1

2015,27(1):1-23
DOI: 10.1016/S1001-6058(15)60452-8

Recent progress in CFD for naval architecture and ocean engineering*

STERN Frederick1, WANG Zhaoyuan1, YANG Jianming1, SADAT-HOSSEINI Hamid1, MOUSAVIRAAD
Maysam1, BHUSHAN Shanti2, DIEZ Matteo3, YOON Sung-Hwan1, WU Ping-Chen1, YEON Seong Mo1,
DOGAN Timur1, KIM Dong-Hwan1, VOLPI Silvia1, CONGER Michael1, MICHAEL Thad1, XING Tao4,
THODAL Robert S.5, GRENESTEDT Joachim L.5
1. IIHR-Hydroscience and Engineering, University of Iowa, Iowa City, IA, USA,
E-mail: frederick-stern@uiowa.cn
2. Center for Advanced Vehicular Systems, Mississippi State University, Starkville, MS 39759, USA
3. CNR-INSEAN, Rome, Italy
4. Department of Mechanical Engineering, University of Idaho, Idaho 83844-0902, USA
5. Department of Mechanical Engineering and Mechanics, Lehigh University, Bethlehem, PA, 18015, USA
(Received January 1, 2015, Revised January 14, 2015)
Abstract: An overview is provided of CFDShip-Iowa modeling, numerical methods and high performance computing (HPC),
including both current V4.5 and V5.5 and next generation V6. Examples for naval architecture highlight capability and needs. High
fidelity V6 simulations for ocean engineering and fundamental physics describe increased resolution for analysis of physics of fluids.
Uncertainty quantification research is overviewed as the first step towards development stochastic optimization.
Key words: CFD, naval architecture, ocean engineering

Introduction
CFD capabilities continue to advance at ever-faster speed and ever-more-impressive accomplishments,
as recently reviewed for ship hydrodynamics by Stern
et al.[1]. None-the-less CFD is slow in its adaptation by
industry since most users are at universities and R&D
laboratories[2]. However, slowly-but-surely CFD is
transforming engineering design as the build-and-test
design spiral approach transforms to the simulation
based design (SBD) approach offering innovative outof-the-box 21st century design concepts with improved safety, energy and economy. First generation SBD
capability has focused more on functionality than high
fidelity and exascale computing requiring significant
advancements to achieve the next generation SBD capability for fully resolved, fully coupled, sharp-interface, multi-scale, multi-phase, multi-disciplinary turbulent ship flow including fluid structure interactions
* Biography: STERN Frederick (1949-), Male, Ph. D.,
Professor

and utilizing billions of grid points.

Herein, recent progress in CFD for naval architecture and ocean engineering is overviewed based specifically on CFD Ship-Iowa URANS/DES toolbox, as
an example of the current state-of-the-art. The emphasis is on the latest research since Stern et al.[1]. For a
more complete list of references with regard to the development and applications of CFD Ship-Iowa
URANS/DES toolbox within the field of computational ship hydrodynamics, the readers are referred to
Stern et al.[1]. Iowa science and technology paradigm
for the development of the SBD capability is described. An overview is provided of CFDShip-Iowa modeling, numerical methods and HPC, including both
current V4.5 and V5.5 and next generation V6. Examples for naval architecture highlight capability and
needs. High fidelity V6 simulations for ocean engineering and fundamental physics describe increased
resolution for analysis of physics of fluids. Uncertainty quantification research is overviewed as the first
step towards development stochastic optimization. Recent progress deterministic and stochastic optimization research is not reviewed herein since recently
provided by Campana[3].

1. Paradigm for development SBD for ship hydrodynamics

Rapid advancements in simulation technology
are revolutionizing engineering practice, as SBD and
ultimately virtual reality are replacing current reliance
on experimental observations and analytical methods.
It is expected that a major shift in how scientific method forms its basis of conceptual truth, a shift from
reliance on observations, based on experiments, to reliance on logic, based on simulations supported by experiments. SBD covers a broad range from computerized systems based methods to solutions of physics
based initial boundary value problems (IBVP). Present
interest is in solutions of physics based IBVP for ship
hydrodynamics. SBD for ship hydrodynamics merges
traditional fields of resistance and propulsion, seakeeping, maneuvering, open-ocean and littoral environmental effects, and offers new opportunities for future
ships to meet challenges of the 21st century. Development SBD involves new paradigm for hydrodynamics
research in which CFD, experimental fluid dynamics
(EFD), and uncertainty analysis (UA) are conducted
simultaneously for benchmark geometries and conditions using an integrated approach along with optimization methods, all of which serve as internal engine
guaranteeing simulation fidelity. International collaborations with other research institutions and organizations include participation in ITTC and NATO AVT
working groups and naval engineering educational
consortium (NEEC), organizing international CFD
workshops and current NICOP projects. Those activities are mutual-beneficial and magnifying individual
institute capabilities, which has been foundational in
the unprecedented achievements of computational
ship hydrodynamics.

k - / k - based isotropic and algebraic stress model

(ASM) based anisotropic RANS, and DES approaches
with near-wall models or wall functions. A singlephase level-set method is used for free-surface capturing. Captive, semi-captive, and full 6DOF capabilities for multi-objects with parent/child hierarchy are
available. The fully discretized propeller or bodyforce propeller model can be employed for propulsion.
The water-jet propulsion can be included using actual
water-jet with detailed simulation of the duct flow or
water-jet model with the reaction forces and moments.
Incompressibility is enforced by a strong pressure/velocity coupling, achieved using either PISO or projection algorithms. The fluid flow equations are solved
in an earth-fixed inertial reference system, while the
rigid body equations are solved in the ship system.
Other modeling capabilities include semi-coupled two
phase air/water modeling, environmental waves and
winds, bubbly flow, and fluid-structure interaction.

2. CFDShip-Iowa URANS/DES/LES SBD Toolbox

CFDShip-Iowa is general-purpose CFD simulation software developed at the University of Iowas
IIHRHydroscience and Engineering for support of
student thesis and project research as well as transition
to Navy laboratories, industry, and other universities.
CFDShip-Iowa has been a leading ship hydrodynamics CFD code for over 20 years, which has been verified and validated for many applications in ship
flows. The current versions include CFDShip-Iowa
V4.5, V6.1, and V6.2, with V5.5 and V6.3 under development.
2.1 V4.5 and 5.5 modeling, numerical methods, HPC
CFDShip-Iowa V4.5 is an incompressible
URANS/DES solver designed for ship hydrodynamics[4]. The equations are solved in either absolute or relative inertial non-orthogonal curvilinear coordinate
system for arbitrary moving but non-deforming control volumes. Turbulence models include blended

Fig.1 Free surface deformation around ship hull for fixed static
condition

Numerical methods include finite difference discretization on body-fitted curvilinear grids, with high
order upwind schemes for the convection terms and
second-order centered for the viscous terms. The temporal terms are discretized using a second-order back-

ward difference Euler scheme. Since the solver is designed for high-Reynolds number flows, the transport
and re-initialization equations are weakly elliptical
and thus pentadiagonal line solvers in an alternate-direction-implicit (ADI) scheme are used. A MPI-based
domain decomposition approach is used, where each
decomposed block is mapped to one processor. The
resulting algebraic equation is solved with the PETSc
toolkit using block Jacobi incomplete factorization
(ILU) pre-conditioners and bi-conjugate gradients stabilized (BCGSL). All equations of motion are solved
in a sequential form and iterated to achieve convergence within each time step.
Extension of CFDShip-Iowa Version 4.5 to
Version 5.5 with a fully coupled two-phase flow solver using the volume-of-fluid (VOF) method is in
progress. The approach includes implementing the highly accurate geometric VOF interface tracking method developed for V6, developing fully-coupled twophase flow solver, implementing cavitation and mixture models for air/water/vapor three-phase interaction,
and developing capabilities for the necessary applications. The numerical methods, HPC, and SBD functional areas are similar to Version 4.5. The VOF method
has been implemented into V5.5 to replace the level
set method for the interface tracking and incorporated
into the single phase flow solver. The current version
of the code works with single-phase flow solver,
multi-block grids, turbulence, and full 6DOF motions
without overset grids. Figure 1 shows free surface deformation around the Numerette Planing Hull for
fixed static condition.
2.2 V6.1, 6.2 and 6.3 modeling, numerical methods,
HPC
The next-generation high-fidelity SBD tools,
CFD Ship-Iowa V6, are already under development
for milestone achievement in increased capability focusing on orders of magnitude improvements in accuracy, robustness, and exascale HPC capability.
In Version 6.1, Cartesian grids are used with immersed boundary methods for complicated geometries[5], and the level set based ghost fluid method is
used for sharp interface treatment and fully two-phase
coupling with the VOF method for interface tracking.
Extension to orthogonal curvilinear grids was made in
V6.2[6] with enhanced technologies for the interface
modeling[7,8] and similar numerical methods and HPC
capabilities as V6.1.
A finite-difference method is used to discretize
the governing equations on a non-uniform staggered
grid, in which the velocity components are defined at
the cell face centers. All other variables are defined at
the cell centers. Time advancement is based on the
semi-implicit four-step fractional step method. The
diagonal diffusion terms are advanced with the second-order CrankNicholson method and the other

