validation uncertainty UV is calculated as
􏽱��������
X′ −0.028926 −0.028362 −0.027991 −0.0286
UI (%X′ ) 2.5 × 10−4 6.7 × 10−4 7.5 × 10−4 UV � U2SN + U2D , (15)
X′ stands for the nondimensional resistance.
where UD is the known measurement uncertainty. In the
study, UD � 6.4%D. Table 4 lists the validation results by
three sets of grids, i.e., coarse, medium, and fine grids. As can
1e – 01
be recognized, |E| < UV holds for three sets of grids, which
means validation is achieved at UV � 6.87%D level.
1e – 02 From the above verification and validation analysis, it
can be confirmed that the numerical method used in the
1e – 03 study is valid in calculating the resistance of KVLCC2.
Furthermore, as can be recognized from Table 4, the se-
1e – 04 lection of medium grid gains better accuracy over the other
two. Therefore, this kind of grid is used in the next calcu-
1e – 05 lation of manoeuvring hydrodynamics in the case of
straightforward moving in the vicinity of inclined banks.
1e – 06
4. Case Study
1e – 07
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2600 3000 3500 4000 4500 4.1. Straightforward Movement. It is assumed that the
Iterations KVLCC2 ship model is sailing at a constant forward speed
Residuals with U � 0.533m/s in parallel to the shoreline. The di-
Continuity z-velocity mensionless transverse force and yaw moment are defined as
x-velocity k
y-velocity Epsilon Y
Y′ � ,
Figure 5: Histories of residuals. 0.5ρU2 LT
(16)
N
P N′ � ,
where rG and rGG are refinement ratios, also by using cor- 0.5ρU2 L2 T
rection factor CG , the grid uncertainty UG can be calculated
as where L is taken as the perpendicular length, i.e., Lpp.
􏼌􏼌 􏼌􏼌 􏼌􏼌 􏼌􏼌 First of all, hull is only considered in the manoeuvring
UG � 􏼌􏼌􏼌CG δ∗REG 􏼌􏼌􏼌 + 􏼌􏼌􏼌 1 − CG 􏼁δ∗REG 􏼌􏼌􏼌, (12) simulation. Figure 6 shows the variation of transverse force
with different ship-bank distances η (in dimensionless form
when solutions are far from the asymptotic range, i.e., CG is ηB− 1 ). As can be seen, the transverse force points to the
sufficiently less than or greater than 1; or UG can be cal- inclined river bank, which means “bank suction” happens.
culated by This phenomenon can be explained according to Bernoulli’s
􏼌􏼌 􏼌􏼌
UGC � 􏼌􏼌􏼌 1 − CG 􏼁δ∗REG 􏼌􏼌􏼌, (13) equation: the streamlines on the right side of the ship be-
come dense so that the pressure on the right side of the ship
when solutions are close to the asymptotic range, i.e., CG is is lower than that on the left side, which leads to the
close to 1. Based on the results in Table 2, corresponding transverse force on the ship pointing to the shore wall. It is
results of grid uncertainty analysis can be obtained as listed also noted that under the same ship-bank distance, the
in Table 3. As can be recognized from the comparison transverse force decreases with an increase of the inclination
between Tables 2 and 3, the iterative uncertainty UI is much of the bank wall. This is because under the same ship-bank
less than the grid uncertainty UG by 4 orders, which means distance, the bigger the inclination of the bank is, the larger
the numerical uncertainty of calculation mainly derives from the area of the cross section on the right side of the ship is,
grid uncertainty UG , i.e., USN ≈ UG according to equation which implies that the flow velocity becomes smaller
(7). according to the continuity equation. As a result, the
pressure on the right side of the ship in the case of a larger
inclination is larger than the case of a smaller inclination.
3.2. Validation. Validation of numerical calculation is Under the same pressure on the left side of ship, the pressure
mainly accomplished by comparing the error E with vali- difference decreases with the increase of inclination. Figure 6
dation uncertainty UV . Error E is defined as also indicates the common trend of vanishing transverse
6 Mathematical Problems in Engineering

