Parametric Hull Form Variation & Assessment of Seakeeping Performance WIGLEY - 2018 PDF

DEGREE PROJECT IN MECHANICAL ENGINEERING,
SECOND CYCLE, 30 CREDITS

STOCKHOLM, SWEDEN 2018
Parametric Hull Form Variation and

Assessment of Seakeeping
Performance
AINA PONS ROSER
KTH ROYAL INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY

SCHOOL OF ENGINEERING SCIENCES
Parametric Hull Form Variation and Assessment of Seakeeping Performance
AINA PONS ROSER
TRITA TRITA-SCI-GRU 2018:299
Degree Project in Mechanical Engineering, Second Cycle, 30 Credits

Course SD271X, Degree Project in Naval Architecture
Stockholm, Sweden 2018
School of Engineering Sciences

KTH Royal Institute of Technology
SE-100 44, Stockholm
Sweden
Telephone: +46 8 790 60 00
Front cover illustration: Aina Pons Roser with the help of Shipflow
Abstract
This Master Thesis is about the assessment of the seakeeping performance of different ships subjected
to hull parametric variations. The latest version of the potential flow CFD software Shipflow in
combination with a CAD platform (CAESES) have been used to carry out the evaluations. Two ships
are studied: a simple one that can be mathematically defined, the Wigley hull, and the KVLCC2, a
realistic oil tanker.
The software is validated, comparing it to experimental results and other CFD solvers, showing a good
agreement with the rest of the data; the mesh dependence studies also show only small variations
between the used meshes and finer ones. Then, first the performance in calm water is evaluated for both
ships by looking at the wave resistance. With the results of the original hulls as a reference, they are
parametrically modified in different ways and evaluated as well to see which trends lead to an improved
resistance. With the parametrization applied in the Wigley hull big changes can be appreciated, as the
variation in wave resistance due to different parametric modifications ranges between -6% and 14%.
For the KVLCC2, two different parametrizations are tested. The first one, focusing mainly on the bulb,
produces changes that are generally smaller than for the Wigley hull, especially the ones due to bulb
modifications; and the negative effects over the wave resistance due to variations affecting the general
shape of the hull are larger than the positive effects. The second parametrization mimics the one used
for the Wigley hull, focusing on the general forebody: the results obtained with this approach are very
similar to the ones of the Wigley hull, also reaching wave resistance reductions of about a 6%.
After that, the evaluation is moved to the ships in regular head waves, where the added resistance due
to waves is studied; in a range of wavelengths going from 30% to a 200% of the length of the ship for
the Wigley hull, while the study of the KVLCC2 is focused around the wavelength where the resistance
is higher, at a 120% of the ship’s length and extending to 100% and 140%. Here the differences of the
effect a same parametric variation has over the resistance in calm water and waves are assessed. The
results of the Wigley hull show many interesting facts: some of the parametrically modified designs that
performed worse in calm water have a consistent better behaviour at the wavelengths analysed; while
the best designs in calm water exhibit both large positive and negative added resistance variations
depending on the wavelength observed. The first KVLCC2 parametrization approach presents again
smaller deviations in resistance, frequently even minor than in calm water; despite that, most of the
parametric variations that worked well in calm water display also a reduction of added resistance in
waves. On the other hand, the results obtained with the second parametrization of the KVLCC2 show
the same trends and behaviour as for the Wigley hull.
I
Preface
This Master Thesis is a degree project in Naval Architecture, with course code SD271X at the KTH
Royal Institute of Technology. It has been performed in collaboration with SSPA Sweden AB,
Gothenburg. Its finalization will allow me to graduate in the Nordic Master in Maritime Engineering,
which I have studied for the past two years at KTH and at the Technical University of Denmark, DTU.
I would like to thank SSPA and especially my supervisor, Alex Shiri, for the help and guidance during
these months. Many thanks to my other supervisors too, Hans Liwång at KTH and Poul Andersen at
DTU, for their support and advice. And of course thanks to my family, who despite being far away is
the best one could wish for, and to my friends, both those who have stood with me for some part of these
two years and those who have been at the other side of a screen; life is a greater journey thanks to all of
you.
Gothenburg, July 2018
Aina
II
Contents
1. Introduction ..................................................................................................................................... 1
2. Theoretical background ................................................................................................................... 3
2.1. Seakeeping performance ......................................................................................................... 3
2.2. Resistance and added resistance .............................................................................................. 3
2.3. CFD simulation methods ......................................................................................................... 5
2.4. Ship hull form optimization..................................................................................................... 6
2.4.1. Transformation functions ................................................................................................ 7
2.4.2. Particle Swarm Optimization (PSO)................................................................................ 7
2.4.3. Particle Swarm Without Velocity equation (PSWV) ...................................................... 7
2.4.4. Sequential Quadratic Programming (SQP)...................................................................... 7
2.4.5. Arbitrary Shape Deformation (ASD) .............................................................................. 8
2.4.6. Genetic Algorithms (GA) ................................................................................................ 8
2.5. Ship hulls of the study ............................................................................................................. 8
2.5.1. Wigley hull ...................................................................................................................... 9
2.5.2. KVLCC2 ......................................................................................................................... 9
3. Parametrization of hulls................................................................................................................. 11
3.1. Wigley hull ............................................................................................................................ 11
3.2. KVLCC2 ............................................................................................................................... 16
3.2.1. Initial approach .............................................................................................................. 16
3.2.2. Second approach............................................................................................................ 21
4. Software validation........................................................................................................................ 23
4.1. Validation setup ..................................................................................................................... 23
4.2. Validation results and evaluation .......................................................................................... 24
5. Resistance in calm water ............................................................................................................... 27
5.1. Wigley hull ............................................................................................................................ 27
5.1.1. Original Wigley hull ...................................................................................................... 27
5.1.2. Modified Wigley hull designs ....................................................................................... 28
5.2. KVLCC2 ............................................................................................................................... 31
5.2.1. Original KVLCC2 ......................................................................................................... 31
5.2.2. Modified KVLCC2, first approach................................................................................ 32
5.2.3. Modified KVLCC2, second approach ........................................................................... 34
6. Resistance in regular head waves .................................................................................................. 36
6.1. Wigley hull ............................................................................................................................ 36
III
6.1.1. Setup of cases and results .............................................................................................. 36
6.1.2. Mesh dependence study................................................................................................. 39
6.1.3. Discussion of results ...................................................................................................... 42
6.2. KVLCC2 ............................................................................................................................... 45
6.2.1. Setup of simulations and results .................................................................................... 45
6.2.2. Mesh dependence study................................................................................................. 46
6.2.3. Discussion of results ...................................................................................................... 48
7. Summary and conclusions ............................................................................................................. 52
7.1. Encountered difficulties......................................................................................................... 52
7.2. General conclusions .............................................................................................................. 54
8. References ..................................................................................................................................... 57
9. Appendix A ................................................................................................................................... 60
10. Appendix B................................................................................................................................ 64
11. Appendix C................................................................................................................................ 65
IV
List of Figures
Figure 1: Main components of hull resistance ........................................................................................ 4
Figure 2: Radiating waves from the ship induced by vertical oscillation................................................ 4
Figure 3: Body plan and 3D view of the Wigley hull ............................................................................. 9
Figure 4: Body plan and profiles of KVLCC2 [18]............................................................................... 10
Figure 5: Lateral view of Wigley hull and control grid of the forebody surface ................................... 11
Figure 6: Multiplying factors for the High, Medium, Underwater_high, Low and Underwater_low
Wigley hull parameters ......................................................................................................................... 12
Figure 7: Longitudinal multiplying factor for the Wigley hull parametrization ................................... 13
Figure 8: Body plan of the 20 Wigley modified designs. From left to right, on 1st row from 1 to 5; on
2nd row, from 6 to 10; on 3rd row, from 11 to 15; on 4th row, from 16 to 20 ......................................... 15
Figure 9: Bulb of KVLCC2 and line controlling its length and height ................................................. 16
Figure 10: Original and modified hull shape with Bulb_length=-2 on the left, Bulb_length=2 on the
right ....................................................................................................................................................... 17
Figure 11: Original and modified hull shape with Bulb_height=-2 on the left, Bulb_height=2 on the
right ....................................................................................................................................................... 17
Figure 12: Original and modified hull shape with Bulb_position=-1 on the left, Bulb_position=1 on the
right ....................................................................................................................................................... 17
Figure 13: Point controlled surface to define the width of the bulb ...................................................... 18
Figure 14: Surface control grid for the WL_angle parameter ................................................................ 19
Figure 15: Longitudinal multiplying factor for the WL_angle parameter ............................................. 19
Figure 16: Longitudinal multiplying factor for the Flare_angle parameter .......................................... 20
Figure 17: Original and modified hull shape with Flare_angle=-2 on the left, Flare_angle=2 on the
right ....................................................................................................................................................... 20
Figure 18: Point control grid for the second approach of parametrization of the KVLCC2 ................. 21
Figure 19: Body plan of the KVLCC2 modified designs applying the Wigley parametrization. From
left to right, on 1st row, designs 1 and 5; on 2nd row, designs 12 and 14; on 3rd row, design 18 ........... 22
Figure 20: Added wave resistance coefficient against wavelength for experiments (named as EFD, in
blue colours), CFD simulations (in green colours) and own results with Shipflow (in red) ................. 25
Figure 21: Wave pattern of the original Wigley hull in calm water at Fn=0.316.................................. 27
Figure 22: Results of experimental and numerical results of CW at different Froude numbers for the
Wigley hull of Chen and Noblesse [22] ................................................................................................ 28
Figure 23: Wave Resistance and Displacement of the 20 Wigley modified designs and original ........ 30
Figure 24: Modified Wigley design 1, with best wave resistance in calm water .................................. 31
Figure 25: Wave pattern of KVLCC2 in calm water at design speed ................................................... 31