terms by the second-order explicit Adams-Bashforth

method. The pressure Poisson equation is solved to
enforce the continuity equation. The convective terms
are discretized using the fifth-order WENO scheme.
The other terms are discretized by the second-order
central difference scheme. The pressure Poisson equation is solved using a semi-coarsening multi-grid solver from the HYPRE library.
The code is parallelized via a domain decomposition (in three directions) technique using the MPI library. All inter-processor communications for ghost
cell information exchange are in non-blocking mode.
Parallel I/O using MPI2 have been implemented such
that all processors read from and write to one single
file simultaneously[9]. In order to speed up the computations and improve the accuracy and efficiency for
very large grid simulations (billions of grid points),
some enhanced technologies have been implemented
such as semi-Lagrangian advection schemes and optimized memory usage. The water/air interface is extracted as PLY polygon file format for post-processing.
A multi-block grid capability has been recently incurporated into CFD Ship-Iowa Version 6.2.
Development of the general curvilinear grid solver, V6.3, is in progress, which is built on the success
of V6.1 and V6.2 to achieve all functionalities of V4.5
and beyond. CFDShip-Iowa V6.3 is aimed at the highfidelity, high-resolution simulations of fully coupled,
multi-scale, multi-phase, turbulent ship flows with
fluid-structure interactions utilizing billions of grid
points. The approaches include finite volume method,
multi-block, body-fitted, general non-orthogonal curvilinear structured grids, overset background
Cartesian grids, and highly modularized, developerfriendly code structure written in Modern Fortran
(2008) and MPI.
The second-order finite volume method with accurate geometric approximations for non-smooth,
non-orthogonal structured grids is used for the discretization. A generic transport equation is solved for
momentum components and scalars with central difference and high-order upwind schemes used for facecentered value reconstruction. Exact projection method is implemented for machine-accuracy mass conservation where central difference and high-order upwind schemes for contra-variant volume flux reconstruction at cell face centers. Scalable MPI communication using new MPI-3 features will be implemented
and MPI sub-array data type is extensively utilized for
scalable MPI communication and I/O in V6.3.
3. Naval architecture
3.1 Resistance and seakeeping, captive and free running maneuvering, free running course keeping,
and intact and damaged stability
Resistance and seakeeping predictions are inclu-

ded in Gothenburg 2010 (G2010) and upcoming

Tokyo 2015 (T2015) workshops. Prediction of resistance is the oldest application of CFD in ship hydrodynamics and its accuracy has been significantly improved since Gothenburg 1980 (G1980), the first CFD
workshop held in 1980. In G2010, 89 submissions of
resistance prediction are documented, which is the largest number in the workshop series[10]. More than
90% of the simulations were conducted using grids
smaller than 10M points. The resistance prediction simulations were carried out for a wide range of applications and conditions. Other than resistance, sinkage
and trim, local flow fields such as boundary layer and
wake, and wave patterns were also predicted by many
simulations. Different geometries including tankers,
container ships, and surface combatants were studied
at a range of very small to large Froude numbers ( Fr ) .
The simulations showed average error of 3.3%D for
resistance for both low and high Fr while sinkage
and trim showed less errors for high Fr . The average
error for sinkage/trim at low and high Fr was 9.7 /
11%D and 35 / 55%D , respectively. For seakeeping,
several seakeeping test cases were included in G2010
with numerous contributions for each case. CFD computations of seakeeping have been rapidly increasing
since Tokyo 2005 CFD workshop (T2005) in which
there was only one forward-speed diffraction case
with no motions. The applications for seakeeping predictions included a wide range of wave conditions,
Froude numbers, and motion conditions. Similar to the
resistance test cases, different geometries including
tankers, container ships, and surface combatants were
studied. Grid sizes ranging from 0.4 M to 71 M points
were used with a clear trend toward increasing accuracy with grid size. The CFD predictions are assessed
separately for 1st order vs. 2nd order terms. The mean
value of resistance and the amplitude of motions were
considered 1st order terms whereas the amplitude of
resistance and mean value of motions were considered
2nd order terms. The simulations showed large average error for the second order terms (44% D) while the
average error was less than 15%D for the first order
terms.
Captive and free running maneuvering simulations are included in the SIMMAN 2008 workshop[11]
and upcoming SIMMAN 2014. The applications for
captive predictions included PMM-type forced motions such as static rudder, static drift, pure sway, pure
yaw, and yaw and drift conditions for different geometries. For SIMMAN 2008, 16 submissions were received for the forced motion simulations, comprising
different CFD-based methods such as RANS, URANS,
and DES. Grid sizes ranging from 2.1 M to 250 M
points were used. It was concluded that finer grids
were needed especially for the rudder and appendages
and in regions of large vortices, as well as more ad-

vanced turbulence and propeller models for improvements in the CFD predictions of static and dynamic
PMM maneuvers. Overall, the average error for captive maneuvering simulation was 13.6%D . The largest
error values were generally observed for pure yaw and
static rudder simulations. For linear derivatives, the
average error was much larger for yaw moment
(40% D) than sway force (15% D ) . For nonlinear derivatives, the average error value was about 40%D .
Free running maneuvering simulations were reported
for limited cases in the SIMMAN 2008 workshop.
The maneuvering simulation included standard maneuver test cases such as turning circle and zigzag.
The results showed 6%D error for trajectories for turning maneuver prediction while larger errors
(13% D) were obtained for zigzag maneuver. The grid
sizes were from 0.4 M to 14.9 M points for these simulations. For most SIMMAN 2008 computations,
the propulsion was implemented as an axisymmetric
body force distributed in the propeller disk. The body
force was specified in a non-iterative manner in which
the ship wake on the body force was neglected. Recently, Wu et al.[12] used Yamasaki propeller model coupled with the RANS code to give a model that interactively determines propeller-hull interaction without
requiring detailed modeling of the propeller geometry.
Yamasaki model is based on a potential theory formulation, in which the propeller is represented by bound
vortex sheets on the propeller disk and free vortices
shed from them downstream of the propeller. Wu et
al.[12] showed the Yamasaki propeller model could
predict successfully the asymmetric wake field. In addition, the propeller rpm was predicted with less than
0.5%D error for Yamasaki compared to 12%D for

Fig.2 Turning maneuver simulation with water-jet propulsion

Fig.3 The grid topology and propeller vortices for KVLCC2 free running simulations with fully discretized propeller

Fig.4 5415M maneuvering simulations in calm water

non-iterative axisymmetric body force. Free running

simulations are also conducted with more advanced
propulsion system such as water-jet. Sadat-Hosseini et
al.[13] performed maneuvering simulations for a catamaran and validated the results against the experimental data (See Fig.2). The simulations were conducted
either for bare hull with integral force models for
water-jet or with actual water-jet with body force impeller defined by pump curves. Turning maneuver simulations showed average error of 9% D - 22.6% D
for CFD simulations with minimum error for the actual water-jet simulation. Zigzag maneuvers showed
larger errors. In addition, the extremely large overshoot angles in zigzag showed the deficiency of
water-jet propulsion system for maneuvering. Since
CFD is computationally expensive for maneuvering in
comparison to system based (SB) methods, some studies have focused on improving the SB mathematical
model by using CFD with system identification methods. Araki et al.[14] employed CFD free running outputs to improve a 4DOF mathematical model developed for maneuvering in calm water and following
waves. The CFD predictions were first validated against the experimental data from different facilities

including IIHR wave basin[15,16]. For calm water, it

was shown that the average system based prediction
error drops from 16%D to 8%D using the
maneuvering coefficients and rudder forces estimated
from CFD free running instead of those from captive
experiments. For waves, Araki et al.[14] showed that
the mathematical model with wave loads estimated
from CFD outputs provides better prediction for
maneuvering in moderate following and quartering
waves, compared to the original mathe-matical model
with the wave loads computed from slender body
theory. However, the improved mathematical model
was too stable in severe waves and unable to predict
the instabilities such as periodic motion or broaching.
For SIMMAN2014 workshop, Sadat-Hosseini et al.[17]
conducted simulations for free running maneuvers of
KVLLCC2 in calm water using body-force propeller
model and actual propeller (see Fig.3). The grid size
was 6.8M-8.4M for different cases. The computational
cost was 3-5 times higher for the simulations with the
actual propeller. The results for turning maneuver
showed E = 6.6% D using propeller model and
much less error ( E = 2.2% D) using actual propeller.

