63 views

Uploaded by Hung Nguyen

Ship motion

- Marine Vehicle Motion
- Report Rubric
- MATLAB HW.pdf
- Auto Ground Vehicle
- Dynamic analysis
- ICRA12_1165_FI
- Curricular Unit
- Hy Tb3dv m 3axis Driver
- Iavsd 2007 Zhou
- Quick Strip Theory
- Aerial Robotics Lecture 2C_4 Quadrotor Equations of Motion
- chapter 02.pdf
- PHYSICS 13 Diagnostic Exam
- EM Lab MCQ (2)
- Quadrotor Equations of Motion
- Daily Lesson Log in Science (1)
- 02 Moving About
- r Pt Physics f 42013
- Structuralism
- MHMT8

You are on page 1of 48

KRISTIAN KOSKINEN

Degree project in

Naval Architecture

Second cycle

Stockholm, Sweden 2012

ABSTRACT

This is a master thesis conducted at KTH Centre for Naval Architecture in collaboration with Seaware

AB and Wallenius Marine AB.

Traditionally simulation of ship motion is divided into manoeuvring and seakeeping. In manoeuvring the

plane motion in surge, sway and yaw degrees of freedom for a ship considered moving in calm water is

simulated. For increased accuracy the roll degree of freedom can be included as it affects the plane

motion. In seakeeping ship motion due to waves at a specific speed and course in 3 to 6 DOF (degrees of

freedom), depending on the area of interest, is simulated.

The motion that a ship undergoes at sea is however dependent on the interaction between the forces and

moments due to waves as well as the forces and moments related to ship manoeuvring. Furthermore,

analysis on e.g. methods for counteracting roll motion in waves with rudder movement requires the

modelling of forces and moments due to waves and manoeuvring in several DOF. It is therefore

desirable to develop a unified model that describes ship motion in several DOF with respect to waves and

the effects of manoeuvring.

To create a mathematical model, written in MATLAB script, for simulation of ship motion due to waves

and the manoeuvring related forces in 5 DOF, a wave induced (Ovegrd 2009) and manoeuvrability

(Zachrissson 2011) ship motion model were integrated.

The code was validated against a linear strip theory, a non-linear ship motion model as well as model

experimental results. Results have shown that whilst the heave and pitch motions agree with the models

and tank tests the roll motion is seen, in some cases, as creating larger response in comparison to other

models and experimental tank tests.

3 Acknowledgements

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I would like to first and foremost thank my family, who by now are probably pretty tired of hearing how

cool it is to be able to simulate ship motion with the help of mathematical models.

Also, I would like to thank my supervisors Anders Rosn (KTH), Erik Ovegrd (Seaware) and Carl-Johan

Sder (Wallenius Marine AB) for their contribution during the master thesis project.

Finally, I would like to acknowledge the members of the master thesis study group Manohara Ranganath

Draksharam and Ragnvald Lkholm Alvestad for the interesting and frequently occurring discussions on

topics reaching from religion to Einsteins theory of relativity.

Contents

Abstract ......................................................................................................................................................................... 2

Acknowledgements...................................................................................................................................................... 3

1. Introduction.............................................................................................................................................................. 5

2. Introduction to mathematical modelling of ship motions ................................................................................ 7

3. Coordinate systems ................................................................................................................................................. 9

3.1 The global earth bound coordinate system................................................................................................... 9

3.2 The local translative coordinate system......................................................................................................... 9

3.3 The ship fixed rotative coordinate system .................................................................................................. 10

3.4 The variable .................................................................................................................................................. 10

3.5 The transformation matrixes......................................................................................................................... 10

3.6 Ship heading with respect to waves ............................................................................................................. 11

4. The unified ship motion model ........................................................................................................................... 11

4.1 The wave induced ship motion model ........................................................................................................ 11

4.1.1 Example in 1 DOF ................................................................................................................................. 12

4.1.2 The non-linear model ............................................................................................................................. 13

4.2 Ship manoeuvrability model.......................................................................................................................... 13

4.3 Integration of the models .............................................................................................................................. 15

4.3.1 Autopilot................................................................................................................................................... 16

4.3.2 The surge degree of freedom ................................................................................................................ 17

4.3.3 The unified equation of motion ............................................................................................................ 18

5. Validation ................................................................................................................................................................ 19

5.1 Ro-ro vessel (SSPA 2733) .............................................................................................................................. 19

5.1.1 Results discussion.................................................................................................................................... 25

5.2 The box vessel ................................................................................................................................................. 27

5.2.1 Results discussion.................................................................................................................................... 31

6 Discussion and conclusion .................................................................................................................................... 32

References ................................................................................................................................................................... 33

Appendix A - Simulation results and input data ................................................................................................... 34

Appendix B - Verification of the unified model ................................................................................................... 35

Test ship.................................................................................................................................................................. 35

Verification tests .................................................................................................................................................... 35

Verification results ................................................................................................................................................ 38

5 1. Introduction

1. INTRODUCTION

From the beautiful ships that sailed up the river Nile bringing massive carved stone blocks to the building

sites of the great pyramids around 2000 BC (see figure 1), to the fleet of Columbus that discovered the

new world to the luxuries cruise liner RMS Titanic (see figure 1) that still fascinates our minds to the

mighty war ships HMS Hood and Bismarck that ruled the seas in World War II had all been designed to

serve a certain purpose.

a)

b)

A modern ship design procedure can be seen as an iterative process (Milchert 2000) where requirements,

regulations and rules including, amongst others, analysis of seakeeping and intact stability criteria issued

by the International Maritime Organization (IMO) (Rosn 2011) and ship design solutions are compared

in order to achieve an optimum solution. The combination of the ever growing population together with

high demand for goods and increasing oil prices have resulted in the design of merchant ships that are

optimized for minimum resistance and maximum load capacity.

The stability criteria issued by the IMO for merchant ships are based on statistical studies made in the

middle of the twentieth century (IMO 2008) of righting lever curves for the ship in calm water as well as

the areas under these. Modern merchant ships, seen today, differ however significantly from the ships

that were used in the statistical studies upon which the IMO criteria are based, both in size and hullform

(Kluwe 2009). Furthermore, the criteria do not include the dynamic intact stability which is of great

importance for modern merchant ships.

Accidents during the last years have shown that the existing intact stability criteria do not provide

sufficient safety margins. An example of this is the M/S Finnbirch (see figure 2) that capsized and sank in

November 2006 between the Swedish islands of land and Gotland. An unfavourable course and speed

in combination with rough sea conditions with high and long waves resulting in partly loss of stability

causing large rolling motions followed by shifting cargo have been seen as the cause of the accident (SHK

2008).

As a consequence of accidents as the above, steps taken towards the understanding and development of

the field of ship dynamic stability have being made by different research groups such as the research

group formed by the Centre for Naval Architecture at the Royal Institute of Technology (KTH) together

6 1. Introduction

with Seaware and Wallenius Marine AB, in which this master thesis project is a part of. Moreover, the

IMO is working on the development of a second generation intact stability criteria where several dynamic

stability related aspects, such as pure loss of stability, parametric roll and surf-riding/broaching are taken

into consideration.

As phenomenon related to stability alternations in longitudinal and quartering waves, such as, parametric

rolling and pure loss of stability cannot be foreseen by todays stability standards, it is of great importance

to develop tools that enable the prediction of ship motion with respect to different sea states.

Certainly, prediction of ship motion can be done in many different ways. Testing several full scale ships

would unquestionably give the best estimate, but would of course be too costly and practically impossible.

Another way of analysing ship motion is by testing ship models in wave basins. Although a better option

than testing full scale ships, it is often time consuming and costly. A third option is the prediction of ship

motion by computer simulation. Computer simulations are done with respect to simplified models. These

models represent physical reality to a degree that depends on the simplifications and assumptions made.

Traditionally simulation of ship motion is divided into manoeuvring and seakeeping (Fossen 2005). In

manoeuvring the plane motion in surge, sway and yaw degrees of freedom for a ship considered moving

in calm water is simulated. For increased accuracy the roll degree of freedom can be included as it affects

the plane motion. In seakeeping ship motion due to waves at a specific speed and course in 3 to 6 DOF

(degrees of freedom), depending on the area of interest, is simulated.

The motion that a ship undergoes at sea is however dependent on the interaction between the forces and

moments due to waves as well as the forces and moments related to ship manoeuvring. Furthermore,

analysis on e.g. methods for counteracting roll motion in waves with rudder movement requires the

modelling of forces and moments due to waves and manoeuvring in several DOF. It is therefore

desirable to develop a unified model that describes ship motion in several DOF with respect to waves and

the effects of manoeuvring.

During the last decades, several unified models describing ship motion due to manoeuvring in waves have

been developed. A nonlinear unified state-space model for ship manoeuvring and control in seaway is

presented by Fossen (2005), where the unified model is obtained by superimposing a manoeuvring and

seakeeping model. The potential and viscous damping terms in the model established by Fossen (2005)

are presented by a so called state-space approach where instead of using the convolution integral which is

used to derive the damping forces in classic theory a linear reduced-order state-space model is used to

approximate the damping forces. Thus, achieving the standard representation used in feedback systems.

Regarding the wave excitation forces, they include the Froude-Krylov and diffraction forces (1st order

wave loads) as well as the wave drift force (2nd order wave loads). Hua and Palmquist (1995) describe a

time domain ship motion simulation program (SMS) where two mathematical models, a wave induced

model and a manoeuvrability model, are incorporated into a unified model. The unification of the models

is obtained by assuming that no interference between the turning motion introduced by ship manoeuvres

and the velocity potential, diffraction or radiation waves is attained, thus making it possible to

superimpose the given models. The damping forces, in contrast to the method described in Fossen (2005)

are derived to the time domain through the convolution integral. As to the wave exciting forces, only the

Froude-Krylov and diffraction (1st order wave loads) are included, where the Froude-Krylov force is

treated nonlinearly.

Furthermore, Min-Guk and Yonghwan (2011) introduced a unified model for ship manoeuvring in waves

where the interaction between the manoeuvring and seakeeping model is done similar to the unified

models presented above. That is, the seakeeping and manoeuvring problems are coupled and solved

simultaneously. The emphasis of the program is on the 2nd order wave drift obtained by using a direct

pressure calculation method which is seen as an important factor in the ship trajectory calculations.

The aim of the present master thesis has been the expansion and development of a 3 DOF nonlinear

seakeeping model (Ovegrd 2009) by integrating a 4 DOF manoeuvrability model (Zachrissson 2011)

resulting in a 5 DOF model in order to improve the simulation accuracy of the seakeeping model, in

particular for relative wave directions differing from head and following seas.

