Report of the 25th ITTC

Seakeeping Committee
17 September 2008

1
 Membership
• Terrence Applebee, Chairman
• Paul Crossland, Secretary
• Gregory Grigoropoulos
• Greg Hermanski
• Yonghwan Kim
• Rumen Kishev
• Koichiro Matsumoto
• Jianbo Hua (until April 2007)
• Dariusz Fathi (July 2007 to the present)

2
 Committee Meetings
• January 2006 – QinetiQ, United Kingdom
• October 2006 – David Taylor Model Basin,
United States of America
• May 2007 – National Technical University
of Athens, Greece
• December 2007 – Seoul National University,
Korea

3
Why Seakeeping?

4
5
 Presentation Outline
• Recommendations of the 24th ITTC
• Cooperation with the ISSC
• Conclusions of the Committee
• Recommended ITTC Procedures
• Discussion

6
 Tasking from the 24 th ITTC
1. State-of-the-Art Review
2. Update Procedures
• 7.5-02-07-02.3 Experiments on Rarely Occurring Events
• 7.5-02-07-02.1 Model Tests on Linear and Weakly Non-linear Seakeeping
Phenomena
• 7.5-02-07-02.4 Validation of Codes in the Frequency Domain
3. Rewrite Procedure 7.5-02-07-02.2 Predicting Power Increase in
Irregular Waves Based on Model Experiments in Regular Waves
4. Develop a Procedure for Validation of Codes in the Time Domain
5. Support the Specialist Committee on Uncertainty Analysis
6. Benchmark Data
• Review Examples of Validation of Prediction Techniques
• Determine Requirements for Seakeeping Tests in Oblique Waves
7
 Additional Tasking from EC

Identify overlapping subject area(s) and avenues

of cooperation with the International Ship &
Offshore Structure Congress (ISSC)
specifically,
I.2 Loads Technical Committee

8
 ITTC-ISSC Cooperation
Results of Joint Meeting held at NTUA in Athens in
May 2007:
– ITTC Procedures covering Seakeeping Experiments, Experiments
on Rarely Occurring Events, and Validation of Seakeeping
Computer Codes
– ITTC Ocean Engineering Committee cooperation with ISSC Loads
& Environment Committees
– Benchmarking & comparative studies
– Exchange of reference lists, forwarding/review of final reports
– Consideration of future joint reports
– Common membership
– Scheduled joint meeting(s)

9
 Summary & Conclusions
1. Highlights
2. Developments in Experimental Techniques
3. Loads and Responses in Waves
4. Sloshing
5. Slamming, Deck Loads and Whipping
6. High Speed Vessels and Multihull Ships
7. Increased Powering in Waves Prediction
8. Computational Fluid Dynamics
9. Benchmark Data
10. Uncertainty Analysis
11. Cooperation with ISSC
10
 Conclusions
• Highlights:
– Four Procedures developed/updated for
adoption
– State-of-the-art review included sloshing as an
additional area for consideration
– Review of seakeeping benchmark data resulted
in the development of a rigorous definition to
be applied to existing and future data sets

11
 Experimental Techniques
• Wavemaking
– Ring waves for single-pass directional ship responses
– Generating & absorbing wavemakers to minimize reflection
– Numerical wave tank modeling for simulations & design
improvements
• Nonlinear Model Experiments
– Large scale models with similar mechanical & structural properties
to full-scale, reduction of Reynolds scaling effects
– Comparisons of nonlinear experimental results to both analytical
predictions and full-scale trials, particularly higher order effects
– Non-conventional ship hull forms
– Surface pressure and wave impact loading
12
 Experimental Techniques
• Measurement Technologies
– Bubble Image Velocimetry (BIV) for horizontal green water
distribution
• Safety-Driven Experimentation
– Parametric Roll
– Dynamic Stability
• Full-Scale Data Acquisition
– Small & large vessel motions & structural loads
– Onboard wave, motion, structural measurements for decision making
– RAO development from full-scale data
– 3D wave buoy measurements to determine seaway directionality
– Sea state estimation from ship motions 13
Ryu et al.(2007)

14
 Loads & Responses in Waves
• Linear, weakly-nonlinear analyses continue to improve, with
movement to time domain and 3D panel methods, and provide
sufficient capability for many ship design issues and practical
engineering
– Use of Green’s function approach and Rankine panel method to the 3D
problem
– Coupling of impulse response function approach with strip or panel
methods
• Nonlinear problems, such as extreme ship motions & dynamic
structural loading, and complex problems, such as multiple body
interactions & motions in shallow water, require better accuracy
– Rely heavily on the Navier-Stokes equation solvers
– Use of Rankine panel method to remain popular for the linear and weakly-
nonlinear as well as strongly nonlinear problems
– Computational time remains problematic for CFD (viscous flow methods)
vice potential flow (inviscid) methods

