Prediction

K. Niklas and
of Ship
H. Pruszko
Resistance with the use of Full-scale CFD Simulations

VIII International Conference on Computational Methods in Marine Engineering

MARINE 2019
R. Bensow and J. Ringsberg (Eds)

PREDICTION OF SHIP RESISTANCE WITH THE USE OF FULL-

SCALE CFD SIMULATIONS
MARINE 2019
KAROL NIKLAS*, HANNA PRUSZKO*
*
Faculty of Ocean Engineering and Ship Technology
Gdansk University of Technology
Narutowicza 11/12, 80233 Gdansk, Poland
e-mail: [email protected], www.oio.pg.edu.pl/about

Key words: Computational Methods, Marine Engineering, CFD, Ship Resistance

Abstract. In recent years, the IMO has introduced new regulations to reduce the negative
impact of ships on the natural environment. A particularly important step forcing technological
innovations is the increasing requirement of ship energy efficiency. It is expressed by the
Energy Efficiency Design Index (EEDI). Another important step towards green shipping is
raising the required quality of fuel used for propulsion, the so-called Tier limits. Higher demand
of Low Sulfur Fuel Oil resulted in its price rising up by 200% in the past two years. All these
aspects increase the importance of ship fuel economy. As a result, the hull resistance reduction
plays a significant role in the design process of new vessels. For vessels operating at sites with
moderate and rough waves, the shape of the hull and, in particular, the bow section plays an
important role. The paper presents results of some of the research carried out as a part of the
"Smart Propulsion System" research project. The presented stage of the work includes a full-
scale CFD simulation for a case study ship redesigned from an as-built V-shaped bulbous bow
to three different innovative variants. Changes in the hull form were made in such a way that
the redesigned hull versions preserved the main dimensions and hydrostatic parameters of the
original design. The paper presents ship resistance analysis on calm water as a part of
seakeeping analysis. The scope of the work was full-scale CFD simulations of four innovative
hull forms in order to determine total resistance, dynamic trim and sinkage. The influence of
bow and stern shape, wetted surface area and waterplane area on total resistance was
investigated. Main conclusions were formulated for the novel hull forms being analysed. The
scope of further work was formulated, and it included assessment of the combined influence of
the ship’s speed and waving conditions on the performance at a specific operational site. To
reduce fuel consumption, the optimal design and operation of the ship are equally important
and can be supported by full-scale CFD simulations.

1 INTRODUCTION
Accurate and reliable determination of ship resistance by CFD simulations is of great
importance. The methodology is described by the ITTC recommended practice [1], [2] and
quite often used by different researchers for hydrodynamic analyses. The wave pattern, wake
and resistance of a fully appended ship were studied numerically in [3]. In paper [4], numerical
simulations as a powerful tool to compute viscous flows and a way to improve prediction of

718
 Karol Niklas, Hanna Pruszko

full-scale resistance were presented. In [5], simulations of calm water resistance and seakeeping
performance were presented. Numerous papers address the potential of hull form optimization
using numerical methods. In [6], slender body approximation was used to compute wave
resistance and find optimum shape among series of eight hull forms. Parametric modelling of
hull shape was also presented in [7]. The possible application of RANSE was discussed, as well
as robustness and efficiency of numerical simulations. Different optimization techniques can
be applied. The one studied in [8] was an evolutionary technique used for hull resistance
optimization taking as a starting point the Wigley hull form. The Boundary Element Method
was used in [9] for optimisation of the parametric model of hull forms that were created based
on T-splines. Shape of the bow was also of great interest. For example, [10] created the
generation of bulbous bows with a goal of drag reduction. New forms were analysed
numerically and experimentally. CFD simulations were also used as a tool to investigate more
sophisticated methods of ship resistance analysis. The effect of coating and biofouling was
studied in [11]. Drag reduction of superhydrophobic surfaces was investigated in [12]. In the
articles [13], [14], [15], the CFD simulation of a full-scale ship with self-propulsion was
presented. Simulations of ship maneuverability were presented in [16]. The method was applied
also in unusual offshore applications, i.e. [17], [18], [19].

