SUMMARY
This paper discusses scale effects on the viscous and wave resistance of ships, as found from CFD computations; and
compares these with the usual assumptions in the extrapolation of model test results to full scale. For some different ships
computations of the viscous flow and wave pattern have been made for model and full scale, using the free-surface RANS
code PARNASSOS. For these cases the viscous resistance appears to be approximately proportional to flat-plate frictional
resistance (constant form factor 1+k), but relative to the ITTC 57 line 1+k increases clearly from model to ship. Computed
scale effects on the wave pattern are reviewed. For a containership a 20% scale effect on wave resistance is found. A
standard extrapolation method applied to the model-scale resistance here underestimates the full-scale resistance by 10%, but
the empirical correlation allowance approximately corrects for that difference. This work shows how methods to predict full-
scale resistance could be improved using results of today’s CFD methods.
NOMENCLATURE that are not always adequate, and which are not needed
1+k form factor for the CFD tools now available. However, in the long
Ca correlation allowance experience with these extrapolation methods empirical
Cb block coefficient corrections have been established, based on correlations
Cf frictional resistance coefficient between predictions and trial measurements for a large
Cf0 flat plate friction coefficient sample of ships. These corrections provide an added
Ct total resistance coefficient accuracy which is not necessarily easy to beat using a
Cv viscous resistance coefficient CFD approach.
Cvp viscous pressure resistance coefficient
Cw wave resistance coefficient We consider that a completely CFD-based prediction of
Fn Froude number the full-scale power is still not reliable enough in view of
ks hull roughness parameter the large interests involved and the large accuracy
Lpp ship length between perpendiculars required. On the other hand we believe that CFD has the
Rn Reynolds number potential to support and improve the extrapolation
S wetted surface procedures in a near future; e.g. by giving insight in the
V ship (or model) speed validity of the scaling assumptions, providing corrections
ρ density of water for certain ship types, or replacing parts of the
extrapolation procedures by CFD computations. One of
1. INTRODUCTION the goals of Workpackage 1 of the EC-sponsored project
CFD tools are being used more and more extensively in VIRTUE is to lay the basis for this. The first objective
practical ship hull form design today. Viscous-flow was to increase the accuracy of the resistance prediction.
computations are used to provide detailed predictions of The next step was to make detailed computations of scale
the flow around the hull, the wake field, occurrence of effects in resistance and wave patterns, and to compare
flow separation, for appendage alignment, etc. Based on these with the extrapolation methods. This step is the
the predictions and the insight obtained the hull form focus of the present paper.
design may be modified to improve the flow quality, prior
to any model testing. This CFD use already has enabled In the next sections, for reference we will first briefly
significant advances in design. describe the usual model-ship extrapolation method, and
the RANS method used. Section 4 summarises recent
However, when it comes to the final prediction of the research by MARIN and IST on the accuracy of the
power and RPM of the ship at full scale, in most cases a resistance prediction. Sections 5 and 6 discuss the scaling
model of the final or near-final form is tested in a model of the viscous and wave resistance, respectively, and
basin. The performance predictions based on the model compare these with the usual assumptions. Section 7
tests are still considered decisive. compares a direct prediction at full scale, with an
extrapolation based on the computational model scale
This is a somewhat paradoxical situation, because the results, indicating some important differences.
prediction procedure based on model test results, the so- Conclusions are presented in Section 8.
called ‘extrapolation procedure’, relies on simplifications
2. EXTRAPOLATION OF MODEL TEST coefficient, possibly from the institute’s own data, that
RESULTS includes the effect of hull roughness and other effects.
