1

1. INTRODUCTION
1.1 Membership
Chairman:
Prof. Fred Stern
Iowa Institute of Hydraulic Research,
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Secretary:
Dr. Hoyte C. Raven
Maritime Research Institute Netherlands,
NETHERLANDS
Members:
Dr. Ulderico Bulgarelli
Instituto Nazionale per Studi ed Esperienze
di Architettura Navale, ITALY
Mr. Lars T. Gustafsson
SSPA Maritime Consulting AB, SWEDEN
Dr. Moustafa Abdel Maksoud
Schiffbau-Versuchsanstalt Potsdam GmbH,
GERMANY
Prof. Luis Perez-Rojas
Escuela Tcnica Superior de Ingenieros Na-
vales, SPAIN
Prof. Toshio Suzuki
Osaka University, J APAN
Prof. Lian-di Zhou
China Ship Scientific Research Center,
CHINA
1.2 Meetings
The committee met 5 times:
April 1997, Rome, Italy
November 1997, Potsdam, Germany
May 1998, Osaka, J apan
August 1998, Iowa, USA
November 1998, Madrid, Spain
1.3 Tasks and Report Structure
Below we list the tasks given to the 22nd
Resistance Committee (RC), and indicate how
these have been carried out.
Review the state of the art, comment on the
potential impact of new developments of the
ITTC, and identify the need for research
and development for resistance and flow.
Monitor and follow the development of new
experimental techniques and extrapolation
methods.
Prepare an up-to-date bibliography of rele-
vant technical papers and reports.
Monitor the development of CFD methods.
State-of-the-art reviews are given regarding
Resistance and Flow Physics (Section 2),
Trends in Experimental Techniques (Section 3),
and Trends in Computational Fluid Dynamics
(CFD) (Section 4). Section 7 (Prognosis for
Towing Tank Work) reviews trends in ship
design and operation, and impacts of these and
of the developments described in the preceding
sections, on the future of our profession and the
operation of towing tanks.

