0 Votes +0 Votes -

38 vues12 pagesTest

Jun 13, 2014

© © All Rights Reserved

PDF, TXT ou lisez en ligne sur Scribd

Test

© All Rights Reserved

38 vues

Test

© All Rights Reserved

- STATISTICS NOTES
- Northern - Southeast Case Study
- Stat Regression Report
- Univariate Regression
- Chap 006
- Cases
- Econometric Methods Module Handbook(3)
- Econ2209 Tut2 Sol
- Regression analysis
- vol1no2-3_AhmedK
- BASS Sec4 1 VIMsimApp Print
- _REGRESSION_ANALYSIS_FINAL-EXAM.docx
- bookertwashington lesson erin jenna laura
- IJMET_10_01_063
- Regression
- 2011 FRM - AIM Statements
- Dohmen et al. 2006
- 716-1 Simple Regression Theory I
- Bias Correction
- Brennan 2007

Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 12

Resistance of High-Speed Round-Bilge Hull Forms

Prasanta K. Sahoo

1

, Lawrence J. Doctors

2

, (M), Martin R. Renilson

3

, (AM)

ABSTRACT

Computational fluid dynamics (CFD) techniques are becoming increasingly popular in analysing

flow problems in almost all branches of engineering, especially in resistance prediction of ships

where complex fluid flow exists. While towing-tank tests provide better absolute accuracy, the

knowledge of the importance of modification to hull forms is limited. In this respect, CFD

techniques and theoretical formulations have an added advantage of permitting rapid

modifications to hull forms to be undertaken so that a comparative study of results can be made

within a few hours.

In this paper the results of a comparative study on resistance of high-speed round-bilge hull forms

using CFD techniques, theoretical analysis and experimental results are presented. This paper

provides a study of the following:

Analysis of calm-water resistance tests of a systematic series of 14 high-speed round-bilge

displacement hull forms and the subsequent development of the regression equation.

The result of modelling the same 14 models in HYDROS, a program which uses robust panel

methods to calculate resistance.

Corresponding results of the 14 models using SHIPFLOW (CFD), a sophisticated ship-

resistance program developed by FLOWTECH International of Sweden, which employs a

combined potential-flow boundary-layer viscous-flow zonal approach.

This study includes an examination of different versions of the computer programs in order to

determine the importance to transom-stern hulls of the various assumptions, such as freedom to

rise and trim, and the nature of the free-surface boundary conditions.

1

Lecturer, Department of Naval Architecture & Ocean Engineering, Australian Maritime College. On part secondment to

Australian Maritime Engineering Co-operative Research Centre, PO Box 986, Launceston, TAS 7250, Australia

2

Head, Department of Naval Architecture, The University of New South Wales, Sydney, NSW 2052, Australia.

3

Head, Department of Naval Architecture & Ocean Engineering, Australian Maritime College, PO Box 986, Launceston,

TAS 7250, Australia.

2

1. INTRODUCTION

1.1 Background

Over a ten-year period, starting in 1979, a major

research project on combatant-vessel design was

conducted at the Maritime Research Institute Netherlands

(MARIN). This program was initiated as an outcome of

the growing belief that a significant improvement in the

performance of transom stern, round-bilge monohulls

could be obtained, especially with regard to their calm

water resistance and seakeeping characteristics. The

project was jointly sponsored by the Royal Netherlands

Navy, the United States Navy, the Royal Australian Navy

and MARIN.

Extensive testing in calm water and waves was

carried out on a systematic series of high-speed

displacement hull forms (HSDHF), as described by Blok

and Beukelman (1984), Van Oosanen and Pieffers (1985),

MARIN Report 30 (1987) and Robson (1988). The test

data for 40 models were analysed and included in a

powerful computer system. However, except for the

parent hull, the results of the tests and the analysis were

not published.

1.2 AMECRC Systematic Series

The AMECRC systematic series is based on the

HSDHF systematic series. The work on this project

started in 1992, as described by Rikard-Bell (1992). The

parent model is very similar to that of the HSDHF series

and has the following parameters: L/B = 8.0, B/T = 4.0

and C

B

= 0.396. The series transformation procedure is

based on the variation of L/B, B/T and C

B

and range of

parameters for all models are as follows:

Model L/B B/T C

B

Model

Disp.(kg)

L/

1/3

1 8 4 0.396 6.321 8.653

2 6.512 3.51 0.395 11.455 7.098

3 8 2.5 0.447 11.454 7.098

4 8 4 0.447 7.158 8.302

5 4 4 0.395 25.344 5.447

6 8 2.5 0.395 10.123 7.396

7 4 2.5 0.396 40.523 4.658

8 4 2.5 0.5 51.197 4.308

9 8 2.5 0.5 12.804 6.839

10 8 4 0.5 8.002 7.998

11 4 4 0.5 32.006 5.039

12 8 3.25 0.497 9.846 7.464

13 6 3.25 0.45 15.784 6.379

14 6 4 0.5 14.204 6.606

Table 1: Systematic Series Parameter Range

This 'parameter space' or series 'cube' is shown in

Figure 1. The parameters of each of the 14 models can be

identified from this figure. All models have the same

length of 1.6 m and the influence of change of the series

parameters on the hull shape is illustrated in Figure 2,

where all the body plans are presented in the same scale.

