C A N A L D E E X P E R I E N C I A S H I D R O D I N M I C A S , E L P A R D O

Publicacin nm. 202

CALCULATION OF THE RESISTANCE AND THE
WAVE PROFILE OF A 3600 TEU CONTAINER SHIP

POR

A. IRANZO
J. DOMINGO
I. TREJO
M. TERCEO
J. VALLE





















Ministerio
de Defensa
MADRID
JUNIO 2007
Salir






CALCULATION OF THE RESISTANCE AND THE
WAVE PROFILE OF A 3600 TEU CONTAINER SHIP

POR

A. IRANZO
J. DOMINGO
I. TREJO
M. TERCEO
J. VALLE




























Trabajo presentado en el Congreso MARINE 2007
Barcelona, Espaa, Junio 2007
Salir
-1-

CALCULATION OF THE RESISTANCE AND THE
WAVE PROFILE OF A 3600 TEU CONTAINER SHIP

Alfredo Iranzo
1

Jernimo Domingo
1

Ignacio Trejo
2

MiriamTerceo
3

Jess Valle
3




KEY WORDS

Marine Engineering, Computational Techniques, Applications,
Computational Methods.
123


SUMMARY
A standard case for CFD validation, used in several
International Conferences, is the Kriso 3600 TEU container
ship. In this paper, the results obtained for wave profiles and
resistance of this container ship, using Ansys CFX are
compared with model tests.

Obtained results are discussed comparing with the cases
proposed in the CFD Tokyo Workshop 2005.

1. INTRODUCTION

The use of Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD) is becoming a
powerful method to model ship resistance tests and improve
hydrodynamics of hull shapes. However, before results can be
used with confidence in ship hull design, it is necessary to
evaluate the order of magnitude of the errors or uncertainties
introduced by the calculation method.

Possible sources of errors or uncertainties are numerical errors
due to discretization, iteration or round-off, physical modeling,
user errors, application uncertainties and software errors. It is
possible to quantify each of these errors and many best
practice guidelines have been developed in order to minimize
them
1
,
2
. In this paper, the flow around the 3600 TEU Container
Ship, KRISO KCS, hull has been simulated with the commercial
CFD code ANSYS CFX, and the results have been compared
with available experimental data
3
.

The KRISO Container Ship (KCS) profile is shown in Figure 1
and its main characteristics are listed in Table 1.

1
ANALISIS-DSC
2
SEAPLACE
3
CEHIPAR

Figure 1: KRISO Container Ship (KCS).
Length Lpp [m] 7.2786
Breadth B [m] 1.0190
Draught T [m] 0.3418
Nominal Wetted Surface S [m
2
] 9.4379
Reynolds Number Re 14.0E6
Froude Number Fr 0.26
Scale Ratio 31.5994
Table 1: Main particularities of the KCS model.
2. GOVERNING EQUATIONS AND MATHEMATICAL MODEL

The equations governing multiphase flow include conservation
of mass for each phase :
0
) ( ) (
=

i
i
x
u r
t
r



and conservation of momentum:
j
ji
i
m
i j
i j
m
i
m
x
) (
g r
x
P
x
) u u (
t
) u (

+ +

where r

, u
i
and

are respectively, the volume fraction, the

cartesian velocity components, and the density of phase . The
acceleration due to gravitational effects is represented with g
i
, P
is the pressure and
ji
is the stress tensor, related to the
deformation rates using Stokes law as follows:

=
i
j
j
i
m
ji
x
u
x
u



(1)
(2)
(3)
Salir

-2-
m and m are the volume-weighted mixture density and
viscosity. We also have the constraint that the phases must fill
up the available volume:
1 r
N
1
=

=


The above equations form a closed system involving N+4
equations and N+4 unknowns, N being the number of phases.
For convenience, we choose to replace one of the phasic
continuity equations with the sum of all the continuity equations
divided by their respective densities:
0
x
) u r (
t
1
N
1
i
i
=

When all phases are incompressible, this equation may be
interpreted as a divergence-free velocity field:
0
x
u
i
i
=

When the flow is turbulent, the above velocities represent
average velocities, and additional Reynolds Stress terms
appear in the momentum equation. These stresses are
modelled using an eddy viscosity approach such as the k- or
Shear Stress Transport (SST) models
4
.