A resistance test for a ship model follows the procedure
originally proposed by William Froude. The Clearly, this extrapolation procedure is fairly crude. The
(hydrodynamic) resistance of a ship is considered to be assumed scale effect is determined by a single hull form-
the sum of two independent main contributions: the dependent form factor and the plate friction line; the
viscous (or frictional) resistance, and the wave (or experimental determination of the form factor is often less
residual) resistance. The former depends on the Reynolds accurate, its equality for model and ship is an
number Rn, but is supposed to be unaffected by wave approximation, and wave/viscous interaction effects are
making; the latter depends on the Froude number Fn, but disregarded. While overall the procedure works
is supposed to be unaffected by viscosity. Therefore, the satisfactorily, we believe it is of interest to check and
simplification is: perhaps improve its different components, hoping to
Ct(Fn,Rn) = Cw(Fn) + Cv(Rn) (1) increase the accuracy of the power prediction. Today’s
computational tools should enable this.
in which all resistance coefficients have been
nondimensionalised with ½ ρV2 S. 3. THE RANS SOLVER
3.1 GENERAL
The model is tested at equal Froude number as the ship. The code we use is PARNASSOS [1,2], a RANS solver
In that case the wave pattern is supposed to be developed and used by MARIN and IST, dedicated to the
geometrically similar and the wave resistance coefficient prediction of the steady turbulent flow around ship hulls.
Cw equal for model and ship. However, the viscous It solves the discretised Reynolds-averaged Navier-Stokes
resistance coefficient Cv differs between model and ship, equations for steady incompressible flow. Various eddy-
and is dealt with separately. Thus the full-scale resistance viscosity turbulence models are available. No wall
coefficient is: functions are used, not even for full-scale computations.
Cts = Cws + Cvs = Ctm – Cvm + Cvs (2)
where the subscripts s and m indicate ship and model, Structured multiblock body-fitted grids are used, usually
respectively. The essence now is how to estimate the of H-O topology. A finite-difference discretisation is used,
difference in viscous resistance coefficient between with second and third-order schemes for the various terms.
model and ship. The momentum and continuity equations are solved in
their original, fully coupled form, without resorting to e.g.
In form-factor methods, which are mostly used today, the a pressure-correction or artificial-compressibility method.
viscous resistance coefficient is supposed to be
proportional to the frictional resistance coefficient of a The whole method has been developed with numerical
flat plate at equal Reynolds number: accuracy in mind. In practice, it is often perfectly possible
Cv(Rn) = (1+k) . Cf0(Rn) (3) to converge the solution to machine accuracy if that is
needed; to work with very dense grids with large aspect
The ‘form factor’ 1+k is a constant that depends on the ratio cells near the ship hull, etc. Full-scale computations
hull form but is supposed to be independent of the can be done routinely.
Reynolds and Froude numbers. Therefore,
Cvm – Cvs = (1+k) . [Cf0(Rnm) – Cf0(Rns)] 3.2 FREE-SURFACE TREATMENT:
THE STEADY ITERATIVE FORMULATION
Empirical expressions are available for the plate friction The method is of a free-surface fitting type: the upper
coefficient Cf0 as a function of the Reynolds number; so- boundary of the computational domain coincides with (an
called plate friction lines, as shown in Fig.2. So if the approximation of) the wave surface, which is repeatedly
form factor is known, the viscous resistance is known for updated in the course of the solution. Free-surface
both the model and the ship, and the ship resistance can boundary conditions are imposed here: a kinematic
be estimated from (2). condition that the flow is along the wave surface; and a
dynamic condition that the pressure is atmospheric and no
One approach to determine the form factor is to measure shear stress is exerted on the wave surface.
the total resistance at a low speed, at which the wave
resistance can be neglected or is so small that it can be Almost all other methods for computing viscous free-
corrected for. 1+k then follows directly from the viscous surface flows follow a time-dependent procedure, starting
resistance and Cf0. from an initial condition and continuing until a steady
result is obtained. Instead, we use the ‘steady iterative’
To the total ship resistance coefficient so found, a approach, first proposed in [3] and derived in more detail
‘correlation allowance’ Ca is added, an empirical in [4], which solves the steady free-surface problem
directly by iteration. The iterative solution is enabled by In VIRTUE, we have now done research [8,9,10] to
an alternative formulation of the free-surface boundary improve the resistance estimates from PARNASSOS. Many
conditions, obtained by substituting the wave elevation possible influences have been checked, and progress was
from the dynamic condition into the kinematic condition. made on some:
The resulting combined condition gives rise to a quickly • The force integration has been refined to deal more
converging iterative solution, as follows: precisely with bow and stern contours that do not
• the RANS equations are solved (iteratively) subject coincide with grid lines of the H-O type grids.