Fig.5 The predicted transom free surface and vortex structures for turning maneuver simulation

Fig.6 Course keeping simulation in irregular oblique waves

Similarly, zigzag simulations showed better prediction

using actual propeller. Sadat-Hosseini and Stern[18]
performed maneuvering simulations for 5415M test
cases of SIMMAN 2014 using twin counter-rotating
propellers based on body-force propeller model with
total grid size of 6.7M points (see Fig.4). The results
showed about E = 12% D for turning and zigzag 20/
20 while larger errors were shown for zigzag 10/10. In
addition, Sadat-Hosseini and Stern[18] conducted system-based simulations for 5415M maneuvering in
calm water. The maneuvering coefficients were found
from system identification using CFD outputs. To estimate the coefficients, parallel processing technique
was used in which CFD free running data for several
turning and zigzag maneuvers were first combined
and then used to estimate one set of maneuvering coefficients. The system based predictions showed an
average error of 5.30%D , 12.64%D and 4.67%D
for trajectories for turning 35, zigzag 10/10 and 20/20,
respectively.
Among free running maneuvering simulations,
there are very limited studies on local flow. Recently,
Sadat-Hosseini et al.[19] studied DES predictions of the
local flow including transom wave field and vortex structures in turning maneuver. Similar study was previously conducted only for straight-ahead condition[20].
The mean and unsteadiness of transom wave field
were predicted with 9%D and 11%D error while the
trajectories were predicted with 3%D . The asymmetry of mean wave field was significantly under
predicted due to surprisingly large asymmetry of EFD

data. The unsteadiness spectra at few points in the

transom wave field showed f 1.5 scaling. The resolved turbulence kinetic energy was 86% in the transom region. The simulations showed Karman-like instability at transom, horseshoe vortices at the juncture
of strut-hull and strut-shaft, and shear layer instability
at the strut-hull intersection. Figure 5 shows the predicted transom wave field and vortex structures. Compared to straight-ahead condition, the Karman-like frequencies were 3% higher while others were 8%-35%
lower for turning. In addition, the predicted frequency
for Karman-like, horseshoe and shear layer vortex
shedding in turning showed 2.4%, 3.7%-7.7% and
8.6% asymmetry, respectively.
There are few simulations conducted to investigate free running course keeping and instability. Stern
and Toxopeus[21] and Sadat-Hosseini et al.[22] performed course keeping simulations in calm water, regular
and irregular waves for the fully appended 5415M
ship hull, in collaboration with NATO AVT 216 session Evaluation of Prediction Methods for Ship Maneuvering and Control. The results were validated
against the experiments not only for the ship motions
but also for the loads on the appendages. The results
showed good prediction for the trajectories and loads
on the appendages ( 10% D) even for very complex
geometries with dynamic stabilizer and rudders (see
Fig.6). Comparing the irregular wave results with the
results computed from regular wave simulations at several discrete wavelength conditions showed that the

Fig.7 Overall vortical structures predicted by CFDShip-Iowa URANS (a2, b2) and DES (a3, b3) predictions on adapted 84M grid for
5415 with bilge keels

ship has similar motion in both regular and irregular

waves with same wavelength condition. The course
keeping simulations focusing on intact instability are
summarized in Stern et al.[1], showing good prediction
for different instabilities including parametric roll,
broaching and capsize, surf-riding, and periodic motion. For damaged stability, Sadat-Hosseini et al.[23]
showed good prediction for both ship motions and
water heights inside the compartment for damaged
ship in calm water and waves.
Overall, free running simulations have been increasing in past few years and it is expected that the
future challenges and method development efforts for
modelling, numerical methods and HPC will focus on
free running rather than captive simulations. In addition, more research will focus on improving the SB
mathematical model by using CFD since CFD is computationally expensive in comparison to SB methods.
3.2 Turbulence
Prediction of turbulent viscous flow for ship hulls
is of central importance and focused topic at CFD
Workshops since G1980 to most recent G2010. Verification and validation of CFD predictions have been
performed for tanker KVLCC2, container KCS and
surface combatant 5415 hull forms at straight ahead
conditions. In recent workshop extensive local-flow
analysis was performed for KVLCC2 (bluff body) and
5415 (slender body) focusing on the effect of turbulence modeling. URANS with anisotropic turbulence
model performed better than isotropic model. For
KVLCC2, URANS under predicted axial velocity and

vortical strength by 10% and over predicted turbulent

structures by 35%, when compared with the experimental data. DES predicted unsteady flow with up to
95% resolved turbulence. DES mean flow predictions
were quantitatively comparable to that of URANS, but
were over predictive for both velocity and vortical and
turbulent structures. DES showed grid induced separation inside the boundary layer and modeled stress depletion. The former was resolved by using delayed
DES approach, whereas the latter issue was unresolved. For 5415, URANS provided reasonably good agreement with the experimental data, but under predicted the vorticity magnitude and boundary layer bulge,
and over predicted turbulent structures at nominal
wake plane. In DES, the resolved TKE levels were
less than 3%, thus the results were unacceptable. Nonetheless, for the first time it provided plausible description of the overall vortex structures, and helped in
understanding the sparse experimental data. Overall
firm conclusions were not possible since grid and turbulence modeling errors could not be separated and
sparseness of experimental data, especially for turbulence variables and onset and progression of 5415 vortices.
NATO AVT-183: Reliable Prediction of Separated Flow Onset and Progression for Air and Sea Vehicles research effort for the sea facet focused on procurement of detailed experimental data using PIV techniques, and evaluation and validation of CFD predictions using different codes by NATO members[24-26].
The study focused on three ship hulls: KVLCC2 at

static drift = 30o , 5415 with bilge keels at straight

Fig.8 Variation of Qpeak (LEFT) and TKE (RIGHT) at primary

vortex cores predicted by best CFDShip-Iowa simulations are compared with EFD data. (a) URANS predictions
on 84M grid for sonar dome vortex (SDV) and fore body
keel vortex (FBKV) cores is compared for straight ahead
case. (b) DES predictions on 84M grid for sonar dome tip
vortex (SDTV) and bilge keel tip vortex (BKTV)

ahead and = 20o , and Delft Catamaran at static drift

conditions. Note that for 5415 cases, EFD data were
procured for both planar sections and volumes surrounding the primary vortices. This allowed evaluation of
Q - criteria along the vortex, which enabled validation
for the vortex core predictions for the first time. Validation of 5415 case has been largely completed, and
discussed below. CFDShip-Iowa simulations for the
5415 cases were performed using anisotropic URANS
and DES models using finest adaptive grids to date, to
reduce grid errors. In both the cases, URANS results
do not improve when the grid is refined beyond 50M
points. The best URANS predictions showed excessive decay of the vortices as shown in Fig.7, and resulted in large errors for the progression of the vortices
as shown in Fig.8(a), when compared with experimental data. Considering that the results did improve
with grid refinement, the large errors in URANS predictions were attributed to modeling errors. DES predictions for the straight-ahead case showed very low
resolved turbulence levels, similar to G2010. For the
static drift case, DES predictions improved with grid
resolution. On the finest 84M grid, the resolved turbulence levels were 95% , and the flow predictions
compared better with experimental data than those obtained using URANS. However, as shown in Fig.8(b),
they predicted stronger vortex strength at onset and
weaker vortex strength downstream. Note that the
large errors could be partly due to grid resolution issues. CFD submissions using other codes were mostly
using URANS, and one submission for the straight
ahead case was using DES. The URANS results from
other codes were very similar to that of CFDShipIowa for the static drift case. However for the straight
ahead case, solvers predicted different decay rate of
the vortices for similar size grids. The differences
could be due to differences in numerical methods, grid
topologies or turbulence model implementation,
which needs to be investigated. The DES submission
for the straight-ahead case, showed significantly high
vortex strengths than experiments, similar to
CFDShip-Iowa prediction, affirming the limitations of
DES models.
Vortex onset and separation in the straight ahead
case was identified due to open-type cross flow separation. The vortex separates from the surface due to
the presence of adverse axial pressure gradient along
converging streamline, and is identified from the peak
of div ( w ) . The vortex separation pattern for the static drift case included both open-, closed- and openclosed type separations. The separation pattern and topology were consistent with those available in the literature. The closed-type separation satisfied the topo-

