Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Introduction
Captive model test techniques are nowadays commonly used for predicting ship manoeuvring
characteristics. A distinction is made between different types of captive tests:
(a) stationary straight line tests, which can be carried out in a towing tank;
(b) harmonic tests, requiring a towing tank equipped with a planar motion mechanism;
(c) stationary circular tests, performed by means of a rotating arm or a x-y carriage in a wide basin.
Harmonic tests (b) were introduced about 40 years ago; the other types are a few decades older.
Taking account o f the large number of test parameters to be selected and the differences between and
evolution of the concepts of the existing mechanisms, at present each institution applies its own test
methodology, mainly based on its own experience and semi-empirical considerations.
The International Towing Tank Conference (ITTC) identified an increasing need for guidelines
and even standard test procedures for the execution of this type of ship model tests, in order to ensure
the quality of the experimental results. The 22nd ITTC Manoeuvring Committee considered a thorough
insight in present methodologies for selecting the experimental parameters for captive model tests,
being the result of years of experience of many institutions, as a requirement. For this reason, a
questionnaire was circulated among 110 ITTC Member Organisations.
Thanks to the satisfactory response, the Captive Model Test Procedure, formulated by the 22nd
ITTC Manoeuvring Committee and published in the ITTC Quality Manual in 1999 (Ref. 1), could be
provided with quantitative data reflecting the present state-of-the-art.
A summary of the responses to the questionnaire was given in the Report of the Manoeuvring
Committee at the 22nd ITTC (Ref. 2). The present paper provides a more detailed overview of actual
practice concerning captive manoeuvring tests.
The Questionnaire
The questionnaire consisted of three parts.
In part 1, Experimental facilities: main specifications and physical limitations, details were
asked about tank dimensions, ranges of mechanism kinematics and the range of model dimensions.
In the second part, entitled Experimental program: actual practice, information was asked
about the number of values and the ranges of the parameters determining the captive model test
program. Generally, distinction can be made between three kinds of parameters:
Ship control parameters, in most cases limited to propeller rate and rudder angle;
Operation and analysis parameters, which may affect accuracy and validity of test
results (e.g. measuring time, number of PMM cycles, waiting time between runs).
Part 3 requested for information about Data acquisition and processing.
421
A positive and useful answer was received from 37 institutions, covering 58 facilities
distributed as shown in Table 1. It can be concluded that a majority of the institutions performing
captive manoeuvring tests are able to combine stationary straight-line tests (a) with harmonic tests (b).
Facilities for circular motion tests (c) are rather scarce, and it should be mentioned that some of the
institutions only seldom make use of it. This is especially the case for rotating arm facilities; recently
built facilities for circular motion tests are always wide tanks equipped with a x-y-vy carriage.
# facilities
# institutions
(a)+(b)+
(c)
4
7
total
58
37
kinematic parameters: ship model (or carriage) speed, drift angle (only for a3, a4);
ship control parameters: propeller rate, rudder angle (only for a2, a4);
The questionnaire asked for information about the usual number of values and the way of
selecting the values. The response is summarised in figures 6-11, leading to following conclusions:
The number of forward speeds depends on the test type (figure 6 ), although the highest
frequency of occurrence is obtained for only one speed. On the average, more speeds
are selected for resistance-propulsion tests (al), as the self-propulsion point has to be
determined by this kind of tests. For a2/a3/a4, the median value appears to be 1 or 2.
The majority of the tests is carried out at only one propeller rate (see figure 7), being the
(model or ship) self-propulsion point. Straight towing tests without rudder action (al)
and rudder force tests (a2 ) are often carried out at other propeller loading as well.
The number of drift angles applied in tests a3-a4 is on the average smaller for oblique
towing tests with rudder action (see figure 8 ). The highest frequency is observed at 12
angles for type (a3), and 5 angles for type (a4). A similar distribution is obtained for the
number of rudder angles at which tests a2/a4 are carried out (see figure 9). The way
drift and rudder angles are selected is displayed in figures 10 and 11 , respectively.
