CONTROLLABILITY AT TOO HIGH SPEEDS IN TOO SHALLOW WATER

Albert J. Jurgens (MARIN, The Netherlands)

Arie de Jager (IHC HOLLAND dredgers BV, The Netherlands)
Abstract:
Nowadays vessels will have to run at higher speeds in shallow water. Furthermore, it is known that vessels lose
controllability while sailing at too high speeds in shallow water: squat causes a too large trim forward and
instability loops in general grow. The target of the present project was to determine at which water depths and at
which speeds the manoeuvrability dominates the behaviour of the trailing suction hopper dredger. For this
project, extensive captive static and dynamic model tests were carried out in a range of water depths, with two
vessels. A large range of speeds and trim conditions were model tested and a mathematical model was created.
The mathematical model is used in fast time simulations to find the limits of controllability.
1.

INTRODUCTION

During the operation of a trailing suction hopper

dredger, the ship encounters a wide variation of water
depths. Additionally, the ship has to operate in
restricted water ways. The environment is not only
restricted with respect to the water depth, but also in
width during e.g. dredging operations in harbours or
channels. This imposes stringent demands on the
manoeuvrability of the ship. Regular groundings
made investigation necessay.
To obtain more insight into the physics with respect
to the manoeuvrability of trailing suction hopper
dredgers in restricted water, a research project was
initiated by IHC, Ballast HAM (now Van Oord),
Boskalis and MARIN. The title of this joint industry
project (JIP) is: HOppers in Shallow WAter or
HOSWA.
Within this research project the primary aim was to
increase the knowledge on squat behaviour, course
keeping ability and manoeuvring ability of trailing
suction hopper dredgers, how to optimise the design
and how to increase safety. Therefore a series of full
scale and model scale tests were conducted together
with an intensive CFD study.
2.

OBJECTIVES

The project was to give designers and operators

knowledge with which the course keeping,
manoeuvring and squat behaviour of modern trailing
suction hopper dredgers on shallow water could be
explained and subsequently could be predicted.
Furthermore the helmsman-ship interaction had to be
investigated. From the safety point of view, the
response of the vessels in shallow water should be
clarified, identified, deviations from expected

excursions identified and if possible quantified. For

the operator, the project was to yield information on
how exactly the vessel was performing compared to
his expectations.
Validation of existing knowledge on shallow water
effects and extension of the knowledge by means of
full scale and model scale test exercises were
conducted. The ship response on shallow water needs
better understanding and design tools are needed to
better implement the ship behaviour on shallow water
in the design process to optimise new designs for
increased safety on shallow water.
The derived knowledge from the HOSWA JIP makes
it possible to:
- validate design tools like RANS solvers to
enhance the design process.
- develop manoeuvring simulation tools to validate
new designs and to train ship crew on existing and
newly developed vessels.
- produce a safety envelope for each trailing suction
hopper dredgers to give ship crew insight in the
behaviour of their vessel in shallow water
conditions.
- develop advanced autopilots which automatically
control some dos and donts on shallow water.
- provide guidance to designers regarding the
behaviour of the ship in shallow water.
3.

TRAILING SUCTION HOPPER DREDGERS

It has to be mentioned that in general trailing suction

hopper dredgers are twin screw vessels with a rather
high block coefficient, sailing both in deep water and
at very restricted water depths. This type of vessel
experiences different loading conditions during its

operation which makes the design of any trailing

suction hopper dredger a challenge. The length and
draught of the vessel are minimised to enlarge the
navigational freedom. Latest designs push the limits
of fullness even further as can be seen in Fig.1.

Table 1 Main dimensions of the investigated trailing

suction hopper dredgers.
hull 1 hull 2 hull 3
Length-Breadth ratio Lpp/B 4.97 3.66 4.72
Breadth-Draught ratio B/TM 2.56 3.71 2.73
Length-Draught ratio Lpp/TM 12.72 13.56 12.88
Block coefficient
Cb
0.86 0.84 0.87

0.90

cb

0.85
0.80
0.75
1975

1985
1995
Year of delivery

2005

1985
1995
Year of delivery

2005

7.0
6.0
L/B

The trailing suction hopper dredgers which were

investigated in the HOSWA JIP are presented in Fig.3
through Fig.5. Table 1 presents the non-dimensional
main particular ratios and coefficients of the studied
trailing suction hopper dredger designs.

5.0
4.0
3.0
1975

The three selected trailing suction hopper dredgers

have different propulsion configurations, hull 1 has a
stern with exposed shafthoses and an integrated skeg,
hull 2 has a twin gondola stern with flat skeg and
both sterns are equipped with streamline bodies
towards the propellers with integrated nozzles. Hull 3
has a pram type stern with pods. The fore body and
bulb designs of the three selected trailing suction
hopper dredgers show many differences. The hull 2
design has a relatively large breadth.

4.50

B/T

4.00
3.50
3.00

Fig.3

Body plan of hull 1.