logical rules expected for a close-separation formed

over an isolated body or body intersecting a wall or
free-surface.
Overall, turbulence modeling is a roadblock for
improved prediction of viscous flow for ship hulls, as
URANS is too dissipative and DES has limitations for
both slender and bluff bodies. For the slender body at
straight ahead condition, DES fails to trigger resolved
turbulence. For slender bodies at static drift and bluff
bodies at both straight ahead and static drift conditions,
DES predicts sufficient resolved turbulence levels and
the predictions are better than that of URANS, but
shows large comparison errors for the progression of
the vortices probably due to modeled stress issue. LES
are ideal for accurate CFD predictions, as they have
less dependence on modeling, however, they are prohibitively expensive due to grid resolution requirements in the boundary layer. Hybrid RANS/LES models
provide a reasonable alternative, wherein URANS is
used in the boundary layer and LES in the wake.
However, more advance hybrid RANS/LES models
should be investigated to address the DES modeling
issues. The research should particularly focus on investigation of: turbulence trigger models to enable transition from RANS to LES for slender body simulations, blended RANS-LES models with explicit LES
modeling that are more rigorously validated than the
LES mode of single parameter models, such as DES,
and physics based RANS-LES blending rather than
grid based blending to address modeled stress depletion issues.
3.3 Ship-ship interaction
CFD computations of ship-ship interaction have
been reported in the recent International Conference
on Ship Maneuvering in Shallow and Confined Water.
Mousaviraad et al.[27] used CFDShip-Iowa to study
Hope and Bobo in replenishment condition in calm
water and waves, and in overtaking maneuver in
waves. The average error against EFD was 21% D for
calm water, and 10%D for replenishment in waves.
The sheltering effect was significant for oblique
waves, with 105% difference between mid-mid and
mid-bow configuration. The separation distance effect
was more important for head waves than oblique
waves, being 43% and 23% respectively. During the
overtaking, the interaction effect decreases motions
and increases sway forces, roll and yaw moments,
being more significant for the smaller vessel. SadatHosseini et al.[28] and Wu et al.[12] investigated the interaction between two different tankers Aframax and
KVLCC2 using CFDShip-Iowa. The ships were free
to heave and pitch advancing in shallow water with
same speed and fixed separation distance. Both ships
were appended with rudder and operating propellers,
which were modelled by axisymmetric body force
propeller model with same RPM as experiments.

Fig.9 WAM-V CFDShip-Iowa regular head wave results in

most probable conditions of SS3 ( Fr 0.52 (10 kt))

Overall, the simulations showed large errors for predicted forces, moments and motions compared with the
experimental data. Later, it was found the longitudinal
positions of the two ships in the experiments were not

10

Fig.10 WAM-V hydrodynamic modeling for CFD simulations in regular head waves compared with EFD sea trials in random seas

Fig.11 WAM-V 2-post testing (a) and 6-post suspension simulation (b) using CFD results as inputs. Comparison of payload accelerations is shown (c) for 6-post simulation (white) and 2-post test data (grey)

reported correctly. Therefore, the simulations were repeated with the revised conditions but the errors were
still large and thus more studies should be conducted
to evaluate the experimental setup. In addition, the accuracy of the axisymmetric body-force propeller
model for propulsion in shallow water should be investigated.
3.4 Advanced hull forms and fluid-structure interaction: ACV/SES, WAM-V, planing hulls
CFD studies of advanced hull forms impose significant challenges due to complex and multi-disciplinary modeling requirements, very high speeds introducing different physics than conventional ships, and
difficulties in validation studies due to limitations in
model testing and limited measurements in sea trials.
Modeling requirements are different for specific hulls,
e.g., fluid-structure interactions (FSIs) including
multi-body dynamics (MBD) for suspension systems
and finite element (FE) modeling for flexible hulls.
ACV/SES capabilities are implemented in
CFDShip-Iowa including cushion models, seal models,
air-flow over the above water seals and superstructure,
decoupled cushion cavity flow, waterjet propulsion
with side forces and yaw moments induced by nozzle
rotations and reverse buckets, and air-fan propulsion
model. Validation simulations are carried out for a
combined SES/ACV ship (T-Craft) for captive tests in

deep and shallow water. Free-running simulations of

T-Craft in turning and zigzag maneuvers in deep and
shallow water and in calm water and waves are also
carried out. Recent analyses showed that the resistance and moment due to cushion pressure distribution
inside the cavity is significant for seakeeping cases
while not considered in the initial simulations. The
improved results will be published for captive validation studies and free-running demonstration simulations.
The wave adaptive modular vessel (WAM-V) is
an ultra-light flexible catamaran that conforms to the
surface of the water through a collective suspension
and is modularly designed enabling a wide variety of
applications. The springs, shock absorbers, and ball
joints articulate the vessel such that the hulls can
move semi-independently and along with the inflateble pontoons adapt to the water surface/waves to mitigate structural stresses and reduce drag. WAM-V capabilities are implemented in CFDShip-Iowa including: LS_IBM (level-set immersed boundary) method
for treatment of the gap between pontoon and hinged
pod, a two-body dynamics model for hinged pod motions, and a jet force model moving with hinged pod
for free-running simulations. Captive calm water verification and validation studies are carried out with
average error of 5.7% D [29]. Validation against fullscale sea trial data and coupling with MBD modeling

11

trial data in calm water and seas[30]. For simulations in

waves, statistical analysis of the sea trial data in waves
is conducted to provide an estimate of the dominant
encounter frequency. CFD regular head waves simulations (Fig.9) are carried out at the dominant encounter
frequency and with a wave height over wavelength of
H / = 1/ 64 , the typical value for sea state 3. The results are compared with sea trial data in Fig.10 and
show that although the EFD data have large peaks,
their standard deviation (SD) values converge to values very close to CFD. The CFD regular head wave
results are then used by Virginia Technology University as inputs to run a 2-post shaker rig testing and a
SIMULINK virtual shaker rig modeling and the results for the payload suspension motions are shown in
Fig.11 with very good agreement. MBD modeling for
the suspended payload is carried out for a 2DOF cylinder drop as a first step to WAM-V suspended payload modeling. The SIMULINK MBD code is coupled with CFDShip-Iowa in 1-way weak coupling and
2-way strong coupling approaches and the results are
shown in Fig.12. The 2-Way coupling results show
significant improvement over 1-Way results: for the
un-sprung mass displacement the initial slope after the
pontoon hits the water free surface is more accurately
predicted, the double hump at the first peak is predicted, and the frequency of occurrence is maintained
correctly through the displacement curve, for the sprung mass displacement, 2-Way results follow the
EFD displacement curves both in magnitude and frequency, especially for the first second, while after 1 s
the sprung mass displacement is slightly over-predicted. Overall the results are validated with acceptable
agreement. Future work will couple the CFDShipIowa and the MBD model for WAM-V, and perform
validation studies against measurements of the motions/accelerations of the suspended payload during the
full-scale sea trials.

Fig.12 CFD-MBD 2DOF 1-Way and 2-Way coupling results

for cylinder drop compared with EFD data for pontoon
((a), (b)) and sprung mass ((c), (d)) motions

are carried out in collaboration with Prof. Mehdi

Ahmadian of Virginia Technology University. Freerunning validation studies are carried out against sea

Fig.13 Underwater surface photo from EFD for USNA planing

model at Fr = 1.83 (a) and comparison with CFDShipIowa predictions

12

Fig.15 Irregular wave slamming pressures for USNA planing

hull: (a) EFD slamming events aligned by peak pressure,
(b) CFDShip-Iowa validation showing expected value
(EV) and +/ standard deviation (SD) bars for re-entering and emerging pressures and duration

Fig.14 USNA planing hull regular wave simulations using

CFDShip-Iowa and NFA compared with experiments

Planing hull capabilities including hydrodynamic

performance and structural loads and slamming are
implemented and validated for calm water, regular
waves, and irregular waves for the Fridsma geometry[31,32]. CFD and EFD studies are carried out to validate the hydrodynamic forces, moments, hull pressures, accelerations, motions, and the multiphase freesurface flow field generated by the USNA planing
craft at high-speed ( Fr = 1.8 - 2.1) in calm water and
regular and irregular waves[33]. The work is conducted
by collaborations with Carolyn Judge of United States
Naval Academy (USNA). CFDShip-Iowa simulations
for calm and regular waves were carried out blind, before EFD data was available. Calm water spray root at
Fr = 1.83 is compared in Fig.13 with underwater sur-

Fig.16 CFD-FEA simulation results for FSI studies showing

force and displacement distribution for the bay 4, port
panel on the full-scale Numerette planing vessel in regular head waves corresponding to sea state 3 most
probable wave condition at Fr = 0.7

13

Fig.17 Average, min and max of EFD (experimental fluid dynamics) strain with its expected value (EV) and standard deviation (STD)
at peak compared with CFD/FE predicted strain for sea state 3 most probable wave condition and Fr = 2.9

face photo from EFD indicating very close agreement.