Figure 26: Pressure distribution on the hull with Bulb_height=-2 on the left, Bulb_height=2 on the
right ....................................................................................................................................................... 33
Figure 27: Added wave resistance for designs 1-5 ................................................................................ 37
Figure 28: Added wave resistance for designs 6-10 .............................................................................. 37
Figure 29: Added wave resistance for designs 11-15 ............................................................................ 38
Figure 30: Added wave resistance for designs 16-20 ............................................................................ 38
Figure 31: Wave resistance of the Wigley hull in calm water as a function of the number of panels .. 39
Figure 32: From top to bottom, appearance of meshes of the Wigley hull study in waves with fine
mesh, fine mesh with panel density factor 1.2, fine mesh with panel density factor 1.5 and fine mesh
with panel density factor 2 .................................................................................................................... 40
Figure 33: Wave resistance of the Wigley hull in head regular waves of wavelength 30% of LPP as a
function of the number of panels ........................................................................................................... 41
V
Figure 35: Body plan of design number 9 ............................................................................................. 44
Figure 36: Added wave resistance for the modified KVLCC2 designs applying the second
parametrization ...................................................................................................................................... 46
Figure 37: Wave resistance of the KVLCC2 in calm water as a function of the number of panels ...... 47
Figure 38: Wave resistance of the KVLCC2 in head regular waves of wavelength 120% of LPP as a
List of Tables
Table 1: Main particulars of the KVLCC2 ship .................................................................................... 10
Table 2: Values given to the parameters of Wigley hull for the generation of 20 new designs ............ 14
Table 3: Values given to the parameters of KVLCC2 to adapt the five previous designs from the
Wigley hull ............................................................................................................................................ 21
Table 4: Settings of validation with KVLCC2 ...................................................................................... 23
Table 5: Characteristics of the waves used in simulations of KVLCC2 to perform validation of
Shipflow ................................................................................................................................................ 23
Table 6: Total wave resistance and added wave resistance for the calm water case and regular head
waves cases at different wavelengths .................................................................................................... 24
Table 7: Results of simulation of the original Wigley hull in calm waves ............................................ 28
Table 8: Displacement, wave resistance coefficient and wave resistance for the 20 modified Wigley
hulls and original ................................................................................................................................... 29
Table 9: Resistance results in calm water of KVLCC2 giving positive and negative values to each
parameter ............................................................................................................................................... 32
Table 10: Calm water wave resistance for the 5 KVLCC2 modified designs and original ................... 34
Table 11: Percentages of variation in wave resistance produced by each modified design for the
Wigley hull and the KVLCC2 ............................................................................................................... 35
Table 12: Cases of regular head waves simulated for the Wigley hull ................................................. 36
Table 13: Results of mesh dependence study of Wigley hull in calm water ......................................... 39
Table 14: Results of mesh dependence study of Wigley hull in selected regular head waves .............. 41
Table 15: Maximum percentage of difference in added resistance due to waves between designs at
studied cases .......................................................................................................................................... 43
Table 16: Added resistance due to waves results in waves of wavelength 120% of LPP of KVLCC2
giving positive and negative values to each parameter ......................................................................... 45
Table 17: Results of mesh dependence study of KVLCC2 in calm water ............................................ 47
Table 18: Results of mesh dependence study of KVLCC2 in regular waves of wavelength 120% of
LPP ........................................................................................................................................................ 48
Table 19: Added resistance due to waves results in waves at selected wavelengths with modified
designs of KVLCC2 .............................................................................................................................. 51
VI
Introduction
1. Introduction
This project addresses the topic of seakeeping performance of ships, studying it through the analysis of
the added resistance due to waves. To assess the performance of ships, their hulls are parametrized and
subjected to modifications, which will have an effect over the resulting wave resistance. The main
objective is then to observe how these parameters and the variations they produce in the hull’s form
affect the resistance.
To carry out this evaluation, the latest version of the CFD software Shipflow is used. It is a fully
nonlinear potential flow solver, able to simulate with accuracy the behaviour of a ship in water. The
simulations with this software are done for calm water conditions and for regular head waves with
different wavelengths and wave heights. Combining the results of these, looking at the difference
between the wave resistance in calm water and in waves, the added resistance due to waves can be
obtained. Calculating it for a wide range of wavelengths makes possible to observe how it changes as a
function of the sea conditions.
In this project the performance of two ships subjected to these parametric hull form modifications is
studied. After introducing in a more detailed way what are the wave resistance and the added
resistance due to waves, the existing types of CFD software are described; the current methods of ship
hull form variation and optimization are shown too, and then the hulls analysed are presented. After
that the hulls are parametrized, combining different techniques and applying different strategies
depending on the type of ship. The parametrization strategy that showed larger improvements in one
of the ships is adapted to the second one; this will allow to evaluate if the parametric changes affect
both ships in the same way.
Before advancing to the assessment of the performance, it is necessary to validate the software against
other data. This is done by taking a ship and a case setup already widely present in the literature
related to the subject. By replicating this setup with Shipflow and verifying that the outcome agrees
with the results of the previous research it can be checked that the software is reliable.
First the ships are simulated in calm water, in a study that includes the original shapes and several hull
form variations. The results of the wave resistance are analysed and evaluated, examining the
influence of each parameter used and the trends that appear. Next come the simulations in waves of all
the original and modified hull forms, performed at specific wavelengths in a selected range; here the
added resistance due to waves is extracted and the results are analysed again. Comparisons are done,
both between different modified designs and between the performance in calm water and in waves.
There is a mesh dependence study too, which evaluates the influence of the number of panels used in
the simulations in calm water and in waves over the final results. It all ends with a summary of the
steps followed along the process, together with discussions about the bigger difficulties encountered
and the conclusions and outcomes of the project.
This report is structured in several chapters, each one dealing with one of these specific parts of the
work done. These chapters are:
 Theoretical background: It consists of a brief exposition of the theory behind the project. It
shows the current state of related development and research and introduces the ship hulls to be
used.
 Parametrization of hulls: It shows how the parameters of each ship are defined and how
changing them affects the surface of the hull. Different designs produced and the
recommended range of values are also included.
1
Introduction
 Software validation: It compares the results produced by the software used in a specific set of
conditions to experimental results and other CFD solvers, in order to evaluate how reliable the
software can be.
 Resistance in calm water: It comprises the results of the simulations in calm water for the
original designs and the ones produced by the parametric variations, together with analysis of
the results.
 Resistance in regular head waves: It contains the setup of the simulations, the outcomes for all
original and modified designs, and evaluations, comparisons and discussions of the results. It
also includes the mesh dependence studies for the original hulls.
 Summary and conclusions: It recapitulates the steps followed during the project, listing the
most important problems encountered and how they have been tackled. It ends summarizing
the main conclusions obtained out of all the thesis.
 References: It lists all the papers, publications and other documents that have been consulted
during the project.
 Appendix A: It includes all the numerical data obtained from the modified Wigley hull
simulations.
 Appendix B: It contains all the numerical results of the Wigley hull mesh dependence study.
 Appendix C: It has all the numerical figures of the modified KVLCC2 simulations with the
second parametrization approach.
2
Theoretical background
2. Theoretical background
2.1. Seakeeping performance
Seakeeping is a broad term that covers all the features of a vessel that can be analysed related to its
ability to be safely at sea in all the conditions for which it has been designed, while at the same time
carrying out its intended mission. There could equally be a hundred definitions for the word
performance, depending on to which field this term is applied. In this project, an appropriate one
would be the accomplishment of a given task or mission, measured against known standards and
averages of goals such as accuracy, time or efficiency.
Knowing these two terms separately, then the seakeeping performance of a ship can be assessed by
looking at several aspects: stability, strength, manoeuvrability, endurance, response motions…These
traits of a ship are evaluated under its current conditions (such as sea state, speed, age, displacement,
hull coating state…), which affect the results, and compared to requirements of Class Societies, the
average expected for each kind of ship and conditions, a previous hull design for this vessel or any
other parameter that can act as a reference value. By looking at the results of these comparisons for
one or more aspects, the seakeeping performance can be determined.
2.2. Resistance and added resistance
The resistance of the ship is one of these aspects that can be evaluated in order to assess the
seakeeping performance. The minimization of the resistance, especially the hull resistance, is
nowadays one of the main aims in ship design; this resistance depends mainly on the speed of the
vessel and the sea and weather conditions. However, many more other parameters and circumstances
also play relevant parts.
A reduction of resistance has associated many advantages that are usually sought after in ship design.
To start, it will mean less discomfort of the crew and danger to the ship structure, which will benefit
both the human and economic aspects of the business. But obviously, the main goal behind the always
present desire of reducing the resistance is to reduce the needed power. A lower resistance means less
power required to propel the ship in the same conditions, thus less fuel will be needed. And requiring
less fuel is always a prime aim for many reasons, the main one being money; and with the fluctuating
oil price market it is beneficial to have as small effects as possible due to sudden rises in oil prices. On
the other hand, there is the environmental impact, as less fuel will mean also less contaminant
emissions; and with many legislations focused on making stricter rules and reducing pollution as much
as possible, paying attention to this issue in the amount of fuel consumption is vital too.
The hull resistance of a ship can be divided in many components, and different divisions can be found
depending on the criteria followed to separate them. In Figure 1 it is possible to see a general division
of the main components of the total resistance of a ship’s hull and the relationships between them.
However, in the part of the wave resistance, a difference must be noted between when the ship is
navigating in calm water or in waves. In calm water, the wave resistance is mostly due to the wake-
making and wave-breaking resistances, and spray generation. In waves, either regular or irregular,
there is an increase in the wave resistance created by the actual waves that the ship is encountering.
This extra resistance is called added wave resistance.
Added wave resistance is generated by the energy supplied by the ship to the water, energy that is
created by its oscillation due to the encountered waves. This energy is mainly transmitted through the
3
waves radiating from the ship, which are generated through its vertical oscillations as Figure 2 shows.
The effects of viscous damping are so small that they are neglected, meaning that the added resistance
is assumed to be a completely non-viscous phenomenon; this allows to use potential flow theory to
explain it.
Figure 1: Main components of hull resistance
In long waves the ship motions are big, and the added resistance is mostly due to this radiation
induced resistance of Figure 2; and it can be calculated directly from the pressure integration.
However, it is different in a situation with short waves. There the ship motions are smaller and the
wave frequencies high, and the biggest contribution to the added resistance is caused by the reflection
of incident waves.
Figure 2: Radiating waves from the ship induced by vertical oscillation
Added wave resistance is an important factor in a large ship’s performance. It is of especial