Fig.4

Body plan of hull 2.

Fig.5

Body plan of hull 3.

2.50
2.00
1975

Fig.1

1985
1995
Year of delivery

2005

Time line of the shift of global design

coefficients.

10/10 First overshoot angle [deg]

These shifts in fullness, length-beam and

beam-draught ratios influence the course keeping and
course checking ability. Fig.2 presents the
1st overshoot zig zag results from a selection of
modern trailing suction hopper dredgers.
25

4.

20
15
10
5
0
0

10

15

20

25

IMO Res.MSC.137(76)
Reference ships

Fig.2

30
35
L/V [sec]

Zig zag 10/10 1st overshoot angle from 35

modern trailing suction hopper dredgers.

PROJECT ACTIVITIES

The project activities were focused on knowledge

development as well as on tool development. The
following activities are conducted within the
framework of the project:
- Literature study
- Full scale trials
- SurSim validation
- Flow investigation
- Model tests, captive static and captive dynamic
- Tool development
- Safety study

After a literature study on squat and shallow water

effects, a series of full scale trials were conducted.
With the full scale trials the behaviour of the actual
ships was monitored. This provided insight in
relevant manoeuvres, loading conditions and nautical
procedures.
The main objective of the full scale trials was
gathering knowledge of the shallow water effects on
full scale, verification of existing squat prediction
methods, verify model test predictions against the
full scale results and generating benchmark data for
the simulation software.

the influence on squat, course keeping, manoeuvring

and navigational safety of variations in ship
dimensions and hull form can be investigated. The
limitations of the simulation model in the design
optimisation process were identified.
The safety study provided insight in the behaviour of
the vessels on shallow water conditions. Based on the
simulations and full scale trials a list of dos and
donts can be derived resulting in a safety envelope.
5.

TESTS

With the available full-scale trial results an extensive

validation of the MARIN SurSim manoeuvring
simulation software has been conducted. With this
study the omissions in the SurSim software to predict
the manoeuvring behaviour of trailing suction hopper
dredgers are identified.

For the generation of knowledge on the use of

trailing suction hopper dredgers and hydrodynamic
effects occurring while sailing on shallow water full
scale as well as model scale tests are conducted.

Flow investigations using measured wake fields and

CFD calculations, both with potential flow (RAPID)
and viscous flow (PARNASSOS), were performed to
get qualitative insight in the flow around a trailing
suction hopper dredger in close proximity to the
bottom. The investigation focused on the following
three main topics:
- The relation between the flow in the fore ship, the
wave elevation and the dynamic trim and sinkage.
- Study of the flow in the aft-ship at the propeller
location as a function of water depth, hull form
and loading condition.
- Study of the flow around a hull under drift angle at
deep and shallow water.

Full scale tests are the most expensive method of

investigating the behaviour of ships. Recording al
influences during the trails, mapping the results to the
conditions and derive conclusions from these is
complex. However, it has the great advantage that no
idealized situation is used; all additional influences
are taken into account, no scale effects.

Based on the full scale trial results relevant

conditions were isolated. The isolated conditions
formed the basis for the model testing program with
hull 1 and hull 2 which focused on the
speed-power-squat relation and the manoeuvring
forces as function of hull form variation and water
depth. The captive static and dynamic tests were
conducted in a modular way to isolate the
contributions of the hull, propellers, nozzles, rudders,
bilge keels and their interactions.
From the tests the forces acting on the ship, rudders
and propellers at various speeds, water depths, drift
angles, yaw rates of turn, propeller loadings and
loading conditions were determined in order to:
- Obtain data to determine the hydrodynamic
derivatives and to generate data to create the
mathematical model, i.e. SurSim for TSHD.
- Investigate the directional stability of the ships.
- Observe the dynamic trim and sinkage response
on the applied motions
A simulation model SurSim for TSHD, based on the
existent SurSim program, was developed based on
the full and model scale results. The model was
validated with the full scale trial data. With the model

5.1 Full scale

Within the framework of the HOSWA JIP four full

scale trial series were conducted. During the trials all
relevant characteristics were recorded included water
depth, dynamic trim and sinkage and loading
condition. The trials conducted provide insight in the
nautical procedures, realistic loading conditions,
relevant manoeuvres and dynamic sinkage and trim.
Fig.6 presents the height of the instability loop from
the reverse spiral and the observed yaw rate of turn
(r) when a rudder angle () of 35 is applied, as
measured during the full scale trials with the hull 2
vessel. Fig.7 presents the ratio between the yaw rate
of turn at = 0 and = 35 respectively. If the ratio
is one, the vessel would turn as fast with 0 rudder
angle as with 35 rudder angle. The ratio shows a
strong variation with water depth primarily a result of
the dynamic trim and sinkage and the change of the
flow around the hull due to the presence of the
bottom. The large variation in response makes the
vessels behaviour unpredictable for the helmsman.
5.2 Speed-power-squat measurements
A series of tests on deep as well as on shallow water
are performed to validate the MARIN standard
extrapolation methods to scale propulsion predictions
on shallow water to full scale and compare the
squatting behaviour on model scale with full scale.
The tests on restricted water depths underlined the
necessity to correct for the effects of blockage.