CFDShip-Iowa V5.5 simulations with volume of fluid
free surface solver showed negligible effects on resistance and motions, while the extension of the jet
spray flow was resolved better than V4.5 level-set solver. Regular wave results for USNA experiments (run
43 and 44) and CFD simulations using CFDShip-Iowa
V4.5 and NFA solvers are compared in Fig.14 for motions and slamming pressure. The phase of the heave
and pitch is well predicted, while the amplitude of the
numerical simulations is greater than measured experimentally. Pitch motions at twice the lowest frequency are not evident in simulations performed using either CFDShip-Iowa or NFA. Single point pressure
measurements show good agreement for slam duration
while the re-entering pressure amplitudes are underpredicted for both codes. A smaller time step may be
needed to capture the peak pressure. The emerging
peak pressures are missed in NFA simulations while
captured in CFDShip with close agreement. Irregular
waves simulations are validated with good agreement
in terms of expected values and standard deviations of
motions, accelerations, and slamming pressures. Slamming statistical studies are carried out for both experimental data and simulation results and validation results are shown in Fig.15 for slamming pressure. Extreme slamming events are studies both for EFD and
CFD by examining the standard score for re-entering
pressure ( z P = ( P EVP ) / SDP ) . For EFD, 4 slam
events with z P 2 and 6 events with 1 z P 2 are
detected. These events are found to correlate with ship
motions, namely the vertical velocity of the ship bow
at the time of impact. CFD studies are carried out to
provide further insight by correlating the extreme slam
events with relative bow/wave motions as well as history of previous zero crossing waves. The CFD extreme events are grouped in 3 categories: z P 1.5 (3
events), 1 z P 1.5 (4 events), and 0 z P 1 (14
events). For each slam event, wavelength over ship
length ( / L) and wave height over wave-length

( H / ) values for the immediate wave, as well as

averaged values for the last 2, 3, 4, and 5 waves are
calculated. In group 1, slam pressures correlate 100%
with smaller / L and larger H / for the last 3
waves. For groups 2 and 3, strongest correlations are
for larger H / averaged over the last 2 and 3 waves,
respectively. Considering all the slams in all 3 groups,
strongest correlation is found for smaller / L from
the last 3 waves and larger H / from the last 2
waves. Type-2 slams characterized by containing only
one pressure peak (re-entering pressure) with smaller
peak values and shorter duration are identified both in
EFD and CFD.
FSI studies[34] are carried out for the Numerette
planing hull (slamming load test facility at Lehigh
University) to provide a better understanding of slamming using benchmark full-scale validation EFD
data. The studies are conducted in collaboration with
Dr. Joachim Grenestedt of Lehigh University. Initially
rigid body CFD simulations are conducted for both
bare hull and appended hull with sterndrive unit and
body-force propeller model excluding the superstructure. The predicted motions and loads are used for
one way coupling with FE model for composite bottom panels to evaluate displacement, strain, and stress.
CFDShip-Iowa is used for CFD simulations and the
commercial FE code ANSYS is used as structural solver. Studies are carried out in calm water ( Fr = 0.7)
and different regular head waves conditions at Fr =
0.7, 2.24 and 2.9. CFD/FE results show good prediction for displacement, strain, and stress distribution
for both starboard and bottom panels. Figure 16 shows
the panel force and displacement for a regular head
wave simulation with Sea-State 3 most probable wave
conditions at Fr = 0.7 . Figure 17 shows EFD and
CFD-FE strain for a regular head wave simulation
with sea state 3 most probable wave condition at
Fr = 2.9 . Two-way coupling will be implemented by
first using modal analysis with added mass modeling,
and then fully coupled CFD-FEA. FSI V&V studies

14

Fig.18 Vortical structures with Q - criterion (left) and energy spectra of the streamwise velocity in the shear layer (right)

are also planned for slamming loads on Athena semiplaning hull.

4. Ocean engineering
Simulations of 3-D unsteady separation (vortex
shedding) around offshore structures and wave run-up
induced by ocean waves are still challenging for ocean
engineering applications. Recently, the capabilities of
state-of-the-art CFD codes for vortex shedding and
wave run-up are investigated in ITTC ocean engineering workshop held in Nantes, France October 17-18,
2013. The capabilities of CFDShip-Iowa V4.5 and
V6.2 for these applications are reported in Yeon et
al.[35] and Yoon et al.[36]. The studies focused on the
flow around single/multiple cylinder(s), a typical geo-

metry for both applications.

4.1 Single- and two-phase vortex shedding
In Koo et al.[37] the two-phase turbulent flow past
an interface-piercing circular cylinder was studied
using large-eddy simulation with a Lagrangian dynamic subgrid-scale model. It was shown that the airwater interface makes the separation point more delayed for all regimes of Re and the air-water interface
structures are remarkably changed with different
Froude numbers. However, the deep flow did not display the correct single-phase flow behavior due to the
deficient grid resolution and non-conservative convection scheme, among other issues, employed with
CFDShip-Iowa V6.2. Yeon et al.[35] conducted a detailed study of the single-phase vortex shedding around a

15

Re . A careful verification and validation study were

carried out. The effects of aspect ratio/span length,
conservative vs. non-conservative convection schemes,
and grid resolution were investigated. The mean velocity, mean pressure, Reynolds stresses, and TKE distribution were obtained and discussed. The snapshot
POD method was employed to analyze flow structures
in the boundary layer, shear layer and wake. Figure 18
shows coherent flow structures visualized with isosurface of Q criterion colored by the non-dimensional eddy viscosity. The wake width and amplitude of
the shedding is large for the sub-critical Reynolds
number ( Re) and become smaller as Re increases.
Energy spectra of the streamwise velocity in the shear
layers are also shown in Fig.18. At lower wavenumbers the energy spectra give scaling exponents close to
the Kolmogorov slope, which verifies that the largeeddy simulations properly modeled the turbulence and
preserved the correct energy decay behavior, although
the ranges of wavenumbers with the 5/3 spectral
slope become narrower as Re increases. On the other
hand, for larger wave numbers, the rates of energy
decay are faster than Kolmogorovs decay law and the
scaling slopes become much steeper. A main cause of
this rapid decay is the numerical dissipation from the
upwind convection schemes used in the simulations.
The Kolmogorov wavenumbers estimated from the
local velocity fluctuations are smaller than the grid
cut-off wavenumbers. This indicates the grid resolution is adequate in the shear layers, where the turbulence intensity is usually lower than that in the wake.
Figure 19 shows comparisons for CD , CLRMS , LS /

TS , and C pb . The drag crisis is well predicted, al-

Fig.19 Drag coefficient, RMS lift coefficient, separation angle,

and base pressure vs. Re

circular cylinder for ITTC ocean engineering workshop test cases. The simulations are conducted using
CFDShip-Iowa V6.2, covering sub- to super-critical

though more cases in the critical and post-critical regime are desirable. The LES CLRMS is close to the most
reliable data for sub-, critical and super-critical Re .
The angle of separation is close to the experiments for
sub- and critical Re , but substantially under predicted
for super-critical Re . The base suction pressure shows
good agreement with the experiments for sub- and
super-critical Re , but is under predicted for critical
Re . The largest difference is for critical Re , where
the drag drops sharply with small changes in Re resulting in large changes in CD between facilities and likely simulations. The grid resolution, convection scheme, and the effect of upstream disturbance ubiquitous in experiments, but missing in the simulations,
are most likely responsible for the under-predicted separation angle for the critical Re .
4.2 Wave run-up
CFD simulations of wave run-up around single/
multiple truncated vertical cylinder(s) for ITTC ocean
engineering workshop tests cases were conducted by

16

Fig.20 EFD and CFD comparison of mean wave field for single cylinder cases

Fig.21 Mean and 1st harmonic amplitude of the wave field cases

Yoon et al.[36]. The simulations were conducted in regular head waves for various wave conditions including / D = 4.7 and / D = 21.9 with 1/30, 1/16
and 1/10. Sensitivity studies are conducted for the effects of grid distribution, domain size and turbulence

model. Validation studies focused on averaged wave

height at crest/trough and 0th, 1st and 2nd harmonics for
wave elevation and horizontal force. CFD predictions
were assessed separately for 1st and 2nd order variables.
The averaged wave height at crest/trough and the 1st