The report starts with a description of the general mathematical model for ship motion in six degrees of

freedom followed by the description of the coordinate systems used to describe ship motion, ship

geometry, forces, moments and waves. The report then continues with the theoretical description of the

ship motion models and how they were integrated. Finally, the report ends with the validation of the

unified model and discussion and conclusion chapter.

Physical reality is far too complex to mimic in full detail. However, by identifying what the major

influences of a physical phenomenon are, a simplified model of reality can be made.

A ship sailing at seas is influenced by numerous different variables that affect the motion of the ship.

Possible shifting cargo, motion due to winds, water streams in the ocean and possible effects due to

shallow water are a part of the factors behind the motion of a ship.

Forces due to winds, water streams and shallow waters are however small compared to the forces due to

waves and ship manoeuvring and are therefore not included in the model. Shifting cargo, which can have

major effects on the stability of a ship, depending on the mass and distance that the cargo has shifted in

comparison with the ship geometry and weight are not taken in consideration.

Furthermore the deformation of the ship is not included in the current model. The ship hull is considered

as a rigid body.

The motion of the ship in the different degrees of freedom is described by Newtons second law, also

called the equation of motion,

(1)

where

describes the ship motion in the surge, sway and heave degrees of freedom for j=1,2,3 ,see

figure 3, and roll, pitch and yaw degrees of freedom for j=4,5,6 .

Figure 3. Sign convention for the six degrees of freedom (Hua and Palmqvist 1995).

is the mass matrix including the mass in the translatory degrees of freedom as well as mass moment

of inertia in the rotational degrees of freedom at the centre of gravity of the ship

(2)

and is the force vector describing the forces for j=1,2,3 and moments for j=4,5,6 affecting the motion

of the ship.

As the hydromechanic forces and moments affecting the motion of the ship and thus its seakeeping and

manoeuvring behaviour are proportional to the pressure distribution of the fluid over the hull, propeller,

rudder and probable fin Garme (2011) the left hand side of equation 1 can be written as

(3)

where p is the pressure distribution on the hull, propeller, probably fin and rudder, is the unit normal,

the position vector from the centre of gravity to dS and S the wetted surface of the structure in question.

Applying the principle of conservation of mass and Newtons laws i.e. the conservation of momentum on

a fluid element, resulting in the Navier-Stokes and continuity equations, the velocity and pressure fields of

the fluid can be described.

By assuming that the viscous effect in comparison to the gravitational is negligible as well as assuming

that the fluid is irrotational the velocity field of the fluid can be described as a gradient of a scalar field i.e.

the velocity potential (Lewandowski 2004). By further assuming that the fluid is incompressible the

continuity equations can be expressed as the Laplace equation

(4)

for the velocity potential and the conservation of momentum as the Bernoulli equation

(5)

where is the density of the fluid,

constant and the water depth.

the gravitational

Due to the linearity of the Laplace equation individual solutions can be superimposed, thus satisfying the

Laplace equation.

Before going into a detailed description of how these forces and moments are modelled a description of

the different coordinate systems is needed.

9 3. Coordinate systems

3. COORDINATE SYSTEMS

In order to describe the translative and rotative motions of a ship, the forces and moments involved and

the position of the ship in the wave system three coordinate systems, transformation matrixes and a

position vector is needed. The different coordinate systems used in the model are:

the local, translative coordinate system

the local, ship fixed, rotative coordinate system

The global earth bound coordinate system

, seen in figure 4, with its origin at the starting point of a

simulation describes the platform on which the ship motion is simulated. The

-plane describes the still

water plane where the -axis points at the main direction of the wave propagation and the -axis points

upwards i.e. in the opposite direction of gravity.

Figure 4. The coordinate systems and the position vector s (Hua and Palmqvist 1995).

The local, translative, coordinate system

, with its origin in the centre of gravity, CG, of the ship, see

figure 3 and 4, only translates with the ship. The -axis points in the main direction of the ship, the -axis

at the port side and the -axis is parallel to the -axis. The equation of motion is described in this

coordinate system.

10 3. Coordinate systems

3.3 THE SHIP FIXED ROTATIVE COORDINATE SYSTEM

The local, ship fixed, coordinate system

, seen in figure 4, with its origin in the centre of gravity,

CG, of the ship only rotates with the ship. The - axis is parallel to the keel line of the ship, the - axis

points to the port side of the ship and the -axis points upwards. The geometry of the ship is expressed

in this coordinate system.

3.4 THE VARIABLE

The vector , used as an extra variable to ease the transformations between the different coordinate

systems , including the position related to the constant and instant motions, is written as,

(6)

where is a vector including the instant motions. U is a constant speed that represents the speed in the

surge direction of the ship in the

and

coordinate systems. This simplification is based on

that the yaw angle is kept small. VCG the vertical centre of gravity, T the ship draught and the angle

between the

and

coordinate systems.

As the equations of motion are expressed in

coordinate systems are to be transformed to

are done with the transformation matrix

. Vector transformations between

and

(7)

[

define the angular difference between the two coordinate systems, where is the yaw angle, the pitch

angle and the roll angle. The Euler angle notation is equal to the vector notation used in equation 1 to

express the ship rotation.

11

With the help of the transformation matrix in equation 7 a vector can be transformed from

by

to

The relative angle between the waves and the ship, , in the mathematical model is defined as 00

following seas and 1800 for head seas (illustration see figure 5).

Based on the assumption that no major interference between the turning motion of the ship and the

incident velocity potential, radiation and diffraction waves arise the mathematical model for describing

ship motion in waves in the sway, heave, roll, pitch and yaw degrees of freedom is derived and

implemented in MATLAB by integrating the wave induced ship motion model (Ovegrd 2009) and the

ship manoeuvring model (Zachrisson 2011).

4.1 THE WAVE INDUCED SHIP MOTION MODEL

Based on the linear potential flow theory the motion of a ship in waves is modelled by separately

analysing the hydromechanical radiation and restoring forces as a rigid body oscillates in still water and

the Froude-Krylov and diffraction exciting forces produced by waves on a rigid body. A more extensive

and thorough explanation concerning the methods of calculation from a numerical point of view is found

in Ovegrd (2009).

As the model is able to simulate non-linear behaviour, such as parametric rolling, a part of the forces are

modelled non-linearly. Before specifically explaining what parts of the forces are modelled linearly and

non-linearly the physics behind the different forces are explained by looking at wave induced ship motion

in 1 DOF.

4.1.1 Example in 1 DOF

The linear potential flow theory derived by assuming that the wave amplitudes are small compared to the

wave length resulting in the exclusion of the

term in the Bernoulli equation together with the

assumption the wave and ship motions are much smaller in comparison to the ship dimensions, thus

satisfying the given boundary condition that no fluid is transported through the hull the motion of the

ship can be divided into:

Hydromechanical forces and moments induced by the harmonic oscillation of the rigid body in

still water. (see figure 6)

Wave exciting forces due to waves on a restrained body. (see figure 6)

Figure 6. Division of ship motion due to waves in 1 DOF (Journe and Pinkster 2002).

The hydromechanical forces and moments due to the harmonic oscillation of the body are traditionally

divided into radiation and restoring forces. The radiation forces, referring to the waves created by the

oscillating body moving radially from it, include forces due to the movement of the added mass of water

particles that are set into motion as the hull oscillates. Furthermore, the radiation forces include damping

forces proportional to the velocity of the body motion. The restoring force is proportional to the change

of position and behaves similarly to a spring force.

The exciting forces include the Froude-Krylov forces and the diffraction forces, where the Froude-Krylov

forces are the forces on the restrained body due to the undisturbed wave potential. As a wave comes in

contact with a body it gets disturbed or diffracted and is modelled by the diffraction forces.

The basic idea and physical meaning described above for the example describing motion in waves for 1

DOF is valid for the non-linear model. The difference is that the motion is in 5 DOF and that the

Froude-Krylov, restoring and roll-damping forces are modelled non-linearly.

4.1.2 The non-linear model

Now, as can be understood a ship in physical reality is not restrained as in the example given above, but

rather following the motion of the encountered waves in any direction to an extent dependent on the hull

geometry, speed and position of the centre of gravity.

This is taken into consideration, in particular in the Froude-Krylov and restoring calculations, which are

obtained through integration of the static and dynamic fluid pressure in the normal direction over the

momentary wetted surface of the ship hull.

The damping forces in the radiation forces are divided into memory and viscous roll-damping forces. The

division is done due to the difference of which the damping consists of. Viscous effects are the dominant

factors behind the roll-damping in comparison to the memory forces which consider damping due to loss

of energy needed to create the radiating waves.

The viscous roll-damping forces are obtained by a semi-empirical method according to (Ikeda, Himeno,

Tanaka (1978)) where the damping coefficients are obtained through a roll decay test.

The frequency dependent memory forces are obtained by transforming the damping coefficients from the

frequency domain to the time domain according to Lewandowski (2004) with the help of the inverse

Fourier cosine transform function and thus obtaining the memory function which is then integrated over

a predetermined timespan.

The damping and added mass coefficients, with the exception of the roll-damping coefficients, are

derived according to de Jong (1973) with Lewis forms, which are integrated along the -axis according

to (Salveson, Tuck, Faltinsen, 1970).

The exciting diffraction forces are modelled, as in the case of the memory forces, as a function of the hull

geometry dependent added mass and damping coefficients and a moving entity. The difference between

these models is that the moving entities in the diffraction model are the wave water particles as supposed

to the oscillating hull.

In view of equation 1 the equation of motion is then written as,

(8)

In comparison to the wave-induced ship motion model, where the ship motion is modelled in waves, the

manoeuvrability model by Zachrisson (2011) describes ship motion in calm water with respect to the

forces and moments obtained from the hull and rudder.

The degrees of freedom in the model include the surge, sway, roll and yaw. The velocity in surge is kept

as constant in the unified model and therefore the force in surge that is modelled in the manoeuvrability

model is left out.

The coordinate system used in the manoeuvring model is plane i.e. two dimensional. Surge points at the

absolute heading of the ship, sway at the star board side and yaw downwards in the direction of gravity.