15
 Loads & Responses in Waves
• Propose a workshop for investigating time domain
methods
– Qualify & quantify advantages, disadvantages,
accuracy
– Include nonlinear loads, pressures, motions
– Provide V&V data
– Inclusion of experimental results as benchmark data
– Ultimately will aid in the development of the new
nonlinear code V&V procedure
• Results of time domain simulations must provide
details (e.g., transom treatment, autopilot
coefficients, spatial & temporal discretization,
etc.) 16
 Z
Real Ship Application:
Y
X
Large Containership

Hydro panel model

Y X

Nonlinear Ship Motion Simulation

(Rankine Panel Method, Kim et al, 2007)

Structural panel model

17
 Sloshing
• CFD techniques have been used to simulate sloshing flows
– Problems arise with numerical diffusion with some methods, and
computation time remains an issue
• Coupling with linear time domain motions has been
attempted
• Experimental validation is key & requires modern
measurement techniques (e.g. PIV)
• Overall, reasonable accuracy for pressures & free surface
profiles has been predicted
• Some effort has been made for scale-up law of sloshing
pressure, but no breakthrough yet

18
 Sloshing experiment for very
large model tank (DNV, 2007)

Sloshing simulation at shallow

filling: SPH vs. FDM (Kim, 2007)
Sloshing experiment and SPH Simulation (Coragrossi 19
et al., 2007)
Slamming, Deck Loads and Whipping
• Multi-stage approach of combining traditional ship
motion prediction techniques & CFD methods have
been used to derive “cause & effect”
– For example, relative motion computations predict
freeboard exceedance; RANS representation predicts the
horizontal and vertical loads
• Application of Smooth Particle Hydrodynamics
(SPH) in the treatment of violent free-surface flows
and the occurrence of green water loading and
slamming impact loads
20
Slamming Experiment for 3D Bodies SPH Simulation for Ship Slamming (Orger
(SNU-MOERI, ONR Project,2007) et al,2007)

21
 High-Speed and Multihull Vessels
• Model and full-scale experiments reported for high-
speed vessels, including systematic tests of planing
catamaran hulls
• Nonlinear seakeeping codes have been compared to
high-speed and multihull tests primarily in head seas
• Oblique wave conditions are noticeably absent from
evaluations of both high-speed and multihull
experiments
– Obvious tank restrictions make such testing problematic
– Suitable test procedures must be devised to provide
appropriate benchmark data
22
Increased Powering in Waves Prediction
• Four methods to predict increased powering in
irregular waves from model tests in regular waves
were investigated:
– Torque and Revolution Method (QNM)
– Thrust and Revolution Method (TNM)
– Resistance & Thrust Identify Method (RTIM)
– Direct Power Method (DPM)
• Comparison of results for various ships at full load
shows very close agreement of all but DPM
23
Increased Powering in Waves Prediction

