Ocean Engineering 30 (2003) 1305–1317

www.elsevier.com/locate/oceaneng

Technical Note
Numerical simulation of ship stability for
dynamic environment
S. Surendran ∗, J. Venkata Ramana Reddy
Department of Ocean Engineering, Indian Institute of Technology Madras, Chennai 600 036, India

Received 28 March 2002; accepted 15 July 2002

Abstract

The prediction of ship stability during the early stages of design is very important from the
point of vessel’s safety. Out of the six motions of a ship, the critical motion leading to capsize
of a vessel is the rolling motion. In the present study, particular attention is paid to the perform-
ance of a ship in beam sea. The linear ship response in waves is evaluated using strip theory.
Critical condition in the rolling motion of a ship is when it is subjected to synchronous beam
waves. In this paper, a nonlinear approach has been tried to predict the roll response of a
vessel. Various representations of damping and restoring terms found in the literature are
investigated. A parametric investigation is undertaken to identify the effect of a number of
key parameters like wave amplitude, wave frequency, metacentric height, etc.
 2002 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Stability; Capsizing; Metacentric height; Beam sea; Roll motion

1. Introduction

Stability against capsizing in heavy seas is one of the fundamental requirements

in ship design. Capsizing is related to the extreme motion both of ship and waves.
Rolling of a ship in rough environment may be influenced by many factors. They
can be divided into three main situations; beam sea, following and quartering sea
conditions. In the present study, the problem of ship safety has been studied with
regard to the rolling motion of a ship in beam waves.
Bhattacharyya (1978) discussed rolling motion of a ship and the devices for roll

∗
Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: sur@iitm.ac.in (S. Surendran); iitramana@yahoo.com (J. Venkata Ramana Reddy).

0029-8018/03/$ - see front matter  2002 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/S0029-8018(02)00109-9
1306 S. Surendran, J. Venkata Ramana Reddy / Ocean Engineering 30 (2003) 1305–1317

Nomenclature
A44 added mass moment of inertia in roll
Afv area under GZ curve up to the angle of fv
B breadth of the vessel
B44 damping moment coefficient
BL linear roll damping moment coefficient
BN nonlinear roll damping moment coefficient
B(ḟ,f) nonlinear damping moment
bN nondimensional nonlinear damping term
bL nondimensional linear damping term
C44 restoring moment coefficient
Cb block coefficient
D depth of the vessel
GM metacentric height
GZ righting arm
H wave height
I44 transverse mass moment of inertia of the vessel
KB vertical position of the center of buoyancy above the baseline
KG vertical position of the center of gravity above baseline
KM vertical position of the metacenter above baseline
L wave length
LBP length between perpendiculars
LOA length overall
M0 amplitude of the wave exciting moment
T draught
w wave frequency
we encountering frequency
wf natural frequency of the roll motion
f relative roll angle
ⵜ volume of displacement
⌬ weight displacement
am maximum wave slope
l nondimensional inertia term
fv angle of vanishing stability
ḟ angular velocity
f̈ angular acceleration

damping. Dalzell (1978) discussed about the representation of damping in different

nonlinear forms. Odabasi and Vince (1982) concentrated on the roll response of a
ship under the action of sudden excitation. They studied the importance of roll damp-
ing on the response of a ship. Vassalos et al. (1985) explained stability criteria for
 S. Surendran, J. Venkata Ramana Reddy / Ocean Engineering 30 (2003) 1305–1317 1307

semisubmersible stability. Lewis (1988) concentrated on rolling dynamics taking into

account the wave and other environmental effects. Witz et al. (1989) investigated
the roll response of a semisubmersible model with an inflectional restoring moment.
Zborowski and Taylan (1989) studied the small vessel’s roll motion stability reserve
for resonance conditions. De Kat and Paulling (1989) investigated motions and cap-
sizing of ships in severe sea conditions. Francescutto (2000) studied the problem of
ship safety with regard to the stability and rolling motion of ships in beam waves.
Taylan (2000) investigated the effect of nonlinear damping and restoring in ship
rolling. Chakrabarti (2001) explained various types of damping associated with rol-
ling. He contributed empirical relationships for the calculation of roll damping.

2. Formulation of the problem

For the purpose of analysis, only the significant motion pertaining to stability and
capsizing, namely roll motion has been considered. This simplification can be justi-
fied by the reasoning that the vessel capsize is strongly influenced by the roll motion.
In addition, among the three transverse coupled motions, only roll has restoring
forces and exhibits strong resonant motions. Hence, roll motion can be considered
to be the most important in the stability analysis of a vessel.
The factors that influence roll response of different vessels are listed below:

앫 the ratio between the natural period of rolling and the encountering period of
wave;
앫 the shape of the hull, its stability, total weight and buoyancy;
앫 the wave steepness, H/L, where H and L are wave height and length, respectively;
앫 the damping efficiency of the underwater parts of the hull;
앫 the encountering speed of wave.