2 AIM AND SCOPE

The aim of the study was to investigate the influence of the hull form of the case study vessel
on calm water performance. The selected hull forms represent the most recognised examples of
concepts recently developed by different design offices.
The scope of the work included full-scale simulations of four variants of hull shape. The
compared concepts were similar to: V-shaped bulbous bow, X-bow, X-bow-X-aft, and B-bow.
The X-bow [20] and X-aft concepts were developed by the Ulstein company. The concept
denoted as B-bow was developed by the Havyard company. The total resistance and its
components (frictional and pressure resistance), dynamic trim and sinkage were analysed. The
paper presents a part of the research on the application of full-scale CFD simulations into ship
design and operation for increasing energy efficiency, comfort and safety of ships.
In Section 3, the case study vessels were described. In Section 4, the setup of numerical
simulations was presented. In Section 5, results were analysed. In Section 6, conclusions and
recommendations for further study were described.

3 THE CASE STUDY VESSEL AND HULL FORM VARIANTS

For the purpose of research, the case study vessel Nawigator XXI (IMO: 9161247) was
selected. She is a training and research vessel operating mainly on the Baltic Sea. The hull form
characteristics are transom stern, full midship section and V-shaped bulbous bow with a flare.
The ship in the as-built version was denoted as CSV1. The hull form was redesigned according
to selected innovative variants in such a way to preserve the main dimensions and hydrostatic
parameters. The body forms were denoted from CSV2 to CSV4. The main particulars are
presented in Table 1. The side views of CSV1–CSV4 are presented in Fig. 1.

719
 Karol Niklas, Hanna Pruszko

CSV1 CSV2

CSV3 CSV4

Figure 1: Hull forms of the case study vessel: CSV1 – V-shaped bulbous bow and transom stern; CSV2 – X-
bow and transom stern; CSV3 – X-bow and X-aft (cruiser stern); CSV4 – B-bow and V-shaped transom stern
Table 1: Main particulars of CSV1–CSV4 hull forms

Name unit CSV1 CSV2 CSV3 CSV4

Waterline length LWL (m) 55.68 55.15 55.50 55.24
Breadth B (m) 10.50 10.50 10.50 10.50
Drought T (m) 3.14 3.14 3.14 3.14
3
Displacement D (m ) 1110 1109 1110 1110
2
Wetted surface area SW (m ) 677.3 652.6 648.4 690.9
Waterplane area SWP (m2) 473.3 456.4 468.3 447.6
Longitudinal centre of buoyancy LCB (%LWL) 46.70 47.94 48.69 51.90
Vertical position of centre of gravity ZG (m) 4.16 4.16 4.16 4.16
Gyradius kYY [-] 0.219 0.219 0.219 0.219

4 FULL-SCALE CFD SIMULATION FOR THE DETERMINATION OF CALM

WATER RESISTANCE
Numerical methods allow us to solve the discretised governing equations of mass,
momentum and energy conservation that are commonly known as the Navier–Stokes equations.
Depending on the problem complexity, different simplifications might be applied. For naval
applications, where fluid is assumed to be incompressible, only mass and momentum continuity
are considered. However, the great complexity of the flow around a ship’s hull does not allow
for solving equations analytically, and numerical methods need to be applied.
To run CFD calculations, the commercial code STAR CCM+ was used. The solver uses a
finite volume method that discretises the whole computational domain and iteratively solves
the integral version of the transport equations. The flow was solved as three-dimensional,
turbulent, viscous, incompressible and multiphase. In order to capture the interface between
phases, a surface-capturing VOF (Volume of Fluid) model was applied. The turbulent flow was
modelled using the RANS approach. This method is based on the assumption that instantaneous
velocity can be represented by the sum of mean and fluctuating components. Those values are
then averaged and inserted into the N-S equations. The averaging process involves introducing
additional terms that increase the number of unknown values in the RANS equations. To solve
the closure problem, the turbulence model needs to be applied [21]. The k–ε model with all y+