Table 3: Grid uncertainty analysis in resistance calculation. pressure distribution around the bow and stern areas as
Item RG PG CG UG (%S)
shown in Figure 9, for instance, θ � 15° , η � 2.5. Obviously,
the high pressure at bow near bank versus the low pressure at
X′ 0.6578 1.21 0.521 2.49 stern near bank leads to the bow-out effect.
Figure 10 shows the variation of yaw moment with water
depth. It can be seen that at the same water depth, the larger
Table 4: Validation analysis of resistance calculation by using three the inclination angle of bank is, the larger the yaw moment
sets of grid. is. This is because the increase of the inclination angle of
bank with a fixed water depth implies the decrease of
Item Coarse (S1 ) Medium (S2 ) Fine (S3 )
shipbank distance, as aforementioned.
E(%D) −1.14 0.83 2.13
UV (%D) 6.87 6.87 6.87
4.2. Oblique Movement. As shown in Figure 11, in the case of
oblique movement, the ship is moving at a cruising speed
0.05 with a fixed drift angle β (positive as shown in Figure 11).
The shore locates on the right side of the ship. It should be
noted that in the given coordinate system a positive yaw
0.04 moment pushes the bow away from the bank, or points to
the positive direction of Z-axis if the yaw moment is defined
as a vector.
0.03
V&V is first conducted for the confirmation of iteration
Y′ and grid convergence w.r.t. the numerical calculation of
0.02
transverse force and yaw moment. According to the test
results, in simulation, the cruising speed of vessel is set as
U � 0.533m/s; drift angle is β � 4∘ ; and water depth is
0.01 h � 1.5T. Table 5 lists the iterative uncertainty analysis by
using three sets of grid. In a similar way as the work in the
case of straightforward moving, global element scale factor is
0.00 used to control the number of √ grids
� and taken as the same
2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0 5.5 6.0 value as refinement rate, i.e., 2. Based on the results in
η-B–1 Table 5, the grid uncertainty analysis is presented in Table 6.
θ = 20° θ = 10° As can be recognized, 0 < RG < 1 holds, which means the
θ = 15° θ = 7.5° monotonic convergence of the iteration. Moreover, the it-
erative uncertainty UI is much less than the grid uncertainty
Figure 6: Variation of transverse force with different ship-bank
UG by 4 orders, which means the numerical uncertainty of
distances.
calculation mainly derives from grid uncertainty UG , i.e.,
USN ≈ UG .
force (or the bank suction effect) with the increase of ship- Table 7 lists the validation results by three sets of grids,
bank distance. i.e., coarse, medium, and fine grids. The measurement un-
Figure 7 shows the change of transverse force with the certainty is known as 2.8%D for transverse force while it is
increase of water depth in dimensionless form hT− 1 . As can 3.6%D for yaw moment. As can be recognized, |E| < UV
be recognized, with the increase of water depth, the trans- holds for three sets of grids, which means validation for
verse force on the ship decreases generally. This is because transverse force is achieved at the UV � 4.61%D level while
the increase of water depth with a fixed inclination angle of for yaw moment at UV � 4.0%D level.
bank implies the increase of ship-bank distance. It can also From the above V&V analysis, it can be confirmed that
be seen that with the increase of the inclination angle, the the numerical method used in the study is valid in simulating
bank suction effect is gradually increasing. This is because the manoeuvring of KVLCC2. Furthermore, as can be
the increase of the inclination angle of bank with a fixed recognized from Table 7, the selection of medium grid gains
water depth implies the decrease of ship-bank distance. As a better accuracy over the other two. Therefore, this kind of
result, the effect of bank suction amplifies. grid is used in the calculation of hydrodynamics in the case
Figure 8 shows the variation of yaw moment with the of oblique moving near inclined banks. Figure 12 presents
ship-bank distance. It can be seen that in all cases the yaw the variation of manoeuvring hydrodynamics with the water
moments become smaller with the increase of the ship-bank depth at different drift angle. The inclination angle of bank is
distance. This is because the flow area on the right side of the set as θ � 15°. As can be seen, both transverse force and yaw
ship becomes larger with the increase of the ship-bank moment increase with the decrease of water depth due to the
distance. As a result, the reflection effect of the shore wall increasing bank effect since for a fixed inclination angle of
decreases. It can be also recognized that the phenomenon bank, the decrease of water depth implies approaching the
bow-out happens to KVLCC2, which means the bow is bank. It can also be seen from Figure 12 that the yaw
turning off the bank [28]. This can be illustrated from the moment increases with the increase of drift angle. Moreover,
Mathematical Problems in Engineering 7