-0.05
-0.1

h/T [-]

-0.15

Y'

-0.2
-0.25
-0.3
-0.35
-0.4

1.5
0

0.5

1.5

-0.45
-0.5

r [deg/s]
Height

Fig.6

10

15

10

15

[deg]

r @ =35

Height and r @ =35 vs. water depth

draught ratio.

-0.02
-0.04

2
N'

-0.06

h/T [-]

-0.08
-0.1
-0.12
-0.14
0

1.5

[deg]

0.5

rresidual / r35 [-]

Fig.7

rresidual/r35 vs. water depth draught ratio

Fig.8

Measured
hull
forces (Y)
and
moments (N) on hull 1 at Vs = 10 kn;
: h/T = 2.4, : h/T = 2.0, +: h/T = 1.7,
%: h/T = 1.5, *: h/T = 1.3

5.3 Force measurements

Captive static and captive dynamic model tests on the
hull 1 and hull 2 models were conducted: to obtain
data to determine the hydrodynamic derivatives, to
generate data to create the mathematical model, to
investigate the directional stability of the ship as
function of the water depth, speed and loading
condition and to observe the dynamic trim and
sinkage response in the applied motions.
The test program comprised tests with the ship
models equipped with and without propellers,
nozzles and rudders. Four configurations were tested
being: the bare hull, bare hull with bilge keels,
appended without rudders and fully appended. With
these configurations a series of water depths, speeds,
drift angles, yaw rates of turn, propeller loadings and
loading conditions were tested.
The forces and moments measured on the whole ship
and on the appendages form the basis for the
mathematical modelling with which safety studies on
trailing suction hopper dredgers can be conducted.
Fig.8 presents the measured transverse hull forces
and moments as a function of drift angle for five
water depths.

6.

MATHEMATICAL MODEL

The mathematical model on one hand is based on

theoretical relations; on the other hand frequent use is
made of the empirical information from the model
tests. Combinations of the series of model tests and
theoretical prediction methods, along with
proof-tested interaction relationships are the basis for
the modelling.
The mathematical model as described in the
following paragraphs describes the acting forces and
moments on the hull and appendages in a modular
way. In the model the effects of hull, rudder (s),
propeller(s), nozzle(s), etc are separated. The
complex interaction effects with hull, propeller,
rudder and nozzle are separately identified in this
model. The utility, however, will be fantastic,
allowing easy, quick, and inexpensive trade-offs
among rudder, hull form, and propeller alternatives in
improving ship design and derive ship handling
procedures.
The mathematical model consists of the following
parts:
- coefficients describing the straight ahead motion:
resistance, wake: sailing straight ahead, wake:
while drifting and turning, propeller thrust, thrust

0.6

0.50

0.70
0.55

0.5
0.60

0.5
0.
60

0.5

0.5

0.65

0.85

0.
60

0.8

65
0.
0.
70

0.75

0.9

65
0.

0.
70

0.55

0.75

0.80

test 8699
h = 19.5 m
16.12 kn
Ta=Tf=13.00 m
Headbox II

5
0.4

0.65

test 57321
deep water
17.60 kn
Ta=Tf=13.00 m
Headbox II

0.6

The change of the slope of the resistance curve due to

the change of the water depth showed for all tested
vessels a relation with the ship breadth water depth
and ship draught. With these three parameters a
generic description of the water depth influence on
the ship resistance is made.
The effect of shallow water on ship speed is assumed
to be composed of two parts: a back-flow
component arising from the restricted water depth
and a component due to the distortion of the wave
system. The effect of the back-flow is incorporated in
the formulation by the relation between the vessels
draught, the beam and the water depth, describing the
amount of blocking. The distortion of the wave
system is described by the water depth.

6.1 Resistance

Fig.9 and Fig.10 presents at deep and shallow water

for the hull 1 and hull 2 the non-dimensional axial
velocity component. It can be observed that for the
hull 1 the wake more or less uniformly increases. On
the hull 2 the wake not only increases, but the
distribution of the wake field changes as well. The
change of the wake distribution on hull 2 is most
probably a result of the large beam and the presence
of the gondola.

0.6

Strong hull form dependence can be expected in the

water depth dependence of the wake. It is observed
that the wake, while sailing straight ahead increases
60% for hull 1 and 40% on hull 2 when going from
deep to shallow water..

0.65

deduction, nozzle thrust, rudder to propeller

interaction due to presence of a rudder, rudder to
propeller interaction due to rudder deflection
forces due to rudder inflow angles:
inflow angle, inflow velocity, rudder forces,
rudder to hull interaction, coefficients describing
the flow-straightening
linear hull forces
non-linear hull forces
forces on the nozzle
trim and sinkage relations

0.7
0
75
0.
0
0.8

0.85

0.75

0.90
0.8

0.85

0
85
0.