By leaving out the surge the equations of motion is expressed as,

[

[

(

]

]

(9)

)

where

is the mass of the ship and

the mass moment of inertia in the yaw degree of freedom.

and

are the added mass and added moment of inertia in the respective degrees of

freedom. The added mass and mass moment of inertia are obtained according to Hooft and Pieffer

(1998) and are based on empirical and semi-empirical formulas that are proportional to the hull geometry,

block coefficient and draught.

is the sum of the forces in sway and can be written as

(10)

where

and

are the hull and rudder forces. The hull forces are derived

through semi-empirical formulas based on Annon (2002) with modifications made seen in Zachrisson

(2011). The hydrodynamic coefficients in the semi-empirical formulas are based on (Lee T. et al 2003).

The term

is the force in sway due to the velocity in surge and yaw rate. The rudder model is

based on a flap rudder from Becker Marine Systems. The method for calculating the rudder forces is

done according to Kijima, et al. (1993).

is the sum of the moments in yaw and is written as

(11)

where

and

are the moments in yaw with respect to the ship hull

and rudder. Similar to the

forces the

moments are derived from semi-empirical

formulas described in Zachrisson (2011).

The equations of motion in the manoeuvrability model are located at the centre of gravity, but the forces

are described at the mid ship position which results in the term , where

is the lever arm

from the mid-ship position to the centre of gravity. The lever arm

, seen in figure 7, is measured from

the mid-ship position of the ship and positive ahead.

is the sum of the moments in roll, obtained by the product of the sum of the hull and rudder

forces and their respective lever arms and , seen in figure 8, where is the vertical distance between

the centre of gravity and the centre of lateral rudder force and

is the vertical distance between the

centre of gravity and the centre of lateral hull force. d, in figure 8, is the mean draft and KG the distance

from the keel to the centre of gravity.

Figure 8. The rudder and hull forces and the respective lever arms.

In this part of the report the integration process of the two mathematical models i.e. the wave-induced

non-linear model and the manoeuvring model is explained.

From a programing structural point of view, the two simulation models can roughly be described as

consisting of:

A main part where initial values, such as, ship geometry, load case and sea state are initiated

Functions describing the different forces with respect to given input values

An equation of motion

A numerical solver.

The integration of the two models required the establishment of an EOM that included the forces and

moments from the wave-induced and manoeuvring model, a unified numerical solver, a unified

coordinate system, coordinate transformation between the two models and an autopilot as well as a

unified main script.

As the EOM and the numerical solver in the wave-induced model were already prepared for simulating

motion in 6 DOF, namely the matrix size of the EOM, they were chosen as the basis for the unified

solver and EOM. Furthermore, the coordinate systems in the wave-induced model, was chosen as the

base for the unified coordinate system as it consisted of a well-established and complex method of

keeping track of the ship position with respect to given waves.

With the EOM, numerical solver and coordinate systems chosen the two models could be integrated. The

integration of the two models was done by connecting the manoeuvring model via its EOM function,

after required modifications, to the EOM function of the wave-induced model by simply calling the

manoeuvre part as a regular function. The modifications included the change of output values from

velocities and accelerations which are normally the input values to a solver to forces, coordinate system

transformation and the establishing of an autopilot. The integration of the two models is also described in

the flow chart seen in figure 10.

Although the coordinate systems where the EOM are defined in the two models differ in that the z and yaxis point in opposite directions (see figure 9 ), no transformation is needed, with the exception of the roll

degree of freedom. The coordinate systems in the two models are both defined according to the right

hand rule and therefore the relations between the degrees of freedom in the plane are equal. Hence, no

translation is made for surge, sway or yaw.

Figure 9. a) Definition of the coordinate system in the EOM. a) wave-induced model, b) manoeuvrability model.

Regarding the roll degree of freedom, data transformation is needed. The roll-moment is modelled as the

product of hull, rudder and fin forces and a lever arm with the constant distance of

. As the

forces point in the opposite direction, with respect to the x-axis, the roll-moment is multiplied with -1 in

order to obtain the correct sign.

4.3.1 Autopilot

As the aim is to simulate ship motion in waves with respect to a certain wave direction an autopilot is

needed. The autopilot steers the rudder of the ship and is written as

(12)

where

is the angle of the rudder,

is the yaw angle and

the yaw rate. and are proportional

to the rudder area. The negative signs in front of the terms in equations 12 are due to the definition of the

rudder angle with respect to the ship coordinate system. The relation between the yaw and rudder angle,

as defined in Zachrisson (2011), is that a positive rudder angle will turn the vessel to the starboard side

which is equivalent to a positive yaw angle in the manoeuvrability model (see figure 7). However, in order

for the autopilot to work the yaw angle is to be opposed which is accomplished by the negative signs.

4.3.2 The surge degree of freedom

Due to the complexity of simulating the surge force or surge-induced forces, which would have required

the development of 3-D hydrodynamic models, it was left out of this project. Instead the velocity in surge

is kept as constant. This was done by simply setting the acceleration in the surge to zero,

keeping a given initial velocity in surge constant. To avoid any confusion concerning the notation and

purpose with respect to the velocity in surge which is used in the simulation, a clarification is made. The

notation U represents the constant velocity in surge that is used in the unified model, whereas

is

the difference in surge velocity with respect to a constant predetermined speed, caused by waves or other

hydromechanical forces. In conclusion, the real or total velocity in surge is then given by the sum of these

velocities,

.

In addition to the changes made in order to achieve a working unified model, a unified main function was

established where given simulation related initial could be initiated.

User

Unified model

Manoeuvrability model

.

Hull

geometry

Sea state

Ship

condition

Ship

condition

Propeller

and rudder

Diffraction forces

and moments

damping coeff.

moments

Memory forces and

moments

Froude-Krylov

forces

and

moments

Roll-damping

forces

moments

Restoring

forces

and moments

and

EOM

moments

Autopilot

Solver

Results

Motion

Figure 10. Unified model flow chart

Including new couplings between the motions, degrees of freedom and an autopilot the unified equations

of motion is written as,

[

(13)

where the viscous roll-damping, memory, restoring, diffraction and Froude-Krylov are the wave-related

forces and the rudder and hull the manoeuvrability model related forces.

4.3.3.1 The added mass matrix

The added mass matrix, expressed by

(14)

and the added mass moment of inertia for

. The

coupling terms for

describe the added mass of the coupled degrees of freedom. The mass matrix

can be seen in equation 2.

Similar to the approach, which is taken in (Hua and Palmqvist 1995), the elements in the added mass

matrix are calculated according to (de Jong 1973) with Lewis forms, as described in the wave ship induced

model. This approach is seen as the more accurate method in comparison to the semi-empirical method

used in the manoeuvring model. Moreover, the strip method, which is used in order to derive the added

mass is frequency dependent in contrast to the semi-empirical method which depends on ship main

particulars not considering the dynamic part.

4.3.3.2 The coupling

Although the vertical and lateral motions are mathematically decoupled in the model, as can be seen by

looking at the elements in the added mass matrix, position dependent coupling between the lateral and

vertical motion is established through the nonlinear approach of deriving the Froude-Krylov forces. The

position dependent coupling is an important part in the models ability to simulate ship dynamic related

phenomenon like parametric rolling.

19 5. Validation

5. VALIDATION

The unified mathematical model was validated, i.e. determining the level of accuracy of the model by

comparing response amplitudes obtained from ship model tests, the already established wave-induced

nonlinear ship motion model and a linear ship motion model with respect to different sea states and

vessels. Two different vessels were used in the validation process, a box shaped vessel and a ro-ro type

vessel. The verification of the model, which was done prior to the validation, is found in appendix B.

In order to compare the response amplitudes obtained from the different models the response amplitudes

in the translative degrees of freedom were normalized with the wave amplitude, a and the rotative degrees

of freedom by

(15)

where a is the wave amplitude and

The model seakeeping experiments, conducted at the ship testing institute SSPA are based on differing

speed, wave amplitude and frequency and heading angle with respect to the encountered waves. The

model ship used in the experiments is based on a 135m, 11276 tonne ro-ro vessel and is scaled by 1:35.

An accurate description of the test set-up and procedure is found in Garme (1997). The ship test main

particulars are seen in table 1 and the test conditions are found in table 2. The normalized simulation

results can be found in figures 9-16 and the results including response amplitudes are found in Appendix

A. The mean wave amplitudes used as the simulation input values seen in table 2, where obtained by

taking the mean of the wave amplitudes measured at the model ship aft and fore part in connection with

the model experiments. These values, together with the result values are found in Appendix A. The

hydrodynamic coefficients in the linear method are calculated according to the Lewis method where the

roll damping of 10% of the critical roll damping was used. The viscous roll-damping forces, used in the 3

and 5 DOF models, are obtained by a semi-empirical method according to (Ikeda, Himeno, Tanaka

(1978)), where a part of the damping coefficients are obtained through a roll decay test. The autopilot

coefficients,

and

, were chosen with respect to the ability of the ship to steer in waves

with the highest frequency and waves used in the simulations. The rudder and propeller size were chosen

with respect to steering ability and approximation throw a picture of the model ship and given scale

found in Garme (1997).

Table 1. Test ship main particulars.

Entity

Displacement

Draught

Trim

VCG

LCG

GM

Radius of inertia, roll

Radius of inertia, pitch

Radius of inertia, yaw

Rudder span

Rudder chord

Propeller

Value

11276 ton

5.495 m

0

12.22 m

63.82 m

1.54 m

8.07 m

37 m

37 m

2 3.35 m

2 2.025 m

2 2m

20

Test #

22

23

30

35

36

39

40

41

43

45

47

48

49

50

51

53

54

55

56

58

59

60

61

62

Froudes number

0.21

0.21

0.21

0.072

0.072

0.072

0.21

0.21

0.21

0.21

0.21

0.21

0.21

0.21

0.21

0.21

0.21

0.21

0.21

0.21

0.21

0.21

0.21

0.21

Heading

180

180

180

180

180

180

150

150

150

120

120

120

90

90

90

60

60

60

30

30

30

0

0

0

0.35

0.55

0.75

0.35

0.55

0.75

0.35

0.55

0.75

0.35

0.55

0.75

0.35

0.55

0.75

0.35

0.55

0.75

0.35

0.55

0.75

0.35

0.55

0.75

2.345

2.765

3.019

2.783

2.319

2.048

2.555

1.759

2.424

2.223

2.013

2.266

2.153

2.074

2.153

2.266

2.31

2.433

2.424

2.188

2.354

2.643

2.363

2.013

21

Test 22 23 30

3 [non-dim]

1.5

180 o 5 DOF

180 o 3 DOF

0.5

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

[rad/s]

Test 22 23 30

180 5 DOF

4 [non-dim]

0.9

180 o 3 DOF

o

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

[rad/s]

