Professional Documents
Culture Documents
xxxx
Igor Mizine,* Eduard Amromin, Leonard Crook, William Day, and Richard Korpus
*
Science Applications International Corporation, USA AU1
H(k, a) 2 1 b2
Here N is the unity normal to the free surface S* or hull surface S,
, kg ,
and T is the unity tangent to the streamlines on these surfaces. VS L2 VS2
The problem (1) to (4) is a three-dimensional, nonlinear prob-
XRM 0
lem. Because of the computational difficulty of solving such a H(k, a) Q(x, z) e kz
ikxcos a dxdz,
M XSM DM
problem, there were numerous attempts to solve a similar problem
within the framework of linear theory that is correct for waves of Function Q(x,z) can be taken from a linear theory. It is necessary
very low amplitudes and hulls of very high slenderness. The rele- to explain that the used value EM 0.05 is the certain effective
vant mathematical technique has been perfectly developed, and its maximum of the dimensionless density of the wave energy, and
application to routine engineering is of no problem. For real ships, this maximum is not directly related to the energy of steady wave
this refined theory (Havelock 1934) usually gives overestimated of maximum amplitude known as Stokes waves.
wave amplitudes. This circumstance has urged development of nu- The function Q(x,z) for a monohull ship certainly can be taken
merical techniques to solve the nonsimplified problem (1) to (4). In from a linear theory of the double hull, and even for multihull ships
spite of some successes (Ando et al 1990, Lalli et al 1992, Larsson it can be usually done so, because a distance between its hulls is
et al 1998), the computational and mathematical difficulties still re- comparable with the hull length. For any given Q(x,z), computation
main. Particularly, the computation results remarkably depend on of the improper integral in (5) can be performed with the ordered
meshes over S* and S. Such a dependency is easily understandable: accuracy by standard computational tools.
using any of the direct numerical techniques, the value of Cw, Corrections made in the formula (5) are more significant for low
which is about 103 must be calculated as a sum of quantities, values of Fn, as one can understand from an example given in
which values are about 101. As a result, about 106 panels are nec- Fig. 1. It is seen that this rule for
neither makes computational F1
Nomenclature
Fn Froude number EM maximal wave energy density boundary layer thickness
Rn Reynolds number L ship total length * displacement thickness
velocity potential VS ship speed ** momentum thickness
N {Nx, Ny, Nz} normal to a boundary Dm draft hull (m) , *, ** parameters in three-dimensional
S* water free surface Lm length of hull (m) axisymmetric flow calculations
S wetted surface area Bm beam of hull (m) U velocity on inviscid flow boundary
ST transom area Sm wetted surface area of hull (m) R boundary radius in an auxiliary
D ships displacement XTm transom abscissas of hull (m) axisymmetric flow
CR residuary drag coefficient Ym distance between center planes of center W wall friction
CF friction drag coefficient hull and side hull (m) RW body radius
CW wave resistance Q intensity of equivalent hydrodynamic Cp pressure coefficient
coefficient sources CPT base pressure coefficient past
CT transom drag coefficient Y(x,z) hull ordinates the transom
3 X0mLm 3 X0mLm areas. As was shown by Granville in 1974, the averaged boundary
A1 Y(x,0)dx B1 xY(x,0)dx layer properties are also close enough, and the computed viscous
m1 X0m m1 X0m
(6) part of the residuary drag is close to experimental data for such
C N dS
3
hulls (Amromin et al [1983] employed such bodies of revolution at
Fn 2
m1 Swm
P z
smaller Fn and for transom-free hulls).
The characteristics of turbulent boundary layers undergo in-
3 X0mLm 3 X0mLm
A1 xY(x,0)dx B1 x2Y(x,0)dx significant variations over the main part of the slender hull, and the
m1 X0m m1 X0m high hull slenderness allows the next simplification of computa-
(7)
xC N dS tions. It is acceptable for such hulls to fix the ratio */** 9/7 in
3
Fn 2
m1 Swm
P z Karman equation:
W W
Here is a difference of pressure coefficients for two vertical po-
sitions of the hulls at two close values of Fn. A necessity to con-
d**
dx
dU **
dx U
*
2
**
U 2 (10)
sider this difference appears because equations (6) and (7) are writ-
This equation can then be rewritten in the following form:
ten with the assumption about small variations of submerged
volumes and pressure coefficients. Therefore, the values A1 and B1 d 36[0.87 log|xRn/(100.325 L)|]2.3
must be determined by iterations for 0.30.7. Then A1 and B1 (11)
dx 7 4.2
give changes of trim at two successive Fn values: Sm implicitly de-
pends on Fn and Y(x,z) directly depends on Fn. 7
Here
drW 129 33 dU
, /rw, is
AU3 The custom path to find pressure distributions is to use the po- rW dx 5U dx
tential approach with the kinematic boundary condition (2), which the ratio of the section length on the original hull to the half-circle
can be rewritten as: length on the auxiliary body of revolution, and 5.2 (x L/Rn)1/
for xRn/L Rn* 106. The corresponding formula for the dis- AU4
Q(x,z)
1
2 m
Q(, ) N R1 dS 2N
Sm x
(8) placement body radius over the hull is a following consequence of
equation (11):
Here RX is the distance between a point of velocity calculation R(x) rw(x)[1 0.25(x) 0.667 (x)2]1/2 (12)
and the surfaces where the sources are distributed.