0.05 case of shallow water. Therefore, the slope of the regressive

line in the case of shallow water is larger than deep water,
0.04 which results in the crossing of lines at around β � 0.5°.
Figure 13 presents an example of the pressure dis-
0.03
tribution on free surface along the hull in the case of θ �
20° and h � 2T. As can be seen, the effect of bank suction is
Y′ obvious due to the asymmetric flow field. Moreover, the
0.02
variation of the pressure difference in windward and
leeward regions of the hull with the drift angle is obvious
0.01 especially when the drift angle increases. For example, in
the case of β � 2° , the pressure difference in the fore part
0.00 between the windward (port) side and the leeward
(starboard) side results in a transverse force towards the
1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0 5.5 6.0 6.5 7.0 starboard side. Contrarily, the fore part of the hull in the
h·T–1 case of β � −2° experiences a transverse force towards the
θ = 20° θ = 10° port side.
θ = 15° θ = 7.5° Figure 14 presents the variation of manoeuvring hy-
drodynamics with inclination angle of bank at different drift
Figure 7: Variation of transverse force with different water depths. angle. The water depth is set as h � 2T. As can be seen, both
transverse force and yaw moment increase with the increase
of inclination angle of bank due to the increasing bank effect
0.008 since for a fixed water depth, the increase of inclination angle
0.007 Bow out
0.006 of bank implies approaching the bank. Similar to the var-
0.005 iation of Y′ and N′ with drift angle in the case shown in
0.004 Figure 12, the direction of yaw moment changes with the
0.003
0.002 direction change of drift angle. On the contrary, due to the
0.001 bank suction, the transverse force is less sensitive to the
N′ 0.000 direction change of drift angle, compared with yaw moment.
–0.001
–0.002
A small negative drift angle cannot lead to a negative
–0.003 transverse force (port side).
–0.004 Figure 15 presents the variation of the pressure on the
–0.005 bank (opposite to the bottom of hull) with water depth in the
–0.006 Bow in
–0.007 case of β � −2°. As can be seen, the interaction between the
–0.008 ship and the bank decreases with an increase of water depth.
–0.009 Moreover, the trend of squat and trim can be detected due to
2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0 5.5 6.0
the pressure difference between the bow and stern, and the
η·B–1
negative pressure on most parts of the ship.
θ = 20° θ = 10°
θ = 15° θ = 7.5°
Figure 8: Variation of yaw moment with different ship-bank 4.3. Manoeuvring Simulation under Control Force. The forces
distances. induced by rudder and propeller exert an important in-
fluence on ship manoeuvring. As aforementioned, even in
the case of straightforward moving, there are transverse
the direction of yaw moment changes with the change of force and yaw moment due to the bank effect. Forces and
direction of drift angle. If the drift angle is positive (as shown moment produced by rudder and/or propeller might
in Figure 12), the streamlines along the right side of the bow counteract or alleviate the bank effect. Therefore,
are denser than stern. As a result, the pressure difference manoeuvring simulation is performed with respect to the
(pointing to the bank) at the bow is larger than stern, which hull-propeller-rudder model of KVLCC2. Main particulars
produces a moment pushing the bow towards the bank, i.e., a of rudder and propeller are listed in Table 8.
negative yaw moment. In a similar way, a positive yaw In generating the grids for the hull-propeller-rudder
moment comes around if the drift angle is negative. model, the whole calculation domain is divided into three
Compared with yaw moment, the transverse force is less areas, i.e., the propeller area, stern area, and the remaining.
sensitive to the direction change of drift angle. Due to the Due to the particularity and complexity of the flow field at
bank suction, a small negative drift angle cannot lead to a stern, grids are further densified, compared with the area
negative transverse force (port side). It is noted that there is a near the surface of hull. A cylinder domain is allocated to the
crossing of lines in the plot of the variation of yaw moment. generation of grid for propeller. The interface is treated by
It is because the shallower the water depth is, the more using multiple reference frame (MRF) technique. The
sensitive to the drift angle the yaw moment is, which means meshing at stern and propeller is shown in Figure 16. The
that the change of yaw moment becomes more intense in the number of grids used to generate hull, propeller, and rudder
8 Mathematical Problems in Engineering