95
0.

0.95
0.85
0.90

0.90

6.2 Wake

0.9

Fig.9

Axial velocity component; hull 1.

0.5

0.60

0.30

0.2

0.20

0.2

0.20

0.20

0.5

test 5899
h = 8.0 m
10.0 kn
Ta=Tf=5.70 m

0.6

0.3

test 54402
deep water
12.5 kn
Ta=Tf=5.70 m

0.7

0.
10

0.
20

0.50
0

0.60

0.1

0.20

0.
40

0.30

0.1

0.8

0.10

0.7
0

0.40

0
0.3

0.8

0.5

0.70

0.2

0.3

0.1

0.60

0.20

0.80
90
0.
0

0.3

0.2

.20

0.2
0

0.2

0
0

0.9

0.3

0.90
0.3

Due to the change in pressure distribution over the

hull as a result of the variation in water depth, the
development of the boundary layer will be different
compared to deep water. The strong pressure gradient
along the fore ship can, on shallow water, extend the
shift to a turbulent flow. The boundary layer
development will be suppressed more than on deep
water. This in combination with the higher flow
velocities in the outer stream lead to higher frictional
resistance. At the aft ship the higher pressure
gradients increase the risk of flow separation. Both
the dimensions of the separation area as the pressures
are influenced by the blockage, resulting in an
increase of the viscous pressure resistance. This will
have an effect on the wake field.
The nominal wake w is a function of the wave
contribution ww, the displacement contribution wd
and the friction contribution wf. All the components
change as a function of water depth. The
amplification of the primary wave system and the
change of the wave length of the secondary wave
system will influence ww. For large blockage the
displacement wake will change significantly. It is
even possible that for extreme full ships like the
vessels under consideration, wd will be negative due
to the backflow.
The frictional part of the wake depends strongly on
the boundary layer development. Therefore a strong
influence of the blockage and the speed on the wf is
found.

0.
95

0.3

0.3

0
0.4

0.50

0.60

Fig.10

Axial velocity component, hull 2.

When the vessel is in a drift or turning motion the

wake field will change from the straight ahead
condition. The hull form which is not parallel to the
flow will in some areas accelerate the flow and
decelerate or even block the flow in others. Flow

lines which were attached to the hull in the straight

ahead motion can separate when the vessel is at an
angle of attack with the flow.
Fig.11 for deep water and Fig.12 for shallow water
present the calculation results of the axial velocity
field in the aft ship on hull 3. The calculations were
conducted using MARINs in-house viscous flow
solver Parnassos [2]. Comparing the conditions on
deep and shallow water, a somewhat thinner
boundary layer is present on shallow water. The wake
in the aft ship however is much more pronounced in
shallow water than in deep water. The windward
bilge vortex is not as separated from the hull in
shallow water compared to deep water, due to the
stronger cross-flow.
0.7

0.9

0.8
0.7

0.7

0.80

0.9

0
0.9

0
0.9

0.90

0.9
0.95

.90

0.9

0.9

0.50

0.9
0.9

0.50

0.80

0.99

Hull 3 sailing at = 10, h/T = ; axial

velocity field at station 0.5.

Fig.11

0.9

0.7

0.95

0.80
0
0.5

0.9

5
0.80

0.50

0.70

0.3

0.70

0.8

0.99

0.90

0.90

0.90

0.95

0.9

0.9

0.7

0.8

0.8
0

0.9

0.9

0.9

0.90

Fig.12

A rudder on a ship performs its function in a highly

complicated
medium.
Hydrodynamic
flow
phenomena such as stall, ventilation, cavitation, and
aeration exist which place definite limits on
maximum achieved rudder performance. The
presence of the rudder will affect the flow in the aft
ship, which results in the so called rudder-to-hull and
rudder-to-propeller interaction.

0.8

6.4 Rudder

0.9

the flow from the propeller can be amplified by the

backflow. Additional dynamic sinkage and dynamic
trim, resulting in an increase of the blockage, result
in a significant increase of the backflow velocity,
which again affects the dynamic trim and sinkage.
The thrust deduction will normally increase as the
depth of water decreases.

Hull 3 sailing at = 10, h/T = 1.53; axial

velocity field at station 0.5.

This change of flow field in the aft ship will have its
effect on thepropeller and rudder inflow velocity and
angle and hence on the manoeuvring behaviour of the
vessel. The behaviour of the flow on the leeward
(LEE) and weather (LUFF) side is substantially
different resulting in a separate formulation for the
leeward and weather area to describe the change
from the straight ahead wake due to a cross flow.