importance to quantify it in short waves, because most of the time a large ship travels in small sea
states. The International Towing Tank Conference (ITTC) standard procedure requires an estimate of
the added resistance in waves for the calculation of sea margins, but it does not specify a particular
method. The latest Ship Performance Index (SPI) proposed by the International Maritime Organization
(IMO) includes the added resistance in waves, but for the prediction of added resistance in short
waves, which involves more complexity, this index requires either model tests or what is called “an
equivalent formula with considerable accuracy”.
4
There are many methods that have been and still are used to calculate all these different components of
the resistance of a vessel: many formulas and processes existing to calculate them have evolved
through decades (see for example the ITTC formula to calculate friction resistance, dating of 1957),
and model experiments in towing tanks are still widely used and considered to be the most highly
reliable resistance estimations. Lately, computational fluid dynamics (CFD) simulations are becoming
more commonly used, as their performance and accuracy keeps improving; CFD is going to be used in
this project to calculate the resistances of a ship and to assess the seakeeping performance.
2.3. CFD simulation methods
The types of CFD simulation that are used to simulate a ship hull in water can be basically divided
into two categories: viscous flow solvers and potential flow solvers, each one with its advantages and
disadvantages.
On one hand, viscous flow simulations are commonly done by solving the Reynolds Averaged Navier-
Stokes equations (RANS), either by using the steady or the unsteady approach (URANS). Both
options result in products that are high-fidelity CFD solvers. They employ fine grids and are found to
be using some of the various advanced turbulence models. They give good quantitative predictions,
but at the same time they require advanced techniques and sufficient grid resolution, which leads to
long calculation times. The main advantages are that the simulators capture global and local wave
patterns, including complex breaking waves; and they are also capable of capturing viscous effects at
full scale. Some examples of application of these kind of solvers can be found in Wu et al. (2011) [1],
who apply it to a high speed trimaran in head waves; in Zhang et al. (2018) [2], who use RANS to
optimize hull forms; or in Raven et al. (2008) [3], who study the accuracy of viscous flow simulators
compared to model tests.
On the other hand, potential flow simulations use fully non-linear codes based on Rankine panels, a
method that has been extensively used in ship design since the 1990s. The main advantages of these
solvers lay in that they can capture global wave patterns and predict dynamic trim and sinkage well in
most cases. Also the codes are very fast if they are compared to the viscous flow solvers: with
potential flow, processes for grid generation and computation are fully automated and computational
times are short. Thus, they are faster and more economic than viscous flow solvers. This allows these
to be easily used for optimization problems, as they can solve various hull forms accurately in a
relatively short period. At the same time, they obviously have some disadvantages: the codes can
reach limits of applicability for flows with breaking waves, semi-planning or planning boats, and in
extreme non-linearity. Some typical critical cases where problems may appear are emerging bulbous
bows and immersing transom sterns, which come with an associated complex wave breaking. Also
viscous effects (such as a recirculation zone at the stern or wave-boundary layer interaction) cannot be
modelled correctly, and so they are considerably neglected. Some CFD research with these kind of
solvers can be seen in Choi (2015) [4], who used CFD based on potential flow to optimize the hull of a
container ship; Grigoropoulos and Chalkias (2010) [5] also used it to optimize a ship’s hull in both
calm and rough water; or Yang et al. (2008) [6], who used it to calculate the wave making resistance
of a Wigley ship.
In some cases both methods are partially combined, with the aim to benefit from the best qualities of
each one. For example, it is possible to find simulators where the general situation is solved with
potential flow, while the RANS are used to solve the flow around the stern and in the wake or in
particular problematic areas. This way, the simulation is done relatively fast, while the areas with more
complex wave interaction are solved with a higher precision. An example is seen in Tzabiras and
Kontogiannis (2010) [7], who created a hybrid method to estimate the resistance of low-CB ships.
5
Traditionally, the simulation of ship motion in water had been carried out assuming calm water
conditions. Situations with waves are discarded, and consequently the added wave resistance they
create is ignored. The latest CFD research and software developed are starting to include waves in
their calculations for resistance, which is a wise choice; depending on the circumstances, added
resistance due to waves can represent a huge percentage of the total ship resistance. Work by Fang and
Chen (2008) [8], Castiglione et al. (2011) [9], Sun et al. (2014) [10], Guo and Steen (2011) [11] or
Kim et al. (2017) [12] are evident examples of this.
As it can be seen, CFD simulations can be used for a wide selection of purposes, especially when
combined with the appropriate methods. It has been mentioned that potential flow CFD solvers are
particularly apt for optimization purposes, as they can reach a solution relatively fast. For the aim of
this project of improving the seakeeping performance and thus, minimizing the resistance of a vessel,
ship hull optimization methods can be used.
The software used to carry out this project is Shipflow, version 6.4, and more concretely the Shipflow
Motions module. Shipflow is a CFD software present worldwide that simulates hull motion in water. It
comprises different solvers, including potential flow and RANS. Shipflow is designed to be very
efficient to simulate standard flows around a hull, and one of its main advantages is the automatic
generation of meshes and grids from the hull shape. Many shapes can be handled, such as monohulls,
multihulls, twin skeg hulls, sailing yachts… Moreover, Shipflow can apply an efficient overlapping
grid technique to use with appendages. All this has lead Shipflow to be one of the world standard CFD
software for ship hydrodynamics over the last twenty years.
In this project, only potential flow theory and its correspondent solver in Shipflow will be used. Fully
nonlinear boundary element method is used to estimate non-viscous added resistance in waves, as well
as sinkage and trim in calm water. This CFD solver is used in combination with the CAESES
framework, which allows to easily parametrize, modify and optimize the surface of the hull.
2.4. Ship hull form optimization
The ship hull form optimization consists of finding a new shape for the hull, starting from an original
(or also called parent) design, yielding a better result than the first one for one or more of the features
than must be improved (also called the objective functions). These objective functions vary depending
on many aspects. These can be in which sea conditions is the hull being optimized, which changes in
the hull are possible, why it is being optimized… Some objective functions that have already been
used in research are resistance coefficients, vertical motions, resistance in calm water or wave-making
resistance. The added resistance in head waves, or the coefficient associated to it, has been used lately
in some approaches as objective function.
To perform this hull optimization, its form has to be iteratively modified, so it can be evaluated in
every step. There are several methods to create new hull shapes that can be used for optimization
processes, which include more or less complex formulas and procedures. However, the first step is
common to all of them despite the diversity in terms of complexity that can be found. It consists of the
hull surface definition: sometimes this is done by points, sometimes by spline approximated lines, and
it can be parametrized by some of the main features of the hull. Affecting one of these control points
or lines will make a change in the surface in a specific way. Then the optimization method will take
care of modifying the rest of the hull, as a function of this change, in a smooth manner.
When the hull surface is defined, and parametrized when necessary, an optimization algorithm is used.
There exist many of these, which will perform the hull changes in many different ways. These
methods can be mainly divided into two categories: gradient optimization algorithms and global
6
optimization algorithms. Each one has its characteristic limitations and advantages, which also depend
of how the algorithm itself is. At the same time, many of them have been developed into improved
algorithms, or into hybrid combinations of some of them. This has been done in order to overcome
some of these limitations such as search capability, convergence speed and calculation time. Some of
the more general hull form optimization methods that are being used are the ones explained below.
2.4.1. Transformation functions
Being one of the simplest methods, this one actually needs someone that chooses how the hull is going
to be changed. With the surface of an original hull parametrized, and given some range limits for the
values of these parameters, a change of one parameter is done (e.g. the bulb length is reduced, or the
flare angle is increased). Then the surface is remodelled to a new shape similar to the previous one, but
with the changed parameter set to the new value. At the same time, the other parameters stay within
the limits of how they can be changed. Work by Koechert (2007) [13] is an example of application.
2.4.2. Particle Swarm Optimization (PSO)
Belonging to the global optimization algorithms, when this method is used the full design space is
represented by points or particles, where the chosen objective function is evaluated. The PSO
simulates the social behaviour of a group of individuals by sharing their information during the
exploring of design space. Each particle of the swarm remembers the places visited during the
exploration, and the swarm has its own collective memory to memorize the best location ever visited
by any of the particles. The particles have an adaptable velocity and investigate the design space
analysing their own ﬂying experience, and the one of all the particles of the swarm. This is done by
computing the particle’s velocity vectors with:
𝑣𝑖𝑘+1 = 𝜒[𝑤 𝑘 𝑣𝑖𝑘 + 𝑐1 𝑟1𝑘 (𝑝𝑖𝑘 − 𝑥𝑖𝑘 ) + 𝑐2 𝑟2𝑘 (𝑝𝑔𝑘 − 𝑥𝑖𝑘 )]
Where χ is the speed limit and w is the inertia of the particles. The second and third terms, weighted
with c1 and c2, are the individual and collective contributions, respectively, and r1 and r2 are random
coefﬁcients uniformly distributed in [0, 1]. After calculating these vectors, the position of each particle
is updated according to:
𝑥𝑖𝑘+1 = 𝑥𝑖𝑘 + 𝑣𝑖𝑘
This process is repeated until a determined convergence criteria is matched, yielding the optimum
positions of all particles [14].
2.4.3. Particle Swarm Without Velocity equation (PSWV)
There are different attempts to improve the PSO, being the PSWV one of the most relevant and with
best results. These improved algorithms introduce new parameters or conditions, or reduce some steps
to make it more efficient. The PSWV, developed by Tungadio et al. (2016) [15], works by eliminating
the velocity of the particles from the equations. Besides that, PSWV and the other developed versions,
such as the IPSO (Improved Particle Swarm Optimization), function generally like the original
method.
2.4.4. Sequential Quadratic Programming (SQP)
It is an efficient, gradient-based, local optimization algorithm. This method is based in searching for
the best results along the steepest descendent direction from one point. The gradient at the design
variable in which the objective function decreases is found. Although it is quite efficient by itself, it
7
depends strongly on the initial point, so it is likely to end in a local solution. Because of that, and
having as aim to improve its results, it has been commonly used to develop a hybrid algorithm, by
combining a modified version of the SQP algorithm (a version called the Non-Linear Programming by
Quadratic Lagrangian algorithm, NLPQL) and the algorithm known as the Optimal Latin Hypercube
Design (OptLHD): this last one is used to generate an initial design matrix and then update it through
element exchange. Optimal space filling is obtained by the principle of max-min distance. While the
NLPQL has the advantages of fast convergence and high stability, the OptLHD designs the new
shapes with improved uniformity, space filling and equilibrium [16].
2.4.5. Arbitrary Shape Deformation (ASD)
This is a more basic method which simply creates a new similar geometry to the original hull. Here,
the surface is generated by a number of control points. Changing randomly the position of a control
point will regenerate a new, smooth surface. In order to use it for optimization purposes, currently it is
combined with the NLPQL algorithm and the OptLHD. These, as explained above, will work together
to reach a global solution. The study by Zhang et al. (2018) [16] is a good example of the combination
of all these techniques.
2.4.6. Genetic Algorithms (GA)
Being the most complex global optimization algorithms, the genetic algorithms are part of the
Evolutionary Algorithms, inspired by the biological evolution theory. The idea behind this technique
is to consider a population of individuals; the environmental pressure causes natural selection which
leads to an increase in the fitness of the population. A set of candidate solutions can be randomly
generated; the objective function can be used as a measure of how individuals have performed in the
problem domain (an abstract fitness measure), the lower the better. According to this fitness, some of
the better solutions are selected to seed the next generation through application of recombination and
mutation operators. The recombination (also called crossover) operator is used to generate new
candidate solutions (offspring) from existing ones, taking two or more selected candidates (parents)
from the population pool and exchanging some parts of them to form one or more offspring. Mutation
operators are used to generate one offspring from one parent by changing some parts of the candidate
solution. Applying recombination and mutation operators causes a set of new candidates (the
offspring) competing based on their fitness with the old candidates (the parents) for a place in the next
generation. This procedure can be iterated until a solution with sufficient quality (fitness) is found, or
until a convergence criteria is matched [17].
These algorithms, combined with non-linear programming, are useful to locate global optimum
solutions. They are especially adequate when more than one objective function is taken into account.
In this project, the most complex optimization methods will be overlooked, and a more manageable
approach will be used. Working in a similar way to the transformation functions, the hull surface will
be defined by points, which will be altered as a function of several parameters. These parameters will
be changed manually; and one objective function, the wave resistance, will be studied. However, it
will not be included directly in the optimization procedure, but as a part of post-processing of the
results of the simulations.
2.5. Ship hulls of the study
There are two original hull forms that are going to be studied in the project: the Wigley hull and the
KVLCC2.
8
2.5.1. Wigley hull
The first ship is the Wigley hull. It is a simple hull mathematically defined by a function, having
length (L), beam (B) and draft (T) defined as parameters, as it can be seen below:
𝐵 2𝑥 2 2𝑧 2
𝑦 = ± [1 − ( ) ] [1 − ( ) ]
2 𝐿 𝑇
It is typical for the Wigley hull to have a slender shape, which is generally accomplished by having a
relationship between length, breadth and draught of L/B=10 and B/T=1.6 (which are the most common
values observed in the literature research); these numbers will result in the shape shown in Figure 3.
Figure 3: Body plan and 3D view of the Wigley hull
The Wigley hull has mainly academic interest due to its simplicity. Though it is rarely used at real
scales, it is commonly found at different model sizes, as well as tested with several Froude numbers. It
is used regularly for tests and validation work of new CFD software as well as for theoretical studies.
It can also be usually seen in the Symposiums on Naval Hydrodynamics. There exist a great number of
experimental results from towing tank tests, some of them even from decades ago, performed by many
different institutions. These give an excellent reference frame when results need to be evaluated.
Moreover, the slenderness of the Wigley hull makes it able to be easily adapted to design multihull
ships, as this type of vessels are usually formed by slender bodies. Its basic design is also an advantage
in order to perform hull optimization studies: there are few parameters to control and the modification
of the ship’s surface can be done without many restrictions or smoothness problems.
2.5.2. KVLCC2
The KVLCC2 hull is an oil tanker typical hull, whose profile and body plan can be observed in Figure
4. Its main particulars are listed in Table 1. It is the second variant (following KVLCC1) of a ship
originally called MOERI tanker, with more U-shaped stern frame-lines.
9
Figure 4: Body plan and profiles of KVLCC2 [18]
The original hull form of the KVLCC2 was conceived by the Korean Institute of Ships and Ocean
Engineering (KRISO), as a modern (ca. 1997) tanker ship with bulbous bow. Its purpose was to be
used as a model to test new methods for modelling of flow around the hull, in order to provide data for
both explanation of flow physics and CFD validation. It has been used in numerous workshops since
then, like in the SIMMAN 2008 and 2014 workshops in Copenhagen. The objective of those was to
benchmark the capabilities of different ship manoeuvring simulation methods including systems and
CFD based methods. The KVLCC2 has also been part regularly of the programme in the series of
workshops held alternatively between Gothenburg (2000, 2010) and Tokyo (2005, 2015). These have
the purpose to assess the state of the art in CFD for hydrodynamic applications. Due to the large
number of studies, experiments and research done with this hull, it becomes an easy ship to work with,
for which a lot of data is available.
Table 1: Main particulars of the KVLCC2 ship
KVLCC2 main particulars