720
 Karol Niklas, Hanna Pruszko

treatment was applied for simulations. This model offers a good compromise between
robustness and accuracy. The model is also a frequent choice when using STAR CCM+
software [22], [23]. For spatial discretisation, a second-order upwind numerical scheme was
used for the convection term, and a first-order implicit scheme was used for temporal
discretisation. The time step of the numerical simulations varied according to the vessel’s speed
in order to satisfy the Courant–Friedrichs–Lewy condition, defined by Equation 1. In the
formula, ∆ stands for a time step, ∆ is a grid size in the direction of a flow velocity vector, u
is velocity, and C is a constant. For naval applications, it is recommended that C is equal to
0.5–0.7 for a free surface and 5–10 for a hull surface [21].
∙∆
∆
 (1)
To compute the motions of a ship as a response to fluid forces, the DFBI model (Dynamic
Fluid Body Interaction) was applied. This module allows to integrate the pressure and shear
forces over the surface of a body. Acting forces and moments are used to find, in an iterative
way, the new position of an object after translational motion and angular rotation of a body’s
centre of mass [24]. Four degrees of freedom were restrained, and the model was allowed to
sink and trim.
The size of the domain and ship position were specified in order to capture the Kelvin wave
pattern and also to avoid reflection from the side and downstream boundary. For the same
reason, numerical wave damping was applied on these boundaries. The computational domain
is presented in Figure 2. The setup of the numerical domain is presented in Table 2.

Figure 2: Computational domain and boundary conditions

Table 2: Boundary conditions

Boundary Position Boundary Condition

Inlet 2.12 Lpp in front of a ship Velocity inlet
Outlet 2.2 Lpp behind a ship Pressure outlet
Symmetry Symmetry plane of a ship Symmetry
Side 2.2 Lpp from symmetry plane Velocity inlet
Top 1.5 Lpp above free surface Velocity inlet
Bottom 2 Lpp below free surface Velocity inlet

721
 Karol Niklas, Hanna Pruszko

The discretisation of the volume was performed according to a recent state-of-art method.
Grid refinements were applied in a way to make it possible to capture the most important
features of the flow. This included increasing the mesh resolution in the free surface, wake and
closest proximity to the hull surface where prism layers were used in the region of the boundary
layer — see Figure 3. The mesh resolution in the region of the ship’s boundary layer resulted
in a value of y+ within a range of 30–50. The approach with a symmetry plane of a ship was
used, and the total number of volumetric cells was equal to 2.1 million for the CSV1. To allow
for objective comparison between hulls, all four meshes were designed in the same way,
resulting in the same grid resolution in the region of the boundary layer and refinements in the
region around the hulls. However, due to features of the hull shape such as bulbous bow or
propeller shaft tube the total number of cells was slightly different for each mesh. The total
number of cells for each variant is presented in Table 3.

Figure 3: Computational mesh – side and top view

Table 3: Number of cells for hull variants CSV1–CSV4

CSV1 CSV2 CSV3 CSV4

No. of cells 2.1 M 2.1 M 2.2M 2.2 M

Computations were performed for a range of speed from 5 to 13 knots with 1 knot increment
in range from 7 to 13 knots. This corresponds to a Froude number FN from 0.11 to 0.29.
In order to assess the accuracy of the numerical solution, a verification study was performed.
The verification study was carried out for CSV1 for two coarser meshes with total cell number
equal to 1 M and 0.5 M cells for vessel speed of 10 knots. This follows the ITTC procedure for
verification and validation of CFD computations [25]. The results are presented in Table 4. The
simulations were characterised by monotonic convergence with grid size error equal to 0.8%
and corrected grid size uncertainty equal to 0.22%.