Test 22 23 30

5 [non-dim]

1.5

180 o 5 DOF

180 o 3 DOF

0.5

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

[rad/s]

Test 35 36 39

3 [non-dim]

1.5

180 o 5 DOF

o

180 3 DOF

180 o Model experiment

0.5

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

[rad/s]

Test 35 36 39

180 5 DOF

4 [non-dim]

0.9

180 o 3 DOF

o

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

[rad/s]

Test 35 36 39

5 [non-dim]

1.5

180 o 5 DOF

o

180 3 DOF

180 o Model experiment

0.5

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

[rad/s]

0.9

22

Test 40 41 43

3 [non-dim]

1.5

150 o 5 DOF

o

150 3 DOF

150 o Model experiment

0.5

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

[rad/s]

Test 40 41 43

150 o 5 DOF

10

4 [non-dim]

0.9

150 o 3 DOF

150 o Model experiment

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

[rad/s]

Test 40 41 43

5 [non-dim]

1.5

150 o 5 DOF

o

150 3 DOF

150 o Model experiment

0.5

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

[rad/s]

Test 45 47 48

3 [non-dim]

1.5

120 o 5 DOF

120 o 3 DOF

0.5

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

[rad/s]

4 [non-dim]

Test 45 47 48

15

10

120 o 3 DOF

120 o 5 DOF

120 o Model experiment

5

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

[rad/s]

Test 45 47 48

120 5 DOF

5 [non-dim]

0.9

120 o 3 DOF

o

0.5

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

[rad/s]

0.9

23

90 o Linear method

Test 49 50 51

90 5 DOF

3 [non-dim]

1.5

90 o 3 DOF

o

90 Model experiment

0.5

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

[rad/s]

Test 49 50 51

4 [non-dim]

90 o 5 DOF

20

90 3 DOF

90 o Model experiment

10

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

[rad/s]

0.9

90 Linear method

Test 49 50 51

90 o 5 DOF

0.4

5 [non-dim]

0.9

90 o Linear method

90 3 DOF

90 o Model experiment

0.2

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

[rad/s]

Test 53 54 55

60 o Linear method

3 [non-dim]

1.5

60 o 5 DOF

60 o 3 DOF

60 o Model experiment

0.5

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

[rad/s]

60 Linear method

Test 53 54 55

4 [non-dim]

o

o

60 5 DOF

10

60 o 3 DOF

o

60 Model experiment

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

[rad/s]

0.9

60 Linear method

Test 53 54 55

60 o 5 DOF

5 [non-dim]

0.9

60 3 DOF

60 o Model experiment

0.5

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

[rad/s]

0.9

24

Test 56 58 59

3 [non-dim]

1.5

30o 5 DOF

30o 3 DOF

0.5

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

[rad/s]

30 Linear method

Test 56 58 59

4 [non-dim]

30o 5 DOF

30o 3 DOF

30o Model experiment

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

[rad/s]

0.9

30 Linear method

Test 56 58 59

30o 5 DOF

5 [non-dim]

0.9

30 3 DOF

30o Model experiment

0.5

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

[rad/s]

Test 60 61 62

0 o Linear method

3 [non-dim]

1.5

0 o 5 DOF

0 o 3 DOF

0 o Model experiment

0.5

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

[rad/s]

0 Linear method

Test 60 61 62

0o 5 DOF

0.4

4 [non-dim]

0.9

0 3 DOF

0o Model experiment

0.2

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

[rad/s]

Test 60 61 62

0 Linear method

5 [non-dim]

1.5

0 o 5 DOF

o

0 3 DOF

0 o Model experiment

0.5

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

[rad/s]

0.9

25

5.1.1 Results discussion

In this part of the thesis the motion responses in heave, roll and pitch obtained by the 5 DOF and 3

DOF models, linear method and the model experiment are analysed and discussed.

5.1.1.1 Test 22 23 and 30

Looking at figure 11 it is seen that the response results in heave and pitch are relatively similar, although a

small differences between the mathematical models and model experiments can be found. Due to the

relatively small response differences the reasons behind these could be found in the difference of the

shape of the actual hull and the shapes used in the mathematical models, the difference in the DOF,

measuring accuracy during the model experiments or numerical accuracy i.e. the integration step length of

the solver.

Now, looking at the roll motion in figure 11 no significant difference between the response results for

test 22 and 30 are found. Looking at test number 23, on the other hand, it can be seen that the response

is much larger in comparison to the mathematical models and the model experiment response. Regarding

the response difference between the 5 DOF and the linear method it is seen as a result of the influence of

the non-linear method in which the Froude-Krylov and roll damping forces are modelled. The difference

in response between the 3 and 5 DOF however is seen as surprising, since the nonlinear parts of the two

models are identical. On the other hand, the 5 DOF model forces do not only consist of the forces due to

waves but also the rudder and hull forces. The large response from the 5 DOF is seen as parametric roll.

Regarding the roll response, it is seen that the results are comparatively similar and equal to zero for test

22 and 30, with the exception of the model experiment response where a miner reaction can be detected.

This small response is however no surprise, model experiments conducted in wave basins, where the

vessel is allowed to move freely in 6 DOF and steered with an actual rudder as is the case with the model

experiment in question, are bound to be influenced by the rudder movement. Thus, resulting in a rolling

motion.

5.1.1.2 Test 35 36 39

No significant differences in the heave and pitch response are detected in figure 12. The explanation

behind the response coherency between the mathematical models in the heave and pitch is seen as partly

due to the relative wave heading of 1800, corresponding to head seas, which minimizes the coupling

between roll, heave and pitch motions obtained through the method in which the Froude-Krylov forces

are modelled in the 3 and 5 DOF models.

The similarity between the model experiment results and the mathematical models for test 35 and 36 are

however seen as surprising, since the standard deviation for test 35 and 36 with respect to the model

heading are 1180, 1700 and 0.260 for test 39. Consequently, it could be said that the significance of test 35

and 36 with respect to the validation is very low. However, they were the only tests done in this particular

speed and heading. On the other hand, test 39 has a very low standard deviation and is therefore seen as a

valid value to compare to. The standard deviation and real model heading can be found in Garme (1997).

The roll response seen in figure 12 for test 39 is classified as parametric according to Garme (1997) and is

as such a good example of the difference between the linear and nonlinear models ability to simulate

nonlinear phenomenon such as parametric rolling. The response difference between the 3 and 5 DOF

and the model experiment is quiet large. This indicates that the roll-damping forces react differently in

comparison to the model experiment.

26

5.1.1.3 Test 40 41 and 43

Looking at figure 13 it can be seen that no significant difference between the response in heave and pitch

is obtained between the mathematical models. However, difference between the model experiment and

the 5 DOF can be seen for test 43 and 41 in heave as well as for test 40 and 41 for pitch. The reason

behind the difference could seen in the manner in which the waves where measured i.e. at the aft and

stern part of the experiment model ship, which does not necessarily replicate the real wave encountered

by the model ship.

Regarding the roll response it can be seen that for test 41 and 43 no significant difference between the

mathematical models or the model experiment is detected. The roll response for test 40, on the other,

shows a large difference between the 5 DOF model, the model experiment and linear method whilst the 3

DOF response is close to the 5 DOF. The small response difference between the 3 and 5 DOF models

can be seen as the difference due to the additional hull and rudder forces with respect to roll. The reason

behind the large roll response obtained with the 5 DOF is mainly seen as the result of how the rolldamping forces are modelled. This, since the pressure integration associated with restoring and FroudeKrylov forces can be seen as reliable, hence the precise results in heave and pitch.

5.1.1.4 Test 45 47 and 48

Looking at figure 14 it is seen that the response results in heave and pitch are relatively similar, with the

exception of test number 45 for pitch, where a small difference between the mathematical models and

model experiments can be seen. Due to the relatively small difference the reason behind it can be said to

fall into the category of measuring accuracy associated with the model experiments. Regarding the small

response difference between the 5 DOF and the linear method it is seen as a result of the influence of the

non-linear method in which the Froude-Krylov forces are modelled. In particular, the coupling effects,

between the vertical and lateral motions. As to the cause of the difference between the 5 DOF and the 3

DOF models it is seen as the influence of the additional forces in sway, roll and yaw from the

manoeuvrability model as well as the small change in the ship heading as the autopilot turns the rudder in

order to maintain a steady course.

Now, looking at the roll DOF in figure 14 it can be seen that for test 45 both the 3 and 5 DOF models

response is far greater in comparison to the response obtained by the linear method and the model

experiments. By analysing the curve obtained by the linear method it is noticed that a peak or global

maximum response is attained at the corresponding wave frequency of 0.35 rad/s. This is interpreted as

the Eigen frequency of the roll motion, hence the Eigen frequency is a linear, frequency dependent

phenomenon and can as such be detected or simulated with the linear method. Although this explains the

plausible cause of the response peak it does not answer the question of why the difference is of such

extent. To answer this question the difference of the models in roll is addressed. The 5 DOF simulates

ship motion with respect to time whereas the linear method simulate with respect to frequency.

Furthermore, the Froude-Krylov and restoring forces are modelled nonlinearly as well as the roll damping

forces in the 5 DOF model. Consequently, differences are expected. However, the size of the difference

can not entirely be explained by the reasons given above.

5.1.1.5 Test 49 50 51

Looking at figure 15 it is seen that whilst the response results in heave are relatively similar, differences in

the pitch DOF can be detected. The motion amplitudes behind the pitch responses are however in the

order of magnitude 0.70 and therefore the response differences are seen as neglectable. The roll response

for the 5 DOF model follows the pattern seen in the previous tests, i.e. it results in a greater response in

comparison to the linear method and the model experiments.

27

5.1.1.6 Test 53 54 55

The results in figure 16 show that the heave and pitch responses are relatively similar, with the exception

of test 53 for pitch where a difference the 5 DOF and the model experiment is quiet large. Looking at the

roll DOF in figure 16 it can be seen that response obtained with 5 DOF and 3 DOF are larger in

comparison to the linear method and the model experiments. Also, the peak response occurs at a lower

frequency for the model experiment, 3 and 5 DOF models compared to the linear method. This indicates

that the non-linear models capture this tendency better. What is more, the difference between the 3 and 5

DOF models is seen in test 53, 54 and 55. The added sway, roll and yaw seem to reduce the roll motion

in test 53 but then again increase the roll in test 54 and 55. In conclusion it can be said that the 3 DOF

responds more strongly for lower frequency and vice versa.