The Resistance Commitee
Final Report and
Recommendations to the 22
nd
ITTC
2
The reviews focus on the last three years,
except for topics not covered in recent RC re-
ports which cover a longer time period.
The RC was unable to comprehensively re-
view development of extrapolation methods, a
task previously carried out by the Performance
Committee. Some comments on extrapolation
of viscous resistance are, however, included in
Section 2.
Review the ITTC recommended procedures,
benchmark data, and test cases for valida-
tion and uncertainty analyses and update as
required. Pass the information to the Qual-
ity Systems group for publication in 1999.
Identify the requirements for new proce-
dures, benchmark data, validation, uncer-
tainty analyses and stimulate the necessary
research for their preparation.
Review ASME and ITTC recommendations
on quality assurance and uncertainty
analyses. Derive procedures for imple-
menting guidelines for typical ITTC ex-
periments in the field of resistance and flow.
Updated procedures for experimental un-
certainty analysis methodology and guidelines
for towing-tank experiments are described in
Section 5, and illustrated with an example for a
towing-tank resistance test based on collabora-
tive work by most RC institutes. This effort
demonstrates the procedures and provided
some improvements. The resulting procedures
are included in the Quality Manual (QM) and
recommended for adoption by the 22
nd
ITTC.
Work on the development of procedures
and methodology for verification and validation
of CFD simulations with an example are sum-
marized in Section 6. The resulting procedures
are included in the QM and are recommended
for interim adoption by the 22
nd
ITTC.
Available benchmark data for CFD valida-
tion for resistance and propulsion is evaluated
in Section 6.5. The resulting procedure is in-
cluded in the QM and recommended for adop-
tion by the 22
nd
ITTC.
The RC has cooperated closely with the
Quality Systems Group in reviewing and edit-
ing other procedures to be included in the QM
based on previous RC recommendations.
Continue to encourage and monitor CFD
validation including liaison with other or-
ganizations such as ASME.
All members were active in their respective
regional professional organizations. In particu-
lar, close liaison was maintained with European
Thematic Network on CFD and ASME activiti-
es concerning verification and validation of
CFD simulations.
2. RESISTANCE AND FLOW PHYSICS
The flow around a ship hull displays a large
variety of physical phenomena, many of which
are relevant for resistance and propulsive
power. The RC restricts itself to physics of in-
terest for a ship in steady motion in still water,
including the effect of the propulsor on the hull
flow.
Response to a questionnaire distributed by
the 21st RC indicated some flow phenomena
that were expected to be relevant for future ship
designs and would require attention from a
physical point of view, viz. bow-wave breaking,
bilge vortices, and separated flows. However,
many more phenomena are of interest, such as:
Reynolds number (R
n
) effects and scaling,
boundary layer and wake, stern flow, turbu-
lence, vortex flow and separation, Froude num-
ber (F
n
) effects, wave breaking, bow flow, tran-
som flow, propeller-hull interaction, wave-
boundary layer and wake interaction, etc. This
section will discuss several of these challenges,
recent ideas, and developments.
2.1 Waves
In the field of ship waves, there has been
recent interest in the physics of breaking waves,
the detailed phenomena at the ship bow, ship
waves in restricted water, and wave-wash ef-
fects. These topics are discussed below.
Breaking Waves. Breaking wave phe-
nomena are widely recognized to be of impor-
tance in ship hydrodynamics. Breaking waves
dissipate wave energy and affect resistance.
Subsequent spray formation and air entrain-
ment can be important for ship wake signatures.
Under the safety point of view, breaking ocean
waves interacting with ships are of main im-
portance for ship capsizing. Although ship
wave breaking phenomena are associated
3
mainly with bow flows, they may occur any-
where in the ship wave pattern, and in particu-
lar play an important role for transom sterns.
Baba (1969) discussed a component of ship
resistance generated by the breaking of waves,
especially at the bow of full ships. Based on
similarity with a shallow water hydraulic jump,
he supposed this resistance component to fol-
low F
n
law of similitude, like wave resistance.
He also pointed out that this component can be
caught by wake survey method and corresponds
to the head losses found near the free-surface
and outside the usual frictional wake belt.
In recent experiments for a VLCC model,
Van et al. (1998a,b) noted that low momentum
fluid accumulated near the free-surface at the
outside of the wake. Also in this line, Kanai et
al. (1996) showed through numerical simula-
tions using Reynolds-averaged Navier-Stokes
(RANS) codes, that the energy deficit generat-
ed near the bow is convected downstream and
distributed near the free-surface. At the aft part
of the ship, the loss due to wave breaking is
mingled with the losses due to viscous effects,
and apparently has an influence on the forma-
tion of the wake.
There have been several more fundamental
studies of the physics of wave breaking. An
excellent review of the current knowledge is
given by Longuet-Higgins (1996). In particular,
starting from the experimental observations of
Duncan et al. (1994), the role of surface tension
in characterizing the breaking wave field up to
wavelengths of 2 meters is discussed. Although
this is not necessarily of quantitative concern
for full-scale ships, it has to be taken carefully
into account when interpreting model-scale
experiments. At full scale, viscous dissipation
is of primary importance.
Duncan (1983) made systematic measure-
ments of breaking wave phenomena by towing
a submerged hydrofoil in the laboratory. In his
picture of the flow, a large part of the pressure
drag on the hydrofoil, which is due to the
presence of the free-surface, appears as mo-
mentum loss in the turbulent surface wake.
This corroborated Babas assumption.
Like Baba, Dabiri & Gharib (1997) also
suggested that wave breaking phenomena can
be modeled as a hydraulic jump where F
n
is
based on the thickness of the free-surface jet
and on the velocity of the free-surface jet just
prior to breaking.
Also based on Duncan's experiments,
Cointe & Tulin (1994) derived a physical and
mathematical model for steady spilling break-
ers. They suppose the breaker itself to be an
essentially stagnant eddy, sitting on the forward
face of the breaking wave. It is held in place by
a balance between the weight of the breaking
volume of fluid and the turbulent shear stresses
acting on the streamline that separates the
breaker and the underlying flow. Sadovnikov &
Trincas (1998) consider that viscous processes
should be taken into account, since energy dis-
sipation plays a leading role in spilling breakers.
They combine a model of a steady spilling
breaker with a numerical technique based on
fully non-linear potential theory, which implic-
itly includes viscous effects. They demonstrate
that the hydrostatic model by Cointe & Tulin
(1994) is a particular case of their proposed
model. In their opinion, the model should be
improved on the basis of new experimental
data concerning the shape of the spilling
breaker and the density of aerated water inside.
Obviously, the modeling of wave breaking
phenomena is still incomplete. Also on the on-
set or inception of wave breaking there seems
to be incomplete understanding. There is exten-
sive literature on breaking of ocean waves, but
perhaps not all of their properties carry over to
ship waves. It is known that the onset of a
spilling breaker is connected with the near-
surface vorticity as well as the dynamic char-
acteristics of the near-surface shear layer. Dab-
iri & Gharib (1996) pointed out that the vortic-
ity injection due to the free-surface deceleration
is dominant over the gravity-generated vorticity
flux. Miller et al. (1998) found that the
presence of free-surface drift layers reduces the
maximum non-breaking wave height and that
this wave height correlates with the surface-
drift velocity.
A somewhat separate problem occurs in
calculations of ship wave patterns or ocean
waves. If no modeling of breaking and the con-
sequent dissipation is included, one at least
wants to be able to continue the computation,
and to approximately represent the effect of
wave breaking on trailing wave amplitudes.
This requires both a criterion for the occurrence
of breaking, and a model for its dissipation.
Recently, Subramani et al. (1998a,b) have pro-
posed a curvature-based criterion using the fact
4
that when waves break, they attain a profile
with a sharp crest of infinite curvature. Ales-
sandrini & Delhommeau (1998) proposed a
variation in order to take into account non-
symmetrical free-surface flows.
Bow Flow. There have been some recent
detailed studies of local flow phenomena at the
bow of ships. For sufficiently fine bows, a thin
splash is created on the side of the hull, which
rises and eventually falls, and oblique waves
appear moving away on either side. A detailed
numerical study of this phenomenon was made
by Tulin & Wu (1996), using a non-linear two-
dimensional plus time (2D+T) approach. This
confirmed the strongly nonlinear nature of the
near-bow flow. Explanations were presented
for certain differences between the Kelvin pat-
tern and a typical ship wave pattern, in which
the crests of the divergent bow waves tend to
be straight and have an inclination decreasing
with increasing F
n
.
The sheet of water rising along a fine ship
bow, and the resulting spray formation, may
affect the wave pattern and the electromagnetic
scattering properties (radar signatures). There
have been some recent detailed studies of these
phenomena. Stern et al. (1996b) reinvestigated
the bow flow of the Series 60 C
B
=0.6 ship
model using both experiments and CFD. The
data indicated a thin film and beads at the bow,
which with distance from the bow underwent
transition from steady laminar to unsteady tur-
bulent flow and merged with the downstream
bow wave with increasing wake width and de-
creasing free-surface disturbances. The bead
flow appears vortical and suggests significant
viscous and surface tension effects.
Dong et al. (1997a) studied, through parti-
cle image velocimetry (PIV) measurements and
free-surface visualisation, the flow around a
ship model, focused on the flow within the liq-
uid sheet forming around the bow. They de-
monstrated that the formation of the bow wave
and the thin liquid sheet on the body, upstream
of the point at which the bow wave separates
from the model, involved considerable vorticity
production. Considerable energy loss occurred
in the forward face of the wave, especially near
the toe.
Dai et al. (1996, 1998) made an experi-
mental study of turbulent primary break-up of
plane turbulent free jets, as a model of the sepa-
rated portion of the bow sheet. Sarpkaya &
Merrill (1998), through experimental investi-
gation of the ligament and drop formation at
the free-surface of liquid wall jets flowing over
smooth and sand-roughened plates, suggested
that smoother bow surfaces with suitable cur-
vatures may help to alleviate the spray problem.
In computations of bow flows it is often as-
sumed that the free-surface is single-valued and
air entrainment is not accounted for. To cir-
cumvent this problem, Dommermuth et al.
(1998) propose a LES formulation with a level-
set approach, which permits the simulation of
turbulent free-surface flows and the modeling
of air entrainment.
Restricted Water Effects. Restricted water
affects not only the wave resistance but also the
viscous resistance. The latter effect can arise
even at low F
n
, when insignificant wave mak-
ing occurs, due to the change in pressure and
velocity field around the hull associated with
proximity of the seabed.
Not many studies on restricted water effects
have been published in recent years. Chen &
Sharma (1994) found by numerical computa-
tion, and verified experimentally, that the wave
resistance of a ship moving at supercritical
speed in a channel can be reduced significantly
by shifting its track from the channel centreline
to a certain speed-dependent location near one
of the channel sidewalls. Intuitively, since wave
dispersion is weaker in shallow water, the inter-
ference between waves arising from different
origins becomes more effective than in deep
water, especially at supercritical speeds. More
recently, Chen & Sharma (1997) showed that
the wave resistance acting on a slender body in
a channel becomes zero for a suitable combi-
nation of body speed, channel depth and width
if the afterbody geometry is adapted to an arbi-
trary forebody.
Another significant aspect of waves gener-
ated by fast ships in shallow water is their non-
linearity. A ship moving in a shallow channel
near the critical speed can shed solitary waves,
which run ahead of the ship, travel a bit faster
than it, and cause oscillations of the ship. J iang
& Sharma (1997) made numerical simulations
of this. J iang (1998) focuses his study on the
numerical implementation of the Boussinesq
equations. These equations combine the non-
linear and dispersive effects of shallow water
waves.
5
Wave Wash. The effects of waves generat-
ed by ships, are of increasing concern. Prime
reason is the continuing introduction of fast
ferry services, supposed to lead to larger wave
effects than conventional ships. In particular in
Scandinavia, detailed studies of various aspects
of fast ferry operation, including wash, have
been carried out recently (Kofoed-Hansen,
1996; Forsman, 1996).
The occurrence of detrimental effects of
ship waves (e.g. damage to moored vessels or
construction, danger to swimmers, coastal or
bank erosion) depends on various aspects of the
wave system and the local situation. This
makes it impossible to indicate a single crite-
rion governing the occurrence or absence of
wash effects. The more serious wash problems
predominantly had to do with coastal or bank
erosion and danger to swimmers, caused by
wave patterns generated in the open sea or in
confined waters (Kofoed-Hansen, 1996; Ko-
foed-Hansen & Mikkelson,1997).
In restricted water, important factors are the
critical speed effects and wave reflections. A
prime factor in many wash problems is the am-
plification of ship waves while they proceed
from deep into shallow water. This amplifica-
tion is determined by the ratio of wavelength to
water depth. Therefore it may be much stronger
for the long waves generated by a fast ferry,
than for the shorter ones of a conventional ship
running at perhaps half the speed. Conse-
quently, fast ferry waves, while perhaps hardly
visible in deep water, have occasionally been
found to cause violent wave impacts on the
coast and energetic plunging breakers on
beaches; while waves from conventional ships,
perhaps having a larger amplitude in deep wa-
ter, undergo a much smaller amplification and
may reach the coast as spilling breakers (Ko-
foed-Hansen, 1996). Raven et al. (1998) show
model test data for a ship wave pattern in a
channel with a sloping bank, and in one case
found a threefold increase of wave amplitude at
the bank compared to a channel with a rectan-
gular section. Besides, there may be effects of
wave focusing due to a variable waterway cross
section.
2.2 Viscous Flow
In this subsection we address some of the
physics connected with viscous flows; in par-
ticular, turbulence, with emphasis on the effects
of the free-surface on it, flow around append-
ages, and stern and wake flows. Some remarks
are made on scaling and the possible R
n
depen-
dence of form factors.
Turbulence. There are some measured data
available of distributions of turbulence quanti-
ties around ship hulls. One recent set is found
in Suzuki et al. (1998a), who measured the tur-
bulence in the flow around two ship models, by
a triple-sensor hot wire in a wind tunnel. After
studying the turbulent kinetic energy balance
they found that a local equilibrium is not satis-
fied in a stern flow field: production and dissi-
pation of turbulence energy were not equal.
An important but rarely addressed aspect
for viscous ship flows is surface roughness
effects. The principal effect of roughness is a
change in the velocity and turbulence distribu-
tion near the surface. Patel (1998) shows that
recent applications of the k- turbulence model
mimic the known effects of roughness rather
well, and may be employed in complex flows,
but there remains a need to make fresh ap-
proaches to this old problem.
An additional complication for ship flows is
the modification of turbulence by the free-
surface. This can be considered as one of the
sources of error in CFD simulations compared
to full scale data of surface-ship wakes (Hyman,
1998). There is quite little investigation in the
literature on the effects of a free-surface on
turbulence. A few of the recent numerical and
experimental studies are mentioned by Sreed-
har & Stern (1998a). These studies indicate that
the inter-component transfer and the overall
increase in kinetic energy near the free-surface
is due to the anisotropic nature of the dissipa-
tion tensor and an overall decrease in dissipa-
tion rate near the free-surface. Sreedhar & Stern
(1998b) indicate that the effect of the free-
surface on turbulence is similar to that of the
wall in some aspects, especially in the behavior
of normal Reynolds stresses. The turbulent ed-
dies are flattened near the surface, with the sur-
face-normal fluctuations suppressed and the
other two components of velocity fluctuations
gaining energy. Unlike the wall region, there is
negligible shear and turbulence production near
the free-surface.
This anisotropy of normal stresses is gener-
ally known to be a cause of secondary flows. In
this regard, Longo et al. (1998), in an experi-
mental study for a surface-piercing flat plate,
6
report the thickening of the boundary layer and
wake near the free-surface and the existence of
two regions of high streamwise vorticity of
opposite sign near the juncture region. Hyman
(1998) indicates that the free-
surface/turbulence interaction model does force
anisotropy at the free-surface and leads to en-
hanced spreading.
At a more fundamental modeling level, it is
known that coherent structures play an impor-
tant role in wall turbulence (Robinson, 1991).
A very important type of structure is low-speed
streaks (Blackwelder & Kaplan, 1976). These
probably come from the transition process and
generate internal high-shear layer. Breakdown
of the flow is possible when the shear reaches a
certain threshold, leading to a turbulent burst,
(Kim et al., 1971). It is now evident that wall
turbulence is non-homogeneous and non-
isotropic. The nearly periodic process of burst
generation, the presence of low-speed streaks
and the no-slip condition at the wall determine
a complex flow that accurate models for cal-
culations of averaged quantities in numerical
codes are very difficult to make, even for sim-
ple body shapes, (Speziale, 1994). Nevertheless,
the use of turbulence models will be unavoid-
able for many more years, for flows at high R
n
around bodies with complex geometry.
Stern and Wake Flows. The viscous flow
in the stern of a ship hull is characterized by a
thick boundary layer, viscous-inviscid interac-
tion, highly skewed flow, complex turbulent
flow field, near wake and propeller action, and
often a pair of longitudinal vortices. The latter
are created where the flow passes over a region
with large girthwise variations of the wall pres-
sure field, causing near-wall flow convergence
and open separation. The longitudinal vortices
may pass through the propeller disk and cause a
distortion of the inflow to the propeller.
While the vortices in principle lead to an
increased resistance, the flow distortion is often
used to advantage for equalizing the wake field.
V-shaped sterns generally induce weaker stern
bilge vortices and lower viscous resistance; U-
shaped sterns result in generation of stronger
vortices but may thus make the propeller inflow
more uniform. The designer must find the best
compromise.
This obviously requires that location and
strength of the vortices (at full scale) can be
predicted and influenced. This explains the
large current interest in the computational pre-
diction of longitudinal vortices in a ships wake.
With standard turbulence models, current
RANS solvers generally are unable to reliably
predict the strength and location of the longitu-
dinal vortices, the local axial velocity deficit in
the vortex core, and the "hook shape" in the
isolines for axial velocity. The longitudinal
vortex strength at the propeller position is often
underestimated by present codes; a near-wall
non-isotropic turbulence model seems needed
to do better (Deng & Visonneau, 1997).
Appendages. A variety of appendages may
be present on ship hulls, and these involve
some particular physics. For high-speed ships
to maintain stability and speed in a rough sea,
some means of controlling the ship motions are
necessary. Among various devices, fins have
been recognized as very effective. Lee et al.
(1998) found that the free-surface effect on the
lift characteristics of fins attached to a body is
significant when the submergence depth is less
than three times the chord length. The domi-
nant cause is the change in the flow incidence
angle to the fins induced by the free-surface
deformation caused by the strut. Masuko
(1998) studied the effects of stern fins compu-
tationally. Stern fins interrupt the downward
flow of bilge vortices and the pressure above
the fins increases. This pressure increase causes
a reduction of resistance.
It is known that adoption of stators located
in front of the propeller can result in a reduc-
tion of rotational energy losses, so that propul-
sion efficiency can be increased. In addition, a
non-axisymmetric upstream stator can alter the
inflow to the propeller in such a way that un-
steady forces and cavitation can be reduced.
Recently Shen (1997), for an appended body of
revolution, considered such a guide vane
composed of 4 radially placed foils.
The flow at the junction of an appendage
and a hull can be very complex. The hull
boundary layer flow encounters an obstruction,
often nearly perpendicular to the upstream flow.
This results in both a non-recoverable loss of
energy (drag) and a spatially varying flow field
characterised by the so-called horseshoe vortex
system shed around the obstacle. This structure
is of interest since an excessive level of noise
or vibration may have its origin in the genera-
tion of additional turbulence in the core of the
horseshoe vortex. Through calculations, Deng
& Visonneau (1998) showed the strong turbu-
7
lence anisotropy associated with the develop-
ment of this horseshoe vortex.
More studies about appendages would be
needed in order to understand fully the flow
around them and their influence on the flow
around the ship hull.
Scale Effects and Form Factor. The flow
around a model differs from the flow around
the equivalent full-scale vessel due to the R
n
difference. In general, for increasing R
n
the
flow features become more compact and com-
pressed, and boundary layers and shear layers
get thinner relative to the length of the vessel.
However, other changes in the viscous flow
may occur that are harder to foresee.
While scale effects have different aspects,
here we shall only address the scale effect on
"form factor." The form factor tries to ap-
proximate the influence of three dimensionality
on viscous resistance, as a function of R
n
. Alt-
hough in principle it may vary with R
n
as well
as F
n
, in the ITTC (1987) the use of a R
n
-
independent 1+K was recommended for routine
work.
In ITTC (1996a), the RC concluded that the
variation of the form factor with R
n
depends on
the distribution of resistance between friction
and pressure. For a typical ship hull, the pres-
sure component seemed to dominate and there-
fore the form factor would increase with in-
creasing R
n
. Nevertheless, the Powering Per-
formance Committee at the same ITTC (1996b)
concluded that the variation of form factor with
scale might be within the level of uncertainty
with which the form factor can be estimated.
Grigson (1996) reanalysed the resistance
tests of the Lucy Ashton and Victory geosims.
Using the ITTC 1957 Correlation Line, he had
got a marked scale effect, with a form factor
larger at full-scale, in discord with what should
be expected from the physics of the flow. The
relative displacement thickness of the boundary
layer decreases with scale, relatively the flow
becomes less full as scale increases. Never-
theless, any scale effect on the form factor is
very small and if anything, the form factor is
smaller at full scale than for the model when a
fairly accurate friction law is used as the author
provides. He is demanding a new Correlation
Line.
Bruzzone et al. (1997) presented the results
from various geosim tests, highlighting the
influence of R
n
and F
n
and of the hull form on
the form factor but not with an unambiguous
conclusion about scale effects. The values of
the form factor sometimes increased and some-
times decreased with scale. They propose to
establish a minimum dimension of the model
and for the large-scale models to make a cor-
rection for blockage effects. Furthermore, it is
necessary also to establish type, dimension, and
position on the model of the turbulence stimu-
lators.
Garofallidis (1996) also pointed out that
turbulence stimulation is of primary importance
for the correlation, and raised questions about
the applicability of the form-factor method for
models 3 to 4 metres long. Kasahara & Masuda
(1998), for different models of the DAIOH
ship, found that the measured form factor in-
creases as R
n
increases for models longer than
7 m, but decreases up to this length.
With the present developments in CFD,
trends of the form factor in principle could be
computed, particularly the R
n
-dependence.
However, there are difficulties associated with
this, such as doubts on the validity of turbu-
lence models and the lack of validation data for
very high R
n
.
2.3 Wave/Viscous Interaction
Interaction between the wave making and
viscous flow is conventionally disregarded in
model test extrapolation and in computational
prediction. Such interaction comes in many
forms, such as effects of the inviscid pressure
field upon the viscous flow, the effect of the
modified (wavy) streamline pattern along the
hull, the free-surface boundary conditions in
the viscous-flow region, the effect of the free-
surface on turbulence, and the different
geometry of the wetted hull surface if waves
are taken into account.
The first phenomenon mentioned above, the
effect via the pressure field, is easily under-
stood from considering the inviscid pressure
distribution on the hull. It is common to obser-
ve that the pressure variations along a ship hull
are drastically larger in the flow with free-
surface, than in a double-body flow. This may,
e.g., cause a much steeper pressure rise from
the aft shoulder towards the stern, in viscous
8
flow possibly leading to local-flow separation
near the waterline. This separation may occur
in a certain F
n
range only, and may be supposed
to lead to a rather drastic and sudden change of
the viscous resistance and stern flow at a cer-
tain speed; raising many questions on the
validity of resistance extrapolation techniques.
Choi & Stern (1993) showed that the free-
surface boundary conditions in the viscous flow
have an important influence in regions of large
velocity gradients and wave slopes, including
significant free-surface vorticity flux and com-
plex momentum and vorticity transport in a
layer close to the free-surface.
Wave-Induced Separation. The separation
solely due to free-surface wave-induced effects
involves the complexities of free-surface de-
formations, vorticity, and turbulence in addi-
tion to the already formidable subject of three-
dimensional (3D) boundary-layer separation.
This phenomenon was first identified by Chow
(1967) and has been studied by various authors.
Recently, Zhang & Stern (1996) studied wave-
induced separation for a surface-piercing
NACA 0024 foil. The separation patterns were
found to be F
n
-dependent. The free-surface is
mainly a sink of vorticity. A part of the vortic-
ity generated at the body surface fluxes up into
the free-surface and the rest goes to the wake.
Using video cameras above the surface Po-
gozelski et al. (1997) observed that the reversed
flow appeared only at F
n
exceeding 0.30.
Connected to the complicated physics, the
study of Zhang & Stern (1996) mentions sever-
al difficulties in modeling that need to be ad-
dressed in order to predict such flows. It is de-
sired to evaluate the performance of turbulence
models for prediction of free-surface induced
separated flows, and the approximation used
for the free-surface boundary conditions, and to
obtain time-accurate unsteady solutions.
Stern and Wake Flows. While in Section
2.2 stern and wake flows already have been
considered from a viscous flow point of view,
here the wave/viscous interaction is discussed.
One aspect of this is the viscous effect on the
stern wave system. Neglecting this, the stern
waves are over predicted due to the neglect of
the displacement effect of the hull boundary
layer and due to the neglect of the viscous
damping of the generated waves (Larsson,
1997b, Raven, 1998). This effect is considera-
bly larger for bluff ships, where the stern waves
sometimes almost disappear.
For transom sterns, various flow regimes
may occur. One is a flow with a clean free-
surface separation from the edge of the transom,
which is typical of higher speeds and lower
transom immersions. In other conditions an
area with highly turbulent and often unsteady
flow behind the transom face may occur. In the
transition from one regime to the other, wave
breaking and wave/viscous interaction play a
dominant role, but a precise model seems to be
lacking and at present it is hard to predict
which regime will occur in which speed range
(Raven, 1998). It is noted that, since the same
regimes occur just as well for transoms that are
above the design waterline, a transom depth F
n
is not a useful parameter in this regard.
Van et al. (1998b) made an experimental
investigation on two models, a 3600TEU con-
tainer ship and a 300K VLCC that can be con-
sidered as two types of modern practical hull
forms. For the container ship the wave eleva-
tion near the stern was observed to be flatter
due to the transom effects, although the tran-
som stern of this ship (located above the design
waterline) was not entirely cleared. In this case
the so-called dry transom modelling is not
entirely appropriate for accurate simulation. In
the case of the VLCC, the designed waterline
was located above the transom edge, and there
was apparently no transom effect; but the local
flow measurements revealed that the flow angle
seems to have an abrupt change of direction
due to the transom, and possibly flow reversal.
2.4 Propeller-Hull Interaction
The presence of the propeller affects the
flow both by inducing a swirling effect and by
locally accelerating the flow. On the one hand,
this helps to stabilize the boundary layer and
prevents separation ahead of the propeller
(Turnock and Molland, 1998), on the other
hand the propeller may also induce separation,
in particular on the hull above the propeller.
Nevertheless, the major effect of the pro-
peller on the flow upstream on the hull is the
asymmetric acceleration of the flow, which
leads to different pressure reductions on the
port and starboard sides for a single screw ship.
The cause is the interaction of the upward
9
component of the wake field and the direction
of rotation of the propeller.
Abdel-Maksoud et al. (1998a-c) point out
the problems in the interaction between the
flow around the stern of the ship and the flow
induced by the propeller: the necessity to in-
clude viscous forces and turbulence effects; the
complexity of the geometry and the resulting
effort to discretise the problem; the interaction
between the rotating propeller and the station-
ary ship; and the inherently unsteady nature of
the problem. The results of their computations
showed the strong influence of the propeller on
the flow region, especially on the pressure field.
2.5 Conclusions
Numerous studies have been conducted
concerning ship resistance and flow physics.
However, physical understanding of many de-
tailed aspects of ship resistance remains in-
complete since most studies are phenome-
nological and fail to provide useful models.
Limited study has been devoted to the impor-
tant topic of scaling/extrapolation methods.
More work is needed on wave breaking, turbu-
lence, roughness effects, and viscous flow/free-
surface interaction.
3. TRENDS IN EXPERIMENTAL TECH-
NIQUES
3.1 Introduction
Trends in experimental techniques over the
last ten years of relevance to towing-tank
testing are summarized. Techniques are consid-
ered which are useful both for routine testing
for design and evaluation as well as for more
complex testing at model and full scale for
physical understanding and CFD validation.
Experimental techniques are divided into two
categories: current and developing techniques.
Current techniques refers to those already
widely used, whereas developing techniques
refers to those not widely used or from other
fields which likely have near-term applicability
to towing tanks. For many developing tech-
niques, further developments are required, e.g.,
in extending a technique from physical to
model or full scale testing. For each category, a
sub division is made with regard to the scale of
the experiment, i.e., physical-, model-, or full-
scale testing.
Physical-scale experiments are directed at
providing data for documenting a particular
physical phenomenon such as effects of pres-
sure gradients on flow separation, effects of
roughness on turbulent boundary layers and
wakes, effects of turbulence and pressure gra-
dients on corner vortices, etc. Such experiments
are conducted using specialized/idealized ge-
ometry, which may not resemble a ship's hull
but may represent a local portion of it, e.g.,
appendage/hull juncture and flat plate with an
imposed pressure gradient. Both time-mean and
unsteady data are procured and used for physi-
cal understanding, model development, and
CFD validation.
Model-scale experiments are directed at
providing data for design and evaluation and
for documenting particular physical phenomena
such as boundary-layer and wake, vortex flow
and separation, propeller-hull interaction, etc.
Such experiments are conducted using scaled
model ships, e.g., cargo/container, combatant,
and tanker hull forms. The intention is to repli-
cate full-scale conditions; however, lack of
similitude and environmental conditions im-
pose significant limitations. Both time-mean
and unsteady data are procured and used for
design and evaluation, physical understanding,
model development, and CFD validation.
Full-scale experiments are directed at
providing data for sea trials, design and
evaluation, and for documenting particular
physical phenomena such as R
n
scale effects,
turbulence, cavitation, etc. Such experiments
are extremely difficult and subject to variable
environmental conditions. Both time-mean and
unsteady data are procured and used for sea
trials, design and evaluation, physical under-
standing, model development, and CFD vali-
dation.
These categories and divisions will change
even in the near future as advancements are
made, e.g., developing techniques for physical
scale will be used for model scale and devel-
oping techniques for model scale (e.g. flow
measurements and flow observations) will be
used for full scale.
3.2 Current Techniques
10
Physical Scale. Physical-scale tests are not
usually conducted in towing tanks.
Model Scale. Current techniques for
model-scale tests were identified through a
questionnaire distributed to RC and several
J apanese ITTC members. The techniques are
summarized in Table 1 and include measure-
ment systems for forces (and moments), car-
riage/model speed, water temperature, motion
(sinkage and trim), flow visualization, surface
pressure, nominal wake, wave profiles, and
wave elevations. Additionally, in some cases,
wind tunnel tests are done using double models.
Current techniques are conveniently discussed
with regard to routine and non-routine tests.
Routine tests include forces, carriage/model
speed, water temperature, sinkage and trim,
flow visualization, wave profile, wave eleva-
tions, and nominal wake at the propeller plane.
For force/moment measurements, most towing
tanks use load cells and only a few are still us-
ing the counter-weight method. Measured
forces are converted to digital format and aver-
aged by computer programs (e.g., Longo &
Stern, 1996). Model velocity is measured by
two different methods. One is to measure ve-
locity relative to the ground (carriage speed)
using a speed circuit; the other is to measure
the velocity relative to the water using a current
meter. Conventional mercury and semi-
conductive thermometers are used to measure
water temperature. Sinkage and trim are meas-
ured using potentiometers or ultra-sonic height
meters. The measurements are taken at two
points near the forward and after perpendicu-
lars and converted to sinkage and trim. Flow
visualization is performed using surface or
depth tufts mounted to the hull surface. A tuft
grid is also used to observe rotational flow at
the propeller plane. Paint on the hull surface or
dye injection is also used for flow visualization.
Surface pressures are measured at select loca-
tions using pressure taps and differential pres-
sure transducers. Wave profiles along the hull
are measured by photo or CCD camera. Servo-
mechanism and finger wave probes are used to
measure transverse wave elevations. Capaci-
tance and resistance type wave probes are used
to measure longitudinal wave elevations (cuts).
Longitudinal wave cuts are used for deriving
wave pattern resistance, CFD validation, etc. In
the former case, the probe position is important.
Each towing tank has its own standard for pro-
be position and data acquisition time. Nominal
wake is usually measured using Prandtl-tube or
5-hole pitot probe rakes and differential pres-
sure transducers.
Non-routine tests include the same variables
as for routine testing, but with considerably
larger mapping of the flow through dense data
locations. Examples include surface pressure
(Toda et al., 1990), wave elevations (Toda et al.,
1992, Ikehata et al., 1998), and detailed mean
velocity and pressure measurements using 5-
hole pitot probes (Longo & Stern, 1996). Other
non-routine tests are mean velocities and Rey-
nolds stress measurements using double models
in wind tunnels and triple hot wire sensor ane-
mometer (Hyun & Patel, 1991a,b, Suzuki et al.,
1997, 1998a-c). In these cases, six components
of the Reynolds stress are measured, together
with the three mean velocity components. The
data are mainly used to validate CFD predic-
tions.
Full Scale. Routine tests for full-scale ships
are measurement of propeller torque, propeller
shaft revolution, and the velocity relative to
ground and water. Sea conditions as wave
height (observations) and relative wind velocity
are also measured. Baba & Ikeda (1991) im-
proved the Togino type torque meter for full-
scale ships using a one line CCD sensor.
Non-routine tests are thrust and towing
force measurement, wake measurements by 5-
hole Pitot tube or laser Doppler velocimetry
(LDV) systems, cavitation observation, and
measurement of pressure fluctuations around
the propeller. Shaft thrust force was measured
for the icebreaker SOYA (Uto & Narita, 1998)
using direct measurement of propeller shaft
compressive strain. Torque coupling effects
caused by misalignment of the gauges were
evaluated by Suzukis method (Suzuki et al.,
1992). Towing force measurements were per-
formed using a patrol boat (Hara et al., 1994) in
the case of a rescue operation in a rough sea
state.
11
Table 1. Current techniques for towing tank testing of resistance and flow.
Type of test Equipment Comments
Force Load cell +filter
Counterweight Balance
Measured forces are for example: resistance and trans-
verse forces at FP and AP or at rudder; lift and drag
forces measured on model advancing with drift angle; 6-
component forces at constrained hull; unsteady meas-
urements of resistance, pitching moment and heave and
forces at fixed model conditions.
The resistance force or added resistance in waves is bal-
anced by weights.
Velocity Current meter
Wheel +pulse counter
Velocity relative to the water typically measured at 0.5L
1.0L in front of model at half of mean model draft.
Velocity of the carriage relative to the ground (rail).
Temperature Mercury thermometer
Resistive thermometer
Quartz thermometer
Temperature is typically measured as mean temperature
over the measured distance at half of mean draft of
model or at one/several fixed depths at fixed locations in
the tank. Occasionally combined with artificial mixing of
tank water.
Motion
(sink-
age/trim)
Potentiometer
Ultrasonic distance me-
ter
Vertical displacements are measured in generic positions
fore and aft of the model where after sinkage and trim are
calculated.
Flow visu-
alization
Wet paint
Tufts on hull or grid
Paint applied in stripes on hull, which becomes flow
lines when model is towed or self-propelled through wa-
ter.
Tufts applied to hull (grid) with needles or with thin tape.
Documented by video and observations.
Hull pres-
sure
Pressure tap +DPT (DPT =Differentiated Pressure Transducer)
Wake Prandtl tube rake +DPT
5-hole pitot probe rake +
DPT
Small propeller type
velocimeter
Normally measured in the propeller plane (typically at
the intersection between r/R=0.7 and the generator line)
for every 5-15 degrees, or with smaller intervals if neces-
sary. Sometimes measured in a rectangular mesh.
Wave eleva-
tion at hull
side
Visual observations
from photo or video
Professional camera
Spray paint
Model is marked with stations and waterlines where after
wave height along hull side is estimated from photos or
video.
Video and photographs of free-surface turbulence and
wave breaking
Wave profile obtained by moving the camera step by step
from bow to stern.
Wave eleva-
tion at free-
surface
Resistance probe
Capacitance probe
Longitudinal cuts at different distances from hull side.
Wave heights also measured at non-fixed locations e.g.
stern wave measurements.
12
3.3 Developing Techniques
Physical Scale. Many developing tech-
niques have application to towing tanks, alt-
hough as already noted in many cases further
developments are required in extending a tech-
nique from physical to model or full scale test-
ing. The following discussions focus on several
developing techniques, which hold promise for
applications in towing tanks, i.e., PIV, LDV,
deformation measurements, shear-stress meas-
urements, pressure measurements, and com-
bined experiments and CFD.
PIV. 3D velocity measurements by image
processing techniques have rapidly progressed
in the last ten years; in particular the PIV tech-
niques discussed below. In most common
methods for measuring fluid flow velocities,
the fluid is seeded with particles or markers,
where after the flow field easily can be traced
and imaged. In the absence of particles, flows
have also been tagged with lines or grids using
laser induced photochemical reactions or laser
induced fluorescence.
Barnhart et al. (1995), Slepicka & Cha
(1997), and Fabry (1998) measured 3D velocity
fields by using a holographic method. The 3D
particle positions in the water channel are fro-
zen in two holographic pictures with a small
difference in time. The reproduced particle im-
ages are detected as two-dimensional move-
ments in the screen. In the case of 3D motions,
the screen was moved to focus the particle im-
ages. Adrian et al. (1997) and Gaydon et al.
(1997) investigated the use of stereoscopic
photographs and thus analysed the 3D particle
motions. Kawakatsu et al. (1991) also used the
stereoscopic photograph method but analysed it
by a particle image correlation method. Koba-
yashi et al. (1995) measured 3D positions and
temperature simultaneously by the use of a mi-
cro-capsulated liquid crystal particle. Kawasue
& Ishimatsu (1996) introduced a very interest-
ing method to measure 3D positions of particle
images. They rotated the camera images and
found that the diameters of circled images were
related to the axial distance from the camera to
particles.
Raffel et al. (1995) applied a dual laser
sheet technique to measure 3D velocity com-
ponents, and succeeded to measure the 3D ve-
locity fields around simple models in water
channels. Post et al. (1994) developed a two-
colour laser sheet method and measured the
behaviour of high shear layer. Nishio (1995)
proposed a statistical approach to measure the
time-mean velocity. The frequency of image
scattering was measured and a statistical ap-
proach was applied. Okuno (1995) applied a
spatio-temporal method to measure the velocity
in a separated flow, and also applied this
method to measure the movement of an oil film
on a ship model surface. Okuno & Sakamoto
(1990) applied Fourier transformation to the
image picture and found the direction of mo-
tion and the distance of the particles.
Error analysis for PIV has been performed
and compared with theoretical calculations.
Wei et al. (1995) discussed the effects of vorti-
ces and shear layers. Lourenco and Krothapalli
(1995) discussed the accuracy of detecting the
maximum auto-correlation point. Peysson &
Guazzelli (1998) and Oschwald et al. (1995)
analysed that if the light sheet plane is out of
focus from the focal plane of the camera, the
position in the image plane is not a linear func-
tion of the position in the light-sheet plane.
They also pointed out the systematic errors in
PIV for a rotating mirror method. Thomas et al.
(1993) studied the response of particles to a
large velocity gradient field by measuring 3D
particle velocities in a shock wave using PIV
and 3-component LDV.
LDV. Compton & Eaton (1996) succeeded
to measure the viscous sublayer in the turbulent
boundary layer by high resolution LDV using a
small mirror in the flow. The measurement
point closest to the wall surface was at about
y
+
=5. The results showed good agreement with
velocities and 6 components of Reynolds
stresses measured by pressure probe or X-type
hot wire anemometry.
Deformation Measurements. Many papers
focus on the correlation of two successive sca-
lar images for the purpose of measuring imaged
fluid motions. A methodology for direct meas-
urement of velocity and velocity gradient field
was developed by Tokumaru & Dimotakis
(1995). They used a temporal spatial method
and introduced the velocity and velocity gradi-
ent as unknown parameters in an optimisation
process. Su & Dahm (1996) propose a Scalar
Imaging Velocimetry (SIV) technique for fully
resolved four-dimensional (x, y, z, t) vector
velocity field measurements in turbulent flows.
SIV technique is one of the temporal spatial
methods applicable to inner turbulent shear
13
flow. They succeed to measure the unsteady
velocity field in a 3D volume.
Laser excited fluorescence was studied by
Hill & Klewicki (1996). They dealt with the
LIPA (Laser Induced Photochemical Ane-
mometry) and measured velocity and stream-
wise vorticity distributions in the inner layer.
This method entails the use of a laser and a
light sensitive chemical. Two types of photo-
chemical can be used: photochromic or phos-
phorescent chemicals. The paper by Hill &
Klewicki (1996) proves that this technique is a
valuable measurement tool for understanding
turbulence because of the high frequency re-
sponse of the luminescent fluid. Gendrich &
Koochesfahni (1996) present a spatial image
correlation technique for estimating the dis-
placement vector of the tagged regions with a
much higher level of accuracy then had previ-
ously been achieved.
Shear-Stress Measurements. Various tech-
niques for measuring shear stress on a wall
have been developed, e.g. Preston tubes, float-
ing elements, or laser based systems. The latter
do not have probe disadvantages like mixed
sensitivity, individual calibration, direct electri-
cal contact, fragility of the sensors, etc. These
advantages of laser systems are proven by the
holographic fan fringe sensor, which Millerd et
al. (1996) used to measure velocity gradients
(shear stress and skin friction) inside the
boundary layer. The dual-cylindrical wave
(DCW) system, studied by Naqwi (1993), pro-
duces an optical measuring volume by two in-
terfering cylindrical waves from a laser. This
system is a variation of LDV, and its applica-
tion to shear-stress measurements in turbulent
boundary layers and particle sizing are devel-
oped in some studies.
Shear stress near the wall is determined by
the local velocity gradient immediately adja-
cent to the wall. Nepomuceno & Lueptow
(1997) measured it using a hot film wall shear-
stress probe, mounted upstream of a hearing aid
microphone for wall pressure measurements
and a hot wire velocity probe. The shear stress
probe was calibrated against a Preston probe.
Preston probes cannot be used to measure
wall friction in a ship model bow region due to
the thin boundary layer. Ito & Oyanagi (1992)
and Matsumura et al. (1995) proposed a non-
contact measurement method using an oil film.
The principle is that the oil dot or oil film on
the model surface spreads at a rate proportional
to the wall shear stress. The movements are
detected by an image processing technique.
Further investigations were proposed to find
the precise relation between the oil dot velocity
and the local skin friction. If successful the
local skin friction of any type of body surface
could easily be measured. Another idea, devel-
oped by Wang (1993), was to select a material
in which the fluid shear force can be transferred,
but the movement of fluid is extremely re-
stricted. A sintered metal using small spheres
can meet these requirements. A sensor is there-
after used to measure a pressure difference in-
dicating the wall shear stress.
Some other systems using laser light or
floating elements have also been developed.
Lubrication theory relates the local skin friction
force to the thinning of an oil film placed on
the test surface. Mateer & Monson (1996) de-
veloped a laser interferometer skin-friction
(LISF) technique. They measured the thickness
of the oil film on a wing model by laser inter-
ferometer and calculated the skin friction dis-
tributions. They got good agreement with CFD
results for both shear stress and pressure distri-
bution. Liu & Sullivan (1998) used a lumines-
cence intensity method. Luminescent molecules
are dispersed in an oil film and the luminescent
light is proportional to the thickness of the oil
film. Three kinds of NACA wings were used in
measurements, showing good agreement with
CFD predictions.
Micro-electro mechanical systems (MEMS)
based sensors were applied to measure the
shear stress on a two-dimensional airfoil (Na-
gaoka et al. 1997). A micro-electro hot film
sensor (0.2mm*0.2mm) on a small silicon wa-
fer determined the separation region on the foil.
The force acting on the large eddy break up
(LEBU) devices was measured using a friction-
al force balance to clarify the reduction of fric-
tional force by LEBU (Lynn et al., 1995).
Pressure Measurements. Pressure sensitive
paint (PSP) seems to be a valuable technique
for measuring surface-pressure distribution in
wind tunnel models. PSP contains a component
that is luminescent when excited by an appro-
priate light source. The luminescence of the
paint varies as a function of the partial pressure
of oxygen, which is proportional to the static
pressure of air at the coated surface. This en-
ables measurement of essentially continuous
property distributions. The limitation is only
14
the resolution of the imaging equipment. Mor-
ris et al. (1993) applied this technique for a
wing-body model and McLachlan et al. (1993)
for a 2D NACA-0012 wing. The results were
compared with pressure-tap measurements and
showed good agreement. The brightness of a
pressure-sensitive paint is a function of pres-
sure, temperature, photo degradation, illumina-
tion intensity, and coating thickness. Bell &
McLachlan (1996) point out the importance of
the model alignment and propose a projective
equation of photo grammetry to relate model to
image coordinates. Experiments performed by
Woodmansee & Dutton (1998) confirm that the
PSP are temperature sensitive, so a tempera-
ture-correction data reduction method should
be used to obtain quantitatively accurate sur-
face-pressure measurements.
Studies of wall-pressure fluctuation were
motivated by an interest in hydro-acoustic
properties of smooth surfaces with irregular
geometry. Horne & Handler (1991) propose a
methodology to cancel the contaminating noise
in the measurement of turbulent wall pressure
fluctuations using the signals from two flush
mounted wall pressure transducers, directed
transverse to the mean flow. Corrected results
show good behaviour in the low frequency
range.
Instead of traditional plug-in probes,
Nitsche et al. (1989) used miniature pressure
transducers or piezoelectric foils. The piezoe-
lectric effect of polarised plastic foils is used to
register time-dependent pressure or shear loads.
Lfdehl et al. (1994) use very small silicon
based sensors manufactured using microelec-
tronic technology, to measure wall pressure in
turbulent flows. High frequency pressure fluc-
tuations can be captured by the very small size
of the transducers.
Combined Experiments and CFD. Both
CFD and flow field measurements have exten-
sively been used to understand flow fields. Alt-
hough CFD easily can estimate the entire flow
field, it inevitably contains numerical errors.
Meanwhile, the various field measurements
usually require a lot of labour and also contain
experimental errors. Although some experi-
mental techniques can measure flow velocities
at many points simultaneously, it is difficult to
make a dense measurement for a large field.
Therefore, some new techniques have been
proposed to understand the whole flow field by
combining various experimental techniques and
CFD.
Yamaguchi et al. (1996), Ohwaki et al.
(1998), and Sugii et al. (1996a,b, 1997) pro-
posed a technique to predict a complete flow
field by combining PIV and CFD. In this tech-
nique, velocities at points where no data have
been measured are calculated by using locally
obtained PIV data as a boundary condition. The
PIV data are corrected simultaneously to reduce
measurement errors using CFD results and fun-
damental equations of fluid dynamics. In cor-
recting the data, the cost function, which repre-
sents the sum of the adjusted amount of ob-
served data and the residual of the fundamental
equations, is used; the whole flow field is ob-
tained by minimizing the cost function. This
technique has been applied to 3D non-
isothermal flow fields and flow fields with ro-
tation, shear, and expansion.
Dong et al. (1997b) presented an approach
to determine the pressure distribution by using
measured velocity field data and RANS equa-
tion. The approach was tried on an airfoil sec-
tion at 8 degrees incidence. The velocity and
Reynolds stress distribution around the foil
were measured in a cavitation tunnel by LDV.
The RANS equation, the Euler equation and the
Bernoulli equation were employed separately to
solve for the pressure while the velocities and
Reynolds stresses were considered as known
from the measured data. The results were com-
pared with the pressure directly measured on
the foil surface, showing good agreement. J i et
al. (1998) tried this approach to determine the
pressure distribution on a body of revolution
with tail fins. For validation, direct pressure
measurements were carried out.
Model Scale. Developing techniques at
model scale include applications of some of the
developing techniques discussed above by a
few towing tanks as well as techniques for
model-scale experiments from other fields. The
following discussions focus on several devel-
oping techniques, which hold promise for ap-
plications in towing tanks, i.e., shear-stress
measurements, velocity and turbulence meas-
urements, wave-resistance measurements, and
wave-pattern measurements.
Shear-Stress Measurements. In order to re-
duce turbulent frictional drag, several tech-
niques can be used, all requiring the shear
stress to be measured. Kato et al. (1990), Fujii
15
et al. (1991), Doi et al. (1991), Takahashi et al.
(1997a,b), Watanabe et al. (1997), Larrarte &
Kodama (1997), Sato et al. (1997), and Toku-
naga et al. (1998) all succeeded to carry out
shear stress measurements using similar float-
ing element devices.
Velocity and Turbulence Measurements.
Turbulence measurements in the boundary
layer on a ship model can be done using hot-
wire or hot film anemometers. Mori & Hotta
(1988) and Wu & Bose (1992) obtained veloc-
ity profiles and boundary layer properties. In
both cases a hot-film anemometer has been
used, as it seems to be a practical, economical
and accurate tool for towing-tank applications
during ship model testing. Wu & Bose (1992)
consider this equipment, which also can be
used to measure high frequency components of
the flow as well as the mean velocity compo-
nents, as more accurate than Pitot tubes. A
limitation is that it cannot be used in reversing
flows.
Kakugawa et al. (1989) applied one-
dimensional LDV to measure the velocity field
around a ship stern and compared the result
with 5-hole Pitot tube data. The comparison
showed good agreement. Eca et al. (1994)
measured tip vortices in a cavitation tunnel by
3D LDV system. The results were compared
with CFD results and good agreement was ob-
tained. Hoekstra & Aalbers (1996) have made
extensive wake measurements for 8 ship mod-
els using 3D LDV. The two-colour backscatter
system permitted simultaneous measurement of
3 velocity components in the towing tank, such
that turbulence intensities and Reynolds
stresses could be determined. Longo et al.
(1998) performed measurements of solid/free-
surface boundary layer and wake using a towed
two-component LDV system.
Traditionally, 5-holes Pitot probes have
been used for measuring 3D aerodynamic flow
fields. The development of 4-hole probes has
brought the advantages of a smaller size, fewer
measurements in calibration and application,
and less instrumentation. Improvements of the
5-hole Pitot tube are made in the form of a 4-
hole pyramid probe, as explained by Main et al.
(1996), or a 7-hole probe by Payne et al. (1989).
Zilliac (1993) analysed the performance of
seven-hole pressure probes and found the
maximum probe onset-flow angle is approxi-
mately 70 degrees. Payne et al. (1989) com-
pares its suitability and accuracy for delta wing
vortex flow fields with LDV measurements. It
was found that the seven-hole probe is reason-
ably accurate for measurements at location be-
fore and after vortex breakdown except near the
vortex breakdown region. The major disad-
vantage of this probe, however, is its inability
to measure reversed flows, and its usage is
limited in the breakdown region.
Turbulence near the water surface has been
measured by image processing (Peirson, 1997,
Logory et al. 1996, Kumar & Banerjee, 1998).
Shear stress or vorticity distributions close to
the water surface are also obtained with this
technique giving interesting results. Pogozelski
et al. (1997) and Chang & Liu (1998) measured
wave-breaking phenomena by PIV and found
vortices behind the breaking regions. Kumar et
al. (1998) measured upwelling in a channel
flow. Hering et al. (1997a,b) measured drift
current under the wind-wave interaction.
Wave Resistance. Hirano et al. (1991)
measured the pure wave-pattern resistance
around a high-speed craft. They also quantified
the spray drag by measuring the spray flux dis-
tribution. Their approach was to take out the
spray flux, which contaminated the wave pat-
tern around the ship, by using a small bucket.
Wave Pattern Measurements. Besides the
conventional wave-cut measurements, wave
patterns can be measured using image-
processing techniques. Bonmarin et al. (1989)
use a slit laser light sheet to measure wind-
generated wave characteristics. Zhang & Cok
(1994) colour-coded the wave slope by an opti-
cal method, and Zhang (1996) integrated the
slope to obtain the wave height. Oshima et al.
(1994) measured the stern wave pattern of
high-speed craft using laser sheet and CCD
camera in a circulating water channel. They
also measure the wave pattern of a high-speed
container ship in a towing tank (Nisho et al.,
1996). Suzuki & Sumino, (1993), Suzuki & He
(1997) and Suzuki et al. (1994) measured the
2D wave pattern using projected light distribu-
tions which are proportional to the free-surface
curvature. They measured the wave-pattern
resistance around the Series 60 (C
B
=0.6) model
and compared it with experimental data.
Full Scale. Use of developing techniques at
full-scale tests is limited.
Velocity Measurements. Kux (1990) and
Tanibayashi (1990) performed wake measure-
16
ments at the propeller position by LDV. Komu-
ra et al. (1991) performed 3D particle tracking
velocimetry (PTV) and LDV measurements
simultaneously. However, the comparison of
data did not show a good agreement.
Propeller Forces. Kamiirisa et al. (1991)
and Uchida et al. (1989) measured propeller
blade fluctuating stresses. Uchida et al. (1989)
also measured the effects of the propeller
blades crossing the free-surface. Ukon et al.
(1990) and Ukon et al. (1991) measured the
pressure distributions for a conventional and a
highly skewed propeller.
Sea Trials. Takezawa et al. (1994) per-
formed sea trials of superconducting electro-
magnetohydrodynamic propulsion
ship Yamato 1. They succeeded to propel a
craft by superconducting electromagnetohydro-
dynamic propulsive water jet pumps.
3.4 Conclusions
There is an increasing demand for more
detailed model- and full-scale local-flow data,
both for design and for CFD calibra-
tion/validation. The advent of modern physical-
scale LDV, PIV, surface shear stress and pres-
sure distribution, and wave-elevation meas-
urement systems (instrumentation, data acqui-
sition and reduction) holds promise for meeting
this demand. More work is needed on full-scale
measurements, especially local flow.
4. TRENDS IN COMPUTATIONAL FLUID
DYNAMICS
The development of CFD for marine appli-
cations has continued at an increased pace, as
has its use in practical ship design. The fol-
lowing sections summarise the trends over the
last 3 years, of relevance to ship resistance and
flow. Section 4.1 discusses application of CFD
techniques in ship design practice with regard
to status and needs. In Sections 4.2, 4.3 and 4.4,
the present state of the art and recent develop-
ments in inviscid and viscous flow methods
and CFD-based optimisation are described. The
discussion will be essentially limited to
methods for steady flow calculations.
4.1 Practical Application of CFD; Status and
Needs
The actual application of CFD methods in
ship design has always lagged behind the de-
velopment of methods, which justifies a sepa-
rate discussion. This survey partly updates the
21st ITTC Resistance Committee's discussion
on "A Naval Architects View", and likewise is
partly based on the committee's own perception,
since the general status on applications is not
easily retrieved in the literature.
Inviscid Flow Calculation Methods. Most
CFD applications in ship design today concern
the wave pattern and inviscid flow around the
hull. The methods used, discussed in Section
4.2 below, usually are panel methods imposing
either linearised or nonlinear free-surface
boundary conditions. The former are easier to
deal with for less experienced users, as they do
not iterate for the free-surface location. The
nonlinear methods are significantly more accu-
rate and complete, but all the same need not be
appreciably more time-consuming or less ro-
bust.
Several shipyards have started collecting
experience with these methods. Steps are being
made to integrate these calculations into the
design process (Tuxen et al., 1998, Kim et al.,
1998c). This involves interfacing with CAD
systems, automatic panel generation tools,
postprocessing and visualisation programs. At
towing tanks and institutes the use of these
methods is more advanced and comprehensive.
For some of them, inviscid flow calculations
have become a standard component of any ship
hull form design project, preceding model
testing. Accreditation of these tools is a desired
next step.
While often the predicted wave resistance is
the main result on which design variations are
compared or optimised, there is increasing
awareness that this is not the best way to ex-
ploit these tools. In the first place, the resis-
tance value gives no specific indication of
which features of the design affect the wave
making, how the design could be improved, or
what aspects of the calculation are less reliable.
Secondly, the predicted wave resistance may be
the least accurate part of the results. In particu-
lar linearised methods may give quite poor re-
sistance predictions, due to their basic assump-
17
tions (Raven, 1990). Nonlinear codes at least
provide positive and more consistent resistance
estimates, but still suffer from numerical inac-
curacy in the pressure integration over the hull
and sensitivity to modelling details. Improve-
ment may be obtained by applying wave pattern
analysis to the calculated pattern (Nakos &
Sclavounos, 1994, Raven & Prins, 1998).
Even with sufficient numerical accuracy the
wave resistance derived from an inviscid flow
code still may be unreliable due to the neglect
of viscous effects on wavemaking. While per-
fectly justified over most of the hull, this ne-
glect may lead to an appreciable overestimation
of the stern wave system (and thereby of the
wave resistance) for fuller hull forms, for cruis-
er stern shapes, and in case of flow separation
or dead-water areas aft of a transom (Raven,
1998). Corrections for viscous effects should
improve this, but are hard to prescribe by sim-
ple rules due to the sensitivity to the hull form.
Consequently, wave resistance from invis-
cid-flow codes will only be quantitatively accu-
rate for rather slender vessels at higher speed, if
predicted by a nonlinear method and with much
care for numerical accuracy. For other applica-
tions they may still be very useful for ranking
design variations, but not for modifications that
significantly affect the viscous effects on wave
making, e.g. J anson & Larsson (1996). Pub-
lished evidence that the predicted wave resis-
tance is always good enough for ranking pur-
poses, is rather limited. In any case it is prefer-
ably always used in combination with a judge-
ment on the predicted wave pattern.
The predicted wave pattern is much more
reliable and accurate. Predictions of the fore-
body wave making and in particular the bow
wave height at the hull are frequently used for
assessing designs and ranking variations. Non-
linear methods here give significantly more
realistic and comprehensive predictions than
linear ones. The wave profile along the remain-
der of the hull is more easily predicted, and
fore- and aft shoulder waves usually are accu-
rate also for linearised methods.
The use of predicted stern wave systems is
much harder, and judgement still plays a sub-
stantial role. In any case, linearised methods are
not applicable to the common sterns with a
transom above the still water level. Nonlinear
methods perform much better in that regard but
still suffer from the uncertainty whether the
transom will be cleared or wetted by the flow,
an intricate viscous effect not modelled. For a
wetted transom, the stern wave system may be
strongly overestimated. However, some suc-
cesses have been shown for more slender ves-
sels, for which the trends of the wave pattern
and resistance with stern shape and transom
height were well predicted (Raven & Valkhof,
1995, Raven, 1998). Experiments are desired
for determining the dependencies and limits of
inviscid methods for stern flows.
Predicted wave patterns may be useful for
estimating wash (Hughes, 1997, Raven et al.,
1998), provided the wave evolution over large
distances (and ideally other effects such as su-
percritical flows or effects of bottom topogra-
phy) can be accurately handled, which is a
challenge.
Viscous Flow Calculation Methods. For
viscous flow calculation methods, RANS
methods today are dominant. Besides dedicated
codes for ship flows, also commercial general-
purpose RANS solvers are being used. In most
practical cases free-surface effects are disre-
garded, but this may well change soon.
Use of RANS solvers in ship design gener-
ally is not yet a routine procedure but is largely
limited to special applications or specific des-
ign questions, mainly by towing tanks/institutes.
The number of actual design calculations using
viscous flow codes is limited but increasing.
Also some large shipyards use viscous flow
solvers on a more or less experimental basis.
Reportedly, in the Far East the practical use of
RANS codes at shipyards is more widespread
(Larsson, 1997b).
In principle, calculation of the viscous flow
around the hull holds great promise for future
applications: to support the extrapolation of
model tests to full scale; to predict viscous re-
sistance at model or full scale; to provide the
effective wake field at full scale and permit an
integrated optimisation of hull and propeller;
and to predict the occurrence, extent and risk of
separation at full scale, e.g. permitting to fix
more precisely the limit of afterbody fullness.
However, almost none of these examples has
been realised so far and current possibilities are
more limited, although quite helpful.
A major restriction is that most current
solvers have limited applicability for full scale.
The very large velocity gradients at the wall
18
require large grid stretching and excessive cell
aspect ratios, causing numerical problems for
many codes. Wall functions alleviate this but
are less accurate. Consequently, almost all
practical use today is for model scale, and pub-
lications on full scale viscous flow are rare. Eca
& Hoekstra (1996) show accurate full-scale
calculations without wall functions. Bull &
Watson (1998) present scale effect studies for
an appended submarine using some different
turbulence models.
Besides possible numerical problems, other
issues are turbulence modelling for high R
n
,
and the difficulty of carrying out experimental
validation at full scale. Nevertheless, because
of the scarceness of other information on scale
effects, numerically accurate full-scale solu-
tions already can be very useful and instructive.
Regarding viscous resistance, substantial
prediction errors are still found in the literature.
In SRI (1994), results varied enormously be-
tween methods, but about half of the predic-
tions was within 10% of the data. Larsson et al.
(1998) suppose that the prediction may be ac-
curate enough for ranking design variations,
provided much care is exercised in the genera-
tion of the grid, particularly at the hull ends.
Precise grid dependence studies are required.
Bertram (1998) gives an example of a correct
ranking of viscous resistance, although the
magnitude of the (relatively small) differences
was overestimated. Kasahara & Masuda (1998)
apply a regression-analysis-based correction to
their CFD-predictions, and thus predict form
factors for a variety of ships to within 2 %. This
suggests a correct ranking, but in absolute val-
ue their CFD predictions for resistance often
are 15 % in error. Therefore, as with inviscid
methods the main benefit is not in predicting
just resistance, but in providing comprehensive
though qualitative flow field information and
prediction of trends.
As for the wake field in the propeller plane
(with or without propeller effect), the general
status is that its details cannot yet be reliably
predicted. For slender ships good predictions
may be obtained, for more critical cases usually
the predicted wake contours are too smooth and
show too little influence of longitudinal vor-
tices. The circumferentially averaged wake is
predicted better, and the wake fraction aver-
aged over the propeller disk can be fairly good,
according to limited information (e.g. Kasahara
& Masuda, 1998). However, propeller design
cannot fully rely on the wake field predictions
now (Larsson et al., 1998). Two main causes of
this are insufficient resolution of flow details,
and deficiencies in turbulence modelling. Both
may be significant in certain cases, but the cur-
rent opinion seems to emphasise the latter
cause.
Predicted flow fields could also be very
useful and practical for appendage alignment,
design of energy saving devices and twin-
gondola stern design. There is a large practical
demand in this regard, since experimental tech-
niques are subject to scale effects. However,
calculations are hard due to the complicated
geometries, and a very high accuracy of the
result is often required. Larsson et al. (1998)
state that useful predictions may be made for
appendages that are not too close to the pro-
peller plane, or for slender transom stern ves-
sels. For other cases the flow directions may be
expected to have a similar unreliability as the
wake field.
A most useful application for a class of
cases is the prediction of occurrence and type
of flow separation. Shortcomings in the turbu-
lence modelling seem of less influence here,
and calculations give much more information
than is obtainable otherwise. Valkhof & Hoek-
stra (1998) illustrate the practical benefit of
such calculations.
Summarising we believe that the very large
potential of viscous flow calculations is not
fully exploited yet in design; partly due to cur-
rent limitations such as insufficient wake field
predictions and problems for full scale; partly
due to circumstances such as the required time
for grid generation and geometry treatment, or
the experience required for applying the
methods successfully to a variety of cases.
Therefore, attention is desired for:
improving wake and flow field predictions
around the stern, by better representation of
turbulence effects, e.g. using tuned eddy-
viscosity models, Reynolds stress model
(RSM) or even large eddy simulation
(LES);
improving numerical accuracy;
improving the ease, speed and range of ap-
plication, e.g. via multiblock, unstructured,
or adaptive grids;
enhancing the applicability for full scale,
and collecting full-scale validation data.
19
After this discussion of practical applications of
CFD in ship design, we will now discuss recent
advances in research and development.
4.2 Inviscid Flow Calculation Methods
Introduction. Inviscid models for the steady
flow around a ship hull predict the wave pattern
and wave resistance, the velocity and pressure
field; and lift effects (hydrofoils, sailing yachts).
Usually the Laplace equation for the velocity
potential is solved; in some cases, the Euler
equations, but these mostly are intended as a
step towards solving RANS equations with
free-surface, and are discussed in that context
later. For calculating the steady wave pattern
one can either solve a transient problem until
the steady state has been reached, or solve the
steady problem directly. Unlike viscous flow
computations, virtually all inviscid methods use
the latter approach, which is successful and
more efficient. This requires that a particular
combination of kinematic and dynamic free-
surface boundary condition is imposed, of
which the Kelvin condition is one example.
Steady Potential Flow Solution Methods.
The exact inviscid free-surface boundary con-
ditions are nonlinear and must be imposed on
an unknown wave surface. Until around 1986
the problem was virtually always linearised,
and research concentrated on devising suitable
linearisations. Slow-ship linearised methods
such as Dawson's were dominant, giving fairly
realistic results at modest computational effort.
While linearised codes are being used in in-
dustry, during the last few years there is little
development on these, as little further progress
seems possible and linearisations are in most
cases not needed anymore.
Most publications now concern solution of
the fully nonlinear free-surface potential flow
problem. Taking into account the nonlinear
effects improves the predictions much more
than was expected before, and in other cases
than was assumed. Bow wave height and di-
verging bow wave system, severely underesti-
mated by linearised methods, can now be quite
well predicted. In Raven (1997) the differences
between wave patterns found with linear and
nonlinear methods are analysed and explained.
Principal effects are due to imposing the free-
surface boundary condition on the actual water
surface instead of the still water plane, and due
to the refraction of the ship's wave system by
the velocity field around the hull. In addition,
nonlinear methods include a more complete
representation of several hull form features,
dynamic trim and sinkage, and the flow off a
(dry) transom stern.
These methods seem mature now, and sev-
eral development lines have converged to fairly
similar solutions. Some references are J ensen
(1988), J ensen et al. (1989), Raven (1993),
Raven (1996), Kim et al. (1994), J anson (1997),
and Hughes (1997). In Raven (1998) the main
features of the leading methods are compared
and capabilities and limitations of this flow
model are outlined.
The nonlinear problem is solved iteratively.
Most methods start from an undisturbed free-
surface and uniform flow, and obtain a con-
verged result in O(10) iterations in practice.
Each step solves a linearised problem that is
fairly similar to that in Dawson's method.
While the basic set-up is rather straightforward,
care is needed for numerical details in order to
come to a convergent and stable procedure.
Within each iteration the Laplace equation
for the potential, subject to hull and free-
surface boundary conditions, is solved, usually
by a Boundary Integral or Panel method, either
in Green's identity or in source distribution
form. Remarkably, the leading nonlinear
methods now all use raised singularities or
desingularisation, i.e. sources located at a
distance above the wave surface. This uncon-
ventional approach was first proposed by Xia
(1986) and J ensen et al. (1986) for the wave
resistance problem; and by Schultz et al. (1990)
for unsteady free-surface problems. Raised sin-
gularity methods owe their popularity in this
application to some favourable properties. Us-
ing the theoretical analysis method proposed by
Sclavounos & Nakos (1988), Raven (1992,
1996) analyses the stability, numerical disper-
sion and damping and concludes that raised-
panel methods substantially reduce the numeri-
cal dispersion and can eliminate point-to-point
oscillations. J anson (1997) extends this analy-
sis to higher-order raised panels and finds that
these give no significant increase in accuracy
compared to first order.
The "radiation condition" that excludes any
steady waves upstream of the disturbance, re-
quires a particular treatment. There are two
popular ways of imposing this. One is, using
upwind difference schemes in the implementa-
20
tion of the free-surface boundary condition, a
device introduced by Dawson (1977). This in-
troduces some numerical damping, which,
however, can be minimised by a suitable choice
of the scheme, Raven (1998). The alternative
way to satisfy the radiation condition is, shift-
ing the free-surface collocation points forward
over one panel length relative to the panels, a
technique proposed by J ensen et al. (1986) and
J ensen (1987). This permits to use analytical
differentiation of panel inductions instead of a
difference scheme, which is theoretically more
accurate and free of numerical damping; alt-
hough J anson (1997) found little advantage in
practice.
While the multiple iterations could require
an order of magnitude more computational ef-
fort than previous linearised methods, the dif-
ference has largely disappeared due to better
matrix solvers. The combined free-surface
boundary condition together with a source-only
formulation leads to a rather poorly conditioned
system of equations, in the past solved by
Gaussian elimination, requiring O (N
3
) opera-
tions for N panels. Today, several methods use
an iterative matrix solver with proper precon-
ditioning, reducing the effort to O (N
2
) and
saving much calculation time. The fastest
methods now solve a fully nonlinear problem
with e.g. 4000 panels in half an hour on a PC.
There have been various proposals for
further speedup. Soeding (1996) proposes a
multigrid type approach for a panel method,
and a panel clustering technique that combines
the effect of several remote panels, reducing
storage and computational time. More ad-
vanced are "multipole acceleration" techniques
(Korsmeyer et al., 1993) that approximate both
far and local potential fields in spherical har-
monics, permitting a reduction of the computa-
tional effort for the entire method to O(N). In a
simple example, for 5000 singularities the CPU
time was reduced by a factor of 5 (Scorpio et
al., 1996). An alternative, perhaps more easily
applied to common steady wave pattern calcu-
lation methods, is the "Precorrected FFT tech-
nique" (Korsmeyer et al., 1996). Application of
all these techniques to the problems considered
here is just starting, and substantial further im-
provement seems possible. However, the pri-
mary benefit of these techniques will be for
radiation/diffraction or wave propagation
problems, where far larger panel numbers are
required.
Unsteady Potential Flow Solution Methods.
Most unsteady potential flow methods are pri-
marily meant for truly unsteady applications
(seakeeping etc.), but some can be used to cal-
culate the evolution of the wave pattern until a
steady solution of the nonlinear problem has
been found. All methods use the kinematic
free-surface boundary condition to find an up-
dated wave surface, and the dynamic condition
to find a new potential at that surface. Rather
few methods in this class permit a substantial
forward speed. A noteworthy development is
that of Beck et al. (1993), Scorpio et al. (1996),
Subramani et al. (1998b), an unsteady desin-
gularised point source method. For some
steady wavemaking problems they get good
agreement with the data (Ratcliffe, 1998).
However, for steady applications this approach
is less efficient, requiring two orders of mag-
nitude more CPU time than a steady nonlinear
panel code.
Transom Sterns. There is continued interest
in the flow off a transom stern, most research
addressing the immersed transom sterns used
for high-speed ships, rather than the transoms
above the still waterline that are common for
merchant vessels. Inviscid flow approximations
only apply to a flow regime in which the tran-
som is dry and the water surface detaches from
the transom edge. There needs to be no diffi-
culty in computing such a smooth transom flow
as long as a potential flow solution exists.
However, in a range of cases the transom will
actually be wetted and the potential flow solu-
tion is locally unrealistic, but the calculations
do not indicate this (Raven, 1998).
For dry-transom cases a particular treatment
of the free-surface detachment from the tran-
som edge is required. A variety of methods and
physical models has been proposed, mostly for
linearised methods. The fundamental inconsis-
tency of a transom flow model with most line-
arisation assumptions often has caused diffi-
culties. Doctors & Day (1997) assume a shape
of the hollow of the water surface aft of the
transom, described by a few empirical parame-
ters; and include this hollow as an extension of
the hull in a Michell theory program. Telste &
Reed (1993) model the flow off an immersed
transom stern in a Neumann-Kelvin method,
and propose a modified linearisation relative to
a cylindrical surface extending aft from the
transom edge. Wang et al. (1996) compare a
Kelvin source and Rankine source method, and
a method proposed by Tulin & Hsu (1986)
21
valid asymptotically for very high speed. For
the former two methods the treatment of the
transom flow is not discussed. Results shown,
for the wave resistance of a single hull form,
are inconclusive.
In a nonlinear method the treatment of the
flow off a transom stern is much more obvious.
The free-surface boundary conditions are im-
posed on the actual wave surface, and the mod-
elling just needs to make sure that this wave
surface has the proper behaviour at the transom
edge. Raven (1993, 1996) argues that physi-
cally no vorticity is involved, and points out the
analogy with free-streamline theory. While the
flow off the hull is tangential, the curvature of
the streamlines at the transom edge may tend to
infinity (although this seems to have little effect
in practice). Comparison with dedicated ex-
periments (Raven & Valkhof, 1995, Raven,
1998) shows that for a dry transom the correct
trend of stern wave height and shape with tran-
som immersion is predicted; but that some
systematic deviations occur due to the neglect
of viscous effects.
Subramani et al. (1998b) apply a 2D version
of their time-dependent nonlinear desingul-
arised code to a semi-infinite body with tran-
som. The calculations reproduce the two possi-
ble flow regimes, one with a stagnation point at
the transom face, another with a smooth flow
off the transom edge; and agree very well with
analytical results for the trailing wave steepness.
Simplified Methods. There have been some
recent proposals for simplified treatments, in-
tended to give a clearer view of the physics or
to permit solution of problems that cannot be
dealt with by complete nonlinear codes.
Noblesse et al. (1996) consider the Neu-
mann-Kelvin problem, or the corresponding
problem of radiation with forward speed in the
frequency domain. They extend the Kochin
theory to simplify the numerical evaluation of
the velocity field induced by a distribution of
Kelvin singularities on the hull surface. They
derive an explicit form for the wavy velocity
field away from the hull, in terms of a velocity
distribution on a matching surface found from
e.g. a nonlinear inviscid or viscous flow calcu-
lation for the near field; thus enabling a
promising composite approach.
In the "2D+T" approximation for slender
ships, the steady 3D velocity field is considered
as a 2D field in cross-sectional planes, evolving
in time. This approximation disregards trans-
verse waves and upstream influences (via the
pressure field). However, the 2D fully non-
linear problems in crossplanes can be solved
with very high resolution, and it is easier to
include overturning wave crests. Tulin & Wu
(1996) use this to study the origin and behav-
iour of diverging bow waves, producing physi-
cally plausible bow wave breaking. A compari-
son with a fully nonlinear 3D result shows
qualitative agreement for the wave pattern
shape.
4.3 Viscous Flow Calculation Methods
There has been much recent activity in de-
velopment of viscous flow calculation methods
for maritime applications. In virtually all cases
this concerned solution methods of the RANS
equations. This subsection reviews some of the
main trends and achievements, addressing grid
generation; numerical algorithms; free-surface
treatment; turbulence; and unsteady flow cal-
culations.
Grid Generation and Domain Decomposi-
tion. Grid generation often is the most time
consuming part of a CFD computation, requir-
ing substantial effort. To handle practical, often
complicated geometries like ship hulls with
appendages, the main difficulty is the genera-
tion of a suitable body-fitted grid. CAD capa-
bilities are required to construct the grid topol-
ogy and to support the projection of grid nodes
on the surface of the hull. In the last few years
there is a tendency to use commercial codes for
grid generation.
The choice of the grid depends on the ap-
plication and the numerical method used. The
most common types of grids are described be-
low, in order of increasing flexibility.
Single-block Structured Grids. Structured
grids are typically generated using either alge-
braic functions or solution of partial differential
equations which describe the transformation
between a physical domain and a rectangular
computational domain (Larsson et al., 1998,
Kim et al., 1998a). In some cases 2D grids are
generated in separate transverse planes, and
corresponding grid nodes are simply connected
in the longitudinal direction (Tzabiras, 1997a).
Advantages of structured grids are the simplifi-
cation of the programming, the reduction of the
memory requirements due to the consecutive
22
numbering of grid lines, and the regular struc-
ture of the matrix of algebraic equations that
permits the use of a variety of efficient solvers
(Ferziger & Peric, 1997).
The most common single-block structured
grid is an H-type grid. This has certain limita-
tions, such as limited possibilities for accurate
consideration of the stem and stern profiles,
and may involve grid singularities in front of
and behind the hull, which may affect the con-
vergence of the numerical solution. For these
reasons, some recent applications use an O-O
or C-O topology, Tahara & Himeno (1998) and
Kim et al. (1998b) presented a grid generation
method based on solving a Poisson equation.
The method was applied for a tanker with bul-
bous bow and bulbous stern. The quality of the
numerical grid in their case was considerably
improved by using O-O grid topology.
A single-block structured grid offers limited
possibilities for local refinement. Concentration
of points in a certain region, e.g. near the wall,
may produce unnecessarily small spacing in
other parts of the solution domain and lead to
bad cell aspect ratios. Also, a sudden change of
the ship form as in case of a transom stern or
skeg may cause strong deformation of the grid.
Multi-block Structured Grids. In many ap-
plications, such as twin-screw ships, subma-
rines, or sailing yachts, appendages have a
strong influence on the flow. In such cases it is
difficult or impossible to construct a single-
block grid with satisfactory resolution. Multi-
block grids then may provide a useful com-
promise between the simplicity of single-block
grids and the ability to handle complex geome-
try that completely unstructured grids allow.
They offer enough flexibility for most hull
forms.
The number of multi-block applications for
practical ship forms is increasing rapidly in
ship hydrodynamics literature during the last
three years, and now they are applied nearly in
every second computation of viscous flow for
practical ship forms. Examples were presented
by Bull & Watson (1998), Beddhu et al. (1998),
Haussling et al. (1997), and Wilson et al.
(1998).
The first step of multi-block grid generation
is the construction of the grid topology, i.e.,
subdividing the calculation domain into a rea-
sonable number of blocks for the grid genera-
tion. This is not at all straight forward; the
quality of the topology influences the quality of
the numerical grid directly (angle between grid
lines, aspect ratio of control volumes, and the
size ratio of two neighbouring volumes). Chap-
pell & Bull (1998) discuss the difficulties of
constructing a grid topology for a combatant
with sonar dome, transom stern and append-
ages. Bull (1996) investigates the effect of the
topology of the numerical grid on numerical
results around the Suboff fully appended
geometry. The topology of the numerical grid
can be parameterised with respect to the shape
of the hull, e.g. for certain classes of bulbous
bows or appendages. This has the advantage
that the numerical grid can be automatically
generated for similar forms. An example of
application of a parameterised multi-block grid
for a propeller is given in Abdel-Maksoud et al.
(1998a).
The simplest domain decomposition ap-
proaches require regular connections between
the grids in adjacent blocks; i.e. matching grid
lines at interfaces. This makes it difficult to
construct a good grid topology for hulls with
different size of appendages. A more general
technique allows non-matching sub-domain
grids. This provides much flexibility, in par-
ticular the possibility of using different grid
resolution in different blocks (local refinement),
and reduces the effort for the grid generation.
Although the connectivity information between
the cells faces at the sub-domains interfaces
increases the memory requirements and com-
puting time compared to a traditional multi-
block technique, it is still less than for an un-
structured grid. On the other hand, in most
cases the spatial discretisation between the dif-
ferent non-matching sub-domains is only first
order, which affects the quality of the results.
Also, for non-planar interfaces, grid gaps or
overlapping can easily occur when different
grid resolutions at both sides of the interface
are applied.
Non-matching multi-block grids are very
powerful for complicated interaction problems
between hull and appendages. J iang & Remo-
tigue (1998) applied it for the Suboff geome-
try with full appendages, a submarine with
ring-wing and a destroyer with rudders, pro-
pellers and shaft supporting struts, and an ac-
tuator disk for the propeller. Chappell & Bull
(1998) presented a grid topology for a combat-
ant with sonar dome and appendages. The ap-
plication of non-matching multi-block tech-
23
nique for propeller blades and shaft, and in an
investigation of propeller-hull interaction for a
Series 60 C
B
=0.6 model, is shown in Abdel-
Maksoud et al. (1998b). Cura Hochbaum
(1998) used the technique for computing the
flow around a ship model in steady turn and in
oblique motion.
Composite or Overlapping Multi-block
(Chimera) Grids. Overlapping grid techniques
overcome the difficulty of matching the
boundary surfaces between the different sub-
domains and the necessity of applying complex
grid topologies. In this case, each piece of the
geometry can be treated as a complete separate
component grid, which itself may consist of a
multi-block grid (Lin et al., 1998). Also regions
with large gradients such as boundary layers
may be covered with separate grids embedded
into one or more background grids (Larsson et
al., 1998).
A method is needed to interconnect the off-
set grids, create proper hole regions and define
interfaces between overlapping grids at which
boundary conditions for one block are obtained
by interpolating the solution from the other
overlapped block (Lin et al., 1998). The disad-
vantage of these grids is that conservation is
not easily enforced at the interpolated irregular
block boundaries (Ferziger & Peric, 1997).
Masuko (1998) reported convergence difficul-
ties when using staggered variable arrange-
ments, which could be caused by the interpola-
tion of the solution between the different com-
ponent grids.
The largest advantage of this technique is
its applicability to, e.g., complex hull forms
with moving appendages and for moving bod-
ies. In this case, one or more blocks are cover-
ing the body and moving with it, while a static
grid covers the surroundings. Chen & Huang
(1998) used this technique for investigating the
unsteady induced flow by a full scale berthing
vessel in a small harbour. Alessandrini & Del-
hommeau (1998) used it for computing the
viscous free-surface flow past a ship in drift
and in yawing motion. The overlapping grid
feature may be utilised in the calculation of the
flow around a propeller operating in the wake
behind the hull or the flow interaction between
different ships moving with different velocities
(Larsson, 1997a). Also it is powerful to inves-
tigate the optimum location and size of certain
appendages without significant modification of
the numerical grid; Lin et al. (1998) presented
results for a naval combatant with two different
bow bulb configurations, and for a body of
revolution with self adjusting control surfaces.
Masuko (1998) investigated the flow around
waterjet inlets, a stern with a fin in front of the
propeller and a stern with a skeg. Korpus et al.
(1998) applied the Chimera technique for a
podded propulsor with strut and fin.
Unstructured Grids. This is the most
flexible type of grid, which can fit an arbitrary
solution domain boundary. Unstructured grids
are usually used with finite element methods
and, increasingly, with finite volume methods.
The elements or control volumes may have any
basic shape but in practice tetrahedra or hexa-
hedra are most often used. The aspect ratio can
be easily controlled and the grid may be locally
refined. Unstructured grids are very preferred
for automation of grid generation. On the other
hand, such grids require connectivity tables
which identify the neighbours of each node;
due to indirect addressing, larger memory re-
quirement, and more complicated solvers for
the linear equation systems, the computing time
per iteration is usually longer on unstructured
than on block-structured grids (Lilek et al.,
1997).
The application of unstructured grids in
ship hydrodynamics is still relatively limited.
Recent applications are wave resistance calcu-
lation using a finite element solution of the
Euler equations (Yang & Lhner, 1998), and in
viscous flow computations, Lhner et al.
(1998). Arabshahi et al. (1998) employed un-
structured grid for viscous flow around the ap-
pended Suboff configuration at different drift
angles; Hino (1998) for free-surface viscous
flow around a VLCC model with and without
rudder.
The difficulties of application of unstruc-
tured grids for high R
n
boundary layers are dis-
cussed in Larsson et al. (1998). To overcome
these, Bull (1996) used a grid with prismatic
cells surrounding the geometry and tetrahedral
cells elsewhere. Prismatic cells have the ad-
vantage that the grid lines may be orthogonal to
the wall surface; this improves the accuracy of
the computation in the boundary layer region.
Algorithms for RANS Solvers. For solving
numerically the equations of viscous incom-
pressible flow for maritime applications, all
common discretisation methods have been ap-
plied, such as finite difference (Kim et al.,
24
1998a, Hoekstra & Eca, 1998, Tahara &
Himeno, 1998, Wilson et al., 1998), finite vol-
ume (Masuko, 1998, El-Moktar & Muzaferija,
1998, Hino et al., 1998, Abdel-Maksoud et al.,
1998a), and, more rarely, finite element (Lh-
ner et al., 1998, Honzeaux & Codina, 1998).
Also finite-analytic schemes have been used in
many ship flow computations (Stern et al.,
1996a, Tahara et al., 1998, Chen & Huang,
1998, Yabushita & Hiuata, 1998). It is worth
mentioning the spectral and pseudo-spectral
element methods that recently have been ap-
plied, although not yet in ship hydrodynamics;
see Quarteroni & Valli (1997).
There still is much current research on
techniques for CPU time reduction and parallel
computing, space and time discretisation, ve-
locity-pressure coupling and algebraic equation
solvers. Below, just a few topics are discussed
on which there is some recent development.
Domain Decomposition. Domain decom-
position (multiblock methods) may be an im-
portant technique for CPU time reduction. Two
types of domain decomposition exist. In the
first one, called non homogeneous domain
decomposition approach or zonal approach,
different equations are solved in each zone, for
example the RANS equations in boundary lay-
ers and wakes and an inviscid model in the
outer region, which is less CPU time intensive.
In the second one, called homogeneous do-
main decomposition approach the same equa-
tions are solved in all subdomains. This tech-
nique facilitates not only the discretisation for
complex geometries but also the use of parallel
computing (Bull & Watson, 1998, Cowles &
Martinelli, 1998). It also allows the use of grids
with different spacing in each region (Paterson
et al., 1996), useful in viscous free-surface
problems where we have to discretise flow
features with very different characteristic
lengths.
Domain decomposition poses requirements
to the solution algorithm. One approach is to
carry out the iteration in each block and to up-
date the values at the interfaces before going to
the next iteration, (Cura Hochbaum, 1998a,
Tzabiras, 1997a). This is effective if the num-
ber of blocks is small. For each separate block
the organisation of the data in the code and the
structure of the matrix of the algebraic equation
system is similar as in a single-block applica-
tion. The other approach, more often used in
newly developed codes, considers all control
volumes simultaneously, independent of to
which block they belong. This results in an
irregular structure of the matrices of linear
equations, and an efficient solver for these is
required. The advantages are good convergence
characteristics also for the case when the pres-
sure is crucial, and the fact that the number of
blocks does not influence the computing time
directly.
Velocity Pressure Coupling. For setting up
efficient algorithms for solving the incom-
pressible RANS or Navier-Stokes equations
one should take into account their particular
structure in which no time derivative of the
pressure appears. This can be done in different
ways, the most popular being pressure Pois-
son or pressure based methods, and the arti-
ficial compressibility approach. In both meth-
ods, the coupling of the pressure to the velocity
field is achieved indirectly through iteration or
time stepping.
The first class is based on projection
schemes (Miyata, 1996, Alessandrini & Del-
hommeau, 1996, Ramamurti & Lhner, 1996,
Lhner et al., 1997). A velocity field is predict-
ed in a first step. The conservation of mass is
enforced in a second step by solving a Poisson
equation, the right-hand side of which depends
on the predicted velocity field, which gives a
new pressure. Finally, the velocity field is up-
dated with this new pressure. Hence these
methods are closely related to the family of
algorithms called semi-implicit method for
pressure link equations (SIMPLE) method. A
further development is the method called pres-
sure-implicit with splitting of operators (PISO)
scheme, used in Hamasaki et al. (1996) and
Abdel-Maksoud et al. (1998b).
The second class, artificial compressibility
schemes, is used by, e.g., Cowles & Martinelli
(1998), Hino (1997), and Bet et al. (1998). The
infinite speed of sound of the incompressible
medium is reduced to a finite number by ad-
ding a time derivative of the pressure to the
divergence equation. At steady state the time
derivative vanishes, yielding the proper incom-
pressible solution. This approach enables the
use of techniques developed for compressible
flow simulation, such as limiters (Cowles &
Martinelli, 1998) and upwind differencing of
higher order (Mompean, 1998).