722
 Karol Niklas, Hanna Pruszko

Table 4: Results of the verification study

Grid Corrected grid

Ship Correction Grid size Grid size
FN refinement
velocity factor CG uncertainty UG error ∗ uncertainty 
[-] ratio RG
[knots] [-] [%S] [%S] [%S]
[-]
10 0.22 0.44 0.74 0.86% 0.80% 0.22

4 RESULTS
The results of total resistance for all analysed hull form variants are presented in Table 5.
The calculated speed range was from 5 to 13 knots (FN from 0.11 to 0.29). For each speed, the
lowest values of resistance are marked in bold, whereas the highest values of resistance are
marked in italics.
Table 5: Results of total resistance RT for hull variants CSV1–CSV4

Speed FN CSV1 CSV2 CSV3 CSV4

[knots] [-] RT [kN] RT [kN] RT [kN] RT [kN]
5 0.11 7.47 6.59 5.47 6.29
7 0.15 14.84 13.10 10.81 11.67
8 0.18 20.04 17.71 14.52 15.26
9 0.20 25.4 23.54 19.64 19.50
10 0.22 33.52 31.42 26.33 29.1
11 0.24 43.63 41.20 35.88 38.42
12 0.26 56.62 61.99 51.18 53.42
13 0.29 81.98 106.55 84.97 95.85

For the speed corresponding to Froude number of FN ≤ 0.24, the vessel in the as-built variant
(CSV1) had the highest resistance. For higher speed, the CSV2 had the highest total resistance.
In the range of Froude number from 0.11 to 0.26 (5–12 knots), excluding FN = 0.2 (9 knots),
the CSV3 had the lowest resistance. It was the variant with a cruiser stern instead of a transom
stern. For FN = 0.2, the CSV4 had the lowest resistance. For the highest analysed speed of FN =
0.29 (13 knots), the CSV1 had the lowest value of resistance. The hull form of CSV4 had
relatively low resistance for the entire range of speed.
The results of the calculated total resistance coefficient are presented in Figure 4. For FN ≤
0.26 (12 knots), the relative differences for the analysed variants of hull form were significant.
For higher speeds, the difference in resistance performance increased much more rapidly. The
comparison between variants CSV1 and CSV2 assessed the influence of the X-bow type bow
shape. The comparison between CSV2 and CSV3 assessed the influence of a cruiser-type stern
shape (X-aft). The comparison between CSV1, CSV3 and CSV4 assessed the influence of the
hull form concept on the resistance performance.

723
 Karol Niklas, Hanna Pruszko

0,008
CSV1
Total resistance coeff. CT [-]

0,007 CSV2
0,006 CSV3
CSV4
0,005

0,004

0,003

0,002
0,10 0,12 0,14 0,16 0,18 0,20 0,22 0,24 0,26 0,28 0,30
Fn [-]
Figure 4: Total resistance coefficient for hull variants CSV1–CSV4