Pressure (Pa)

Bank
–72 –62 –51 –40 –30 –19 –9 2 13
Pressure (Pa)
Bank

–98 –72 –47 –21 4 30 55 81 106

Figure 9: Pressure distribution at bow and stern at θ � 15° , η � 2.5.

0.007

0.006

0.005

0.004
N′
0.003

0.002

0.001

0.000
1.5 2.0 2.5 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0 5.5 6.0 6.5
h·T –1
θ = 20°
θ = 15°
θ = 7.5°
Figure 10: Variation of yaw moment with water depth.

O0 x0 X Table 5: Iterative uncertainty analysis in manoeuvring simulation

by using three sets of grid.
Y y0 Coarse Medium Test result
Item Fine (S3 )
(S1 ) (S2 ) (S)
o U Grid
β 1268876 2389602 4351318
quantity
x Y′ −0.038326 −0.037782 −0.037391 −0.0380
y
UI,Y′ (%Y′ ) 3.7 × 10−4 5.2 × 10−4 7.8 × 10−4
N′ −0.023701 −0.023315 −0.023069 −0.0234
Figure 11: Coordinate systems for ship oblique moving. UI,N′ (%N′ ) 3.3 × 10−4 4.9 × 10−4 5.4 × 10−4

is listed in Table 9. It is noted that there is no boundary layer Table 6: Grid uncertainty analysis in manoeuvring simulation.
mesh to be set on the surface of the rudder due to the
Item RG PG CG UG (%S)
possible degradation of the mesh quality in setting boundary
layer mesh. Instead, based on the calculation formula of the Y′ 0.7188 0.953 0.391 3.68
height of boundary layer mesh, the mesh size of the rudder N′ 0.6373 1.30 0.569 1.84
Mathematical Problems in Engineering 9

Table 7: Validation analysis in manoeuvring simulation by using three sets of grid.

Item Coarse (S1 ) Medium (S2 ) Fine (S3 )
EY′ (%D) −0.86 0.57 1.6
UV,Y′ (%D) 4.61 4.61 4.61
EN′ (%D) −1.3 0.36 1.4
UV,N′ (%D) 4.0 4.0 4.0

0.020
0.06

0.05 0.015

0.01 0.010

Y′ 0.03
N′ 0.005
0.02
0.000
0.01
–0.005
0.00
–0.010
–2 –1 0 1 2
–2 –1 0 1 2
β/°
β/°
h = 1.6T
h = 1.6T
h = 2.0T
h = 2.0T
h = 2.5T
h = 2.5T
(a) (b)

Figure 12: Variation of transverse force and yaw moment with water depth and drift angle.

Pressure (Pa) Pressure (Pa) Pressure (Pa)

–43 –28 –13 2 17 32 47 62 76 91 106 121 136 151 166 –43 –28 –13 2 17 32 47 62 76 91 106 121 136 151 166 –43 –28 –13 2 17 32 47 62 76 91 106 121 136 151 166

β = –2° β = –1° β = –0°

(a) (b) (c)

Pressure (Pa) Pressure (Pa)

–43 –28 –13 2 17 32 47 62 76 91 106 121 136 151 166 –43 –28 –13 2 17 32 47 62 76 91 106 121 136 151 166

β = –1° β = –2°

(d) (e)

Figure 13: Variation of pressure distribution with drift angles, on free surface θ � 20° , h � 2T.
10 Mathematical Problems in Engineering

0.05 0.015

0.04
0.010

0.03
0.005
Y′ N′
0.02

0.000
0.01

0.00 –0.005

–2 –1 0 1 2 –2 –1 0 1 2
β/° β/°

θ = 7.5 θ = 15° θ = 7.5° θ = 15°

θ = 10° θ = 20° θ = 10° θ = 20°
(a) (b)

Figure 14: Variation of transverse force and yaw moment with inclination angle and drift angle.