Besides the two basic methods mentioned,
there are also solution techniques in which the
25
continuity equation is fully coupled with the
momentum equations and satisfied at every
instant in the solution process (Hoekstra & Eca,
1998).
Time Discretisation. In many cases the un-
steady RANS equations are solved also for
steady flow applications, by using explicit,
semi-implicit or implicit time stepping. Most
computations use second order time stepping
schemes (Boukir et al., 1997, Rodes et al.,
1998), although in general schemes are used
from first order explicit or implicit (Schumann,
1998a,b, Brakkee et al., 1998) to multistage
Runge-Kutta (Cowles & Martinelli, 1998),
sometimes with coefficients optimised for
computational performance (Martinelli &
Cowles, 1998). Also second order semi-
implicit fractional step and Adams-Moulton
multistep methods have been used (Mayer et al.,
1998, Codina et al., 1998).
Space Discretisation. In general, the vis-
cous terms are discretised by a central scheme
of order from second to fourth (Sung et al.,
1996, Cura Hochbaum, 1998, Nirata, 1996),
while the convective terms are discretised tak-
ing into account their hyperbolic behaviour,
that is by various upwind schemes (Tan, 1996,
Bull & Watson, 1998, Alessandrini & Del-
hommeau, 1996, Nirata, 1996).
The Total Variation Diminishing (TVD)
and Essentially Non Oscillatory (ENO)
schemes should also be mentioned in this re-
gard; see Shu (1998) and the references listed
therein. The basic idea of these schemes was to
prevent the occurrence of oscillations in the
solution near shocks in compressible flow. In
incompressible flow they may be useful for
stability and accuracy in high-gradient regions.
In TVD schemes, the idea is to reduce the total
variation of the conserved quantity by limiting
the flux of the quantity through the control
volume interfaces (Godlewski & Raviart, 1996).
The simplest idea is to choose a high order flux
(e.g. the Lax-Wendroff flux) that works well in
smooth regions, and a low order flux (typically
some monotone first order method) that be-
haves well near discontinuities and steep gradi-
ents; the scheme combines these two into a
single flux expression. One such scheme is
known as the slope limiter: Monotonic Up-
stream Centred Schemes for Conservation
Laws (MUSCL), applied in ship hydrodynam-
ics by Gatiganti et al. (1998) and Hino (1998).
Algebraic Equation Solvers and Accelera-
tion Techniques. The numerical solution of the
incompressible Navier-Stokes equations almost
ever requires solving large systems of linear
algebraic equations. Common discretisation
methods give linear systems with sparse matri-
ces. Hence, iterative solvers are the most effec-
tive, but their convergence depends on the
structure of the matrices themselves. Different
approaches are used to improve the convergen-
ce properties, such as multigrid techniques
(Spyropoulos et al., 1998) and Krylov subspace
methods (Tefy & Leyland, 1998, Oosterlee et
al., 1998), although also Cholesky and ap-
proximate factorisation are used (Mompean,
1998, Haussling et al., 1997). The combination
of Krylov subspace projection methods and
good preconditioning is state of the art. The
generalised minimum residual method
(GMRES) is often the preferred method for the
solution of large, sparse, and possibly non-
symmetric systems such as arising in CFD
(Spyropoulos et al., 1998, Dwyer & Grear,
1998).
Vuik (1996), Brakkee (1996) and Tan
(1996) present a recent application of GMRES
as an accelerator in domain decomposition
methods. For this approach, new techniques
with inaccurate subdomain solvers are under
investigation, Brakkee et al. (1998).
One of the more widely used techniques for
accelerating the solution of the discretised
equations is multigrid, e.g. Cowles & Marti-
nelli (1998). Coarser grids are used to cancel
the error components whose spatial frequency
is too low for the finer grid. Large CPU time-
savings may result.
In the application of the standard multigrid
methods for the solution of the Navier-Stokes
equations in complicated domains, two prob-
lems may arise. First, coarsening is not possible
to the full extent since the geometry and flow
must be resolved by the coarsest grid used.
Second, there may be a stability restriction for
convection-diffusion problems, especially for
higher R
n
. As it is shown in Griebel et al.
(1998) the use of algebraic multigrid (AMG),
which is another type of multilevel method,
overcomes this. This does not make use of any
geometrical information of the grid.
Free-Surface Treatment. Until recently,
RANS solvers were usually applied to double-
body flows, i.e. with symmetry conditions at
26
the still water surface. The last few years have
seen much development on methods to solve
the coupled problem of ship wave making and
viscous flow. These in principle take into ac-
count interactions between both effects, re-
moving some assumptions underlying all pre-
vious CFD and towing tank work.
In the "RANS/FS" problem, a no-slip con-
dition is imposed on the wetted part of the hull
surface, and a set of free-surface boundary con-
ditions (FSBC) at the actual position of the
water surface. These are: a kinematic condition
that there be no flow across the wave surface;
and 3 dynamic conditions stating that the nor-
mal stress at the free-surface balances the am-
bient pressure and surface tension and that tan-
gential stress components vanish. See Choi &
Stern (1993) and Delhommeau et al. (1996) for
a discussion. The kinematic condition can be
stated in Eulerian or in Lagrangian form, de-
pendent on whether the free-surface is single-
valued or not. Surface tension and free-surface
boundary layers usually being unimportant,
most methods simplify the dynamic FSBC,
requiring the pressure to be atmospheric and
the normal derivatives of tangential velocities
to vanish. Dynamic trim and sinkage of the hull
ought to be taken into account but are usually
neglected, except in Orihara & Miyata (1997),
Akimoto & Miyata (1998). Lacking other in-
formation, for turbulence models generally the
same conditions as for symmetry planes are
used.
The infinite flow domain is truncated, and
absorbing boundary conditions are needed to
avoid wave reflections and possible instabilities.
Downstream usually the same conditions (lon-
gitudinal derivatives zero) are used. This may
cause problems if the outlet is too close to the
hull, Takai & Zhu (1994). Similar problems
may occur if the lateral outer boundary is too
close to the hull, unless the method is matched
to some outer solution.
For the free-surface treatment, two main
approaches can be distinguished, denoted as
"free-surface fitting" and "free-surface captur-
ing", in analogy with the treatment of shock
waves in aerodynamics.
Free-Surface Fitting. In the applications
considered means that (at least) one boundary
of the domain is the (guessed) wave surface.
On this boundary the FSBC are imposed. The
free-surface thus is a sharp interface, the mo-
tion of which is followed. Obviously the mesh
needs to be adapted in the course of the solu-
tion process to conform to the changing free-
surface location. This grid adaptation may be
either general or simplified, e.g. grid points
sliding along predefined lines (spines). Sack-
inger et al. (1996), Kim et al. (1998a) and
Beddhu et al. (1998) first define a background
grid that determines the paths along which grid
points may slide. Lhner et al. (1998) only up-
date the mesh every 100-250 time steps, and
take into account the free-surface change at
intermediate steps through the pressure
boundary condition only.
Free-surface fitting techniques are poten-
tially quite accurate, and require rather little
change to the RANS solver itself. But they are
less suitable for large free-surface distortions or
topology changes, such as for overturning
waves or when the grid has to be moved along
walls of a complicated shape. Unstructured and
multi-block grids could be a solution in such
cases.
It appears that the majority of recent
methods for steady flow around the hull now
use free-surface fitting techniques; but free-
surface capturing methods are coming up.
Free-Surface Capturing. The alternative
approach, means solving the RANS equation
on a predetermined grid, which is not fitted to
the wave surface, extends also into the air re-
gion, and therefore usually is not adapted dur-
ing the calculation process. As the free-surface
does not coincide with a domain boundary, its
position needs to be resolved on the grid.
Typical techniques in this category are:
Marker-and-Cell method (MAC): Massless
particles (markers) are initially introduced
into the water near the free-surface and
followed during the calculation. The sche-
me can compute complex phenomena, e.g.
Park & Miyata (1994) computed breaking
bow waves for a tanker model obtaining
good agreement with experiments. However,
the computing effort is large.
Volume-of-Fluid method (VOF): A trans-
port equation for the volume fraction of the
water (1 for full, 0 for empty cells) is solved,
in addition to the RANS equations. From
the distribution of these volume fractions
the free-surface shape can be reconstructed.
The method is more efficient than MAC
27
and is well suited to changing flow domain
topologies and wild free-surface motion
such as occur in sloshing problems or
breaking of waves. However, the free-
surface contour is not sharply defined and it
is not easy to keep accuracy. To obtain an
accurate free-surface with a reasonable
number of cells, various special techniques
for the free-surface reconstruction and VOF
transport algorithm have been developed
(Lafaurie et al., 1997, Muzaferija & Peric,
1998, Azcueta et al., 1998). Some im-
provements are possible by choosing a par-
ticular basis for the free-surface description,
such as in the spine-flux method (Mashayek
& Ashgriz, 1995). Lowry et al. (1997) study
the accuracy of a VOF method for wave
propagation problems, and confirm that at
least for larger-scale problems the accuracy
is of much concern. Improvements pro-
posed are an adaptive grid refinement strat-
egy, and the use of the PLIC surface recon-
struction algorithm. Schumann (1998b) ap-
plies a VOF method in a finite-volume
Euler equation solver. With sufficient grid
density a fair wave pattern prediction is
obtained for a Series 60. He also computed
a steady breaking bow wave for a tanker,
obtaining some agreement with the experi-
mental hull wave profile. In De J ouette et al.
(1996), a VOF approach is applied to a
submerged foil and a surface-piercing strut.
Because of the artificial compressibility
method used, the solution evolves in
pseudo-time. The admissible time step
size is limited due to the explicit update of
the VOF function. Similar to VOF is the
density function technique used in (Kanai
et al., 1996). The calculation includes the
air domain above the free-surface, and a
convection equation is used for the density.
The latter poses large requirements on the
discretisation, and the resulting smearing of
the density jump covers some 25 cells in the
example shown. Nevertheless, a good rep-
resentation of regular waves is achieved.
Level set technique: In this interface cap-
turing technique (Sethian, 1996) a scalar
level set function is defined everywhere
in the domain (i.e. also above the free-
surface). Initially its value is equal to the
distance to the free-surface, which therefore
is defined by the zero subset of this function.
The level set function is convected as a pas-
sive scalar, such that the interface remains
defined by its zero value. Some smearing
of the interface results from the algorithm to
locate the free-surface. On the other hand, if
the RANS solver is applied to the air region
as well, it has to handle a large jump of the
density, which may require additional
smearing to maintain stability. While the
accuracy of the free-surface reconstruction
is better than with the VOF method, the
latter feature may partly spoil this. Vogt
(1997, 1998) finds a smearing of the density
jump over 4 cells to be sufficient; a larger
interface thickness causes a larger nu-
merical dispersion of free-surface waves in
his method. The same references indicate
very high resolution requirements, 300 cells
per wavelength being needed for acceptable
numerical dispersion in the case studied.
Bet et al. (1998) use a level set treatment of
the free-surface in an artificial compressi-
bility method. Their method differs from
those mentioned above by not solving any
flow in the air domain, but using a simple
extrapolation of flow quantities towards the
free-surface. Good predictions of hull wave
profiles for standard test cases are obtained.
In summary, free-surface capturing tech-
niques are often of low order and may lack ac-
curacy when surface tension or viscous
boundary layer phenomena are dominant.
Maintaining a sufficiently sharp interface is a
point of concern. The performance of various
methods for cases with large deformations is
compared in Rider & Kothe (1995). On the
other hand, main advantages of free-surface
capturing are robustness, relative simplicity and
the ability to handle complex geometry and
wave breaking. However, while such computa-
tions may correctly indicate the inception and
occurrence of wave breaking, they may not be
expected to give useful predictions of the trail-
ing wave system without any special modelling
of the physics playing a role inside a breaker,
Kanai et al. (1996).
Solution Approach. A complication, in
particular for surface-fitting methods, is that
the FSBC are to be imposed on an initially un-
known wave surface. This requires either itera-
tion or time stepping. One of the rare examples
of the former approach is (Tzabiras, 1997b).
This is a solution method for 2D steady free-
surface flows, consisting of a steady RANS
solver and a quasi-time-dependent free-surface
update based on the kinematic boundary condi-
tion. Compared with a fully time-dependent
28
formulation, this is found to converge signifi-
cantly faster to the steady solution.
Virtually all methods opt for a fully time-
dependent solution. The problem is thus con-
sidered as transient. The hull is accelerated to
the desired speed and the time integration is
continued until a steady state has been obtained.
The time-dependent solution approach is more
obvious than the steady one: The kinematic
boundary condition, which explicitly contains
the free-surface motion, is commonly used to
update the free-surface position at each time
step, while the dynamic conditions are imposed
in the RANS solution. Usually the free-surface
update is uncoupled from the solution of the
flow equations. This may result in a stability
limit for the time step, which is possibly ineffi-
cient for steady flow applications. Alternatively,
coupled solution methods are therefore being
proposed. Such coupling is possible via a cou-
pled time-dependent mapping of the flow do-
main or via an additional iteration at each time
step (Muzaferija et al., 1996, Wilson et al.,
1998). Alternatively, Alessandrini & Delhom-
meau (1996) update the wave elevation from
the normal component of the dynamic condi-
tion, and solve a coupled system for the wave
height change and the velocity field. They thus
obtain a significant improvement in conver-
gence rate, but this might rather be connected
with details of the numerical scheme used.
Mayer et al. (1998) study the effect of grid
density on the wave length and energy loss for
a free-surface Euler solver. They emphasise
that numerical conservation of energy, and a
proper transfer between potential and kinetic
energy in the discretised system, is most critical
in RANS and Euler solvers for free-surface
problems. For accurate modelling of the energy
transfer properties they find it necessary to sol-
ve an additional Poisson equation for the pres-
sure, instead of just using the pressure correc-
tion algorithm. They conclude that at compara-
ble resolution the numerical damping of an
Euler solver is larger than that of a potential
flow method. With 50 points per wavelength
and 50 time steps per period, for a standing
wave case they find a numerical energy loss of
0.5% per wave period. Also Kang (1997) con-
cludes that 50 cells per wavelength are needed
in his method for good accuracy.
For e.g. a tanker at F
n
=0.15, this guideline
will lead to 350 cells over the length of the hull.
The transverse spacing even must be smaller to
resolve diverging waves. Larsson et al. (1998)
estimate that some 10
6
grid points on the free-
surface would then be needed for adequate re-
solution of the wave pattern. None of the publi-
cations on 3D cases so far satisfies this re-
quirement. Besides the large number of cells
needed, also a large number of time steps is
often required due to a slow and oscillatory
approach of the solution to steady state. Calcu-
lation times mentioned vary over orders of
magnitude, but generally are quite substantial
even with the much lower number of grid
points now common.
Results Achieved. As there is much devel-
opment on this topic, an assessment of
achievements is of just temporary validity.
Nevertheless, it is of interest to distinguish
some common features.
What one would hope to achieve with these
RANS/FS methods is an improved prediction
of (in particular) the stern wave system com-
pared to inviscid codes; and an improved vis-
cous flow field compared to double-body
RANS calculations. So far these benefits have
not yet materialised, although progress is being
made.
Most published RANS/FS calculations for
ships show a good prediction of the steady
wave profile along the hull, comparable to that
of nonlinear inviscid calculations; as is expect-
ed since they impose nonlinear free-surface
boundary conditions and have ample resolution
in this area. Improvements in the stern wave-
making predictions by including the viscous
effects are often hard to distinguish. In some
cases a direct comparison is shown between an
Euler and a RANS solution. In Cowles & Mar-
tinelli (1998) both give good hull wave profiles,
Euler sometimes being slightly better. Lhner
et al. (1998) obtain perfect agreement with the
experimental wave profile of a submerged foil
using Euler equations, but less perfect using
RANS.
Ratcliffe (1998) compares predictions by
some inviscid and viscous codes with data for
Series 60 C
B
=0.6 and DTMB model 5415.
While in particular for the latter the wave pro-
files of the RANS/FS codes are far better, the
potential flow predictions included are much
worse than state of the art, and the differences
probably are due to numerics rather than mod-
elling.
29
Far-field waves (at e.g. >0.2 L off the hull)
are consistently underpredicted by RANS/FS
codes and lack detail; at least for somewhat
shorter waves (lower F
n
, or diverging waves).
At the 1994 workshop, the wave pattern pre-
dictions were just poor Mori and Hinatsu
(1994). Progress has been made, and it may be
assumed that this shortcoming will be over-
come by better spatial resolution.
An improvement in viscous flow predic-
tions, as a result of taking into account the free-
surface, has rarely been demonstrated. In Rat-
cliffe (1998), quantitative differences between
predicted and measured wake contours are still
significant, even for these rather slender vessels.
An application of substantial practical im-
portance is the prediction of the viscous flow
off a transom stern; in particular for partially
wetted transoms for which inviscid flow codes
fail. This is a quite difficult problem in view of
the physical sensitivity of this flow, and due to
difficulties in the modelling and grid generation.
Haussling et al. (1997) show good predictions
for a dry-transom case, indicating that viscous
effects are responsible for a forward shift of the
rooster tail compared to inviscid predictions. In
Ratcliffe (1998), for DTMB 5415 with partially
wetted transom one of the two RANS codes
predicts the stern wave system fairly well. Wil-
son et al. (1998) for the same case predict a too
low stern wave system, while Cowles & Marti-
nelli (1998) miss the wetted transom flow alto-
gether and predict a dry-transom flow. Obvi-
ously, improvement in this area is desired.
Turbulence Modeling. For predicting the
complex flow around a ship stern, turbulence
modelling is critical. In the 1994 CFD Work-
shop (SRI, 1994), most computations for the
HSVA tanker failed to catch the detailed fea-
tures, in particular the "hook shape" in axial
velocity contours. Many other turbulence mod-
els have been tested since, and recent advances
for application to ship hydrodynamics are re-
viewed below. For other fields of application,
Hanjalic (1994) reviewed conventional two-
equation eddy viscosity models and Reynolds
stress models, and concluded that the latter will
be used more in the future. Marvin & Huang
(1996) reviewed turbulence models in aerody-
namic applications.
Zero-Equation Models (Algebraic Models).
The zero-equation models such as Baldwin-
Lomax and Cebeci-Smith are still widely used
in ship flows. They need little computing time
and give reasonable eddy viscosity values, alt-
hough often with an unrealistic distribution.
Wilson et al. (1998) used the Baldwin-Lomax
model for unsteady ship flows, McDonald &
Whitfield (1996) for the flow around Suboff
with rotating propeller. Ishikawa (1994) made
some ad-hoc corrections to the Baldwin-Lomax
model to prevent too large values of eddy vis-
cosity. Tahara & Himeno (1996) made another
modification to include anisotropy of turbu-
lence and effects of pressure gradient; interest-
ing results with this modification are shown in
Kodama (1998).
One-Equation Models. The one-equation
models to take into account the history effects
on the flow, so called non-equilibrium models,
such as J ohnson-King, Baldwin-Barth, and
Spalart-Allmaras, have been used in aerody-
namics for unsteady problems. Wernert et al.
(1996) showed the performance of the J ohnson-
King model for dynamic stall of an airfoil. The-
se models have not been used widely in ship
hydrodynamics. Hoekstra & Eca (1998) found
that for the HSVA tanker the Baldwin-Barth
model did not give better results than two-
equation or algebraic models. Hsiao & Pauley
(1998) used the Baldwin-Barth model to com-
pute the steady state tip vortex flow over a fi-
nite span hydrofoil.
Two-Equation Models. Different versions
of the k- model have been used in ship hydro-
dynamics. The low R
n
k- model solves the k
and transport equations in the entire flow
field including the near wall region. The two-
layer k- model solves only the k transport
equation in the near wall region where the
value is obtained from an algebraic equation.
Alessandrini & Delhommeau (1996) used the
former model for the flow around Series 60
with free-surface, and presented the high regu-
larity of turbulent viscosity that comes from the
k- model. Unfortunately, no experimental tur-
bulence data are available for comparison.
Hoekstra & Eca (1998) compared both k-
model versions with algebraic and one-
equation turbulence models for the flow around
the HSVA tanker. The results of two-equation
model showed better agreement with the ex-
perimental data than other models but still did
not catch the details of the flow.
Recently, the k- model has been used very
often in ship hydrodynamics. This model has
good stability properties and accurate predic-
30
tion of the logarithmic layer for pressure gradi-
ent flows, but Wilcoxs k- model (1988) has a
strong dependency on free-stream turbulence.
Menter (1993) suggested two new versions
(BSL, SST) that combine the advantage of k-
near the surface with the superior characteris-
tics of the k- model near the boundary layer
edge. These new models do not have a strong
sensitivity to the free-stream values. Deng &
Visonneau (1996) tested the Wilcox k- model,
the k- BSL model of Menter, and a Reynolds
Stress Model for the flow around HSVA tanker.
They found that the original k- model offered
the best compromise for this particular class of
flows. Watson & Bull (1998) used the k-
model for full scale without using wall func-
tions, and found a large change in the stern
flow field with increasing R
n
, in particular for
the Menter model; but this result was to be
considered preliminary. Hino (1998) used
Menters k- SST model in an unstructured
free-surface RANS code, and obtained reason-
able agreement with the data for a VLCC. Flow
around a hull in oblique motion was simulated
with the k- model by Alessandrini & Del-
hommeau (1998) and Cura Hochbaum (1998).
The results of Cura Hochbaum show good
agreement with experiments. The k- model
seemed to be able to predict complex flow phe-
nomena like 3D separation and vortex shedding
around the Series 60 in oblique motion.
Nonlinear Eddy Viscosity Models (Alge-
braic Stress Models). The above eddy viscosity
based linear models cannot predict turbulence
anisotropy. Considering the increased compu-
tational complexity of the Reynolds Stress
Model, it is desirable to develop simpler mod-
els that account for turbulence anisotropy. Thus,
several groups are now looking into nonlinear
eddy viscosity schemes. Gatski & Speziale
(1993) proposed a quadratic constitutive rela-
tion, Craft et al. (1993) one involving terms up
to third order. Sreedhar & Stern (1998a) tested
the model of Myong & Kassagi (1990) for a
free-surface piercing flat plate. Sofialidis &
Prinos (1996) simulated the effect of wall suc-
tion on the structure of fully developed pipe
flow using the linear and nonlinear k- model
or k- low R
n
models, where the nonlinear
model used Crafts cubic relation. The comput-
ed results for the turbulent shear stress were in
close agreement with experiments and espe-
cially the k- model predicted the distribution
of the turbulent kinetic energy better. Sotiro-
poulos & Ventikos (1998) used the two non-
linear variants of the k- model based on Gat-
ski and Speziales and Crafts constitutive re-
lations for flow through a 90-deg rectangular
duct; the cubic nonlinear k- closure was the
only model that successfully reproduced most
of the experimental features of mean flow and
turbulence. Svennberg et al. (1998) also tested
quadratic and cubic algebraic stress models
based on the k- model for two test cases; a
vortex in free flow with different axial velociti-
es in the vortex core, and a vortex pair em-
bedded in a turbulent boundary layer on a flat
plate. The cubic model gave approximately the
same results as the Reynolds stress model in
the first case and more accurate results than the
simple models in the second case.
Reynolds Stress Models. At the 1994 CFD
Workshop, two research teams used RSM
(Sotiropoulos & Patel, 1994, Chen et al., 1994).
Their results showed the superiority over iso-
tropic eddy viscosity models and well captured
the hook shape in axial velocity contours. As
opposed to this, for the same case Deng & Vi-
sonneau (1996) got better results with the k-
model than with RSM, which yielded a too
intense secondary flow in the near wake and
gave robustness problems. Svennberg et al.
(1998) showed the superiority of RSM for vor-
tex flow.
Reynolds Stress Models often provide the
best results, as they take into account the an-
isotropy of turbulence. This is found to result in
prediction of more flow details. However, they
are numerically less stable than two equation
models and therefore make it much harder to
get a converged solution. In addition, solving
the seven additional transport equations re-
quires more computational effort. This makes
the use of RSM not yet practical now; but with
the rapid development of efficient numerical
methods and faster computers, this requirement
may not be too restrictive for steady state
simulations.
In summary, the k- model has become
more popular in both zero and non-zero Froude
number cases, and might currently be the best
two-equation model. Reynolds Stress Model-
ling may provide a major step forward, but is
considered by many to be too impractical at the
moment. Nonlinear eddy viscosity models are
promising but have not been tried for ship
flows so far. Near-future goals with large de-
mands for turbulence modelling are flows
around practical hull forms including surface
roughness, propeller, free-surface and high R
n
.
31
Unsteady Flows. The further development
of RANS methods and increase of computer
resources recently allowed the investigation of
unsteady viscous flow problems. Below we
briefly review some computations of genuinely
unsteady flows in ship hydrodynamics (i.e. not
methods using time marching to find a steady
solution). Some recent 3D applications are:
manoeuvring of a submarine with rotating pro-
peller (McDonald & Whitfield, 1996); ship in
head waves (Rhee & Stern, 1998, Wilson et al.,
1998); slamming and sloshing in a tank
(Muzaferija et al., 1998, Azcueta, 1998); inter-
action between propeller and hull (Abdel-
Maksoud et al., 1998b, McDonald & Whitfield,
1996); flows induced by a berthing ship (Chen
& Huang, 1998).
As many RANS solvers for steady problems
already follow a transient approach, application
to unsteady problems may be a relatively small
step. Time-accuracy may pose some additional
demands. E.g. in artificial compressibility algo-
rithms, a pseudo-time is used for letting the
solution settle to an incompressible steady limit.
Time-accurate calculations thus require solu-
tion for a number of pseudo-time steps at each
true time level. This type of algorithm was used
by Makino & Kodama (1997) for the flow
around two full hull forms in oblique or steady
turning motion; and by Davoudzadeh et al.
(1997), who coupled RANS equation and
equations of motion to simulate submarine ma-
noeuvres, including crashback. J ust qualitative
analysis of what happens physically was made.
The time discretisation technique is essen-
tial for computing unsteady flows. Different
classes of methods can be used, e.g. two-level
methods (explicit or forward Euler, implicit or
backward Euler, midpoint rule, trapezoidal rule
etc.), multi-level method (second order forward,
second order backward, etc.), predictorcor-
rector method, Runge-Kutta methods. In most
ship hydrodynamics applications, two-level
methods were used. The backward Euler sche-
me was applied by Chen & Huang (1998), Ab-
del-Maksoud et al. (1998b), Arabshahi et al.
(1998). Linear or quadratic backward Euler
schemes can be used in the method of
Muzaferija et al. (1998) and Azcueta et al.
(1998). Increasing the order of accuracy of the
temporal discretisation has similar conse-
quences as the spatial one, a better numerical
accuracy but a reduced numerical stability. To
overcome this problem, different temporal dis-
cretisation schemes can be applied for the con-
vection, diffusion and source terms, e.g. Wilson
et al. (1998).
For unsteady problems, the accuracy is also
affected by the time step size, the level of con-
vergence at each time step and the time needed
to achieve a solution that is independent of the
initial conditions. In general, for smaller time
steps more details of the unsteady behaviour
are captured, e.g. for the vertical force in a wa-
ter entry problem, Muzaferija et al. (1998).
Lilek et al. (1997) found that the lift coefficient
on a cylinder depended considerably on the
time step size if an implicit Euler scheme was
used, in comparison with a three-level scheme.
Rhee & Stern (1998) studied the effect of the
convergence level and time step and found that
the influence was restricted to the near hull
region. For ship-propeller interaction, Abdel-
Maksoud et al. (1998a) found that about two
propeller revolutions were necessary to get a
periodic behaviour of the propeller-induced
forces on the hull.
The application of uncertainty analysis is
important especially for unsteady flow compu-
tations, to quantify the influence of the
parameters used in the computation.
4.4 CFD-Based Optimisation
There is renewed interest in methods for
CFD-based automatic hull form optimisation.
As such methods search for optimal values of
design parameters, based on repeated applica-
tion of a CFD tool, useful results are only ob-
tained if the underlying CFD code gives results
that are at least accurate in a comparative
sense; and if the limitations of the code are
sufficiently taken into account. However, with
the increasing accuracy and scope of CFD
methods, optimisation tools are gaining im-
portance.
Design methods based on the concept of Di-
rect Numerical Optimisation may be formed by
coupling hydrodynamic analysis methods with
minimisation schemes. The user specifies the
design requirements in terms of an objective
function and (geometrical) constraints. The
flow around an initial design and a design per-
turbed by a small change of a single design
parameter are then computed. The derivative of
the objective function with respect to this
parameter is then calculated by a finite differ-
32
ence approximation. Doing this for all design
parameters in turn yields the gradient of the
objective function with respect to the parame-
ters. This is then used by the optimisation algo-
rithm to derive an improved hull form, and the
process starts all over again.
J anson & Larsson (1996)

used this method
to compute ship forms of minimum wave +
viscous resistance. While the optimisation
process worked well, the final design was un-
successful due to restrictions of the flow code.
Chou et al. (1998) apply a similar optimisation
technique, but prescribe a desired hull pressure
distribution and apply the optimisation method
to automatically modify a basic hull form to
match it.
The advantage of this optimisation ap-
proach is its black-box character, which re-
quires no extra mathematical analysis to obtain
the flow sensitivity information. However, at
each step of the optimisation cycle the flow
code must be run as many times as the number
of design parameters. Therefore, efficient and
accurate methods to compute the gradient of
the objective function become an important
area of research. Various optimisation and sen-
sitivity analysis methods are therefore used.
Papanikolaou et al. (1996) optimised the
seakeeping and wave resistance of catamarans
by applying the so-called Reduced Gradient
method and local form optimisation by La-
grange method. Hamasaki et al. (1996) use
Dawson's method to predict the wave resistance,
and a RANS solver for the viscous resistance
and wake. The variations to the original hull
forms are expressed by B-spline functions,
whose coefficients are used as design variables
and optimised using the nonlinear program-
ming approach. Tahara et al. (1998)

extend and
modify this method, using successive quadratic
programming (SQP), the convergence of which
is faster than successive linear programming
(SLP). The aft part of the hull is modified by a
6-parameter function to minimise the viscous
resistance.
Huan & Huang (1998) present a method for
shape optimisation for minimum wave resis-
tance, for potential flow with non-linear free-
surface boundary conditions. The sensitivities
to a perturbation of the hull shape are directly
derived by solving a separate set of equations.
Alternatively, an explicit form of the sensitivi-
ties is obtained through introduction of a set of
adjoint equations. Regardless of the number of
design parameters, the gradient of the objective
function with respect to the hull shape can be
obtained from one solution to the original flow
problem and one solution to the adjoint equa-
tions, followed by a simple integration over the
hull for each design variable. This replaces the
separate evaluation of all flow sensitivities in
the formulation, making it more efficient if
there are many design parameters. Huan and
Huang applied the proposed methods in an in-
verse design computation of a 2D hydrofoil
underneath a non-linear free-surface to match a
prescribed pressure distribution. Hino

et al.
(1998) presented a hydrodynamic shape opti-
misation system for 3D ship hulls by the com-
bination of a RANS solver, the adjoint equa-
tions method for the sensitivity analysis, and
the SQP procedure. The system is applied for
total drag minimisation for a simple ship form.
Hirayama et al. (1998) propose a method in
which, based on a computed free-wave spec-
trum for a basic design a modification of the
hull is derived that should partly cancel the
wave spectrum according to thin-ship theory. A
similar approach has in the past been proposed
by Sharma & Naegle (1970), but based on ex-
perimental wave spectra. Some successful ap-
plications are shown.
In general it seems that these CFD-based
optimisation methods have not yet made their
way to actual routine application, although al-
ready they might be helpful to give indications
for possible design changes.
4.5 Conclusions
Wave pattern prediction based on inviscid-
flow panel codes is well developed and rou-
tinely utilised in ship design. Further progress
in this field mainly requires incorporation of
viscous effects on the stern wave making.
Viscous-flow RANS methods are increas-
ingly being used in practical ship design. Ap-
plicability is being extended by use of commer-
cial grid-generation codes, multi-block and
overlapping-grid methods, or unstructured-grid
codes. Efficiency is enhanced due to fast matrix
solvers, multi-grid methods, and high-
performance parallel computing. Recent work
includes free-surface algorithms and turbulence
modelling. Limited study has been devoted to
full-scale simulations.
33
Improvements are desired in turbulence
models and numerical methods for accurate
prediction of thick boundary layer and wake,
full-scale flow and wave pattern using RANS
codes. Additionally, pronounced user variabil-
ity and restrictions in applicability and ease of
use should be removed.
34
5. UNCERTAINTY ANALYSIS FOR
EXPERIMENTAL FLUID DYNAMICS
5.1 Introduction
Reporting of experimental uncertainties
continues to be a problem for the ITTC and
related disciplines such as aerospace and
mechanical engineering. Problems include both
implementation procedures (e.g., simple re-
peatability tests are often done in lieu of careful
estimates for bias and precision limits) and
documentation and presentation of results.
Clearly experimental uncertainty estimates are
imperative for risk assessments in design both
when using data directly or in calibrating
and/or validating simulation methods.
Within the ITTC several discussions have
been devoted to the subject of uncertainty ana-
lysis started already in 1987. The Panel on
Validation Procedures published in the 19
th
Proceedings (ITTC, 1990) [Vol. 1, Section
II.3.2] their work Guidelines for Uncertainty
Analysis of Measurements based on the
ANSI/ASME (1985) standard together with
examples for various ITTC related tests such as
resistance and manoeuvring tests and speed and
power trials. As recommended by the Panel of
Validation Procedures the guidelines were ap-
proved by the full conference. Since then large
efforts have been made to improve the existing
methodologies.
Recently, the American Institute of Aero-
nautics and Astronautics (AIAA) in conjunc-
tion with Working Group 15 of the Advisory
Group for Aerospace Research and Develop-
ment (AGARD) Fluid Dynamics Panel has put
forth a standard for assessment of wind tunnel
data uncertainty (AIAA, 1995). This standard
was developed in order to provide a rational
and practical framework for quantifying and
reporting uncertainty in wind tunnel test data.
The quantitative assessment method was to be
compatible with existing methodologies within
the technical community. Uncertainties that are
difficult to quantify were to be identified and
guidelines were to be given on how to report
these uncertainties. Additional considerations
included: integration of uncertainty analyses
into all phases of testing; simplified analysis
while focusing on primary error sources; incor-
poration of recent technical contributions such
as correlated bias errors and methods for small
sample sizes; and complete professional analy-
sis and documentation of uncertainty for each
test. The uncertainty assessment methodology
has application to a wide variety of scientific
and engineering measurements, including tow-
ing tank experiments. The AIAA (1995) stan-
dard is based on Coleman & Steele (1999),
which is an update to the ANSI/ASME (1985)
standard, and the most current drafts of inter-
national guidelines and standards (ISO, 1992,
1993a,b). This makes the AIAA (1995) stan-
dard the most recent update of the uncertainty
analysis methodology previously adopted and
currently used by the ITTC. It can also be worth
noting that some ITTC members have already
implemented the AIAA (1995) standard (e.g.,
Forgach, 1992).
With this background, the 22
nd
ITTC RC
recommends that the AIAA uncertainty as-
sessment methodology [i.e., Chapter 2 of AIAA
(1995) standard] be adopted as the ITTC stan-
dard for towing tank experiments. To insure
proper application, the methodology is repro-
duced verbatim as procedure 4.9-03-01-
01, Uncertainty Analysis in EFD (Experi-
mental Fluid Dynamics), Uncertainty Assess-
ment Methodology, in the QM with minor
modifications for terminology and figure, table,
and equation numbering and by royalty free
licence from the AIAA. To aid in application of
the methodology for towing tank experiments,
QM procedure 4.9-03-01-02 Uncertainty
Analysis in EFD, Guidelines for Resistance
Towing Tank Tests, provide guidelines for
towing tank experiments. The guideline para-
phrases AIAA (1995), but adapted for towing
tank experiments. The guideline includes a
philosophy for testing and recommendations
for application/integration of uncertainty as-
sessment methodology into the test process and
documentation of results as well as recommen-
dations for management. In addition to above,
QM procedure 4.9-03-02-02 Uncertainty
Analysis in EFD, Example for Resistance
Test, provides an example for a towing tank
resistance test. In the example, the uncertainty
for the total resistance coefficient C
T
for a
model scale resistance test is established. The
Committee recommends also the guidelines
and example to be adopted.
In Section 5.2 through 5.4 extracts, summa-
ries and discussions from the respective QM
procedures are given. Based on work by the
Committee, uncertainties from 7 facilities are
quoted and compared in Section 5.5. Lastly,
conclusions are given in Section 5.6.
35
5.2 Uncertainty Assessment Methodology
The methodology for estimating the uncer-
tainties in measurements and in the experi-
mental results calculated from them must be
structured to combine statistical and engineer-
ing concepts. This must be done in a manner
that can be systematically applied to each step
in the data uncertainty assessment determina-
tion. In the methodology discussed below, the
95% confidence large-sample uncertainty as-
sessment approach is used as recommended by
the AIAA (1995) for the vast majority of engi-
neering tests.
Overview. The word accuracy is generally
used to indicate the closeness of the agreement
between an experimentally determined value of
a quantity and its true value. Error is the differ-
ence between the experimentally determined
value and the truth. Accuracy is said to increase
as error approaches zero. The true values of
standard measurement quantities (e.g., mass,
length, time, volts, etc.) generally only reside in
national standards laboratories. Only in rare
instances is the true value of a quantity known.
Thus, one is forced to estimate error, and that
estimate is called an uncertainty, U. In general,
the uncertainty of a quantity is a function of the
value of that quantity. However, it is common
practice to quote the same value of uncertainty
for a range of values of the quantity, e.g., per-
cent of full scale of an instrument. In this
methodology all estimates are assumed made at
a 95-percent confidence level, meaning that the
true value of the quantity is expected to be
within the U interval about the experimentally
determined value 95 times out of 100.
As shown in Figure 1, errors can be consid-
ered to be composed of two components: a pre-
cision (random) component and a bias (system-
atic) component. An error is classified as preci-
sion if it contributes to the scatter of the data;
otherwise, it is a bias error. It is assumed that
corrections have been made for all systematic
errors whose values are known. The remaining
bias errors are thus equally as likely to be posi-
tive as negative.
A general representation of the data reduc-
tion equation is
r =r (X
1
, X
2
, ..., X
J
) (1)
where r is the experimental result determined
from J measured individual variables X
i
. Each
of the measured variables contains bias and
precision errors. As shown in Figure 2, the er-
rors in the measured variables propagate
through the data reduction equation, thereby
generating the bias and precision errors in the
experimental result.
-0.005
P
i
MAGNITUDE OF X
X
i
true
X
i
P
i