Vessels CSV1 and CSV2 had different bow forms. The replacement of the typical V-shaped
bulbous bow by the X-bow form can be studied. For small Froude numbers, the CSV2 was
characterised by lower resistance. For FN = 0.25, the resistance curves intersected. For higher
speed, the variant with bulbous bow was highly beneficial, and differences between total
resistance coefficients increased with speed. This was a result of the reduction of pressure
resistance by the bulbous bow. The comparison between variants CSV2 and CSV3 allowed to
assess the influence of X-aft. It can be noticed that the resistance curves for CSV2 and CSV3
were almost parallel, and the variant with cruiser stern had lower resistance for the entire speed
range. Transom sterns are applied on semi-planing and planing crafts and are beneficial for
higher values of Froude number. The case study vessel operates in a displacement speed regime,
thus the cruiser stern is supposed to be beneficial. The obtained results confirmed that
expectation. Unlike the CSV3, for the CSV2 a hollow on the resistance curve for FN = 0.24 (11
knots) and a hump for FN = 0.29 (13 knots) occurred. Both hulls were subjected to significant
increase of total resistance for speed above FN = 0.26 (12 knots). The CSV4 has an atypically
inclined stern that is supposed to damp transverse waves with a sharp waterline ending. This
variant has an elongated and narrow bulbous bow with a conical flare. This bow form resembles
the letter B. The CSV4 had reduced resistance in comparison to the CSV1 for FN < 0.27. Despite
the very different hull forms, the CSV3 and CSV4 had the most similar resistance for the entire
speed range. The relative differences of resistance were equal 15%, 8%, 5%, −0.7%, 11%, 7%,
4%, 13% for FN of 0.11, 0.15, 0.18, 0.20, 0.22, 0.24, 0.26, 0.28, accordingly. In Figure 5, the
relative difference of the total resistance between the modified variants of the study vessel and
the as-built (CSV1) version are shown. For FN up to 0.24, the redesigned versions had
significant reduction of hull resistance from −6% to −28%. For the design speed of FN = 0.22
(10 knots), the reductions of total resistance for CSV2, CSV3, CSV4 were equal to −6%, −21%,
−13%, accordingly. The resistance reduction for CSV2 varies between 6% and 12%, for CSV3
between 18% and 28%, and for CSV4 between 12% and 24%. For FN = 0.26, the CSV2 had
9% higher resistance, and the remaining two vessels has 10% and 6% lower resistance. For FN
= 0.29, the CSV2–CSV4 had higher resistance than the CSV1 had, with up to 30% increase for
CSV2.

724
 Karol Niklas, Hanna Pruszko

40%
30%
CSV2 CSV3 CSV4
RT_CSV() - RT_CSV1 / RT_CSV1 [%]

30%
20% 17%
9%
10% 4%
0%
-10% -6% -6% -6%
-7% -10%
-12% -12% -12% -13% -12%
-20% -16% -18%
-21% -24% -23% -23% -21%
-30% -27% -27% -28%
0.11 0.15 0.18 0.20 0.22 0.24 0.26 0.29
FN [-]
Figure 5: Relative change of total resistance caused by redesigning the hull CSV1 (as-built) to CSV2–CSV4

In Figure 6, pressure and frictional resistance coefficients are presented. The frictional
resistance coefficient for all hull variants of the case study vessel were similar. This resulted
from similar values of wetted surface area. For CSV1 and CSV4, the differences between values
of frictional resistance for FN = 0.15, 0.26 and 0.29 were less than 0.5%. For FN between 0.25
and 0.26, pressure resistance became a bigger contributor to total resistance for all vessels, and
its value started to increase rapidly. The humps and hollows of pressure resistance curves are
visible. The CSV1 with a bulbous bow had much smaller pressure resistance for FN above 0.27.
For the entire range of speed, the CSV3 had the lowest frictional resistance due to the smallest
wetted surface area.
Results of sinkage and dynamic trim are presented in Figure 7. It can be noticed that the
smaller the area of waterplane, the higher the value of sinkage. The CSV1 was the only vessel
that had negative value of dynamic trim, with bow up varying from −0.48 to −0.34 degrees.
Other variants had dynamic trim with bow down. The highest value of running trim was equal
to 0.6 degrees corresponding to FN = 0.29 for CSV4. The CSV2 and the CSV3 had similar
values of running trim, ranging between 0.1 and 0.31 degrees. For the CSV1–CSV2 hull forms
and FN = 0.26, the maximum value of running trim occurred.

0,005
CSV1 - CP CSV2 - CP CSV3 - CP CSV4 - CP
CSV1 - CF CSV2 - CF CSV3 - CF CSV4 - CF
0,004

0,003
CP, CF [-]

0,002

0,001

0
0,10 0,12 0,14 0,16 0,18 0,20 0,22 0,24 0,26 0,28 0,30
Fn [-]
Figure 6: Pressure resistance coefficient CP and frictional resistance coefficient CF

725
 Karol Niklas, Hanna Pruszko

Dynamic trim Dynamic sinkage

CSV1 CSV2 CSV3 CSV4 CSV 1 CSV 2 CSV 3 CSV 4
0,8 0,05

0,6 0
0,4
-0,05
Trim [deg]