Pressure (Pa) Pressure (Pa) Pressure (Pa)

Shore
–23 –13 –3 6 16 25 35 45 54 64 74 –23 –13 –3 6 16 25 35 45 54 64 74 –23 –13 –3 6 16 25 35 45 54 64 74

Bow area
Stern area

(a) (b) (c)

Figure 15: Variation of the pressure on the bank with water depth, β � −2. (a) h � 1.6 T. (b) h � 2.0 T. (c) h � 2.5 T.

Table 8: Main particulars of rudder and propeller of KVLCC2. and comparison results, where J represents the advance
ratio, KT is the thrust coefficient, KQ is the torque coefficient,
Item Value
and η0 is the efficiency of propeller. As can be recognized
Area of rudder (m2) 0.1308 from the comparison, the CFD results basically agree with
Number of blades 4 the experimental results.
Diameter of propeller (m) 0.204
In manoeuvring simulation, the ship is moving straight-
Pitch ratio of propeller 0.808
Area ratio of propeller 0.448 forward at a cruising speed U � 0.533m/s while the revolution
speed of propeller is n � 9.9r/s. The variation of thrust coef-
ficient (KT) and torque coefficient (KQ) of propeller with rudder
area is adjusted to ensure that the height of the first layer angle are listed in Table 11. Figure 20 presents the pressure
mesh node meets requirement. distribution on the front of blades and back of blades, re-
Figures 17 and 18 present the distribution of aspect ratio spectively, in the case of δ � 5∘ . As can be seen, the pressure
of grid cells at stern and propeller, respectively, along with difference between the front and back is obvious for each blade,
the check of mesh quality. As can be seen, most of the which accounts for the propulsion produced by propeller.
generated grids are of high quality, which verifies the ef- Figure 21 shows the variation of transverse force and yaw
fectiveness of meshing in the study. moment with rudder angle. In this case, the inclination angle
Before manoeuvring simulation, propeller open water of bank is set as θ � 20∘ while the initial distance between
test is performed using CFD and compared with experi- ship and shore is η � 2B.
ments to ensure the correct prediction of propeller forces. As can be recognized, the transverse force decreases with
Table 10 and Figure 19 present the CFD calculation results the increase of rudder angle. Obviously, the effect of bank
Mathematical Problems in Engineering 11

(a) (b)

Figure 16: Grids at stern and propeller.

Table 9: Number of grids in generating hull, propeller, and rudder, respectively.

Objective Grid quantity (✕104)
Hull 183.3
Propeller 37.7
Rudder 18.8

24
Aspect ratio

< 0.1
18
< 0.2

< 0.3

< 0.4
12
< 0.5

< 0.6

< 0.7
6
< 0.8

< 0.9

<1
0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1

(a) (b)

Figure 17: Aspect ratio of grid cells at stern and mesh quality check.

24
Aspect ratio
0
< 0.1
< 0.2 18

< 0.3
< 0.4
< 0.5 12

< 0.6
< 0.7
< 0.8 6

< 0.9
<1
0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1

(a) (b)

Figure 18: Aspect ratio of grid cells at propeller and mesh quality check.
12 Mathematical Problems in Engineering

Table 10: Propeller open water test results.

Experiment CFD Error of
J
KT KQ η0 KT KQ η0 η0 (%)
0.1 0.2843 0.2932 0.1543 0.2518 0.2644 0.1516 1.74
0.3 0.2132 0.2388 0.4263 0.1922 0.2201 0.4172 2.13
0.5 0.1365 0.1721 0.6312 0.1102 0.1500 0.5849 7.34
0.6 0.0951 0.1344 0.6757 0.0741 0.1098 0.6444 4.63
0.7 0.0511 0.0915 0.6222 0.0479 0.0960 0.5561 10.6
0.8 0.0040 0.0402 0.1267 0.0070 0.0671 0.1328 4.81

0.7

0.6

0.5
KT, 10KQ, η0

0.4

0.3

0.2

0.1

0.0

0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9
Advance ratio (J)
KT (Exp.) KT (CFD)
10KQ (Exp.) 10KQ (CFD)
η0 (Exp.) η0 (CFD)

Figure 19: Propeller open water test results and comparison.