F
R
E
Q
U
E
N
C
Y

O
F

O
C
C
U
R
A
N
C
E
Figure 1. 95-percent confidence precision limit
interval (P
i
) around a single reading of a
variable X
i
. The bias limit is denoted and
represents the difference between the true
value
true
i
X and the biased mean value for
many repetitions under the same condition
using the same equipment.
The uncertainty assessment methodology
can be used for calculating the uncertainty for
different measurement procedures such as
single and multiple tests. To estimate the preci-
sion limit for a single test an end-to-end ap-
proach can be used with measurements taken
over an appropriate time interval including all
factors causing variability. If this is not the case
the precision limits can be determined at an
elementary level. For towing-tank tests, the
end-to-end approach is difficult to use for a
single run as effects of model misalignment,
trim, heel, residual current or waves, tempera-
ture variability, etc. vary over a longer time
interval than the testing time and/or are not
changed within the same set up. Therefore the
best method is to use the theory for multiple
tests including several runs over an appropriate
time interval with the model removed and rein-
stalled a few times. With this information, the
precision limits for the average result or for a
single test (one run) of a set of multiple tests
can be determined. In the daily commercial
work, such repeat tests are not possible and the
experimenter must estimate a value for the pre-
cision limit using the best information available
36
at this time, for example previously made in-
vestigations for models of similar geometry.
Figure 2. Propagation of errors into an experi-
mental result.
Single Tests. In single tests, r is determined
from a single set of measurements (X
1
, X
2
, ,
X
J
) at a given test condition. The uncertainty in
r is the root-sum-square (RSS) of the bias and
precision limits.
2
r
2
r
2
r
P B U + = (2)
The bias limit of the result is given by

= + = =
+ =
1 J
1 i
J
1 i k
ik k i
2
i
J
1 i
2
i
2
r
B 2 B B (3)
where
i
are the sensitivity coefficients
i
i
X
r

= (4)
B
i
are the bias limits in X
i
, and B
ik
are the
correlated bias limits in X
i
and X
k

=
= ) B ( ) B ( B
k i
L
1
ik
(5)
where L is the number of correlated bias error
sources that are common for measurement of
variables X
i
and X
k
.
Assuming no correlated precision errors the
precision limit is estimated from the scatter in
the measured values by

r r
S K P = (6)
where K is the coverage factor and equals 2 for
a 95% confidence interval and large sample
size (N10) and S
r
is the standard deviation of
the sample of N readings of the result r. The
value of S
r
is determined from N readings over
an appropriate time interval, i.e., includes all
factors causing variability in the result. Alter-
natively P
r
can be estimated by the RSS of the
precision limits for the measurements of the
individual variables
=
=
J
1 i
2
i
2
i
2
r
P P (7)
where
i
are the sensitivity coefficient defined
by equation (4) and P
i
=K S
i
are the precision
limits in X
i
(where K and S
i
are defined simi-
larly as S
r
in equation (6)). Often the time in-
terval is insufficient and P
i
s or P
r
must be es-
timated based on previous readings taken over
an appropriate time interval. For towing-tank
applications, N is equal to the number of sam-
ples over the run. Even a very long run can not
include all factors causing variability and there-
fore the methodology for multiple tests are rec-
ommended.
Multiple Tests. In multiple tests, an aver-
age result r is determined from M sets of
measurements (X
1
, X
2
, , X
J
)
k
at the same
given test condition
=
=
M
1 k
k
r
M
1
r (8)
If the M sets of measurements is taken over
an appropriate time interval, the precision limit
of a single result of the M measurements is
r r
S K P = (9)
where K=2 as above for large sample sizes
(M10) and S
r
is the standard deviation of the
sample of M results
( )
2
1
M
1 k
2
k r
r r
1 M
1
S

=
=
(10)
37
where M is the number of repeat tests per-
formed for the same test point. The uncertainty
of a single result (one run) of the sample of M
tests is obtained from equation (2) with equa-
tion (3) and (9) and can be written as

( )
2
r
2
r
2
r
S 2 B U + = (11)
The precision limit for the average result is
given by
M
S K
P
r
r
= (12)
The uncertainty for the average result of M
tests is then
2
r 2
r
2
r
M
S 2
B U

+ = (13)
where B
r
is given by equation (3).
The use of K=2 assumes a large sample size
and Gaussian error distribution. A large sample
size implies that the test is taken over a time
that is comparable to the period of all factors,
which causes variability in r. Ideally (N, M)10,
but this is often not the case. For (N, M)<10 a
coverage factor of K=2 is permissible if the
bias and precision limits have similar magni-
tude.
5.3 Guidelines for Resistance Towing Tank
Tests
Decisions on conducting towing-tank ex-
periments should be governed by the ability of
the expected test outcome to achieve the test
objectives within the allowable uncertainties.
Thus, data quality assessment is a key part of
the entire towing tank testing process, includ-
ing: test description; determination of error
sources; estimation of uncertainty; and docu-
mentation of results.
Estimates of error are meaningful only
when considered in the context of the process
leading to the value of the quantity under con-
sideration. In order to identify and quantify
error sources, two factors must be considered:
(1) the steps used in the processes to obtain the
measurement of the quantity, and (2) the envi-
ronment in which the steps were accomplished.
Each factor influences the outcome.
Integration of uncertainty considerations
into all phases of the towing tank testing proc-
ess, including the decision whether to test or
not, the design of the experiment, the conduct
of the test, and the important step of proper
analysis and documentation of the uncertainty
of final results are important. Along with this
philosophy of testing, rigorous application
/integration of uncertainty assessment method-
ology into the test process and documentation
of results should be the foundation of all tow-
ing tank experiments.
Recommendations for application / integra-
tion of uncertainty assessment methodology
and recommendations for management are
given in the complete guidelines in the QM,
procedure 4.9-03-01-02.
5.4 Example for a Resistance Test
In this example, the uncertainty assessment
for a model-scale towing-tank resistance test is
performed. The uncertainty for the total resis-
tance coefficient C
T
in model scale is estimated
at one F
n
for the average result of several tests
(M) and for a single run (S). Extrapolation to
full scale has not been considered in this exam-
ple, although surely a large source of error and
uncertainty, not essential for the present pur-
pose of demonstrating the methodology.
The example is based on work from the
22
nd
ITTC RC. Section 5.5 provides the details
of the comparison between the results obtained
at the different facilities. When performing an
uncertainty analysis, the details need to be
adopted according to the equipment used and
procedures followed in each respective facility.
Test Design. By measuring the resistance
and speed and by measuring or using reference
values for the wetted surface and density, the
resistance coefficient C
T
can be calculated for a
nominal temperature of 15 degrees, according
to:
) k 1 )( C C ( C C
Tm
F
deg 15
F
Tm
T
deg 15
T
+ + =
(14)
where

38
S U 0.5
R
= C
2
Tm
x Tm
T

(15)
In equation (14) the conversion of the re-
sistance coefficients from measured model
temperatures (index Tm) to a nominal tem-
perature of 15 degrees (index 15 deg) are made
by the ITTC 1978 prediction method (k equals
form factor). C
F
in equation (14) is calculated
according to the ITTC-1957 frictional correla-
tion line
2
n
10
F
2) - R log (
075 . 0
= C
(16)
where R
n
is for the respective temperature.
Measurement Systems and Procedure. Fig-
ure 3 shows a block diagram for the resistance
test including, the individual measurement
systems, measurement of individual variables,
data reduction and experimental results. The
bias limits contributing to the total uncertainty
are estimated for the individual measurement
systems: geometry (wetted surface, B
S
), speed
(B
U
), resistance (B
Rx
) and density/temperature
(B

/B
T
). The bias limits are thereafter with the
data reduction equation (15) reduced into
B
CT
Tm
. As the adjustments in model tempera-
ture from the measured temperature to 15 de-
grees are very small the bias limits associated
with this conversion have not been considered.
Figure 3. Block diagram for resistance test.
The precision limit for the total resistance
coefficient at a nominal temperature of 15 de-
grees, P
CT
15deg
, is estimated by an end-to-end
method for the average result of multiple tests
(M) and for a single run (S).
Errors and Uncertainties. The bias errors
considered for wetted surface are associated
with manufacturing and loading the model. For
the speed, errors associated with the individual
measurement systems for pulse count, wheel
diameter and time base, have been considered.
The error in resistance is due to the errors in
calibration weights, load cell calibration, model
misalignment, and towing direction. Finally,
the error in temperature/ density comes from
the accuracy of the thermometer and the error
in model-scale density.
The precision limit is determined from 15
test points taken over a 5 month period with the
model being removed and reinstalled 5 times.
Combining the precision limits for multiple
tests and a single run with the bias limit the
total uncertainties can be calculated according
to equation (11) and (13).
With the numbers coming from the QM ex-
ample, the total uncertainty for the average re-
sult of 15 tests (M) will be
( ) ( ) ( ) ( )
( )
3 3 2 2
2
C
2
C CT
E 0255 . 0 10 00997 . 0 0234 . 0
P B = U
2
1
2
1
T T

= +
= +
(17)
which is 0.67% of the mean for C
T
(3.791E
-3
).
Correspondingly, the total uncertainty for a
single run (S) can be calculated as
( ) ( ) ( ) ( )
( )
3 3 2 2
2
C
2
C CT
E 0452 . 0 10 0386 . 0 0234 . 0
P B = U
2
1
2
1
T T

= +
= +
(18)
which is 1.19% of the mean for C
T
.
As can be seen from the values above, the
uncertainty will decrease if it is calculated for
the average result of 15 tests compared to the
single run value. This is also displayed in Fig-
ure 4 below where the bias limit is constant
regardless of the number of tests while the pre-
cision limit and total uncertainty are decreasing
with increasing number of tests.
39
Figure 4. Bias, precision and total uncertainty
in percent of mean C
T
.
Expressed in relative numbers (B
CT
2
/U
CT
2
)
the bias limit in this example represents only
27% percent of the total uncertainty for a single
run but as much as 85% of the total uncertainty
for the average result of 15 tests. By examining
the relative contribution of the elemental errors
it is possible to determine where an upgrade of
the measurement system most effectively will
improve a facility.
5.5 Comparison between Facilities
Seven of the eight facilities represented by
members of the 22
nd
ITTC RC contributed to
the example of Section 5.4 by performing un-
certainty assessment for a towing-tank resistan-
ce test. 2 container ships (CO), 2 combatants
(CBT), and 3 series 60 (S60) were used. The
bias and the precision limits for a single run
and multiple tests were estimated and the total
uncertainties for a single run and for multiple
tests were calculated. The number of repeat
runs varied from 5 to 15 with the model being
removed and reinstalled 3 to 5 times where the
recommended combination of 15 tests and 5
installations were most frequently used. The
number of repetitions highly effect the uncer-
tainty for multiple runs, which must be taken
into consideration when comparing results
from different facilities (equation (13) and Fig-
ure 4). The uncertainty analyses were per-
formed for 3 to 5 F
n
at each facility. The values
given in this section have been averaged to
reflect the mean result for the speeds tested at
the respective facilities.
Below are the bias and precision limits to-
gether with the total uncertainty presented for
each facility. When comparing the results one
must remember that a direct comparison is not
possible as different ship types, models, model
sizes, and speeds were tested. As indicated
above, different number of repetitions were
also used which will affect the test outcome for
multiple runs. In spite of the above comments a
comparison between the uncertainty analyses
performed gives an indication of the magni-
tudes which can be expected.
A comparison of the values in Figure 5 to
Figure 7 shows that the bias limits vary from
0.3 to 1.8% around the mean value for C
T
at the
respective facilities. The precision limits vary
from 0.3 to 0.9% for multiple tests (M) and
between 1.1 and 2.9% for a single run (S). The
total uncertainties obtained vary from 0.8 to
1.8% for the multiple tests and from 1.4 to
2.9% for a single run. The average values for
the total uncertainty for the 7 facilities are 1.1%
for the multiple tests and 2.1% for the single
run.
A large part of the precision limit comes
from hydrodynamic sources such as separation,
turbulence, and unsteady flow and is therefore
difficult to improve. The part which comes
from other error sources such as model mis-
alignment, trim, heel etc. can be improved by
development of the equipment used for check-
ing that the nominal test conditions are ob-
tained. Another error source contributing to the
precision limit is the remaining waves/current
in the basin, which can be minimised by a suf-
ficiently long waiting time between runs.
Figure 5. Bias limit.
0,000
0,500
1,000
1,500
2,000
2,500
3,000
CO CO CBT CBT S60 S60 S60
TYPE OF SHIP
P
E
R
C
E
N
T

O
F

C
T






B CT
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16
0
0.5
1
1.5
NUMBER OF TESTS
%
OF
CT
BIAS LIMIT
PRECISION LIMIT
TOTAL UNCERTAINTY
40
Figure 6. Precision limit.
Figure 7. Total uncertainty.
Comparing the relative bias limit contribu-
tions from the individual measurement systems
makes it possible to determine where an up-
grade in the measurement system has the lar-
gest effect. Looking at the results from two of
the facilities (Figure 8), one can see that the
facility biases differ significantly. Facility A
has its largest error arising from the wetted
surface (44%), speed (45%), and resistance
(10%) measurement systems. Facility B on the
other hand has its largest errors coming from
the speed (63%) and resistance (34%) meas-
urement systems. By breaking down the errors
even further, it can be shown, for example, that
the error in wetted surface at facility A consists
of two parts: manufacturing accuracy and un-
certainty in loading condition, which both can
be improved. Most important in order to im-
prove the uncertainty at the respective facilities
is therefore to:
Facility A: Upgrade the model manufac-
turing process and improve the method and
equipment used for loading the models. Up-
grade the resistance measurement system.
Facility B: Upgrade the speed and resis-
tance measurement systems.
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
W
. S
U
R
F
A
C
E
S
P
E
E
D
R
E
S
IS
T
.
D
E
N
S
./
T
E
M
P
.
MEASUREMENT SYSTEMS
P
E
R
C
E
N
T

O
F

T
O
T
.

B
I
A
S

E
R
R
O
R



FAC ILITY A
FAC ILITY B
Figure 8. Relative bias error contribution.
Table 2. Comparison of normal runs and first-
runs-of-the-day.
Normal runs
(15 runs)
First-Runs
of-the-Day
(5 runs)
Mean value, Rx (N) 39.37 N 39.47 N
SD Rx (N) 0.200 N 0.244 N
SD Rx (% C
T
) 0.51% 0.62%
When performing the uncertainty analyses
some facilities performed first-runs-of-the-day
tests, which were separately analysed and not
included in the above given uncertainties. The
mean value of the first-runs-of-the-day differs
only marginally from the mean of the normal
runs. As an example, values from one of the
facilities are shown in Table 2 where the mean
resistance of R
x
15
=39.37 N obtained for 15
normal runs is compared with the mean resis-
tance for 5 first-runs-of-the-day R
x
5
=39.47 N.
Surprisingly the comparison shows a difference
of only 0.094 N (0.24%), which is well within
the standard deviation for the 15 runs.
5.6 Conclusions
An uncertainty assessment methodology
and guideline for towing-tank experiments, are
proposed for adoption by the 22
nd
ITTC, and
along with an example for model-scale towing-
tank resistance test have been included in the
QM. The methodology is based on the AIAA
(1995) standard, which is an update and im-
provement of the previously adopted and cur-
rently used methodology by the ITTC. The new
methodology and the example of its application
will hopefully stimulate an increased use of
uncertainty analysis.
Performing EFD uncertainty analyses for
various tests is instructive and clarifies where
0,000
0,500
1,000
1,500
2,000
2,500
3,000
CO CO CBT CBT S60 S60 S 60
TYPE OF SHIP
P
E
R
C
E
N
T

O
F

C
T






P CT (M)
P CT (S )
0.000
0.500
1.000
1.500
2.000
2.500
3.000
CO CO CBT CBT S60 S60 S60
TYPE OF SHIP
U CT (M)
U CT (S)
41
facilities can improve their equipment to best
reduce overall uncertainty. In particular, appli-
cation by ITTC member institutes in providing
the example for model-scale towing-tank re-
sistance test confirms the viability of the ap-
proach and clearly displays its usefulness for
further enhancing towing tanks accuracy.
Full-scale resistance measurements are dif-
ficult and only limited data is available; there-
fore, it is important to perform uncertainty as-
sessment for full-scale speed-power prediction.
For this purpose, it is necessary to establish the
uncertainties for model-scale open-water and
self-propulsion tests, scaling/extrapolation
methods, and full-scale speed-power tests.
Certain errors, such as errors in model
geometry and facility biases, are difficult to
quantify and the use of a standard
model/propeller is needed for comparative
testing between facilities.
6. UNCERTAINTY ANALYSIS FOR
COMPUTATIONAL FLUID DYNAMICS
The RCs work on uncertainty analysis for
CFD is not nearly as complete as for EFD
(Section 5) in part due to the need for method-
ology development as opposed to implementa-
tion of a standardised methodology as is avail-
able for EFD. Some RC members are involved
in CFD uncertainty analysis methodology de-
velopment and progress was made in imple-
menting such methodology by RC members;
however, not nearly to the extent as accom-
plished for EFD (Section 5.5) and not always
with satisfactory results. Nonetheless consider-
able progress was made since that reported by
the 21
st
RC (ITTC, 1996a) such that the previ-
ous procedures have been updated, but are only
recommended for interim adoption. Additional
work on methodology development and satis-
factory application by most RC members for
different examples and CFD codes is required
for final adoption. Section 6.1 provides a sum-
mary of the interim procedures. Section 6.2
provides an example by a RC member for a
single RANS CFD code. The RC also complet-
ed an update over that reported by the 21
st
RC
(ITTC, 1996a) of the evaluation of the bench-
mark database for CFD validation for resis-
tance and propulsion, which is recommended
for adoption. Section 6.3 provides a summary
of the evaluation procedures and recommended
benchmark data. Lastly, conclusions are given
in Section 6.4.
Both these efforts were important in prepa-
ration for the upcoming Gothenburg 2000
Workshop on CFD in Ship Hydrodynamics
(Gothenburg, 2000) in selection of benchmark
cases and in specification of CFD uncertainty
analysis procedures, i.e., verification and vali-
dation methodology.
With this background, the 22
nd
RC recom-
mends that the ITTC adopt for the interim the
uncertainty assessment methodology, guideline
for RANS codes, and examples for RANS
codes as published in the QM, respectively, as
procedures 4.9-04-01-01, Uncertainty Analy-
sis in CFD, Uncertainty Assessment Methodol-
ogy, 4.9-04-01-02, Uncertainty Analysis in
CFD, Guidelines for RANS Codes, and 4.9-
04-02-01, Uncertainty Analysis in CFD, Ex-
amples for Resistance and Flow.
Additionally the 22
nd
RC recommends that
the ITTC adopt the benchmark database for
Resistance and Propulsion CFD validation as
published in the QM, as procedure 4.9-04-02-
02, Benchmark Database for CFD Validation
for Resistance and Propulsion.
6.1 Verification and Validation of CFD
Simulations
Discussion and methodology for estimating
errors and uncertainties in CFD simulations has
reached a certain level of maturity with in-
creased attention and recent progress on com-
mon concepts and terminology (AIAA, 1998),
advocacy and detailed methodology (Roache,
1998), and numerous case studies (e.g., Mehta,
1998). Progress has been accelerated in respon-
se to the urgent need for achieving consensus
on concepts and terminology and useful meth-
odology, as CFD is applied to increasingly
complex geometry and physics and integrated
into the engineering design process. Such con-
sensus is required to realize the goals of simu-
lation-based design and other uses of CFD such
as simulating flows for which experiments are
difficult (e.g., full-scale Reynolds numbers and
off-design conditions). In spite of the progress
and urgency, the various viewpoints have not
converged and current methodology falls short
of providing practical procedures and method-
ology for estimating errors and uncertainties in
CFD simulations.
42
The approach reported by the 21
st
RC
(ITTC, 1996a) was more pragmatic in provid-
ing verification procedures for making quanti-
tative estimates for simulation numerical errors
and uncertainties. Some RC members have
continued their work in CFD uncertainty analy-
sis methodology development. In particular, a
new approach to CFD validation has been de-
veloped (Coleman and Stern, 1998) and was
recently combined with extensions and more
rigorous foundation for verification to provide
the framework for overall procedures and
methodology for verification and validation of
CFD simulations (Stern et al., 1999). These are
the overall procedures and methodology along
with an example for resistance and flow re-
commended for interim adoption. The follow-
ing provides a very brief summary of the main
ideas. The previously mentioned QM proce-
dures provide detailed presentation.
Concepts and Definitions. Definitions for
errors and uncertainties for CFD are identical
as those used for EFD. An error is the differ-
ence between a simulation value (or experi-
mental value) and the truth. An uncertainty is
an estimate of an error such that the interval
U contains the true value of 95 times out of
100. For simulations, under certain conditions,
errors can be estimated including both sign and
magnitude, which is referred to as an error es-
timate *. Then, the uncertainty considered is
that corresponding to the error in *. When

is estimated, it can be used to obtain a corrected

value of the variable of interest. Sources of
errors and uncertainties in results from simula-
tions can be divided into two distinct sources:
modelling and numerical. Modelling errors and
uncertainties are due to assumptions and ap-
proximations in the mathematical representa-
tion of the physical problem. Numerical errors
and uncertainties are due to numerical solution
of the mathematical equations.
The simulation error
S
is defined as the
difference between a simulation result S and
the truth T. In considering the development and
execution of a CFD code, it can be postulated
that
S
is comprised of the addition of model-
ling and numerical errors
SN SM S
T S + = = (19)
The uncertainty equation corresponding to error
equation (19) is
2
SN
2
SM
2
S
U U U + = (20)
S
U is the uncertainty in the simulation and
SM
U and
SN
U are the simulation modeling and
numerical uncertainties. For certain conditions,
the numerical error
SN
can be considered as
SN
*
SN SN
+ = (21)
where
*
SN
is an estimate of the sign and mag-
nitude of
SN
and
SN
is the error in that esti-
mate (and will be estimated as an uncertainty
since only a range bounding its magnitude and
not its sign can be estimated). The corrected
simulation value S
C
is defined by
*
SN C
S S = (22)
with error equation
SN SM C S
T S
C
+ = = (23)
The uncertainty equation corresponding to error
equation (23) is

2
N S
2
SM
2
S
C C
U U U + = (24)
where
C
S
U is the uncertainty in the corrected
simulation and
N S
C
U is the uncertainty estimate
for
SN
.
The overall CFD verification and validation
procedures can be conveniently grouped in four
consecutive steps. The 1
st
step is preparation,
which involves selection of the CFD code and
specification of objectives, geometry, condi-
tions, and available benchmark information.
The objectives might be prediction of certain
variables at certain levels of validation (e.g.,
programmatic validation requirements
reqd
U ).
The variables can either be integral (e.g., resis-
43
tance) or point (e.g., mean velocities and tur-
bulent Reynolds stresses) values and the levels
of validation may be different for each variable.
The 2
nd
and 3
rd
steps are verification and vali-
dation, which are defined and their methodolo-
gies described in the next two subsections. The
4
th
step is documentation, which is detailed
presentation of the CFD code (equations, initial
and boundary conditions, modeling, and nu-
merical methods), objectives, geometry, condi-
tions, verification, validation, and analysis.
Verification. Verification is defined as a
process for assessing numerical uncertainty
SN
U and, when conditions permit, estimating
the sign and magnitude of the numerical error

SN
itself and the uncertainty in its error. For
many CFD codes, the most important numeri-
cal errors and uncertainties are due to iterative
solution methods, grid or panel size (and distri-
bution), time step, and other parameters (e.g.,
artificial dissipation). The errors and uncertain-
ties are highly dependent on the specific appli-
cation (geometry and conditions) and selection
of CFD code inputs resulting in errors due to
iteration number
I
, grid size
G
, time step
T
,
and other parameters
P
, which gives the fol-
lowing expressions for the simulation numeri-
cal error and uncertainty
=
+ = + + + =
J
1 j
j I P T G I SN
(25)
=
+ =
+ + + =
J
1 j
2
j
2
I
2
P
2
T
2
G
2
I
2
SN
U U
U U U U U
(26)
Similarly, error estimates * can be decom-
posed as
=

+ =
J
1 j
j I
SN
(27)
which gives the following expressions for the
corrected simulation and corrected simulation
numerical uncertainty
SN SM
J
1 j
j I C
T ) ( S S + + = + =
=

(28)
=
+ =
J
1 j
2
j
2
I
2
N S
C C C
U U U (29)
Verification is based on equation (28), whi-
ch is put in the form
) ( S S
J
1 j
j I C
=

+ + = (30)
Equation (30) expresses S as the corrected
simulation value S
C
plus errors. S
C
is also
referred to as a numerical benchmark since it is
equal, as shown by equation (28), to the truth
plus simulation modeling and presumable small
error
SN
in the estimate of the numerical error

SN
.
Iterative and parameter convergence studies
are conducted using multiple (m) solutions and
systematic parameter refinement by varying the
kth input parameter
k
X while holding all oth-
er parameters constant. The present work as-
sumes input parameters can be expressed such
that the finest resolution corresponds to the
limit of infinitely small parameter values. Ad-
ditionally, a uniform parameter refinement ratio
r
k
between solutions is assumed/required.
Iterative convergence must be assessed and
m
k
S corrected for iterative errors prior to
evaluation of parameter convergence since the
level of iterative convergence may not be the
same for all m solutions used in the parameter
convergence studies. Methods for estimating
I
U or

I
and
C
I
U are described in the QM.
Equation (30) is written for the k
th
parameter
and m
th
solution corrected for iterative errors as
44
=

+ + =
=
J
k j , 1 j
j k C
I k k
m m
m
k m m
S
S S

(31)
m
k
S

can be calculated for both integral and

point variables. Convergence studies require a
minimum of m=3 solutions to evaluate conver-
gence with respect to input parameter and to
estimate errors and uncertainties. Note that
m=2 is inadequate, as it only indicates sensitiv-
ity and not convergence, and that m>3 may be
required. Consider the situation for 3 solutions
corresponding to fine
1
k
S

, medium
2
k
S

, and
coarse
3
k
S

values for the k

th
input parameter.
Solution changes for medium-fine and
coarse-medium solutions and their ratio R
k
are
defined by
1 2 k
k k 21
S

=
2 3 k
k k 32
S

= (32)
k k
32 21 k
R =
Three convergence conditions are possible:
(i) Converging condition: 0 <
k
R <1
(ii) Oscillatory condition:
k
R <0 (33)
(iii) Diverging condition:
k
R >1
For the converging condition (i), the solu-
tions exhibit monotonic convergence and gen-
eralised Richardson extrapolation is used to
estimate
k
U or

k
and
C
k
U . Richardson ex-
trapolation is generalised for J input parameters
and accounting for effects of higher-order terms.
Power-series expansions about S
C
for each in-
put parameter using m solutions are used to
obtain estimates for the

k
s in equation (31).

I
must be accurately estimated or be negligi-
ble for each solution. The effects of higher-
order terms are important for practical applica-
tion of CFD; however, the number of terms (n)
that can be determined depends on the number
of solutions (i.e., for m=3, n=1; m=5, n=2, etc.)
and m>3 is undesirable from a resources point
of view. Correction factors are proposed to
account for the effects of higher-order terms
based on only m=3 solutions. The methods
proposed are tentative and need further testing.
Hopefully through practical application the
present or alternative strategies for estimating
effects of higher-order terms based on limited
number of solutions will prove satisfactory.
Figure 9. Definition of comparison error.
For the oscillatory condition (ii), the solu-
tions exhibit oscillations, which may be erro-
neously identified as condition (i) or (iii).
Methods for estimating uncertainties
k
U for
the oscillatory condition (ii) require more than
m=3 solutions and are based on the upper and
lower bounds of the solution oscillation.
For the diverging condition (iii), the solu-
tions exhibit divergence and errors and uncer-
tainties can not be estimated. The preparation
and verification steps must be reconsidered.
Improvements in iterative convergence,
parameter specification (e.g., grid quality),
and/or CFD code may be required to achieve
converging or oscillatory conditions.
Validation. Validation is defined as a proc-
ess for assessing modelling uncertainty
SM
U by
using benchmark experimental data and, when
conditions permit, estimating the sign and
magnitude of the modelling error
SM

itself.
Thus, the errors and uncertainties in the ex-
perimental data must be considered (see Sec-
tion 5). The validation comparison is shown in
S +U
s
E
U
D
U
x
r
X
D
S
45
figure 9. The experimentally determined r-
value of the ( )
i i
r , X data point is D and simu-
lated r-value is S.
The benchmark experimental data with er-
ror
D
is used for the truth in equation (19) (i.e.,
T=D-
D
) to define the comparison error
) (
S D E
SN SPD SMA D
S D
+ + =
= =
(34)
with
SM
decomposed into the sum of
SPD
,
error from the use of previous data such as
fluid properties, and
SMA
, error from model-
ling assumptions. Thus E is the resultant of all
the errors associated both with the experimental
data and with the simulation. For the approach
in which no estimate
*
SN
of the sign and mag-
nitude of
SN
is made, all of these errors are
estimated with uncertainties.
If
i i
r , X , and S share no common error
sources, then the uncertainty
E
U in the com-
parison error can be expressed as
2
S
2
D
2
S
2
2
D
2
2
E
U U
U
S
E
U
D
E
U
+ =

=
(35)
or
2
SN
2
SPD
2
SMA
2
D
2
E
U U U U U + + + = (36)
Ideally, one would postulate that if the ab-
solute value of E is less than its uncertainty
E
U ,
then validation is achieved (i.e., E is zero
considering the resolution imposed by the
noise level
E
U ). In reality, there is no known
approach that gives an estimate of
SMA
U , so
E
U cannot be estimated. That leaves a more
stringent validation test as the practical alterna-
tive. If the validation uncertainty
V
U is defined
as the combination of all uncertainties that we
know how to estimate (i.e., all but
SMA
U ), then
2
SN
2
SPD
2
D
2
SMA
2
E
2
V
U U U U U U + + = = (37)
If |E| is less than the validation uncertainty
V
U , the combination of all the errors in D and
S is smaller than the estimated validation un-
certainty and validation has been achieved at
the
V
U level.
V
U is the key metric in the vali-
dation process.
V
U is the validation noise
level imposed by the uncertainties inherent in
the data, the numerical solution, and the previ-
ous experimental data used in the simulation
model. It can be argued that one cannot dis-
criminate once |E| is less than this; that is, as
long as |E| is less than this, one cannot evaluate
the effectiveness of proposed model im-
provements.
If the corrected approach of equations (21)-
(24) is used, then the equations equivalent to
equations (34) and (37) are
) (
S D E
SN SPD SMA D
C C
+ + =
=
(38)
for the corrected comparison error and
2
N S
2
SPD
2
D
2
SMA
2
E
2
V
C
C C
U U U
U U U
+ + =
=
(39)
for the corrected validation uncertainty. Note
that S
C
and E
C
can be either larger or smaller
than their counterparts S and E, but
C
E
U and
C
V
U should be smaller than
E
U and
V
U , re-
spectively, since
N S
C
U should be smaller than
SN
U .
Additional discussion is provided in the
QM, including methods for estimating uncer-
tainties in the data due to measurement of inde-
pendent variables and in the simulation due to
use of previous data. Also, discussion is
provided for validation of a single CFD code,
46
validation for the comparison of multiple codes
and/or models, validation for the prediction of
trends, and use of corrected vs. uncorrected
simulation results.
6.2 Example for RANS CFD Code
Example results of verification and valida-
tion are presented for a single CFD code and
for specified objectives, geometry, conditions,
and available benchmark information. A RANS
CFD code developed for computational ship
hydrodynamics was used (Paterson et al., 1998,
Wilson et al., 1998). The RANS equations are
solved using higher-order upwind finite differ-
ences, PISO, k- turbulence model, and exact
and approximate treatments, respectively, of
the kinematic and dynamic free-surface
boundary conditions. The objectives are to de-
monstrate the usefulness of the proposed verifi-
cation and validation procedures and method-
ology and establish the levels of verification
and validation of the simulation results for an
established benchmark for ship hydrodynamics
CFD validation.
Geometry, Conditions, and Benchmark
Data. The geometry is the Series 60 C
B
=0.6
cargo/container ship (see section 6.3). The con-
ditions for the calculations are F
n
=0.316, R
n
=
4.3x10
6
, and zero sinkage and trim. These are
the same conditions as the experiments, except
the resistance and sinkage and trim tests, as
explained next. The variable selected for verifi-
cation and validation is resistance C
T
(integral
variable). The benchmark data is provided by
Toda et al. (1992). The uncertainty estimates
were recently confirmed/updated following the
Section 5 procedures (Longo and Stern, 1998).
The resistance is known to be larger for free
vs. fixed models. Data for the Series 60 indi-
cates about an 8% increase in C
T
for the free vs.
fixed condition over a range of F
n
including
F
n
=0.316 (Ogiwara and Kajatani, 1994). The
Toda et al. (1992) resistance values were cali-
brated (i.e., reduced by 8%) for effects of sink-
age and trim for the present comparisons.
Verification and Validation of Integral
Variable: Resistance. Verification was per-
formed with consideration to iterative and grid
convergence studies, i.e.,
G I SN
+ = and
2
G
2
I
2
SN
U U U + = . The studies were conducted
for m=3 grids with fixed grid refinement ratio
2 r
G
= in each coordinate direction. The sizes
of the coarse, medium, and fine grids are
101x26x16 =42,016, 144x36x22 =114,048,
and 201x51x31 =317,781. The grids were gen-
erated using the commercial code GRIDGEN
(Pointwise, Inc.). The grids are body-fitted,
structured, single block with an H-type topolo-
gy and grid clustering near the bow and stern in
the -direction, at the hull in the -direction,
and near the free surface in the -direction.
Near-wall spacing is determined by turbulence
modeling considerations where the first point
from the no-slip surface is placed at a normal-
ized wall distance of y
+
=(0.7, 1.0, 1.4).
The iteration errors and uncertainties were
negligible in comparison to the grid errors and
uncertainties for all three solutions i.e.
I
<<
G
and U
I
<<U
G
such that
SN
=
G
and U
SN
=U
G
.
Table 3. Grid convergence of resistance (x10
-3
)
for Series 60 ( values are in % finer grid).
Grid Coarse
101x26x1
6
Medium
144x36x2
2
Fine
201x51x3
1
Data
C
T

6.56 5.75
-12.3
5.41
-5.9
5.42
0.1%D
C
P

2.23 1.85
-17.0
1.77
-4.3
C
R
=
2.00
C
F

4.33 3.90
-9.9
3.65
-6.4
3.42
(ITTC)
The results from the grid convergence study
for C
T
are summarized in Table 3. The solu-
tions for C
T
indicate the converging condition
(i) of equation (33) with
32 21 G
/ R = =0.42.
The correction factor C
G
, order of accuracy
G
p ,
and first-order RE estimate
1
G
RE
are
29 . 1
1 ) 2 (
1 ) 2 (
1 r
1 r
C
2
4 . 2
p
G
p
G
G
th
G
=

= (40)
47
4 . 2
) 2 ln(
) 34 . 0 81 . 0 ln(
) r ln(
) ln(
p
G
21 32
G
G G
= =

=
(41)
3
4 . 2
3
p
G
21
RE
10 x 26 . 0
1 ) 2 (
10 x 34 . 0
1 r
G
G
1
G

=
(42)
where p
th
=2 was used. Uncertainty and/or error
estimates are made next both considering C
G
as
sufficiently less than or greater than 1 and
lacking confidence and C
G
as close to 1 and
having confidence, as discussed in the QM.
For C
G
= 1.29 considered as sufficiently
less than or greater than 1 and lacking confi-
dence, U
G
is estimated and not

G
and
C
G
U
3 3 3
RE G RE G G
10 x 42 . 0 10 x 08 . 0 10 x 34 . 0
) C 1 ( C U
1
G
1
G

= + =
+ =
(43)
U
G
is 7.8%
1
G
S .
For C
G
=1.29 considered close to 1 and
having confidence, both

G
and
C
G
U are esti-
mated
3
RE G G
10 x 34 . 0 C
1
G

= = (44)
3
RE G G
10 x 08 . 0 ) C 1 ( U
1
G C

= = (45)
Equation (28) along with equation (44) is used
to calculate S
C
3
G G C
10 x 07 . 5 S S
1

= = (46)

G
and
C
G
U are 6.7% and 1.6% S
C
, respec-
tively.
Validation is performed using both S and
S
C
. First using S, the comparison error is cal-
culated from equation (34) as
D % 2 . 0 10 x 01 . 0
10 x 41 . 5 10 x 42 . 5 S D E
3
3 3
= =
= =

(47)
The validation uncertainty is calculated from
equation (37) as
D % 1 . 8 10 x 44 . 0
U U U
3
2
D
2
SN V
= =
+ =

(48)
where U
SN
=U
G
and U
D
=2.5%D. In conclusion,
E <U
V
such that the simulation results are
validated at the level 8.1% D. Note that U
SN
/U
D
=3.1 such that reductionin U
V
mostly requires
reduction in U
SN
(e.g., use of finer grids).
Second using S
C
, the comparison error is
calculated from equation (38) as
D % 5 . 6 10 x 35 . 0
10 x 07 . 5 10 x 42 . 5 S D E
3
3 3
C C
= =
= =

(49)
The validation uncertainty is calculated from
equation (39) as
D % 0 . 3 10 x 16 . 0
U U U
3
2
D
2
N S V
C C
= =
+ =