to the combined condition and the tangential dynamic • The implementation of symmetry conditions at the
conditions, imposed at the current wave surface; still-water surface, in double-body flow computations,
• the wave surface is updated using the normal appeared to have an unexpected effect. A first-order
component of the dynamic condition. discretisation at the symmetry plane results in gross
• the grid is deformed so as to fit the new wave surface. errors in Cvp, a second-order scheme still shows a
The deformations are generated using a torsional- strong grid-dependence even on a grid of several
spring analogy method. millions of cells, but an improved formulation was
found that removes most of the grid dependence [8].
Several applications [5,6,7] have shown that this • Also, these different implementations of the
procedure is very efficient, often requiring an order of symmetry conditions led to different predictions of
magnitude less CPU time than other methods. A the scale effect on the viscous pressure resistance.
theoretical accuracy analysis [6] has indicated that we For some, the scale effect was 50-100% smaller on
have a third-order numerical damping and dispersion, coarse grids than on fine grids [8]. The numerical
explaining the good wave pattern predictions obtained. prediction of scale effects thus requires small
numerical uncertainties in the components of the
4. ACCURACY OF RESISTANCE viscous resistance, which is achieved by the present
PREDICTION implementation in reasonably sized grids.
Predicting the resistance might seem the easiest part of a • The size of the computational domain also was found
ship viscous flow computation. Integrating the to influence the pressure resistance significantly. In
longitudinal component of the tangential and normal particular if uniform-flow outer boundary conditions
forces over the wetted surface yields the frictional and are used, large domains are required to remove the
pressure resistance, respectively. However, the accuracy effect on the resistance [10].
of these results requires more care than one would expect.
These and other steps have resulted in more accurate and
The frictional resistance has usually rather little grid reliable resistance and scale effect predictions from our
dependence and a numerical accuracy of about 1% is code; and thus have enabled the studies described below.
achievable, or less than that for some turbulence models.
On the other hand, the frictional resistance depends 5. SCALING OF VISCOUS RESISTANCE
significantly on the turbulence model used, and In a towing-tank test, usually the form factor is
differences of about 5% can occur. determined from eq.(3) by measuring the total resistance
at low speed, at which the wave resistance contribution
The pressure resistance, however, is a larger problem. It vanishes or can be estimated. However, this can be
consists of a viscous pressure resistance and a wave rather inaccurate. Compared with this experimental
resistance. For slender ships it can usually be determined procedure, determining a corresponding viscous
accurately; but not for full forms like tankers at low Fn. resistance from RANS computations is more
While for those the wave resistance can be very small, the straightforward: the deformation of the water surface is
viscous pressure resistance is of interest. The numerical simply not taken into account, and a ‘double-body flow’
prediction of the viscous pressure resistance is extremely computation is done. If we make such computations for
sensitive to whatever disturbance, such as minimal model and full scale we can determine the scale effect on
pressure level changes in part of the flow domain due to the viscous resistance. We are going to compare that
incomplete convergence, the implementation and location computed scale effect with the scaling assumptions in
of boundary conditions etc. As an example of the extrapolation methods.
consequences, at the Tokyo workshop 2005 [7] many
groups presented computations for the same KVLCC2 5.1 HAMBURG TEST CASE
tanker test case; and while the flow fields were quite Our first test case is the so-called ‘Hamburg Test Case’, a
comparable, the standard deviation between all containership that was the subject of a workshop held
predictions for Cvp amounted to 23% (against 6.1% for recently in the VIRTUE project. Extensive measurements
Cf). for this ship, at model and full scale, have been done by
HSVA [11].
line”. This is, however, not a real plate friction line; it was
The model-scale grid had 440×100×52 nodes (2.3×106 established in 1957 as an aid to give better extrapolations
cells) in longitudinal, wall-normal and girthwise of ship resistance if no form factor method was used. It is
directions. For full scale, the same grid but with 140 cells given by:
in normal direction (3.2×106 cells) and increased 0.075
contraction rate was used to resolve the larger velocity Cf 0 =
(log Rn − 2)2
gradients near the wall. The grid, of HO topology, was
Evaluating this for model and full-scale Reynolds number
also contracted longitudinally towards bow and stern. All
yields:
y+ values were below 1 and no wall functions were used.
model Cf0×103= 2.917
The turbulence model used was the recent k - k√L model
ship Cf0×103 = 1.497
by Menter [12]. Computations were made for Rn =
ratio 0.513
1.177×107 (model scale) and 1.2×109 (full scale).