In the following, an overview is presented of the

mathematical descriptions in a modular fashion. A
distinction is made between calculation of the flow
velocity and orientation in the rudder plane and the
calculation of the forces on the rudder blade in this
flow.
Inflow angle
For both vessels it can be observed that the change of
neutral angle due to the variation in water depth is
small. In extreme shallow water a sudden increase in
neutral angle can be observed on hull 2. The larger
variation of the inflow angle on shallow water of the
hull 2 can partly be explained by the nominal wake
field, see 6.2, which shows a blockage of the flow
between the gondolas at extreme shallow water.
The effect of the shift of the neutral angle from deep
to shallow water is implemented in the mathematical
model in the form of a cross flow in the propeller
plane.
Inflow velocity
For the determination of the local longitudinal and
lateral flow velocity, respectively uR and vR and the
flow orientation, H, in the rudder plane, see Fig.13,
two conditions are determined: the trailing edge
inward condition and the trailing edge outward
condition.
flap

On hull 1 the wake on the weather side drops to 50%

of the straight ahead wake. On the leeward side the
wake increases with 50%. On hull 2 the weather side
wake is independent of the inflow angle. On the
leeward side the wake drops to 50% of the straight
ahead wake.

R
Di

offset
YN

6.3 Thrust

UR

incoming flow

The amplification of the propeller hull interaction by

shallow water also affects the thrust deduction. On
shallow water, the normally smaller changes due to

Fig.13

Schematic decomposition of the total force

Y'

In these two flow field conditions the rudder works in

two different environments. In the trailing edge
outward it is more in the free stream as for the
trailing edge inward condition it is more in the wake
from the hull and close to the skeg, especially for the
hull 2 where it is operating between the gondolas.
The difference between the two conditions increases
when moving to more shallow water.

-2

-4

-6

-30

-15

15

30

45

deg

Fig.15

Non dimensional rudder side force (Y) on

hull 1, h/T = 1.3, 1.7, 2.4 for under, over
and self propulsion point conditions

Y'

The propeller inflow velocity can be calculated based

on the undisturbed velocity corrected for the wake
which depends on the water depth and the local drift
angle. With the propeller characteristics the propeller
impulse can be calculated and hence the propeller
outflow velocity. The flow between the propeller and
rudder decelerates depending on the ratio between
the propeller outflow and the surrounding flow
velocity. Based on mass conservation the diameter of
the flow from the propeller in the rudder plane can be
determined, see Fig.14.

-45

-2

-4

-6

bollard pull
self propulsion
point

-45

-30

-15

15

30

45

deg

Fig.16

DP

Non dimensional rudder side force (Y) on

hull 2, h/T = 1.4, 1.7, 2.0, 2.5 for under,
over and self propulsion point conditions

TP
zP

zR

BASELINE

yP
yR

Fig.14

xP
C
L

xR

Propeller rudder configuration (hatched

rudder area valid for self-propulsion point
condition)

Rudder to hull interaction

The rudder effectiveness is defined by the transverse
force that is generated at a given rudder angle . It is
observed that at a given angle a transverse force Y()
is generated which is larger than a transverse force
generated on the rudder only, see Fig.17.

The average longitudinal flow velocity over the

rudder uR is defined as a weighted average of the
flow from the propeller and the surrounding flow.
The transverse flow component at the rudder depends
on the neutral inflow angle and the local side velocity
due to a combination of a rotating and drifting
motion of the vessel.
Rudder forces
From Fig.15 and Fig.16 it can be observed that the
non-dimensional transverse force on the rudder as a
function of rudder deflection angle from the hull 2
design is significantly larger compared to the hull 1
design. The largest differences in the characteristics
of the two rudders are the geometric aspect ratio R
which is 1.0 for the hull 2 and 1.6 for the hull 1 and
the thickness ratio t/c which is 21% for the hull 2 and
13% for the hull 1. The rudder design of the hull 2
has a larger lift coefficient and higher stall point, but
is more sensitive for variations in water depth and
propeller loadings this could be a direct result of the
differences in thickness and aspect ratios but also due
to hull-rudder interaction. The hull 2 rudder design
can produce more steering force but the available
steering force will change more as a function of the
environment, making it less predictable for the
helmsman.

YR ()

Fig.17

YH()

Forces excited on the rudder and the hull

due to rudder deflection.

In certain cases the rudder can influence the flow

around the hull. The flow forces on the hull are
influenced by this effect.
Fig.18 and Fig.19 present the measured hull force
versus the sum of the rudder forces sailing at zero
drift angle for a series of rudder deflection angles.
The slope of the corresponding points presents the
rudder to hull interaction. The interaction is complex
and is dependent of the water depth, ship speed,
propeller loading and rudder deflection angle.
For hull 2 the rudder to hull interaction, as presented
in Fig.19, shows for small rudder angles a large
interaction force of the opposite sign than the rudder
forces.