(50)
In conclusion,
C
E >
C
V
U such that the
simulation results are not validated. Compari-
son error E
C
shows that S
C
under predicts D.
Validation uncertainty
C
V
U is relatively small
and
N S
C
U <<U
D
suggests that E
C
is mostly due
to modeling errors (and reduction in
C
V
U mo-
stly requires reduction in U
D
). Therefore
modeling issues should/can be improved to
reduce E
C
and validate C
T
at the reduced level
C
V
U =3.0%D in comparison to equation (48).
However, finer grids and calculations including
the effects of sinkage and trim are required to
reach definitive conclusions.
6.3 Benchmark Database for CFD Valida-
tion for Resistance and Propulsion
48
Rapid advancements in the development of
CFD and EFD provide the necessary tools for
realisation of simulation based design. How-
ever, validation and calibration are also re-
quired, which creates the need to maintain a
current evaluation of databases for CFD vali-
dation with regard to status and future uses and
requirements. This has been a continuing goal
of the RC with specific focus on the surface-
ship model-scale database and on data of rele-
vance to resistance and propulsion and valida-
tion of RANS codes. The present evaluation
provides an update over that reported by the
21
st
RC (ITTC, 1996a) and is recommended for
adoption. The effort was important in prepara-
tion for the upcoming Gothenburg 2000 Work-
shop on CFD in Ship Hydrodynamics (Gothen-
burg, 2000) as an aid in selection of benchmark
cases. The Gothenburg 2000 CFD Workshop
will compare viscous CFD codes and data for
cargo/container, combatant, and tanker hull
forms with and without a free surface. A da-
tabase evaluation was also done recently for
aerospace applications (Marvin, 1995); how-
ever, the emphasis is more on building block
experiments than practical geometries.
The previous evaluations were updated by
down selection and inclusion of both unbe-
knownst and newly acquired data. The down
selection is based on the recommendations of
the 21
st
RC for cargo/container [Hamburg Test
Case (HTC)], combatant [David Taylor Model
Basin (DTMB) model 5415 (5415)], and tanker
[Ryuko-Maru (RM)] geometries which re-
quired that full-scale data and/or ship existed
along with the Series 60 C
B
=0.6 (S60)
cargo/container and HSVA tanker geometries
since the data and previous use are extensive.
Unbeknownst data for a tanker (DAIOH) and
newly acquired data for cargo/container (KCS)
and tanker (KVLCC) geometries are also in-
cluded since the data is extensive and holds
promise for CFD validation.
The evaluation procedures followed those
described by the 21
st
RC (ITTC, 1996a). The
data was organised in summary and detailed
tables and evaluated using criteria developed
for geometry and flow, physics, CFD validation,
and full scale as well as past uses. Conclusions
are also provided with regard to the available
data and past uses and recommendations
provided for future uses of the available data
(including Gothenburg 2000) and future data
procurement. The evaluation is fairly extensive
and therefore is only summarised below mainly
with regard to the summary table and recom-
mendations (most important conclusions are
given in Section 6.4). Stern et al. (1998)
provides the complete evaluation, including
references.
Criteria. The geometry is restricted to prac-
tical surface-ship model-scale hull forms with
or without appendages and/or propulsor. The
facilities include towing tanks, circulating wa-
ter channels, and wind tunnels. The flow is
restricted to conditions of interest to resistance
and propulsion. Many conditions are of interest
(e.g., bare hull, appendages and/or propulsor,
hull-form variation, ballast, restricted water,
waves).
Many physics are of interest encompassing
design variables for resistance and propulsion
(forces and moments, sinkage and trim, wave
profile, nominal wake, propulsion, etc.);
geometry effects (model size, hull-form varia-
tion, flow control device, etc.); facil-
ity/experimental method effects (fixed or free
model, tow point, turbulence stimulation, facil-
ity bias, etc.); and a myriad of flow phenomena,
e.g., Re effects and scaling, boundary layer and
wake, stern flow, turbulence, vortex flow and
separation, Fr effects, wave breaking, bow flow,
transom flow, propeller-hull interaction, wave-
boundary layer and wake interaction, etc. The
list of measured variables includes forces and
moments, sinkage and trim, self propulsion,
surface pressure and shear stress, wave profiles
and elevations, mean velocity and pressure, and
turbulence (i.e., Reynolds stresses). Physics is
referred to as multi-issue, comprehensive, or
limited.
The documentation, quality, and quantity of
the data should be sufficient for validation of
RANS CFD codes. The documentation of the
data is measured by the level of the detailed
reporting of the geometry, conditions, and ex-
perimental methods; analysis of the data with
regard to the physics of interest; and availabil-
ity/usability. Although many of the studies are
motivated both for explication of the flow
physics and CFD validation, the documentation
varies considerably. Documentation is referred
to as detailed, partial, or limited.
The quality of data (i.e., uncertainty as-
sessment) is measured through rigorous appli-
cation of experimental uncertainty assessment
methodologies. Unfortunately, reporting of
49
experimental uncertainties continues to be a
problem, as discussed in Section 5. The de-
tailed tables include values for the reported
uncertainties, which are useful in providing
estimates for expected uncertainties for towing-
tank tests. Quality is referred to as rigorous,
partial, or none.
The quantity of data is measured with re-
gard to resolution of the flow physics. For this
purpose, the data should be sufficiently dense
for evaluation of the dominant terms in the
RANS, continuity, and auxiliary (turbulence
model, etc.) equations and other variables of
interest (e.g., vorticity) and the dominant terms
in their governing equations; however, equip-
ment limitations and time and cost constraints
are limiting factors such that this is practicably
impossible. Quantity is referred to as large
mapping and dense, large mapping and coarse,
partial mapping and dense, or partial mapping
and coarse.
Validation and calibration ultimately must
be done at full scale; however, full-scale testing
is largely confined to speed trials and very
much complicated by environmental conditions.
Furthermore, relatively few CFD studies have
included full-scale Re and/or environmental
conditions. Thus, full-scale testing and CFD are
beyond the scope of the present evaluation.
Nonetheless, geometries are preferred for
which full-scale data and/or ship exist. The
existence of full-scale data and/or ship is indi-
cated in the discussions and the available full-
scale data is included along with the available
model-scale data in the detailed tables. The
facility for full-scale data is referred to as the
sea.
Evaluation. Table 4 provides a summary of
the database and is organised by hull form:
cargo/container (S60, HTC, KCS); combatant
(5415); and tanker (HSVA, RM, DAIOH,
KVLCC). There are a total of 23 studies and 36
references: 6 studies for the S60; 4 studies for
the HTC; 2 studies for the KCS; 3 studies for
5415; 4 studies for the HSVA; 2 studies for the
RM; 2 studies for the; and 2 studies for the
KVLCC. The facility, propulsor condition, and
list of measured variables are indicated. Table 4
with references is included in the QM as proce-
dure 4.9-04-02-02, Benchmark Database for
CFD Validation for Resistance and Propul-
sion.
Tables 2-8 of Stern et al. (1998) provide
detailed tables for all the studies and data for
S60, HTC, KCS and KVLCC, 5415, HSVA,
RM, and DAIOH, respectively. Figures 1-8 of
Stern et al. (1998) provide body plans and bow
and stern profiles and representative results for
each hull form.
Stern et al. (1998) provides discussion of
the evaluation of the criteria for each hull form
and past uses of the data.
Recommendations. There are 8 general rec-
ommendations.
(1) Resources should be focused on extensive
data procurement for modern hull forms.
(2) The conditions and physics should be ex-
tended to facilitate CFD code developments
for unsteady flow, turbulence, wave break-
ing, and separation and vortices.
(3) Detailed documentation should always be
provided, including detailed reporting of the
geometry, conditions, and experimental
methods; analysis of the data with regard to
the physics of interest; and availabil-
ity/usability.
(4) The quality of data should be reported
through rigorous application of current
standards for experimental uncertainty as-
sessment methodology (Section 5).
(5) The quantity of data should be sufficient for
resolution of the flow physics of interest.
(6) Full-scale tests should be planned and data
procured to facilitate CFD code develop-
ment for Re effects and scaling and full-
scale simulations.
(7) CFD should be used complementarily in
planning and guiding both model- and full-
scale experiments.
(8) The available data should be fully used,
including rigorous application of computa-
tional uncertainty assessment methodolo-
gies (Section 6.1).
There are 4 recommendations for the Goth-
enburg 2000 Workshop.
(1) The Gothenburg 2000 CFD Workshop
should focus on validation of RANS codes
for cargo/container, combatant, and tanker
hull forms.
(2) The conditions and physics should focus on
hull-form variation, boundary layer and
wake, stern flow, turbulence, Fr effects,
propeller-hull interaction, and full-scale
simulations.
50
(3) Based on the currently available data, the
HTC, 5415, and HSVA/Dyne are the re-
commended benchmarks. However, in the
event that additional experiments are
planned and data procured and be available
by early 1999 for the KCS and/or
KVLCC/KVLCC2 for turbulence and pro-
peller-hull interaction, then the KCS and/or
KVLCC/KVLCC2 are the recommended
benchmarks, instead of HTC and
HSVA/Dyne, respectively.
(4) The participants and workshop compari-
sons/validations should follow CFD uncer-
tainty assessment methodologies as recom-
mended by the ITTC (Section 6.1).
6.4 Conclusions
Systematic assessment and reporting of un-
certainties in CFD solutions is needed to estab-
lish credibility of CFD codes. It will help to
reduce the current situation of pronounced user
variability for application of CFD in compari-
son to EFD and facilitate accreditation of CFD
codes.
A generally applicable uncertainty assess-
ment methodology for predictions from CFD
codes and a guideline for RANS codes, are
proposed for (interim) adoption by the 22nd
ITTC, and have been included in the QM along
with examples for RANS codes. This is a sig-
nificant update of the methodology proposed in
the previous RC report. However, more work is
needed for other error sources and solution
techniques and application by additional insti-
tutes for different applications and codes.
Considerable model-scale data for resis-
tance and propulsion have been procured for
explication of flow physics and CFD validation.
A listing and references for the database have
been included in the QM. There is a trend to-
wards more modern hull forms. Many condi-
tions and physics have been investigated;
nonetheless, additional data are needed for tur-
bulence, separation and vortices, free surface
and wave breaking, and unsteady flow. Addi-
tionally, full-scale data are needed for Reynolds
number effects and scaling. Improvements are
needed in documentation, quality, and quantity
of data and in use of CFD in design of experi-
ments. Most data have been utilised for CFD
validation; however, the validations are defi-
cient with regard to CFD uncertainty assess-
ment.
7. PROGNOSIS FOR TOWING-TANK
WORK
The previous sections have indicated that
there has been considerable recent development
in various fields of ship hydrodynamics. Atten-
tion shifts from overall flow phenomena to-
wards detailed physics; new experimental tech-
niques provide new possibilities in model test-
ing; and there is a particularly rapid develop-
ment in computational techniques. Additionally,
changes in ship types require new design tools
and procedures.
What impact will these developments have
on future towing-tank work? This question is
not easily answered. The following discussion,
based on consideration of recent developments
and literature, provides food for thought rather
than a complete answer.
7.1 Trends in Ship Types
According to the most recent articles in the
international shipping press concerning 21
st
century shipping and the future shipping policy,
the global trends in surface ships can be sum-
marised by the following assessments:
Fast ferries will play an increasing role in
maritime transportation and their evolution
will be particularly energetic, as pointed out
by Kennel et al. (1998). For merchant ships,
the demand for high-speed vessels seems to
be increasing (Osmundsvaag & Wergeland,
1997). A wide variety of new ship types is
being considered like wavepiercing catama-
rans, surface effect ships (SES), foil assist-
ed catamarans and mono-hulls, semi-
SWATHs, and hydrofoil small waterplane
area ships (HYSWAS). The evolution will
be characterised by a steady increase in ship
size as well as progressively higher transit
speeds (Kennell, 1998, Shin, 1998a,b). Fer-
ries with displacements up to several thou-
sand tons with speeds above 40 knots are
now entering service. Obviously, the testing
of these craft poses some new demands for
towing-tank work.
Pod drive is increasingly being discussed
for various ship types and hull forms. Be-
sides from cruise liners and semi-
submersibles, pods are currently also being
investigated and implemented to hull forms
such as product/chemical tankers and Ro-
Ro ships.
51
Table 4. Benchmark database for CFD validation for resistance and propulsion.
Facility, propulsor, and data
Database entry
F
a
c
i
l
i
t
y
P
r
o
p
u
l
s
o
r
F
/
M
S
e
l
f

p
r
o
p
u
l
s
i
o
n
S
i
n
k
a
g
e

a
n
d

t
r
i
m
S
u
r
f
a
c
e

p
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
W
a
v
e

p
r
o
f
i
l
e
W
a
v
e

e
l
e
v
a
t
i
o
n

(
I
)
W
a
v
e

e
l
e
v
a
t
i
o
n

(
t
)
M
e
a
n

v
e
l
o
c
i
t
y
M
e
a
n

p
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
T
u
r
b
u
l
e
n
c
e
Cargo-container
Series 60 C
B
=0.600 (S60)
Full-scale ship does not exist
1.1 Cooperative Experimental Program
ITTC (1984, 1987, 1990b)
Fry and Kim(1985)
Ogiwara and Kajitani (1994)
tt, wc
tt
tt
wo
wo
wo

1.2 Osaka University & Iowa Institute of Hydraulic Re-
search
Toda et al., (1990) tt w, wo
1.3 Iowa Institute of Hydraulic Research
Toda et al., (1992); Longo et al., (1993) tt wo
1.4 Iowa Institute of Hydraulic Research
Longo and Stern, (1996) tt wo
1.5 National Technical University of Athens
Garofallidis, (1996) tt wo
1.6 Osaka University
Suzuki et al., (1998a) wt wo
Hamburg Test Case C
B
=0.645 (HTC)
Full-scale ship exists
2.1 HSVA
Lammers et al. (1989) s w
2.2 HSVA
Bertramet al. (1992)
Bertramet al. (1994) tt w, wo
2.3 University of Hamburg
Gietz and Kux (1995) wt wo
2.4 Osaka University
Suzuki et al. (1998c) wt wo
KRISO 3600 TEU C
B
=0.651 (KCS)
Full-scale ship does not exist
3.1 Korean Research Institute of Ships & Ocean Engi-
neering
Van et al. (1997)
Van et al. (1998b) tt w, wo
3.2 Pohang University of Science and Technology
Lee et al. (1998b) wt wo
Combatant
DTMB model 5415 C
B
=0.506 (5415)
Full-scale ship does not exist
4.1 David Taylor Model Basin
Fry and Kim(1985)
Ratcliffe (1998b) tt w, wo
4.2 Iowa Institute of Hydraulic Research
Longo and Stern (1999) tt wo
4.3 INSEAN
Avanzini et al. (1998)
Olivieri and Penna (1999)
tt wo
52
Facility, propulsor, and data
Database entry
F
a
c
i
l
i
t
y
P
r
o
p
u
l
s
o
r
F
/
M
S
e
l
f

p
r
o
p
u
l
s
i
o
n
S
i
n
k
a
g
e

a
n
d

t
r
i
m
S
u
r
f
a
c
e

p
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
W
a
v
e

p
r
o
f
i
l
e
W
a
v
e

e
l
e
v
a
t
i
o
n

(
I
)
W
a
v
e

e
l
e
v
a
t
i
o
n

(
t
)
M
e
a
n

v
e
l
o
c
i
t
y
M
e
a
n

p
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
T
u
r
b
u
l
e
n
c
e
Tanker
HSVA C
B
=0.850 (HSVA)
Full-scale ship does not exist
5.1 University of Hamburg
Hoffmann (1976) wt wo
5.2 University of Hamburg
Knaack (1984)
Knaack (1990)
wt wo
Hull-formvariation Dyne tanker C
B
=0.850 (Dyne)
5.3 University of Hamburg
Denker et al. (1992)
Knaack (1992) wt wo
5.4 Chalmers University of Technology
Lundgren and hman (1994)
Dyne (1995)
tt
tt
wo
w, wo
Ryuko-Maru C
B
=0.830 (RM)
Full-scale ship does not exist
6.1 Ishikawajima-Harima Heavy Industries Co., Ltd.
Ogiwara (1994) s, tt w, wo
6.2 Osaka University
Suzuki et al. (1997)
Suzuki et al. (1998c) wt wo
DAIOH C
B
=0.837 (DAIOH)
Full-scale ship does not exist
7.1 Osaka University, Akashi Ship Model Basin, and
Nippon Kokan K. K.
Tanaka et al. (1984)
Kasahara (1985) s, tt w, wo
KRISO 300K VLCC C
B
=0.810 (KVLCC)
Full-scale ship does not exist
8.1 Korea Research Institute of Ships & Ocean Engi-
neering
Van et al. (1998a)
Van et al. (1998b)
tt w, wo
Hull-formvariation VLCC2 C
B
=0.810 (KVLCC2)
8.2 Korea Research Institute of Ships & Ocean Engi-
neering
No reference available
tt w, wo
tt, wt, wc, s: Towing tank, wind tunnel, water channel, and sea, respectively
w, wo: With and without, respectively
: Data available
: Data under procurement
NA: Data not available
%: Percentage range of variable
53
Also, the navies of several nations have
evaluated the possible application of un-
conventional hull forms to, e.g., mine
countermeasure vessels, patrol crafts, and
fast surface combatants (Williamson, 1997).
Cost effectiveness can be improved by use
of more specialised ships that are specifi-
cally designed for certain goods and routes
and therefore reduce operation costs. Hence,
there is a rising demand for specially des-
igned ships (Kenneman, 1998) and the
yards can only meet this demand by means
of specialisation and standardisation, which
is made possible by the rapid development
of Computer-Aided Design techniques, as
discussed by Catley & Koch (1995), Tan &
Bligh (1998), and Tuohy et al. (1996).
Also for naval vessels, cost is now a more
stringent requirement than in the past (Dean,
1996, Whitcomb, 1998, Bendall & Bendall,
1995, Kenneman, 1998). This requires a
methodology for analysing ship cost with
appropriate affordability measures (Hock-
berger, 1996). Alternative ship designs can-
not be built and tested due to the cost, effort,
and time involved in the design construc-
tion as discussed by Whitcomb (1998).
Signature reduction techniques for modern
combatant vessels and the control and re-
duction of signatures (acoustic, magnetic,
thermal radar, optical, pressure, and wake)
are considered a necessity (Goddard et al.,
1996, Greenish, 1998).
There is an important need to enhance
transport performance of high-speed com-
mercial and military sealift and, on the other
hand, to have a simple parametric relation-
ship between mission requirements ex-
pressed in terms of speed, range, and pay-
load and the design characteristics given
in terms of displacement, installed power,
and fuel weight. This is necessary to com-
pare the various hull forms and different
technologies of interest (Kennel et al., 1998,
Kennel, 1998).
There is a continuing interest in reducing
the wavemaking of ships not only to reduce
the required power, but also to reduce envi-
ronmental damage. This is becoming in-
creasingly relevant in many cities where
river and harbour ferries provide a signifi-
cant contribution to mass public transport
systems (Day, 1996, Gharabaghi & Wata-
nabe, 1998).
Moreover, environmental considerations
due to air pollution on both a local and
global scale are becoming relevant to the
design and operation of ships (Carlton,
1998). Finally, several tanker accidents
were a driving force behind the Air Pollu-
tion Act 1990 and parallel IMO regulation.
Both these codes, specify the gradual re-
placement of single-hull tankers by either
double-hull or mid-deck ship arrangements
to reduce the probability of oil outflow due
to accidents (Cheung & Slaughter, 1988).
In order to reduce pollution, increase safety,
and save required power, future designs
more often adopt diesel electric machinery,
but replace the propeller shaftline with a
rotating thruster, or pod drive, or a pumpjet.
These two kinds of propulsion systems re-
quire a more detailed knowledge of the flow
field around the hull.
The maritime industry is aware of recent
shipping casualties, which have resulted in
severe loss of life and ecological disaster
(Chao, 1995, Klein Would et al., 1997,
Stubbs et al., 1996, Vassalos, 1998). In re-
sponse to these tragedies, marine industry
organisations have adopted measures to
rectify the situation (Frystock & Spencer,
1996).
It may be possible to discern additional
trends; but the above suffice to illustrate that
there continue to be new challenges in ship
design requiring new technical capabilities and
facilities in design; and that the demands im-
posed on ship design tend to become stricter.
Partly, the availability of new computational
and experimental techniques allows these re-
quirements to be met.
7.2 Impact of CFD on Ship Design
The fast growth of computing power at
comparatively low cost and the simultaneous
fast development of algorithms and computa-
tional tools for CFD also have an undeniable
impact on towing-tank work and ship-design
procedures. The development is continuing at
an increasing speed and will be further facili-
54
tated by High Performance Computing and
Networking developments.
As discussed in Section 4.1, a range of CFD
methods already play an important role in
practical ship design. In the past, hull-form
optimisation for resistance and flow was pri-
marily based on observation of model resistan-
ce tests and several variations were often tested
to find an improved hull form. Today, the se-
lection of hull forms in many cases is largely
based on or supported by flow computations
with only one or a few selected forms being
model tested. The role of resistance tests has
thus been largely reduced to a last check of the
quality of the hull-form design and measure-
ment of the model resistance in the interest of
performance prediction. While the performance
prediction procedure is again hampered by
many difficulties in determining form factors,
treating appendages, and so on, it is the exten-
sive experience with this procedure that still
makes model testing indispensable for an accu-
rate performance prediction. Any changes in
this role will only be gradual.
The decreasing role of resistance tests is
explained not only by the relatively large cost
of model manufacture, but also by the inherent
drawbacks of model testing: the scale effects in
the viscous flow and the difficulty to get de-
tailed insight in the flow. As discussed in the
next section, the latter drawback may be allevi-
ated by new experimental techniques.
The current rapid development of viscous-
flow calculation methods, in particular as far as
applicable for full-scale hulls, and of methods
combining wave making and viscous flow, may
in the near future provide capabilities exceed-
ing those of a towing tank, such as prediction
of full-scale wake fields. This may contribute
to a future decrease in the amount of model
testing. Principal obstructions to this change
are the large complexity of the complete hy-
drodynamics problems and the difficulty of
modelling turbulence effects. Consequently, it
is our expectation that, while the number of the
simple tests may decline in a relatively short
term, tests involving more interactions (ranging
from propulsion tests to manoeuvring in waves)
will be necessary for a long time. The work of
towing tanks will thus shift towards more com-
plicated tests and flow measurements, and an
increasing use of computational pre-
optimisation (Larsson et al., 1998, Raven,
1998).
Another current trend is the spread of CFD
tools from institutes and consultants towards
shipyards. So far this has had little effect on the
volume of work for institutes and because of
the expertise required for properly handling
CFD tools this trend will be confined to the
larger shipyards only.
7.3 Trends in Experimental Ship Hydrody-
namics
According to Pinkster (1998), the types of
model tests carried out in experimental faciliti-
es have undergone a considerable expansion,
and today can be classified as follows:
fundamental tests, aimed at giving insight
into basic phenomena;
correlation tests, meant to validate a com-
putational method;
systematic tests, to collect hydrodynamic
data for a systematic parameter variation,
e.g., to be incorporated in prediction soft-
ware in the form of empirical coefficients;
feasibility tests, to confirm estimates of the
behaviour of new ship concepts before the
concept is further developed;
design tests, aimed at producing data speci-
fically relevant to a particular design or op-
eration.
In the past, the emphasis for most towing
tanks was on design testing. The growing im-
portance of computational methods requires an
increasing amount of validation testing. So far,
experimental data used for validation in many
cases concern classical cases, as discussed in
Section 6.5. There is a clear need for more
validation cases, more relevant to modern ship
types. Recent work on techniques for uncer-
tainty assessment in both experiments and CFD
(Sections 5 and 6) should be a strong founda-
tion for the validation work based on these ex-
periments.
Moreover, hydrodynamically advanced
theory or methods must be tested against a hy-
drodynamic experiment rather than a ship-
motion experiment or a global-force experi-
ment (Ohkusu, 1998). Fine agreement in pre-
dicted global data does not mean that the theo-
retical approach is correct; bad agreement does
not tell us where the theory is wrong. Hydrody-
namic experiments, such as measurement of
fluid velocity and pressure distribution and
55
flow visualisation will be necessary to prove
the validity and the range of applicability of the
numerical model used or to pinpoint inaccura-
cies in the modelling. This means that the in-
creasing emphasis on validation testing should
ideally involve a shift in the type of experi-
ments as well with, for example, the measure-
ment of detailed flow features on the hull and
propeller, requiring special instrumentation.
However, also for design testing and hull-
form optimisation, experimental determination
or observation of detailed flow features may
create new possibilities. One of the fundamen-
tal drawbacks of conventional model tests is
the fact that the flow character is hard to ob-
serve. Tuft tests, paint tests, and observation of
the wave pattern produce an incomplete picture
that could only be complemented by time-
consuming velocity and pressure measurements
using Pitot tubes or LDV. It seems, however,
quite possible that modern experimental tech-
niques such as those discussed in Section 3 will
allow a much more efficient experimental de-
termination of the flow field than has ever been
possible before. Techniques like PTV, laser
speckle velocimetry (LSV), and PIV (Gottero
& Onorato, 1998) are now emerging that per-
mit a relatively comprehensive and quantitative
measurement of a velocity field in a plane in
just one or a few runs; a big step forward com-
pared to previous Pitot or LDV techniques.
7.4 Prognosis
Ship hydrodynamics is very much in motion
with new types of ships, new design tools, and
new techniques for experiments and computa-
tions emerging. Higher demands on ship design,
a shift towards more complicated model tests,
more sophisticated experimental techniques,
and complicated computational problems pose
significant challenges for ship-hydrodynamics
institutes.
The increasing role of computational
methods in ship design and optimisation imply
that availability of a towing tank could become
a less decisive advantage and ship design and
evaluation could move away from classical
institutes. On the other hand, the combined and
integrated use of numerical and experimental
ship hydrodynamics together with a large
amount of know-how collected continue to be a
major asset. However, an active position is
desired to continuously enrich this with the
new techniques becoming available.
It seems reasonable that the activities of
towing tanks will change from routine tests to
more sophisticated tests oriented to local meas-
urements instead of global measurements. The
development of new experimental techniques
tends to strengthen again the role of model
testing. It could well be useful for towing tanks
to have an active role in developing and ap-
plying these tools.
Pinkster (1998) and Beck et al. (1996) point
out that, in addition, it is important that the
personnel is knowledgeable not only about the
operation of the facility or code, but also with
respect to fundamental assumptions and area of
application and limitations. With respect to
experimental facilities, this involves not only
the knowledge and experience of the basin
technicians, but also of the complete chain of
personnel. With respect to the increasing appli-
cation of more sophisticated numerical meth-
ods, management will have to take steps to
ensure that staff have sufficient expertise, not
necessarily regarding software, but at least to
be able to meaningfully communicate with tho-
se who do so on their behalf (Beck et al., 1996).
If management of towing tanks makes a
conscious effort to come to decisions to keep
improving the model testing and scientific staff
as well as the whole chain of personnel, it will
be possible that the activities of towing tanks
will increase in the future to answer all the new
needs of naval construction.
7.5 Conclusions
Ship hydrodynamics is undergoing rapid
advancement due to new developments in ship
concepts and design tools, in CFD methods and
their use for design, and in sophisticated EFD
measurement systems (e.g., LDV and PIV) and
their use in more complicated local-flow model
tests. In response, ship-hydrodynamics insti-
tutes need to significantly expand their activiti-
es beyond routine testing and use of accumulat-
ed knowledge to include expertise in comple-
mentary CFD and EFD.
56
8. RECOMMENDATIONS
8.1 Recommendations to the Conference
Adopt the uncertainty assessment method-
ology, guideline for towing-tank experiments,
and example for a model-scale towing-tank
resistance test as published in the QM, respec-
tively, as procedures 4.9-03-01-01, Uncer-
tainty Analysis in EFD, Uncertainty Assess-
ment Methodology, 4.9-03-01-02 Uncer-
tainty Analysis in EFD, Guidelines for Resis-
tance Towing Tank Tests, and 4.9-03-02-01,
Resistance Tests, and 4.9-03-02-02, Uncer-
tainty Analysis, Example for Resistance Test.
Adopt for the interim the uncertainty as-
sessment methodology, guideline for RANS
codes, and examples for RANS codes as pub-
lished in the QM, respectively, as procedures
4.9-04-01-01, Uncertainty Analysis in CFD,
Uncertainty Assessment Methodology, 4.9-04-
01-02, Uncertainty Analysis in CFD, Guideli-
nes for RANS Codes, and 4.9-04-02-01, Un-
certainty Analysis in CFD, Examples for Re-
sistance and Flow.
Adopt the benchmark database for Resis-
tance and Propulsion CFD validation as pub-
lished in the QM, respectively, as procedure
4.9-04-02-02, Benchmark Database for CFD
Validation for Resistance and Propulsion.
8.2 Recommendations for Future Work
Review and identify the need for research
and development for resistance, including new
developments in ship concepts, design methods
(such as CFD-based optimisation methods),
physics and modelling, and trends in EFD and
CFD. In particular review research and devel-
opment and provide recommendations for
scaling/extrapolation methods and turbulence
stimulation.
Develop procedures and perform and report
uncertainty assessment for additional model-
scale towing-tank tests, such as sinkage and
trim, wave profiles and elevations, and nominal
wake tests. Additionally, in co-operation with
the Propulsion Committee, develop procedures
and perform and report uncertainty assessment
for full-scale speed-power prediction based on
uncertainty assessment for resistance, open-
water and self-propulsion tests, scal-
ing/extrapolation methods, and full-scale
speed-power tests.
Select a standard ship model/propeller for
shared use between ITTC member institutes for
comparative resistance, open-water, and self-
propulsion tests and uncertainty assessment,
including determination of facility biases.
Continue work on CFD uncertainty assess-
ment methodology and examples, including
further developments for other error sources
and solution techniques and application by ad-
ditional ITTC member institutes for different
examples and codes.
Update evaluation of benchmark database
for resistance and propulsion CFD validation,
including recommendations for archiving and
dissemination of data, use of data, and full-
scale experiments. Monitor the need and inves-
tigate the possibility for future full-scale ex-
periments.
Assist in the organisation and conduct of
Gothenburg 2000 Workshop on CFD in Ship
Hydrodynamics, including specification of
CFD uncertainty assessment methodology and
full-scale estimates and uncertainties for resis-
tance and propulsion for the selected bench-
marks.
Continue work on editing and updating QM
procedures in co-operation with Quality Sys-
tems Group.
REFERENCES
Abdel-Maksoud, M., Menter, F. R., and Wuttke,
H., 1998a, Viscous Flow Simulations for
Conventional and High-Skew Propeller,
Ship Technology Research, vol.45, no. 2,
pp. 64-71.
Abdel-Maksoud, M., Menter, F. R., and Wuttke,
H., 1998b, Numerical Computation of the
Viscous Flow around Series 60 C
B
=0.6
Ship with Rotating Propeller, Proc. 3
rd
Osaka Colloquium Advanced CFD Appli-
cations to Ship Flow And Hull Form De-
sign, Osaka, pp.25-50.
Abdel-Maksoud, M., Rieck, K., and Hellwig,
K., 1998c, Numerical Calculation of In-
duced Velocities of a Self Propulsed Inland
57
Vessel on a River Bed, Proc. Euromech
374, Poitiers, pp. 141-158.
Adrian, R.J ., Soloff, S.M., Liu, Z.C., Meinhart,
C.D., and Lai, W., 1997, Stereoscopic PIV
Applications to the Study of Turbulence,
Proc. 2
nd
Int. Workshop on PIV97, Fukui,
J apan.
AIAA, 1995, Assessment of Wind Tunnel
Data Uncertainty, AIAA S-071-1995.
AIAA, 1998, Guide for the Verification and
Validation of Computational Fluid Dy-
namics Simulations, G-077-1998.
Akimoto, H. and Miyata, H., 1998, Finite-
volume Simulation of the Free Surface
Flow around a Sailing Boat in Unsteady
Motion, submitted to Int. J . for Num.
Methods in Fluids.
Alessandrini, B. and Delhommeau, G.,
1996, A Multigrid Velocity Pressure -
Free-Surface Elevation Fully Couples
Solver for Calculation of Turbulent Incom-
pressible Flow Around a Hull, Proc. 21
st
Symp. Naval Hydrodynamics, Trondheim,
Norway.
Alessandrini, B. and Delhommeau, G.,
1998, Viscous Free Surface Flow Past a
Ship in Drift and in Rotating Motion, Proc.
22
nd
Symp. Naval Hydrodynamics, Wash-
ington, D.C.
ANSI/ASME, 1985, Measurement Uncer-
tainty: Part 1, Instrument and Apparatus,
ANSI/ASME PTC 19.I-1985.
Arabshahi, A., Beddhu, M., Briley, W., Chen,
J ., Gaither, A., Gaither, K., J anus, J ., J iang,
M., Marcum, D., McGinley, J ., Pankajak-
shan, R., Remotigue, M., Sheng, C.,
Sreenivas, K., Taylor, L., and Whitfield, D.,
1998, A Prospective on Naval Hydrody-
namic Flow Simulations, Proc. 22
nd
Symp.
Naval Hydrodynamics, Washington, D.C.
Azcueta, R., Muzaferija, S., and Peric, M.,
1998, Computation of Water and Air Flow
around Ships, Proc. Euromech 374, Poi-
tiers.
Baba, E., 1969, A New Component of Vis-
cous Resistance of Ships. Selected papers
from the J . of the Society of Naval Arqui-
tects of J apan, Vol. 7, pp. 17-21.
Baba, E. and Ikeda, T., 1991 Development of
a New Torsionmeter of Optical Type and Its
Application (in J apanese), Trans. West-
J apan Soc. of Naval Architects, No. 83.
Barnhart, D.H., Adrian, R.J ., Meinhart, C. and
Papen, G.C., 1995, Phase-conjugate Sys-
tem for Holographic Particle Image Velo-
cimetry through Thick Curved Windows,
Proc. 2
nd
Int. Workshop on PIV97, Fukui,
J apan.
Beck, R.F., Cao, Y., and Lee, T.-H., 1993,
"Fully Nonlinear Water Wave Computa-
tions using the Desingularized Method",
Proc. 6
th
Int. Conf. Numerical Ship Hydro-
dynamics, Iowa City, USA.

Beck, R.F., Reed, A.M., and Rood, E.P.,
1996, Application of Modern Numerical
Methods in Marine Hydrodynamics,
SNAME Transactions, Vol. 104, pp 519-
537.
Beddhu, M., J iang, M. Y., Whitfield, D. L.,
Taylor, L. K., and Arabshahi, A.,
1998, CFD Validation of the Free Surface
Flow around DTMD Model 5415 using
Reynolds Averaged Navier-Stokes Equa-
tions, Proc. 3
rd
Osaka Colloquium Ad-
vanced CFD Applications to Ship Flow
And Hull Form Design, Osaka, pp.373-393.
Bell, J . H. and McLachlan, B. G., 1996, Image
Registration for Pressure-sensitive Paint
Applications, Experiments in Fluids Vol.
22.
Bendall, D. and Bendall, H., 1995, Fast Cargo
Ships Some Commercial Implications,
Proc. 11
th
Int. Maritime and Shipping
Symp., Sydney, Australia, pp 213-225.
Bertram, V., 1998, Marching towards the
Numerical Towing Tank, Proc. Euromech
374, Poitiers.
Bet, F., Hnel, D., and Sharma, S.,
1998, Numerical Simulation of Ship Flow
by a Method of Artificial Compressibility,
Proc. 22
nd
Symp. Naval Hydrodynamics,
Washington, D.C.
58
Blackwelder, R. and Kaplan, R., 1976, On the
Wall Structure of the Turbulent Boundary
Layer, J . Fluid Mechanics, Vol 76, part1,
pp 89-112.
Bonmarin, P., Rochefort, R., and Bourguel, M.,
1989, Surface Wave Profile Measurement
by Image Analysis, Experiments in Fluids
Vol. 7.
Boukir, K., Maday, Y., Metivet, B., and Ra-
zafindrakoto, M., 1997, A High Order
Characteristics/Finite Element Method for
the Incompressible Navier-Stokes Equa-
tions, Int. J . for Num. Methods in Fluids,
vol. 25, pp 1421-1454.
Brakkee, E., 1996, "Domain Decomposition for
the Incompressible Navier-Stokes Equa-
tions", Doctoral Thesis, Delft Univ. Tech.,
Netherlands.
Brakkee, E., Vuik, C., and Wesseling, P.,
1998, Domain Decomposition for the In-
compressible Navier-Stokes Equations:
Solving Subdomain Problems Accurately
and Inaccurately, Int. J . for Num. Methods
in Fluids, vol. 26 pp 1217-1237.
Bruzzone, D., Cassella, P., Miranda, S., Pensa,
C., and Zotti, I., 1997, The Form Factor by
Means of Multiple Geosim Model Tests,
Proc. NAV97, Intl. Conf. on Ships and
Marine Research, Sorrento, Italy.
Bull, P., 1996, The Validation of CFD Predic-
tions of Nominal Wake for the Suboff Fully
Appended Geometry, Proc. 21
st
Symp.
Naval Hydrodynamics, Trondheim, pp.
1601- 1076.
Bull, P. and Watson, S., 1998, The Scaling of
High Reynolds Number Viscous Flow Pre-
dictions for Appended Submarine Geome-
tries, Proc. 22
nd
Symp. Naval Hydrody-
namics, Washington, D.C.
Carlton, J .S., 1998, Some Environmental
Considerations and their Influence on the
Design and Operation of Ships, WEMT 98,
Rotterdam, pp 77-92.
Catley, D. and Koch, T., 1995, The Impact of
New Technologies on Computer Aided
Ship Design, PRADS 95, pp 1324-1336.
Chang, K.-A. and Liu, P.L.-F., 1998, Velocity,
Acceleration and Vorticity under a Breaking
Wave, Phys. Fluids, Vol. 10, No. 1.
Chao, F.S.B., 1995, What about Double Hull
for Bulk Carriers, PRADS 95, pp 19-27.
Chappell, J .A. and Bull, P.W., 1998, Multi-
zonal Multi-block Grids for Hydrodynamic
Simulations, Proc. Numerical Grid Gen-
eration in Computational Field Simulations,
Greenwich, England, pp. 141-150.
Chen, H.-C. and Huang, E., 1998, Validation
of a Chimera RANS Method for Transient
Flows Induced by a Full-Scale Berthing
Ship, Proc. 22
nd
Symp. Naval Hydrody-
namics, Washington, D.C.
Chen, H.-C., Lin, W.M., and Weems, K.M.,
1994, Second Moment RANS Calculations
of Viscous Flows around Ship Hulls, Proc.
CFD Workshop for Improvement of Hull
Form Design, Tokyo, pp.275-284.

Chen, X.-N. and Sharma, S., 1994, Nonlinear
Theory of Asymmetric Motion of a Slender
Ship in a Shallow Channel, Proc. 20
th
Symp. Naval Hydrodynamics, Santa Bar-
bara, California, U.S.A. pp 386-407.
Chen, X.-N. and Sharma, S., 1997, Zero Wave
Resistance for Ships Moving in Shallow
Channels at Supercritical Speeds, J . Fluid
Mechanics, vol. 335, pp 305-321.
Cheung, M.C. and Slaughter, S.B.,
1998, Inner-bottom Design Problems in
Double-Hull Tankers, Marine Technology,
Vol. 35, No. 2, pp 65-73.
Choi, J .E. and Stern, F., 1993, Solid-Fluid
J uncture Boundary Layer and Wake with
Waves, Proc. 6
th
Int. Conf. Numerical Ship
Hydrodynamics, Iowa City Iowa, USA, pp
215-238.
Chou, S.-K., Huang, C.-H., Chiang, C.-C., and
Huang, P.-C.,1998, "An Inverse Geometry
Design Problem in Optimizing the Hull
Surfaces", Proc. 7
th
PRADS Symp., El-
sevier, Amsterdam.
Chow, S.K., 1967, Free-Surface Effects on
Boundary-Layer Separation on Vertical
Struts, Ph.D. thesis, The University of
Iowa, Iowa City, U.S.A.
59
Codina, R., Vasquez, M., and Zienkiewicz,
O.C., 1998, A General Algorithm for
Compressible and Incompressible Flows
Part III: the Semi-Implicit Form, Int. J . for
Num. Methods in Fluids, vol. 27, pp 13-22.
Cointe, R. and Tulin, M.P., 1994, A Theory of
Steady Breakers, J . Fluid Mechanics. Vol.
276, pp. 1-20.
Coleman, H.W. and Steele, W.G., 1999, Ex-
perimentation and Uncertainty Analysis for
Engineers, 2
nd
Edition, J ohn Wiley & Sons,
Inc., New York, NY.
Coleman, H.W. and Stern, F., 1997, "Uncer-
tainties in CFD Code Validation," ASME J .
Fluids Eng., Vol. 119, pp. 795-803. (Also
see Authors Closure, ASME J . Fluids
Eng., Vol. 120, September 1998, pp. 635-
636.)
Compton, D.A. and Eaton, J .K., 1996, A
High-resolution Laser Doppler Anemome-
ter for Three-dimensional Turbulent
Boundary Layers, Experiments in Fluids
Vol.22.
Cowles, C. and Martinelli, L., 1998, A Vis-
cous Multiblock Flow Solver for Free-
Surface Calculations on Complex Geome-
tries, Proc. 22
nd
Symp. Naval Hydrody-
namics, Washington D.C.
Craft, T.J ., Launder, B.E., and Suga, K.,
1993, Extending the Applicability of Eddy
Viscosity Models through the Use of De-
formation Invariant and Nonlinear Ele-
ments, Proc. 5
th
Int. Symp. Refined Flow
Modeling and Turbulence Measurements,
Paris, pp. 125-132.
Cura Hochbaum, A.J ., 1998, Computation of
the Turbulent Flow Around a Ship Model in
Steady Turn and in Steady Oblique Motion,
Proc. 22
nd
Symp. Naval Hydrodynamics,
Washington, D.C.
Dabiri, D. and Gharib, M., 1996, Generation
Mechanism and Sources of Vorticity Within
a Spilling Breaking Wave, Proc. 21
st
Symp.
Naval Hydrodynamics, Trondheim. pp. 520-
534.
Dabiri, D. and Gharib, M.,
1997, Experimental Investigation of the
Vorticity Generation within a Spilling Wa-
ter Wave, J . Fluid Mechanics. Vol. 330, pp
113-139.
Dai, Z., Hsiang, P., and Faeth, G., 1996, Spray
Formation at the Free Surface of Turbulent
Bow Sheets, Proc. 21
st
Symp. Naval Hy-
drodynamics, Trondheim. pp. 490-504.
Dai, Z., Sallam, K., and Faeth, G.,
1998, Turbulent Primary Breakup of
Plane-Free Bow Sheets, Proc. 22
nd
Symp.
Naval Hydrodynamics, Washington, D.C.
Davoudzadeh, F., Taylor, L.K., Zierke, W.C.,
Dreyer, J .J ., McDonald, H., and Whitfield,
D.L., 1997, Coupled Navier-Stokes and
equations of Motion Simulation of Subma-
rine maneuvers, including Crashback,"
ASME FED 97-3129.
Dawson, C.W., 1977, "A Practical Computer
Method for Solving Ship-wave Problems",
Proc. 2
nd
Int. Conf. Numerical Ship Hydro-
dynamics, Berkeley, USA.
Day, A.H., 1996, Minimal-Resistance Hull-
forms for High-Speed Craft, R.I.N.A., pp
194-212.
Dean, A.R., 1996, Naval Ship Affordability,
Naval Engineers J ournal, pp 19-21.
De J ouette, C., Le Gouez, J .M., Put, O., and
Rigaud, S., 1996, "Volume of Fluid Method
Applied to Nonlinear Wave Problems on
Body-fitted Grids", Proc. 11
th
Int. Work-
shop on Water Waves and Floating Bodies,
Hamburg.
Delhommeau, G., Alessandrini, B., and Gentaz,
L., 1996, Exact Free-surface Conditions
and Some Approximations, in Bertram, V.
(ed.) (1996), Advances in ship and off-
shore hydrodynamics, IfS-Report 583,
Univ. Hamburg.
Deng, G. and Visonneau, M.,
1996, Evaluation of eddy viscosity and
second-moment turbulence closures for
steady flows around ships, Proc. 21
st
Symp.
Naval Hydrodynamics, Trondheim, Norway.
Deng, G. and Visonneau, M., 1997, Stern
Flows Computation with Reynolds-Stress
Model. The Int. CFD Conference, May
1997, Ulsteinvik, Norway, Paper no. 7.
60
Deng, G. and Visonneau, M.,
1998, Computation of a Wing-Body J unc-
tion Flow with a New Reynolds-Sress Tur-
bulence Model, Proc. 22
nd
Symp. Naval
Hydrodynamics, Washington, D.C.
Doctors, L.J . and Day, A.H., 1997, "Resistance
Prediction for Transom-stern Vessels",
FAST'97 Symp.
Doi, Y., Mori, K., and Hotta, T.,
1991, Frictional Drag Reduction by Mi-
crobubbles (in J apaneses), J . Soc. of Naval
Architects of J apan, Vol. 170.
Dommermuth, D., Innis, G., Luth, T., Novikov,
E., Schlageter, E. and Talcott, J .,
1998, Numerical Simulation of Bow
Waves, Proc. 22
nd
Symp. Naval Hydrody-
namics, Wahington D.C.
Dong, R.R., Katz, J ., and Huang, T.T.,
1997a, On the Structure of Bow waves on
a Ship Model, J . Fluid Mechanics, Vol.346,
pp 77-115.
Dong, S-T., J i, Z-Y., and Zhou, W-X.,
1997b, Pressure Distribution Determined
by using Measured Velocity Field Data and
RANS Equations, J . Hydrodynamics, Ser.
B, No. 1, China.
Duncan, J .H., 1983, The Breaking and Non-
Breaking Resistance of a Two-Dimensional
Hydrofoil. J . Fluid Mechanics. Vol. 126,
pp. 507-520.
Duncan, J .H., Philomin, V., Qiao, H., and
Kimmel, J ., 1994, The Formation of
Spilling Breaker. Phys. Fluids 6, S2.
Dwyer, H.A. and Grear, J ., 1998, Solution of
the Navier-Stokes equations with finite dif-
ferences on unstructured triangular meshes,
Computers and Fluids, vol. 27, 5/6, pp 695-
708.
Eca, L. and Hoekstra, M., 1996, Numerical
Calculation of Ship Stern Flows at Full
Scale Reynolds Numbers, Proc. 21
st
Symp.
Naval Hydrodynamics, Trondheim, Norway,
pp 377-391.
El-Moctar, O.A. and Muzaferija, S.,
1998, Numerical Determination of Rudder
Forces, Proc. Euromech 374, Poitiers, pp.
171-181.
Fabry, E. P., 1998, 3D Holographic PIV with
a Forward-scattering Laser Sheet and
Stereoscopic Analysis, Experiments in
Fluids Vol. 24.
Ferziger, J .H. and Peric, M.,
1997, Computational Methods for Fluid
Dynamics, Springer Verlag, pp.26-29.
Forgach, K.M., 1992, Measurement Uncer-
tainty Analysis of a Ship Model Resistance
Test, (unpublished manuscript), DTMB.
Forsman, B., 1996, High-Speed Ferries---
Environmental Impact and Safety Assess-
ment, PIANC Bulletin, no.36.
Frystock, K. and Spencer, L., 1996, Bulk Car-
rier Safety, Marine Technology, Vol. 33,
No. 4, pp 309-318.
Fujii, Y., Kato, H., Yamaguchi, H., and Miya-
naga, M., 1991, Friction Drag Reduction
by Injecting High-viscosity fluid (2
nd
Re-
port), J . Soc. of Naval Architects of J apan,
Vol. 170, (in J apanese).
Garofallidis, D.A., 1996, Experimental and
Numerical Investigation of the Flow around
a Ship Model At Various Froude Numbers
Part II: Uncertainty Analysis for Measure-
ments, Ph.D. Thesis, Dept. Of Naval Ar-
chitecture and Marine Engineering, Nation-
al Technical University of Athens.
Gatiganti, R.M., Badcock, K.J ., and Dubuc, L.,
1998, Solution to Steady and Unsteady In-
compressible Navier-Stokes Equations with
a Free Surface, Proc. Euromech 374, Poi-
tiers, pp 95-105.
Gatski, T.B. and Speziale, C.G., 1993, On
Explicit Algebraic Stress Models for Com-
plex Turbulent Flows, J . Fluid Mech., Vol.
254, pp. 59-78.
Gaydon, M., Raffel, M., Willert, C., Rosengar-
ten, M. and Kompenhans, L., 1997, Hyblid
Stereoscopic Particle Image Velocimetry,
Experiments in Fluids Vol. 23.
Gendrich, C.P. and Koochesfahani, M.M.,
1996, A Spatial Correlation Technique for
Estimating Velocity Fields using Molecular
61
Tagging Velocimetry (MTV) , Experi-
ments in Fluids Vol.22.
Gharabaghi, A.R.M., and Watanabe, A.,
1998, Periodically Moving Boundary: A
New Approach to Model Swash Motions,
Proc. 3
rd
Int. Conf. Hydrodynamics, Seoul,
pp 425-430.
Goddard, C.H., Kirkpatrick, D.G., Rainey, P.G.,
and Ball, J .E., 1996, How Much
STEALTH?, Naval Engineers J ournal, p
19.
Godlewski, E. and Raviart, P.A.,
1996, Numerical Approximation of Hy-
perbolic Systems of Conservation Laws,
Springer.
Gothenburg, 2000, Gothenburg 2000 Work-
shop on CFD in Ship Hydrodynamics,
www.iihr.uiowa.edu/gothenburg2000
Gottero, M. and Onorato, M., 1998, DPIV
Investigation of Near Wall Turbulent Flow
Structures, Advances in Turbulence VII,
Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Greenish, P.D., 1998, Future Naval Require-
ments, Naval Plans and Requirements for
the 21
st
Century, London.
Griebel, M., Neunhoeffer, T., and Regler, H.,
1998, Algebraic Multigrid Methods for the
Solution of the Navier-Stokes Equations in
Complicated Geometries, Int. J . for Num.
Methods in Fluids, vol. 26, pp 281-301.
Grigson, C.W.B., 1996, A Reanalysis of the
Lucy Ashton and Victory Experiments,
Transactions RINA, Vol. 138, pp 117-130.
Hamasaki, J ., Himeno, Y., and Tahara, Y.,
1996, Application of Computational Fluid
Dynamics to Ship Hull Optimization,
ICHD, Hong Kong, pp 23-28.
Hanjalic, K., 1994 Advanced turbulence clo-
sure models : A Review of Current Status
and Future Prospects, Int. J . Heat and
Fluid Flow, Vol. 15, No. 3.
Hara, S., Yamakawa, K., Maruyama, H., and
Takahashi, R., 1994, At-sea Towing Ex-
periment Using Patrol Boats, J . Kansai Soc.
Naval Architects, J apan, No. 221.
Haussling, H.J ., Miller, R.W., and Coleman, R.,
1997, Computation of High Speed Turbu-
lent Flow about a Ship Model with a Tran-
som Stern, ASME FED SM97.
Hering, F., Leue, C., Wierzimok, D., and J hne,
B., 1997a, Particle Tracking Velocimetry
beneath Water Waves. Part I: Visualization
and Tracking Algorithms, Experiments in
Fluids, Vol. 23.
Hering, F., Leue, C., Wierzimok, D., and J hne,
B., 1997b, Particle Tracking Velocimetry
beneath Water Waves. Part II: Water
waves, Experiments in Fluids Vol. 24.
Hill, R.B. and Klewicki, J .C., 1996, Datta
Reduction Methods for Flow Tagging Ve-
locity Measurements Experiments in Flu-
ids Vol.20.
Hino, T., 1997, An Unstructured Grid Method
for Incompressible Viscous Flow with a
Free Surface, AIAA-97-0862.
Hino, T., 1998, Navier-Stokes Computations
of Ship Flows on Unstructured Grids, 22
nd
Symp. Naval Hydrodynamics, Washington,
D.C.
Hino, T., Kodama, V., and Hirata, N.,
1998, Hydrodynamic Shape Optimization
of Ship Hull Form Using CFD, Proc. 3
rd
Osaka Colloquium Advanced CFD Appli-
cations to Ship Flow And Hull Form De-
sign, Osaka, pp 332-340.
Hirano, S., Himeno, Y., Nakagawa, T., and
Kitagawa, K., 1991, Separation of Resis-
tance Components of Prismatic Planing
Hull Forms, J . Kansai Soc. Naval Archi-
tects, J apan, No. 215, (in J apanese).
Hirayama, A., Eguchi, T., Kimura, K., Fujii, A.,
and Ohta, M., 1998, "Optimum Hull Form
Design using Numerical Wave Pattern
Analysis", Proc. 7th PRADS Symp., El-
sevier, Amsterdam.
Hockberger, W.A., 1996, Total System Ship
Design in a Supersystem Framework, Na-
val Engineers J ournal, pp 147-149.
Hoekstra, M. and Aalbers, A., 1996, "Macro
Wake Measurements for a Range of Ships",
Proc. 21
st
Symp. Naval Hydrodynamics,
Trondheim.
62
Hoekstra, M. and Eca, L.,
1998, PARNASSOS: An Efficient Method
for Ship Stern Flow Calculation, Proc. 3
rd
Osaka Colloquium Advanced CFD Appli-
cations to Ship Flow And Hull Form De-
sign, Osaka, pp 178-204.
Honzeaux, G. and Codina, R.,
1998, Transmission Conditions with Con-
straints in Domain Decomposition Methods
for the Incompressible Navier-Stokes
Equations, Proc. 4
th
ECCOMAS CFD
Conference, Athens, pp 194-199.
Horne, M.P. and Handler, R.A., 1991, Note on
the Cancellation of Contaminating Noise in
the Measurement of Turbulent Wall Pres-
sure Fluctuations, Experiments in Fluids
Vol. 12.
Hsiao, C.T. and Pauley, L.L., 1998, Numerical
sSudy of the Steady-state Tip Vortex Flow
over a Finite-span Hydrofoil J . Fluids En-
gineering, Vol. 120, pp. 354-362.
Huan, J .C. and Huang, T.T., 1998, "Sensitivity
Analysis Methods for Shape Optimization
in Nonlinear Free-Surface Flow", 3
rd
Osaka
Colloquium Advanced CFD Applications to
Ship Flow And Hull Form Design, Osaka.
Hughes, M.J ., 1997, "Application of CFD to
the Prediction of Wave Height and Energy
from High Speed Ferries", CFD Conference,
Ulsteinvik.
Hyman, M., 1998, Computation of Ship Wake
Flows with Free-Surface/Turbulence Inter-
action, Proc. 22
nd
Symp. Naval Hydrody-
namics, Washington, D.C.
Hyun, B.S. and Patel, V.C., 1991a, Measure-
ments in the Flow around a Marine Propel-
ler at the Stern of an Axisymmetric Body:
Part 1. Circumferentially-averaged Flow
Experiments in Fluids Vol.11.
Hyun, B.S. and Patel, V.C., 1991b, Measure-
ments in the Flow around a Marine Propel-
ler at the Stern of an Axisymmetric Body:
Part 2. Phase-averaged Flow Experiments
in Fluids Vol.11.
Ikehata, M., Katou, M., and Yanagita, F., 1998,
"Automation of Wave Height Measurement
around a Ship Model", Trans. West-J apan
Soc. Naval Architects, No.95, pp.57-66, (in
J apanese).
Ishikawa, S., 1994, Calculation of Incom-
pressible Fluid Flows for Two Tankers,
Proc. CFD Workshop for Improvement of
Hull Form Design, Tokyo, pp.294-303.
ISO, 1992, Measurement Uncertainty,
ISO/TC 69/SC 6.
ISO, 1993a, Guide to the Expression of Un-
certainty in Measurement ISO, First edi-
tion, ISBN 92-67-10188-9.
ISO, 1993b, International Vocabulary of Basic
and General Terms in Metrology ISO,
Second edition, ISBN 92-67-01075-1.
Ito, M. and Oyanagi, M., 1992, Experimental
Study of the Correlation between Oil Dot
Velocity and Local Skin Friction in Flat
Plate Laminar Boundary Layer, (in J apa-
nese), Trans. West-J apan Soc. of Naval Ar-
chitects, No. 85.
ITTC, 1987, Report of the Resistance and
Flow Committee, 18
th
International Tow-
ing Tank Conference, Kobe, J apan, pp. 47-
92.
ITTC, 1990a, Report of the Panel of Valida-
tion Procedures, 19
th
International Towing
Tank Conference, Madrid, Spain, Proc. Vol.
1, pp. 577-603.
ITTC, 1996a, Report of the Resistance and
Flow Committee, 21
st
. International Tow-
ing Tank Conference, Trondheim, Norway,
pp. 439-514.
ITTC, 1996b, Report of the Propulsion Per-
formance Committee, 21
st
. International
Towing Tank Conference, Trondheim,
Norway, pp. 399-438.
J anson, C.E., 1997, "Potential Flow Panel
Methods for the Calculation of Free-surface
Flows with Lift", Doctoral thesis, Chalmers
Univ. Tech.
J anson, C. and Larsson, L., 1996, A Method
for the Optimization of Ship Hulls from a
Resistance Point of View, Proc. 21
st
Symp.
Naval Hydrodynamics, Trondheim, Norway,
pp 680-693.
63
J ensen, G., 1988, "Berechnung der Stationaeren
Potentialstroemung um ein Schiff unter
Berucksichtigung der nichtlinearen Rand-
bedingung an der Wasseroberflaeche",
Doctor's Thesis, IfS Bericht 484, Hamburg.
J ensen, G., Bertram, V., and Soeding, H., 1989,
"Ship wave resistance computations", Proc.
5
th
Int. Conf. on Num. Ship Hydrodynamics,
Hiroshima.