Table 11: Thrust coefficient and torque coefficient of propeller.

δ (°) KT 10KQ
5 0.0368 0.0559
10 0.0553 0.0718
15 0.0487 0.0664
20 0.0547 0.0714

suction is alleviated due to a positive rudder angle (star- rudder. As can be seen, the propeller wake deforms when
board). As for the yaw moment, on the one hand, it de- reaching the rudder and affects the velocity distribution in
creases with the increase of rudder angle (starboard), which windward and leeward regions of the rudder.
means the effect of bow-out is alleviated. On the other hand, Figure 24 presents the distribution and variation of
bow-in happens at certain rudder angle, larger than 17.8∘ in pressure on the surface of rudder with different rudder
the study. In other words, the yaw moment vanishes at angles. As can be recognized, the pressure difference be-
δ � 17.8∘ . Figure 22 shows the velocity distribution around tween two sides of the rudder increases with the increase of
propeller and rudder at stern (δ � 20°) while Figure 23 rudder angle, which implies an increase of lift produced by
presents the vorticity distribution around propeller and the rudder, as shown in Figure 25.
Mathematical Problems in Engineering 13

Pressure Pressure
196 196

144 144

92 92

40 40

–12 –12

–64 –64

–117 –117

–169 –169

–221 –221

–273 –273
(Pa) Front (Pa) Back
Figure 20: Distribution of pressure on the propeller.

0.034 0.004

0.032 0.003

0.030 0.002

Y′ N′
0.028 0.001

0.026 0.000

0.024 –0.001

0 5 10 15 20 0 5 10 15 17.8 20
δ/° δ/°
θ = 20° θ = 20°
(a) (b)

Figure 21: Variation of transverse force and yaw moment with rudder angle.

Figure 22: Velocity distribution at stern, around propeller, and rudder (δ � 20°).
14 Mathematical Problems in Engineering

Velocity.curl Velocity.curl
Vortex core region 1 Vortex core region 1
42 7

34 6

25 4

17 3

8 2
[s–1] [s–1]

Figure 23: Vorticity distribution around propeller and rudder.

Pressure (Pa) Pressure (Pa) Pressure (Pa) Pressure (Pa)

–25 –14 –4 7 18 28 39 49 60 70 81 91 102113123 –25 –14 –4 7 18 28 39 49 60 70 81 91 102113123 –25 –14 –4 7 18 28 39 49 60 70 81 91 102113123 –25 –14 –4 7 18 28 39 49 60 70 81 91 102113123

(a) (b)
Pressure (Pa) Pressure (Pa) Pressure (Pa) Pressure (Pa)

–25 –14 –4 7 18 28 39 49 60 70 81 91 102113123 –25 –14 –4 7 18 28 39 49 60 70 81 91 102113123 –25 –14 –4 7 18 28 39 49 60 70 81 91 102113123 –25 –14 –4 7 18 28 39 49 60 70 81 91 102113123

(c) (d)

Figure 24: Variation of pressure on rudder surface with rudder angle. (a) δ � 5∘ . (b) δ � 10∘ . (c) δ � 15∘ . (d) δ � 20∘ .

0.005

0.004

0.003
CL

0.002

0.001

0.000
0 5 10 15 20
δ/°
θ = 20°
Figure 25: Variation of lift coefficient with rudder angle.
Mathematical Problems in Engineering 15

