Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 6

Report of a brief overview of ship resistance prediction in shallow

and restricted water


1 Introduction
Precise ship resistance prediction in shallow and restricted water plays an important role in the initial
stage of inland ship design and ship economic affairs. It is a much more complex work, due to the
effect of river bed, limited bank and other complicated navigation conditions, to predict the resistance
of the inland ships, which are much more different from seagoing vessels.
Several methods, based on CFD calculation or experimental measurement, were proposed attempting
to provide a convenient way to predict shallow water resistance. Some of them have been widely used
for many years, and some new methods were developed in order to achieve better solution. But until
now, because of either the application limitation or accuracy problems, there does not exist an
exhaustive precise prediction method received by most researchers and effectively applied in
engineering.
Several research hotspots are presented aiming to make a comparison with different existing empirical
prediction methods and reveal missing area which should be paid attention to.

2 Ship resistance calculations in shallow and restricted water


In order to obtain a better understanding of ship resistance in shallow water, assumptions, calculation
method, accuracy and other effects on ship are discussed in this section.
2.1 Assumptions
Shallow water resistance calculation involves consideration of ship form and motion, dimension of
waterway, viscosity of water and other complex boundary conditions, so researchers usually make
some simplifications to reduce the calculation and get a numerical solution.
Total speed loss
Ship resistance in deep water, which exist several accurate methods, is much easier to achieve, so
based on it, people attempt to deduce the resistance in shallow water. Method proposed by
Schilichting[1,1934] is one of the most common used methods to predict shallow water resistance
under the premise of known resistance curve in deep water. His method was based on two
consumptions
(1) Since the wave in shallow water, which shares the same wave length with that in deep water, has a
V1 less in speed, he assumed that the wave resistance at the speed V-V1 in shallow water is
equal to that at the speed V in deep water.
(2) Due to the speedV2 of backflow, he assumed the frictional resistance at the speed V-V2 in
shallow water is equal to that at the speed V in deep water.
For the first assumption, the wave pattern in shallow water, which is known as trochoidal wave theory,
is different from that in deep water even though they have the same wave length. So its indefensible
to set this assumption. In terms of the second one, frictional resistance not only in relate to speed, but
also have a strong relationship with wetted surface. Ship in shallow water usually engages a sinkage

resulting in the increase of wetted surface. So this assumption is a total estimate and it would be lack
of basis as well.
The reason why Schilichting method was used for more than half a century is that the error is not
significant in a low speed(Fnh<0.6) and is allowable in practice. But it is not wise for research with its
weak basis, and it should be substituted by more reliable and scientific method.
Lackenby[2,1963] and T.Jiang[3,2001] developed Schilichting method. Lackenby noticed different
components in total resistance instead of wave resistance only. Back flow and frictional resistance are
both affected more or less with the total speed dropped. Although he improved Schilichting method,
his total work was based on the two aforementioned assumptions sharing same weak concept. T.Jiang,
taking average sinkage into account, proposed a new prediction method to calculate speed loss.
Empirical frictional resistance prediction was used in his method.
Nevertheless, total speed loss method extremely depends on the accuracy of intuition and empirical
equations, so the method based on this usually valid in only narrow range of Froude number. Due to
the weak basis of this prediction method, its physical meaning is always suspectable.
Ship motion and form
Based on the consideration of hydrodynamic principles of shallow water, people tend to use
programming or computational fluid dynamics(CFD) method to achieve reliable answer directly. In
order to simplify the complicated and multiple condition, several assumptions (as following) are given
and receive good agreement in many cases.
General assumptions for resistance in shallow water:
(1)constant ship speed and steady water flow;
(2)cross-section of canal is rectangular(or trapezoidal), without longitudinal bed slope;
(3)same sinkage both for bow and stern(or only free to heave and pitch);
(4)inviscid water flow.
Many programming calculations([4,XuenongChen,1993],[5,M.Jovanovic,1998],[6,M.Hofman,2006])
are based on this. Resistance calculation in shallow water is a nonlinear complicated problem relating
to fluid-structure interaction (FSI) and large amount of calculation. Proper simplification and
assumptions can help achieve reasonable results with less time consumption. It is challenging to make
a wise simplification and get a good agreement with experimental data.
Monohull resistance in shallow water is the major object, and catamaran and trimaran are also taken
into consideration by some
researchers([6,M.Hofman,2006],[7,Millward.A.,1989],[8,Ferreiro,1992]). Slender or thin ship
theory and standard forms like Wigley and Series 60 are used in their calculation.
Width of waterways
The width of river and canals is unrestricted in most researches, only limited number of researchers
take the width into consideration, like Howe.C[10].

Although assumptions can make it easier to reach solutions, limitations are produced at the same time.
Because these methods only are verified by a limited number of ships, more experiments of different
ships need to be added to prove their validation. In addition, during critical and supercritical region,
these methods always failed to meet experimental measurements because compared with deep water,
shallow and restricted water has a quite different performance in several aspects. So ship resistance in
shallow and restricted water require its own exclusive concept of calculation.
2.2 Method of calculation
Empirical equations
Empirical equations usually come from the results of model tests or full-scale tests. According to the
limited number of tests, these equations generally meet the agreement of a narrow range of ships
corresponding to which are used in the tests.
Even though empirical equations involve strict application condition, they are the most convenient and
straightforward way accepted by most ship designers because only main dimensions of ship and canal
are required.
The following Figure1 shows 3 different empirical methods mentioned by Kulczyk J[9], Howe C[10],
Emilia Skupien[11] calculate a general inland barge with Length=38.7m, Breath = 5.05m, Draft =
2.2m, CB = 0.847, h= 4m.