J ensen, G., Mi, Z.-X., and Soeding, H., 1986,
"Rankine source methods for numerical
solutions of the steady wave resistance
problem.", Proc. 16
th
Symp. Naval Hydro-
dyn, Berkeley.
J ensen, P.S., 1987, "On the numerical radiation
condition in the steady ship-wave problem",
J . Ship Research Vol.31-1.
J i, Z-Y., Zhou, W-X., Lu, L-Z., and Fan, X-B.,
1998, Pressure Distribution Calculation
Based on Measured Stern Flow Velocity by
Using LDV Unit for an Axisymmetric
Body, J . Ship Mechanics, Vol. 2, No.4, (in
Chinese).
J iang, M. and Remotigue, M., 1998, GUM-B
Grid Generation Code and Applications,
Proc. Numerical Grid Generation in Com-
putational Field Simulations, Greenwich,
England, pp. 823-827.
J iang, T., 1998, Investigation of Waves Gen-
erated by Ships in Shallow Water, Proc.
22
nd
Symp. Naval Hydrodynamics, Wash-
ington, D.C.
J iang, T. and Sharma, S., 1997, Simulation of
Nonlinear Waves Generated by Fast Ships
in Shallow Water, Proc. 4
th
WEGEMT
Workshop on Ship for River-Sea and Short-
sea Shipping, Duisburg, Germany.
Kakugawa, A., Takei, Y., Takeshi, H., and Hori,
T., 1989, A Wake Measurement Using Fi-
ber Optic Laser Doppler Velocimeter in a
Towing Tank, J . Kansai Soc. Naval Ar-
chitects, J apan, No. 211, (in J apanese).
Kamiirisa, H., Ukon, Y., Kudou, T., Okamoto,
M., Yuasa, H., and Itadani, Y.,
1991, Measurement of Blade Stress on
Full Scale Propellers, Trans. West-J apan
Soc. of Naval Architects, No. 83, (in J apa-
nese).
Kanai, A., Kawamura, T., and Miyata, H.,
1996, Numerical Simulation of Three-
Dimensional Breaking Waves about Ships,
Proc. 21
st
Symp. Naval Hydrodynamics,
Trondheim. pp. 506-519.
Kang, K.-J ., 1997, "Numerical Simulations of
Nonlinear Waves Generated by Submerged
Bodies", Chalmers Univ. Gothenburg, Re-
port CHA/NAV/R-96/0043.
Kasahara,Y. and Masuda, S.,
1998, Verification of Simulated Flow
Field around Ships by using CFD code.
Proc. 3
rd
Osaka Colloquium Advanced CFD
Applications to Ship Flow And Hull Form
Design, Osaka.
Kato, H., Fujii, Y., Yamaguchi, H., and Miya-
naga, M., 1990, Frictional Drag Reduction
by Injecting High-viscosity Fluid, J . Soc.
of Naval Architects of J apan, Vol. 168, (in
J apanese)
Kawakatsu, M., Hiraku, R., and Suzuki, T.,
1991, A Technique to Measure the Flow
Velocity by an Analysis of Tracer Pathline
Images 3rd Report: Three-dimensional
Velocity Measurement by Use of the Cor-
relation Method, J . Kansai Soc. Naval
Architects, J apan, No. 215, (in J apanese).
Kawasue, K. and Ishimatsu T., 1996, Three-
Dimensional Measurement of Flow Using
Circular Velocity Bias, Trans. of the J apan
Soc. of Mechanical Engineers, (C) Vol. 62,
No. 594, (in J apanese).
Kennell, C., 1998, Design Trends in High-
Speed Transport, Marine Technology, Vol.
35, No. 3, pp 127-134.
Kennell, C., Lavis, D.R., and Templeman, M.T.,
1998, High-Speed Sealift Technology,
Marine Technology, Vol. 35, No. 3, pp 135-
150.
Kenneman, J ., 1998, Logistic Approach in
Shipbuilding. Are Standard Ships the Fu-
ture of the Shipyards?, WEMT98, Rotter-
dam, The Netherlands.
Kim, H., Kline, S., and Reynolds, W.,
1971, The Production of Turbulence Near
a Smooth Wall in a Turbulent Boundary
64
Layer, J . Fluid Mechanics, Vol 50, pp 133-
160.
Kim, J . J ., Kim, H. T., and Van, S. H.,
1998a, RANS Simulation of Viscous Flow
and Surface Waves Fields around Ship
Models, Proc. 3
rd
Osaka Colloquium Ad-
vanced CFD Applications to Ship Flow
And Hull Form Design, Osaka, pp. 105-123.
Kim, K., Choi, Y., J anson, C.E., and Larsson,
L., 1994, "Linear and Nonlinear Calcula-
tions of the Free-surface Potential Flow
around Ships in Shallow Water", Proc. 20
th
Symp. Naval Hydrodynamics, Santa Bar-
bara.
Kim, W.-J ., Van, S.H., Kim, D.H., Kim, H.T.,
and Kim, J .J ., 1998b, Computational Study
on Turbulent Flow around Practical Hull
Forms with Efficient Grid Generator, Proc.
3
rd
Osaka Colloquium Advanced CFD Ap-
plications to Ship Flow And Hull Form De-
sign, Osaka, pp. 317-330.
Kim, W.-J ., Van, S.-H., Kim, D.-H., and Yim,
G.-T., 1998c, "Development of Computa-
tional System for Flow around a Ship and
its Validation with Experiment", Proc. 7
th
PRADS Symp., Elsevier, Amsterdam.
Klein Would, J ., Smit, K., and Vucinic, B.,
1997, Maintenance Programme Design for
Minimal Life Cycle Costs and Acceptable
Safety Risks, Int. Shipbuild. Progr, 44, no.
447, pp 77-100.
Kobayashi, T., Saga, T., and Doh, D., 1995, A
Three-Dimensional Simultaneous Scalar
and Vector Tracking Method, Proc. Int.
Workshop on PIV95, Fukui, J apan.
Kodama, Y.,1998, "Scope of CFD for Com-
puting Ship Flows", 3
rd
Osaka Colloquium
Advanced CFD Applications to Ship Flow
And Hull Form Design, Osaka, pp. 395-405.
Kofoed-Hansen, H., 1996, Technical Investi-
gation of Wake Wash from Fast Ferries,
Danish Hydraulic Institute.
Kofoed-Hansen, H. and Mikkelsen, A.C.,
1997, Wake Wash from Fast Ferries in
Denmark, FAST97 Conference, Sydney.
Korpus, R., Hubbard, B., J ones, P., Stromgren,
C., and Bennett, J ., 1998, "Hydrodynamic
Design of Integrated Propulsor/Stern Con-
cepts by Reynolds-Averaged Navier-Stokes
Equations," Proc. 7th PRADS Symp., El-
sevier, Amsterdam.
Korsmeyer, T., Phillips, J ., and White, J ., 1996,
"A precorrected-FFT Algorithm for Acel-
erating Surface Wave Problems", Proc. 11
th
Workshop Water Waves and Floating Bod-
ies, Hamburg.
Korsmeyer, F.T., Yue, D.K.P., Nabors, K.S.,
and White, J ., 1993, "Multipole Accelerated
Preconditioned Iterative Methods for Three-
dimensional Potential Problems", Proc.
BEM, Vol. 15,, p517-527, Worcester, Mass.,
USA.
Kumar, S. and Banerjee, S.,
1998, Development and Application of a
Hierarchical System for Digital Particle Im-
age Velocimetry to Free-surface Turbu-
lence, Phys. Fluids, Vol. 10, No. 1.
Kumar, S., Gupta, R., and Banerjee, S.,
1998, An Experimental investigation of
the characteristics of free-surface turbulence
in channel flow, Phys. Fluids, Vol. 10, No.
2.
Kux, J ., 1990, Group Discussion, Full-Scale
LDV Measurements of Ship Stern Flow ,
Proc. of 19
th
ITTC, Vol.2, pp. 520-529.
Lafaurie, B., Narone, C., Scardovelli, R.,
Zaleski, S., Zanetti, G.Laget, O., de J ouette,
C., Le Gonez, J .M., and Rigaud, S.,
1997, Wave-breaking Simulation around a
Lens-shaped Mast by a VOF Method, Proc.
12
th
Int. Workshop on Water Waves and
Floating Bodies.
Larrarte, F. and Kodama, Y., 1997, Trajectory
of Bubbles under a Ship Hull and Scale Ef-
fects, J . Kansai Soc. Naval Architects, J a-
pan, No. 228.
Larsson, L., 1997a, A New Navier-Stokes
Solver for Hydrodynamic Applications.
The Int. CFD Conference, May 1997, Ul-
steinvik, Norway, Paper no. 5.
Larsson, L., 1997b, CFD in ship design
Prospects and Limitations, 18
th
Georg
Weinblum Memorial Lecture, Ship
Technology Research, Vol.44, No.3.
65
Larsson, L., Regnstrom, B., Broberg, L., Li, D.-
Q., and J anson, C.-E., 1998, Failures,
Fantasies, and Feats in the Theoreti-
cal/Numerical Prediction of Ship Perform-
ance, Proc. 22
nd
Symp. Naval Hydrody-
namics, Washington, D.C.
Lee, C., Park, I.-R., Chun, H.-H., and Lee, S.-J .,
1998, Free Surface Flow Analysis of Fins
Attached to a Strut and Foils by a Higher
Order Boundary Element Method, Proc.
22
nd
Symp. Naval Hydrodynamics, Wash-
ington, D.C.
Lilek, Z., Muzaferija, S., Peric, M., and Seidl,
V., 1997, Computation of Unsteady Flows
Using Non-Matching Blocks of Structured
Grid, Numerical Heat Transfer, Part B
(Fundamentals), Vol. 32.
Lin, C.W., Percival, S., and Fischer, L.,
1998, Viscous Flow Computations on an
Appended Ship by Chimera RANS
Scheme, Proc. 3
rd
Osaka Colloquium Ad-
vanced CFD Applications to Ship Flow
And Hull Form Design, Osaka, pp. 161-
180.
Liu, T.-S. and Sullivan, J .P.,
1998, Luminescent oil-film skin-friction
meter, AIAA J ., Vol.36, No.8.
Lfdehl, L., Klvesten, E., and Stemme, G.,
1994, Small Silicon Based Pressure Trans-
ducers for Measurements in Turbulent
Boundary Layers, Experiments in Fluids.
Vol. 17.
Logory, L.M., Hirsa, A., and Anthony, D.G.,
1996, Interaction of Wake Turbulence with
a Free Surface Phys. Fluids, Vol. 8, No. 3.
Lhner, R., Yang, C., and Onate, E.,
1998, Viscous Free Surface Hydrodynam-
ics Using Unstructured Grids, Proc. 22
nd
Symp. Naval Hydrodynamic, Washington,
D.C.
Lhner, R., Yang, C., Onate, E., and Idelssohn,
S., 1997, An Unstructured Grid-Based,
Parallel Free Surface Solver, AIAA-97-
1930.
Longo, J ., Huang, H.P., and Stern, F.,
1998, Solid/Free-Surface J uncture
Boundary layer and Wake, Experiments in
Fluids, vol. 25.
Longo, J . and Stern, F., 1996, Yaw Effects on
Model-scale Ship Flows, Proc. 21
st
Symp.
Naval Hydrodynamics, Trondheim, Norway,
pp. 312-327.
Longo, J . and Stern, F., 1998, Resistance,
Sinkage and Trim, Wave Profile, and
Nominal Wake and Uncertainty Assessment
for DTMB Model 5512, Proc. 25
th
Ameri-
can Towing Tank Conference, Iowa City,
IA.
Longuet-Higgins, M.S., 1996, Progress To-
ward Understanding How Waves Break,
Proc. 21
st
Symp. Naval Hydrodynamics,
Trondheim.
Lourenco, L. and Krothapalli, A., 1995, On
the Accuracy of Velocity and Vorticity
Measurements with PIV, Experiments in
Fluids Vol. 18.
Lowry, S.A., Keenan, J .A., Bayyuk, A.A., and
Demirbilek, Z., 1997, "ACE-WAVE: An
Evolving CFD Code for Modeling Waves
and Wave-structure Interaction", ASME
FEDSM 97.
Lynn, T.B., Bechert, D.W., and Gerich D.A.,
1995, Direct Drag Measurements in a Tur-
bulent Flat-plate Boundary Layer with Tur-
bulence Manipulators, Experiments in
Fluids Vol. 19.
Main, A.J ., Day, C.R.B. Lock, G.D., and Old-
field, M.L.G., 1996, Calibration of a Four-
hole Pyramid Probe and Area Traverse
Measurements in a Short-duration Tran-
sonic Turbine Cascade Tunnel, Experi-
ments in Fluids Vol.21.
Makino, M. and Kodama, Y.,
1997, Computation of Flows Around Full
Hull Forms in oblique Towing or Steady
Turning Using NICE Code, J . Society of
Naval Architects of J apan, vol. 181 ,pp. 67-
73( In J apanese).
Martinelli, L. and Cowles, G., 1998, Finite
Volume Multigrid Methods for Ship Hy-
drodynamics, Proc. 4
th
Eccomas CFD
Conf., Athens.
Marvin, J .G., 1995, Dryden Lectureship in
Research: Perspectives on Computational
66
Fluid Dynamics Validation, AIAA J ., Vol.
33, No. 10, pp. 1778-1787.
Marvin, J .G. and Huang, G.P.,
1996, Turbulence Modeling Progress
and Future Outlook, Keynote Lecture pre-
sented at the 15
th
Int. conference on nu-
merical methods in fluid dynamics, Mon-
terey, California.
Mashayek, F. and Ashgriz, N., 1995, "A Spine-
flux Method for Simulating Free-surface
Flows", J . Comp. Phys., Vol 122, p367-379.
Masuko, A., 1998, Numerical Simulation of
the Viscous Flow for Complex Geometries
Using Overset Method, Proc. 3
rd
Osaka
Colloquium Advanced CFD Applications to
Ship Flow And Hull Form Design, Osaka.
Mateer, G. and Monson, D.J ., 1996, Skin-
friction Measurements and Calculations on
a Lifting Airfoil, AIAA J ., Vol.34, No.2.
Matsumura, T., Okuno, T., Nishio, S., Tahara,
Y., and Maeyama, N., 1995, Image Meas-
urement of Wall Friction at Bow Hull, J .
of The Visualization Society of J apan, Vol.
15, Suppl. No. 2, (in J apanese).
Mayer, S., Garapon, A., and Sorensen, L., 1998,
"A Fractional Step Method for Unsteady
Free-Surface Flow with Applications to
Nonlinear Wave Dynamics", Int. J . for Num.
Methods in Fluids, Vol.28, 1998, pp.293-
315.
McDonald, H. and Whitfield, D., 1996, Self-
Propelled Maneuvering Underwater Vehi-
cles, Proc. 21
st
Symp. Naval Hydrody-
namics, Trondheim, pp. 478- 489.
McLachlan, B.G., Kavandi, J .L. Callis, J .B.,
Gouterman, M., Green, E., Khalil, G., and
Burns, D., 1993, Surface Pressure Field
Mapping Using Luminescent Coatings,
Experiments in Fluids Vol.14.
Mehta, U.B., 1998, Credible Computational
Fluids Dynamics Simulations, AIAA J .,
Vol. 36, pp. 665-667.
Menter, F.R., 1993, Zonal Two-equations k-
Turbulence Models for Aerodynamic
Flows, AIAA 93-2906.
Miller, M., Nennstiel, T., Fiaklowski, L., Prs-
tler, S., Duncan, J ., and Dimas, A.,
1998, Incipient Breaking of Steady
Waves, Proc. 22
nd
Symp. Naval Hydrody-
namics, Washington, D.C.
Millerd, J .E., Swienton, J .P., Unterscher, F.,
Trolinger, J .D., Smith, L.G., and LaRue,
J .C., 1996, Holographic sensor for meas-
urement of wall velocity gradients, Ex-
periments in Fluids,Vol.21.
Miyata, H., 1996, Time Marching CFD
Simulation for Moving Boundary Prob-
lems, Proc. 21
st
Symp. Naval Hydrody-
namics, Trondheim, Norway, pp 291-311.
Mompean, G., 1998, Numerical Simulation of
a Turbulent Flow near a Right-angled Cor-
ner using the Speziale Nonlinear Model
with RNG - Equations, Computer and
Fluids, vol. 27, pp 847-859.
Mori, K. and Hinatsu, M. 1994, Viscous Flow
around Series 60 with Free-surface, Proc.
CFD Workshop for Improvement of Hull
Form Design, Tokyo, vol.2, pp.1-94.
Mori, K. and Hotta, T., 1988,Turbulent Flow
Measurements of the Boundary Layer on a
Decelerating Flat Plate, J . Soc. of Naval
Architects of J apan, Vol. 163.
Morris, M.J ., Donovan, J .F., Kegelman, J .T.,
Schwab, S.D., Levy, R.L., and Crites, R.C.,
1993, Aerodynamic Applications of Pres-
sure Sensitive Paint,AIAA J ., Vol.31, No.3.
Muzaferija, S. and Peric, M.,
1998, Computation of Free-surface Flows
Using Interface-Tracking and Interface-
capturing Methods, Nonlinear Water Wave
Interaction, Mahrenholtz and Markiewicz
(Eds), Comp. Mech. Publ., Southampton.
Muzaferija, S., Peric, M, Sames, P., and Schel-
lin, T., 1998, A Two-Fluid-Navier-Stokes
Solver to Simulate Water Entry, 22
nd
Symp. Naval Hydrodynamics, Washington,
D.C.
Muzaferija, S., Peric, M., and Yoo, S.D.,
1996, Computation of Free-surface Flows
Using Moving Grids, Proc. 11
th
Workshop
Water Waves and Floating Bodies, Ham-
burg.
67
Myong, H.K. and Kassagi, N.,
1990, Prediction of Anisotropy of the
Near-wall Turbulence with an Anisotropic
Low-Reynolds-number k- Turbulence
Model, J . Fluid Engineering, Vol. 112, No.
12, pp. 521-524.
Nagaoka, Y., Alexander, H. G., Liu, W-N., and
Ho, C-M., 1997, Shear Stress Measure-
ments on an Airfoil Surface Using Midro-
Machined Sensors Trans. of the J apan Soc.
of Mechanical Engineers, (B) Vol. 63, No.
615, (in J apanese).
Nakos, D.E. and Sclavounos, P.D., 1994, "Kel-
vin Wakes and Wave Resistance of Cruiser
and Transom Stern Ships," J . Ship Research,
Vol. 38, No. 1, pp: 9-29.
Naqwi, A.A., 1993, Performance Prediction of
Dual Cylindrical Wave Laser Devices for
Flow Measurements, Experiments in Flu-
ids Vol. 14.
Nepomuceno, H.G. and Lueptow, R.M.,
1997, Pressure and Shear Stress Measure-
ments at the Wall in a Turbulent Boundary
Layer on a Cylinder, Phys. Fluids Vol. 9,
No. 9.
Nirata, N., 1996, Flow Computation for Com-
plex Configuration Using Multi-Block
Technique, ICHD-96, pp 47-52.
Nishio, S., 1995, Statistical Approach to the
Image Measurement for Time-Mean Veloc-
ity, Proc. Int. Workshop on PIV95, Fukui,
J apan.
Nishio, S., Nakao, S., and Okuno, T.,
1996, Image Measurement of Wave Height
Distribution around a Ship Model, J . Kan-
sai Soc. Naval Architects, J apan, No. 226,
(in J apanese).
Nitsche, W., Mirrow, P., and Szodruch, J .,
1989, Piezo-electric Foils as a Means of
Sensing Unsteady Surface, Experiments in
Fluids, Vol.7.
Noblesse, F., Chen, X.-B., and Yang, C., 1996,
"Fourier-Kochin Theory of Free-surface
Flows", Proc. 21
st
Symp. Naval Hydrody-
namics, Trondheim, Norway.
Ogiwara, S. and Kajitani, H., 1994, Pressure
Distribution on the Hull Surface of Series
60 (C
B
=0.60) Model, Proc., CFD Work-
shop Tokyo, Vol. 1, pp. 350-358.
Ohkusu, M., 1998, Validation of Theoretical
Methods for Ship Motions by Means of Ex-
periment, Proc. 22
nd
Symp. Naval Hydro-
dynamics, Washington, D.C.
Ohwaki, T., Yamaguchi, K., Kaga, A., Inoue,
Y., Kondo, A., and Shiota, T., 1998, Three
Dimensional Flow Field Estimation Using
PIV Data and Numerical Fluid Dynamics,
J . of The Visualization Society of J apan,
Vol. 18, Suppl. No. 1, (in J apanese).
Okuno, T., 1995, Image Measurement by
Means of Spatio-Temporal Derivative
Method, Proc. Int. Workshop on PIV95,
Fukui, J apan.
Okuno, T. and Sakamoto, E., 1990, Velocity
Field Measurement by Flow Images with
Fourier Transform, J . Kansai Soc. Naval
Architects, J apan, No. 214, (in J apanese).
Oosterlee, C.W., Gaspar, F.J ., and Washio, T.,
1998, Parallel Adaptive Multigrid with
Nonlinear Krylov Subspace Acceleration
for Steady 3D CFD Problems, Proc. 4
th
Eccomas CFD Conf., Athens, pp 272-277.
Orihara, H. and Miyata, H., 1997, CFD
Simulation of a Semi-planing Boat in Un-
steady Motion, FAST'97, Sydney.
Oschwald, M., Bechle, S., and Welke, S.,
1995, Systematic Erros in PIV by Realiz-
ing Velocity Offsets with the Rotating Mir-
ror Method, Experiments in Fluids Vol.18.
Oshima, T., Nishio S., Ikeda, Y., and Okuno, T.,
1994, Image Measurement of Wave Height
Distribution around High Speed Craft, J .
Kansai Soc. Naval Architects, J apan, No.
222, (in J apanese).
Osmundsvaag, A. and Wergeland, T.,
1997, Fundamentals of the Fast Ferry
Market, Fast97, Sydney, Australia, pp 497-
501.
Papanikolaou, A., Kaklis, P., Koskinas, C., and
Spanos, D., 1996, Hydrodynamic Optimi-
zation of Fast-Displacement Catamarans,
68
Proc. 21
st
Symp. Naval Hydrodynamics,
Trondheim, Norway.
Park, J .C. and Miyata, H., 1994, Numerical
Simulation of 2D and 3D Breaking Waves
by Finite-difference Method, J . Soc. Nav.
Arch. J apan, Vol. 175.
Patel, V.C., 1998, Perspective: Flow at High
Reynolds Number and over Rough Surfaces
- Achilles Heel of CFD, ASME J . Fluid
Engineering. Vol. 102.
Paterson, E., Hyman, M., Stern, F., Carrica, P.,
Bonetto, F., Drew, D., and Lohey J r., R.,
1996, Near- and Far-field CFD for a Naval
Combatant Including Thermal-Stratification
and Two-Fluid Modeling, Proc. 21
st
Symp.
Naval Hydrodynamics, Trondheim, Norway,
pp 102-117.
Paterson, E.G., Wilson, R.V., and Stern, F.,
1998, CFDSHIP-IOWA and Steady Flow
RANS Simulation of DTMB Model 5415,
1st Symposium on Marine Applications of
Computational Fluid Dynamics, McLean,
VA, 19-21 May.
Payne, F.M., Ng, T.T., and Nelson, R.C.,
1989, Seven Hole Probe Measurement of
Leading Edge Vortex Flows, Experiments
in Fluids Vol. 7.
Peirson, W. L., 1997, Measurement of Surface
Velocities and Shears at a Wavy Air-water
Interface Using Particle Image Velocime-
try, Experiments in Fluids Vol. 23.
Peysson, Y. and Guazzelli, E., 1998, An Ex-
perimental Investigation of the Intrinsic
Convection in a Sedimenting Suspension,
Phys. Fluids, Vol. 10, No. 1.
Pinkster, J .A., 1998, Aspects of Model Tests
and Computations for Ships and Other
Structures in Waves, WEMT 98, Rotter-
dam, The Netherlands.
Pogozelski, E.M., Katz, J ., and Huang, T.T.,
1997, The Flow Structure around a Surface
Piercing Strut, Phys. Fluids Vol. 9, No. 5.
Post, M.E., Trump, D.D., Goss, L.P., and Han-
cock, R.D., 1994, Two-color Particle-
Imaging Velocimetry Using a Single Ar-
gon-ion Laser, Experiments in Fluids Vol.
16.
Quarteroni, A. and Valli, A., 1997, Numerical
Approximation of Partial Differential
Equation, Springer S.C.M.
Raffel, M., Gharib, M., Ronneberger, O., and
Kompenhans, J ., 1995, Feasibility Study of
Three-dimensional PIV by Correlating Im-
ages of Particles within Parallel Light Sheet
Planes, Experiments in Fluids, Vol. 19.
Ramamurti, R. and Lhner, R., 1996, A Par-
allel Implicit Incompressible Flow Solver
Using Unstructured Meshes, Computers
and Fluids 5, pp119-132.
Ratcliffe, T., 1998, "Validation of Free-Surface
Reynolds Averaged Navier-Stokes and Po-
tential Flow Codes", Proc. 22
nd
Symp. Na-
val Hydrodynamics, Washington, D.C.
Raven, H.C., 1990, "Adequacy of Free-Surface
Conditions for the Wave-Resistance Prob-
lem", Proc. 18
th
Symp. Naval Hydrody-
namics, Ann Arbor, Michigan.
Raven, H.C., 1992, "A practical Nolinear
Method for Calculating Ship Wavemaking
and Wave Resistance", Proc. 19
th
Symp
Naval Hydrodynamics, Seoul.
Raven, H.C., 1993, "Nonlinear Ship Wave Cal-
culations Using the RAPID Method", Proc.
6
th
Int. Conf Numerical Ship Hydrodynam-
ics, Iowa City.
Raven, H.C., 1996, "A Solution Method for the
Nonlinear Ship Wave Resistance Problem",
Doctoral Thesis, Delft Univ. of Tech.
Raven, H.C., 1997, "The Nature of Nonlinear
Effects in Ship Wavemaking", Ship Tech-
nology Research, Vol.44. No. 1.
Raven, H.C., 1998, Inviscid Calculations of
Ship WaveMaking Capabilities, Limita-
tions, and Prospects, Proc. 22
nd
Symp. Na-
val Hydrodynamics, Washington, D.C.
Raven, H.C. and Prins, H.J ., 1998, "Wave Pat-
tern Analysis Applied to Nonlinear Ship
Wave Calculations, Proc. 13
th
Int. Work-
shop on Water Waves and Floating Bodies,
A.J .Hermans (ed.), Alphen a/d Rijn, Neth-
erlands.
69
Raven, H.C. and Valkhof, H.H., 1995, "Appli-
cation of Nonlinear Ship Wave Calculations
in Design", PRADS '95 symp., Seoul.
Raven, H.C., Van Hees, M., Miranda, S., and
Pensa, C., 1998, A New Hull Form for a
Venice Urban Transport Waterbus---Design,
Experimental and Computational Optimi-
zation, Proc. 7th. PRADS Symp., Elsevier,
Amsterdam.
Rhee, S.H. and Stern, F. 1998, Unsteady
RANS Method for Surface Ship Boundary
Layer and Wake and Wave field, Proc. 3
rd
Osaka Colloquium Advanced CFD Appli-
cations to Ship Flow And Hull Form De-
sign, Osaka, pp.67-84.
Rider, W.J . and Kothe, D.B., 1995, "Stretching
and Tearing Interface Methods", AIAA-95-
1717, 12
th
AIAA CFD Conf., San Diego.
Roache, P.J ., 1998, Verification and Valida-
tion in Computational Science and Engi-
neering, Hermosa publishers, Albuquerque,
New Mexico.
Robinson, K., 1991, Coherent Motions in the
Turbulent Boundary Layer, Ann. Rev.
Fluid Mechanics,Vol. 23, pp 601-639.
Rodes, P., Braza, M., Nogues, P., Tzabirus, G.,
and Favier, D., 1998, Direct Numerical
Simulation and Turbulence Modelling in
Flows around Generic Submarine Configu-
ration, Proc. Euromech 374, Poitiers, pp
133-139.
Sackinger, P.A., Schunk, P.R., and Rao, R.R.,
1996, "A Newton-Raphson Pseudo-solid
Domain Mapping Technique for Free and
Moving Boundary Problems: A Finite-
element Implementation", J . Comp. Physics
Vol 125, p83-103.
Sadovnikov, D. and Trincas, G.,
1998, Nonlinear Simulation of Breaking
Waves with Spilling Breakers by a
Boundary Integral Method, Proc. 22
nd
Synposium Naval Hydrodynamics, Wash-
ington, D.C.