Length between perpendiculars, Lpp [m] 320
Length at waterline, Lwl [m] 325.5
Beam at waterline, Bwl [m] 58
Depth, D [m] 30
Draft, T [m] 20.8
Displacement, Δ [m3] 312622
Surface without rudder [m2] 27194
Block coefficient, CB 0.8098
Midship coefficient, CM 0.998
Longitudinal centre of buoyancy, LCB [%] 3.48
Design speed, U [kn] 15.5
Froude number at design speed, Fn 0.142
10
Parametrization of hulls
3. Parametrization of hulls
The wave resistance generated on a ship at a certain speed and conditions depends mostly on the bow
surface: it is the part of the hull that has a bigger interaction with the encountered water and the
upcoming waves. The assumption done in this project is that the studied waves will be regular, head
waves, so with even more reason the focus should be in the front part of the ship. Due to this, both the
parametrization of the Wigley hull and the KVLCC2 will be done only focusing on the forebody. In
this chapter, first the parametrization of the Wigley hull is explained, followed by the KVLCC2. For
the second ship, the two parametrization approaches used are described.
3.1. Wigley hull
The Wigley hull, with its symmetrical and simple shape, can be easily parametrized with a point
controlled surface. With this design control the original surface of the hull is linked to a grid of points.
The points can be moved along the transversal direction through the input of several numerical values,
corresponding to different parameters.
As only the frontal part of the ship is important, just the half forward part of the hull will be covered
by the point grid. In order to control the hull surface with some flexibility, a sufficient number of
points will have to be distributed along the longitudinal and vertical directions. These requirements
lead to having a 9x9 grid (so 81 total points) as seen in Figure 5.
Figure 5: Lateral view of Wigley hull and control grid of the forebody surface
The control points are numbered from 1 to 9, from the midship to the bow in the longitudinal
direction, and from the baseline to the top in the vertical direction. Then, each one of these points is
defined by a combination of up to five parameters. The parameters used in the entire design of the
Wigley hull control, each one alone, the entrance angle at a certain depth of the hull. As a secondary
effect they change the flare angle too; these variations do not happen only at a restricted depth, but
they affect a wider part of the surface.
The five parameters used are called High, Medium, Low, Underwater_high and Underwater_low.
These names identify the height of the hull where they affect the most. The three main ones are High,
which acts above the water; Medium, which affects the most at the waterline level; and Low, which
controls the general surface under the water. At the same time, Underwater_high and Underwater_low
have their biggest influence just above and below Low, respectively, as more precision and capacity of
shape modification is desired under the water. Each one of the five parameters can be given an
independent value, which will modify significantly the entrance angle at its height of maximum action.
Its effect will also propagate to near points and heights; this will make a smooth change along the
entire surface, while at the same time altering the flare angle.
In order to be able to produce this smooth variation along the vertical direction, the position of each
point of the control grid is defined by a combination of the five parameters. At the same time, they are
multiplied by numerical factors. These factors have the task of attenuating the influence of the
parameters when they act away from their maximum effect height; and still ensuring that the resulting
11
surface of the parameters combination is feasible. In Figure 6 it is possible to see how these factors are
distributed for each one of the five parameters. This structure is repeated through all the columns of
the grid.
High factors Medium factors

9 9
8 8
7 7
6 6
Point
Point
5 5
4 4
3 3
2 2
1 1
0.0 0.5 1.0 0.0 0.5 1.0
Factor Factor
Un_high factors Low factors Un_low factors