17

Fig.22 Flow charts of three different strong coupling schemes in one time step for fluid-structure

harmonics were considered as the 1st order variables,

whereas the 0th and 2nd harmonics were considered as
the 2nd order variables. In addition, the wave field pattern around cylinder(s), vortex shedding, and interaction among cylinders were analyzed. The grid sensitivity for the 1st and 2nd order variables was 3.17% and
77.74%, respectively, both less than the facility bias
estimated from the provided experimental data from
two facilities. Nonetheless, the 2nd order variable sensitivity was large indicting the need for finer grids to
resolve 2nd order terms. The domain size sensitivity
was also very small, 1.14% and 2.34% for 1st and 2nd
order variables. The turbulence model sensitivity was
conducted using URANS and DES and the sensitivity
for 1st and 2nd order variables was 1.64% and 6.55%,
respectively, suggesting that the URANS turbulence
model is sufficient for the validation studies. The validation studies showed 10%D error for wave crest/
trough, 7%D error for the 1st harmonic of wave elevation, and 70%D error for the 2nd order variables including the 0th and 2nd harmonics of wave elevation.
The horizontal forces also showed 9%D error for the
1st harmonic amplitude while larger errors are predicted for the mean and 2nd harmonics. The detailed
study of the wave field showed that the mean wave
field elevations are similar to the free surface elevations for a cylinder in a steady flow due to the large
wave induced current (up to 15% of the orbital velocity for the steepest wave). The results showed larger
effects of the wave steepness on the wave mean and
2nd amplitude than on the 1st harmonic amplitude. The
wave steepness effect was also more prominent for
/ D = 4.7 than / D = 21.9 . The studies were also
conducted on the total wave field to evaluate the diffracted wave pattern. The nonlinearities in the incident wave caused difficulties extracting the diffraction

wave from the total wave field. However, the total

wave field could show the diffraction wave at upstream which was more dominant for / D = 4.7 and
steeper waves. Figures 20 and 21 show the wave field
for single and four cylinder cases. The studies on vortex structures showed more vortex shedding for longer
wave conditions as its longer wave period provides
enough time to develop vortices around the cylinder.
For both wavelength conditions, the vortex shedding
is more at instants the wave crest is located near the
cylinder as the flow field velocity is larger. Lastly, the
comparison of four and single cylinder cases shows
that the interaction of cylinders increases wave trough
for 4%-10% while the wave crest increases about 9%25%. The largest interaction effect is found for the
shoulder side of the cylinders.
5. Fundamental physics

5.1 IBM for idealized and practical geometries

Immersed boundary methods are simple and efficient approaches for many problems with complex
geometries and moving boundaries, thanks to the relaxation of the requirement of generating boundary-fitting grids in numerical simulations. CFDShip-Iowa
V6.1 is a Cartesian grid solver utilizing a direct forcing immersed boundary method. The research focus
is on efficient strong coupling schemes for FSIs and
the extension to wave-body interaction problems in
naval architecture and ocean engineering. In Yang and
Stern[38] an efficient strong coupling scheme for 6DOF
motion prediction was developed. The predictor-corrector loop in each time step includes the adjustments
of the structure displacements and velocities, but the
fluid flow solver was excluded. Then in Yang and

18

Fig.23 Stokes wave breaking

Stern[39] an efficient and robust immersed boundary

setup procedure was developed for further accelerating the strongly coupled simulations of FSIs. This
approach can be a viable choice for particulate flows
as shown in Yang and Stern[40]. Currently a non-iterative strong coupled scheme has been developed.
Figure 22 shows the flow charts of three different strong coupling schemes in one time step for FSI problems. Compared with the scheme in Yang et al.[41]
with a complete iterative loop including multiple
Poisson solves and the scheme in Yang and Stern[38]
with one Poisson solve but multiple local reconstruction steps, the present scheme utilizes an intermedia-

te step with a non-inertial reference frame (NIRF) attached to a solid body and no iterative loop is involved. The improved efficiency and reduced algorithm
complexity is evident. The next step of development
will be combination of this new scheme with an efficient two-phase flow solver for ultra-scale simulations
of 6DOF motions in naval architecture and ocean engineering. It should be pointed out that the development of wall models in immersed boundary methods
is necessary if high Reynolds number flows are the
target application and a reasonable approximation of
the turbulent boundary layers is required.

19

scale structures, such as water droplets and air bubbles,

in the two-phase region become possible. In the study
by Wang et al.[42], wave breakings around a wedgeshaped bow and over a submerged bump are simulated using very large grids (1.0109-2.2109 grid points). This study is the first attempt to directly simulate
the unsteady and energetic wave breaking flows to the
scale of micrometers. In Wang et al.[43], even large
grids (up to 11.8109) are used in order to resolve the
bubbles/droplets in breaking Stokes waves at the scale
of several micrometers. Figure 23(a) shows the wave
profile at time t = 1.76 when the splash-ups are being
generated after the wave plunging. The 3-D interface
instability in the spanwise direction is clearly demonstrated in Fig.23(b). The study of the flow over a
bump in a shallow water flume by Gui et al.[44,45] showed that the Grtler type centrifugal instability is the
most relevant mechanism for the free surface instabilities. Figures 23(c) and 23(d) show the applications of
the Grtler inviscid instability and Rayleigh instability
theories in the stream-wise central plane, respectively.
In the wave breaking region, Grtler stability criterion
is violated in most locations and Rayleigh stability criterion is broken only in small regions. These results
support the idea that breaking wave instabilities are
mainly due to Grtler type centrifugal instability.
Figure 23(e) shows the formation of bubbles/droplets
in the process of wave breaking. Power-law scaling
for the bubble size distribution was obtained with two
different slopes separated by a Hinze radius of
0.0012 m as shown in Fig.23(f). The simulation results are in good agreement with the experimental findings.

Fig.24 (a) Cavitating NACA66 hydrofoil with a 6o angle of

attack, 2-D solution showing cavity growth and shedding. (b) Close up views of a sharp interface simulation of a cavitating NACA66 hydrofoil with a 6
angle of attack showing bubble growth, merging,
and advection shortly after inception at the leading
edge

5.2 Bubble, droplet, and spray in breaking waves

Air entrainment, bubbles, droplets, jets, and
spray in breaking waves are of great importance to
ship hydrodynamics. Previous experimental and computational studies are mainly focused on the global structures of the wave breaking. With the development
of the CFD technology, detailed studies of the small

5.3 Cavitation
Cavitation degrades the performance of lifting
surfaces found on ships, such as propeller blades and
rudders and may cause erosion. Past computational
models have generally been homogenous mixture models, which average the effects of many bubbles, or
discrete bubble models, which model only a limited
number of bubbles. In Michael et al.[46] a new sharp
interface cavitation model was described within the
framework of CFD Ship-Iowa V6.2. The interface is
advected using a volume of fluid method with the addition of an additional velocity due to phase change.
The phase change component of the interface velocity
is modeled using a simplification of the RayleighPlesset equation computed through a volume source
term included semi-implicitly in the pressure Poisson
equation. A marching cubes method is used to compute the interface area in each computational cell and for
the determination of the phase at the cell and face centers. Figure 24(a) shows a time series of cavitation on
a 2-D NACA66 hydrofoil at a 6o angle of attack. The
details of the shedding process can be seen. Figure

20

24(b) shows the bubble growth, merging, and advection process in the simulation of the same foil in 3-D
shortly after cavitation inception. This type of high fidelity simulation offers the opportunity for deeper insight into the physics of cavitating flows.
6. Uncertainty quantification
Initial research focused on development and application of deterministic verification and validation
(V&V) methodologies and procedures for high-fidelity CFD simulations. Initial studies for validation methodologies[47] were subsequently extended to verification procedures for deterministic uncertainties stemming from iterative, grid and time-step convergence[48,49]. V&V methodologies and examples were
presented at the AVT-147 Symposium on Computational Uncertainty[50]. Recently, the research focus
moved to stochastic uncertainty quantification (UQ)
methods as an essential part of stochastic design optimization for real ocean environment and operations,
such as robust design optimization (RDO) and reliability based design optimization (RBDO). UQ research
was undertaken within NATO AVT 191 Application
of Sensitivity Analysis and UQ to Military Vehicle
Design. The objective was the development and validation of efficient UQ methods for application to realistic ship hydrodynamic problems. Non-intrusive UQ
methods were addressed with high-fidelity physicsbased CFD solvers. Evaluation metrics for efficient
UQ methods were developed, based on deterministic
and stochastic convergence criteria and validation versus numerical benchmark[51,52], and efficiency of overall UQ procedure by assessing the number of CFD simulations required to achieved prescribed error thresholds[53]. Numerical benchmarks were provided by
statistically convergent MC simulation with direct use
of CFD computations. UQ methods included metamodel-based Monte Carlo (MC) simulation, quadrature
formulas, and polynomial chaos methods. Applications covered unit studies and advanced industrial problems. Specifically, a unit problem for a NACA 0012
hydrofoil with variable Reynolds number was presented and assessed in Mousaviraad et al.[51]. The highspeed Delft catamaran (DC) advancing in calm water
with variable Froude number and geometry was presented and studied in Diez et al.[54]. DC in stochastic irregular and regular head waves (see Fig.25) with variable speed and geometry was assessed in He et al.[55].
A combination of UQ problems for the DC was selected from Diez et al.[54] and He et al.[55] and used for
further investigation in He et al.[56], focusing on the
polynomial chaos method, and Volpi et al.[53], focusing on dynamic metamodels.
In conclusion, stochastic UQ methods were
found mature for application to realistic stochastic optimization problems. Based on the evaluation metrics,

MC with dynamic metamodels was found the most

promising method overall. The high computational efficiency of dynamic metamodels, by auto-tuning and
adaptive sampling, makes the approach also recommended for stochastic optimization. Metamodel-based
UQ has been applied to stochastic design optimization
of DC in real ocean environment and operations, as
shown in Diez et al.[54] and Tahara et al.[57]. Future extensions include the application of metamodel-based
UQ and optimization to multi-disciplinary analysis
and optimization (MDA, MDO) of FSI problems.