Sarpkaya, T. and Merrill, C., 1998, Spray
Formation at the Free Surface of Liquid
Wall J ets, Proc. 22
nd
Symp. Naval Hydro-
dynamics, Washington, D.C.
Sato, T., Nakata, T., Takesita, M., Tsuchiya, Y.,
and Miyata, H., 1997, Experimental Study
on Friction Reduction of a Model Ship by
Air Lubrication J . Soc. of Naval Archi-
tects of J apan, Vol. 182, (in J apanese).
Schultz, W.W., Cao, Y., and Beck, R.F., 1990,
"Three-dimensional Nonlinear Wave Com-
putation by Desingularised Boundary Inte-
gral Method", Proc. 5
th
Int. Workshop Wa-
ter Waves and Floating Bodies, Manchester,
UK.
Schumann, C., 1998a, Volume of Fluid Com-
putations of Water Entry of Bow Sections,
Proc. Euromech 374, Poitiers.
Schumann, C., 1998b, "Computing Free-
Surface Ship Flows with a Volume-of-Fluid
Method", PRADS'98 Conf., Dem Haag.
Sclavounos, P.D. and Nakos, D.E., 1988, "Sta-
bility Analysis of Panel Methods for Free-
surface Flows with Forward Speed", Proc.
17
th
Symp. Naval Hydrodynamics, The
Hague, Netherlands.
Scorpio, S., Beck, R.F., and Korsmeyer, F.T.,
1996, "Nonlinear Water Wave Computa-
tions Using a Multipole Accelerated, De-
singularised Method", Proc. 21
st
Symp. Na-
val Hydrodynamics, Trondheim, Norway.
Sethian, J .A., 1996, "Theory, Algorithms, and
Applications of Level Set Methods for
Propagating Interfaces", Acta Numerica, p
309-395.
Sharma, S.D. and Naegle, J .N., 1970, "Optimi-
zation of Bow Bulb Configurations on the
Basis of Model Wave Profile Experiments",
Univ. Michigan, Dept. Nav. Arch. and Mar.
Eng. Report No. 104.
Shen, H.C., 1997, Development of Guide Va-
ne as a Device for Improving Powering Per-
formance and Reducing Noise for Body of
Revolution with Appendages, Proc. China-
Korea Marine Hydrodynamics Meeting,
Shanghai.
Shin, M.-S., 1998a, "Survey Report of Hybrid
Ship", KRISO Report.
Shin, M.-S., 1998b, "Survey Report of WIG
Ship", KRISO Report.
70
Shu, C.W., 1998, Higher Order ENO and
WENO Schemes for Computational Fluid
Dynamics, VKI Special Course.
Slepicka, J .S. and Cha, S.S.,
1997, Holographic Diffraction Image Ve-
locity for Measurement of Three-
Dimensional Velocity Fields, AIAA J .
Vol.35, No.7.
Soeding, H., 1996, "Advances in Panel Meth-
ods", Proc. 21
st
Symp. Naval Hydrodynam-
ics, Trondheim, Norway.
Sofialidis, D. and Prinos, P., 1996, Wall Suc-
tion Effects on the Structure of Fully De-
veloped Turbulent Pipe Flow, ASME J .
Fluid Engineering, Vol. 118, pp.33-39.
Sotiropoulos, F. and Patel, V.C., 1994, Second
Moment Modelling for Ship Stern and
Wake Flows, Proc. CFD Workshop for
Improvement of Hull Form Design, Tokyo,
pp.187-198.
Sotiropoulos, F. and Ventikos, Y., 1998, Flow
through a Curved Duct Using Nonlinear
Two-equation Turbulence Model, AIAA J .,
Vol. 36, No. 7, pp. 1256-1262.
Speziale, C.H., 1994, A Review of Reynolds
Stress Models for Turbulent Shear Flows,
Proc. 20
th
Symp. Naval Hydrodynamics,
Santa Barbara, California, USA.
Spyropoulos, A.N., Boudouvis, A.G., and Mar-
katos, N.C., 1998, An Implementation of
Parallel Preconditioned GMRES on Dis-
tributed Memories Computers, Proc. 4
th
Eccomas CFD Conf., Athens, pp 478-483.
Sreedhar, M. and Stern, F., 1998a, Prediction
of Solid/Free-surface J uncture Boundary
Layer and Wake of a Surface-piercing Flat
Plate at Low Froude Number,ASME J .
Fluid Engineering, Vol. 120, pp. 354-362.
Sreedhar, M. and Stern, F., 1998b, Large Eddy
Simulation of Temporally Developing
J uncture Flows, Int. J . for Num. Methods
in Fluids.
SRI, 1994, Proceedings of CFD Workshop
Tokyo 1994, Vol. 1 and 2, Ship Research
Institute Ministry of Transport Ship &
Ocean Foundation, Tokyo, J apan.
Stern, F., Longo, J ., Maksoud, M., and Suzuki,
T., 1998, Evaluation of Surface-Ship Re-
sistance and Propulsion Model-Scale Da-
tabase for CFD Validation, 1st Symposium
on Marine Applications of Computational
Fluid Dynamics, McLean, VA, 19-21 May
(also see
www.iihr.uiowa.edu/gothenburg2000).
Stern, F., Wilson, R.V., Coleman, H., and
Paterson, E., Verification and Validation
of CFD Simulations, 3
rd
ASME/J SME
J oint Fluids Engineering Conference, San
Francisco, CA, 18-23 J uly 1999 (also see
www.iihr.uiowa.edu/gothenburg2000)
Stern, F., Zhang, Z.J ., and Subramani, A.K.,
1996b, Detailed Bow-Flow Data and CFD
for a Series 60 C
B
=0.6 Ship Model for
Froude Number 0.316, J . Ship Research,
Vol 40, No. 3, pp. 193-199.
Stubbs, J .T., Molyneux, D., Koniecki, M.,
Peirce, T.H., and Rousseau, J .H.,
1996, Flooding Protection of Ro Ro Fer-
ries, R.I.N.A., pp 103-106.
Su, L.K. and Dahm, W.J .A., 1996, Scalar
Imaging Velocimetry Measurements of the
Velocity Gradient Tensor Field in Turbulent
Flows. II. Experimental results, Phys.
Fluids Vol. 8, No. 7.
Subramani, A., Beck, R., and Schultz, W.,
1998a, Suppression of Wave-Breaking in
Nonlinear Water Wave Computations,
Proc. 13
th
Int. Workshop on Water Waves
and Floating Bodies (Ed. Hermans), Neth-
erlands.
Subramani, A., Beck, R., and Scorpio, S.,
1998b, "Fully Nonlinear Free-Surface
Computations for Arbitrary and Complex
Hull Forms", Proc. 22
nd
Symp. Naval Hy-
drodynamics, Washington, D.C.
Sugii, Y., Okuno, T., and Nishio, S.,
1996a, Image Measurement using Gov-
erning Equation of Fluid Flow, J . of The
Visualization Society of J apan, Vol. 16,
Suppl. No. 1, (in J apanese).
Sugii, Y., Okuno, T., and Nishio, S.,
1996b, Image Measurement using Gov-
erning Equation of Fluid Flow (2nd report),
71
J . of The Visualization Society of J apan,
Vol. 16, Suppl. No. 2, (in J apanese).
Sugii, Y., Okuno, T., and Nishio, S.,
1997, Image Measurement using Govern-
ing Equation of Fluid Flow (3rd report), J .
Visualization Society of J apan, Vol. 17,
Suppl. No. 2, (in J apanese).
Sung, C.H., Fu, T.C., Griffin, M., and Huang,
T., 1996, Validation of Incompressible
Flow Computation of Forces and Moments
on Axisymmetric Bodies Undergoing Con-
stant Radius Turning Proc. 22
nd
Symp.
Naval Hydrodynamics, Trondheim, Norway.
Suzuki, H., Miyazaki, S., and Suzuki, T.,
1998a, Experimental Study on Turbulence
in Stern Flow Fields of Two Ship Models,
Proc. 3
rd
Osaka Colloquium Advanced CFD
Applications to Ship Flow And Hull Form
Design, Osaka.
Suzuki, H., Miyazaki, S., Suzuki, T., and Ma-
tsumura, K., 1998b, Experimental Study
on Turbulent Flow Field around an Oblique
Ship Model, J . Kansai Soc. Naval Archi-
tects, J apan, No. 230, pp.123-132, (in J apa-
nese).
Suzuki, H., Suzuki, T., Miyazaki, S. and Ma-
tsumura, K., 1998c, Turbulence Measure-
ments in Stern Flow Field of Two Ship
ModelsRyuko-Maru and Hamburg Test
Case, J . Kansai Society of Naval Archi-
tects, J apan, No. 230, pp. 109-122,(in J apa-
nese).
Suzuki, T. and He, M-Q., 1997, Analysis
Method of Wave Pattern Resistance Using
Projected Light Distribution, Proc. Kansai
Soc. Naval Architects, J apan, No.8.
Suzuki, T., Nakato, M., Uchida, M., and
Lewkowicz, A., 1992, Thrust Measure-
ment Techniques in Sea Trial Condition :
Assessment and New Developments, Proc.
of Practical Design of Ships and Mobile
Units, Vol. 1, Elsevier Applied Science,
London.
Suzuki, T. and Sumino, K., 1993, A Tech-
nique to Measure Wave Height Using Pro-
jected Light Distribution on the Screen Near
the Water Surface, J . Kansai Soc. Naval
Architects, J apan, No. 220, (in J apanese).
Suzuki, T., Sumino, K., and Koumura, S.,
1994, Some Examples of Measured Wave
Pattern by the Projected Light Distribution
Method, Proc. of NewS-Tech Conference,
Shanghai Soc. of Naval Architects and
Marine Engineers.
Svennberg, S.U., Regnstrm, B., and Larsson,
L., 1998, A Test of Turbulence Models for
Vortices, Proc. 3
rd
Osaka Colloquium Ad-
vanced CFD Applications to Ship Flow
And Hull Form Design, Osaka, pp.241-264.
Tahara, Y. and Himeno, Y.,
1996, Applications of Isotropic and An-
isotropic Turbulence Models to Ship Flow
Computation, J . Kansai Soc. N. A., J apan,
No. 225, pp.75-91.
Tahara, Y. and Himeno, Y., 1998, An Appli-
cation of Computational Fluid Dynamics to
Tanker Hull Form Optimization Problem,
Proc. 3
rd
Osaka Colloquium Advanced CFD
Applications to Ship Flow And Hull Form
Design, Osaka, pp.515-531.
Tahara, Y., Longo, J ., Stern, F., and Himeno,
Y., 1998, Comparison of CFD and EFD
for the Series 60 C
B
=0.6 in Steady Yaw
Motion, Proc. 22
nd
Symp. Naval Hydrody-
namics, Washington, D.C.
Takahashi, T., Kakugawa, A., Kawashima, H.,
and Kodama, Y., 1997a, Local Skin Fric-
tion Reduction Using Microbubbles (in
J apanese), J . Kansai Soc. Naval Architects,
J apan, No. 228.
Takahashi, T., Kakugawa, A., and Kodama, Y.,
1997b, Streamwise Distribution of the
Skin Friction Reduction by Microbubbles
(in J apanese), J . Soc. of Naval Architects
of J apan, Vol. 182.
Takai, M. and Zhu, M., 1994, Finite-volume
Simulation of Viscous Flow about Ship
with Free-surface by Arbitrary-Lagrange-
Euler Method, Proc. CFD Workshop for
Improvement of Hull Form Design, Tokyo,
vol.1, pp.85-94.
Takezawa, S., Tamama, H., Sugawara, K.,
Kondo, K., Kuribayashi, S., and Mori, H.,
1994, Sea Trials of Superconducting Elec-
tro Magneto-Hydrodynamic Propulsion
Ship, YAMATO 1 (in J apanese), J . Kan-
sai Soc. Naval Architects, J apan, No. 221.
72
Tan, K.H., 1996, Local Coupling in Domain
Decomposition, Ph.D. Thesis, Utrecht
University, P.O. box 80010, 3508 TA
Utrecht, Netherlands.
Tan, K.T. and Bligh, T.P., 1998, A New Ap-
proach to an Integrated CAD Method for
Surface Ship Design, Naval Engineers
J ournal, 1998, pp 35-41.
Tanibayashi, H., 1990, Group Discussion,
Full-Scale LDV Measurements of Ship
Stern Flow , Proc. of 19
th
ITTC, Vol. 2, pp.
506-509.
Tefy, T. and Leyland, P., 1996, Implicit
Newton-GMRES Methods for the Com-
pressible Navier-Stokes Equations, Proc.
4
th
Eccomas CFD Conf., Athens, pp 560-
566.
Telste, J .G. and Reed, A.M., 1993, "Calcula-
tion of Transom Stern Flows," Proc. 6
th
Int.
Conf. Numerical Ship Hydrodynamics,
Iowa City, USA.
Thomas, P.J ., Butefisch, K.A., and Sauerland,
K.H., 1993, On the Motion of Particles in
a Fluid under the Influence of a Large Ve-
locity Gradient, Experiments in Fluids Vol.
14.
Toda, Y., Stern, F., and Longo, J ., 1992,
"Mean-Flow Measurements in the
Boundary Layer and Wake and Wave Field
of a Series 60 C
B
=.6 Model Ship - Part 1:
Froude Numbers .16 and .316," J ournal of
Ship Research, Vol. 36, No. 4, pp. 360-377.
Toda, Y., Stern, F., Tanaka, I., and Patel, V.C.,
1990, Mean-Flow Measurements in the
Boundary Layer and Wake of a Series 60
C
B
=0.60 Model Ship With and Without
Propeller, J ournal of Ship Research, Vol.
34, No. 4, pp. 225-252.
Tokumaru, P.T. and Dimotakis, P.E.,
1995, Image Correlation Velocimetry,
Experiments in Fluids Vol. 19.
Tokunaga, J ., Nobunaga, T., Nakatani, T., Iwa-
saki, T., Hukuda, K., and Kunitake, Y.,
1998, Frictional Resistance Reduction
with Air Lubricant Over Super-Water-
Repellant Surface (1
st
Report) Frictional
Drag Test in Rectangular Pipe Flow and
Resistance Test of Horizontal Flat Plate- (in
J apanese), J . Soc. of Naval Architects of
J apan, Vol. 183.
Tulin, M.P. and Hsu, C.C., 1986, "Theory of
High-speed Displacement Ships with Tran-
som Stern", J . Ship Research Vol.30-3.
Tulin, M. and Wu, M., 1996, "Divergent Bow
Waves", Proc. 21
st
Symp. Naval Hydrody-
namics, Trondheim, Norway.
Tuohy, S., Latorre, R., and Munchmayer, F.,
1996, Developments in Surface Fairing
Procedures, Int. Shipbuild. Progr. 43, no.
436, pp 281-314.
Turnock, S.R. and Molland, A.F.,
1998, Prediction of Ship Flow in the
Presence of a Propeller, Proc. 3
rd
Osaka
Colloquium Advanced CFD Applications to
Ship Flow And Hull Form Design, Osaka.
Tuxen, J ., Hoekstra, M., Nowacki, H., Larsson,
L., van Walree, F., and Terkelsen, M., 1998,
"The Calypso project: Computational Fluid
Dynamics in the Ship Design Process", Proc.
7
th
PRADS Symp., Elsevier, Amsterdam.
Tzabiras, G.D., 1997a, A Numerical Study of
Additive Bulb Effects on the Resistance and
Self-Propulsion Characteristics of a Full
Ship Form, J . of Ship Research Technol-
ogy, Vol. 44, No.2, pp98-108.
Tzabiras, G.D., 1997b, "A Numerical Study of
2D, Steady Free Surface Flows", Int. J . for
Num. Methods in Fluids, Vol. 25, pp 567-
598.
Uchida, M., Nishikawa, E., Nakai, N., Kani-
yama, H., and Kamiirisa, H., 1989, An
Attempt to Measure the Blade Stress of
Controllable Pitch Propeller of an Actual
Ship, J . Kansai Soc. Naval Architects, J a-
pan, No. 211.
Ukon, Y., Kudo, T., Kurobe, Y., Yuasa, H.,
Kamiirisa, H., and Kubo, H.,
1991, Measurement of Pressure Distribu-
tion on a Full Scale PropellerMeasurement
on a Highly Skewd Propeller -, J . Soc. of
Naval Architects of J apan, Vol. 170.
Ukon, Y., Kudo, T., Kurobe, Y., Kamiirisa, H.,
Yuasa, H., Kubo, H., and Itadani, Y.,
1990, Measurement of Pressure Distribu-
73
tion on a Full Scale Propeller Measure-
ment on a Conventional Propeller -, J . Soc.
of Naval Architects of J apan, Vol. 168.
Uto, S. and Narita, S., 1998, Experimental
Study on the Propulsive Performance of
Icebreaker PLH SOYA , J . Kansai Soc.
Naval Architects, J apan, No. 229.
Valkhof, H.H. and Hoekstra, M., 1998, "Model
Tests and CFD in Hull Form Optimization",
SNAME Annual Meeting.
Van, S.H., Kim W.J ., Kim, D.H., Yim, G.T.,
Lee, C.J ., and Eom, J .Y., 1998a, Flow
Measurement around a 300K VLCC
Model, Proc. Annual Spring Meeting,
SNAK, Ulsan, pp. 185-188.
Van, S.H., Kim, W.J ., Yim, G.T., Kim, D.H.,
and Lee, C.J ., 1998b, Experimental Inves-
tigation of the Flow Characteristics Around
Practical Hull Forms, Proc. 3
rd
Osaka
Colloquium Advanced CFD Applications to
Ship Flow And Hull Form Design, Osaka.
Vassalos, D., 1998, Damage Survivability of
Passenger/Ro-Ro Vessels by Numerical and
Physical Model Testing, WEMT 98, Rot-
terdam, The Netherlands.
Vogt, M., 1997, "A Comparison between
Moving Grid and a Level Set Technique for
Solving 2D Free Surface Flows", ASME
FED Summer Meeting.
Vogt, M., 1998, "A Numerical Investigation of
the Level Set Method for Computing Free-
surface Waves", Chalmers Univ. Report
CHA/NAV/R-98/0054.
Vuik, C., 1996, Fast Iterative Solvers for the
Discretized Incompressible Navier-Stokes
Equations, Int. J . for Num. Methods in
Fluids, vol. 22, pp 195-210.
Wang, Y., Sproston, J .L., and Millward, A.,
1996, "Calculations of Wave Resistance for
a High-speed Displacement Ship", Int.
Shipbuilding Progress Vol. 43-nr 435.
Wang, Z.Y., 1993, Experimental Study of a
Wall Shear Stress Sensor Based on a Po-
rous Element, Experiments in Fluids Vol.
14.
Watanabe, O., Masuko, A., and Shirose, Y.,
1997, Measurements of Drag Reduction by
Microbubbles Using Very Long Ship Mod-
els J . Soc. of Naval Architects of J apan,
Vol. 183.
Watson, S.J .P. and Bull, P.W., 1998, The
Scaling of High Reynolds Number Viscous
Flow Predictions Using CFD Techniques,
Proc. 3
rd
Osaka Colloquium Advanced CFD
Applications to Ship Flow And Hull Form
Design, Osaka.
Wei, Q. Yan, B., and Chen, J ., 1995, A Dis-
cussion on the Accuracy of PIV, Proc. Int.
Workshop on PIV95, Fukui, J apan.
Wernert, P., Geissler, W., Raffel, M., and
Kompenhans, J ., 1996, Experimental and
Numerical Investigations of Dynamic Stall
on a Pitching Airfoil, AIAA J ., Vol. 34,
No. 5, pp. 982-989.
Whitcomb, C.A., 1998, Naval Ship Design
Philosophy Implementation, Naval Engi-
neers J ournal, pp 49-51.
Wilcox, D.C., 1988, Reassessment of the
Scale Determining Equation for Advanced
Turbulence Models, AIAA J ., Vol. 26, pp.
1299-1310.
Williamson, A.G., 1997, Implications for the
Royal Australian Navy for Very High Speed
Marine Vessels, FAST 97, Sydney, Aus-
tralia, pp 5-9.
Wilson, R., Paterson, E., and Stern, F., 1998
"Unsteady RANS CFD Method for Naval
Combatant in Waves," Proc. 22
nd
Symp.
Naval Hydrodynamics, Washington, D.C.
Woodmansee, M.A., and Dutton, J .C.,
1998, Treating Temperature-sensitivity Ef-
fects of Pressure-sensitive Paint Measure-
ments, Experiments in Fluids Vol. 24.
Wu, S. and Bose, N., 1992, Axial Wake Sur-
vey behind a Fishing Vessel Model by Us-
ing a Wedge-Shaped Hot-Film Probe, J .
Kansai Soc. Naval Architects, J apan, No.
218.
Xia, F., 1986, "Numerical Calculations of Ship
Flows, with Special Emphasis on the Free-
surface Potential Flow", Ph.D. Thesis,
Chalmers Univ. Gothenburg, Sweden.
74
Yabushita, K. and Hiuata, W., 1998, High
Accuracy Finite Analytic Method for In-
compressible Navier-Stokes Flow, Proc.
3
rd
Osaka Colloquium Advanced CFD Ap-
plications to Ship Flow And Hull Form De-
sign, Osaka.
Yamaguchi, T., Yamaguchi, K., Kaga, A.,
Kondo, A., Inoue, Y., and Kamoi, S.,
1996, Combined Technique of PIV and
CFD for Flow Field Understanding, (in
J apanese) , J . of The Visualization Society
of J apan, Vol. 16, Suppl. No. 2.
Yang, C. and Lhner, R., 1998, Fully Non-
linear Ship Wave Calculation Using Un-
structured Grid and Parallel Computing,
Proc. 3
rd
Osaka Colloquium Advanced CFD
Applications to Ship Flow And Hull Form
Design, Osaka, pp.125-159.
Zhang, X., 1996, An algorithm for Calculating
Water Surface Elevations from Surface
Gradient Image Data, Experiments in Flu-
ids Vol. 21.
Zhang, X. and Cok, C.S., 1994, Measuring the
Two-dimensional Structure of a Wavy Wa-
ter Surface Optically: A Surface Gradient
Detector, Experiments in Fluids Vol. 17.
Zhang, Z.J . and Stern, F., 1996, Free-Surface
Wave-Induced Separation, J . Fluids Engi-
neering, Vol. 118, September, pp. 546-554.
Zilliac, G.G., 1993, Modelling, Calibration,
and Error Analysis of Seven-hole Pressure
Probes, Experiments in Fluids Vol. 14.
1
( )
( )
( )
R R
U m X
U U X U X R
N
A u
A N uu N uu M
+
+

+
+

2
cos 2 cos
2
sin 2 sin
2
2
!
I DISCUSSIONS
Discussion to the Report of the 22

ITTC
Resistance Committee: Influence of
Carriage Speed Fluctuations on the
Accuracy of Resistance Tests
by ProIessor Marc Vantorre, University oI
Ghent
The Resistance Committee has done a
substantial eIIort to Iormulate guidelines Ior
assessing uncertainty oI towing tank test
results.

One oI the causes oI uncertainty concerns
discrepancies between the actual carriage
speed and the nominal speed. Speed
measurement errors are taken into account in
the Resistance Committee Report, but the
dynamic eIIects oI speed setting errors on the
resistance measurement are not considered.
However, it can be demonstrated that
speed Iluctuations not only aIIect the
precision oI the speed measurement, but also
the measured resistance (Vantorre, 1992). Eor
this purpose, it is supposed that the latter is
obtained by calculating the average oI the
longitudinal Iorce X(t) acting on the ship
model over an interval T:

T
0
M
dt ) t ( X ) t ( X R (1)
II the nominal speed is denoted U
N
, the
distance covered by the carriage during the
interval T equals U
N
T. It is assumed that the
actual model speed is aIIected by a harmonic
Iluctuation with amplitude U
A
and period T/:
( ) + + t cos U U ) t ( U
A N
(2)
with 2/T. The longitudinal Iorce acting on
the ship model and, hence, on the dynamometers,
can be expressed as:
( )U m X U X ) t ( X
u
2
uu
!
!
+ (3)
in which the Iirst term denotes the resistance,
assumed to be a quadratic Iunction oI speed in
the considered speed interval, while the second
term represents (mass and hydrodynamic) inertia
Iorces. Neglecting second order terms in U
A
,
introduction oI the speed history (2) yields:
( )
( ) ( ) +
+ +
t sin U m X
t cos U U X 2 U X ) t ( X
A u
A N uu
2
N
uu
!
(4)
so that the measured resistance R
M
equals:
(5)
(5)
The eIIect oI the speed Iluctuation depends
on its Irequency and its phase angle . It is
clear that no error is introduced iI 1,2. Eor
non-integer values oI , the error on the
resistance measurement varies Irom zero Ior

(min)
to a maximum value Ior
(max)
,
The Resistance Committee
Committee Chair: ProI. Ered Stern (IIHR)
Session chair: Dr. Gerhard Jensen (HSVA)
2
with:
( )
( ) +


2 sin C 2 2 cos 1
2 cos 1 C 2 2 sin
tan
1
1 (min)
(6)
( )
( ) 1 2 cos C 2 2 sin
2 sin C 2 1 2 cos
tan
1
1 (max)
+

(7)
with

1
X 2
m X
C
uu
u
1

!
(8)
In the worst case`, the relative error on the
measured resistance takes Iollowing value:
( )
( )
( )

1
]
1

(9)
I
1
(2;C
1
) is displayed as a Iunction oI
2 Ior diIIerent values oI the parameter C
1
in
Eigure 1. Irrespective C
1
, E
1
equals 1 Ior
constant deviations (0) and vanishes Ior
integer . The Iunction behaviour between two
integer values oI depends on the value oI C
1
.
Eor n, I
1
approximately takes a value oI
2C
1
Ior n~1. The absolute maximum, however,
is reached in the interval 01. This
maximum is always higher than 2C
1
, and is
reached at 0 iI C
1
12
-
0.29.
0
1
2
3
0 2 4 6

1 0.5
0.29 0.1
C

Eigure 1. Eunction I
1
(2;C
1
) Ior diIIerent
values oI C
1
.
0
1
2
3
0 2 4 6

1 0.5
0.29 0.1
C

Eigure 2. Eunction I
1
`(2;C
1
) Ior diIIerent
values oI C
1
.
Expression (9) shows that the relative error
on resistance measurement is twice the relative
error in case oI a static deviation, but may be
much larger in case oI a dynamic Iluctuation oI
the carriage speed. In this respect, C
1
0.29 can
be considered as a critical value: iI C
1
0.29,
the eIIect oI speed Iluctuations is always
smaller than the eIIect oI a constant speed error.
II U
N
2
is used Ior reducing the measured
resistance R, (9) also expresses the relative
error on the reduced data. In case U is used
instead oI U
N
2
, U being the measured speed,

T
0
dt ) t ( U ) t ( U U (10)
Iollowing expression is obtained Ior the
relative error on the reduced data:
( ) [ ] +

2 cos cos C
U
U
2
U
R
U
R
U
R
1
N
A
2
N
N
2
N
N
2
M
M
(11)
taking values, depending on the phase angle ,
between zero and Iollowing maximum:
3
( )
) C ; 2 ( f
U
U
2
2 cos 1 2 C
U
U
2
U
R
U
R
U
R

,
_

(12)
as displayed in Eigure 2; the maximum relative
error on R
M
/U
M
appears to vary between 0 and
4C
1
times the relative error on carriage speed.
Erom this point oI view, the eIIect oI a constant
speed error can be eliminated completely iI the
real carriage speed is used Ior data reduction.
Now 0.5 can be considered as a critical value
Ior C
1
, as the relative error on the reduced
resistance never exceeds twice the relative
error on the carriage speed iI C
1
0.5.
In both approaches, C
1
plays an important
role. As is clear Irom expression (8), the
parameter C
1
depends on ship characteristics
(inertia and resistance coeIIicients), but also on
the experimental parameter , being the
integration length. The ship dependent Iactor,
( )
uu
u
1
X 2
L m X L
C

(13)
L being the ship`s length, expresses the relative
importance oI inertia Iorces compared to
resistance, and appears to vary between 5 and
15. Eor a selection oI the MARAD Iull Iorm
ships in deep water, Ior instance, Iollowing
values are Iound (Roseman, 1987):
MARAD ship
E H K L
( )
uu
u
X 2
L m X
!
14.3 11.0 10.6 12.3
In order to obtain the critical C
1
value oI
0.29, a measuring length oI 18 to 50 times the
model length is required; iI C
1
0.5 is
considered to be satisIactory, should be 10L
to 30L. II a shorter measuring length is selected,
relative errors on speed may be ampliIied by a
Iactor larger than 2. This is not a problem iI
tolerances on speed maintenance` are more
strict compared with the acceptable error on
speed setting`, which is sometimes the case
(see e.g. Bogdanov & Guliev, 1975: 0.1 vs.
0.25).
It would be interesting to know whether
these considerations, based on the physical
background oI the Iorces acting on a towed
ship model, are perhaps implicitly
accounted Ior by the methodology proposed by
the Resistance Committee.
REEERENCES
Bogdanov, P., Guliev, J., 1975,
'Implementation oI the project oI the Bulgarian
Ship Hydrodynamics Experimental Centre,
Proceedings oI the 14th ITTC, Ottawa, Vol. 4,
pp. 698-707.
Roseman, D.P. (ed.), 1987, 'The MARAD
systematic series oI Iull-Iorm ship models,
The Society oI Naval Architects and Marine
Engineers, Jersey City.
Vantorre, M., 1992, 'Accuracy and
optimization oI captive ship model tests, 5th
International Symposium on Practical Design
oI Ships and Mobile Units, Newcastle upon
Tyne, Vol. 1, pp. 1.190-203.
Discussion to the Report of the 22

ITTC
Resistance Committee: Viscous Flow
Calculation Methods
by Dr. Wu-Joan Kim, KRISO
As indicated by the committee, it is very
probable Ior hull Iorm designers to use the
viscous Ilow calculation methods in near Iuture
Ior the evaluation oI their hull Iorms even in
commercial shipyards. The shipyards usually
want to evaluate their hull Iorms in the initial
design stage aIter rough lines Iairing within a
short period oI time. The main diIIiculty would
be generating surIace mesh based on oIIset
table, since the inIormation on hull Iorms given
to CED tools is not a nicely deIined NURBS
surIace but a simple oIIset table. Grid
generation is still the biggest obstacle to the
practical use oI viscous Ilow methods. AIter
the sincere application by an experienced user,
the direction should be given to hull designers
4
on the way oI managing surIace and Iield grids.
The higher-order turbulence closure such as
Reynolds stress model is commonly
recommended to simulate wake Ilow with
strong secondary Ilow like bilge vortices.
However, it would be impossible Ior ship yards
to use such a complicated model which is hard
to converge and requires big computational
eIIorts. II the interest is only on the prediction
oI nominal wake at propeller plane, the
realizable k-epsilon model is a good candidate.
It was Iound recently that the realizable k-
epsilon model even with the wall Iunction
succeeded to reproduce hook-like axial wake
contours and to tell the diIIerence oI two
similar VLCC hull Iorms (KVLCC and
KVLCC2) (Kim et al., 1999).
Viscous Ilow calculation methods should be
robust and easy to use in order to let hull Iorm
designers use CED tools. Eor this purpose, the
CED developers should pay more attention to
provide the surIace grid generation method as
well as the simple but eIIective turbulence
model.
REEERENCES
Kim, W.J., Kim, D.H., Van, S.H., "Calculation
oI Turbulent Elows around VLCC Hull Eorms
with Stern Erameline ModiIication", The 7th
conIerence on Numerical Ship Hydrodynamics,
Nantes, Erance, Jul., 1999.
Discussion to the Report of the 22

ITTC
Resistance Committee: CFD-Based
Optimization
by Dr. SteIan Harries, Technical University oI
Berlin
This comment is intended to provide some
additional input to CED-based optimization.
Dedicating an entire chapter oI the report to
this Iield already indicates that techniques oI
automated hull Iorm optimization are
increasingly recognized as a valuable
contribution to eIIicient hull Iorm development.
The systematic process oI automated (or
Iormal) optimization generally comprises Iour
stages:
1. Geometric modeling to produce a hull Iorm,
2. Hydrodynamic analysis to obtain the Ilow
Iield,
3. Evaluation oI the perIormance associated
with the hull shape and
4. Decision taking on how to improve the
design.
The resistance committee naturally Iocuses
on the part oI hydrodynamic analysis and
stresses the need Ior accurate and eIIicient
computation oI the objective Iunction and,
possibly, its gradient with respect to the Iree
variables.
Good relative accuracy i.e., accuracy in a
comparative sense is usually considered
suIIicient to conIidently engage in optimization
work although high absolute accuracy is
welcome. As pointed out in chapter 4.1
'Practical Application oI CED; Status and
Needs, published evidence Ior ranking
purposes is still limited. Regarding calm water
wave resistance Ior instance a systematic
comparison between experimental and
computational data was presented by (Harries
and Schulze, 1997) Ior a series oI Iast round-
bilge monohulls. Accuracy studies normally
depend on the Ilow solver employed as well as
the design problem and corresponding Ilow
phenomena investigated. It is thereIore diIIicult
to draw general conclusions but reported
successes build up conIidence while admitted
Iailures help to discover inadequacies oI the
computational method. The latter also reveal
where designers ought to be cautious when
optimizing by means oI a non-linear potential
Ilow code Ior example one is not ill-advised to
restrict shape variations to the bulbous bow and
entrance since improvements resulting Irom
modiIications oI the run are prone to be over-
predicted or even misleading, see e.g. (Janson
and Larsson, 1996).
High computational eIIiciency is regarded
to be a Iurther key prerequisite Ior CED-based
optimization, in particular when moving Irom
an interactive and experience-driven design
process to Iormal design strategies. Higher
numbers oI shape alternatives usually need to
be analyzed during automated optimizations
and short computational time must be brought
about when assessing the dependence oI the
objective Iunction Irom a large set oI design
variables.
5
In addition to this, I would like to point out
that the success oI CED-based optimization
strongly depends on the quality oI the design
process as a whole. Accurate and eIIicient CED
analysis certainly is a key Iactor but a Iurther
major bottleneck arises Irom shape generation
since the principle oI point manipulation
dominates the task oI geometric modeling.
(Wyatt and Chang, 1994) Ior example chose to
vary the transverse coordinates oI a set oI panel
corner points while (Janson and Larsson, 1996)
modiIied a number oIIset points on the hull
which were allowed to move, preIerably
normal to the initial surIace. As stated in the
committee`s report several authors already
employ B-splines Ior a mathematically-closed
surIace representations. Prevailingly, the B-
splines deIining vertices are still utilized as the
Iree variables just like they would be handled
in a traditional interactive design system.
However, these point-oriented techniques oIten
cause the Iollowing problems during an
automated optimization:
1. A high number oI Iree variables has to be
accommodated,
2. The resulting shapes tend to display
oscillations, sometimes even pronounced
undulations, necessitating subsequent
Iairing,
3. MeaningIul shape Ieatures e.g. center oI
buoyancy, center oI Ilotation, angle oI
entrance oI the design waterline etc.
cannot be directly addressed and varied,
4. Important shape characteristics e.g.
displacement, waterplane area, etc. have
to be incorporated as (equality or inequality)
constraints.
An alternative approach based on
parametric design principles has been
developed at the Technical University oI Berlin,
see (Harries, 1998), (Harries and Abt, 1999)
and (Harries and Nowacki, 1999). A hull`s
geometry is generated in terms oI Iorm
parameters and Iairness criteria the Iorm
parameters being design relevant descriptors oI
the envisioned shape. B-spline curves and
surIaces are entirely determined Irom Iorm
parameter input without any need Ior manual
vertex control. The resulting shapes being
intrinsically Iair and highly accurate, the
parametric approach has been successIully
applied to Iully automated CED-based
optimization, see e.g. (Harries and Abt, 1999).
Nevertheless, the approach has not yet reached
the maturity required Ior routine application, in
particular iI complex hull Iorms are to be
considered.
Concluding these remarks I would like to
underline the conclusion given by the
resistance committee in chapter 8.2
'Recommendations Ior Euture Work: Eurther
research into CED-based optimization is
needed and the necessary steps Ior developing
this promising design method must be
discussed and identiIied.
REEERENCES
Harries, S., 1998, 'Parametric Design and
Hydrodynamic Optimization oI Ship Hull
Eorms, Dissertation, Technical University oI
Berlin, Mensch & Buch Verlag - Berlin.
Harries, S.; Abt, C., 1999, 'Eormal
Hydrodynamic Optimization oI a East
Monohull on the Basis oI Parametric Hull
Design, EAST99 5
th
International
ConIerence on East Sea Transportation, Seattle,
WA, USA.
Harries, S.; Nowacki, H., 1999, 'Eorm
Parameter Approach to the Design oI Eair Hull
Shapes, 10
th
International ConIerence on
Computer Applications in Shipbuilding
ICCAS `99, Massachusetts Institute oI
Technology, Cambridge, MA, USA, Vol. 2, pp.
341-356.
Harries, S.; Schulze, D. 1997, 'Numerical
Investigation oI a Systematic Model Series Ior
the Design oI East Monohulls, EAST97 4
th
International ConIerence on East Sea
Transportation, Sydney, pp. 339-347.
Wyatt, D.C.; Chang, P.A., 1994, 'Development
and Assessment oI a Total Resistance
Optimized Bow Ior the AE 36, Marine
Technology, Vol. 31, No. 2, pp. 149-160.
6
Discussion to the Report of the 22

ITTC
Resistance Committee: Uncertainty Analysis
for Experimental Fluid Dynamics
Dr. A.V. Poustoshny, KSRI
Considering the method suggested Ior
resistance model test uncertainty analysis, one
has to note the Iollowing: it is assumed that Ior
achieving an acceptable accuracy every
measurement should be repeated at least 10
times under identical conditions. At the same
time one should remember that it is practically
impossible to absolutely accurately reproduce
the speed oI the towing carriage. This would
not aIIect the Iinal result too much as long as
we are dealing with pre-wave Eroude numbers.
When the resistance abruptly grows, however,
repeated measurements, even iI carriage speed
variations were Iairly minor, can`t be regarded
as belonging to one and the same test run, and
thereIore are unsuitable Ior statistic analysis.
Another consideration is Iinancial: towing
tanks can`t aIIord making 10 runs Ior the sake
oI every point on the resistance plot. That
would take just too many man-hours. This
aspect is especially critical Ior tests oI ships
intended Ior variable service conditions when
the resistance curve has to cover a whole range
oI speeds.
Repeated measurements are normally
perIormed only with the standard model Ior
monthly calibration oI the tank. In everyday
routines model tanks traditionally compare not
individual points but resistance curves.
RegretIully, the now suggested uncertainty
analysis method, which is so convenient and
appropriate Ior wind tunnels, has no provision
Ior accuracy assessments based on the analysis
oI resistance curves though it is known that
such evaluations are possible (Piotrovsky,
1989).
The Annex to this discussion presented to
participants oI ITTC oIIers an brieI version oI
the statistic analysis approach (Lobachev,
1999) applied to a special resistance test series
consisting oI 10-run measurements Ior a ship
with comparatively Iull lines (C
B
0.77) and
Ilow separation. The model was intentionally
chosen because oI quite signiIicant instability
oI results. The method anticipates taking a
single measurement at every speed and then
processing the obtained data by generating
regression Iunctions with the help oI the least
squares method. The uncertainty is evaluated
using applicable mathematical tools (Linnik,
1962). Some measured and processed results
may be seen in Eigure 1 below.
Test data analysis indicates that estimates oI
the residual resistance coeIIicient made based
on regression Iunctions generated by the least
squares method happen to rest within the
conIidence interval oI the average result
established Irom ten test runs. This means that
the highIrequency precision (random)
instability error associated with single
measurements can be corrected by appropriate
data analysis. Then there is no need to make
repeated measurements.
0,1 0,2 0,3
2
4
6

Run No.5:
-model test; - least squares analysis.
- average for10 runs.
Confidence interval limits:
- run No.5, least squares analysis;
- from 10 runs, for a single measurement.

Eigure 1. Measured and Processed Results

REEERENCES
Linnik Y.V., 1962, "The Least Squares Method
and Eundamentals oI Mathematical Theory oI
Observation Data Analysis", Moscow, "Physics
& Mathematics Publishers" (in Russian).
Lobachev M.P., Egorova E.Yu., Poustoshny
A.V.,1999, "Representation oI Towing Tests
Results and Uncertainty Analysis",
St.Petersburg, XXXIX Krylov Readings, (in
Russian).
Piotrovsky J., 1989, "The Theory oI
Measurements Ior Engineers", Moscow, "Mir"
Publishing House (in Russian).
7
ANNEX
Regression Analysis oI Resistance Test Data
by the Least Squares Method
Lobachev M.P., Egorova E. Yu., Poustoshny
A.V.
JustiIications Ior this technique Irom the
point oI view oI the measurement theory may
be Iound in (Piotrovsky, 1989). Under this
approach, they take single resistance
measurements through the whole ship speed
range divided into uniIorm intervals and then
process the obtained data generating regression
Iunctions by the least squared method (LSM)
(Linnik, 1962). The procedure was validated by
a specially staged series oI experiments with a
model oI a cargo ship with C
B
0.77 within
Eroude numbers oI 0.1~0.29. The model, when
tested at a trim draught, demonstrated Ilow
separation eIIects leading to quite pronounced
instability in measurement results. That was
exactly the reason Ior choosing the particular
model Ior the exercise. The test series consisted
oI ten runs Ior every oI 31 points oI the curve.
Based on preliminary evaluations, it was
Iound that Ior a displacementtype model 30 to
35 points uniIormly spread over the subject
interval oI Eroude numbers would be suIIicient
to describe any singularity oI the resistance
curve. As has been demonstrated in (Linnik,
1962), the regression model should be linear
with respect to unknown coeIIicients. Then
estimates made with it are unbiased.
Eor the whole bulk oI test points C
Ti
(En
i
) ,
i1...N we should generate a parabola
Iormulated as:
n
n T
Fn B Fn B Fn B A C + + + + ...
2
2 1
(1)
To do that, we need to Iind estimates oI
A,B
1
,B
2
,...B
n
and where is the standard
(rms) deviation. The n
th
-order parabola was
generated with the help oI orthogonal
Chebyshev polynomials. The relevant
polynomials and methods Ior calculating their
coeIIicients are available in appropriate
reIerences.
It was attempted to assess test results with
6
th
, 7
th
, 8
th
and 9
th
-order parabolas. Eventually it
was chosen to proceed with the 7
th
-order one
since Ior the subject case the estimate made
taking into account the ratio oI the test point
number to the parabola exponent was the least
one. The estimate Ior was Iormulated as:
n N
v v p
s

|
~ ~
|
~
(2)
Where:
~
s is the point estimate oI ; N is the
number oI measured points; n is the order oI
the parabola; |
~ ~
| v v p is the matrix oI
departures; |p| is the matrix oI weights. The
latter was assumed to be 1, though is not
necessary to take weights as 1 iI there is
suIIiciently reliable inIormation on their actual
values.
The matrix was generated by Iinding the
sum oI:

N
i
T T
i vC i C
1
2
)) ( ) ( ( (3)
where: yC
T
(i) is the result oI LSM
interpolations Ior the i
th
point.
The conIidence interval Ior estimates was
derived with the help oI the ratio:
p p p s s P < <
2 1 2 1
}
~ ~
(4)
where: p is the chosen probability;
1
,
2
are
Iound Irom Student`s t-distribution table oI
conIidence interval -limits Ior the number oI
degrees oI Ireedom kN-n (Linnik, 1962).
Eollowing are the results oI the data
analysis exercise Ior the test run No.5 Irom
Table 1. In this example:
[
~~
] vv 0.58110
-3
,
7 31
581 . 0
10
~ 3

s 0.15610
-3
.
Eor k24 and p0.95 the Table gives

1
0.781 and
2
1.391. When we use
~
s Ior
establishing the conIidence interval,
~
s should
be extended taking into account the uncertainty
8
oI its estimate. This can be done (Piotrovsky,
1989) like Iollows:
)
~ ~
( 5 . 0
~
1 2
s s s + (5)
In our example it is

0,20410
-3
.
Then the mean length oI the conIidence
interval may be estimated Ior N-n20, p0.95,
1.96 as:
N
n
d 96 . 1 2 (6)
In the subject case it is
3
10 19 . 0 2 /

d .
Table 1 shows resistance measurements
Irom run No.5, results oI LSM analysis Ior the
7
th
-order parabola and the conIidence interval
Ior p0.95. Processed measurements Irom all
test runs can be Iound in Table 2 while Table 3
contains averaged measurements Irom 10 runs
C
R
, residual resistance coeIIicients with the
Iaired curve plotted using the least squares
method C
Rfair
, conIidence precision limit
interval Ior a single measurement C
R
t P
r
and
Ior the average estimate C
R
t P
r
.
The perIormed analysis allows to draw
certain conclusions:
(1) ConIidence interval estimates made
with the least squares method are as good as
estimates Ior single measurements. Thus,
within the whole relevant range oI Eroude
numbers it is possible to make result accuracy
assessments with the help oI conIidence
intervals based on least squares analysis oI
single measurements. It may be noted that this
is actually a top estimate.
(2) Estimates oI the residual resistance
coeIIicient made Ior single measurements with
regression Iunctions generated by the least
squares method Iall within the conIidence
interval oI the average estimate Iound Irom 10
repeated measurements. This means that the
highIrequency random instability error
associated with single measurements can be
corrected by appropriate data analysis. Then
there is no need to make repeated
measurements.
REEERENCES
Linnik Y.V., 1962, "The Least Squares Method
and Eundamentals oI Mathematical Theory oI
Observation Data Analysis", Moscow, "Physics
& Mathematics Publishers" (in Russian).
Lobachev M.P., Egorova E.Yu., Poustoshny
A.V.,1999, "Representation oI Towing Tests
Results and Uncertainty Analysis",
St.Petersburg, XXXIX Krylov Readings, (in
Russian).
Piotrovsky J., 1989, "The Theory oI
Measurements Ior Engineers", Moscow, "Mir"
Publishing House (in Russian).
Discussion to the Report of the 22

ITTC
Resistance Committee: Uncertainty Analysis
for Computational Fluid Dynamics
by Dr.M. Hoekstra, Maritime Research
Institute Netherlands
The Resistance Committee is to be
commended with having prepared a report,
which is not only to the purpose but also
achieves a Iair balance between EED and CED.
The comments and suggestions I would like to
put Iorward are related to section 6 oI the
Report, on CED uncertainty analysis. These
comments are in support oI the emphasis given
by the ITTC to uncertainty analysis, and are as
Iollows:
1. On page 42/43 the report says that the
variables (or rather: quantities) to be validated
can be either point or integral values. Any
suitable norm oI the solution, in particular the
2-norm and the inIinity-norm, deserves
consideration as well.
2. It is unIortunate that the Report and, more
regrettably, also the Quality Manual assume a
uniIorm grid reIinement ratio, because a
uniIorm ratio is an exceptional case in practice
(r2 being not Ieasible). The example given in
section 6.2 is said to be based on a Iixed
reIinement ratio, but actually the ratio varies
slightly and is moreover not the same Ior the
9
three coordinate directions. The latter might
give the impression to a newcomer that grid
similarity is oI secondary importance, which it
is not (see e.g. the reIerence below). I suggest
that the QM be generalized to allow Ior
diIIerent reIinement ratios oI the grids used in a
veriIication study.
3. The Report says on page 44: 'The eIIects oI
higher order terms in Richardson
extrapolation~ are important Ior practical
application oI CED. As matters stand now,
this statement is questionable. Richardson
extrapolation assumes that the data are in
the asymptotic range, i.e. the leading term
oI the error expansion is dominant.
Inclusion oI higher order terms might be
useIul iI you are just beyond the asymptotic
range. But this makes sense only iI it can be
shown Ior typical ship hydrodynamics
applications that asymptotic behaviour does
occur on still Iiner grids. However, where
uncertainty analysis has not been widely
applied in ship hydrodynamics, I wonder
where the supporting evidence is to be
Iound.
4. There is reason to worry about the
uncertainty oI a 3-grid uncertainty estimate
(see the reIerence below).
Table 1 Resistance measurements and results of LSM analysis. Run No.5
Fn C
T
'10
3
C
F0
'10
3
C
R
'10
3
yC
T
'10
3
yC
R
'10
3
(yC
R
+