1.3 Calm-Water Resistance Tests

Two independent performance prediction models,

C

R

-Fn and R

R

/W-Fn

commented on in this paper. They were developed using

the 'classic' multiple regression analysis approach and a

novel, non-linear estimation approach, which allows use

of a loss function different from the least-squares one. On

a similar basis, an improved wetted-surface area

estimation model was developed. The results of the

analysis are implemented as performance prediction

software, which incorporates a prediction correction

based on the performance of the 'closest' series model.

Figure 1: AMECRC Systematic Series [ Bojovic and

Sahoo (1998), p 546]

Figure 2: AMECRC Systematic Series Body Plans

[ Bojovic and Sahoo (1998), p 546]

3

1.4 Multiple Regression Analysis

The general purpose of multiple regression is to

analyse the relationship between several independent

variables and a dependent variable. In general, multiple

regression allows the researcher to ask (and hopefully

answer) the general question 'what is the best predictor of

... ?'. In the simplest case, one dependent and one

independent variable, fitting of a regression line to a

number of points could be visualised in a scatter plot. In

the multivariate case, when there is more than one

independent variant, the regression line cannot be

visualised in the two dimensional space, but can be

computed in the following form:

p p 2 2 1 1

X b + ... X b X b a Y + + + =

(1)

It is evident from Equation 1 that a linear relationship

between variables is assumed. There are virtually no

limits on the form that the independent variable may take

provided that no variable is directly (linearly) related to

another variable, or the sum of the other variables.

Actually, a common polynomial 'non-linear' regression

model could also be implemented as a linear model (i.e.

X

2

= X

1

2

, X

3

= X

1

3

and so on...). These types of models,

which include some transformation of the independent

variable in a linear equation are known as non-linear in

the variable (StatSoft, 1994).

1.5. Speed-Dependent Versus Speed-Independent

Regression Model

Ship-resistance regression models may be broadly

categorised into two groups: speed-independent and

speed-dependent models. In speed-independent regression

models, ship speed is not included as an independent

variable, and separate regression equations must be

generated at a series of discrete speeds covering the range

of interest.

Fung (1995) discussed the fact that the major

shortfall of speed-independent regression models is that

the predicted resistance curves do not always vary

properly with speed, despite the high statistical

correlation, which may be achieved at any individual

speed. This is because the resistance computed at one

speed is not directly linked to that at another speed since

the speed variable is not explicitly included in the

regression.

In speed-dependent regression models ship speed is

explicitly included as an independent variable, providing

direct control over the nature of variation of resistance

with speed. Detailed discussion of these two types of

models can be found in the paper by Fung (1993).

According to MacPherson (1993), the speed-independent

model provides a superior analysis as it allows the

different contributions of the various hull-form

parameters, at different speed, to come into play. A

speed-independent model was used in the analysis of the

AMECRC Systematic Series results.

2. REGRESSION ANALYSIS OF CALM WATER

RESULTS

2.1 Regression Mathematical Models

It was decided to use a speed-independent regression

model, as it is simpler than the speed-dependent one,

while equally reliable. Speed-independent regression

models are usually either of C

R

-Fn or R

R

/W- Fn

type.

Literature study reveals that no advantage is gained by

use of any of these models, although some arguments

could be found that the residuary resistance, assumed to

be independent of viscous effects and therefore wetted

surface area, should not be non-dimensionalized using

surface area, as in C

R

. While a clear correlation exists

between C

R

and R

R

/W, and Fn and Fn

, Equations (2)

and (3),

2

2

1

2/3

R

2

2

1

R

R

Fn S

W

R

=

V S

R

C

(2)

1/3

L

Fn

Fn

(3)

still these two mathematical models are completely

independent. On another note, care was taken to assure

the accuracy of wetted surface area (WSA).

2.2. Selection Of Independent Variables

MacPherson (1993) and Fung (1991), suggested as a

general rule-of-thumb that the number of data points

should exceed the symbolic form:

N

data

> N

par

(N

par

+3)/2 (4)

in which N

par

is the number of parameters incorporated in

the regression equation. This is the case for random data

and the authors' belief is that more than the suggested

number of parameters could be used in the case of

systematic series data. Table 2 presents the parameters

considered to have a constant value for all models.

The initial regression analysis, described by Bojovic

(1995), was conducted using L/B, B/T, C

B

, L/T and L/

1/3

as basic independent variables. Square and reciprocal

4

LCB 5.4% aft from amidships

C

P

0.626

C

WL

0.796

A

T

/A

X

0.296

B

T

/B

X

0.964

Table 2: Hull parameters common for all Systematic

Series models.

values of the basic variables then extended the set of

independent variables. It is obvious that the L/T is derived

from L/B and B/T. It should also be noted that L/

1/3

is a

function of L/B, B/T and C

B

:

3

B

2

1/3

C

T

B

B

L

L

(5)

This led to the development of the regression model

which had the following form, for Fn

2.25 at each speed:

1/3

3

1/3

2 1 R

L/

1

b L/ b b /W R

+ + =

(6)

It is known (Lewis, 1988) that the performance of

this type of vessel is best described by length-volume

ratio. Initially, it was intended to also include in the

regression model the following parameters: half angle of

entrance, i

E

, deadrise amidships,

M,

and deadrise at

transom,

T

. While it was expected that inclusion of these

parameters could only improve the regression equation,

their presence in the equation was found to be impractical

as their values might not be known in the initial design

stages. Being highly correlated to basic series parameters

L/B, B/T and C

B

, these parameters were considered

represented by them and were left out of the independent

variables' set.