Cdb LEE

2000
1500
1000

Y H'

500

1.0
0.8

0
-500

0.6

-1000
-1500
-2000
-2000

-1500

-1000

-500

500

1000

1500

2000

0.4

2500

YR'

Fig.18

Rudder to hull interaction (YH) on hull 1,

h/T = 1.3, 1.7, 2.4 for under, over and self
propulsion point conditions

0.2
0.0

800

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1
T/h

0.8

1
T/h

600

hull 1

400
200
Y H'

Fig.20

hull 2

Coefficient Cdb vs. T/h; LEE

-200
-400
-600
-800

-600

-400

-200

200

400

600

800

1000

YR'

Fig.19

Rudder to hull interaction (YH) on hull 2,

h/T = 1.4, 1.7, 2.0, 2.5 for under, over and
self propulsion point conditions

Flow straightening
The effective inflow angle e that is used to calculate
the rudder force is determined based on the actual
steering angle and the average predicted flow
orientation at the rudder location. The average flow
orientation is commonly predicted using so-called
flow-straightening. The flow-straightening can be
determined by comparing the calculated lateral and
longitudinal rudder force due to the variation of the
angle of attack of the rudder to the measured lateral
and longitudinal force attributed due to the variation
of the angle of attack of the vessel.
The rudder angles of incidence are calculated with
which the description of the rudder calculates the
measured rudder forces at the tested drift angle ().
The calculated rudder angles are rated against the
angle of attack, which gives the flow-straightening
coefficient Cdb. If Cdb is one the flow angle is equal to
the drift angle. If Cdb is zero the flow orientates
parallel to the ship centre line.
Fig.20 presents the derived coefficients for the LEE
condition and Fig.21 for the LUFF condition for the
hull 1 and hull 2 design.
Both hull forms show an opposite trend in
flow-straightening. Focussing on the LUFF side
when moving from deep to shallow water a
decreasing trend is observed for the hull 2 design. A
dependence on the propeller loading is observed. The
hull 1 shows an increasing trend with large variations
in the flow-straightening.

Cdb LUFF

1.0
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.0
0

Fig.21

0.2

0.4

0.6

hull 1

hull 2

Coefficient Cdb vs. T/h; LUFF

Rudder to propeller interaction

The presence of a rudder downstream of the propeller
will have an effect on the propeller performance. For
the modelling two effects are isolated. The first part
being the interaction due to the presence of the
rudder will effect the propeller thrust. The second
part describes the effect of rudder deflection. When
the rudder is moved trailing edge outward the effect
is small. But when the rudder is moved trailing edge
inwards the effect on the thrust is significant. The
interaction is dependent of the rudder inflow velocity
(uR) en the propeller inflow velocity (up).
6.5 Linear hull forces
The linear hull forces are described by the
slenderbody method. The Slenderbody method has
the advantage that it is universal. Slenderbody uses a
strip wise approach. For each strip the transverse
force is calculated. Integration over the ship length
results in the total hull forces and moments. The
Slenderbody method determines the linear reaction
forces and moments in a 3-stage manner:
1. Virtual hull calculation

Adopts the boundery layer sheet.

2. Calculation of the added mass distribution based
on the virtual hull frames.
mYY = in sway direction due to a sway motion.
mRY = in sway direction due to a yaw motion.
3. Incorporating trailing vortices and trailing edges.

straight-ahead condition for the vessel he studied. A

correlation study for this revised study did not proof
the method to be successful.
Based on the segmented model tests conducted at
MARIN and other experiments available, a kind of
memory effect is observed in the fore ship.

The virtual hull represents the steel hull plus the

boudery layer sheet. For the boundery layer sheet
formulation a distinction between three different
sections in made: the positive pressure gradient
(Foreship), the zero pressure gradient (Midship) and
the negative pressure gradient (Aftship), see Fig.22.
The development of the boundery layer is dependent
on the water depth draught ratio.

A similar observation was made analysing segmented

model tests of a frigate. However here the effect is
not only to be contributed to trailing vortices. It can
be derived from the measurements that the linear
force over the foremost segment is similar to the
maximum sectional added mass mYY for this segment.
The hypothesis is that the sonar dome can be
attributed to be a separate body with a trailing edge
(similar to a dagger board on a sailing boat). Forces
acting on such a body will not dissipate like the
initial theory suggested. The forces on this separate
body can be determined using the mYY value on the
trailing edge of this body. The trailing vortices will
also exist on these separate bodies (appendages). The
same approach can be applied on the forces as
generated by a skeg or gondola body or other
separate appendages.