5.1.1.7 Test 56 58 59

The response in figure 17 for heave, pitch and roll follow the same pattern as in figure 16.

5.1.1.8 Test 60 61 62

Looking at figure 18 it can be seen that the compliance between heave and pitch response is very good.

Regarding the roll response differences in can be seen between the mathematical models and the model

experiment. One explanation behind the difference is seen as the added exciting wave force created as the

waves come in contact the rudder and propeller on the model vessel. One plausible explanation could be

found in the difference between the mathematical model and model vessel aft part as the model vessel is

equipped with actual an actual rudder and propeller and therefore responds differently to waves coming

from behind.

Simulations with a box shaped ship were conducted with small wave amplitudes in order to analyse the

linear behaviour of the simulation model. The main particulars of the box ship are found in table 3, the

test input data can be seen in table 4 and the normalized simulation results can be found in figures 19-24.

In the linear method the roll damping of 10% of the critical roll damping was used. The viscous rolldamping forces, used in the 3 and 5 DOF models, are obtained by a semi-empirical method according to

(Ikeda, Himeno, Tanaka (1978)), where a part of the damping coefficients are obtained through a roll

decay test. This particular part of the coefficient used in the box vessel simulations is the same as in the

simulations used in the SSPA 2733 ship vessel. The chosen geometry of the box vessel is based on the

manoeuvrability of a box shaped vessel. For example, a box shaped vessel with L=40, B=8 and D=4 that

was simulated, was nearly impossible to steer. The rudder and propeller size were chosen on the basis of

course keeping ability and with respect to the size of the box vessel. The autopilot coefficients used in the

simulations are identical to the ones used in the SSPA 2733 vessel above.

28

Table 3. Box ship main particulars.

Entity

Length

Breath

Draught

Displacement

Depth

Trim

VCG

GM

Radius of inertia, roll

Radius of inertia, pitch

Radius of inertia, yaw

Rudder, span

Rudder, chord

Propeller, diameter

Value

100 m

10 m

10 m

307.5 ton

3m

0m

3m

1.27 m

3.5 m

25 m

25 m

2m

2m

2m

Speed [knots]

Heading [degrees]

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

10

10

10

10

10

10

10

180

150

120

90

60

30

0

0.2-2

0.2-2

0.2-2

0.2-2

0.2-2

0.2-2

0.2-2

0.1

0.1

0.1

0.1

0.1

0.1

0.1

3 [non-dim]

Test #

180 o 5 DOF

o

180 3 DOF

1

0

0.5

1.5

2.5

[rad/s]

4 [non-dim]

-4

x 10

180 o 5 DOF

o

180 3 DOF

0.5

0

0.5

1.5

2.5

[rad/s]

5 [non-dim]

180 o 5 DOF

o

180 3 DOF

1

0

0.5

1.5

[rad/s]

2.5

29

3 [non-dim]

1.5

o

150 5 DOF

150 3 DOF

0.5

0

0.5

1.5

2.5

4 [non-dim]

[rad/s]

6

150 o 5 DOF

o

150 3 DOF

2

0

0.5

1.5

2.5

[rad/s]

5 [non-dim]

1.5

150 o 5 DOF

150 3 DOF

0.5

0

0.5

1.5

2.5

[rad/s]

3 [non-dim]

1.5

120 o 5 DOF

120 3 DOF

0.5

0

0.5

1.5

2.5

[rad/s]

120 o Linear method

4 [non-dim]

10

120 5 DOF

o

120 3 DOF

0.5

1.5

2.5

[rad/s]

120 o Linear method

5 [non-dim]

120 o 5 DOF

o

120 3 DOF

0.5

0.5

1.5

[rad/s]

2.5

30

3 [non-dim]

1.5

90o 5 DOF

90 3 DOF

0.5

0

0.5

1.5

2.5

[rad/s]

90o Linear method

4 [non-dim]

10

90 5 DOF

o

90 3 DOF

0.5

1.5

2.5

[rad/s]

90o Linear method

5 [non-dim]

0.4

90o 5 DOF

o

90 3 DOF

0.2

0.5

1.5

2.5

[rad/s]

30 o Linear method

3 [non-dim]

30 5 DOF

30 o 3 DOF

0.5

0.5

1.5

2.5

[rad/s]

4 [non-dim]

1.5

30 o Linear method

30 o 5 DOF

30 3 DOF

0.5

0

0.5

1.5

2.5

[rad/s]

30 o Linear method

5 [non-dim]

30 5 DOF

30 o 3 DOF

0.5

0.5

1.5

[rad/s]

2.5

3 [non-dim]

31

0o Linear method

0o 5 DOF

o

0 5 DOF

0.5

0

0.5

1.5

2.5

[rad/s]

4 [non-dim]

-4

x 10

0 Linear method

0o 5 DOF

o

0 5 DOF

0.5

0

0.5

1.5

2.5

[rad/s]

5 [non-dim]

0 Linear method

0o 5 DOF

o

0 5 DOF

1

0

0.5

1.5

2.5

[rad/s]

Looking at the figures 19-22 it can be seen that the roll motion for both the nonlinear 5 DOF and the

3DOF are almost identical to each other whilst the linear model shows difference of results compared to

the two models. The heave and pitch motion however between the three models do not show any

difference with the exception of figure 21 where a small difference in the pitch degree of freedom can be

detected. The difference in response seen in the roll degree of freedom shows that the reason behind the

difference in roll, in general between these models, does not only depend on conditions where nonlinear

behaviour is expected, but rather that the roll damping model differs for both linear and nonlinear

conditions.

This master thesis report has given an account of and the reasons for the development of a ship

simulation model in 5 DOF implemented in MATLAB script.

Coordinate systems, simplifications, assumptions and the integration process as well as the verification

and validation of the unified model have been presented.

Simulation results show that the heave and pitch motions agree with the linear method, 3 DOF non-linear

model as well as with the experimental results. The roll motion, however, differs from the linear method

but also from the model experimental and the 3 DOF method at certain frequencies.

The difference between the results obtained between the linear method and the unified model is seen as

the result of the non-linear parts of the unified model i.e. the restoring, Froude-Krylov and viscous rolldamping, which enable the simulation of phenomenon, such as, parametric roll.

Comparing the response obtained from the 3 DOF i.e. the wave induced model and the 5 DOF i.e.

unified model no major difference is seen. This can be understood, hence the 5 DOF model is based on

the 3 DOF model.

The model experiment results differ from the 5 DOF model in that the 5 DOF model results in a larger

roll motion in tests for relative wave direction differing from head and following seas.

As the wave amplitude used in the simulations is obtained by calculating the mean value of waves

measured at the fore and aft part of the ship model, it is uncertain what the amplitude of the actual

encounter wave is. As a consequence the results include uncertainties regarding the input wave value used

in the simulations. On the other hand, the response results are normalized with respect to the input

values and therefore the possible difference caused by this uncertainty is seen as rather small.

The assumption upon which the integration is based i.e. that no major interference between the turning

motion of the ship and the incident velocity potential, radiation and diffraction waves arise and therefore

the forces and moments of the two models can be superimposed, is seen as valid. This, because the

turning motion of the ship is kept as small as possible during the simulations. However, the change of the

ship draught due to waves is not taken into consideration in the manoeuvrability part of the unified

model, even though the change of draught affects the ship hull forces.

Regarding the question of the effect that the rudder and propeller geometry have on the simulation

outcome, it is seen as quit small as can be seen in the simulation results. However, to answer this question

with a greater certainty several tests with different rudder and propeller geometries should be made. The

autopilot coefficients, which determine the amplitude of the autopilot output, were chosen with respect

to the ability of the given ship to steer at the highest frequency and wave amplitude of the simulation

series. When comparing the 5 DOF results to the 3 DOF it does not seem to have a great influence on

the outcome, although in the case of test 22 it could be seen as the cause behind the large roll response.

A conclusion that can be drawn from the results is that the roll motion tends to be quiet large in the tests,

compared to the results obtained by the linear method and the model experiment. Furthermore, the

expected, reducing the roll motion, due to the coupling effects of the added sway, roll and yaw degrees of

freedom, in particular for relative wave directions differing from head and following seas could not be

seen in the given results. Future research should therefore concentrate on the investigation of the

equations that form the roll motion in the equations of motion.

33 References

REFERENCES

Anon, (2002). The Specialist Committee on Esso Osaka, Final Report and Recommendations to the 23rd ITTC,

Proceedings of the 23rd ITTC-Volume II.

de Jong, (1973). Computation of the Hydrodynamic Coefficients of Oscillating Cylinders. Netherlands Ship Research

Centre TNO, Shipbuilding Department, Delft.

Fossen, T. I. (2005). A nonlinear unified state-space model for ship maneuvering and control in a seaway. Department

of Engineering Cybernetics Norwegian University of Science and Technology. NO-7491 Trondheim,

Norway.

Garme, K. (1997). Model Seakeeping Experiments Presented in the Time-Domain to Facilitate Validation of

Computational Tools. Naval Architecture, Departement of Vehicle Engineering, KTH, Stockholm.

Garme, K. (2011). Marine Hydromechanics, Lecture notes for SD2703 Marine dynamics. Naval Architecture,

Departement of Vehicle Engineering, KTH, Stockholm.

Hua, J. and M. Palmqvist (1995). A Description of SMS A Computer Code for Ship Motion Calculation. Naval

Architecture, Departement of Vehicle Engineering, KTH, Stockholm.

Hooft, J.P. and Pieffer J.B.M (1998). Manoeuvrability of Frigates in Waves, Marine Technology, Vol. 25.

Ikeda, Y., Himeno and N. Tanaka (1978). A Prediction Method for Ship Rolling. Technical Report 00405.

Department of Naval Architecture, University of Osaka Prefecture, Japan.

Journe, J.M.J. and J. Pinkster (2002). Introduction in ship hydrodynamics. Ship hydromechanics Laboratory,

Delft University of Technology, The Netherlands.

Kluwe, F. (2009). Development of a minimum stability criterion to prevent large amplitude roll motions in following seas.

Technische Universitt Hamburg-Harburg, Germany. ISBN 978-3-89220-678-4.

Lee, T. et al (2003). On an Empirical Prediction of Hydrodynamic Coefficients for Modern Ship Hulls. Proceedings

of MARSIM `03, Vol. III.

Lewandowski, E.M. (2004). The dynamics of marine craft: Manoeuvering and seakeeping. Advanced Series on

Ocean Engineering -Volume 22. ISBN 981-02-4755-9.