Operational and Analysis Parameters.
Following operation and analysis parameters are considered for tests of type (a): waiting time
between runs, length of acceleration phase, settling phase, steady phase and deceleration phase.
An overview of the response is given in Figure 12. Mostly, no distinction is made between the
different types o f tests. On the other hand, the length of the steady phase may influence the accuracy of
the analysis results; according to Ref. 9, a measuring length of three times the ship model length should
be considered as a minimum. Obviously, this condition is fulfilled by a majority of the test runs.
for tests (bl): the lateral motion amplitude yoA and oscillation frequency to, determining
the sway velocity amplitude va and sway acceleration amplitude VA :
v A =yoAc ; * A = y 0A2
or, expressed in a non-dimensional way:
_ VA
A = -------= ;------------ = y O A w l
yOA L
( la)
, _ VAL
VA =
y 0A co2 L2 _
9
,2
- yOAw l
( lb)
u
L u
u2
L
u2
for tests (b2,b3,b4): the yaw amplitude \\ia and oscillation frequency to, determining the
yaw velocity amplitude rA and yaw acceleration amplitude f A :
- ; fA = ^ Ato2
u
or, non-dimensionally:
rA
= M7a
(2a)
u
2
*A s
y '0 A i2
*A = T^ r
= V A ',2 * y'oA'l3
(2b)
U
u2
The approximations are valid for small yaw amplitudes, and illustrate the indirect
influence of the lateral amplitude;
Forward Speed
The number of forward speeds u applied during a harmonic test program is displayed in Figure
13. For a large range o f applications, only one forward speed value is selected.
Sway and Yaw Velocity Amplitude
The number of sway and yaw velocity amplitudes applied during test programs of types (bl)
and (b2), respectively, is displayed in figure 14. This number varies between 1 and 20, 4 being a
median value. There is only a slight difference between the distributions for sway and yaw tests, which
is remarkable, as generally tests of type (bl) are only carried out for determining the sway acceleration
derivatives, while tests (b2 ) also provide data on both yaw rate and yaw acceleration dependent forces
and moments. As shown in figure 15, median ranges for non-dimensional sway and yaw velocity
amplitudes are [0.1 ; 0.35] and [0.16 ; 0.58], respectively.
As stated above, a sway/yaw velocity amplitude is the result of a combination of sway/yaw
amplitude and oscillation frequency.
Sway and Yaw Amplitude
The number of amplitudes applied in a harmonic sway/yaw test program varies between 1 and
10, 3 being a median value (see figure 16).
The lateral amplitude yoA may be restricted due to technical limitations of the driving
mechanism, but even if the lateral motion extends over the full tank width, interference of the model
with the tank walls should be avoided. Figure 17 shows that the lateral amplitude typically takes less
424
than 10% of the tank width, and that in more than 90% of the cases the swept path does not exceed half
the tank width, as recommended in Ref. 3. Concerning harmonic yawing tests, only a limited number of
completed questionnaires contained a range of yaw amplitudes, varying between 5 and 35 deg; also for
this kind of tests, restrictions to lateral motion appear to be of greater importance.
Obviously, limitations of toi' are overruled by those of 102' or 103' for larger Froude numbers.
Restrictions of toi' can be interpreted as follows.
Restriction of the number of oscillation cycles c due to the available tank length Ltank:
(4)
Several authors (Refs 4-7) suggest maximum values for toi' to avoid non-stationary lift
and memory effects; typical values are 1-2 for sway and 2-3 for yaw tests. Comparable
values result from considerations on lateral wake patterns (Ref. 8 ).
Drift Angles
Interaction of yawing with drift (b4) is typically verified at four drift angles, selected in the
range between -30 and +30 deg; [0 deg ; 16 deg] appears to be a median range (see figure 20).
Ship Control Parameters
Harmonic tests are usually carried out at only one propeller rate (see figure 21), the selfpropulsion point of the ship or the model. Interaction of yawing with rudder action (b3) is typically
425
verified at three rudder deviations. No tendency can be observed concerning the selection of the range
of rudder angles (see figure 2 2 ).
kinematic parameters: ship model forward speed, yawing rate, drift angle (c2 only);
Most tests are carried out at only one combination of forward speed and propeller rate.