From the computed viscous resistance for model and ship
we then get the form factors:
1+k model= 1.138
1+k ship = 1.222
0.004
ITTC57
Schoenherr
Grigson
Katsui et al.
0.003
CF
Cf×103 Cvp×103 Cv×103 However, the form factors evidently depend on the plate
model double body 2.794 0.524 3.318 friction coefficients assumed, so let us see what other
ship double body 1.546 0.282 1.828 choices of the plate friction coefficients would give. Fig.2
from [13] shows the friction line proposed by Schoenherr
From model to ship Cv decreases by a factor of 0.55 in and the more modern proposals by Grigson [14] and
this case. Katsui [15]. The difference in Rn-dependence is limited
but sufficient to lead to significantly different
In extrapolation methods the viscous resistance performance predictions. Clearly the ITTC 57 line is
coefficient of a ship is supposed to be proportional to the highest at lower Rn and has a larger slope, while
friction coefficient of a flat plate at equal Rn, eq.(3). In Grigson’s line is highest at high Rn and has the lowest
the usual “ITTC 78” method, a common choice for the slope.
plate friction line is the “ITTC 57 model-ship correlation
The form factors for model and full scale based on these 5.2 KVLCC2 TANKER
lines are shown below: The second case we consider is the KVLCC2 tanker form
friction line 1+k model 1+k ship ratio [16], at Rn= 4.6×106 (model) and 2.03×109 (ship). A very
ITTC 57 line 1.138 1.222 1.074 careful study, using the same PARNASSOS code, has been
Schoenherr line 1.161 1.221 1.052 done for this case by Eça et al [17]. Extensive grid
Grigson line 1.154 1.157 1.003 dependence studies have been done for model and full
Katsui line 1.179 1.202 1.020 scale, and the numerical uncertainty has been established.
Therefore, the computed scaling of the viscous resistance The finest grid had 4.16×106 cells.
for this case matches best the Grigson line or the Katsui
line if the form factor is supposed to be constant. 0.47 SST
BSL
We cannot conclude yet that some of these friction lines 0.46
TNT
Mνt
are more adequate than others. The Reynolds-number KSKL
dependence of the predicted form factor depends on at ITTC
Figure 5. Dyne tanker at Fn = 0.165. Computed longitudinal wave cut from PARNASSOS at model scale and full scale, from
inviscid-flow code (RAPID), and from model experiment.
computations have been done for free trim and sinkage, at
Another case from [6], the Dyne tanker, has a very full Fn=0.238, Rn=1.177 × 107 and 1.2×109. Consistently
hull form with Cb=0.87 and a cylindrical bow shape. The good agreement was found with the experimental wave
computations were made for Fn=0.165, Rn=8.5×106 and cuts; more on the validations for this case will be shown
1.83×109. Fig.5 shows that a drastic reduction of the stern in [21]. Fig.8 compares the wave patterns from the
waves occurs compared with the inviscid computations; inviscid-flow code and the viscous-flow results. There is
both for the full scale and, somewhat stronger, for model close agreement except for the stern wave system, of
scale. The slight scale effect on the amplitude of which the amplitude is reduced by viscous effects. Fig. 9
transverse waves along the hull, from the fore shoulder aft, illustrates the model and full scale wave patterns and
is unexpected, but may be connected with the large confirms that the scale effects are local and rather limited.
pressure gradients at the fore shoulder. There is good
agreement with the experimental data from [20].