There are two ways of thinking with regard to the possible approach to the ship
stability in wave.

앫 Using the available linear ship motion theory.

앫 Using the nonlinear theoretical model.

2.1. Equation of roll motion—linear approach

One of the main reasons of ship capsizing in waves is loss of stability in roll
motion. A simplified analytical roll response model is assumed for the vessel when
subjected to regular sinusoidal waves. For a ship in regular beam sea, the rolling
motion can be simulated by a single degree of freedom second order differential
equation of the general form
(I44 ⫹ A44)f̈ ⫹ B44ḟ ⫹ C44f ⫽ M0coswet. (1)
1308 S. Surendran, J. Venkata Ramana Reddy / Ocean Engineering 30 (2003) 1305–1317

In this paper, linear equations of motion are solved for solutions at small angle of
roll. For larger angles, nonlinearity plays significant role in roll dynamics.

2.2. Equation of roll motion—nonlinear approach

One of the problems associated with modeling nonlinear systems is the difficulty
in establishing which of the nonlinear components are critical. The nonlinear model
involves two forms of nonlinearities:

앫 the damping
앫 the restoring moment.

Assumptions made in the formulation of nonlinear rolling motion equation:

앫 No coupling exists between roll and any other degrees of freedom.

앫 The added mass moment of inertia is approximately constant with frequency and,
therefore, the total inertia is constant.
앫 Forcing is harmonic.

A typical equation of nonlinear roll motion can be expressed as (Taylan, 2000)

(I44 ⫹ A44)f̈ ⫹ B44(ḟ,f) ⫹ ⌬GZ(f) ⫽ w2eamI44coswet. (2)
Eq. (2) is a relevant expression for roll motion prediction. In the present study,
three different nonlinear damping and nonlinear restoring terms are considered. The
expressions defining the damping are as follows:
B1(ḟ) ⫽ BLf ⫹ BNḟ兩ḟ兩, (3a)
B2(f,ḟ) ⫽ BLḟ ⫹ BNf2ḟ, (3b)
B3(ḟ) ⫽ BLḟ ⫹ BNḟ3. (3c)
Cubic and quintic expressions are the most favorable descriptions for restoring,
but it is not usual to come across a seventh degree polynomial. In general, higher
degree polynomials are avoided due to their relatively cumbersome manipulations
in the solution procedure. Let us consider an equation of nonlinear roll motion with
B1 type damping and quintic restoring (Taylan, 2000)
(I44 ⫹ A44)f̈ ⫹ BLḟ ⫹ BNḟ兩ḟ兩 ⫹ ⌬(C1f ⫹ C3f3 ⫹ C5f5) (4)
⫽ w2eamI44coswet.
If Eq. (4) is divided throughout by (I44 ⫹ A44), and the values of coefficients C1,
C2, C3 are substituted, respectively. It takes the form
f̈ ⫹ bLḟ ⫹ bNḟ兩ḟ兩 ⫹ w2ff ⫹ m3f3 ⫹ m5f5 ⫽ lw2eamcoswet, (5)
where
 S. Surendran, J. Venkata Ramana Reddy / Ocean Engineering 30 (2003) 1305–1317 1309

⌬GM
w2f ⫽ , (6a)
(I44 ⫹ A44)

m3 ⫽ 冋
4w2f 3Afv
f2v GMf2v
⫺1 , 册 (6b)

3w2f 4Afv
m5 ⫽ ⫺ 4
fv GMf2 冋
⫺1 , 册 (6c)

BL
bL ⫽ , (6d)
(I44 ⫹ A44)
BN
bN ⫽ . (6e)
(I44 ⫹ A44)
The righting arm curve is formulated as GZ ⫽ C1f ⫹ C3f3 ⫹ C5f5 quintic poly-
nomials. Coefficients of the polynomials are determined by static and dynamic
characteristics of the GZ curve such as metacentric height, GM; angle of vanishing
stability, fv; and area under the curve, Afv as follows:
d(GZ)
C1 ⫽ ⫽ GM, (7a)
df
4
C3 ⫽ (3A ⫺GMf2v), (7b)
f4v fv
3
C5 ⫽ ⫺ 6(4Afv⫺GMf2v). (7c)
fv
Eqs. (7a)–(7c) are solved after a careful study of the righting arm curve for a parti-
cular loading condition of the ship.