5. Conclusion References
In the study, the hydrodynamic force and moment of a [1] International Maritime Organization (IMO), “Standards for
KVLCC2 ship under the condition of near inclined banks are ship manoeuvrability,” Resolution MSC, vol. 137, no. 76, 2002.
calculated by using CFD. Because of the small Froude [2] J. Yao and Z. Zou, “Numerical study on bank effects for a ship
number, the influence of wave making on free surface is traveling along banks,” Journal of Wuhan University of
Technology (Transportation Science and Engineering), vol. 3,
ignored in the simulation. Combined with experiments, the
pp. 5–8, 2011.
verification and validation of the numerical calculation in [3] The Maneuvering Committee of ITTC, “Final report and
the study are carried out, by which the calculation con- recommendations to the 25th ITTC,” in Proceedings of the
vergence and accuracy are guaranteed. Generally, the sim- 25th International Towing Tank Conference, pp. 143–208,
ulation results confirm the phenomenon of “bank effect.” Fukuoka, Japan, September 2008.
Three specific conclusions can be drawn from the analysis of [4] N. H. Norrbin, “Bank effect on a ship moving through a short
simulation: dredged channel,” in Proceedings of the 10th Symposium on
Naval Hydrodynamcis, Cambridge, MA, USA, June 1976.
(1) For a ship sailing near a sloping bank, the transverse [5] E. Lataire, M. Vantorre, E. Laforce et al., “Navigation in
force and yaw moment increase with the decrease of confined waters: influence of bank characteristics on ship-
ship-shore distance. At a fixed water depth, the bank interaction,” in Proceedings of the International Con-
greater the bank angle is, the greater the transverse ference on Marine Research and Transportation, ICMRT,
force and yaw moment are. Naples, Italy, June 2007.
(2) The direction of yaw moment of ships sailing near a [6] A. Gronarz, “Investigation of the influence of a vertical wall on
sloping bank is more sensitive to drift angle than a ship moving with drift angle,” in Proceeding of International
Conference on Ship Manoeuvring in Shallow and Confined
transverse force. Due to the bank suction, the di-
Water, Bank Effect, Antwerp Belguim, May 2009.
rection of transverse force changes provided a large [7] D. C. Lo, D.-T. Su, and J.-M. Chen, “Application of com-
change of direction of drift angle while the direction putational fluid dynamics simulations to the analysis of bank
of yaw moment changes for a small change of di- effects in restricted waters,” Journal of Navigation, vol. 62,
rection of drift angle. no. 3, pp. 477–491, 2009.
(3) The yaw moment will vanish for a given rudder [8] H. M. Wang, “Numerical study on the viscous flow and
angle, which somehow alleviates the side effect of hydrodynamic forces on a manoeuvring ship in restricted
bank suction although for such a rudder angle the waters,” Doctoral Thesis, Shanghai Jiao Tong University,
transverse force still exists. Such a special and specific Shanghai, China, 2009.
[9] L. Zou, L. Larsson, G. Delefortrie et al., “CFD prediction and
rudder angle can be predicted by CFD calculation, as
validation of ship-bank interaction in a canal,” in Proceedings
presented in the study. of the International Conference on Ship Manoeuvring in
In future work, the effects of free surface and ship speed Shallow and Confined Water: Ship to Ship Interaction,
will be taken into account. Moreover, different floating Trondheim, Norway, May 2011.
condition, e.g., rolling that sometimes happens to a ship in [10] L. Zou and L. Larsson, “Computational fluid dynamics (CFD)
prediction of bank effects including verification and valida-
harbor, will be considered in manoeuvring simulation. In
tion,” Journal of Marine Science and Technology, vol. 18, no. 3,
the study, the Multireference Frame model technology is pp. 310–323, 2013.
used in the numerical simulation of hull-propeller-rudder [11] K. Zhang and Z. J. Zou, “Numerical calculation of the hy-
model. As a steady-state approach, MRF has defects in drodynamic forces on a ship sailing along sloping bank,”
dealing with unsteady problems. In future work, the non- Journal of Hydrodynamics, vol. 29, no. 3, pp. 294–299, 2014.
uniform and unsteady characteristics of the flow field [12] K. Zhang and Z. J. Zou, “Numerical calculation of hydro-
around the propeller will be considered. dynamic forces on ship sailing obliquely along sloping bank,”
Navigation of China, no. 3, pp. 52–56, 2015.
Data Availability [13] H. W. Coleman and F. Stern, “Uncertainties and CFD code
validation,” Journal of Fluids Engineering, vol. 119, no. 4,
Previously reported data were used to support this study and pp. 795–803, 1997.
are available at DOI 10.1007/s00773-013-0221-6. The prior [14] ITTC, “QM. Procedure, Uncertainty analysis in CFD verifi-
study (and datasets) is cited at relevant places within the text cation and validation methodology and procedures,” vol. 7,
2002.
as reference [26].
[15] C. D. Simonsen and F. Stern, “Verification and validation of
RANS maneuvering simulation of Esso Osaka: effects of drift
Conflicts of Interest and rudder angle on forces and moments,” Computers &
Fluids, vol. 32, no. 10, pp. 1325–1356, 2003.
The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest [16] J. Kim, I. R. Park, S. H. Van et al., “Calculation of turbulent
regarding the publication of this paper. flows around a submarine for the prediction of hydrodynamic
performance,” Journal of Ship & Ocean Technology, vol. 7,
Acknowledgments no. 4, pp. 16–31, 2003.
[17] Y. Tahra, R. V. Wilson, and P. M. Carrica, “RANS simulation
The authors are thankful for the support by China Fujian of a container ship using a single-phase level-set method with
Provincial Department of Ocean and Fisheries (MHGX-16). overseer grid and the prognosis for extension to self-
16 Mathematical Problems in Engineering