Assuming that the previous regression model,

Equation 6, actually suggests that the best predictor, has

the following form:

3

2 1

m

B

m m

C

T

B

B

L

(7)

A couple of different independent variable sets were

tried until the final set consisted of 86 variables of the

form presented in Equation 7 where:

3

6

3

4

3

2

3

0

3

3

3

3

2

3

1

3

0

2

3

6

3

4

3

2

3

0

1

, , , m

, , , m

, , , m

+ + + =

=

=

(8)

It is believed that this selection of variables provided

enough freedom for regression analysis to select either

separate or coupled influences of basic series parameters.

The selection of m

i

values was such as to enable

obtaining of combinations, which correspond to:

3

1/3

2

1/3

1

1/3

L

,

L

,

L

(9)

This set of independent variables was used for the

multiple regression analysis (MRA). The MRA model

was applied both to the C

R

-Fn and R

R

/W input values.

The regression equation obtained still contained the sum

of a few variables at certain Froude numbers. It was

believed that this suggests the existence of an even better

predictor in the form similar to Equation 7. That is why

the non-linear estimation (NLE) was applied in the

following form:

5

4 3

b

B

b b

2 1

R

C

T

B

B

L

b b

W

R

+ =

(10)

The NLE method estimated the b

i

-coefficients by

minimising the loss function which was initially set to be

the same as the one built into the MRA model - the least

squares function, and is given by:

Loss function =(observed function - predicted function)

2

2.3. Prediction Evaluation

The Royal Australian Navy (RAN) was involved in

HSDHF research conducted at MARIN. The outcome of

this research was never published, but was implemented

as software available to participants only. Naval

Engineering Service of Department of Defence kindly

provided performance prediction of Model 13

performance using the software developed at MARIN.

Actually two predictions were provided, using RESDS

and REFDS modules of HOSDES software. RESDS

calculates the resistance of a ship based on the MARIN

HSDHF series and provides the most suitable comparison

for the AMECRC regression methods. REFDS calculates

the resistance of a general fast displacement type of ship.

Its database is much larger and is based on HSDHF series,

NPL series, Series 64, Canadian HSDHF series and

selected ships from the MARIN database.

Results of the comparison are presented in Figures 3

and 4. It can be seen that both prediction methods, MRA

and NLE, estimate the calm-water performance of Model

13 reasonably well. Their estimates are closer to the

interpolated values than HOSDES predictions. The

explanation for the considerable difference between these

predictions is still uncertain. Reasonably good agreement

for Fn>0.40, C

R

estimation methods (with and without the

5

Figure 3: R

R

/W-Fnv for Model 13- Comparison of

Interpolated values and Prediction [ Bojovic (1996), p

18].

Figure 4: C

R

-Fn for Model 13- Comparison of

Interpolated values and Prediction [ Bojovic (1996), p

18]

Model 13 included in the database) exhibit a 1%

relative difference. The following regression equations for

wetted surface area (WSA) were obtained from MRA and

NLE methods respectively (Bojovic, 1996):

C

S

= 3.3283+ 0.7449(L/B)

2/3

C

B

-2/3

+0.352(B/T)

C

B

-2/3

+4.63E-02 (L/B)

2/3

(B/T) C

B

-1

-0.0379

(L/B)

4/3

C

B

-1

- 1.3672(B/T)

1/3

C

B

-1/3

(11)

C

S

= 0.889+6.669E-02(L/B)

0.35274

(B/T)

1.477

C

B

-0.9057

+ 1.644C

B

-0.4423

(L/B)

.3812

(12)

Respective R

2

values are 0.99866 and 0.99885. The two

following formulas describe series geometry related to the

position of the initial transverse metacentre (Bojovic,

1996):

KB / T = 0.8986 - 0.5389 C

B

(13)

BM C

B

T / B

2

= 0.05567 (14)

3. SHIPFLOW THEORY

A basic overview of the features of the CFD code

SHIPFLOW (SHIPFLOW Release Notes, 1997) is

provided here. The method is based on a zonal approach

where the flow is divided into three different zones with

different solution methods, as shown in Figure 5. In Zone

1 the program uses the potential-flow method employing

Rankine sources on the hull and part of the free surface

where either a first-order or second-order discretization is

implemented. In the potential flow method the

SHIPFLOW code can be run in both linear and non-linear

mode.

In Zone 2 the boundary layer is computed using a

momentum-integral method similar to the one developed

by Larsson (1975). It is based on streamlines, which are

automatically traced from the potential-flow solution.

Starting at the stagnation point, the method first computes

the laminar flow and checks the stability of the wave-like

disturbances in the layer. The program computes the ratio

of the amplitude at any point downstream of the point to

the amplitude at the point itself. The transition is assumed

to occur when the amplitude ratio has reached a certain

value of the most unstable frequency amplitude, or a

value set by the user.

In Zone 3 the governing equations are the Reynolds-

Averaged Navier-Stokes (RANS) equations, obtained by

averaging the time dependent Navier-Stokes equations

over the entire length and time scales of the turbulent

fluctuations. In the present version of SHIPFLOW used,

the diffusion of momentum longitudinally is neglected

and by this the velocity and turbulence are parabolized

meaning the solution may proceed from the inlet station,

plane by plane downstream. The RANS method has not

been used in the present paper since this procedure is used

only for slow speed hulls where there is a thick boundary

layer (wake region) at the stern.

4. HYDROS THEORY

The computer program used for this research is

HYDROS/4, an extensive set of modules developed at

The University of New South Wales over the last decade.