3. Results and discussions

For the purpose of analysis of linear and nonlinear rolling motion of ships, two
vessels that differ in hydrostatic and stability characteristics have been considered.
Figs. 1 and 2 show the body plan and isometric view of a RO–RO ship. Table 1
shows the principal particulars of a RO–RO ship. The stability characteristics of the
RO–RO ship, viz. GZ, GM, vanishing angle of stability and area under GZ curve
are determined by well known Krylove’s method. Fig. 3 shows the GZ curve
obtained based on Krylove’s method. Table 2 shows the comparison between the
IMO criteria and the RO–RO ship. The curve of statical stability obtained based on
Krylove’s method satisfies the IMO standards. Table 3 shows the principal particulars
of a vessel taken from Zborowski and Taylan (1989).
The added mass moment of inertia of the vessel in rolling is assumed to be 20%
of the mass moment of inertia. The damping moment coefficient has been calculated
1310 S. Surendran, J. Venkata Ramana Reddy / Ocean Engineering 30 (2003) 1305–1317

Fig. 1. Body plan of a RO–RO ship.

Fig. 2. Isometric view of a RO–RO ship.

based on strip theory. For the analysis of linear rolling motion of a RO–RO ship, a
range of wave heights varying from 2 to 8 m have been considered. Eq. (1) was
solved using the fourth order Runge–Kutta method. Fig. 4 shows a typical plot of roll
angle against time for a particular wave height of 6 m and for different frequencies of
wave, ranging from 0 to 2.40 rad/s, in regular sinusoidal waves, in beam sea con-
dition. Fig. 5 shows the plot of roll transfer function (RTF) against encounter fre-
quency of wave (we). RTF is defined as the ratio of roll amplitude to the maximum
wave slope. The roll response of the floating body is at a maximum in the lower
frequency range. The resonance can be noticed at an encounter frequency value of
0.4 rad/s. It is interesting to note that the present simulation agrees very well with
the method suggested by Bhattacharyya (1978). The published literature gives a
closed form solution to this linear dynamic problem.
 S. Surendran, J. Venkata Ramana Reddy / Ocean Engineering 30 (2003) 1305–1317 1311

Table 1
Principal particulars of a Ro–Ro ship

S. no. Principal particulars Symbol

1. Length overall LOA 192.60 m

2. Length between perpendiculars LBP 177.60 m
3. Breadth B 28.00 m
4. Depth D 18.00 m
5. Draught T 7.50 m
6. Displacement ⌬ 22012 t
7. Transverse metacentric height GM 2.66 m
8. Vertical center of gravity KG 13.98 m
9. Vertical center of buoyancy KB 4.40 m
10. Block coefficient Cb 0.60

Fig. 3. Restoring arm curve of a RO–RO ship.

Table 2
Comparison between IMO criteria and the RO–RO ship

Norm IMO code The RO–Ro ship

A 0.055 mrad 0.145 mrad

B 0.09 mrad 0.265 mrad
C 0.03 mrad 0.12 mrad
D 0.03 mrad 0.12 mrad
E ⬎25° 40°
F ⬎0.15 m 2.66 m

A, area under GZ curve until 30°; B, area under GZ curve until 40°; C, area under GZ curve between
30° and 40°; D, maximum righting arm; E, angle of maximum stability; F, metacentric height.
1312 S. Surendran, J. Venkata Ramana Reddy / Ocean Engineering 30 (2003) 1305–1317

Fig. 4. Time series plots of roll motion in beam sea condition (wave height of 6 m).
 S. Surendran, J. Venkata Ramana Reddy / Ocean Engineering 30 (2003) 1305–1317 1313

Table 3
Principal particulars of test vessel

S. no Principal particulars Symbol

1 Length between perpendiculars LBP 29.83 m

2. Breadth B 5.53 m
3. Draught T 2.01 m
4. Displacement D 200 t
5. Transverse metacentric height GM 0.35 m
6. Vertical center of gravity KG 2.30 m
7. Vertical position of metacenter above the keel KM 2.65 m
8. Block coefficient Cb 0.60

Fig. 5. Linear roll response for regular waves.