The number of yaw rates varies from 2 to 16, with 4 as a median value. The nondimensional values r=rL/u vary from 0.07 to 1, the median range being [0.2 ; 0.75].
Interaction between yaw and drift is evaluated at a number of drift angles varying from
3 to 24, 7 being the median value. The maximum drift angle varies between 10 and 20
deg; an asymmetric range is applied by about 50% of the respondents.
Important spreading is observed concerning the number and range of rudder angles.
Operational and Analysis Parameters:
Following parameters are of interest for tests of type (c):
waiting time between runs, usually chosen between 10 and 20 minutes (figure 24);
length of acceleration, settling, steady and deceleration phases. The number of responses
was very limited; it can be concluded that only a limited fraction of a revolution,
typically less than 180 deg, can be used for analysis, as 120 to 180 deg are required for
accelerating and about 60 deg for settling.
426
Concluding Remarks
The analysis of the replies to the 22nd ITTC Manoeuvring Committee Questionnaire provides a
thorough insight into the present state-of-the-art concerning the methodology for execution of captive
manoeuvring tests. Thanks to the satisfactory response and the detailed answers, to be considered as a
summary of the experience that has been developed in a large number of institutes for several decades,
a solid base was provided for this analysis.
On the other hand, these data and their analysis should be considered with some caution,
especially if it is applied as a tool for developing a standard captive model test procedure. Indeed, such
a procedure should always take account of the specific conditions determined by:
the characteristics of the experimental facility (e.g. tank and model dimensions, type of
PMM facility, range of mechanism kinematics), which may imply restrictions to the
selection of test parameters, and result into facility dependent 'optimal' test programs
and procedures;
the application domain of the test results, which may require different ranges of test
parameters to be investigated (e.g. determining linear manoeuvring derivatives for
evaluating the course stability, mathematical model for prediction of standard
manoeuvres, input for simulator models including harbour manoeuvring).
The latter explains the large variation in the number and range of selected values of some of the
parameters, e.g. drift angles, rudder deflections, forward speeds.
Furthermore, it should be emphasised that test procedures need to be updated permanently;
common practice is not necessarily equal to optimal practice. In this respect, it is important to keep in
mind the philosophy on which parameter selection criteria are based. Sometimes it was impossible to
retrieve this philosophy in the answers to the questionnaire. As a typical example, the selection of
PMM frequencies for harmonic tests (b) could be mentioned:
Although harmonic test results used for quasi-stationary purposes should be checked on
their frequency dependency, only one frequency is applied in 50% of the test programs.
427
Acknowledgements
The questionnaire on captive manoeuvring experiments was carried out in the frame of the
tasks of the 22nd ITTC Manoeuvring Committee. The author would like to thank all members for their
support: Dr. S. Cordier (chairman), Dr. R. Barr (secretary), Dr. G. Capurro, Dr. M. Hirano, Dr. J. Buus
Petersen, Prof. K.-P. Rhee, Prof. Zou Z.-J.
On behalf of the Committee, the author would like to express his appreciation to all ITTC
Member Organisations that have completed the questionnaire.
References
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
"Manoeuvring - Captive Model Test Procedure" (1999). 22nd International Towing Tank
Conference, ITTC Quality Manual, 4.9-03-04-03, 25 pp. Seoul, Korea & Shanghai, China.
"Report of the Manoeuvring Committee" (1999). 22nd International Towing Tank Conference,
Proceedings, Volume I, pp. 71-118. Seoul, Korea & Shanghai, China.
Leeuwen, G. van (1964), "The lateral damping and added mass of an oscillating shipmodel",
Shipbuilding Laboratory, Technological University Delft, Publication No. 23.
Nomoto, K. (1975), "Ship response in directional control taking account of frequency
dependent hydrodynamic derivatives", Proceedings o f the 14th ITTC, Ottawa, Canada, Vol. 2,
p.408-413.