Sinkage [m]
0,2
-0,1
0,0
-0,15
-0,2

-0,4 -0,2

-0,6 -0,25
0,10 0,15 0,20 0,25 0,30 0,10 0,15 0,20 0,25 0,30
Fn [-] Fn [-]
Figure 7: Dynamic trim and sinkage

In Figure 8, the relations between speed, wetted surface area SW, waterplane area SWP, and
total resistance coefficient CT are presented. On the left plot, hull variants are ranked from the
one with the smallest wetted surface area, which in this case was the CSV3, to the one with the
greatest — CSV4. The conclusion was that the wetted surface area for the analysed hull variants
had minor impact on the value of total resistance. The difference of total resistance coefficient
between CSV3 and CSV4 was slight. Furthermore, the CSV2 and CSV3, despite their moderate
values of wetted surface area, had higher resistance than the CSV4 had. On the right plot, hull
variants were ranked from CSV4 with the lowest waterplane area to CSV1 with the highest
waterplane area. The conclusion was that the differences of waterplane area for the analysed
hull variants had minor impact on the value of total resistance.

Total resistance vs watted surface Total resistance vs waterplane area

0,007 0,007
0,006 0,006
0,005 0,005
CT [-]

CT [-]

0,004 0,004
0,26 0,26
0,003 0,003
0,22 0,002 0,22
0,002
FN [-] FN [-]
0,18 CSV3 0,18 CSV4
CSV2 CSV2
0,11 CSV1 0,11 CSV3
CSV4 CSV1

Figure 8: Influence of wetted surface area SW and waterplane area SWP on total resistance coefficient CT

726
 Karol Niklas, Hanna Pruszko

5 CONCLUSIONS
In upcoming years, due to new IMO regulations, the fuel economy of ships needs to be
improved. Thus, the reduction of hull resistance will be increasingly important. The ship’s
design process can be significantly supported by full-scale CFD simulations giving a great
possibility of proper hull form selection analysis. This paper demonstrated full-scale CFD
simulations of calm water performance executed for four variants of a hull form. These four
variants represent the innovative concepts of hull forms available on the commercial market.
Namely, the V-shaped bulbous bow, X-bow, X-aft and B-bow. Analysis of the influence of hull
form on calm water resistance was performed with the use of a case study vessel. The
redesigned hull variants preserved the main hull dimensions and hydrostatic data, as well as the
mass distribution. The following conclusions were formulated:
1. Full-scale CFD simulation can be used as a reliable and effective tool for resistance
performance. The method takes advantage of directly modelling the ship’s full scale.
Thus, there is no need for extrapolation from a model scale to a full scale. This is
important, especially for innovative and atypical hull forms with unknown form factor.
Because of that, the determination of hull resistance with the use of towing tank testing
has high uncertainty. The full-scale CFD simulations overcome this issue and can deliver
the advantage of analysing many different hull forms evaluated both by an evolutionary
and revolutionary approach.
2. The redesigned variants of the case study vessel, namely CSV2–CSV4, had significantly
reduced resistance in a speed range from FN = 0.11 (5 knots) to FN = 0.25 (11.5 knots).
For the operational speed corresponding to FN = 0.22 (10 knots), the reduction of total
resistance for CSV2, CSV3, CSV4 was equal 6%, 21%, 13%, accordingly. For lower
speeds, the reduction was from 7% to 28%. For FN = 0.26 (12 knots), the CSV3 and CSV4
had reduction of total resistance by 10% and 6%, accordingly. For the speed
corresponding to FN = 0.29 (13 knots), the CSV2–CSV4 had increased resistance in
comparison with the original CSV1 hull form by 30%, 4%, and 17%, accordingly. This
resulted from increased pressure forces acting on the hull starting to exceed frictional
forces. As a consequence, a significant wave pattern developed around the hull. For the
speed of FN = 0.29 (13 knots), the original hull form benefited from the bulbous bow
which greatly reduced the pressure component of resistance.
3. Reduction of resistance due to change of the stern shape from transom to X-aft (cruiser-
type stern) was almost constant in a range of FN from 0.11 to 0.24. The relative average
difference between CSV2 and CSV3 was equal to 16%. For higher Froude numbers of
FN = 0.26 and FN = 0.29, the reductions of resistance were equal to 17% and 20%,
accordingly. The stern similar to the X-aft concept was better than the transom stern of
the CSV1. For the displacement speed regime, a cruiser stern type should always be
beneficial from the hydrodynamic point of view. Despite that, transom sterns are most
frequently applied on merchant displacement ships. The reason for this can be much
easier manufacturing. The transom stern is generally expected to provide better
performance for speeds FN > 0.4.