0

0.01

0.02

0.03

0.04

0.05

0.06

0.07

0.08

0.09

0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5

Fnv

R

R

/

W

RR/W(CRinterpol'd)

RR/Winterpol'd

RR/W(NLECR)

NLERR/W

RR/WMARINREFDS

RR/WMARINRESDS

0

0.001

0.002

0.003

0.004

0.005

0.006

0.007

0.008

0.009

0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1

Fn

C

R

CRinterpol'd

CR(RR/Winterpol'd)

NLECR

CR(NLERR/W)

CRMARINREFDS

CRMARINRESDS

6

Figure 5: The Zonal approach in SHIPFLOW

[ SHIPFLOW 2.3 (1997), figure 1].

The capabilities of HYDROS cover four main areas

of Hydrostatics, Statical Stability, Resistance in calm-

water and Performance in Waves. Some sophisticated

characteristics of HYDROS are:

Its ability to handle complicated hullforms, which

possess typical naval architecture geometric details,

such as chines and transom sterns, as well as

sections, which might or not pierce the water surface.

In this way, monohulls, catamarans, multihulls, and

small-waterplane-area twin-hull (SWATH) vessels

can be analysed.

The fact that the geometry of the vessel has to be

defined only once; thereafter, hydrodynamic

computations for different combinations of

displacement, draft, and trim can be effected by

altering only one or two items of input data (draft and

trim). HYDROS automatically re-generates the

required underwater geometry for the analysis.

It is highly modularised in nature, in which the

components of HYDROS communicate with each

other through the file system. This permits the user to

combine functions in a large number of ways. For

example, one original vessel can be analysed in a

regular wave system in different conditions. The

resulting response-amplitude operators from one such

condition can be used repeatedly to determine the

statistics of operating the vessel in different seaways.

The computer program was described fully by

Doctors (1995) and Doctors and Day (1997). The

resistance module applies traditional thin-ship theory to

the vessel, together with the standard modifications for

water of finite depth and channel of finite width (for the

purpose of simulating towing-tank tests). Furthermore,

the hollow in the water behind the transom stern of the

vessel is modelled in a realistic and plausible manner.

Finally, a novel technique for applying correction or form

factors to both the wave-resistance and the frictional-

resistance components is used.

The application of these correction factors was

detailed by Doctors(1998a). Finally, there is an additional

improvement in Doctors (1998b), in which the case of a

partially wetted transom stern is modelled; that is, the

hollow can be partly filled with slowly re-circulating

water, thus simulating the case of operation at relatively

low speeds.

5. RESULTS

In order to maintain uniformity and the make the best

of comparison between the various methods adopted here

it was decided to present the results of this investigation

in the form of R

T

/W against Fn in model scale. The

experimental drag as measured at various speeds were

divided by the weight of the model to obtain the

experimental R

T

/W for all 14 models tested. The models

were free to trim and sink in all cases. As illustrated in the

regression model, C

R

corrected values were first obtained

which were added to the corresponding C

F

(ITTC-57

ship-model correlation line) to obtain a set of values for

C

T

at various Fn. The C

T

values were then converted to

corresponding R

T

/W values.

In the CFD approach used by SHIPFLOW, it must be

remembered that it is only a tool to analyze different

types of hull forms so as to obtain a hull form with the

best wave-resistance characteristics. Potential-flow panel

methods like the method included in SHIPFLOW cannot

handle wave breaking and spray phenomena that occurs at

high Froude numbers. This means that the wave

resistance C

w,sfl

computed by SHIPFLOW, will be smaller

than the residuary resistance from experiments, C

R,exp

.

The computed results should therefore compare with a

wave-pattern resistance from experiments. Some of the

wave energy from wave breaking and spray is however

captured in the computations and the computed wave

resistance lies between the residuary resistance and the

wave-pattern resistance. The only way to directly

compute the total resistance from SHIPFLOW results is:

C

T,sfl

=C

W,sfl

+C

F,sfl

(15)

where C

F,sfl

is the friction component computed by

XBOUND module of SHIPFLOW. The C

T,sfl

value is of

interest when comparing different design alternatives of a

hull or when comparing different positions of the hulls in

a multi-hull configuration. In many cases it is enough to

study the variation of C

W,sfl

only. But, since the wave

resistance is under-estimated as described above, C

T,sfl

cannot directly be used for power prediction. It is

therefore necessary to make a correction for the

difference between C

W,sfl

and C

R,exp

.

In the work of Sirvio and Oma (1997) a constant

value (C

R,exp

- C

W,sfl

) for the correction was used and this

7

is probably appropriate for the catamaran hull if the

investigations are in the lower ranges of speed. The

friction component was therefore computed using the

ITTC-57 line and the total resistance computed from:

C

T

= C

F,ITTC57

+ C

W,sfl

+ (C

R,exp

- C

W,sfl

) (16)

Another approach, as suggested by Janson (1998), is to

compute a wave-resistance correction factor as :

K

cw

= C

R,exp

/ C

W,sfl

(17)

from cases where both experimental and computational

data are available. The total resistance is then computed

from:

C

T,corr

= C

W,sfl

K

cw

+ C

F,sfl

(18)

The K

cw

factor must be estimated from earlier

comparisons of C

R,exp

and C

W,sfl

. K

cw

varies with Fn and

may be large at high Fn where wave breaking and spray is

a large part of the resistance. K

cw

will also vary from one

hull to another depending on how much wave breaking

and spray is generated. At lower speeds where the

transom is not completely dry C

W,sfl

will be larger than

C

R,exp

since the computations assume that the transom is

dry. If this is not the case there will be too large a

hydrostatic contribution to the wave resistance in C

W,sfl

. A

too steep transom wave will also be computed at low

speeds if the transom is not dry.