9 9 9
8 8 8
7 7 7
6 6 6
Point
Point
Point
5 5 5
4 4 4
3 3 3
2 2 2
1 1 1
0.0 0.5 1.0 0.0 0.5 1.0 0.0 0.5 1.0
Factor Factor Factor
Figure 6: Multiplying factors for the High, Medium, Underwater_high, Low and Underwater_low Wigley
hull parameters
It must be noted that the sole application of these parameters and attenuation factors would affect the
entire grid equally, from the midship to the bow. Nevertheless, it is stressed that the focus of the hull
variation should be on the fore part of the ship. The direct use of this parametrization would affect up
12
to the front 50% of the Wigley hull. In order to put more emphasis in the forward 25% of the ship,
which would comply more with this focusing on the bow requisite, another attenuation parameter is
included; in the longitudinal direction in this occasion, as it can be seen in Figure 7.
Longitudinal factors
1
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
Factor
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Point
Figure 7: Longitudinal multiplying factor for the Wigley hull parametrization
The inclusion of this longitudinal factor (which is used in all the rows of the grid) ensures that the
bigger variations in shape are happening in the forward 25% part of the ship. Meanwhile, the effects of
the five parameters previously introduced get attenuated as the surface gets closer to the midship
section. This factor progression guarantees that the transition of the new shape of the hull along the
longitudinal direction will also be smooth, as it already is in the vertical direction.
As an example, the point (5, 5) will have a contribution from all five parameters, multiplied by its
respective factors; it will all be multiplied by the longitudinal factor. This will result in a transversal
displacement of this point defined as (5, 5) = 0.9*(0.6*High + 1*Medium + 0.6*Underwater_high +
0.6*Low + 0.2*Underwater_low). Moreover, it can be noticed that the column corresponding to the
bow and the row corresponding to the baseline have always a value of zero. This is done in order to
avoid the separation of the surfaces of the two halves of the ship; it would cause bigger inaccuracies
and problems in the future simulations.
These parameters can get either positive or negative values. The length of the Wigley hull model used
for this parametrization is of 1 meter, and the maximum breadth is of 0.1 meters; so an acceptable
range of values is between -0.004 and 0.004. Higher or lower numbers could result in too big
deformations, too difficult to smoothen even with the attenuation factors. They would also lead to
strange shapes. The values of the parameters are combined in every point, which also means that the
value of one parameter can add up to another one; this yields bigger deformations than the value of
each parameter independently would suggest. It is also something relevant to remember when values
to define hull new shapes are given. When a positive value is given to a parameter, the entrance angle
at its depth and nearby is increased, while it is reduced with a negative value. A combination of a few
positive values will give the hull a more rounded shape, especially underwater; negative values will
transform it into a sharper hull. Alternating between positive and negative values in the same design
will result into a little more complex shape: it will not be simply rounded or sharp, but the surface area
13
close to the bow will present soft undulations. These will obviously depend on the value and sign of
the parameters controlling it. When it comes to the flare angle, though it can be affected by all the
parameters, the ones that have a bigger influence over it are Underwater_high, Low and
Underwater_low, the ones under the waterline. Again, giving them a positive value will result in a
bigger flare angle, and a negative will give a smaller angle; a combination of positive and negative
would depend on which value is larger.
Knowing all this, 20 different designs are generated from the original shape of the Wigley hull, using
as diverse combinations of values for its parameters as possible. Special attention is paid to the Low,
Underwater_high and Underwater_low values, focusing on getting several different combinations of
these three: the changes happening under the water are known to have the highest impact in the future
resistance results. At the same time, the new designs are created while the displacement is controlled;
with this parametrization method it is not possible to keep a constant displacement, but the values
given to the parameters can be adapted so it is kept in an acceptable range. Out of the designs
generated, whose parameters definition is on Table 2, the maximum variation in displacement
observed is of 1.14%; a deviation small enough to be accepted. A general overview of the body plan of
these new designs is in Figure 8.
Table 2: Values given to the parameters of Wigley hull for the generation of 20 new designs
Design number High Medium Un_high Low Un_low

1 -0.003 -0.003 -0.003 0.003 0.003
2 -0.003 0 -0.003 0.003 0
3 0 -0.003 0 0 0.003
4 0.003 0.004 -0.002 0 -0.002
5 0.003 0.003 0 -0.003 0.002
6 -0.002 0 0 0.003 -0.002
7 0.001 0.002 -0.003 0.003 -0.003
8 0 -0.002 0.003 -0.003 0.003
9 -0.002 0 0.003 0.003 -0.006
10 -0.003 -0.003 0.002 0.002 0
11 -0.001 -0.003 0.002 0 0.002
12 0 0.001 0.003 0 -0.004
13 -0.001 0 -0.003 0 0.004
14 0.002 0.002 -0.002 -0.003 0.004
15 0.001 0.004 -0.002 -0.001 0
16 0.002 0.003 -0.003 0 0
17 0.002 -0.004 0.003 0 0
18 -0.004 -0.004 0 0.002 0.003
19 0.002 0.003 0 -0.001 -0.002
20 0 0.003 0 0 -0.003
14
st nd
Figure 8: Body plan of the 20 Wigley modified designs. From left to right, on 1 row from 1 to 5; on 2
rd th
row, from 6 to 10; on 3 row, from 11 to 15; on 4 row, from 16 to 20
15
3.2. KVLCC2
As an oil tanker, the KVLCC2 has a more complex surface than the Wigley hull, especially in the
forebody. The shape of the bow can change in many different ways, and the design of the bulb is of
big relevance. The research done in hull form optimization of big ships yields works such as the
performed by Choi (2015) [4], Park et al. (2015) [19] or Kim et al. (2016) [14], where the main focus
is put in parametrizing the bulb and to a certain extent, the general shape and entrance angle of the
bow. This is an approach that will be initially applied in this project too; later a second approach will
be introduced, due to the conclusions extracted of the first round of simulations.
3.2.1. Initial approach
In order to parametrize this ship from zero, two methods have been combined. On one hand, there is
the point controlled surface technique, already used for the Wigley hull. This has been applied to
produce the changes that affect to major areas, such as the flare and the entrance angles (which
directly affect the general front shape of the hull) and also the width of the bulb. Overall, this method
is mostly useful for changes that happen mainly in the transversal direction, modifying surfaces.
On the other hand, there are other parameters that are controlled through spline lines. This method is
more useful when concrete parameters need to be defined, such as the bulb height, length or vertical
location. This one does not affect surfaces but positions, creating changes mostly in the longitudinal
and vertical directions.
In total, the parameters used to define the forebody of KVLCC2 are six: Bulb_length, Bulb_height,
Bulb_position, Bulb_width, WL_angle and Flare_angle. The first three affect the ship through spline
lines, while the last three have their effect through point controlled surfaces.
Figure 9: Bulb of KVLCC2 and line controlling its length and height
Bulb_length controls directly, as its name indicates, the total length of the bulb. The shape of the bulb
is linked to a spline line defined by three points that covers its entire length, as it can be seen in Figure
9. The foremost point of this control line depends on the Bulb_length parameter; if a positive value is
given to it, the line will extend and the length of the bulb will increase. A negative value will reduce
the line and make the bulb shorter, as seen in Figure 10.
16
Figure 10: Original and modified hull shape with Bulb_length=-2 on the left, Bulb_length=2 on the right
Bulb_height works in a similar way to Bulb_length. This parameter is actually controlling the height of
the bulb tip, which is linked to a spline line. The line is defined by three points that have the same
initial positions as the one used for Bulb_length, the same as in Figure 9. In this case the foremost
point is linked to the Bulb_height parameter. A positive value will increase the height of the tip,
modifying the rest of the bulb shape smoothly to fit with the new position. A negative value, on the
other hand, will lower the tip position, as shown in Figure 11.
Figure 11: Original and modified hull shape with Bulb_height=-2 on the left, Bulb_height=2 on the right
Bulb_position moves the entire bulb up and down. This movement is also controlled by a spline line
similar to the used for changing height and length, defined by three points. Again the bulb surface is
linked to the location of the last point of the line. While a positive value of the parameter will put the
bulb higher, a negative value will make it go lower, like Figure 12 shows.
Figure 12: Original and modified hull shape with Bulb_position=-1 on the left, Bulb_position=1 on the
right
17
Bulb_width influences, as the name suggests, the width of the bulb. This width is controlled by a point
defined surface, using a grid of 4x4 points as seen in Figure 13. This surface needs to be smaller than
the actual bulb, otherwise problems with the simulations and unreasonable results will appear; also,
when the bulb moves up and down or becomes shorter, a too big grid would lead to unfeasible shapes.
Here the transversal displacement of the four inner points is controlled by the Bulb_width parameter;
the others will not move. It must be noted that instead of making the entire bulb thinner or thicker, this
parameter controls the width at the central area: a positive value will increase it, making the bulb more
rounded transversally, while a negative value will make it more flat in this plane.
Figure 13: Point controlled surface to define the width of the bulb
WL_angle affects the shape of the hull turning it into a more U or V type of ship, depending on the
value given. It has the maximum effect at the waterline level. This parameter controls the surface
through a grid of points of 7x3, which cover the forward 25% of the hull except for the bulb as seen in
Figure 14. WL_angle only affects the transversal displacement of the points in the central row (which
coincides with the waterline). It also needs to be multiplied by attenuation factors, which will make the
change smooth. The values of these factors, following the style of the ones used for the Wigley hull,
are represented in Figure 15. Again, it must be noted that the displacement at the bow point must be
zero in order to prevent simulation problems. It is a big ship and the control points have a considerable
space between them, so there is no need to have so many attenuation factors to ensure that the shape
change is feasible; the big distances attenuate it anyways. Also, the lower row must be slightly above
the baseline. It has been observed that having it at the depth of the baseline creates calculation
problems too.
18
Figure 14: Surface control grid for the WL_angle parameter
Giving a positive value to the WL_angle parameter will make the forebody of the ship more rounded,
or to take a shape more similar to a U type hull. Conversely, a negative value will turn it into a V type
hull, with sharper forms.
WL_angle longitudinal multiplier

1
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
Factor
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Point
Figure 15: Longitudinal multiplying factor for the WL_angle parameter
The last parameter used is Flare_angle. This one, as its name suggests, will affect the front area of the
ship focusing on the flare. This is done through another point controlled surface, formed by a point
grid of 8x3 similar to the one used to parametrize the hull as function of the WL_angle. Each row has
the same vertical position and the starting and ending lengths of the surface are the same, but the
spacing between the control points in the longitudinal direction is smaller.
In order to be able to change the hull affecting the angle, the Flare_angle parameter is applied in the
middle and top rows. The middle row is multiplied by a factor of 0.5, which gives the control surface a
certain inclination that will affect in a similar way the hull shape. One more time, a series of factors
multiplying the parameter must be applied to ensure the gradual change through the length of the ship,
as it is reflected in Figure 16. A positive value of the parameter will increase this angle, affecting the
surface through all the heights; on the other hand, a negative value will decrease the angle, as seen in
Figure 17.
19
Flare_angle longitudinal multiplier