Milchert, T. (2000). Handledning i fartygs projektering. Naval Architecture, Departement of Vehicle Engineering,

KTH, Stockholm.

Min-Guk, S. and K. Yonghwan (2011). Effects of Ship Motion on Ship Maneuvring in Waves. Departement of

Naval Architecture and Ocean Engineering, Seoul National University.

Ovegrd, E. (2009). Numerical simulation of parametric rolling in waves. Centre for Naval Architecture, KTH,

Stockholm.

Perez, T. (2005). Ship Motion Control. Course Keeping and roll stabilisation using rudder and fins. Centre for Ships

Structures (CeSOS), Norweigen University of Science and Technology (NTNU), Marine Technology

Centre, NO-7491, Trondheim, Norway.

Rosn, A. (2011). Introduction to seakeeping. Centre for Naval Architecture, KTH, Stockholm.

34

SHK, (2008). Loss of M/s Finnbirch between land and Gotland 1 november 2006. Swedish Accident

Investigation Board, Report RS 2008:03e, Case S-130/06.

Salveson, N., E.O. Tuck and O. Faltinsen (1970). Ship Motions and Sea Loads. Trans. SNAME, Vol. 78.

Zachrisson, D. (2011). Manoeuvrability model for a Pure Car and Truck Carrier. Centre for Naval Architecture,

KTH, Stockholm.

Table 5. Simulation results for the unified 5 DOF model (SSPA 2733).

Simulation 5DOF

Froudes

num.

Test #

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

22

23

30

35

36

39

40

41

43

45

47

48

49

50

51

53

54

55

56

58

59

60

61

62

0.21

0.21

0.21

0.072

0.072

0.072

0.21

0.21

0.21

0.21

0.21

0.21

0.21

0.21

0.21

0.21

0.21

0.21

0.21

0.21

0.21

0.21

0.21

0.21

Heading

180

180

180

180

180

180

150

150

150

120

120

120

90

90

90

60

60

60

30

30

30

0

0

0

W1 & W2 Heave

Heave

Heave

Heave

Heave

Roll

Roll

Roll

Roll

Roll

Pitch

Pitch

Pitch

Pitch

Pitch

Wave

nondim

nondim

nondim

mean

mean

mean

frequency

mean [m] min [m] max [m] amp [m] mean(W1

min [deg] max [deg] amp [deg] mean(W1

min [deg] max [deg] amp [deg] mean(W1

amp [m]

[deg]

[deg]

[rad/s]

&W2)

&W2)

&W2)

0.35

2.345 0.10155 -2.11598 2.362864 2.239424 0.954978 -1.22E-06 -0.00018 0.000192 0.000188 0.000112 0.269667 -1.32154 2.074804 1.698171 1.012159

0.55

2.765 0.26319 -1.62822 2.061315 1.844767 0.667185 -0.04915 -16.2939 16.30713 16.30052 3.336778 0.305498 -3.64999 4.523536 4.086764 0.836576

0.75

3.019 0.288093 -0.34592 0.922735 0.634328 0.210112 -9.41E-06 -0.00028 0.000176 0.000228 2.30E-05 0.195277 -1.74343 2.258264 2.000848 0.201732

0.35

2.783 0.112197 -2.40782 2.715071 2.561447 0.92039 1.12E-06 -0.00137 0.001432 0.001338 0.000672 0.267306 -1.71326 2.50653 2.109897 1.05964

0.55

2.319 0.179068 -1.05632 1.433944 1.245133 0.536927 -4.82E-05 -0.00583 0.00492 0.005374 0.001312 0.275585 -2.63242 3.75458 3.193502 0.779449

0.75

2.048 0.097923 -0.23413 0.575903 0.405019 0.197763 0.149248 -25.1836 24.47254 24.19598 3.596144 0.465656

-1.191 2.190413 1.690707 0.251282

0.35

2.555 -0.01805 -2.29271 2.645298 2.469007 0.966343 0.583145 -12.5356 13.9774 13.23493 7.24004 0.462639 -1.09335 2.306013 1.699683 0.929795

0.55

1.759 0.126648

-1.176 1.418575 1.297288 0.737514 0.126642 -2.99362 3.987413 3.381667 1.088143 0.317344 -1.93895 2.707378 2.323165 0.747541

0.75

2.424 0.20289 -0.10114 0.492188 0.296664 0.122386 -0.61357 -1.33808 0.077904 0.641439 0.080546 0.204822 -1.73868 2.238533 1.988605 0.249712

0.35

2.223 -0.00831 -2.11483 2.332662 2.223745 1.000335 0.024365 -20.7016 21.61221

21.074 13.25006 0.483777 -0.49839 1.694223 1.096308 0.689292

0.55

2.013 0.156303 -1.79739 1.95867 1.87803 0.932951 1.620202 -6.9422 9.900321 8.401284 2.362234 0.441292 -1.77696 2.737436 2.257196 0.634668

0.75

2.266 0.245303 -1.05658 1.515068 1.285823 0.567442 1.863631 -1.91803 5.080815 3.160059 0.424482 0.395197 -2.89888 3.750728 3.324804 0.446612

0.35

2.153 0.019306 -2.17983 2.07462 2.127226 0.988029 0.525005 -22.4629 23.55255 22.94284 14.89407 0.355345 -0.15876 0.797502 0.478129 0.310393

0.55

2.074 0.061045 -1.95875 2.143459 2.051105 0.988961 1.796702 -15.8261 18.3705 17.02141 4.645237 0.614227 -0.11603 1.823207 0.969617 0.264614

0.75

2.153 0.104171 -1.93467 2.04927 1.99197 0.925207 1.830377 -9.40704 13.04658 10.92705 1.544837 0.61524 -0.83322 2.22752 1.53037 0.21636

0.35

2.266 0.035346 -2.06855 2.220307 2.14443 0.94635 0.386413 -13.0606 14.70627 13.60557 8.392031 0.211394 -0.11318 0.802166 0.457673 0.282296

0.55

2.31 -0.0472 -1.56827 2.091377 1.829824 0.792131 4.10617 -21.7968 30.08116 25.54221 6.258461 0.601936 -0.54802 2.244301 1.396158 0.342093

0.75

2.433 0.093486 -0.99514 1.298646 1.146895 0.471391 2.787311 -17.4649 23.63226 20.34423 2.545206 0.451797 -1.33705 2.737105 2.037076 0.254853

0.35

2.424 0.046733 -2.05572 2.296869 2.176295 0.897812 1.241166 -5.19611 8.120708 6.139444 3.540028 0.278184 -0.60923 1.226105 0.917667 0.529131

0.55

2.188 0.131078 -1.08537 1.23764 1.161504 0.530852 5.988385 -12.2198 18.87669 15.42626 3.990565 0.415133 -1.18953 1.936702 1.563117 0.404357

0.75

2.354 0.180559 0.046428 0.412806 0.183189 0.07782 -1.5234 -18.2488 12.15992 15.20435 1.966008 0.493284 -0.79848 1.772152 1.285316 0.166199

0.35

2.643 0.113016 -2.17874 2.461492 2.320114 0.877833 -8.71E-05 -0.00038 0.000347 0.00026 0.000138 0.306704 -0.90119 1.486844 1.194015 0.631427

0.55

2.363 0.126024 -0.91158 1.257692 1.084636 0.459008 -0.00011 -0.00093 0.000709 0.00082 0.000197 0.386674 -1.27642 2.075844 1.676132 0.401482

0.75

2.013 0.152179 0.040501 0.262495 0.110997 0.05514 0.000208 -0.00038 0.00063 0.000503 7.60E-05 0.436243 -0.36864 0.942319 0.655477 0.099115

Table 6. Simulation results for the wave-induced 3 DOF model (SSPA 2733).

Simulation 3DOF

Froudes

num.

Test #

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

22

23

30

35

36

39

40

41

43

45

47

48

49

50

51

53

54

55

56

58

59

60

61

62

0.21

0.21

0.21

0.072

0.072

0.072

0.21

0.21

0.21

0.21

0.21

0.21

0.21

0.21

0.21

0.21

0.21

0.21

0.21

0.21

0.21

0.21

0.21

0.21

Heading

180

180

180

180

180

180

150

150

150

120

120

120

90

90

90

60

60

60

30

30

30

0

0

0

W1 & W2

Wave

mean

frequency

amp [m]

[rad/s]

0.35

2.345

0.55

2.765

0.75

3.019

0.35

2.783

0.55

2.319

0.75

2.048

0.35

2.555

0.55

1.759

0.75

2.424

0.35

2.223

0.55

2.013

0.75

2.266

0.35

2.153

0.55

2.074

0.75

2.153

0.35

2.266

0.55

2.31

0.75

2.433

0.35

2.424

0.55

2.188

0.75

2.354

0.35

2.643

0.55

2.363

0.75

2.013

Heave

Heave

Heave

Heave

Heave

Roll

Roll

Roll

Roll

Roll

Pitch

Pitch

Pitch

Pitch

Pitch

nondim

nondim

nondim

mean

mean

mean [m] min [m] max [m] amp [m] mean(W1

min [deg] max [deg] amp [deg] mean(W1

min [deg] max [deg] amp [deg] mean(W1

[deg]

[deg]

&W2)

&W2)

&W2)

0.102

-2.116 2.362864 2.239424 0.954978 -1.87E-06 -5.73E-05 5.70E-05 5.64E-05 3.36E-05 0.269667 -1.32154 2.074804 1.698171 1.012159

0.281

-1.560 2.059667

1.810

0.655

0.000

-0.003

0.004

0.004 7.72E-04 0.251292 -3.53764 4.280885 3.909264 0.800241

0.102806 -0.14519 0.349093 0.247144 0.200311 -1.55E-05 -2.52E-05 -4.98E-06 9.97E-06 2.46E-06 0.303087 -0.52335 1.150347 0.836847 0.206455