propulsion simulator,” Marine Science Technology, vol. 11,

pp. 209–228, 2006.
[18] N. Zhang, H. Shen, and H. Yao, “Uncertainty analysis in CFD
for resistance and flow field,” Journal of Ship Mechanics,
vol. 12, no. 2, pp. 211–224, 2008.
[19] L. Zou, L. Larsson, and M. Orych, “Verification and validation
of CFD predictions for a manoeuvring tanker,” Journal of
Hydrodynamics, vol. 22, no. 5, pp. 421–428, 2010.
[20] L. Zou and L. Larsson, “Computational fluid dynamics (CFD)
prediction of bank effects including verification and valida-
tion,” Journal of Marine Science and Technology, vol. 18, no. 3,
pp. 310–323, 2013.
[21] C. Yang, R. Zhu, G. Miao, and J. Fan, “Uncertainty analysis in
CFD for flow simulation around ship using RANS and DES,”
Journal of Shanghai Jiaotong University, vol. 46, no. 3,
pp. 430–435, 2012.
[22] R.-c. Zhu, C.-l. Yang, G.-p. Miao, and J. Fan, “Computational
fluid dynamics uncertainty analysis for simulations of roll
motions for a 3D ship,” Journal of Shanghai Jiaotong Uni-
versity (Science), vol. 20, no. 5, pp. 591–599, 2015.
[23] M. Simone, B. Ermina, A. H. Day et al., “Verification and
validation of numerical modelling of DTMB 5415 roll decay,”
Ocean Engineering, vol. 162, pp. 209–223, 2018.
[24] H. Islam and C. G. Soares, “Uncertainty analysis in ship
resistance prediction using OpenFOAM,” Ocean Engineering,
vol. 191, 2019.
[25] J. Hrvoje, V. Vuko, G. Inno et al., “CFD validation and grid
sensitivity studies of full scale ship self propulsion,” Inter-
national Journal of Naval Architecture and Ocean Engineering,
vol. 11, pp. 33–43, 2019.
[26] S. L. Toxopeus, C. D. Simonsen, E. Guilmineau,
M. Visonneau, T. Xing, and F. Stern, “Investigation of water
depth and basin wall effects on KVLCC2 in manoeuvring
motion using viscous-flow calculations,” Journal of Marine
Science and Technology, vol. 18, no. 4, pp. 471–496, 2013.
[27] L. Eca, “On the influence of the iterative error in the numerical
uncertainty of ship viscous flow calculations,” in Proceedings
of Symposium on Naval Hydrodynamics, Rome, Italy, Sep-
tember 2006.
[28] H. Liu, N. Ma, and X. C. Gu, “Manoeuvrability of a VLCC ship
near a vertical bank and related course keeping control,” in
Proceedings of the International Conference on Ships and
Offshore Structures, Hamburg, Germany, September 2016.