You are on page 1of 48

Numerical simulation of ship motion due

to waves and manoeuvring

KRISTIAN KOSKINEN

KTH Engineering Sciences

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)

Figure 1. a) Ancient Egyptian river boat. b) The RMS titanic.

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).

Figure 2. The M/S Finnbirch.

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)

7 2. Introduction to mathematical modelling of ship motions


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.

2. INTRODUCTION TO MATHEMATICAL MODELLING OF SHIP MOTIONS


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 fluid pressure,

the velocity potential,

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 global, earth fixed, coordinate system


the local, translative coordinate system
the local, ship fixed, rotative coordinate system

3.1 THE GLOBAL EARTH BOUND 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).

3.2 THE LOCAL TRANSLATIVE COORDINATE SYSTEM


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.

3.5 THE TRANSFORMATION MATRIXES


As the equations of motion are expressed in
coordinate systems are to be transformed to
are done with the transformation matrix

the forces and moments expressed in differing


. Vector transformations between
and

(7)
[

where the rotative Euler angles

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

and due to the orthogonality of the transformation matrix

to

the vector can be transformed back by

3.6 SHIP HEADING WITH RESPECT TO WAVES


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).

Figure 5. Definition of the relative wave angles (Perez 2005).

4. THE UNIFIED SHIP MOTION MODEL


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

12 4. The unified ship motion model


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.

13 4. The unified ship motion model


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)

4.2 SHIP MANOEUVRABILITY MODEL


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,

14 4. The unified ship motion model

[
[
(

]
]

(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.

15 4. The unified ship motion model

Figure 7. Rudder coordinate system definition.

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.

4.3 INTEGRATION OF THE MODELS


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.

16 4. The unified ship motion model


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

17 4. The unified ship motion model


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

Wave induced model

.
Hull
geometry

Sea state

Ship
condition

Ship
condition

Propeller
and rudder

Diffraction forces
and moments

Added mass and


damping coeff.

Hull forces and


moments
Memory forces and
moments

Froude-Krylov
forces
and
moments

Roll-damping
forces
moments

Restoring
forces
and moments

and

EOM

Rudder forces and


moments

Autopilot

Solver

Results

Motion
Figure 10. Unified model flow chart

18 4. The unified ship motion model

4.3.3 The unified equation of motion

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)

includes the added mass for


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 wave number.

5.1 RO-RO VESSEL (SSPA 2733)


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

Table 2. Test conditions.

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

Wave frequency [rad/s]


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

Mean wave amplitude [m]


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

180 o Linear method

3 [non-dim]

1.5

180 o 5 DOF
180 o 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]

180 Linear method

Test 22 23 30

180 5 DOF

4 [non-dim]

0.9

180 o 3 DOF
o

180 Model experiment

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

[rad/s]
Test 22 23 30

180 o Linear method

5 [non-dim]

1.5

180 o 5 DOF
180 o 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

0.9

[rad/s]

Figure 11. Heave, roll and pitch response as a function of frequency.

Test 35 36 39

180 Linear method

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]

180 Linear method

Test 35 36 39

180 5 DOF

4 [non-dim]

0.9

180 o 3 DOF
o

180 Model experiment

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

[rad/s]
Test 35 36 39

180 Linear method

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]

Figure 12. Heave, roll and pitch response as a function of frequency.

0.9

22

Test 40 41 43

150 Linear method

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 Linear method


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

150 Linear method

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]

Figure 13. Heave, roll and pitch response as a function of frequency.


Test 45 47 48

120 o Linear method

3 [non-dim]

1.5

120 o 5 DOF
120 o 3 DOF

120 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]

4 [non-dim]

Test 45 47 48
15

120 o Linear method

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]

120 Linear method

Test 45 47 48

120 5 DOF

5 [non-dim]

0.9

120 o 3 DOF
o

120 Model experiment

0.5

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

[rad/s]

Figure 14. Heave, roll and pitch response as a function of frequency.

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]

Figure 15. Heave, roll and pitch response as a function of frequency.

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]

Figure 16. Heave, roll and pitch response as a function of frequency.