C

T,sfl

= C

W,sfl

+ C

F,sfl

(19)

Janson (1998) also commented on the computation of

wave resistance for tankers and other ships which operate

at low Froude numbers. The wave resistance is a small

part of the total resistance at very low Froude number and

it is often difficult to compute this small wave resistance

value accurately. The computed results can, however, still

be used to compare different design alternatives from a

wave resistance point of view. The wave-pattern must

then be used to investigate the diverging wave system and

to determine which design alternative performs best.

In HYDROS all 14 models were subjected to exactly

the same simulations as the experiments. As explained

earlier a correction factor K

cw

, obtained in Equation 17,

was used to calculate the total resistance coefficients

which was transformed to R

T

/W values in order to

compare SHIPFLOW results with other methods. This

procedure naturally gives perfect agreement with

experimental results for all Froude numbers. To provide a

more realistic evaluation of results it was decided to use

the form factor of Granville (MacPherson, 1993) given

by:

2

B

L

B

C 18.7 1 k 1

+ = +

(20)

This results in the modified expression for calculating the

total resistance coefficient for SHIPFLOW as:

C

T,sfl

= C

W,sfl

+ (1+k)C

F,sfl

(21)

Figure 6: R

T

/W vs. Fn results for Model 1.

Figure 7: R

T

/W vs. Fn results for Model 2.

The Figures 6 to 19 depict the graphical overview of

experimental, theoretical, regression and numerical (as

per Equation 21) results for all 14 models.

Table 3 presents the root mean square errors of

R

T

/W with respect to experiment for all Fn values

between 0.3 and 1.0 in increments of 0.05. As can be seen

from the above table, SHIPFLOW consistently under-

predicts when compared with regression or HYDROS. It

0.00

0.02

0.04

0.06

0.08

0.10

0.12

0.14

0.16

0.18

0.20

0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50 0.60 0.70 0.80 0.90 1.00 1.10

Fn

R

T

/

W

Experiment RT/W

RegressionRT/W

ShipflowRT/W

HydrosRT/W

0.00

0.02

0.04

0.06

0.08

0.10

0.12

0.14

0.16

0.18

0.20

0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50 0.60 0.70 0.80 0.90 1.00 1.10

Fn

R

T

/

W

Experiment RT/W

RegressionRT/W

ShipflowRT/W

HydrosRT/W

8

is to be noted here that regression analysis for Model 7

and 8 have not been carried out beyond Fn=0.55 and 0.5

respectively, hence the high RMS errors when compared

with HYDROS.

Figure 8: R

T

/W vs. Fn results for Model 3.

Figure 9: R

T

/W vs. Fn results for Model 4.

Actual variations of R

T

/W in percentage for various

methods have been presented in Figures 20 to 23 while

varying L/B ratio and slenderness ratio (L/

1/3

).

It is evident from the results of all 14 models that

SHIPFLOW has consistently under-predicted the

experimental results at higher Fn values and this may be

partly attributed to the empirical formula used for the

determination of form factor (1+k). From Figures 6 to 19

it is quite clear that predicted values for HYDROS lie

closer to experimental values than SHIPFLOW. The same

Figure 10: R

T

/W vs. Fn results for Model 5.

Figure 11: R

T

/W vs. Fn results for Model 6.

trend can be recognized from the computed RMS errors

presented in Table 3. Figures 20 and 21 depict R

T

/W

errors as a percentage against L/B ratios at Fn=0.30 and

Fn=0.50 respectively. At Fn=0.30 both SHIPFLOW and

HYDROS exhibit under-prediction by about 5% at higher

L/B ratio, when compared with experimental values. At

Fn=0.50 these values increase to about 17% below

experimental values at higher L/B ratio.

Figures 22 and 23 present errors in R

T

/W as a

percentage against slenderness ratio (L/

1/3

) at Fn=0.55

and Fn=0.80 respectively. It is interesting to note that

regression and numerical calculations show some form of

instability at lower values of L/

1/3

. However the trend

appear to be similar for all methods once the slenderness

ratio increases beyond 6.5. Here too SHIPFLOW under-

0.00

0.02

0.04

0.06

0.08

0.10

0.12

0.14

0.16

0.18

0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50 0.60 0.70 0.80 0.90 1.00 1.10

R

T

/

W

Experiment RT/W

RegressionRT/W

ShipflowRT/W

HydrosRT/W

0.00

0.02

0.04

0.06

0.08

0.10

0.12

0.14

0.16

0.18

0.20

0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50 0.60 0.70 0.80 0.90 1.00 1.10

R

T

/

W

Experiment RT/W

RegressionRT/W

ShipflowRT/W

HydrosRT/W

0.00

0.02

0.04

0.06

0.08

0.10

0.12

0.14

0.16

0.18

0.20

0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50 0.60 0.70 0.80 0.90 1.00 1.10

R

T

/

W

Experiment RT/W

RegressionRT/W

ShipflowRT/W

HydrosRT/W

0.00

0.02

0.04

0.06

0.08

0.10

0.12

0.14

0.16

0.18

0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50 0.60 0.70 0.80 0.90 1.00 1.10

R

T

/

W

Experiment RT/W

RegressionRT/W

ShipflowRT/W

HydrosRT/W

Fn

Fn

Fn

Fn

9

predicts experimental values by at least 17-18% as

slenderness ratio increases, whereas in case of HYDROS

it is within 10%. Some of the important observations that

can be made from this study are:

CFD analysis as an important and powerful tool in

the hands of an experienced designer, can provide

fruitful guidelines as to the merits of alternative

designs based on wave resistance.