1
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
Factor
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Point
Figure 16: Longitudinal multiplying factor for the Flare_angle parameter
Figure 17: Original and modified hull shape with Flare_angle=-2 on the left, Flare_angle=2 on the right
The range of values that is acceptable for each parameter varies from one to another. The
parametrization of KVLCC2 is done with real dimensions, so it must be taken into account that the
units used are meters, and that the length and breadth of the ship are of 320 and 58 meters,
respectively.
Bulb_length and Bulb_height have a wide range, which can safely go from -2 to 2 or even higher
positive values without compromising the design. When it comes to Bulb_position the range should be
reduced to -1 to 1. The surface transition between the bulb group and the rest of the hull gets worse the
bigger the value is; beyond these it starts not being smooth enough to guarantee a good quality of the
produced design. For Bulb_width, the same range from -1 to 1 applies, and it would be recommended
to reduce it even more if other bulb parameters are changed at the same time (especially if they
involve reducing the length of the bulb or increasing the height: the control surface could get too
deviated from the area where it is supposed to act). It is acting along the transversal direction of a
relatively thin element, so too big values could deform the shape of the bulb to unfeasible results.
20
WL_angle works better with a range going from -2 to 2. Higher values affect negatively the upper part
of the hull, yielding some unrealistic shapes. Finally, Flare_angle is the one with a wider range, as it
could go from -3 to 3 safely without causing too many problems to the resulting design. Nevertheless,
giving big values to this parameter has a larger effect over the displacement of the ship than any other.
If it is wanted to keep the displacement between a certain range, these values should be chosen
carefully too.
3.2.2. Second approach
The second parametrization approach consists of applying the parametrization strategy initially used
for the Wigley hull. This is done due to conclusions that will be extracted and duly explained in later
stages of the project. The parametrization of the Wigley hull can be replicated in the KVLCC2 easily,
but it requires some adaptations.
To begin with this approach, the same control grid of 9x9 points is used to parametrize the hull of
KVLCC2, covering the 50% front surface of the ship (excluding the bulb), as seen in Figure 18. The
same five parameters of the Wigley hull High, Medium, Low, Underwater_high and Underwater_low
are used. They work and are combined as already explained in section 3.1. The attenuation factors
used for the Wigley hull are introduced here too to make the changes smoother along the hull.
Figure 18: Point control grid for the second approach of parametrization of the KVLCC2
Then five representative designs of the ones created from the Wigley hull are chosen to be copied for
the KVLCC2. The selected designs are seen in Table 3: Values given to the parameters of KVLCC2 to
adapt the five previous designs from the Wigley hullTable 3¡Error! No se encuentra el origen de la
referencia., together with the values given to the parameters to make them equivalent to the Wigley
hull versions.
Table 3: Values given to the parameters of KVLCC2 to adapt the five previous designs from the Wigley
hull
Design number High Medium Un_high Low Un_low

1 -1.74 -1.74 -1.74 1.74 1.74
5 1.74 1.74 0 -1.74 1.16
12 0 0.58 1.74 0 -2.32
14 1.16 1.16 -1.16 -1.74 2.32
18 -2.32 -2.32 0 1.16 1.74
The values given to these designs are different from the ones given with the Wigley hull, and that is
because the models used have different sizes. Giving the Wigley hull parameters values in a range of
0.001-0.006 meant a transversal variation of 2-12%. In order to maintain these percentages constant,
21
the values given for the KVLCC2 must be in the range of 0.58-3.48. Doing this, it will result in the
hull forms seen in Figure 19.
Figure 19: Body plan of the KVLCC2 modified designs applying the Wigley parametrization. From left to
st nd rd
right, on 1 row, designs 1 and 5; on 2 row, designs 12 and 14; on 3 row, design 18
It must be noted that these parametric variations affect more the hull than the initial parametrization
approach. They change the surface in different ways depending on the height instead of modifying the
hull as a whole. This results in more complex shapes, where some of them might be uncommon or
difficult to build.
22
Software validation
4. Software validation
Like any other new CFD software or version, a validation test of the software is needed to ensure that
the results obtained will be accurate enough to be acceptable. This validation needs to be carried out
recreating similar conditions to the ones that will be simulated later, so calm water and regular head
waves situations are studied; this will confirm if the software works correctly for the purposes of the
project.
4.1. Validation setup
To perform the validation, the KVLCC2 ship is used as the object of study. Tests are performed with
the settings shown in Table 4; besides these, it should be mentioned that the water is fresh and the
surge of the ship is fixed, while the other degrees of freedom are let free. A fine mesh is used, with a
total number of panels of 35,405.
Table 4: Settings of validation with KVLCC2
Design speed Froude Scale Model speed Water temperature

[kn] number number [m/s] [ºC]
15.5 0.142 68 0.9665 17
An initial test in calm water is carried out first. Later simulations of head regular 5 th order Stokes
waves with wavelengths in a range going from 30% to 200% of the length of the ship are done, as seen
in Table 5. The most important results of these simulations will be the wave resistances in each case.
Table 5: Characteristics of the waves used in simulations of KVLCC2 to perform validation of Shipflow
Wave Wave Length Wave Height Wave Length Wave Amplitude

λ/L Steepness λ [m] H [m] λ [m] H½ [m]
H/λ Full scale Full scale Model scale Model scale
0.3 1/50 96 1.92 1.412 0.014
0.5 1/50 160 3.2 2.353 0.024
0.7 1/50 224 4.48 3.294 0.033
0.9 1/50 288 5.76 4.235 0.042
1 1/100 320 3.20 4.706 0.024
1.2 1/100 384 3.84 5.647 0.028
1.4 1/100 448 4.48 6.588 0.033
1.6 1/100 512 5.12 7.529 0.038
2 1/100 640 6.40 9.412 0.047
As the KVLCC2 is a ship commonly used for benchmarking of CFD software, there is abundant
research about it. Many authors have performed towing tank tests in different sets of wavelengths;
while others have developed CFD software able to predict quite correctly the behaviour of a ship in
these situations.
23
Software validation
The results obtained with the Shipflow simulations are compared to some of these studies, which
include both experimental and CFD results. In the experimental part, there are included the results of
experiments performed in towing tanks by Guo and Steen (2011), Lee et al. (2013), Sadat-Hosseini et
al. (2013) and by the Osaka University (2010) [11][12][20]. There are as well results of CFD
simulations, carried out using different software. Guo et al. (2011) used a software based on RANS;
Kim et al. (2017) used a potential flow CFD solver; and Sadat-Hosseini et al. (2013) developed a CFD
in-house code based on URANS [21][12].
In these papers, the added resistance due to waves of the KVLCC2 is studied at some velocities, being
the most relevant the design speed with Froude number of 0.142. Their results show the added wave
resistance coefficient, CAW, depending on the wavelength, λ. At the same time the wavelength is made
non-dimensional, and it is presented as a function of the length of KVLCC2; in papers where the focus
is on short wavelengths it is represented as L/λ, while when the general spectrum is studied it is more
common to find it as λ/L. As in this project a wide range of wavelengths is considered, this last
approach will be adopted.
4.2. Validation results and evaluation
Shipflow Motions gives as a result in simulations in regular head waves the mean total wave
resistance, RW. From this the added wave resistance, RAW, can be extracted just by subtracting the
wave resistance in calm water, which the initial simulation yields to be 1.473 N. For the cases of
waves simulated, this results in the added wave resistances that are presented in Table 6.
Table 6: Total wave resistance and added wave resistance for the calm water case and regular head
waves cases at different wavelengths
λ/L Total wave resistance, RW [N] Added wave resistance, RAW [N]
0 1.473 —
0.3 2.151 0.678
0.5 3.568 2.096
0.7 5.792 4.319
0.9 13.413 11.941
1.0 6.811 5.338
1.2 10.097 8.624
1.4 8.429 6.956
1.6 5.410 3.937
2.0 3.530 2.057
Knowing the added wave resistance, its coefficient is obtained by applying the formula:
𝑅𝐴𝑊
𝐶𝐴𝑊 =
𝜌𝑔𝐴2 𝐵2
𝐿
Where ρ is the fresh water density at 17 degrees, taken as 998.74 kg/m3; g is the gravity, 9.81 m/s2; A
is the wave amplitude at model scale; B and L are the breadth and the length between perpendiculars
of the ship also at model scale, taken as 0.853 m and 4.702 m, respectively.
With these conversions applied, the actual comparison of all the experimental and computational
results provided by the papers and the obtained with Shipflow Motions can be observed in Figure 20.
24
Software validation
It can be noticed that even among the experiments in towing tanks conducted by different research
groups there are significant differences. These could be explained due to the different experimental
setups, models used or the characteristics of the towing tanks, as the experiments were carried out in
many locations.
Coe ffi c i e nt for a dde d re s i s ta nc e i n w a ve s vs λ / L

8
5
CAW
0
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2.0
λ/L
EFD Guo and Steen, 2011 CFD Guo et al., 2011
EFD Lee et al., 2013 CFD Kim et al., 2017
EFD Sadat-Hosseini et al., 2013 CFD Sadat-Hosseini et al., 2013
EFD Osaka University, 2010 CFD ShipFlow
Figure 20: Added wave resistance coefficient against wavelength for experiments (named as EFD, in blue
colours), CFD simulations (in green colours) and own results with Shipflow (in red)
As it can be observed in the plot, the results obtained with Shipflow follow the general trend marked
by all other experiments and software. They fit well with both computational and experimental results.
In the lower wavelengths, Shipflow predicts a resistance smaller than the measured in the experiments;
a value possibly influenced by the wave-breaking resistance around the bow, neglected in potential
flow calculations and significant when compared to the total resistance with short waves. As the
wavelength increases the added resistance predicted by Shipflow grows closer to the rest of results,
being in the range of results obtained in the different experiments.
It is also possible to notice that Shipflow is at least as accurate as the other CFD solvers presented. It is
even closer at many evaluation points to the experimental results than the other CFD calculations; for
medium wavelengths the fitting with the experimental results by Guo and Steen is good. For the
higher wavelengths Shipflow fits better than any other CFD solution with the experimental resistances
of Sadat-Hosseini et al. and Osaka University. If Shipflow is compared to the other developed
software, it is seen that the pattern they all follow is similar. Although at low wavelengths the results
25
Software validation
are more variable, showing how difficult it is to predict the added resistance in this area, the maximum
resistance for all of them is around the wavelength of 1.2 times the length of KVLCC2. Actually, at
this exact wavelength the added resistance coefficient given by Shipflow is close to the one predicted
by the solver of Sadat-Hosseini et al., despite it being based on viscous flow.
All in all, it can be concluded that Shipflow is a useful tool to estimate the resistance of a ship in the
sea. It has proven to be particularly good in the studied case, analysing the added wave resistance in
regular head waves. The curve of the added wave resistance coefficient as a function of the
wavelength follows the pattern signalled by experiments performed in different researches. Also, at
several specific wavelengths where this resistance is evaluated Shipflow gives a coefficient close to, at
least, one of the experimental results. In many occasions, Shipflow also shows to be even more
accurate than the other CFD options it is compared to. All these observations lead to determine that the
results obtained with Shipflow are reliable when it comes to analyse the performance of a ship in
waves.
26
Resistance in calm water
5. Resistance in calm water