This well-known integral equation is written without an account This formula makes it possible to determine a surface of the dis-
of the free surface shape, and the Q distribution does not depend on placement body along the body, except at a small vicinity of the
X (1)2
1
U 2** *d (15)
XXs 2 1
was used for all OVERFLOW results presented herein. Because of 2 j R
N (P
RANS P EULER)ds/V s
2
SL
this robustness, OVERFLOW was used for all simulations at full-
scale Reynolds number.
Three separate run series were performed: a near-wall grid- Here P is the normal static pressure, i and j are unit vectors in the
dependency series; a Reynolds number series; and a trim series. drag and pitch directions, respectively; is the anisotropic portion
The grid-dependency study consists of five values of near-wall grid of the fluid stress tensor, and the symbol means the product of
spacing (y 0.1, 0.5, 1.0, 5.0, and 10.0) and was used to identify tensor and vector. R is a position vector from the longitudinal cen-
optimum grid resolution across the range of Reynolds numbers. ter of flotation to an arbitrary point on its wetted surface. Although
The series were completed at two Reynolds numbers; one typical this breakdown of drag is different from traditional naval architec-
of model scale (2 107), and one typical of full scale (2 109). ture, a form factor can be derived from these results by taking the
The results show that for the moderate near-wall spacing (y 0.5, ratio of friction plus form drag to that of a flat plate reference line
1.0, and 5.0), drag trends differ between the various geometries by (e.g., ITTC line).
less than 2% of total drag. A total of 10 RANS runs was made and Figure 10 shows viscous drag results from the second and third F10
resulted in a spacing of y 1.0 being selected for the remaining in- run series plotted versus Reynolds number. One curve is included
vestigations. for each stern trim, and the ITTC friction line has been added for
Once an optimal grid resolution was found, a second run series reference. As expected, drag increases with stern trim, and de-
was initiated to investigate the effect of Reynolds number. Three creases with Reynolds number. The rate of decrease with Reynolds
Fig. 18 Calculated CR of center hulls with free pitch (for Model A and
Model B) and restricted zero pitch for Model A
by the changes in the shape of the center hull stern. The compari-
son of residuary drag coefficient for isolated center hulls of two
models in Fig. 18 is a proof of this statement. The higher drag of F18
the Model A center hull (with the larger transom without a slope)
in the high-speed range is caused by a double effect: first, an in-
Fig. 15 Comparison of calculations and measurements of CR for Model
crease of ST results in the CT increase; second, submergence of the
A with free pitch at the aft position of side hulls. Squares show experi- blunter stern leads to a CR increase.
mental CR, computed CR is shown by solid line with rhombs, computed These results correspond to the conclusion made by the 22nd
CW is plotted by solid line ITTC, which pointed out that the use of a form factor for high-
speed ships in a traditional manner (proposed by 1978 powering
performance procedure) is not reliable and sufficient. If, as it is in
our case, a high-speed vessel employs transom stern, leading to a
confused flow aft of the transom at low speed and wetted surface
generally changes with the speed, resulting in a change in true form
factor with speed. AU6
However, returning to the trimaran and comparing forces (not
dimensionless coefficients related to wetted surfaces that are very
different for trimaran and its center hull), one can find that the dif-
ference between drag for two models is two times higher than the
difference for their center hulls. This effect is mainly caused by a
difference in the submergence of side hulls. Their aft location leads
to the increase of the wetted surface (and corresponding increase of
the friction drag) and to the increase of the side hulls transoms drag.
Fig. 16 Comparison of calculations and measurements of CR for Model
A with free pitch at the forward position of side hulls Scale effect on trimaran residuary drag:
scale correlation coefficient
The described model tests were assigned for a trimaran with the
center hull length of 313 m. It is reasonable to expect scale effects
on CR. MQLT allows an estimate of the scale factor that can be in-
troduced in the ship resistance prediction in the terms of the scale
correlation coefficient (SCC).
According to the MQLT calculations, the scale effect on tri-
maran residuary drag is mainly associated with Re influence on the
stern trim (one can see an example of the computed scale effect on
trim in Fig. 19; relative trim is the ratio of 100 stern submergences F19
to L/2 there). It is necessary to mention that the trim slow decrease
at 0.5 is in perfect accordance with the recent full-scale observa-
tion of a 78-m fast catamaran (Armstrong 1999).
Fig. 17 Measured (squares) and calculated with modified quasi-linear Why does an increase in the Reynolds number lead to a trim
theory (MQLT; solid line) CR for Model B drop? The transom pressure depends on the boundary layer
Fig. 23 Calculated ship scale residuary drag coefficient for the tri-
maran ship with different longitudinal position of the side hulls
Conclusions
1. 1AU: Please add city and state of Science Applications International Corporation./1
2. 2AU: Please check spelling of von Kerzeck. It is spelled von Kerczek in the reference list./2
3. 3AU: Do you mean the customary path?/3
4. 4AU: Is the slash after the superscript 1 correct?: (x L/Rn)1//4
5. 5AU: Do you mean Allison et al (2001)? If not, please add Allison et al (2000) to the reference list./5
6. 6AU: Are there words missing in the following sentence?: If, as it is in our case, a high-speed vessel employs transom stern,
leading to a confused flow aft of the transom at low speed and wetted surface generally changes with the speed, resulting in a change
in true form factor with speed./6
7. 7AU: Reference queries:
Please add months of conferences to Allison, Amromin et al 1983 and 1984, Armstrong, Avis, Havelock, Karafiath, Larsson, Lalli, Mizine
1999 and 2000, Ni, and Spalart.
Ando: please add page numbers.
If Benek is a paper presented at a conference, please add name, location and month of conference.
Birkhoff: please add city of publication.
Chen: Are volume and page numbers available?
Inui: please add page numbers./7