Fig.25 Comparison of time history distributions from irregular

wave (benchmark) and regular wave UQ for the Delft
Catamaran in head waves, at sea state 6 and Fr = 0.5 .
Empirical and Normal density functions are shown

7. Future research
The oncoming exascale HPC era is to change our

21

approaches to grand scientific and engineering challenges and to transform modeling and simulation into a
specified discipline of predictive science. Current
mainstream RANS solvers for ship hydrodynamics are
expected to continue performing well for even larger
grids of up to a few billions of points. However, there
will be a threshold that further increase of grid size
cannot improve the results anymore because of the inherently limited RANS/DES turbulence models and
the widely-used lower-order discretization schemes.
High-fidelity, first-principles-based simulations with
unprecedented resolution can reveal vast unknown
temporal-spatial correlations in multi-scale and multiphysics phenomena that are beyond todays computing and experimental capabilities. With comprehensive V&V procedures, assisted by targeted physical experiments, and rigorous uncertainty quantification,
they are to revolutionize ship hydrodynamics research
and, along with optimization techniques, the ship design process for greatly reduced design cycles and cost
and much improved operation safety and economy.
Therefore, the next-generation, high-fidelity ship hydrodynamics solvers have to be developed aiming at
the oncoming exascale computing platforms, and addressing modeling issues, discretization schemes, and
HPC memory and scalability restraints at the same
time.
Acknowledgments
This work was supported by research Grants
from the Office of Naval Research (ONR), with Dr.
Patrick Purtell, Dr. Ki-Han Kim, Dr. Thomas Fu, Ms.
Kelly Cooper, Dr. Roshdy Barsoum, and Dr. Robert
Brizzolara as the program managers. The FSI studies
are performed in collaboration with Dr. Joachim
Grenestedt of Lehigh University. The WAM-V studies
are conducted in collaboration with Dr. Mehdi
Ahmadian of Virginia Technology University. The
planning hull studies are conducted in collaboration
with Dr. Carolyn Judge of USNA. The simulations
were performed at the Department of Defense (DOD)
Supercomputing Resource Centers (DSRCs) through
the High Performance Computing Modernization Program (HPCMP).
The user profile obtained by the 26th International Towing Tank Conference held in 2011 indicated
for ship hydrodynamics CFD: 65% universities and
model basins, 20% directly industry (shipbuilding or
engineering design companies), and 15% other. Respondents rated themselves as intermediate/advance
CFD engineers. In addition, most model-basin work is
for experimental testing not CFD as requested their
customers and likely biased by investments in experimental facilities. Ultimately, it depends on the customers at all levels and regulation agencies.

References
[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]

[9]

[10]

[11]

[12]

[13]

[14]

[15]

STERN F., YANG J. and WANG Z. et al. Computational ship hydrodynamics: Nowadays and way forward[J].
International Ship Building Progress, 2013, 60(1-4):
3-105.
ITTC2011. The specialist committee on computational
fluid dynamics[C]. Proceedings of 26th International
Towing Tank Conference. Rio de Janeiro, Brazil,
2011.
CAMPANA E. F. Ship design under uncertainty via
high-fidelity stochastic optimization[C]. Proceedings of
Annual General Meeting of the Schiffbautechnische
Gesellschaft E.V. Berlin, Germany, 2013.
HUANG J., CARRICA P. M. and STERN F. Semi-coupled air/water immersed boundary approach for curvilinear dynamic overset grids with application to ship hydrodynamics[J]. International Journal for Numerical
Methods in Fluids, 2008, 58(6): 591-624.
YANG J., STERN F. Sharp interface immersed-boundary/level-set method for wave-body interactions[J].
Journal of Computational Physics, 2009, 228(17):
6590-6616.
Wang Z., SUH J. and YANG J. et al. Sharp interface
LES of breaking waves by an interface piercing body in
orthogonal curvilinear coordinates[R]. AIAA paper
2012-1111, 2012.
WANG Z., YANG J. and STERN F. A new volume-offluid method with a constructed distance function on
general structured grids[J]. Journal of Computaional
Physics, 2012, 231(9): 3703-3722.
WANG Z., YANG J. and STERN F. A simple and conservative operator-splitting semi-Lagrangian volumeof-fluid advection scheme[J]. Journal of Computational Physics, 2012, 231(15): 4981-4992.
YANG J., BHUSHAN S. and SUH J. et al. Large-eddy
simulation of ship flows with wall-layer models on
Cartesian grids[C]. Proceedings of 27th Symposium
on Naval Hydrodynamics. Seoul, Korea, 2008.
LARSSON L., STERN F. and VISONNEAU M. Numerical ship hydrodynamics: An assessment of the
gothenburg 2010 workshop[M]. Gothenburg, Sweden:
Springer, 2014, 318.
STERN F., AGDRUP K. and KIM S. Y. et al. Experience from SIMMAN 2008The first workshop on verification and validation of ship maneuvering simulation
methods[J]. Journal of Ship Research, 2011, 55(2):
135-147.
WU P. C., SADAT-HOSSEINI H. and TODA Y. et al.
URANS studies of ship-ship interactions in shallow
water[C]. Proceedings of 3rd Intl. Conference on
Ship Manoeuvring in Shallow and Confined Water.
Ghent, Belgium, 2013.
SADAT-HOSSEINI H., CHEN X. and KIM D. H. et al.
CFD and system-based prediction of Delft catamaran
maneuvering and course stability in calm water[C].
Proceedings of 12th International Conference on
Fast Sea Transportation.
Amsterdam,
The
Netherlands, 2013.
ARAKI M., SADAT-HOSSEINI H. and SANADA Y.
et al. System identification using CFD captive and free
running tests in severe stern waves[C]. Proceedings of
13th International Ship Stability Workshop. Brest,
France, 2013.
SANADA Y., TANIMOTO K. and TAKAGI K., et al.

22

[16]

[17]

[18]

[19]

[20]

[21]

[22]

[23]
[24]

[25]

[26]
[27]

[28]

[29]

[30]