The stage has been reached where CFD analysis can

stand on its own while evaluating various design

configurations. On this aspect it is the most cost-

effective solution when compared with traditional

tank testing, which could be costly and time

consuming.

Although numerical analysis is mature enough it is

still not at a stage where traditional tank testing can

be entirely ignored or replaced.

Figure 12: R

T

/W vs. Fn results for Model 7.

Figure 13: R

T

/W vs. Fn results for Model 8.

Figure 14: R

T

/W vs. Fn results for Model 9.

Figure 15: R

T

/W vs. Fn results for Model 10.

Model Regression SHIPFLOW HYDROS

1 0.00065 0.01474 0.00307

2 0.00646 0.01763 0.00308

3 0.00166 0.01707 0.00929

4 0.00054 0.01417 0.00656

5 0.00180 0.03085 0.00920

6 0.00165 0.01861 0.00412

7 0.12941 0.04467 0.01397

8 0.08907 0.08921 0.04518

9 0.00529 0.01440 0.00659

10 0.00157 0.01389 0.00668

11 0.06192 0.02758 0.00927

12 0.00293 0.01664 0.00822

13 0.00048 0.01734 0.00279

14 0.00119 0.01836 0.00449

Table 3: RMS Errors in R

T

/W with respect to

Experiment.

0.00

0.03

0.06

0.09

0.12

0.15

0.18

0.21

0.24

0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50 0.60 0.70 0.80 0.90 1.00 1.10

R

T

/

W

Experiment RT/W

RegressionRT/W

ShipflowRT/W

HydrosRT/W

0.00

0.02

0.04

0.06

0.08

0.10

0.12

0.14

0.16

0.18

0.20

0.00 0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50 0.60 0.70 0.80 0.90 1.00 1.10

R

T

/

W

Experiment RT/W

RegressionRT/W

ShipflowRT/W

HydrosRT/W

0.00

0.02

0.04

0.06

0.08

0.10

0.12

0.14

0.16

0.18

0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50 0.60 0.70 0.80 0.90 1.00 1.10

R

T

/

W

Experiment RT/W

RegressionRT/W

ShipflowRT/W

HydrosRT/W

0.00

0.02

0.04

0.06

0.08

0.10

0.12

0.14

0.16

0.18

0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50 0.60 0.70 0.80 0.90 1.00 1.10

R

T

/

W

Experiment RT/W

RegressionRT/W

ShipflowRT/W

Hydros RT/W

Fn

Fn Fn

Fn

10

Figure 16: R

T

/W vs. Fn results for Model 11.

Figure 17: R

T

/W vs. Fn results for Model 12.

Figure 18: R

T

/W vs. Fn results for Model 13.

Figure 19: RT/W vs. Fn results for Model 14.

Figure 20: R

T

/W Error (%) vs. L/B at Fn=0.30.

Figure 21: R

T

/W Error (%) vs. L/B at Fn=0.50

0.00

0.02

0.04

0.06

0.08

0.10

0.12

0.14

0.16

0.18

0.20

0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50 0.60 0.70 0.80 0.90 1.00 1.10

Fn

R

T

/

W

Experiment RT/W

RegressionRT/W

ShipflowRT/W

HydrosRT/W

0.00

0.02

0.04

0.06

0.08

0.10

0.12

0.14

0.16

0.18

0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50 0.60 0.70 0.80 0.90 1.00 1.10

Fn

R

T

/

W

Experiment RT/W

RegressionRT/W

ShipflowRT/W

HydrosRT/W

0.00

0.02

0.04

0.06

0.08

0.10

0.12

0.14

0.16

0.18

0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50 0.60 0.70 0.80 0.90 1.00 1.10

Fn

R

T

/

W

Experiment RT/W

RegressionRT/W

ShipflowRT/W

HydrosRT/W

0.00

0.02

0.04

0.06

0.08

0.10

0.12

0.14

0.16

0.18

0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50 0.60 0.70 0.80 0.90 1.00 1.10

Fn

R

T

/

W

Experiment RT/W

RegressionRT/W

ShipflowRT/W

HydrosRT/W

-10

-5

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

4 5 6 7 8

R

T

/

W

E

r

r

o

r

i

n

%

Regressiondiff. wrt Expt.

Shipflowdiff. wrt Expt.

Hydrosdiff. wrt Expt.

ConstantB/T=4&CB=0.5

-30

-25

-20

-15

-10

-5

0

5

4 5 6 7 8

R

T

/

W

E

r

r

o

r

i

n

%

Regressiondiff. wrt Expt.

Shipflowdiff. wrt Expt.

Hydrosdiff. wrt Expt.

ConstantB/T=4&CB=0.5

L/B

L/B

11

Figure 22: R

T

/W Error (%) vs. L/

1/3

at Fn=0.55.

Figure 23: R

T

/W Error (%) vs. L/

1/3

at Fn=0.80.

6. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The contributions of all industry participants, in

supplying the models, conducting the tests and providing

valuable guidelines throughout the project are gratefully

acknowledged. The authors would also like to extend

special thanks to Mr. Predrag Bojovic for the

development of the regression equation. The authors are

also indebted to Mr. Aminur Rashid for his invaluable

help in SHIPFLOW data analysis. We are grateful to Dr.