Phase I
fore ship, positive pressure gradient

line represents a typical displacement thickness over the length

Fig.22

Different stages in the boundary layer along

a ship and the related calculations

The added mass distribution based on the virtual hull

as a function of water depth and dynamic loading
conditions are calculated with linear potential
strip-theory.
Vortices trail sternwards after being shed around the
tip (keel plane) of the hull, skeg, sonar dome or
gondola etc. Based on RANS calculations and PIV
observations it is observed that vortices already are
significant at small drift angles (5 degrees). The exact
influence of the trailing vortices on the forces are still
unknown, however it is expected that the vortices
influence the linear coefficients as derived from the
model tests.
The hypothesis that the linear coefficients are
influenced by the trailing vortices is supported by the
correlation of the measurements with the
Slenderbody theory.
To study the trailing vortex system around a
manoeuvring vessel it is of importance to distinguish
different vortex sub-systems:
- Bow vortex
Shed around deep V sections (e.g. sharp stem with
or without bulbous bow) or a sonar dome.
- Bilge vortex
Shed around the bilge of the vessel. May be
dependent of the presence of bilge keels.
- Skeg/gondola vortex.
Clarke [1] presented a method to incorporate the
effect of bilge vortices in the slender body method.
The bilge vortex system he included in his theory
represented the vortex system existing in the

Fig.23 presents the added mass distribution at 0

on hull 1 along the ship length together with the
calculated Yuv distribution and linear derivative Yuv
which is plotted as a fat black marker at the frame 0
for one water depth and four speeds.
Yuv

n
7.0e+5

6.0e+5

5.0e+5

4.0e+5
yy

Phase II
midship, zero pressure gradient

Phase III
(aft ship, negative pressure gradient)

3.0e+5

2.0e+5
Water depth: 23, Vs=1
Water depth: 23, Vs=6

1.0e+5

Water depth: 23, Vs=11

Water depth: 23, Vs=16

-1.0e+5
-1

Fig.23

10 11
xpos

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

Slenderbody calculation of Yuv from mYY

distribution for hull 1

Fig.24 presents a comparison of the linear derivative

N versus the draught water depth ratio. The effect
of speed is neglected in this comparison. A good
correlation is found between the slenderbody
calculations and the model test results. On extreme
shallow water a misprediction is observed. In this
condition the flow is extremely instationaire.

The non-linear forces are described by a so-called

cross-flow drag method, see [2] and [4]. This
strip-wise theory describes the non-linear forces
distribution over the length for the instantaneous
immersion of the hull.

-0.5

-1.0

-1.5
0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

hull 1, Model tests

hull 2, Model tests
hull 1, SlenderBody
hull 2, SlenderBody

Fig.24

1.0
T/h

Linear coefficient, model test result versus

slenderbody calculation

From the linear coefficients a study on the expected

stability of the hull forms can be made.
Without the rudders the development of the
transverse velocity and yaw rate of turn after some
small disturbance will depend on the following
criterion. The ship will be course stable if the
motions will extinguish after the disturbance is
vanished. This will be the case if the stabilizing arm
is larger than the destabilizing arm. The ship is
course stable if the centre of application of the force
due to drifting lies aft of the centre of application of
the apparent force in reaction to the ships yaw rate
of turn.
The same analysis can be made for the appended ship
with its propellers at its self propulsion point
resulting in the stability of the total system.

h/T

Fig.25 presents the stability criterion of the hull 1 and

hull 2 as a function of the water depth draught ratio
for the appended and bare hull conditions for one
static loading condition.
The figure indicates that at deeper water, the vessels
are course unstable. A large part of the stability is
generated by the appendages. The hull 2 shows a
large variation of the stability as a function of the
water depth. The contribution from the appendages to
the stability increases significantly on shallow water.
3.0

The pure drag coefficient CD90 at deep water, the

cross flow drag at a pure cross flow, is mainly
dependent on the form of the ship. It is found that the
water depth dependence of the cross flow drag at
pure cross flow follows the relation as presented in
Fig.26. To correct the CD90 for water depth the deep
water CD90 is multiplied with the CD90, hT coefficient.
CD90,hT [-]

N '

6.6 Non-linear hull forces

0.0

5
4
3
2
1
0
0.0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

HAM 318

Fig.26

0.5

0.6
Yumuro, A.

0.7

0.8
fit

0.9

1.0
T/h [-]

Water depth dependency of the drag on the

hull in a pure cross flow; CD90,
Yumuro, A. [5]

The local cross flow drag coefficient CD, n for a given

cross section at an arbitrary drift angle is calculated
from the cross flow drag at 90 drift angle which is
water depth dependent and the corrected drag
coefficient which is independent of the ships hull
form and the water depth and dependent of the
longitudinal location and the local drift angle, as
presented in [2] and [4].
The wave dependent non-linear part is described in a
CDadd coefficient which is dependent of the water
depth and ship speed.
6.7 Validation
Making the simulation program SurSim for TSHD
generic valid had a high priority. The hull and
propeller forces are generically described. The flow
in the aft ship is described in a modular way. All
effects are isolated and described in a physically
correct structure.

2.5

Fig.27 presents an example of the validation results.

A comparison between the measured and calculated
overall transverse force due to a combination of drift
and yaw motion for the fully appended hull 2 is
made.