)'10
3
(yC
R
-

)'10
3
experiment LSM analysis
0.289 8.729 2.973 5.756 8.724 5.751 5.941 5.561
0.282 7.895 2.986 4.909 7.885 4.899 5.089 4.709
0.276 7.351 2.996 4.355 7.3916 4.396 4.586 4.206
0.269 6.989 3.007 3.982 7.008 4.001 4.191 3.811
0.262 6.749 3.021 3.729 6.768 3.747 3.937 3.557
0.255 6.578 3.034 3.544 6.619 3.585 3.775 3.395
0.248 6.645 3.046 3.598 6.523 3.477 3.667 3.287
0.242 6.544 3.059 3.485 6.462 3.402 3.593 3.213
0.235 6.394 3.073 3.321 6.397 3.324 3.514 3.134
0.23 6.181 3.086 3.095 6.349 3.263 3.453 3.073
0.222 6.299 3.103 3.196 6.263 3.160 3.350 2.970
0.215 6.149 3.118 3.031 6.177 3.059 3.249 2.869
0.208 6.126 3.134 2.992 6.082 2.948 3.138 2.758
0.201 5.882 3.154 2.728 5.982 2.828 3.018 2.638
0.194 5.848 3.17 2.678 5.882 2.712 2.902 2.522
0.187 5.853 3.19 2.663 5.786 2.596 2.786 2.406
0.181 5.69 3.207 2.483 5.710 2.503 2.693 2.313
0.173 5.711 3.23 2.481 5.620 2.390 2.580 2.200
0.168 5.681 3.247 2.433 5.572 2.325 2.515 2.135
0.16 5.576 3.273 2.303 5.508 2.235 2.425 2.045
0.154 5.248 3.295 1.953 5.467 2.172 2.362 1.982
0.147 5.419 3.321 2.098 5.425 2.104 2.294 1.914
0.141 5.456 3.343 2.113 5.392 2.049 2.239 1.859
0.133 5.171 3.376 1.796 5.345 1.969 2.159 1.779
0.127 5.272 3.4 1.872 5.306 1.906 2.096 1.716
0.12 5.346 3.436 1.909 5.257 1.821 2.011 1.631
0.113 5.264 3.468 1.795 5.209 1.741 1.931 1.551
0.106 5.227 3.509 1.718 5.172 1.663 1.853 1.473
0.101 5.447 3.536 1.911 5.164 1.628 1.818 1.438
0.094 4.683 3.582 1.101 5.200 1.618 1.808 1.428
0.087 5.526 3.624 1.901 5.333 1.709 1.899 1.519
10
Table 2 Faired curves of residual resistance coefficients, obtained by LSM analysis for 10 runs
Fn C
R1
'10
3
C
R2
'10
3
C
R3
'10
3
C
R4
'10
3
C
R5
'10
3
C
R6
'10
3
C
R7
'10
3
C
R8
'10
3
C
R9
'10
3
C
R10
'10
3
0.289 5.942 5.850 5.777 5.823 5.765 5.897 5.797 5.748 5.877 5.816
0.281 4.918 4.862 4.787 4.766 4.832 4.869 4.768 4.732 4.868 4.714
0.275 4.404 4.372 4.310 4.285 4.352 4.394 4.293 4.275 4.405 4.245
0.269 4.019 3.999 3.963 3.956 3.981 4.051 3.958 3.961 4.075 3.943
0.262 3.786 3.762 3.753 3.770 3.744 3.836 3.762 3.778 3.871 3.778
0.255 3.632 3.589 3.606 3.649 3.578 3.672 3.626 3.648 3.716 3.661
0.248 3.544 3.477 3.512 3.569 3.478 3.556 3.534 3.554 3.604 3.573
0.242 3.472 3.378 3.422 3.489 3.396 3.444 3.443 3.457 3.491 3.472
0.235 3.400 3.285 3.329 3.399 3.320 3.335 3.346 3.352 3.377 3.358
0.228 3.310 3.183 3.218 3.288 3.236 3.221 3.231 3.229 3.251 3.222
0.221 3.216 3.089 3.109 3.177 3.152 3.121 3.121 3.114 3.137 3.096
0.215 3.096 2.982 2.982 3.047 3.051 3.016 2.997 2.988 3.014 2.959
0.208 2.967 2.879 2.858 2.920 2.945 2.919 2.879 2.871 2.898 2.833
0.201 2.827 2.774 2.733 2.791 2.831 2.823 2.762 2.759 2.784 2.715
0.195 2.693 2.679 2.621 2.677 2.721 2.734 2.660 2.663 2.680 2.614
0.188 2.556 2.584 2.515 2.565 2.606 2.639 2.562 2.572 2.574 2.518
0.181 2.441 2.506 2.431 2.474 2.508 2.549 2.483 2.498 2.479 2.440
0.175 2.339 2.434 2.358 2.393 2.416 2.454 2.411 2.430 2.384 2.365
0.168 2.243 2.363 2.289 2.312 2.324 2.341 2.335 2.355 2.279 2.284
0.161 2.164 2.297 2.227 2.237 2.239 2.217 2.259 2.275 2.171 2.199
0.154 2.112 2.247 2.177 2.178 2.176 2.114 2.191 2.203 2.084 2.127
0.147 2.062 2.192 2.117 2.112 2.109 2.004 2.109 2.113 1.995 2.045
0.141 2.019 2.140 2.051 2.049 2.048 1.915 2.023 2.021 1.924 1.972
0.134 1.972 2.082 1.970 1.984 1.981 1.846 1.928 1.919 1.869 1.904
0.127 1.915 2.015 1.872 1.918 1.907 1.808 1.827 1.814 1.836 1.847
0.121 1.848 1.941 1.767 1.860 1.831 1.808 1.740 1.720 1.828 1.807
0.114 1.767 1.851 1.658 1.814 1.747 1.842 1.674 1.640 1.835 1.778
0.107 1.692 1.755 1.578 1.797 1.676 1.886 1.659 1.596 1.836 1.750
0.100 1.632 1.635 1.548 1.820 1.624 1.910 1.727 1.594 1.794 1.688
0.094 1.626 1.500 1.617 1.896 1.622 1.839 1.905 1.644 1.646 1.543
0.087 1.728 1.335 1.854 2.048 1.709 1.563 2.255 1.754 1.283 1.219
11
Table 3 Statistic analysis results of 10-run measurements. p0.95
Fn C

`10

`10

(C

+P
r
)`10

(C

-P
r
)`10

(C

+P
r
)`10

(C

-P
r
)`10

0.289 5.795 5.811 6.182 5.439 5.945 5.676

0.281 4.850 4.799 5.085 4.512 4.903 4.695
0.275 4.336 4.322 4.539 4.105 4.415 4.229
0.269 3.922 3.978 4.142 3.815 4.064 3.893
0.262 3.754 3.771 3.895 3.647 3.848 3.695
0.255 3.619 3.624 3.791 3.458 3.709 3.540
0.248 3.624 3.527 3.652 3.402 3.604 3.450
0.242 3.443 3.434 3.601 3.267 3.519 3.350
0.235 3.293 3.339 3.465 3.212 3.416 3.262
0.228 3.133 3.229 3.365 3.094 3.308 3.151
0.221 3.156 3.125 3.260 2.991 3.204 3.047
0.215 3.081 3.006 3.152 2.860 3.087 2.926
0.208 2.949 2.891 3.060 2.723 2.976 2.806
0.201 2.751 2.775 2.922 2.628 2.856 2.695
0.195 2.623 2.670 2.905 2.435 2.769 2.570
0.188 2.522 2.565 2.759 2.371 2.655 2.475
0.181 2.477 2.477 2.595 2.358 2.553 2.401
0.175 2.405 2.394 2.609 2.179 2.489 2.299
0.168 2.359 2.308 2.491 2.126 2.396 2.221
0.161 2.175 2.224 2.414 2.034 2.314 2.135
0.154 2.162 2.156 2.478 1.835 2.277 2.035
0.147 2.147 2.082 2.405 1.759 2.204 1.960
0.141 2.017 2.013 2.298 1.728 2.125 1.901
0.134 1.861 1.943 2.310 1.576 2.077 1.809
0.127 1.915 1.875 2.175 1.574 1.990 1.759
0.121 1.758 1.815 2.059 1.571 1.917 1.714
0.114 1.846 1.762 2.067 1.457 1.879 1.645
0.107 1.704 1.726 2.316 1.136 1.924 1.528
0.100 1.653 1.700 2.337 1.064 1.912 1.489
0.094 1.736 1.688 2.386 0.991 1.919 1.458
0.087 1.667 1.681 2.424 0.938 1.937 1.425
12
Table 4 Resistance measurements
Run No.1 Run No.2 Run No.3 Run No.4 Run No.5 Run No.6 Run No.7 Run No.8 Run No.9 Run No.10
Fn C
R
1
0
3
Fn C
R
1
0
3
Fn C
R
1
0
3
Fn C
R
1
0
3
Fn C
R
1
0
3
Fn C
R
1
0
3
Fn C
R
1
0
3
Fn C
R
1
0
3
Fn C
R
1
0
3
Fn C
R
1
0
3
0.289 5.884 0.290 5.943 0.289 5.729 0.290 6.033 0.289 5.756 0.290 5.851 0.287 5.495 0.290 5.930 0.289 5.717 0.288 5.617
0.280 4.772 0.282 4.943 0.280 4.629 0.282 4.871 0.282 4.909 0.283 5.034 0.281 4.645 0.280 4.724 0.282 4.918 0.282 4.822
0.276 4.441 0.282 4.965 0.275 4.375 0.276 4.475 0.276 4.355 0.276 4.229 0.273 4.181 0.276 4.371 0.275 4.244 0.275 4.319
0.275 4.293 0.281 4.941 0.267 3.796 0.269 3.912 0.269 3.982 0.269 3.986 0.268 3.908 0.268 3.895 0.270 4.020 0.269 3.898
0.268 3.899 0.280 4.874 0.261 3.684 0.261 3.757 0.262 3.729 0.263 3.700 0.261 3.816 0.263 3.811 0.261 3.781 0.262 3.798
0.262 3.744 0.276 4.412 0.255 3.556 0.255 3.739 0.255 3.544 0.254 3.526 0.254 3.632 0.254 3.655 0.255 3.645 0.255 3.640
0.255 3.683 0.274 4.095 0.248 3.643 0.246 3.678 0.248 3.598 0.249 3.641 0.248 3.550 0.250 3.653 0.248 3.569 0.249 3.692
0.248 3.624 0.263 3.723 0.242 3.416 0.242 3.455 0.242 3.485 0.241 3.293 0.241 3.379 0.242 3.524 0.242 3.452 0.241 3.503
0.241 3.490 0.254 3.574 0.235 3.321 0.233 3.303 0.235 3.321 0.235 3.243 0.234 3.210 0.236 3.283 0.235 3.309 0.235 3.350
0.235 3.349 0.248 3.589 0.228 3.049 0.227 3.183 0.230 3.095 0.228 3.125 0.227 3.182 0.227 3.222 0.228 3.118 0.227 3.153
0.228 3.086 0.241 3.434 0.222 3.134 0.221 3.225 0.222 3.196 0.222 3.090 0.220 3.190 0.222 3.158 0.220 3.125 0.222 3.149
0.221 3.221 0.235 3.244 0.215 3.142 0.214 3.184 0.215 3.031 0.214 3.081 0.214 3.076 0.215 3.080 0.215 3.081 0.215 2.975
0.214 3.111 0.227 3.113 0.208 2.853 0.207 3.008 0.208 2.992 0.208 2.863 0.208 2.928 0.208 2.964 0.207 2.874 0.209 3.008
0.208 3.054 0.222 3.076 0.202 2.687 0.201 2.826 0.201 2.728 0.201 2.806 0.201 2.705 0.201 2.783 0.201 2.668 0.201 2.832
0.201 2.724 0.214 3.050 0.194 2.559 0.195 2.654 0.194 2.678 0.195 2.769 0.195 2.663 0.195 2.517 0.194 2.561 0.194 2.458
0.195 2.757 0.208 2.946 0.189 2.539 0.187 2.427 0.187 2.663 0.187 2.501 0.188 2.468 0.188 2.497 0.188 2.617 0.188 2.430
13
Table 4 (continuation) Resistance measurements
Run No.1 Run No.2 Run No.3 Run No.4 Run No.5 Run No.6 Run No.7 Run No.8 Run No.9 Run No.10
Fn C
R
1
0
3
Fn C
R
1
0
3
Fn C
R
1
0
3
Fn C
R
1
0
3
Fn C
R
1
0
3
Fn C
R
1
0
3
Fn C
R
1
0
3
Fn C
R
1
0
3
Fn C
R
1
0
3
Fn C
R
1
0
3
0.188 2.603 0.201 2.748 0.181 2.458 0.180 2.394 0.181 2.483 0.182 2.445 0.181 2.557 0.182 2.505 0.181 2.471 0.182 2.480
0.182 2.466 0.195 2.617 0.176 2.345 0.175 2.499 0.173 2.481 0.173 2.437 0.174 2.381 0.173 2.474 0.175 2.339 0.175 2.289
0.174 2.274 0.187 2.474 0.167 2.353 0.168 2.249 0.168 2.433 0.168 2.348 0.168 2.337 0.168 2.471 0.167 2.352 0.168 2.419
0.169 2.232 0.182 2.513 0.162 2.194 0.160 2.247 0.160 2.303 0.160 2.092 0.160 2.166 0.160 2.184 0.161 2.055 0.160 2.263
0.160 2.109 0.174 2.529 0.154 2.067 0.154 2.186 0.154 1.953 0.154 2.153 0.154 2.171 0.155 2.091 0.153 2.058 0.155 2.216
0.155 2.246 0.168 2.393 0.147 2.113 0.147 2.182 0.147 2.098 0.148 2.062 0.147 2.242 0.148 2.429 0.147 1.946 0.148 2.073
0.147 2.035 0.162 2.140 0.141 2.144 0.141 2.088 0.141 2.113 0.141 1.991 0.140 2.237 0.141 1.963 0.141 1.943 0.141 1.862
0.141 1.859 0.155 2.477 0.134 2.071 0.134 1.902 0.133 1.796 0.135 1.781 0.134 1.683 0.133 1.594 0.135 1.958 0.134 1.797
0.134 1.927 0.148 2.294 0.127 1.802 0.127 1.979 0.127 1.872 0.127 1.863 0.127 1.681 0.127 1.969 0.127 1.834 0.128 2.090
0.128 2.109 0.141 1.973 0.121 1.666 0.120 1.906 0.120 1.909 0.121 1.831 0.121 1.714 0.120 1.703 0.122 1.742 0.120 1.596
0.120 1.686 0.136 2.104 0.115 1.687 0.113 1.830 0.113 1.795 0.114 1.700 0.114 1.965 0.114 1.916 0.113 1.913 0.114 1.665
0.114 2.066 0.128 1.952 0.107 1.698 0.107 1.536 0.106 1.718 0.107 1.690 0.108 1.594 0.106 1.201 0.108 1.732 0.108 2.045
0.108 1.662 0.122 1.823 0.100 1.370 0.100 1.828 0.101 1.911 0.101 2.124 0.100 1.555 0.100 1.666 0.099 1.756 0.100 1.773
0.101 1.302 0.113 1.924 0.093 1.784 0.094 2.147 0.094 1.101 0.094 1.902 0.094 2.028 0.093 1.826 0.093 1.707 0.095 1.363
0.093 1.889 0.108 2.162 0.087 1.796 0.087 1.939 0.087 1.901 0.087 1.510 0.088 2.152 0.087 1.673 0.085 1.095 0.087 1.280
0.087 1.655 0.101 1.244
0.094 1.615
14
REEERENCES
Hoekstra, M. and Ea, L., 1999, 'An example
oI error quantiIication oI ship-related CED
results, in proceedings oI the 7
th
International
ConIerence on Numerical Ship Hydrodynamics,
Nantes, Erance.
Written Discussion To The Resistance
Committee of 22

ITTC: The Cooperative

Benchmark Model Test And Numerical
Calculation
by Dr. Suak-Ho Van, KRISO
The role oI CED Ior the hull Iorm design
and evaluation becomes more and more
important and model tests can be reduced by
using CED tools. Validation is necessary to
conIirm the accuracy oI CED code based on the
reliable experimental data. However, as listed
in Table 4 oI the Resistance Committee Report,
local Ilow measurements are quite limited and
not enough, especially Ior the modern practical
hull Iorms.
The Resistance Committee oI KTTC
(Korea Towing Tank ConIerence) organized
the cooperative experimental study to obtain
the complete set oI local Ilow data in April,
1997. KRISO 300K VLCC (KVLCC) was
chosen Ior the objective hull Iorm because the
viscous eIIect is most signiIicant Ior this type
oI hull Iorm.
Seven member organizations oI KTTC are
joined in this project. The test scope and the
model size Ior each organization are
summarized in Table 1. UnIortunately, the tests
are not completed yet, it is believed that all
participants can Iinish their test scope by the
end oI this year. Comparisons will be made Ior
the results oI each organization and the
summarized report will be published early in
next year.
KRISO (Korea Research Institute oI Ships
& Ocean Eng.) already Iinished its test scope
and computation last year (Van et al., 1998a,b,
Kim et al., 1999) as introduced in the
Resistance Committee Report oI 22nd ITTC.
HMRI (Hyundai Maritime Research Institute)
Iinished local Ilow measurement Ior small and
large models in circulating water channel and
towing tank, respectively (Choi et al., 1998 and
1999). SNU (Seoul National University)
complete the resistance test Ior 1/100 and
1/160 scaled model and the surIace pressure
measurement around stern part with and
without propeller (Yang et al., 1998 and 1999).
This cooperative experimental program will
provide not only enormous local Ilow data set
but also a good chance Ior the member
organizations oI KTTC to compare their
experimental and computational method and
analysis procedures.
REEERENCES
Choi, J. E., Seo, H. W., Han, B. W., 1998,
'Elow characteristics around a 300K VLCC:
Experiments, Proc. oI the Annual Autumn
Meeting, SNAK, (In Korean).
Choi, J. E., Seo, H. W., Han, B. W., 1999,
'Experimental study on the Ilow around a Iull
slow-speed ship, Proc. oI JAKOM`99, 4
th
Japan-Korea Joint Workshop on Ship &
Marine Hydrodynamics, Eukuoka.
Kim, W. J., Kim, D. H., Van, S. H., 1999,
'Calculation oI turbulent Ilows around VLCC
hull Iorms with stern Irameline modiIication,
Proc. oI the 7
th
International ConIerence on
Numerical Ship Hydrodynamics, Nantes.
Van, S. H., Kim, W. J., Yim, G. T., Kim, D. H.,
Lee, C. J, 1998a, 'Experimental investigation
oI the Ilow characteristics around practical hull
Iorms, Proc. oI 3
rd
Osaka Colloquium on
advanced CED Applications to Ship Elow and
Hull Eorm Design, Osaka.
Van, S. H, Kim, W. J., Kim, D. H., Lee, C. J.,
1998b, 'Experimental study on the Ilow
Characteristics around VLCC with diIIerent
stern shape, Proc. oI the 3
rd
International
ConIerence on Hydrodynamics (ICHD), Seoul.
Yang, J. M., Yang, T. H., Kim, H., 1998, 'On
the evaluation oI measured resistance data Ior a
low speed Iull ship, Proc. oI the Annual
Autumn Meeting, SNAK, (In Korean).
Yang, J. M., Yang, T. H., Oh, J. K., Kim, H.,
1999, 'Propeller induced surIace pressure on
the stern part oI a Iull ship, Proc. oI
JAKOM`99, 4
th
Japan-Korea Joint Workshop
on Ship & Marine Hydrodynamics, Eukuoka.
15
Table 1 List oI Participants and Test Items
Organization
KRISO HMRI SNU IU PNU UU SSMB
Scale Ratio(1/) 58 47.56, 160 100, 160 160 160 160 58
Resistance C C C P P P P
Propulsion C C P P
Streamline C C C P
Wave elevation on
hull surIace
C C P
Wave measurement
along Longitudinal
& transverse cuts
C C P
Local Mean Velocity C C P
SurIace Pressure C C
Test
Items
Numerical
Calculation
C C P P P P
KRISO: Korea Research Institute oI Ships and Ocean Engineering
HMRI: Hyundai Maritime Research Institute
SNU: Seoul National University
IU: Inha University
PNU: Pusan National University
UU: Ulsan University
SSMB: Samsung Ship-Model Basin
Remark
C: Complete, P: Planned, Blank: Not planned
16
II RESPONSES
Reply of ITTC Resistance Committee to
Prof. Vantorre
The Resistance Committee (RC) would like
to thank ProI. Vantorre Ior his interesting
discussion. The RC agrees that the inIluence oI
the model and carriage speed Iluctuations shall
be taken into account when perIorming the
uncertainty analysis. The error can be
considered a kind oI truncation error and the
important parameters are the diIIerence
between the averaged measured data and the
constant terms.
II the measuring system is Iully automated,
and the time interval oI the measuring period is
Iixed, this error should be considered as a bias
error. On the other hand, iI the time interval oI
the measuring period is random, the error will
be included in the precision error iI many
repetitions are perIormed.
The problem is how to estimate the values? As
assumed in the discussion, both X(t) and U(t)
have a constant and a harmonic term. Thus the
Iorce and velocity has the Iollowing Iorm.
) t sin( U a ) m X (
) t cos( U U X 2 U X ) t ( X
A U
A N uu
2
N uu
+
+ +
!
) t cos( U U ) t ( U
A N
+ + (1)
The maximum errors will be

1
]
1

1
.
U
U
U
U U
N
A
max
M
N M
(2)
max
A
H
U
N
A
max
M
N M
2
. U
R
) m X (
1
.
U
U
2
R
R R
1
]
1

1
]
1

!
(3)
where
0
T
T

and T is the measuring time and T
0
the period
oI harmonics. The second term oI equation (3)
is the ratio between the Iluctuating amplitude
oI the measured Iorce (mainly the inertia Iorce)
and the measured viscous Iorce, which is
usually reduced to less than 1/10 oI its original
value by use oI electrical Iilter. Equation (3) is
evaluated as Iollows
1
]
1

1
]
1

M
A U
N
A
max
M
N M
R
U ) m X (
U
U 2 1
R
R R
!
(4)
Equation (2) and (4) show that the error
decreases when the measuring time increases.
The equations also show that it is necessary to
measure the Iluctuating amplitude both oI U(t)
and X(t). Depending on the measuring system,
equation (2) and (4) can be used to estimate the
error contribution.
A conclusion is that the measuring time
needs to be suIIiciently long Ior the chosen
model conIiguration in order to minimise the
uncertainty. The natural Irequency Ior the
towing carriage control system and Ior the
loaded ship model plus added mass (added
water) including the spring constant Ior the
transducer need to be compared with the
chosen measuring time in order to achieve
suIIicient number oI oscillations.
Reply of the ITTC Resistance Committee to
Dr. Kim
Dr. Kim points out that CED codes must be
practical in order to be used in practice, and we
agree very much with him. On the other hand,
iI some minimal accuracy requirements are not
met, the method is not practical at all.
Dr. Kim mentions 2 concrete points. The
17
Iirst is the hull geometry deIinition. He states
that aIter a rough lines Iairing a designer wants
to produce an oIIset table and then run a
viscous Ilow code based on that. However, we
Ieel that the Iairing must be more than just
rough: Viscous Ilow in principle is sensitive to
certain small perturbations, and unIairness or
inaccuracy in the geometry might give an
erroneous result.
OI course, once Iaired, the geometry can be
transIerred as an oIIset table, iI that is
convenient. Provided this is a dense
distribution oI points, the interpolations
necessary Ior the subsequent grid generation
should be accurate enough. However, hull Iorm
design today oIten is done using CAD
packages, in which a designer directly works
with the NURBS description. Then the use oI
an oIIset table can be avoided.
The second point is on turbulence modeling.
Choice oI a turbulence model is a trade-oII
between accuracy and generality on the one
hand, and simplicity and robustness on the
other. Dr. Kim suggests that 2-equation models
may be the best compromise, in agreement
with what we say in our report. He mentions
the realizable k-epsilon, we mentioned k- as a
good candidate. However, there is quite some
development in 1-equation and 2-equation
models again, and the picture may change over
time.
We thank Dr. Kim Ior his comments.
Reply of the ITTC Resistance Committee to
Dr. Harries
Dr Harries` discussion addresses the
Iollowing main points:
1. It is important to have techniques oI
automated hull Iorm optimisation.
2. The accuracy oI the numerical Ilow solver
is crucial Ior the optimisation.
3. The accuracy and type oI the geometrical
description oI the ship hull is a major issue
in hull Iorm optimisation.
4. EIIorts oI the research community on
automated optimisation techniques should
be emphasised.
The Resistance Committee thanks very
much Dr. Harries Ior his contribution and
reacts as Iollows:
To point (1). The hull Iorm optimisation
starts to be recognised by ship designers as a
valuable tool. Design optimisation oI a ship is
essentially a multi-criteria problem, that is, it
contains several meaningIul criteria, some oI
them conIlicting. Actually, several perIormance
criteria can be introduced in the optimisation oI
the ship hull, some oI those directly related to
hydrodynamic quantities, although ship
designers may be more interested in quantities
related to the engine power or to the
maintenance costs. Eor instance, although total
resistance is an important index, the single
criterion Iormulation oI this problem ignores
such questions oI paramount signiIicance: what
is the cost oI the minimum total resistance?
Substituting a multitude oI criteria by a single
one may be the simplest approach but in
general this may not give satisIactory results,
since we substitute the original problem with a
diIIerent one, and the relation between the two
is unclear.
As an alternative to Iully automatic
optimisation, a more easily realisable aim
could be to automatically provide inIormation
to a designer on trends and sensitivities.
Making a tradeoII between diIIerent criteria,
taking into account the strong and weak points
oI the Ilow solver used, and exploiting
available experience with similar designs then
remains a task oI the designer instead oI
Iorming part oI the optimisation technique.
To point (2). In the context oI naval
hydrodynamics, the attempt to automatically
modiIy the shape oI a ship hull, trying to
minimise some user deIined objective Iunction,
has been recently perIormed with the aid oI
CED inIormation. Some oI these attempts are
encouraging and numerical computations show
improvements oI the optimised shape.
DiIIerent Ilow solvers have been used in this
computation, ranging Irom simple panel
methods to RANSE solvers. The accuracy oI
the numerical schemes used in these solvers is
not always established by a Iull numerical
uncertainty analysis and an investigation on the
capability oI the solvers to correctly reproduce
the order oI merit oI diIIerent conIigurations oI
the same model geometry. There is still a lack
oI experimental veriIication oI the success oI
the optimisation procedure. However, the
Ieatures oI the Variable Complexity Model
18
(VCM), already diIIused in other optimisation
communities, in speeding up the optimisation
procedure, should also be tested. The key
Ieature oI the method is the correct and
combined use oI simpler (Iaster but less
accurate) and oI complicated (slower but more
accurate) prediction tools.
To point (3). It is true that the geometrical
description oI the hull is a crucial point in the
optimisation procedure. Dr. Harries mentions
some drawbacks oI basing the optimisation
process on a hull Iorm description by points or
B-splines, such as the Iact that modiIying
global parameters then is less natural and
indirect. On the other hand, as is also
mentioned by Dr. Harries, a parametric
description may be hard to generate Ior
complex shape details. Both representations
thereIore have their strong and weak points. A
useIul compromise might turn out to be, to
have both descriptions available, and to have
tools Ior easily switching between them, such
that either can be used in the various stages oI
the design.
As an alternative to using the basic hull
Iorm description in the optimisation, a number
oI methods use the concept oI a perturbation
surIace to automatically modiIy the shape oI
the hull, dramatically reducing the number oI
design variables. This technique has been
proven to be useIul (e.g., Tahara and Himeno,
1998, Hino et al., 1998, Hino, 1999, Rossetti et
al., 1999) and to allow Ior strong variation oI
the geometry.
To point (4). As already stated by the
Committee's recommendations, we agree that
there is a need Ior studies and research on
CED-based shape optimisation, in order to
Iurther develop this promising design tool.
REEERENCES
Hino T., Kodama Y., Hirata N., 1998,
Hydrodynamic Shape Optimization oI Ship
Hull Eorms using CED, Third Osaka
Colloquium, Osaka.
Hino T., 1999, Shape Optimization oI Practical
Ship Hull Eorms using Navier-Stokes analysis,
7-th Int. ConI. on Numerical Ship
Hydrodynamics, Nantes
Janson C., Larsson L., 1996, A method Ior the
optimization oI ship hulls Irom a resistance
point oI view, 21st Symp. on Naval
Hydrodynamics, Trondheim.
MacMillin P.E., Huang X., Dudley J.,
Grossman B., HaItka R.T., Mason W.H., 1997,
Multidisciplinarv Optimi:ation of the High-
Speed Civil Transport, in Multidisciplinarv
Design Optimi:ation. State of the art, edited by
Alexandrov N.M. & Hussaini M.Y., SIAM,
Philadelphia, , proceedings oI the ICASE /
NASA Langlev Workshop on Multidisciplinarv
Design Optimi:ation.
M. Rossetti, D. Peri, E.E. Campana, 1999,
Numerical ship hull optimization, 2-nd
Numerical Towing Tank Symposium, Rome
Tahara Y., Himeno Y., 1998, An application oI
computational Iluid dynamics to tanker hull
Iorm optimization problem, Third Osaka
Colloquium, Osaka.
Reply of the ITTC Resistance Committee to
Dr. Poustoshny
We thank Dr. Poustoshny and his
colleagues oI KSRI Ior their consideration and
discussion oI the committee's work. Dr.
Poustoshny has raised 3 interesting points Ior
discussion.
1. The Iirst point raised is that repeated
tests are not suitable Ior statistical analysis due
to speed variations, as it is impossible to
exactly reproduce the speed Ior repeated
measurements. This is especially in areas
where the resistance changes rapidly.
The RC agrees that it is impossible to
reproduce the speed, however corrections Ior
small speed deviations can be made with good
accuracy (i.e. suIIiciently Ior statistical
analysis.) This can be done either using simple
corrections, Ior example U
2
as in the QM 4.9-
03-02-02, "Uncertainty Analysis in EED,
Example Ior Resistance Test," table 2.5 or
more sophisticated correction methods better
applicable to Eroude number in the hump
regions.
2. The second point is that it is Iinancially
unrealistic to make 10 repeated runs to obtain
19
the precision limit Ior every point on the
resistance curve.
The RC thinks that it is not necessary to
perIorm repeat tests Ior all models at all speeds.
Rather we believe that the towing tanks need to
make repeated tests Ior representative hull
Iorms (e.g. tanker, container, combatant and
catamaran) at selected speeds (e.g. low,
medium and high Er.). Then the single test
method can be used Ior new hull Iorms, similar
to those in the database, using previously
determined precision limits. OII course one
always pays the penalty that that the precision
limit can only be determined Ior the single test,
Pr KS
r
and not Ior the average result oI the
multiple tests. II the new hull Iorm is not
suIIiciently similar to the database material the
precision limit will not be accurate and
thereIore the better estimate will be obtained
by new repeat tests.
3. Einally Dr. Poustoshny points out that in
routine testing repeat tests are only done using
standard models Ior calibration purposes. In
everyday model testing, towing tanks do not
compare individual points but rather resistance
curves. KSRI has developed an uncertainty
assessment method based on single
measurements and the resistance curve itselI.
Dr. Poustoshny states that the method proposed
by the committee does not provide provision
Ior such statistical analysis. Eurther more he
provides an example Ior the KSRI method and
compare his method with the methodology
proposed by this committee.
The committee very much agrees with the
use oI a standard model. Especially Ior
comparative testing at various Iacilities Ior
obtaining the Iacility bias error. We also agree
with the description oI routine testing
procedures Ior towing tank tests where a curve
is Iitted to single taken measurements.
Contrary to Dr. Poustoshny we do not agree
that the statistical analysis oI the curve Iit to
the single measured resistance values provide
an estimate oI the resistance precision limit but
rather is an estimate oI the bias limit associated
with the curve Iit to the measured values. Eor
estimation oI the curve Iit bias error see the
Standard Error Estimate (SEE), equation (2-10),
discussed in the QM procedure 4.9-03-02-02,
"Uncertainty Analysis in EED, Example Ior
Resistance Test." It is true that this curve Iitting
bias limit in some cases include parts oI the
precision limit but how much is very diIIicult
to quantiIy. Eurther more it is true that in the
limit oI very small speed intervals (U0) the
standard deviation oI the curve Iit may provide
an estimate oI the precision limit. Eor large
speed intervals the standard deviation oI the
curve Iit is not a good estimate oI the precision
limit. E.g. iI N points is Iitted with an N-1
degree polynomial the error Irom this curve Iit
will be zero. A too high degree gives a low
curve Iitting error and a too low degree gives a
high curve Iitting error although the precision
limit Ior the measured parameter remains
constant.
The hydrodynamic unsteadiness as well as
the model misalignment are important
contributions to the precision limit Ior a
resistance test which can only be determined
by repeated tests with multiple set ups. Not
perIorming repeated tests disregard large parts
oI these errors.
Eurther more the method proposed by the
Dr. Poustoshny does not include any bias errors
although they clearly exist. An example oI a
bias error is the accuracy oI the calibration
weights used Ior the calibration oI the
resistance transducer. The uncertainty in the
calibration weights leads to an uncertainty in
the calibration curve and this uncertainty is a
part oI the bias limit, see QM procedure 4.9-
03-02-02. The total uncertainty Ior a resistance
curve will, in addition to the errors described in
QM procedure 4.9-03-02-02, have to include
the standard error estimate oI the curve Iit to
the single taken measurements (as described
above).
Conclusively we Ieel that the Iact that the
example provided show good agreement
between the two methods is Iortuitous and not
an indication at the equivalency oI the two
methods.
Reply of the ITTC Resistance Committee to
Dr. Hoekstra
The Resistance Committee thanks very
much Dr. Hoekstra Ior his careIul consideration
oI the committee`s work on uncertainty
analysis Ior CED. Dr. Hoekstra raises Iour
important issues, which we respond to in order.
1. Yes, we agree that a suitably deIined
20
norm oI the solution can also be veriIied and
validated.
2. We agree that the analysis can be
generalized to include non-uniIorm grid
reIinement ratio and that the QM should be
extended to include error and uncertainty
estimates when reIinement ratio is not constant.
We also agree that in practice it is diIIicult to
generate three grids with a prescribed, non-
integer reIinement ratio (e.g., 2 r ).
However, it is possible to generate three grids
with reIinement ratio close to the prescribed
value. Eor example, inspection oI the pointwise
reIinement ratio Irom grids 1-3 used in the
Series 60 example problem reveals that the
reIinement ratio between Iine/medium and
medium/coarse grids is r
21
1.39 and r
32
1.44,
respectively (i.e., a 2 variation Irom the
desired value oI 2 r ). While expressions
can be derived to include non-uniIorm grid
reIinement ratio, use oI widely varying
reIinement ratios can be problematic |e.g.,
where reIinement ratio between Iine and
medium grids is small (r1) but reIinement
ratio is large between medium and coarse grids
(r2) or vice versa|. The basic assumption
made in Richardson extrapolation (i.e., that the
order oI accuracy p and grid Iunction g are
constant on all three grids) is likely to be a poor
one in this case. In other words, three grids
with widely varying resolution are likely to
resolve diIIerent Ieatures and thus solution
derivatives which deIines the grid Iunction will
not be constant on all three grids, leading to
poor estimates oI the order oI accuracy. This
problem is also likely when the reIinement
ratio is both uniIorm and large (r2). We Ieel
that the best approach is to use a moderate but
uniIorm grid reIinement ratio where grids are
systematically reIined.
Equations given Ior errors and uncertainties
can be modiIied to include non-uniIorm
reIinement ratio. SpeciIically, estimation oI
order oI accuracy with non-uniIorm reIinement
ratio is given by the implicit relationship |also
shown in Hoekstra and Ea (1999)|
( )
21
32 21
ln r
p
]
, ,
(1)
where r
21
and r
32
are the reIinement ratios
between grids 2 and 1 and grids 3 and 2,
respectively. Iteration is required to solve Ior
order oI accuracy p using equation (1). II
reIinement ratio is uniIorm Ior grids 1-3 (i.e., r
r
21
r
32
), equation (1) reduces to an explicit
equation Ior order oI accuracy
( ) r
p
ln
21 ,

(2)
Once the order oI accuracy is computed, the
expressions Ior estimation oI errors and
uncertainties are the same Ior uniIorm or non-
uniIorm reIinement ratio, provided that the
reIinement ratio between grids 1 and 2 is used.
Eor example, the three-grid error estimate Irom
RE is given by
1
21
21 *

p RE
r

(3)
VeriIication oI the total resistance Irom
section 6.2 (shown here in table 1) is repeated
where the assumption oI uniIorm reIinement
ratio is replaced with the actual reIinement
ratio and order oI accuracy is computed Irom
equation (1). Results are summarized in table 2
and compared to results with the assumption oI
uniIorm reIinement ratio in table 3. Including
eIIects oI non-uniIorm reIinement ratio results
in 7-8 reduction in order oI accuracy and a
much smaller diIIerence in estimates Ior error
and uncertainty. Eor this case, including eIIects
oI non-uniIorm grid reIinement results in
relatively small diIIerence in error and
uncertainty estimates. As such, the assumption
oI uniIorm grid reIinement is warranted in this
case since the grids are close to being
geometrically similar.
3. Eor practical ship geometries, selecting
three grids where all three solutions are in the
asymptotic range is very diIIicult, as testiIied
by the results in Hoekstra and Eca (1999).
ThereIore, Richardson extrapolation based on
just leading-order terms would be unsuitable,
and including higher-order contributions seems
a way to extend its applicability. However, any
account oI higher-order terms, whether by
using results on more grids or by any
correction Iactor, inherently supposes that the
Iactors disturbing the RE are well-behaved, or,
as stated by Dr. Hoekstra, one is 'just beyond
the asymptotic range'. Results in Hoekstra and
Eca (1999) indicate that even quite small
variations in grid similarity or other parameters
may disturb this, and give an irregular variation
oI the results with varying grid density. While
these variations may be insigniIicant Ior the
result itselI, they may cause variations oI the
observed order and spoil the (normal or
corrected) RE.
21
We admit that this may be a problem, and
that a precise control oI many Iactors
inIluencing the result might be required to get
the smooth behaviour that is inherently
assumed. The use oI an assumed 'theoretical'
order oI accuracy was intended to reduce the
sensitivity oI the extrapolated value to such
Iactors, but hinges upon the correctness oI the
assumed order. The problem mentioned by the
discussor will be considered in more detail.
4. In Hoekstra and Ea (1999), order oI
accuracy was estimated Ior both global and
point quantities and several ship geometries
using as many as 24 computational grids. Order
oI accuracy was estimated by selecting many
diIIerent grid triplets with widely varying
uniIorm and non-uniIorm reIinement ratio (r
1.222 to 2.0). Erom this detailed study, the
authors reached a number oI conclusions.
Among the conclusions:
(i) Even Ior rather simple Ilows the grid
convergence order, derived Irom
solutions on three grids, may not be
reliable. It can vary a lot Ior a single
variable, or can be widely diIIerent Ior
diIIerent variables, dependent on the
particular grid triplet chosen.
(ii) Convergence studies applied to the 3D
turbulent Ilow around a ship seem to
require more than three grids Ior a
proper error or uncertainty estimate.
In this paper however, the authors Iocused
rather strongly on order oI accuracy, which can
be erratic depending on the quantity selected,
reIinement ratio, and particular grid triplet
selected. Based on the same data, a veriIication
oI the results similar to that recommended in
Section 6.1 oI the Resistance Committee report,
including estimation oI correction Iactors,
errors, and uncertainties, would give a more
complete view oI the applicability oI the
procedure. The results produced by Hoekstra
and Ea provide a good opportunity to veriIy
veriIication procedures, and we are pleased to
note that their work has been pursued in the
meantime (Ea and Hoekstra, 1999).
REEERENCE
Ea, L., and Hoekstra, M., "On the numerical
veriIication oI ship stern Ilow calculations", 1st
MARNET-CED Workshop, Barcelona, Spain,
Nov. 1999.
Reply of the ITTC Resistance Committee to
Dr. Van
The Resistance Committee thanks Dr. Van
very much Ior summarizing the complete scope
oI the Korean Towing Tank ConIerence
(KTTC) cooperative experimental study Ior
which some oI the results will be used at the
upcoming Gothenburg 2000 Workshop on CED
in Ship Hydrodynamics. On behalI oI the
entire ship hydrodynamics community, we
thank the KTTC Ior their insight and eIIort in
providing data oI such breadth and quality,
which surely will advance physical
understanding and CED in ship hydrodynamics.
22
Table 1. Grid convergence study Ior total C
T
, pressure C
P
, and Irictional C
F
resistance (x10
-3
)
Ior Series 60.
Grid Grid 4
101x26x16
Grid 3
144x36x22
Grid 2
201x51x31
Grid 1
287x71x43
Data
C
T

6.02 5.39
-10
5.11
-5.2
5.05
-1.2
5.42
C
P

1.88 1.61
-14
1.60
-0.6
1.60
0.0
C
R
2.00
C
F

4.14 3.69
-11
3.51
-4.9
3.45
-1.7
3.42
ITTC
Table 2. VeriIication oI total resistance C
T
(x10
-3
) Ior Series 60. Order oI accuracy Irom expression
with non-uniIorm reIinement ratio, equation (1).
Study R
G
p
G
C
G G
U
*
G

G
U S
C
1
(grids 1-3)
0.21 4.1 3.1 2.0 1.2 0.8 4.99
2
(grids 2-4)
0.44 2.1 1.1 5.8 5.5 0.4 4.83
Table 3. VeriIication oI total resistance C
T
(x10
-3
) Ior Series 60. Order oI accuracy Irom expression
with uniIorm reIinement ratio, equation (2).
Study R
G
p
G
C
G G
U
*
G

G
U S
C
1
(grids 1-3)
0.21 4.4 3.7 2.1 1.2 0.9 4.99
2
(grids 2-4)
0.44 2.3 1.3 6.7 5.5 1.1 4.83