In order to evaluate the seakeeping performance of a ship in waves, first it is essential to observe its
behaviour in calm water. Due to this, in this chapter the wave resistance in calm water will be obtained
for the two ships and all their derived designs. First comes the Wigley hull, due to its simplicity, and
the KVLCC2 is second. Both follow the same evaluation structure, presenting initially the original
results followed by the outcome of the modified designs and a discussion of the influence of
parameters in the final wave resistance. For the KVLCC2, the modified designs with the initial
parametrization will be presented first, followed by the outcome of applying the Wigley
parametrization and modifications.
5.1. Wigley hull
The Wigley hull, being a ship shape generally used for academic purposes, benchmarking and
evaluation of software, does not have a defined design speed and a real life size like the KVLCC2 has.
Due to that, selecting the Froude number at which the simulations will be carried out is a part of the
project too.
On one hand, the research found studying the performance of the Wigley hull uses a wide range of
Froude numbers. These go approximately from 0.15 to 0.5, paying more attention to the range
between 0.2 and 0.4. Following these papers, many values inside this range could be chosen and there
would still be enough data to compare the results to. On the other hand, the software used to perform
the simulations comes along with a variety of tutorials and examples of different ships and conditions;
these files have been tested and proved to work correctly. Among all these examples there is one
featuring the Wigley hull, in which a Froude number of 0.316 is used. This Froude number proposed
by Shipflow in its example falls in the range used in the mentioned papers. Taking everything into
account, the Froude number chosen for the rest of the Wigley hull study is 0.316.
At the same time, the mentioned example of Shipflow with of the Wigley hull suggests using a
Reynolds number of 107. As the software used is a potential flow solver and the Reynolds number is
related to the viscous flow, this number does not really affect the wave resistance result. However, it
will do define the length of the Wigley hull model used in the simulations.
5.1.1. Original Wigley hull
The simulation of the original Wigley hull in calm water is done with Froude and Reynolds numbers
according to section 5.1. A fine mesh resulting in 51,981 panels is used, and the fluid is set to be fresh
water at 17 degrees Celsius; the surge is fixed as well. This gives the wave pattern seen in Figure 21,
while the resultant main dimensions of the Wigley at model size and the numerical results can be
observed in Table 7.
Figure 21: Wave pattern of the original Wigley hull in calm water at Fn=0.316
27
Table 7: Results of simulation of the original Wigley hull in calm waves
Model Model Wave Wave

Model Model Model
displacement speed resistance resistance
length [m] breadth [m] depth [m]
[kg] [m/s] [N] coefficient
4.924 0.492 0.308 330.84 2.20 16.146 1.86*10-3
It is good to double check this calm water result with the research done by Chen and Noblesse (1983)
[22]. This document contains a huge number of data of both experiments and theoretical predictions of
wave resistance for the Wigley hull. Their results yield that for a Froude number of 0.313, close to the
one used for this project, the average wave resistance coefficient, CW, of the numerical predictions is
of 1.72*10-3. At the same time, the average of the experimental tests is of 1.7*10-3, with a range of
results that goes from 1.4*10-3 to 1.9*10-3, as it can be seen in Figure 22. The CW that Shipflow gives
for almost the same Froude falls into this range. This confirms again that it is a valid result and that the
software has an adequate accuracy for this project, also when it comes to working with the Wigley
hull.
Figure 22: Results of experimental and numerical results of CW at different Froude numbers for the Wigley
hull of Chen and Noblesse [22]
5.1.2. Modified Wigley hull designs
Once the original hull is tested, it is possible to simulate the parametrically modified hulls designed in
section 3.1. With these simulations, it is seen which combination of parameters leads to a better calm
28
water wave resistance. This is a section with special relevance, as a better performance in calm water
does not necessarily mean a better wave added resistance.
It must be noted that before performing the investigation of the twenty modified designs, the influence
of each one of the five parameters over the wave resistance was tested independently. Positive and
negative values were given to one of them while maintaining the rest unchanged. In these conditions,
the results obtained are logical and straightforward: a negative value for any of the parameters, besides
reducing the entrance angle, will also reduce the displacement of the ship. If only one change happens
in the surface of the hull, and it directly leads to a minor displacement, it will unavoidably reduce the
resistance too. On the other hand, giving a positive value to one parameter will increase the
displacement, and with it the wave resistance will also be larger.
This is what happens when each parameter is tested individually. However, when they are combined
the situation changes, and a bigger displacement is not directly related to a higher wave resistance. The
results of wave resistance in calm water and its coefficient, together with the displacement of the
modified models, for the twenty designs generated can be seen in Table 8. In a more graphical way the
resistance and displacements are presented in Figure 23. There is also included the difference in
percentage of the resistance of each design compared to the original Wigley hull. The results of the
original design are included too to make these comparisons easier.
Table 8: Displacement, wave resistance coefficient and wave resistance for the 20 modified Wigley hulls
and original
Design number Displacement [kg] 103*CW RW [N] RW variation in %

1 331.31 1.74 15.156 -6.13
2 331.10 1.80 15.602 -3.37
3 331.05 1.79 15.564 -3.60
4 332.82 2.06 17.964 11.25
5 334.61 2.11 18.404 13.98
6 334.48 2.00 17.402 7.78
7 331.97 1.96 17.046 5.57
8 330.52 1.82 15.756 -2.41
9 332.51 1.97 17.124 6.06
10 333.06 1.86 16.198 0.32
11 332.69 1.87 16.210 0.39
12 331.06 1.94 16.904 4.69
13 331.99 1.84 15.994 -0.94
14 331.39 1.91 16.567 2.61
15 332.44 2.00 17.430 7.95
16 331.97 1.98 17.174 6.36
17 330.79 1.84 15.987 -0.98
18 332.12 1.77 15.369 -4.80
19 331.26 1.99 17.293 7.10
20 330.63 1.93 16.777 3.90
Original 330.84 1.86 16.146 —
29
From these results, it is seen that there are seven designs with a smaller wave resistance in calm water
than the original Wigley hull. A maximum reduction of around a 6% is reached. Five of these have a
bigger displacement than the original while the other two have a slightly smaller one; although these
last two designs are not the ones yielding the best results of these seven. However, the designs that
actually have a significantly higher displacement do have some of the worst resistance results.
Nevertheless, a displacement smaller than the original hull does not ensure a better resistance, as it can
be seen from design 20.
RW and Displacement of Wigley modified designs

335.0 20.0
334.5 19.5
334.0 19.0
333.5 18.5
Displacement [kg]
333.0 18.0
RW [N]
332.5 17.5
332.0 17.0
331.5 16.5
331.0 16.0
330.5 15.5
330.0 15.0
Design
RW [N] Displacement [kg]
Figure 23: Wave Resistance and Displacement of the 20 Wigley modified designs and original
Analysing the shapes of the designs better than the original some trends can be observed. In general,
these designs have positive values (in a few cases neutral) for their Low and Underwater_low
parameters: this means rounded shapes and big entrance and flare angles under the waterline, and
especially close to the baseline. The opposite features can be observed in the shape above the water:
the parameters High and Medium of the best designs usually take negative values. Only a couple of
them have a neutral value of zero, with just one positive value. This means that the shapes here are
sharp and with small entrance angles, particularly at the waterline level. These tendencies are
represented in Figure 24, depicting the modified design 1, which yields the lowest wave resistance in
calm water of all the studied designs.
The reason behind this difference between the values the best designs have above and under the water
is that rounded shapes below the waterline are the best in order to improve resistance. But if this round
shape is extended to the rest of the hull, if the main dimensions of the ship have to be maintained, it
will mean a substantial increase of the displacement. It is seen that a higher displacement does not
produce directly a worse resistance; even though, reducing this displacement without affecting the
round shape underwater will definitely benefit the resistance. Here is where the upper parameters
intervene, as negative values can accomplish exactly that.
30
In these best designs, the parameter with more changing values is Underwater_high. It takes positive,
negative and zero values almost equitably. This parameter acts as a middle step between the rounded
bottom shapes and the sharp upper ones, taking the most convenient value.
Figure 24: Modified Wigley design 1, with best wave resistance in calm water
Taking a look at the designs worse in resistance than the original also yields some interesting trends. It
is seen that a negative value for the Underwater_low parameter leads unavoidably to bad designs, so
small flare angles are totally not recommended. In these cases the parameters Underwater_high and
Low are both quite variable; so they depend more on the other parameters they are combined with than
just on themselves. The High and Medium parameters here have mostly positive values. The rounded
shapes above water are, as the best designs were suggesting, generally a bad idea if the wave
resistance in calm water is to be improved.
5.2. KVLCC2
5.2.1. Original KVLCC2
For the KVLCC2 the speed and dimensions are defined by design. The evaluation of the original hull
in calm water has already been carried out for the software validation part. The resistance obtained, of
1.473 N at the design speed and with a scale number of 68, has proven to be in agreement with
experimental results and other CFD software. The wave pattern that is created can be seen in Figure
25.
Figure 25: Wave pattern of KVLCC2 in calm water at design speed
31
5.2.2. Modified KVLCC2, first approach
When the result with the original model is clear, then it is possible to start evaluating what happens
when the defined parameters are changed. With the KVLCC2 many of the parameters do not affect
that significantly to the displacement, unlike what happens with the Wigley hull; there giving a
negative value to a certain parameter and not altering the others would unavoidably lead to a smaller
displacement and lower resistance. With the KVLCC2 even when changing the parameters that have
the bigger effects on the hull the displacement variation will be relatively small. As an example, giving
the parameter WL_angle a value of ±2 will modify the displacement of the KVLCC2 less than a 0.5%;
the changes it can produce in the wave resistance are significantly bigger. In these conditions, it is the
specific shape of the forebody the one that influences the resistance, more than the weight of the ship.
Due to this, it is possible to evaluate independently each one of the parameters controlling the hull
surface. In Table 9 the resistance results of altering every parameter are seen, both in absolute values
and as a percentage of variation compared to the original KVLCC2. The values given to the
parameters and producing those results are also shown.
Table 9: Resistance results in calm water of KVLCC2 giving positive and negative values to each
parameter
Value = -2 Value = -1 Value = +1 Value = +2