Wagner Smitt, L. and Chislett, M.S. (1974), "Large amplitude PMM tests and maneuvering
predictions for a Mariner class vessel", 10th Symposium on Naval Hydrodynamics, Boston,
USA, pp. 131-157.
Milanov, E. (1984) "On the use of quasisteady PMM-test results", International Symposium on
Ship Techniques, Rostock, Germany
Leeuwen, G. van, 1969, "Some problems concerning the design of a horizontal oscillator" (in
Dutch), Shipbuilding Laboratory, Technological University Delft, Report No. 225.
Vantorre, M. and Eloot, K. (1997), "Requirements for standard harmonic captive manoeuvring
tests", MCMC'97, Brijuni, Croatia, pp. 93-98.
Vantorre, M. (1992), "Accuracy and optimization of captive ship model tests", 5th
International Symposium on Practical Design o f Ships and Mobile Units, Newcastle upon
Tyne, UK, Vol. 1, pp. 1.190-1.203.
Goodman, A., Gertler, M. and Kohl, R. (1976), "Experimental technique and methods of
analysis used at Hydronautics for surface-ship maneuvering predictions", 11th Symposium on
Naval Hydrodynamics, London, UK, pp. 55-113.
428
0.8 3
0.02
c
o
.......................
...
Jl
/I
JU r 1
W -
0.06
x'S
0 .6 '
0 .4 .2
.2 0.04
T3
0.4.
0.2 1
ig 0.02
0.2
0.00
0
400
0.50
0.30
c
o
0 .6 ?
0.20
0 .4 .2
0.10
0.2 1O
0.00
10
20
20
40
60
tank width (m)
80
0.50
0.8 3
(*0T
1 ^ 1
100
200
300
tank length (m)
'w '
0 .6 ?
.-9
0.01
0.00
0.10
j
r /,
3 0 .4 0
c
"------
1 0.30
I 0.20
T
t
0.00
30
1
--3 0
8
4
6
tank depth (m )
73
0
0
90
i
.
i
(deg) 180
90 (deg) 180
Figure 2. Facilities for test types (a) and (b): distributions of maximum static drift angle
0.05
73
5 yA(m)l0
15
J.
0.5
0.8
0
0.3
0.6 'S
X
0.2
0.4
1T3
0.2
5
10
ship m odel length (m )
15
Figure 4. Distributions of the length of ship models used for several types of captive model tests.
i
0.8
c
_o
S 0.6
X
'B
to
-3 0.4
0.6 S
0.6 a
0.4 :
0.4 .2
0.2
0.2 3
0
0
0.2
0.1
0.2
0 .4
0 .6
0.8
ship m odel length / tank width
Figure 5. Distributions of the ratios of ship model length to tank length and to tank width.
1
1
G
o
0.8 J
0 .4
o 0.5
l0 .4
0.8
disi
O
U)
J3
0.6 1
<D
0.4
Bc 0.2
0.2 1
0 .1
B
1
r 1
0 .4
c
2
0.8
|o .6
o
2
1,
0 .6 ^
os
0.2 i
co
1Um
- 0.4
0.4 .2
0.8 J
<D
0.6 =
Bc 0.4
<u
0.2 g
0 .2
fa
Q
0
1
10
0.6 =
10
Figure 6. Stationary straight line tests: distribution o f the number o f forward speeds.
430
0 .4
0.8
0.8
0 .4
0.6 a
0.6
0.2 3
0.8
3 0.8
0.8
0.8
0 .6
0.6 a
0.2 3
10
10
Differential distribution
0.2
0.8 x>
0.6
0.4
ju 0.05
ta
r-* o
Number o f drift angles
Number of drift angles
Figure 8. Stationary straight line tests: distribution of the number of drift angles.
Differential distribution
0.8
J 0.25
1 c
.2
js 0.2
0.8
^3 0.15
0.6 ^
Bc o.i
<D
1 0.05
^1
It l r i
<u
0.4
0.2 I
o 3
NO On
Number of rudder angles
Number o f rudder angles
Figure 9. Stationary straight line tests: distribution o f the number o f rudder angles.