0.112

-2.408 2.715071

2.561

0.920

0.000

-0.001

0.001

0.001 0.000317 0.267306 -1.71326 2.50653 2.109897 1.05964

0.179

-1.056 1.433944

1.245

0.537

0.000

-0.001

0.001

0.001 0.000182 0.275586 -2.63242 3.75458 3.193502 0.779448

0.10698

-0.235 0.587544

0.411

0.201

0.202 -23.421

24.199

23.810 3.538769 0.436351 -1.18725 2.147063 1.667157 0.247782

-0.01423

-2.308 2.638031

2.473

0.968

0.381 -11.857

12.884

12.371 6.767235 0.429283 -1.15577 2.161253 1.658512 0.907273

0.128039

-1.180 1.421452

1.301

0.739

-0.383

-3.474

3.442

3.458 1.112722 0.323688 -1.91113 2.671123 2.291125 0.737232

0.108767

-0.031 0.246234

0.139

0.097

-0.866

-1.485

-0.213

0.636 0.135934 0.287741 -0.90419 1.498608 1.201398 0.256803

-0.00342

-2.149 2.318896

2.234

1.005

-0.395 -20.402

20.337

20.369 12.80705 0.475248 -0.58268 1.444062 1.013373 0.637148

0.153208

-1.810 1.964007

1.887

0.937

0.308

-8.590

8.928

8.759 2.462803 0.382992 -1.57059 2.39482 1.982705 0.557488

0.213

-1.126 1.540602

1.333

0.590

-2.803

-6.934

1.550

4.242 0.571335 0.341583 -2.74637 3.357383 3.051879 0.411039

0.121

-2.224 2.041956

2.133

0.991

0.868 -24.155

23.277

23.716 15.39598 0.497912 -0.00621 0.962144 0.484176 0.314318

0.066

-1.949 2.151556

2.050

0.988

0.773 -15.797

16.221

16.009 4.368988 0.480571 -0.02596 1.266507 0.646236 0.176361

0.092

-1.911 2.030652

1.971

0.915

-0.247 -10.891

10.583

10.737 1.517974 0.441766 -0.24793 1.26434 0.756134

0.1069

0.030

-2.074 2.248339

2.161

0.954

-1.625 -16.499

15.276

15.888 9.799549 0.397874 -0.13983 0.780812 0.460321 0.28393

-0.022

-1.573 2.051605

1.812

0.784

2.509 -20.006

24.661

22.333 5.472235 0.519585 -0.46879 1.869606 1.169198 0.286482

0.134

-0.962 1.301798

1.132

0.465

3.612 -10.016

16.901

13.454 1.683248 0.424575 -1.11023 2.176067 1.643149 0.205569

0.048

-2.049 2.316514

2.183

0.901

-0.606

-6.669

6.130

6.399 3.689883 0.330312 -0.63265 1.271989 0.952318 0.54911

0.164

-1.074 1.335915

1.205

0.551

3.254

-8.941

12.065

10.499 2.715861 0.429524 -1.25537 1.945884 1.600626 0.41406

0.170

0.081 0.362534

0.141

0.060

-2.746 -15.934

10.496

13.215 1.708824 0.496513 -0.56928 1.577843 1.073564 0.138818

0.079

-2.096 2.367992

2.232

0.878

0.000

0.000

0.000

0.000 3.11E-05 0.333057 -0.85474 1.442089 1.148414 0.631193

0.126

-0.912 1.257692

1.085

0.459

0.000

0.000

0.001

0.000 0.00011 0.386674 -1.27642 2.075844 1.676132 0.401482

0.153

0.040 0.262625

0.111

0.055

0.082

-0.546

0.893

0.720 0.108848 0.424674 -0.36864 0.942318 0.65548 0.099115

The purpose of the verification is to ensure that the computer code behaves according to the

mathematical model in question, thus ensuring that the code meets the aim that it is intended for. The

aim has been to widen the ability to simulate ship motion in waves by adding the sway and yaw degrees of

freedom as well as forces and moments in the roll degree of freedom.

The added moments and forces, now included in the unified model, include forces and moments due to

rudder and hull. In order to keep the ship at a steady course an autopilot has been included.

The approach of the verification is to test claims or expected outcomes that are in accordance with the

mathematical model. The mathematical models used in the test are the wave-induces 3 DOF model

(Ovegrd 2009) and the unified 5 DOF model including the manoeuvring model (Zachrisson 2011).

TEST SHIP

The different tests were conducted with Ro-ro vessel (SSPA 2733). Information regarding the ship is

found in the validation chapter.

VERIFICATION TESTS

Test title: The effects of differing ship heading with respect to relative wave direction.

Test #

1

Claim/expectation: (pitch motion>roll motion for

) AND (pitch motion<roll motion

for

)

Procedure:

Only the wave direction is changed, all other

variables are kept constant.

Comments to result: (Figure 25-26)

It can be seen that the roll is larger as the wave

direction is 900 than with 1800 and that the pitch is

larger for 1800 and smaller for 900.

36

Test #

2

Claim/expectation: The autopilot is keeping the yaw angle closer to zero then without it for

waves differing from

Procedure:

Simulate over a longer time period (t=500s) with

and without the autopilot for wave direction e.g.

and compare the results.

Comments to result: (Figure 27-28)

Comparing figure 3 and 4 it is seen that without the

autopilot the ship gets instable. The conclusion is

that the autopilot is working.

The autopilot coefficients used in this example

were: c1=0.88; c2=0.85;

Test #

3

Claim/expectation: (When the rudder is set to a negative angle the ship yaw angle should turn to a

negative angle) AND (When the rudder is set to a positive angle the ship yaw angle should turn to a

positive angle)

Furthermore, when the rudder angle is positive the sway motion shall move to the positive direction of its

coordinate system. (Note! This is a consequence of the method in which the rudder angle is modelled. In

the main.m of the manoeuvre model it can be read: positive rudder angle =starboard which means that a

positive rudder angle results a sway direction in the positive direction.) Now, for the claim to be correct

or true with respect to the unified model, the ship shall move to the port side for a positive rudder angle.

Procedure:

Set the rudder to a constant positive angle (and vice versa) and

simulate for wave direction

. Use small wave amplitudes.

Comments to result: (Figure As can be seen from the results everything works in accordance to

29-32)

the coordinate system i.e. when the yaw angle is positive the ship

moves in the positive sway direction and vice versa.

Test title: The effect of the sway forces

Test #

4

Claim/expectation: Without the sway forces from the manoevrability model, that serve as a

reaction force to the wave exciting forces, the ship will move a larger distance in the sway

direction. ( NOTE! The manoeuvre sway forces also include lift forces )

Procedure:

Simulate a case with and without the manoeuvre

sway forces and compare the results.

Comments to result: (Figure 33-36)

By comparing the sway motions in figure 33 and 35

it can be seen that the sway motion in figure 33 is

much smaller than in figure 35 where sway forces

are included.

37

Test title: The effect of the manoeuvring forces and moments on the roll motion

Test #

5

Claim/expectation: The roll motion shall be smaller with the manoeuvring forces and 5 DOF

than 3 DOF and with only the seakeeping forces and moments.

Procedure:

Test both the old and new model by simulating the

motion due to waves for

. In addition a

roll decay is to be made with and without the

influence of the manoeuvring forces.

Comments to result: (Figure 37-40)

Conversely to the expected the roll motion is larger

for the unified 5 DOF model in comparison to the

wave-induced 3 DOF model with respect to the

relative wave direction of 1350. On the other hand,

the roll decay in figure X shows that the roll

motion declines faster for the 5 DOF unified

model when compared to the wave-induced 3

DOF model. Consequently, the damping is larger

for the unified model in the case of the roll decay

test. This can be understood. Hence, a part of the

motion energy that would have been transformed

into roll motion is now partly transformed into

sway motion.

Test title: Force and moment magnitude

Test #

6

Claim/expectation: (The exciting forces shall be greater or equal to the reaction forces) AND

(the exciting and reaction forces shall not act in the same direction)

Procedure:

Simulate different cases and point out the exciting

and reaction forces and their magnitudes.

Comments to result: (Figure 41-45)

Looking at the figures 41-45 it can be seen that the

exciting forces are larger or equal to the damping

forces for the different degrees of freedom.

38

VERIFICATION RESULTS

-5

4 [o]

x 10

0

-5

0

50

100

150

200

250

time [s]

5 DOF - Pitch - Angle

300

350

400

50

100

150

300

350

400

50

100

150

300

350

400

5 [o]

2

1

0

200

250

time [s]

6 DOF - Yaw - Angle

-6

6 [o]

x 10

0

-5

Figure 25.Test 1.

200

time [s]

250

39

o

4 [ ]

10

0

-10

50

100

150

200

250

time [s]

5 DOF - Pitch - Angle

300

350

400

50

100

150

300

350

400

50

100

150

300

350

400

5 [o]

2

1

0

200

250

time [s]

6 DOF - Yaw - Angle

6 [o]

0.2

0

-0.2

200

time [s]

250

o

4 [ ]

20

0

-20

50

100

150

50

100

150

50

100

150

200

250

300

time [s]

5 DOF - Pitch - Angle

350

400

450

500

200

350

400

450

500

350

400

450

500

5 [o]

5

0

-5

250

300

time [s]

6 DOF - Yaw - Angle

o

6 [ ]

20

0

-20

200

250

300

time [s]

40

o

4 [ ]

20

0

-20

50

100

150

50

100

150

50

100

150

200

250

300

time [s]

5 DOF - Pitch - Angle

350

400

450

500

200

350

400

450

500

350

400

450

500

5 [o]

5

0

-5

250

300

time [s]

6 DOF - Yaw - Angle

6 [o]

2

0

-2

200

250

300

time [s]

1 [m]

1

0

-1

20

40

60

20

40

60

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

time [s]

2 DOF - Sway - Position

160

180

200

80

160

180

200

160

180

200

2 [m]

20

0

-20

100

120

140

time [s]

3 DOF - Heave - Position

3 [m]

0.2

0

-0.2

80

100

120

time [s]

140

41

4 [o]

0.5

0

-0.5

20

40

60

20

40

60

20

40

60

80

100

120

time [s]

5 DOF - Pitch - Angle

140

160

180

200

80

140

160

180

200

140

160

180

200

80

100

120

140

time [s]

2 DOF - Sway - Position

160

180

200

80

160

180

200

160

180

200

o

5 [ ]

1

0.5

0

100

120

time [s]

6 DOF - Yaw - Angle

o

6 [ ]

20

10

0

80

100

120

time [s]

1 [m]

1

0

-1

20

40

60

20

40

60

20

40

60

2 [m]

20

0

-20

100

120

140

time [s]

3 DOF - Heave - Position

3 [m]

0.2

0

-0.2

80

100

120

time [s]

140

42

4 [o]

0.5

0

-0.5

20

40

60

20

40

60

20

40

60

80

100

120

time [s]

5 DOF - Pitch - Angle

140

160

180

200

80

140

160

180

200

140

160

180

200

200

250

300

350

time [s]

2 DOF - Sway - Position

400

450

500

200

400

450

500

400

450

500

o

5 [ ]

1

0.5

0

100

120

time [s]