Carl-Erik Janson of FLOWTECH International AB for

guiding us through the complexities of SHIPFLOW

during the preparation of this paper. Last but not least, the

authors would like to thank Australian Maritime College

for financial support for this research work. In addition

the authors would like to express their gratitude to the

authorities at the University of New South Wales.

7. REFERENCES

Blok, J.J. and Beukelman, W. 1984 "The High-Speed

Displacement Ship Systematic Series Hull Forms -

Seakeeping Characteristics", Transactions, Society of

Naval Architects and Marine Engineers, Vol. 92:125-150.

Bojovic, P. 1995 "Regression Analysis of AMECRC

Systematic Series Calm Water Testing Results",

AMECRC IR 95/24: 1-37.

Bojovic, P. 1996 "Reanalysis of AMECRC Systematic

Series Calm Water Testing Results", AMECRC IR 96/10

Bojovic, P. and Sahoo, P.K. 1998 "A Study on Motion

Analysis of High Speed Displacement Hull Forms", Proc.

Seventh International Symposium on Practical Design of

Ships and Mobile Units, The Hague, The Netherlands:

545-553.

Doctors, L.J. 1995 "A Versatile Hull-Generator

Program", Proc. Twenty-First Century Shipping

Symposium, University of New South Wales, Sydney,

New South Wales, 140-158, Discussion: 158-159.

Doctors, L.J. 1998a "Intelligent Regression of Resistance

Data for Hydrodynamics in Ship Design", Proc. Twenty-

Second Symposium on Naval Hydrodynamics,

Washington DC, 16 pp.

Doctors, L.J. 1998b "An Improved Theoretical Model for

the Resistance of a Vessel with a Transom Stern", Proc.

Thirteenth Australasian Fluid Mechanics Conference (13

AFMC), Monash University, Melbourne, Victoria, Vol. 1:

271-274.

Doctors, L.J. and Day, A.H. 1997 "Resistance Prediction

for Transom-Stern Vessels", Proc. Fourth International

Conference on Fast Sea Transportation (FAST '97),

Sydney, Australia, Vol. 2: 743-750.

Fung, S.C. 1991 "Resistance And Powering Prediction

For Transom Stern Hull Forms During Early Stage Ship

Design", Transactions, Society of Naval Architects and

Marine Engineers, Vol. 99: 29-73.

Fung, S. C. and Leibman, L. 1993 "Statistically-Based

Speed-Dependent Powering Predictions For High-Speed

Transom Stern Hull Forms", NAVSEA 051-05H3-TN-

0100 : 71 + viii.

Fung, S.C, and Leibman. L. 1995 "Revised Speed-

Dependent Powering Predictions for High-Speed

Transom Stern Hull Forms", Proc. Third International

Conference on High-Speed Sea Transportation (FAST

'95): 151-164.

-120%

-100%

-80%

-60%

-40%

-20%

0%

20%

40%

60%

4 5 6 7 8 9

R

T

/

W

E

r

r

o

r

Experiment Regression

Shipflow Hydros

-120%

-100%

-80%

-60%

-40%

-20%

0%

20%

40%

60%

4 5 6 7 8 9

R

T

/

W

E

r

r

o

r

Experiment Regression

Shipflow Hydros

Slenderness Ratio

Slenderness Ratio

12

Janson, Carl-Erik. 1998 "Private Correspondences with

Dr. Prasanta K. Sahoo regarding the complexities of

SHIPFLOW".

Larsson, L. 1975 "Boundary layers of Ships (Three

Dimensional Effects)", Ph.D. thesis, Dept. of Applied

Thermo and Fluid Dynamics, Chalmers University of

Technology, Gothenburg.

Lewis, E.V. (Ed) 1988, Principles of Naval Architecture,

Vol. II- Resistance, Propulsion and Vibration, Section 9 -

High-Speed Craft and Advanced Marine Vehicles, Society

of Naval Architects and Marine Engineers, Jersey City,

New Jersey .

MacPherson, M. 1993 "Reliable Performance Prediction :

Techniques Using A Personal Computer", Marine

Technology, Vol. 30:4 : 243-257.

Maritime Research Institute Netherlands, 1987 "MARIN

High Speed Displacement Hull Form Designs", MARIN

Report 30.

Rikard-Bell, M. 1992 "Report of Research -

October/November 1992", AMECRC IR 92/1 : 1-28.

Robson, B.L. 1988 "Systematic Series Of High Speed

Displacement Hull Forms For Naval Combatants",

Transactions, Royal Institution of Naval Architects, Vol.

130 : 241-252.

SHIPFLOW 1997 "SHIPFLOW 2.3 Release Notes and

Users Manual Update of FLOWTECH International AB".

Sirvio, J. and Oma, S. 1997 "Catamaran Hull Form

Development with CFD Computation, Correlation to

Model Tests and Full Scale Trials", The International

CFD Conference, Ulsteinvik, Norway.

StatSoft 1994 "STATISTICA for Windows", Manuals,

Vol. I - III.

Van Oossanen, P. and Pieffers, J.B.M. 1985 "NSMB-

Systematic Series Of High-Speed Displacement Forms",

Workshop on Developments in Hull Form Design,

Wageningen : 16.