431
>O
O
l/> i/
NO
O
N
On
1 drift angle (deg)
i y.
^i^t99P
0.5
-..........I
J
<->
i
o
...................
AW
M
i n
"T
n r
'T
O
'T
'
'
'
O
'
'
'
i n
r ^ i T f ' O
i n
i n
t ' - O v O
i n
f N
i n
r ^ i i n ' O O
Figure 10. Distributions of limits of drift angle range applied for stationary straight-line tests
7^
0.5
G
o
X3
-+- +-+ 1 1
3
0
10
20
30
40
10
J y
IT3
T3
.2
(a4)
iti
l
c
X3
IX
I
o
-H H
20
30
40
Figure 11. Distributions of limits of rudder angle range applied for stationary straight-line tests.
0.2
c
o
'S
X
T3
M
T3
13
T3
i5
0
10
10
20
30
Figure 12. Stationary straight line tests: distributions of operation and analysis parameters
432
0.5
c
o
5
10
decel. dist. / m odel length
10 20 30 40 50
W aiting tim e (m in)
Figure 12 (cont). Stationary straight line tests: distributions of operation and analysis parameters
so ^1
!...
06
3 0.4
0.2
te
S
0.8
0 .6 ^
bl
u1
o
1
0.8 r9
x>0.8
_
6
0.2 2
0
10
0.8
0.8 -g
0.8
0.8 -2
0. 6 s
0.2 3
0
0.2 2
0
1
10
Q 0.0
1
11 13 15 17 19
11 13 15 17 19
low er limit
low er limit
upper limit
u pp er limit
(bl)
(b2)
1
0.5
o 0.5
Cumulative distribution
Figure 15. Harmonic tests: distribution of non-dimensional sway/yaw velocity amplitude range.
0 .5
B
<u
<
$-D
<
U
Um
r<L>
C+H
Ou
Q 0.0
1
$
Q 0.0
10
10
0.2
0.1
0.3
yA/ W o . 4
1.2
'B
.
3
>
fi
S
OU
1
10
3
.2
I
Q 0.0
'
C
0-5
ta
Q 0.0
1
10
Cumulative distribution
Figure 17. Harmonic sway tests: distribution of sway amplitude to tank width ratio
0.2
2.5
Vi
Vi
(O1!
10
10
20
0. 4 3
co2
Figure 19. Harmonic tests: distributions of non-dimensional oscillation frequencies, with indication of
empirical guidelines.
s
.2
--------i--- 1 V.JH.
0.8 ^
.> 0.8
r
W
3 0.6
I 0. 4
c
<D
<3 0.2
&
S o
i
0.8
(b4)
b4
0.2 2
-40
10
-20
0
20
drift angle (deg)
40
A 0 .8
0.8
^ 0.8
0.8
0.6
0 .6 ^
0.6
0.2 2
0.8
0.8
3
3 0.8
0.8 rO
0.4 >
0.2 2
0.8 _ _
0.6
I 0.6
I 0.4
10
b3 "
, ,
y .. /
-40 -30 -20 -10
10 20 30 40
Figure 22. Harmonie yaw with rudder action (b3) : distribution of number and range of rudder angles.
0
1
1 3
C/5
9 11 13 15
11
16
21
c
te
1 2
5 10 15 20 25 30
1 6 11 16 21
Waiting time (min)
No. of rudder angles
Figure 24. Stationary circular tests (c): test parameters.
8
436
Longitudinal force
Carriage position/speed
Lateral force
Y aw ing moment
R olling moment
Drift angle
Propeller thrust/torque
Rudder forces/m om ents
Lateral position
Heading angle
Other
Sinkage
Trim
Other
Roll angle
Control parameters o f m echanism : test type (c)
Control parameters o f ship m odel
Arm position/speed
Rudder angle
Propeller rpm
Drift angle
Other
Other
20
40
Number o f answers
I A lw ays
1Som etim es
IN ever
437