10

727
 Karol Niklas, Hanna Pruszko

4. The redesigned hull variants CSV2–CSV4 had higher values of dynamic trim and sinkage
than the original hull form CSV1 had. The CSV1 was the only vessel with initial trim
bow up, varying from 0.34 degrees for FN = 0.26 to 0.48 degrees for FN = 0.11. The
remaining hull variants had dynamic trim with bow down. The greatest trim angle was in
the CSV4 for the maximum value of 0.6 degrees for FN = 0.29. The CSV2 and CSV3 had
very similar values of trim angle, varying from 0.1 to 0.32 degrees. For CSV3, the
maximum trim angle wad equal to 0.24 degrees and occurred for FN = 0.26, and CSV2
reached maximum trim angle equal to 0.32 degrees for FN = 0.29. The highest sinkage
equal was to 0.21 m and occurred for the maximum speed of CSV4. This vessel was
characterised by the smallest waterplane area. The CSV1 had the lowest sinkage, and for
the maximum speed it was equal 0.14 m.
5. Analysis of the waterplane area and wetted surface area influence allows to draw
conclusions that both particulars had minor influence on the resistance of the analysed
hull variants.
6. This article presented the crucial step of overall analysis as calm water resistance is
necessary to assess the added resistance. A subsequent paper will investigate the influence
of hull form on the seakeeping performance, especially on the added resistance and ship
motions.

Acknowledgements
The research was supported by the National Centre for Research and Development (NCRD)
and the SmartPS project No. MARTECII/SmartPS/4/2016. The research was supported by the
Academic Computer Centre in Gdansk (CI TASK). All the support is highly appreciated by the
authors.

REFERENCES
[1] ITTC, “ITTC – Recommended Procedures and Guidelines - Practical guidelines for
ship CFD applications. 7.5-03-02-03 (Revision 01),” in ITTC – Recommended
Procedures and Guidelines, 2014, p. 19.
[2] ITTC, “Practical Guidelines for Ship Resistance CFD - 7.5-03-02-04,” in ITTC –
Recommended Procedures and Guidelines, 2014, pp. 1–9.
[3] Z.-R. Zhang, H. Liu, S.-P. Zhu, and F. Zhao, “Application of CFD in ship engineering
design practice and ship hydrodynamics,” J. Hydrodyn., vol. 18, iss. 3, suppl., pp. 315–
322, 2006.
[4] H. C. Raven, A. van der Ploeg, A. R. Starke, and L. Eça, “Towards a CFD-based
prediction of ship performance — Progress in predicting full-scale resistance and scale
effects,” Trans. R. Inst. Nav. Archit. Part A Int. J. Marit. Eng., 2008.
[5] R. Broglia, B. Bouscasse, B. Jacob, A. Olivieri, S. Zaghi, and F. Stern, “Calm water
and seakeeping investigation for a fast catamaran,” FAST 2011 11th Int. Conf. Fast Sea
Transp., 2011.
[6] S. Percival, D. Hendrix, and F. Noblesse, “Hydrodynamic optimization of ship hull
forms,” Appl. Ocean Res., 2001.
[7] J. J. Maisonneuve, S. Harries, J. Marzi, H. C. Raven, U. Viviani, and H. Piippo,