- STATISTICS NOTESTransféré parhsrinivas_7
- Northern - Southeast Case StudyTransféré parYogeshLuhar
- Stat Regression ReportTransféré parDavid
- Univariate RegressionTransféré parSree Nivas
- Chap 006Transféré parpalak32
- CasesTransféré parSahil Bhatia
- Econometric Methods Module Handbook(3)Transféré parAchilleas Manousakis
- Econ2209 Tut2 SolTransféré paryizzy
- Regression analysisTransféré parChetan B Arkasali
- vol1no2-3_AhmedKTransféré parSandra Powers
- BASS Sec4 1 VIMsimApp PrintTransféré parAnalytics DatatoolBox
- _REGRESSION_ANALYSIS_FINAL-EXAM.docxTransféré parjanice m. gaspar
- bookertwashington lesson erin jenna lauraTransféré parapi-209009291
- IJMET_10_01_063Transféré parIAEME PUBLICATION
- RegressionTransféré paramjadakram
- 2011 FRM - AIM StatementsTransféré parPankaj Chandak
- Dohmen et al. 2006Transféré parTaylor Burns
- 716-1 Simple Regression Theory ITransféré parVu Sang
- Bias CorrectionTransféré parIP Santikayasa
- Brennan 2007Transféré parenivaldo.sb3897
- AStat 2Transféré parRanuthra Isuru Thenuwara
- cfd assigment.docxTransféré parVijay Gunalan
- exp_9Transféré parKalpit Kaurase
- Load Profiles v2.0 CgiTransféré parSlaven Ivanovic
- ValueAtRiskVBATransféré parEduardo O Aparicio
- 19942060.2007.11015185Transféré parPrateek Jain
- Multiple Linear Regression.pptxTransféré parFowziah Nahid Priya
- Multiple Linear Regression Ver1.1Transféré parjstadlas
- 85.pdfTransféré pargunjandpatel05
- Limitations in Turbomachinery - Artigo - MontomoliTransféré parAdson Santos Silva Jr.

- Culver Cadet HandbookTransféré partdfsks
- Explocat 52 General Description V1.2Transféré partdfsks
- MechanixIllustratedTeardropTransféré parRicky Frentress
- 1201 GabeTransféré partdfsks
- Dynamic Analysis Using Response Spectrum Seismic LoadingTransféré parEmad Ahmed Khan
- DesignGuidelinesfortheSelectionandUseofStainlessSteels_9014_Transféré partdfsks
- Passivating PicklingTransféré parpunitdubey
- Part 23 Airworthiness Standards - Landing Gear _amdt 48Transféré partdfsks
- IJME2008BDTransféré partdfsks
- Developable SURFACESTransféré parleronius
- 89-96Transféré partdfsks
- SH_FEA_GN_e-Feb14Transféré parbudi azis
- SH FEACorrigenda Feb14Transféré partdfsks
- SH FEA Guide to ColorsTransféré partdfsks
- A B Ratio SeatonTransféré partdfsks
- 3ym30Transféré partdfsks
- Gm Ym Shaft DriveTransféré partdfsks
- sd20 specTransféré partdfsks
- gm ym sail specTransféré partdfsks
- 2ym15Transféré partdfsks
- 1gm10Transféré partdfsks
- 2008 - Innovsail08 - Bare Hull Resistance DSYHSTransféré partdfsks
- TechnicalTransféré partdfsks
- NDT Tech Wire ROpe DamageTransféré parilikecrayons

- Case Study of Sales ForecastingTransféré parChauhan Chetan
- Chapter 05Transféré parRosyidan ⎝⏠⏝⏠⎠ Putranto
- Introduction to Spatial Econometric ModellingTransféré parJosé Armando Cobián Álvarez
- 2004 The Problem of Overfitting.pdfTransféré parBro Edwin
- Assignment 2 Solution S211Transféré parypchzr
- multiple regression.docxTransféré parKhagendra Adhikari
- Regression AnalysisTransféré parStacie Simmons
- Chapter 3 Classroom PptTransféré parNimeshee Singh
- CorrelationTransféré parDr Swati Raj
- Linear RegressionTransféré parnancy 1996
- Fundamentals of Applied Econometrics.pdfTransféré parImam Awaluddin
- 213Transféré parMahmoud Ahmed Elbayomy
- Organizational StressTransféré parHamid Khurshid
- Magnetic Field of Helmholtz Coils and Magnetic Moment - Group 4 - 24,25 Sept 2012 (1)Transféré parAnais Colibaba
- Linear RegressionTransféré parDan Lewa
- The Unscrambler MethodsTransféré parMostafa Afify
- Constructing PMS PredictionTransféré parDuaij Alrukaibi
- Trauma Scoring SystemsTransféré parDeepak Anvekar
- 8 Questions about corruptionTransféré parMike Khokhlovych
- sas-visual-statistics-on-sas-viya-108780Transféré parRocío Vázquez
- Luck Et Al NJMT2006Transféré parAna Pereira
- Rieger (2015) Sexual Arausal in Women -BisexualidadTransféré parGustavo Ayala
- Michael Creel - Econometrics.pdfTransféré parsilvio de paula
- Influence of Processing Parameters on Ultrasonic welding of Thermoplastic Material Using Taguchi Method-IJAERDV04I1069145.pdfTransféré parvedant sutaone
- Origin 8 User GuideTransféré parBiswajeet Champaty
- GL2Transféré parChika Albert
- Simple Modelling of Static Drying of RDXTransféré parivy_publisher
- Pg Dast July 2016Transféré parAbhishek Singh
- 151 Practice Final 1Transféré parmys_genius_007
- Functional and Operational StatisticsTransféré parususususu

## Bien plus que des documents.

Découvrez tout ce que Scribd a à offrir, dont les livres et les livres audio des principaux éditeurs.

Annulez à tout moment.