6 DOF - Yaw - Angle

o

6 [ ]

20

0

-20

80

100

120

time [s]

1 [m]

1

0

-1

50

100

150

50

100

150

50

100

150

2 [m]

50

0

-50

250

300

350

time [s]

3 DOF - Heave - Position

3 [m]

0.5

0

-0.5

200

250

300

time [s]

350

43

4 [o]

2

0

-2

50

100

150

50

100

150

50

100

150

200

250

300

time [s]

5 DOF - Pitch - Angle

350

400

450

500

200

350

400

450

500

350

400

450

500

5 [o]

2

0

-2

250

300

time [s]

6 DOF - Yaw - Angle

6 [o]

0.5

0

-0.5

200

250

300

time [s]

1 [m]

1

0

-1

50

100

150

50

100

150

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

time [s]

2 DOF - Sway - Position

400

450

500

200

400

450

500

400

450

500

2 [m]

1000

0

-1000

250

300

350

time [s]

3 DOF - Heave - Position

3 [m]

0.5

0

-0.5

200

250

300

time [s]

350

44

4 [o]

5

0

-5

50

100

150

50

100

150

50

100

150

200

250

300

time [s]

5 DOF - Pitch - Angle

350

400

450

500

200

350

400

450

500

350

400

450

500

5 [o]

2

0

-2

250

300

time [s]

6 DOF - Yaw - Angle

o

6 [ ]

20

0

-20

200

250

300

time [s]

1 [m]

1

0

-1

20

40

60

20

40

60

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

time [s]

2 DOF - Sway - Position

160

180

200

80

160

180

200

160

180

200

2 [m]

1

0

-1

100

120

140

time [s]

3 DOF - Heave - Position

3 [m]

2

0

-2

Figure 37.

80

100

120

time [s]

140

(Unified model)

45

o

4 [ ]

10

X: 113.9

Y: -8.819

0

-10

20

40

60

20

40

60

20

40

60

100

120

time [s]

5 DOF - Pitch - Angle

X: 152.2

Y: 9.641

80

140

160

180

200

80

140

160

180

200

140

160

180

200

5 [o]

2

0

-2

100

120

time [s]

6 DOF - Yaw - Angle

6 [o]

0.5

0

-0.5

80

100

120

time [s]

Figure 38.

(Unified model)

1 [m]

1

0

-1

20

40

60

20

40

60

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

time [s]

2 DOF - Sway - Position

160

180

200

80

160

180

200

160

180

200

2 [m]

1

0

-1

100

120

140

time [s]

3 DOF - Heave - Position

3 [m]

2

0

-2

80

100

120

time [s]

140

46

o

4 [ ]

10

X: 113.6

Y: -7.627

0

-10

20

40

60

20

40

60

20

40

60

100

120

time [s]

5 DOF - Pitch - Angle

X: 152.2

Y: 8.577

80

140

160

180

200

80

140

160

180

200

140

160

180

200

5 [o]

2

0

-2

100

120

time [s]

6 DOF - Yaw - Angle

6 [o]

1

0

-1

80

100

120

time [s]

Sway

2 [m]

100

3 DOF

5 DOF

0

-100

20

40

60

80

100

120

time [s]

Roll

140

160

180

200

o

4 [ ]

20

3 DOF

5 DOF

0

-20

20

40

60

80

100

120

time [s]

Yaw

140

160

180

200

6 [o]

1

3 DOF

5 DOF

0

-1

20

40

60

80

100

120

time [s]

140

160

Figure 41. Sway roll and yaw as the function of time in a roll decay test.

180

200

47

Roll

15

3 DOF

5 DOF

10

4 [o]

-5

-10

20

40

60

80

100

time [s]

120

140

160

180

200

1 DOF - Surge - Force

Fmemory

FDiffraction

X [N]

0.5

FFroude-Krylov

Fmanoeuvre

0

-0.5

-1

20

40

60

80

100

time [s]

120

140

160

180

200

x 10

Fmemory

FDiffraction

Y [N]

0.5

FFroude-Krylov

Fmanoeuvre

0

-0.5

-1

20

40

60

80

100

time [s]

120

140

160

180

200

48

x 10

Fmemory

FDiffraction

FFroude-Krylov

Z [N]

Fg

0

-1

-2

20

40

60

80

100

time [s]

120

140

160

180

Fmemory

x 10

200

FDiffraction

FFroude-Krylov

K [Nm]

Froll-damp

Fmanoeuvre

0

-1

-2

20

40

60

80

100

time [s]

120

140

160

180

200

Figure 44.

8

x 10

Fmemory

FDiffraction

FFroude-Krylov

N [Nm]

-2

20

40

60

80

100

time [s]

120

140

160

180

200

x 10

Fmemory

FDiffraction

M [Nm]

FFroude-Krylov

Fmanoeuvre

0

-1

-2

20

40

60

Figure 45.

80

100

time [s]

120

140

160

180

200

- Marine Vehicle MotionUploaded byeliavv
- Report RubricUploaded byAtulAre-da
- MATLAB HW.pdfUploaded byMohammed Abdulnaser
- Auto Ground VehicleUploaded byMochamad Safarudin
- Dynamic analysisUploaded byBhaskar Reddy
- ICRA12_1165_FIUploaded byAnonymous ITnkbIEF
- Curricular UnitUploaded bycmlassalle
- Hy Tb3dv m 3axis DriverUploaded byLúcio Di Loreto
- Iavsd 2007 ZhouUploaded byKuldeep Singh
- Quick Strip TheoryUploaded byAnonymous swEs7SEg
- Aerial Robotics Lecture 2C_4 Quadrotor Equations of MotionUploaded byIain McCulloch
- chapter 02.pdfUploaded bybella
- PHYSICS 13 Diagnostic ExamUploaded byEliminated Pro
- EM Lab MCQ (2)Uploaded bysushilkumar
- Quadrotor Equations of MotionUploaded byKaran Chawla
- Daily Lesson Log in Science (1)Uploaded byJosephine Valdez Manalo
- 02 Moving AboutUploaded bychelseafan1999
- r Pt Physics f 42013Uploaded byDamia Awadah
- StructuralismUploaded byrellimnosaj83
- MHMT8Uploaded bysaleem ahmad
- Equilibrium Coplanar Forces Rev1[1]Uploaded byJohn Edenson Velono
- Pages From UBC 1997 - Uniform Building Code 7Uploaded bydanieldumapit
- L1-2 Balanced & Unbalanced ForcesUploaded byRavDv
- Physics ExamUploaded byCrayon0401
- sdof-dynUploaded byUmesh Yadav
- Test TargetUploaded bypraveen kumar
- Section a and B MechanicsUploaded byJerrord Thomas
- Dynamics of Machinery NotesUploaded byrajapraty
- Ujian september(form 2).docUploaded byAura Maya HasrinaHashim
- Scheme of WorkUploaded byNatasha Kaur

- 1.Modelimi i Ngasjes Dhe Motorit Asinkron- Gjithashtu Edhe Modeli MatematikUploaded bykusha02
- Full Text 15050112Uploaded byHung Nguyen
- TUPHAPQUOCTE_TUXAUploaded byHung Nguyen
- Guitar MethodUploaded byMathew Lee Williams
- Getting Started With Guitar V1Uploaded byHung Nguyen
- Cong Phap Quoc Te- Phan Gui Cho Sinh Vien tham khaoUploaded byHung Nguyen
- Salve Sent Uck Falt in Sen 1970Uploaded byHung Nguyen
- Master Thesis Modelling of Surface VesselUploaded byHung Nguyen
- A Virtual Test Platform Design Using LabVIEW for the Control Circuit in Marine Air CompressorsUploaded byHung Nguyen
- Introduction to Ship Hydro Mechanics Pinkster 2002)Uploaded byntontarski
- 19830102Uploaded bytoshugo
- Squat Interaction ManeuveringUploaded byBruno Leite Reis
- “Revisiting the Law of the Sea”Uploaded byHung Nguyen
- InTech-Labview Remote LabUploaded byHung Nguyen
- Marine PropellersUploaded byHung Nguyen
- Microcontroller Based Applied Digital Control 2006Uploaded byAndrew Johnson
- Controllable Pitch PropellersUploaded byHung Nguyen
- Explaining Ships Dynamic and HandlingUploaded byHung Nguyen
- Advanced Control EngineeringUploaded byHung Nguyen
- Control of Marine PropellersUploaded byPelmus Liviu
- Skew Angle PaperUploaded bym_b_s

- Pune PotentialUploaded byshishir09aug
- SCIA Engineer 2011 EnuUploaded bydaidzic
- fuel pumpUploaded bymanoj262400/2
- Questionnaire on Consumer Perception About Small CarUploaded byashvinposhiya
- HCLT Brochure: Telecom Services - Making your money work for youUploaded byHCL Technologies
- Archies Ltd.....Uploaded byAman Verma
- GE leading by exampleUploaded byRory Coen
- AgendaUploaded byDinesh Kumar Gupta
- Astm d 1883 07 Standard Test Method for Cbr California BeariUploaded byalibek111
- 175-010200Uploaded bysa
- Sound-Proofing a DoorUploaded bygrimer_wong
- Steel ErectioUploaded byKyle Brown
- 05MPP_Sept08Uploaded byCa Arif
- PL 1290 ManualUploaded byvictand
- DfdUploaded byAmit Singh Chauhan
- tib_TIBCOAdmin_server.pdfUploaded bypankaj som
- E-Business Process ModelingUploaded byAchmad Taufik Hermansyah
- SBFZ OverviewUploaded byJayvee Lansangan
- Division 01 - General RequirementsUploaded byClarisse Empaynado
- Business Intelligence Solutions for SME's.pdfUploaded byElla
- En ISO 14122 -2-2001 - Permanent Means of Access to Machinery - Part 2 Working Platforms and WalkwaysUploaded by'Malek Mechri
- Fluids mechanicsUploaded byGuilherme Henrique
- Lecture 2 2012 Identification of Contemporary IssuesUploaded byRamrao Chowdary
- spring-framework-reference.pdfUploaded bySamuel Mestanza
- Steel Framing Metsec SystemUploaded byhlopes10
- UNS-Electric,-Inc-Large-General-Service-Rate-LGSUploaded byGenability
- Problem StatementUploaded byTiểu Xung
- Introduction to the Oil & Gas IndustryUploaded byMuhidin Issa Michuzi
- 5S TransparenciesUploaded byNouha Abardazzou
- SAP R3Uploaded byManish Bhasin