Table 3 shows the principal particulars of a test vessel taken from Ref. Zborowski
and Taylan (1989). Eq. (5) was solved using the fourth order Runge–Kutta method.
Fig. 6 shows a typical plot of roll angle against time for a particular wave height
of 2.20 m and for different frequencies of wave, ranging from 0 to 2.40 rad/s, in
regular sinusoidal waves, in beam sea condition. The encounter frequency variation
influences the roll response of the ship. Fig. 6 shows the results for various fre-
quencies of encounters. All are nonlinear roll responses, which are highly sensitive
to the initial conditions. Although single wave is considered for the purpose of com-
parison, the method is found to be versatile for any conditions. Fig. 7 shows the
results as per present approach. It can be seen that the published results and the
present results are matching. The resonance occurs at an encounter frequency value
of 0.92 rad/s.
1314 S. Surendran, J. Venkata Ramana Reddy / Ocean Engineering 30 (2003) 1305–1317

Fig. 6. Time series plots of roll motion in beam sea condition (wave height of 2.20 m).
 S. Surendran, J. Venkata Ramana Reddy / Ocean Engineering 30 (2003) 1305–1317 1315

Fig. 7. Nonlinear roll response for regular waves.

Figs. 8–10 show the variation of roll amplitudes with B1, B2 and B3 type damping
given in Eqs. (3a)–(3c), respectively, and quintic restoring moment for the RO–RO
ship with the principal particulars as per Table 1. The coefficients C1, C3 and C5
have been calculated as per Eqs. (7a)–(7c), respectively. Fig. 8 shows the nonlinear
roll response with B1 damping for a regular sinusoidal wave of height 6 m in beam
sea condition. The maximum roll angle is seen to be 17.5° at an encounter frequency
of 0.40 rad/s. This roll angle is well within the stability range of the RO–RO ship.
The interaction with the nonlinear damping and nonlinear restoring moment is seen
from the response. Fig. 9 shows the variation of roll amplitude with B2 damping.

Fig. 8. Roll amplitude with B1 type damping and quintic restoring moment.
1316 S. Surendran, J. Venkata Ramana Reddy / Ocean Engineering 30 (2003) 1305–1317

Fig. 9. Roll amplitude with B2 type damping and quintic restoring moment.

Fig. 10. Roll amplitude with B3 type damping and quintic restoring moment.

In this case the roll response is raised to 22.5°. Damping is seen to be lesser than
the previous case. Fig. 10 is for B3 damping with quintic restoring moment. The
maximum roll angle is seen to be almost same as the case of B2 damping. Therefore,
the effect due to B2 and B3 damping is found to be the same. Further simulation
carried out for higher wave heights shows larger roll responses, but they are well
within the range of stability. The dramatic changes in roll response are due to the
cross-sectional shape of the ship, bilge keels, etc. They are all dampening the roll
motion. Hence, B1, B2 and B3 justify the representation for damping.
 S. Surendran, J. Venkata Ramana Reddy / Ocean Engineering 30 (2003) 1305–1317 1317

4. Conclusions

Analytical methods are formulated for the roll motion of ship. Linear and nonlinear
approaches are tried. Solutions are obtained using the fourth order Runge–Kutta
method. Three types of possible damping are considered based on the literature sur-
vey. The restoring arm curve is represented by quintic polynomial. The result of the
present approach very well agrees with the published results. A number of cases
have been worked out.

References

Bhattacharyya, R., 1978. Dynamics of Marine Vehicles. Wiley, New York.

Chakrabarti, S., 2001. A technical note on empirical calculation of roll damping for ships and barges.
Ocean Engineering 28, 915–932.
Dalzell, J.F., 1978. A note on the form of ship roll damping. Journal of Ship Research 22, 178–185.
De Kat, J.O., Paulling, J.R., 1989. The simulation of ship motions and capsizing in severe seas. Trans-
actions SNAME 117, 127–135.
Francescutto, A., 2000. Mathematical modeling of roll motion of a catamaran in intact and damage con-
ditions in beam waves. In: Proceedings of the Tenth International Offshore and Polar Engineering
Conference, Seattle, USA, May 28–June 2, 2000. SNANE, New Jersey, pp. 362–368.
Lewis, N., 1988. Principles of Naval Architecture, third ed. Wiley series.
Odabasi, A.Y., Vince, J., 1982. Roll response of a ship under the action of a sudden excitation. Inter-
national Shipbuilding Progress 29, 327–328.
Taylan, M., 2000. The effect of nonlinear damping and restoring in ship rolling. Ocean Engineering 27,
921–932.
Vassalos, D., Konstantopoulos, G., Kuo, C., Welaya, Y., 1985. A realistic approach to semisubmersible
stability. Transactions SNAME 93, 95–128.
Witz, J.A., Albett, C.B., Harrison, J.H., 1989. Roll response of semisubmersibles with nonlinear restoring
moment characteristics. Applied Ocean Research 11, 153–166.
Zborowski, A., Taylan, M., 1989. Evaluation of small vessels’ roll motion stability reserve for resonance
conditions. In: SNAME Spring meeting/STAR Symposium, New Orleans, LA.