The k- based SST model accounts for the transport of the
turbulent shear stress and it has been used for the simulations
as it gives highly accurate predictions of the onset and the
amount of flow separation under adverse pressure gradients.
The SST model combines the advantages of the Wilcox and the
k- model, as it consists of a blending between the k- model
near the surface and the k- model in the outer region. The
Wilcox model is multiplied by a blending function F and the
transformed k- model by a function 1-F. F is equal to one near
the surface and switches over to zero inside the boundary layer.
At the boundary layer edge and outside the boundary layer, the
standard k- model is therefore recovered.

The model incorporates a limiter to the formulation of the eddy
viscosity so that proper transport behavior of the turbulent shear
stresses can be obtained, leading to highly accurate predictions
of the onset and the amount of flow separation. Wall treatment
is implemented by means of Automatic wall functions
5
.

3. NUMERICAL MODEL

Calculations have been performed with the commercial CFD
code ANSYS CFX. The code is based on the Finite Volume
method and is a vertex-centred code.
3.1. Discretization Scheme
The Navier-Stokes conservation equations described below are
discretized using an element-based finite volume method
6
. The
mesh may consist of tetrahedral, prismatic, pyramid, and
hexahedral elements. A control volume is constructed around
each nodal point of the mesh, as illustrated in Figure 2. The
surface between two control volumes within a particular element
is called an integration point (ip); it is at integration points that
the fluxes are discretized.

Integration point quantities such as pressure and velocity
gradients are obtained from nodal values using finite element
shape functions, with the exception of advected variables which
are obtained using an upwind-biased discretization.








Figure 2: Finite Volume Surface and Mesh Element in the
discretization.

We now consider the discretization of the conservation
equations at each control volume. The discretization is fully
conservative and time-implicit. The conservation equations are
integrated over each control volume, volume integrals are
converted to surface integrals using Gauss divergence
theorem, and surface fluxes are evaluated in exactly the same
manner for the two control volumes adjacent to an integration
point.

The advection scheme used to evaluate the variable ip in
terms of neighbouring vertex values is extremely important for
the solution accuracy. We write it in the form
r
up ip
+ =
where up is the upwind vertex value and r is the vector from
the upwind vertex to the integration point. The quantity r
is called Numerical Advection Correction. If = 0, this scheme
recovers the first-order upwind scheme, which is bounded but
excessively diffusive. If = 1, this scheme is a second-order
upwind-biased scheme, but unbounded. A bounded high-
resolution scheme can be obtained by making as close to 1
as possible, but reducing where necessary to prevent
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)
Salir

-3-
overshoots and undershoots. For standard advection terms,
CFX uses a method similar to that described by Barth and
Jesperson
7
.

The mass flows must be discretized in a careful manner to avoid
pressure-velocity decoupling. This is performed by generalizing
the interpolation scheme proposed by Rhie and Chow
8
, such
that the advecting velocity is evaluated as follows:
ip
i
m
i
i
m
i
ip
i
ip
i
ip
g
x
P
g
x
P
d u u

+ =

where
b
V
a ,
a
V
d
t
m ip
+

and b represents the sum of advection and viscous coefficients
in the discretized momentum equation. The overbar denotes
the average of the control volume values adjacent to the
integration point.
3.2. Solution Strategy
Segregated solvers use a solution strategy where the
momentum equations are first solved, with a guessed pressure,
and an equation for a pressure correction is obtained.

Because of the guess-and-correct nature of the linear system,
a large number of iterations are typically required in addition to
the need for judiciously selecting relaxation parameters for the
variables.

ANSYS CFX uses a coupled solver, which solves the
hydrodynamic equations for u, v, w and p as a single system.
This solution approach uses a fully implicit discretization of the
equations at any given time step. For steady state problems, the
time-step behaves like an acceleration parameter, to guide the
approximate solutions in a physically based manner to a steady-
state solution. This reduces the number of iterations required for
convergence to a steady state, or to calculate the solution for
each time step in a time dependent analysis.