11

728
 Karol Niklas, Hanna Pruszko

“Towards Optimal Design of Ship Hull Shapes,” 8th Int. Mar. Des. Conf., 2003.
[8] H. Zakerdoost, H. Ghassemi, and M. Ghiasi, “An evolutionary optimization technique
applied to resistance reduction of the ship hull form,” J. Nav. Archit. Mar. Eng., 2013.
[9] K. V. Kostas, A. I. Ginnis, C. G. Politis, and P. D. Kaklis, “Ship-hull shape
optimization with a T-spline based BEM-isogeometric solver,” Comput. Methods Appl.
Mech. Eng., 2015.
[10] F. Huang and C. Yang, “Hull form optimization of a cargo ship for reduced drag,” J.
Hydrodyn., vol. 28, no. 2, pp. 173–183, 2016.
[11] Y. K. Demirel, O. Turan, and A. Incecik, “Predicting the effect of biofouling on ship
resistance using CFD,” Appl. Ocean Res., 2017.
[12] Y. Li, K. Alame, and K. Mahesh, “Feature-resolved computational and analytical study
of laminar drag reduction by superhydrophobic surfaces,” Phys. Rev. Fluids, 2017.
[13] D. Ponkratov and C. Zegos, “Validation of ship scale CFD self-propulsion simulation
by the direct comparison with sea trials results,” in 4th Int. Symp. Marine Propulsors,
2015.
[14] S. Bhushan, T. Xing, P. Carrica, and F. Stern, “Model- and full-scale URANS
simulations of Athena resistance, powering, seakeeping, and 5415 maneuvering,” J. Sh.
Res., vol. 53, no. 4, pp. 179–198, 2009.
[15] P. M. Carrica, H. Fu, and F. Stern, “Computations of self-propulsion free to sink and
trim and of motions in head waves of the KRISO Container Ship (KCS) model,” Appl.
Ocean Res., 2011.
[16] A. Mofidi and P. M. Carrica, “Simulations of zigzag maneuvers for a container ship
with direct moving rudder and propeller,” Comput. Fluids, vol. 96, pp. 191–203, 2014.
[17] A. Elhanafi, “Prediction of regular wave loads on a fixed offshore oscillating water
column-wave energy converter using CFD,” J. Ocean Eng. Sci., vol. 1, no. 4, pp. 268–
283, 2016.
[18] K. Niklas, “Strength analysis of a large-size supporting structure for an offshore wind
turbine,” Polish Marit. Res., vol. 24, no. s1, Jan. 2017.
[19] A. Elhanafi, G. Macfarlane, and D. Ning, “Hydrodynamic performance of single-
chamber and dual-chamber offshore-stationary Oscillating Water Column devices
using CFD,” Appl. Energy, vol. 228, no. March, pp. 82–96, 2018.
[20] Ulstein Design AS, “A foreship arrangement for a vessel of the deplacement type,”
WO 2006/096066 A1, 2006.
[21] J. H. Ferziger and M. Peric, Computational Methods for Fluid Dynamics. Springer,
2002.
[22] Y. C. Kim, K. S. Kim, J. Kim, Y. Kim, I. R. Park, and Y. H. Jang, “Analysis of added
resistance and seakeeping responses in head sea conditions for low-speed full ships
using URANS approach,” Int. J. Nav. Archit. Ocean Eng., vol. 9, no. 6, pp. 641–654,
2017.
[23] T. Tezdogan, Y. K. Demirel, P. Kellett, M. Khorasanchi, A. Incecik, and O. Turan,
“Full-scale unsteady RANS CFD simulations of ship behaviour and performance in
head seas due to slow steaming,” Ocean Eng., vol. 97, pp. 186–206, 2015.
[24] Siemens PLM Software, “User Guide Star CCM+ v12.04,” 2017.
[25] ITTC, “ITTC Quality System Manual Recommended Procedures and Guidelines
Preparation , Conduct and Analysis of Speed / Power Trials 7.5-04-01-01.1,” 2017.

12

729