Comparison of power
increase in irregular waves
for the four methods

24
Increased Powering in Waves Prediction
• Based on these results, DPM has been removed
from the procedure
• Results are less conclusive for the ballast
condition, and further validation of these methods
from model and full-scale tests in irregular waves
is desirable
• RTIM considers all added resistance components
(e.g., waves, wind, hull fouling, maneuvering,
etc.)
25
 Computational Fluid Dynamics
• CFD methods for seakeeping analyses are still in the early
stages for practical use, but provide the promise of
developing accurate solutions to the nonlinear problems
(motions in severe seas, green water & slamming, sloshing,
etc.)
• Computational time and verification of results remain
hurdles
• Finite difference/volume methods for solving Navier-
Stokes equation and Constrained Interpolation Profile
(CIP) method have been used for large amplitude ship
motions, and particle methods, particularly Smooth
Particle Hydrodynamics (SPH), have been used for
motion-related phenomena (sloshing, green water, etc.)
26
 Benchmark Data
• Tasking to determine required benchmark seakeeping tests
for oblique wave conditions, esp. for high-speed vessels,
evolved into a larger issue:
What qualifies as benchmark data?
• A working definition for benchmark data has been
proposed
• Continued review of past and future data against this
criteria is recommended for inclusion as benchmark data
• Recommended long term goal: A repository of
experimental particulars and digital data for meaningful
comparisons
27
 Benchmark Data
• Definition: Benchmark tests are those that
generate experimental data, both model and full-
scale, that are presented in a way that makes the
results reproducible both numerically and
experimentally. Benchmark data are to be used
for the validation of numerical methods and the
verification of experimental procedures. These
data should be fit for the intended purpose, should
include uncertainty analysis, and should be
publicly available.
28
 Benchmark Data
• Criteria: Reported parameters forming a minimum set of
information required to reproduce the experiment
– Ship/model condition; i.e., hull form, model scale, appendage
definitions, mass/displacement, draft/trim, hydrostatics, mass
distribution, radii of gyration, center of gravity, natural periods
– Ship; i.e., ship speed and heading
– Waves; i.e., wave amplitude, frequency and wave slope; type of
spectrum, significant wave height, modal period, and spreading
– Test Details; i.e., free running/towing arrangement, control laws, run
duration/number of wave encounters, wave measurement (fixed or
encountered), and facility parameters
– Presentation of Data; i.e., units/sign convention, reference system,
definitions of presented data, tabular data preferred, and uncertainty
analysis
29
 Benchmark Data
• Much of the current referenced benchmark
data does not conform to the definition or
criteria
• Not surprisingly, high-speed vessel data,
particularly for oblique wave conditions, is
extremely limited
– Restricted or proprietary hull designs/data
exacerbates the problem
– Public release of past test efforts; cooperative/joint
experiments
30
 Uncertainty Analysis

“The Seakeeping Committee concluded that the

work of the Specialist Committee on Uncertainty
Analysis be continued until practical and useful
techniques are provided for assessing and
reporting experimental uncertainty.”
Development of uncertainty analysis techniques
for dynamic testing is recommended for
consideration by the 26th ITTC Specialist
Committee.
31
 Cooperation with ISSC
• Communication is Key
– Common membership
– Scheduled joint meetings
• ITTC Seakeeping and ISSC I.2 Loads
• ITTC Ocean Engineering and ISSC I.1
Environment & I.2 Loads
• Benchmarking and comparative studies
32
 Recommended Procedures
7.5-02-07-02.1 Seakeeping Experiments
• Minor modifications to standardize text & formulae
• Discussion and recommendations for spectral cut-off
frequencies, test run duration, and time interval between
runs
• Removal of numerical simulations from validation
reference list (benchmarking)
• No changes to uncertainty analysis section at this time

33
 Recommended Procedures
7.5-02-07-02.2 Predicted Power Increase in Irregular
Waves from Model Experiments in Regular Waves
• Three methods produce comparable results and can be
recommended for use, the choice depending on test tank
specifics
• The Direct Power Method (DPM) is removed based on results
comparing the four methods to experiment, as presented in
the Committee report
• Comparison of advantages & disadvantages of these methods
is provided
34
 Recommended Procedures
7.5-02-07-02.3 Experiments on Rarely Occurring
Events
• Extensive modifications are provided to address extremes,
including local, but not global, loads
• Relies on Procedure 7.5-02-07-02.1 Seakeeping
Experiments for basic test preparation
• Updated sections include
– Measurement techniques for each phenomena & the parameters
to be measured
– Run duration
– Presentation of the data
35
 Recommended Procedures
7.5-02-07-02.4 Verification and Validation of
Linear Seakeeping Computer Codes
• Replaces earlier procedure to include both frequency and
time domain linear seakeeping codes
• Clear definition of verification and validation provided
• Requires thoroughly documented benchmark data
• Eventually should extend to nonlinear codes

36
Thank you for your attention.

37
 Response to Discussion
Topic: Uncertainty Assessment
Discussers: Longo, Simonsen, Stern
From the Seakeeping Committee:

The 25th ITTC Seakeeping Committee thank the authors for preparing their
discussion on Uncertainty Analysis for seakeeping tests in head seas and the
derivation of the methodology for estimating the Fr for maximum pitch and heave
response. Because of the work of the UA Specialist Committee, the Seakeeping
committee chose not to specifically address uncertainty analysis to any great degree
in its report. However, we feel that this work represents an excellent, systematic
attempt to tackle the problem of uncertainty in the measurements of the dynamic
response of a ship and that the committee encourages researchers to extend their
efforts in this area. Since the references themselves are beyond our Committee's
timeline for reviewing publications we feel that it is more pertinent that the 26th
ITTC Seakeeping Committee should consider this work in more detail.

38