The linear system of equations is solved using a coupled
algebraic multigrid technique
9
.

4. COMPUTATIONAL DETAILS

The geometry of the 3600 TEU Container Ship, KRISO KCS,
the calculation case and the experimental results are the same
that were used in the Case 1.1. of the CFD Tokyo Workshop
2005
3
. Trim and sinkage were not allowed in the test nor in the
simulation.

All the results are for model scale with a model velocity V =
2.1962 m/s.

Different computational meshes have been generated, in order
to study the influence of the mesh type and mesh size on the
accuracy of the results. The different mesh particularities are
listed in Table 2.
The hull has been computed with the commercial code CFX-11,
using both hexahedral and tetrahedral meshes.

Mesh Element type N nodes N elements
1 Hexahedral 515000 490000
2 Hexahedral 723000 696000
3 Tetrahedral 108980 429390
4 Tetrahedral 632469 2852123
Table 2: Simulation meshes for the KCS model.

The material properties used for water and air are listed in Table
3.

Water density [kg/m
3
] 1000
Air density [kg/m
3
] 1.185
Water dynamic viscosity [Pa s] 8.899E-4
Air dynamic viscosity [Pa s] 1.831E-5
Table 3: Simulation fluid properties.

The Boundary Conditions are summarized in Table 4.

Inlet Vin = 2.196 m/s
Outlet Hydrostatic Pressure
Bottom, Top and Sides Free Slip Wall
Symmetry Plane Symmetry
Table 4: Simulation Boundary Conditions.

The physical models used are in the calculation are listed in
Table 5.

Turbulence
model
Shear Stress Transport (Menter)
Free Surface
model
CFX-11 Homogeneous Multiphase:
Free Surface Standard Model
Buoyancy
model
CFX-11 Buoyancy, Density Difference
Model
Table 5: Simulation physical models.

The computational simulations have been run a certain number
of iterations in order to ensure that forces over the hull are
constant so that iteration errors can be neglected.

5. RESULTS
The results presented in this section for all the computed
cases are wave pattern, wave cuts and resistance.

5.1 Wave pattern

Figure 3 shows the wave pattern for the hexahedral meshes, 1
and 2, compared with the experimental data shown in the upper
part of each figure.




(8)
(9)
Salir

-4-












Figure 3: Wave pattern. Mesh 1 on the upper draw and mesh 2
on the lower draw. Experimental up.

Figure 4 shows the wave pattern for the tetrahedral meshes, 3
and 4, compared with the experimental data shown in the upper
part of each figure.













Figure 4: Wave pattern. Mesh 3 on the upper draw and mesh 4
on the lower draw. Experimental up.

5.2. Wave cuts

Wave cuts are obtained as the intersection of the wave pattern
with different planes. In the following figures they are
represented the wave cuts with planes separated from the
center plane adimensionalized distances (y/L) of 0.1024,
0.2167, 0.2520 and 0.5076 respectively. The measured wave
cuts are represented with dots and the calculated wave cuts
with a continuous line.


Figure 5: Wave cut. y/L=0.1024. Mesh 1.


Figure 6: Wave cut. y/L=0.1024. Mesh 2.


Figure 7: Wave cut. y/L=0.1024. Mesh 3.


Figure 8: Wave cut. y/L=0.1024. Mesh 4.


Figure 9: Wave cut. y/L=0.2167. Mesh 1.


Figure 10: Wave cut. y/L=0. 2167. Mesh 2.
Salir

-5-

Figure 11: Wave cut. y/L=0. 2167. Mesh 3.


Figure 12: Wave cut. y/L=0. 2167. Mesh 4.



Figure 13: Wave cut. y/L=0.2520. Mesh 1.


Figure 14: Wave cut. y/L=0. 2520. Mesh 2.


Figure 15: Wave cut. y/L=0. 2520. Mesh 3.


Figure 16: Wave cut. y/L=0. 2520. Mesh 4.


Figure 17: Wave cut. y/L=0.5076. Mesh 1.