Trajectories for ONR Tumblehome maneuvering in

calm water and waves[J]. Ocean Engineering, 2013,
72: 45-65.
SANADA, Y., ELSHIEKH, H., TODA Y. et al. Effects
of waves on course keeping and maneuvering for surface combatant ONR tumblehome[C]. Proceedings of
30th Symposium on Naval Hydrodynamics. Hobart,
Tasmania, Australia, 2014.
SADAT-HOSSEINI H., WU P. C. and CARRICA P. M.
et al. CFD simulations of KVLCC2 maneuvering with
different propeller modeling[C]. Proceedings of
SIMMAN2014 Workshop. Copenhagen, Denmark,
2014.
SADAT-HOSSEINI H., STERN F. System based and
CFD simulations of 5415M maneuvering[C]. Proceedings of SIMMAN2014 Workshop. Copenhagen,
Denmark, 2014.
SADAT-HOSSEINI H., KIM D. H. and TAYLOR G. L.
et al. Vortical structures and instability analysis for
Athena in turning maneuver with full-scale validation[C]. Proceedings of 30th Symposium on Naval
Hydrodynamics. Hobart, Tasmania, Australia, 2014.
BHUSHAN S., XING T. and STERN F. Vortical structures and instability analysis for Athena wetted transom flow with full-scale validation[J]. Journal of Fluids Engineering, 2012, 134(3): 031201.
STERN F., TOXOPEUS S. Chapter 1Experimental
and computational studies of course keeping in waves
for naval surface combatant[R]. Technical Report 161,
NATO AVT, 2013.
SADAT-HOSSEINI H., STERN F. and TOXOPEUS S.
CFD simulations of course keeping in irregular waves
for 5415M[J]. Ocean Engineering, 2014, in Preparation.
SADAT-HOSSEINI H., KIM D. H. and LEE S. K. et al.
CFD and EFD study of damaged ship stability in regular waves[J]. Ocean Engineering, 2014, in Preparation.
YOON H., GUI L. and BHUSHAN S. et al. Tomographic PIV measurements for a surface combatant at straight ahead and static drift conditions[C]. Proceedings
of 30th Symposium on Naval Hydrodynamics.
Hobart, Tasmania, Australia, 2014.
ABDEL-MAKSOUD M., MLLER V. and XING T. et
al. Chapter 7Experimental and numerical investigations on flow characteristics of the KVLCC2 at 30o drift
angle[R]. Technical Report 183, NATO AVT, 2015.
FALCHI M., FELLI M. and GRIZZI S. et al. SPIV
measurements around the Delft 372 catamaran in steady
drift[J]. Experiments in Fluids, 2014, 55(11): 1844.
MOUSAVIRAAD S. M., SADAT-HOSSEINI S. H. and
CARRICA P. M. et al. URANS studies and validation
of ship-ship interactions in calm water and waves for replenishment and overtaking conditions[J]. Journal of
Ocean Engineering, 2014, Submitted.
SADAT-HOSSEINI H., WU P. C. and TODA Y. et al.
URANS studies of ship-ship interactions in shallowwater[C]. Proceedings of 2nd International Conference on Ship Manoeuvring in Shallow and Confined
Water. Trondheim, Norway, 2011.
MOUSAVIRAAD S. M., BHUSHAN S. and STERN F.
URANS studies of WAM-V multi-body dynamics in
calm water and waves[C]. Proceedings of 3rd International Conference on Ship Maneuvering in Shallow
and Confined Water. Ghent, Belgium, 2013.
CONGER M., MOUSAVIRAAD S. M. and STERN F.
et al. URANS CFD for two-body hydrodynamic simula-

[31]

[32]

[33]

[34]

[35]

[36]

[37]

[38]

[39]

[40]

[41]

[42]

[43]

tion of wave adaptive modular vessels (WAM-V) and

validation against sea trials[J]. Naval Engineers Journal, 2014, Accepted for Publication, special edition: the
current fleet, the next class and the new prototypes.
MOUSAVIRAAD S. M., WANG Z. and STERN F.
URANS studies of hydrodynamic performance and slamming loads on high-speed planing hulls in calm water
and waves for deep and shallow conditions[C]. Proceedings of 3rd International Conference on Ship Maneuvering in Shallow and Confined Water. Ghent,
Belgium, 2013.
MOUSAVIRAAD S. M., WANG Z. and STERN F.
URANS studies of hydrodynamic performance and slamming loads on high-speed planing hulls in calm water
and waves for deep and shallow conditions[J]. Applied
Ocean Research, 2014, Submitted.
FU T. C., BRUCKER K. A. and MOUSAVIRAAD S.
M. et al. A computational fluid dynamics study of the
hydrodynamics of high-speed planing craft in calm
water and waves[C]. Proceedings of 30th Symposium
on Naval Hydrodynamics. Hobart, Tasmania,
Australia, 2014.
VOLPI S., SADAT-HOSSEINI H. and KIM D. H. et al.
Validation high-fidelity CFD/FE FSI for full-scale highspeed planing hull with composite bottom panels slamming[C]. Proceedings of International Conference
on Coupled Problems in Science and Engineering.
San Servolo Island, Venice, Italy, 2015.
YEON S., YANG J. and STERN F. Large eddy simulation of drag crisis in turbulent flow past a circular cylinder[C]. Proceedings of ITTC Workshop on Wave
Run-Up and Vortex Shedding. Nantes, France, 2013.
YOON S. H., KIM D. H. and SADAT-HOSSEINI H. et
al. High-fidelity CFD simulation of wave run-up around
vertical cylinders in monochromatic waves[C]. Proceedings of ITTC Workshop on Wave Run-Up and
Vortex Shedding. Nantes, France, 2013.
KOO B., YANG J. and YEON S. et al. Reynolds and
Froude number effect on the flow past an interface-piercing circular cylinder[J]. International Journal of
Naval Architecture and Ocean Engineering, 2014,
6(3): 529-561.
YANG J., STERN F. A simple and efficient direct forcing immersed boundary framework for fluid structure
interactions[J]. Journal of Computational Physics,
2012, 231(15): 5029-5061.
YANG J., STERN F. Robust and efficient setup procedure for complex triangulations in immersed boundary
simulations[J]. Journal of Fluids Engineering, 2013,
135(10): 101107.
YANG J., STERN F. A sharp interface direct forcing
immersed boundary approach for fully resolved simulations of particulate flows[J]. Journal of Fluids Engineering, 2014, 136(4): 040904.
YANG J., PREIDIKMAN S. and BALARAS E. A strongly coupled, embedded-boundary method for fluid structure interactions of elastically mounted rigid bodies[J]. Journal of Fluids and Structures, 2008, 24(2):
167-182.
WANG Z., YANG J. and STERN F. High-fidelity simulations of bubble, droplet, and spray formation in
breaking waves[R]. HPC Insights, 2012, Fall Issue: 57.
WANG Z., YANG J. and STERN F. High-fidelity simulations of bubble, droplet, and spray formation in
breaking waves[C]. Proceedings of 30th Symposium

23

[44]

[45]

[46]

[47]
[48]

[49]
[50]

[51]

on Naval Hydrodynamics. Hobart, Tasmania,

Australia, 2014.
GUI L., YOON H. and STERN F. Experimental and
theoretical investigation of instabilities for flow over a
bump in a shallow water flume with steady downstream
wave train[R]. Technical Report 487, IIHR, University
of Iowa, 2014.
GUI L., YOON H. and STERN F. Techniques for measuring bulge-scar pattern of free surface deformation
and related velocity distribution in shallow water flow
over a bump[J]. Experiments in Fluids, 2014, 55(4):
1721.
MICHAEL T., YANG J. and STERN F. Modeling cavitation with a sharp interface[C]. Proceedings of 30th
Symposium on Naval Hydrodynamics. Hobart,
Tasmania, Australia, 2014.
COLEMAN, H. W., STERN F. Uncertainties and CFD
code validation[J]. Journal of Fluids Engineering,
1997, 119(4): 795-803.
STERN F., WILSON R. and SHAO J. Quantitative
V&V of CFD simulations and certification of CFD
codes[J]. International Journal for Numerical Methods in Fluids, 2006, 50(11): 1335-1355.
XING T., STERN F. Factors of safety for Richardson
extrapolation[J]. Journal of Fluids Enginerring, 2010,
132(6): 061403.
STERN F. Quantitative V&V of CFD solutions and certification of CFD codes with examples for ship hydrodynamics[C]. Proceedings of Symposium on Computational Uncertainty, AVT-147. Athens, Greece, 2007.
MOUSAVIRAAD S. M., HE W. and DIEZ M. et al.
Framework for convergence and validation of stochastic
uncertainty quantification and relationship to deterministic verification and validation[C]. International Journal for Uncertainty Quantification, 2013, 3(5): 371395.

[52]

[53]

[54]

[55]

[56]

[57]

DIEZ M., CHEN X. and CAMPANA E. F. et al. Reliability-based robust design optimization for ships in real
ocean environment[C]. Proceedings of 12th International Conference on Fast Sea Transportation,
FAST2013. Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2013.
VOLPI S., DIEZ M. and GAUL N. J. et al. Development and validation of a dynamic metamodel based
on stochastic radial basis functions and uncertainty quantification[J]. Structural Multidisciplinary Optimization, 2014, DOI 10.1007/s00158-014-1128-5, in Press.
DIEZ M., HE W. and CAMPANA E. F. et al. Uncertainty quantification of Delft catamaran resistance, sinkage
and trim for variable Froude number and geometry
using metamodels, quadrature and Karhunen-Love expansion[J]. Journal of Marine Science and Technology, 2014, 19(2): 143-169.
HE W., DIEZ M. and ZOU Z. et al. URANS study of
Delft catamaran total/added resistance, motions and slamming loads in head sea including irregular wave and
uncertainty quantification for variable regular wave and
geometry[J]. Ocean Engineering, 2013, 74: 189-217.
HE Wei, DIEZ Matteo and CAMPANA Emilio
Fortunato et al. A polynomial chaos method in CFDbased uncertainty quantification study for ship hydrodynamic performance[J]. Journal of Hydrodynamics,
2013, 25(5): 189-217.
TAHARA Y., DIEZ M. and VOLPI S. et al. CFD-based
multiobjective stochastic optimization of a water-jet
propelled high speed ship[C]. Proceedings of 30th
Symposium on Naval Hydrodynamics. Hobart,
Tasmania, Australia, 2014.