the ITTC 57 line is too steep and causes an Ca = 0.105(ks / L pp ) 3 − 0.64 ×10−3
underestimation of the viscous resistance at full scale. which has been derived from thrust measurements during
• the wave resistance coefficient for full scale is some trials for single-screw ships, and “should be recognized to
20% larger than that for model scale in this case. be a correlation allowance including effects of roughness
rather than a mere roughness allowance” [24]. Assuming
To illustrate what this means, we compare with the result the standard value of ks=0.00015 m yields a correlation
of the standard extrapolation method, applied to our allowance for the Hamburg Test Case, including the
model scale computations. roughness effect, of 0.40×10-3. This brings the result of
• From the double-body flow computation at model the extrapolation based on the model-scale resistance to:
scale we have found before a form factor of 1+k = 2.475×10-3.
1.138 relative to the ITTC 57 line.
• For the ship the ITTC 57 line yields Cf0=1.497×10-3 On the other hand, Townsin et al [25] have proposed a
(Section 5.1). Using the same form factor as at model correlation for just the effects of hull roughness,
scale we get Cvs = 1.702×10-3. ⎡ 1
− ⎤
1
• As shown in Table 1, the wave resistance coefficient ΔCf = 0.044 ⎢( AHR / Lpp ) 3 − 10 Rn 3 ⎥ + 0.125 ×10−3
for model scale is Cwm = 0.373×10-3. The same value ⎣ ⎦
is assumed for the ship at full scale, Cws = Cwm. where AHR is a roughness measure that can here be
• From eq. (2) the ‘extrapolated’ total resistance considered equal to ks. Again taking a standard value of
coefficient for the ship thus becomes Cts=2.075×10-3. 0.00015 m then yields a roughness allowance of
The table below compares this with the direct 0.147×10-3. In other words, the difference between both
computation. allowance estimates, 0.25×10-3, could be considered to
represent effects not related with roughness; such as
deviations in the extrapolation procedure.
Table 2 Comparison of extrapolated and directly
computed full-scale resistance components for Hamburg Adding the roughness allowance ΔCf to our directly
Test Case. computed full-scale resistance (which disregarded
Cv×103 Cw×103 Ct×103 roughness effects so far) we obtain a total resistance
extrapolated 1.702 0.373 2.075 coefficient of 2.423×10-3. This is in close agreement with
the total extrapolated resistance plus correlation
computed 1.828 0.448 2.276 allowance. This is not to say that both ways of getting a
difference 7.4% 20.1% 9.7% full-scale resistance are in agreement in general, but it
explains how there may be significant deviations in the
scaling assumptions in extrapolation methods, which still
lead to a generally accurate final prediction.
extrapolated+correlation allowance: 2.475
computed + roughness allowance: 2.423 Even so we believe that, to increase the reliability of
model-ship extrapolation, it is desirable to decompose the
difference -2.1% correlation allowance, which now amounts to 20% of the
extrapolated resistance, in contributions of known
It appears that the two deviations from the assumed scale physical effects and a remainder collecting any unknown
effects add up to an almost 10% difference in the effects. E.g. if we would have a more precise knowledge
resistance of the ship at full scale! 6.1% of this is due to of the validity of the form factor approach for different
the scaling of the viscous resistance, 3.6% due to the scale classes of ships, and of wave resistance scale effects
effect on wave resistance. For the KVLCC2 case, depending on fullness and stern type, corrections could be
although with limited numerical certainty we got a very made in the extrapolation. A correlation allowance then to
similar difference. be added would hopefully have a smaller magnitude and
smaller variability, and lead to a full-scale power estimate
However, to the extrapolated resistance usually a of greater reliability. Today’s CFD tools can either
‘correlation allowance’ or ‘roughness allowance’ Ca is provide information on this, or can perhaps replace parts
of the extrapolation procedures by computations. 9. ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
Evidently, there is much more work to do before we are The research reported in this paper formed part of
there. One of the next steps in our research will be a study MARIN’s work in WP1 of the VIRTUE project, an
on the prediction of roughness effects in RANS Integrated Project in the 6th Framework Programme
computations, hoping to again obtain a more accurate “Sustainable development, global change and
estimate of one of the contributions to the correlation ecosystems” under grant 516201 from the European
allowance. Commission. This support is gratefully acknowledged.