Figure 18: Wave cut. y/L=0. 5076. Mesh 2.

Figure 19: Wave cut. y/L=0. 5076. Mesh 3.

Figure 20: Wave cut. y/L=0. 5076. Mesh 4.


5.3. Resistance

Using CFD results it is possible to obtain the resistance values.
These values become non-dimensional by means of the
following formula
2
R
V S
2
1
R
C

=

where R is the resistance, is the fluid density, S the wetted
surface and V the model velocity.

For a velocity V= 2.196 m/s, a density =1000 kg/m
3
and a
wetted surface S=9.4379 m
2
the resistance values in Table 6
are obtained.





(10)
Salir

-6-
Mesh CR measured CR Error %
1 3.71E-03 3.94E-03 6.17
2 3.71E-03 3.56E-03 4.07
3 3.71E-03 3.51E-03 5.50
4 3.71E-03 3.62E-03 2.45

Table 6: Resistance coefficients.

Errors comparing the computed results with the measured
values obtained in tests are good enough, although resistance
values are not the more accurate values obtained with CFD
techniques.

6. CONCLUSSIONS
In the present paper numerical and experimental results for the
resistance coefficient and hull wave profile have been obtained
and compared for the KRISO 3600 TEU containership model.

Although detailed error estimation has not been performed yet,
it has been shown that mesh refinement analysis is a necessary
step in order to asses the accuracy of CFD analysis. In the
present paper, results from two hexahedral and two tetrahedral
meshes have been compared with measured results, showing
the importance of mesh refinement around the hull in order to
obtain accurate results.

For instance, in hexahedral Mesh 1, hull y+ values are rather
large, with an average value above 120 and a maximum value
of 575, which is a source of error in the friction force prediction
as well as in the pressure force prediction. Mesh 2 is based on
Mesh 1 but with refinement near the hull. Average y+ values are
in this case around 35 with a maximum y+ of 106. Resistance
coefficient is more accurate with Mesh 2, although the prediction
error is still above 5 %. Results with a finer mesh must be
obtained in order to gain more insight in the mesh refinement
influence in the results accuracy. Hull wave profile prediction is
clearly more accurate using Mesh 2.

The usage of hexahedral meshes reduces the computational
time but the development of the transversal wave is not as well
captured as using tetrahedrons. Nevertheless, the wave near
the hull correlates well in both cases.

The far field wave is not well computed as it is usual.

In order to obtain a well developed wave pattern it is necessary
to use a huge number of elements even though it increases the
computing time.

Further analysis on other sources of errors and on finer meshes
are currently being performed as part of the future work in the
framework of the collaboration between CEHIPAR, SEAPLACE
and ANALISIS-DSC.

REFERENCES

[1] ERCOFTAC Special Interest Group on Quality and Trust
in Industrial CFD. Best Practice Guidelines. January 2000.

[2] MANET-CFD. Best Practice Guidelines for Marine
Applications of CFD.

[3] CFD Workshop Tokyo 2005. National Maritime Research
Institute, Tokyo, Japa. March 9-11, 2005.

[4] Menter, F.R. - Two-equation eddy-viscosity turbulence
models for engineering applications. AIAA-Journal., 32(8),
1994.

[5] ANSYS CFX-11 Documentation.

[6] Raw, M.J. - A Coupled Algebraic Multigrid Method for the
3D Navier Stokes Equations - 10th GAMM Seminar, Kiel,
1994.

[7] Barth, T.J., and Jesperson, D.C. - The Design and
Application of Upwind Schemes on Unstructured Meshes -
AIAA Paper 89-0366, 1989.

[8] Rhie, C.M. and Chow, W.L.- A Numerical Study of the
Turbulent Flow Past an Isolated Airfoil with Trailing Edge
Separation - AIAA Paper 82-0998, 1982.

[9] Raw, M.J. - Robustness of Coupled Algebraic Multigrid for
the Navier-Stokes Equations - AIAA 96-0297, 34th
Aerospace and Sciences Meeting & Exhibit, January 15-
18 1996, Reno, NV.
Salir