Figure1 Comparison of three different empirical methods


The method of Kulczyk is only efficient when 0.3<Frh<0.5, and curves of Hove and Emilia are almost
parallel which means at least one method of them are not reliable without considering model or fullscale tests. In other words, existing empirical in shallow and restrict water are not enough to use at
early stage of ship design.
Numerical calculation
With the increasing demanding of accuracy calculating method, numerical method which studies the
physical and mathematical principal comes into spotlight. Some of them are packaged in commercial
software such as Fluent, Shipflow, CFX, etc. Some numerical methods used in research are shown in
table1 as following.

Table1 Some numerical methods used in research


Authors

Xuenong Chen
[4,1993]

Jovanovic[5,1997]

Approaches
Wave resistnce
Viscous resistance
Kadomtsev
Petviashvili(KP) and
Boussinesq equation

not mentioned

Force balance(total resistance)

Hofman[6,2006]

Sretensky's integral
Lakhovitsky's
intergal

not mentioned

Raven[12,2012]

not mentioned

PARNASSOS,a RANS solver

Prasanta[13,2003]

Shipflow and
HYDROS

not mentioned

remarks
free only to heave and
pitch; slender body
theory(near-field),
nonlinear shallow water
theory(far-field)
only one case was
given with bad
agreement
thin ship theory, linear
waves,
inviscid and potential
flow
without trim and
sinkage, therefore valid
for low Frh
based on linear thin
ship theory

Mitchel's slender
ship with parabolic
body method,
not mentioned
waterline and straight
Shipflow
waterline
Because of the simplifications before their calculation, all these methods only are significant in a
limited region. The accuracy of some of them will be discussed in 2.3.
Moraes[14,2004]

2.3 Accuracy
The accuracy of some prediction methods is shown as figure2.

Figure2 Accuracy of resistance prediction in shallow water

Most of the methods focused on subcritical region with the error in 10 %, but Jovanovics error is
more than 25%. Prasantas method covered all regions, but it was not valid in critical region.
Prediction of Hofman only met a good agreement in supercritical region.
2.4 Other effects
Effects of shallow and restricted water produced on ship are far more than the description in these
literatures. Z.Gao[15] noticed the muddy layer of seabed and studied the influence on ship. Different
dimensions of ship, unconventional ship forms, temperature, riverbed slope, wave reflection, influence
of other ship, etc. all have more or less influence on ship resistance, so further research should be
given to achieve better results.

3 Conclusions
(1) Assumptions can make it easier to reach solutions, but they always limit the application region of
corresponding methods. Reasonable prediction technique needs reasonable assumptions.
(2) Convenient and straightforward empirical methods are still limited to special types of ship or to
specific condition. An extensive and reliable empirical method is in an urgent need.

References
[1]Schlichting, O., Schiffswiderstand auf beschrnkter Wassertiefe --- Widerstand von Seeschiffen
auf flachem Wasser, STG Jahrbuch Vol. 35, 1934.
[2]Lackenby, H., The effect of shallow water on ship speed, Shipbuilder and Marine Engine Builder,
1963, pp. 446-450.
[3]Jiang, T., A new method for resistance and propulsion prediction of the ship performance in
shallow water, Proceedings 8th PRADS Symposium, Shanghai, 2001.
[4]CHEN, XUE-NONG, and SOMDEO SHARMA. "Optimization of Ship Wave Resistance in
Shallow Water." 8th International Workshop on Water Waves and Floating Bodies. Vol. 1. 1993.
[5]Jovanovic, M. "Ship resistance in navigation canals."
[6]M.Hofman.Wave making resistance of fast ships in shallow water. 2006.
[7]Millward, A., The effect of water depth on hull form factor, Int. Shipbuilding Progress, Vol.36
407, 1989, pp. 283-302.
[8]Ferreiro, Larrie D. "The effects of confined water operations on ship performance: A guide for the
perplexed." Naval engineers journal 104.6 (1992): 69-83.
[9] Kulczyk J., Prokopowicz J., Tabaczek T., Prognozowanie oporu statku rdldowego w oparciu o
wyniki bada modelowych, Politechnika Wrocawska, Raport serii: Sprawozdania nr 042/95,
Wrocaw 1995
[10] Howe C. W., Mathematical model of barge tow performance, Journal of the waterway and
harbours division, proceedings, American Society of Civil Engineers, 1976.

[11]Emilia Skupien, Methods of calculating ship resistance on limited waterways. POLISH


MARITIME RESEARCH 4(84) 2014 Vol. 21; pp. 12-17.
[12] Hoyte C. Raven, A computational study of shallow-water effects on ship viscous resistance, 29th
Symposium on Naval Hydrodynamics, Gothenburg, Sweden, 26-31 August 2012.
[13] Prasanta K. Sahoo, Lawrence J. Doctors. A study on wave resistance of high-speed displacement
hull forms in restricted depth. 2003.
[14] Moraes H B, Vasconcellos J M, Latorre R G. Wave resistance for high-speed catamarans[J].
Ocean engineering, 2004, 31(17): 2253-2282.
[15] Gao Zhiliang, Yang, Hua; Xie, Mingxiao. Computation of Flow around Wigley Hull in Shallow
Water with Muddy Seabed. Journal of Coastal Research,2015:490-495.

Vous aimerez peut-être aussi