2.0

1.5

1.0
-1.0

-0.5

0.0

0.5

less stable NY-N(Y-m) more stable

Fig.25

hull 1 barehull

hull1 appended

hull 2 barehull

hull 2 appended

Stability criterion

1.0

manoeuvring characteristics minimise the room for

error and less predictable behaviour of the ship
reduces the chance of a correct response.
Major
Injury

Fig.27

Transverse force (Y) vs. non dimensional

yaw rate of turn () for hull 2 at h/T = 2.0.
Fn=0.09: x: = 0, %: = 8, +: = 14, o: = 24
Fn=0.18: >: = 0, <: = 8

As a final validation a comparison between the full

scale trials and free sailing model test results and the
simulation at a range of water depths results is made.
The validation set consists of hull 1 and hull 2 tests
for a range of loading conditions, water depths and
approach speeds. Fig.28 presents the maximum
non-dimensional yaw rate of turn during zig-zag
manoeuvres. Considering some scatter in the
full-scale trial results, a good agreement between the
trials and calculations is found.

Minor
Injuries
No-injury
Accidents
Unsafe Practices
Unsafe Conditions

Accident
Severity
Fig.29 Heinrichs triangle

Reliability of
Reporting

In shallow water hydrodynamic conditions exist

which may cause the ship to behave in an apparently
anomalous and unpredictable manner. If these
conditions are more clearly understood by those
concerned with the operation of the trailing suction
hopper dredgers a reduction of accidents can be
expected leading to greater safety at sea.
8.
Fig.28

Maximum non dimensional yaw rate of turn

Calculated (prediction) vs. free-sailing test
results (experiments)
%: model scale, x: full scale
7.

SAFETY ENVELOPE

The worse and less predictable the behaviour of the

ship on items like course keeping ability,
manoeuvrability and squat, the smaller the error
margin for the helmsman. Combined with operations
in confined shallow waters with high traffic density
there is a necessity for focus on safety. Actions like
training of the helmsman can increase the safety. A
better knowledge of the influence of design
variations on the sailing characteristics of the vessel
can increase the safety envelope. Knowledge on the
response of the vessel as a function of water depth,
loading condition and bottom bathymetry are
essential and can help to increase the safety margin.
If you want to reduce the number of accidents like
groundings the key is to not focus on the groundings,
or minor accidents. Instead, concentrate on the
fundamentals that eliminate the behaviour that cause
the near misses and move us up the Heinrich triangle,
Fig.29. In general the primary cause of manoeuvring
accidents is operator error. However poor

CONCLUSIONS

The behaviour of trailing suction hopper dredgers on

shallow water was measured. Squat, manoeuvring,
course keeping and speed/ power relations were then
correlated with model test results. A mathematical
model describing the manoeuvring characteristics
and squat response is developed and validated against
the full scale and model scale data. An extensive
CFD study has been conducted to gain insight in the
physics behind the shallow water effects on trailing
suction hopper dredgers. The investigations show
that the manoeuvring and squat behaviour is sensitive
for design details. The purpose of the HOSWA JIP
was to improve understanding of these processes, to
increase the safety of navigation with trailing suction
hopper dredgers on shallow waters and to improve
the mathematical modelling. The dimensions of new
trailing suction hopper dredgers designs are slowly
pushing to the boundaries. The knowledge gained in
the HOSWA JIP can help keeping the new trailing
suction hopper dredgers safe.
REFERENCES
[1] Clark, D. and Horn, J.R. The Effect of Trailing
Vortices and stern Design on Ship Manoeuvring,
The 6th International Marine Design Conference
Vol. 1 Proceedings, June 1997
[2] Hoekstra, M. Numerical Simulation of Ship

Stern Flows with a Space-Marching Navier-Stokes

Method., PhD thesis, Delft University of
Technology, Faculty of Mechanical Engineering and
Marine Technology, October 1999.
[3] Hooft, J.P. The cross-flow drag on a
manoeuvring ship, Ocean engineering, 1994.
[4] Hooft, J.P. and Quadvlieg, F.H.H.A. Non-linear
hydrodynamic hull forces derived from segmented
model tests, MARSIM, 1996
[5] Yumuro, A. A consideration on Nonlinear
component of maneuvring hydrodynamic force from
segmented model test results Effect of shallow
water-, J. Kansai Soc. N.A., Japan No. 237, March
2002
AUTHORS BIOGRAPHY
Albert J. Jurgens has studied Naval architecture and
science in control engineering and works at MARIN
since nine years presently as a project manager at the
ships-manoeuvring department. He is responsible for
projects related to the manoeuvring and course
keeping of cruise vessels, tugboats, hopper dredgers,
naval vessels and submarines.
Arie de Jager holds a Bsc. degree in shipbuilding
from the Technical High School at Dordrecht and
works at IHC HOLLAND Dredgers B.V. the
dredgers design & construction company, since 1988.
His current occupation as Senior Engineer for ship
hydrostatics and hydrodynamics is divided into 50%
Drawing office, 30% Research & Development
(Involved in several EU research projects) and 20%
Design.