0.9

24

Test 56 58 59

30o Linear method

3 [non-dim]

1.5

30o 5 DOF
30o 3 DOF

30o Model experiment

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]

Figure 17. Heave, roll and pitch response as a function of frequency.

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]

Figure 18. Heave, roll and pitch response as a function of frequency.

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.

5.2 THE BOX VESSEL


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

Table 4. Test input data.

Speed [knots]

Heading [degrees]

Wave frequency [rad/s]

Wave amplitude [m]

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 Linear method

180 o 5 DOF
o

180 3 DOF

1
0

0.5

1.5

2.5

[rad/s]

4 [non-dim]

-4

180 o Linear method

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 Linear method

180 o 5 DOF
o

180 3 DOF

1
0

0.5

1.5

[rad/s]

Figure 19. Heave, roll and pitch response as a function of frequency.

2.5

29

3 [non-dim]

1.5

150 o Linear method


o

150 5 DOF

150 3 DOF

0.5
0

0.5

1.5

2.5

4 [non-dim]

[rad/s]
6

150 o Linear method

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 Linear method


150 o 5 DOF

150 3 DOF

0.5
0

0.5

1.5

2.5

[rad/s]

Figure 20. Heave, roll and pitch response as a function of frequency.

3 [non-dim]

1.5

120 o Linear method


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]

Figure 21. Heave, roll and pitch response as a function of frequency.

2.5

30

3 [non-dim]

1.5

90o Linear method


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]

Figure 22. Heave, roll and pitch response as a function of frequency.

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]

Figure 23. Heave, roll and pitch response as a function of frequency.

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]

Figure 24. Heave, roll and pitch response as a function of frequency.

5.2.1 Results discussion

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.

32 6 Discussion and conclusion

6 DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION


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.

APPENDIX A - SIMULATION RESULTS AND INPUT DATA


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

35 Appendix B - Verification of the unified model


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

APPENDIX B - VERIFICATION OF THE UNIFIED MODEL


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 title: Autopilot


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 title: Rudder coordinate system configuration


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]

4 DOF - Roll - Angle

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

4 DOF - Roll - Angle


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

Figure 26. Test 1.

4 DOF - Roll - Angle


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

Figure 27. without the autopilot

250
300
time [s]

40

4 DOF - Roll - Angle


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]

Figure 28. with the autopilot

1 DOF - Surge - Position

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]

Figure 29. Positive rudder angle.

140

41

4 DOF - Roll - Angle

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]

Figure 30. Positive rudder angle.

1 DOF - Surge - Position

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]

Figure31. Negative rudder angle.

140

42

4 DOF - Roll - Angle

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]

Figure 32. Negative rudder angle.

1 DOF - Surge - Position

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]

Figure 33. With the sway manoeuvre forces.

350

43

4 DOF - Roll - Angle

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]

Figure 34. With the sway manoeuvre forces.

1 DOF - Surge - Position

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]

Figure 35. Without the sway manoeuvre forces.

350

44

4 DOF - Roll - Angle

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]

Figure 36. Without the sway manoeuvre forces.

1 DOF - Surge - Position

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

4 DOF - Roll - Angle


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 DOF - Surge - Position

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 39. Test 5.

80

100
120
time [s]

140

(Seaware old model)

46

4 DOF - Roll - Angle


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]

Figure 40. Test 5.

(Seaware old model)

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

Figure 42. Roll motion as a function of time in a roll decay test.


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

2 DOF - Sway - Force

x 10

Fmemory
FDiffraction

Y [N]

0.5

FFroude-Krylov
Fmanoeuvre

0
-0.5
-1

20

40

60

Figure 43. Test 6.

80

100
time [s]

120

140

160

180

200

48

3 DOF - Heave - Force

x 10

Fmemory
FDiffraction
FFroude-Krylov

Z [N]

Fg

0
-1
-2

20

40

60

80

100
time [s]

120

140

160

180

Fmemory

4 DOF - Roll - Moment

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

5 DOF - Pitch - Moment

x 10

Fmemory
FDiffraction
FFroude-Krylov

N [Nm]

-2

20

40

60

80

100
time [s]

120

140

160

180

200

6 DOF - Yaw - Moment

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