Parameter
RW [N] RW [%] RW [N] RW [%] RW [N] RW [%] RW [N] RW [%]
1.481 0.63 1.478 0.37 Bulb_length 1.474 0.08 1.474 0.09
1.465 -0.46 1.468 -0.34 Bulb_height 1.494 1.46 1.510 2.60
— — 1.450 -1.49 Bulb_position 1.531 3.99 — —
— — 1.498 1.75 Bulb_width 1.498 1.77 — —
1.470 -0.16 1.450 -1.56 WL_angle 1.577 7.09 1.776 20.66
1.400 -4.88 1.445 -1.86 Flare_angle 1.562 6.10 1.682 14.25
It is seen that either giving a positive or negative value to Bulb_length makes the wave resistance
worse for the entire range of values used, from -2 to +2. The variations are small (especially with the
positive values, which make the bulb longer), so they could be considered to be a product of the
margin of error. Despite that, it means that the variations produced by changing this parameter do not
have an influence big enough over the wave resistance to be relevant. It also looks like the current
length of the bulb is close to the optimum. Although the percentages of variation are little, all of them
are positive and not suggesting any possibility of improvement.
The Bulb_height parameter uses the range of values from -2 to +2. The results show that increasing the
height of the tip will increase the wave resistance, while lowering the tip has a small beneficial effect
over it. Although the percentages of change observed are still small, especially when it comes to the
variations that improve the resistance, they are larger than for the Bulb_length. They also show a clear
trend. When it comes to incrementing the resistance it is quite lineal, however the improvements
produced due to the opposite changes are significantly smaller. It can be said that giving this
parameter a positive value will surely increase the resistance, while using negative values will
probably marginally make it better. Figure 26 is given as an example here: it is easy to observe how
this parameter changes the shape of the bulb and the pressure distribution on the surface of the hull,
affecting with that the total wave resistance.
32
Figure 26: Pressure distribution on the hull with Bulb_height=-2 on the left, Bulb_height=2 on the right
When it comes to the Bulb_position, only the value of ±1 is given. Modifying it more could lead to a
surface transition between the bulb and the rest of the hull not smooth enough. It is seen that by
making the value of the parameter negative the resistance is reduced, while positives values make the
resistance higher. Thus, positioning the bulb lower, closer to the bottom, is beneficial in order to
reduce resistance. Bringing it closer to the surface will only increase it.
For the Bulb_width again only values of ±1 are used, as changing the surface of the bulb to a bigger
extent is not feasible. Here the situation of the Bulb_length is repeated, as both increasing and
decreasing the width of the bulb will increment the wave resistance. Moreover, it can be noticed that
the increase in resistance is practically the same when this parameter is given the same value with a
positive or a negative sign. It indicates that the original width of the bulb is close to the ideal design.
WL_angle uses the full range of values, as the general forebody surface can endure larger changes than
some aspects of the bulb. One of the most striking findings regarding these results is how big the
variation in the resistance is, depending on if the parameter is increased or decreased. Giving it
positive values will increase the resistance up to a 20%, while values with a negative sign will not
improve the wave resistance beyond a 2%. The possible improvement obtained is in the order of the
rest of parameters, but on the other hand the consequences of modifying the form in wrongly are more
relevant. The ship already has a marked U-shape, so the conclusion is that making it even more
rounded would only have a harmful effect. Making it more V-shaped would have a small (positive)
impact; it is seen that even giving this parameter a value of -2 has a smaller influence than using a
value of -1, so an adequate shape change should not be very big either.
Flare_angle also uses the values ranging from -2 to +2, and it shows similar results to WL_angle.
Using positive values, increasing the angle, will have a bad, big effect over the wave resistance, while
using negative values will have smaller, good effects. Nonetheless, changing this parameter with the
value of -2 results in the larger resistance improvement of all the analysed. It reaches almost a 5%
wave resistance reduction. But like for the WL_angle, even this variation is small compared to the
negative effects of changing the shape in the incorrect way. As a conclusion, making the flare angle
sharper would reduce the resistance, and it would be the parameter having the most substantial effect
over the wave resistance.
All in all, some conclusions can be learnt from the analysis of KVLCC2 in calm water. First, that the
parameters controlling the general shape features of the hull are the ones that produce bigger variations
in the wave resistance, more important than changing the bulb. The variations observed when
changing the parameters seem to indicate that the shape of KVLCC2 is already quite optimized for
33
calm water; that is because in general the positive effects in resistance obtained are significantly
smaller than the negative effects. Another detail sustaining this idea is the fact that changing either the
length or the width of the bulb will always lead to a worse resistance.
The small improvements that result in a better wave resistance consist mainly of reducing the flare
angle. Changing the entrance angle at the waterline, making the ship slightly more V-shaped there,
also works towards a beneficial contribution; this aligns with the results obtained with the Wigley hull,
where the shape of the hull turned sharper at the waterline. The effects of changes in the bulb do not
have a point of comparison in the Wigley hull; and it is seen that the only variations that seem to have
a good influence are lowering both the position of the tip and the general vertical position of the bulb.
Combining all these parameters and giving them the values leading to better results independently, it
could be possible then to obtain a hull better in all the features that show room for improvement. It
must be also noted that for many of the parameters, the limit of optimization is set by the designer, and
by the choice of what is the maximum a parameter can be changed: a bulb with a tip many meters
below the original could yield a good resistance result, but it would not be that easy to build, practical
for other purposes or even feasible. Or maybe reducing the flare to five times the original would
improve the resistance; but it would also probably produce a shape that would make the hull not look
like a real ship at all.
Finally, it must be noted how small the resulting variations for most of the parametric changes done
are. For thirteen out of the twenty modifications done the variation is under a 2%, and for most of the
other ones they are not much higher. Due to this, the results obtained only can be trusted to a certain
extent, as they could easily be due to the margin of error of the simulations. What can be completely
trusted is that increasing the flare angle and making the ship even more U-shaped (as the original
KVLCC2 shape has already a clear U shape) would increase the resistance severely; and the effect
would be bigger than applying the opposite changes to reduce the resistance.
5.2.3. Modified KVLCC2, second approach
In section 5.2.2, the results produced by the parametric changes of the initial approach used with
KVLCC2 are compared to the results obtained with the parametrically modified designs of the Wigley
hull. Doing this, it is seen that the improvements accomplished with this last parametrization can be
higher than the ones produced by the parametric variations of the KVLCC2. Due to this, it is decided
to reproduce the parametrization of Wigley hull in the KVLCC2; and the sets of parameters that were
defining some of the designs of the Wigley hull are adapted to the KVLCC2. This allows to replicate
the same parametric modifications; and to observe if the results will be alike for both ships. Five
designs are chosen, representing different results in calm water (and also in waves) for the Wigley
hull. They are initially simulated in calm water; the rest of the settings are kept as in previous
computations. The results of wave resistance obtained for the modified designs are seen in Table 10.
Table 10: Calm water wave resistance for the 5 KVLCC2 modified designs and original
Design Calm water RW [N] RW variation [%]

1 1.373 -6.70
5 1.680 14.13
12 1.554 5.55
14 1.581 7.38
18 1.399 -4.95
Original 1.473 —
34
From this table it can be observed that the changes in resistance produced are generally larger than
with the initial KVLCC2 parametrization. It is especially visible when it comes to the improvements:
with the original parametrization the biggest resistance reduction was of less than a 5%, while with
design 1 it goes beyond a 6%. At the same time, these variations produced by the parametric changes
can be compared to the resistance variation results obtained with the same designs applied to the
Wigley hull. This comparison is shown in Table 11.
Table 11: Percentages of variation in wave resistance produced by each modified design for the Wigley
hull and the KVLCC2
Design RW variation for the Wigley hull [%] RW variation for the KVLCC2 [%]
1 -6.13 -6.70
5 13.98 14.13
12 4.70 5.55
14 2.61 7.38
18 -4.81 -4.95
It is interesting to notice how similar the percentages are for each design in most of the cases, taking
into account how different the initial shapes and the speeds of the ships are. And despite this, the
parametric modifications that lead to a better performance of the Wigley hull in calm water do the
same for the KVLCC2. The reductions are even larger than with the initial parametrization, which was
simpler and more focused on the bulb. The designs that increased the resistance of the Wigley hull
also make the resistance of the KVLCC2 larger; and the designs that make resistance only a bit worse
are the ones yielding bigger differences between the Wigley hull and the KVLCC2.
35
Resistance in regular head waves
6. Resistance in regular head waves

Once the evaluation of results of wave resistance in calm water is done, it provides a starting point and
a reference frame in order to study what happens when these same ships are put in waves. The main
focus will be on the Wigley hull: it is easier and has more room for improvement and optimization
than the KVLCC2. The added resistance due to waves will be analysed for the original Wigley hull
and the modified designs at several specific wavelengths among a wide range; next the KVLCC2 will
be studied around the wavelength were the added resistance proved to be bigger during the software
validation. Despite this difference, the structure of the chapter is similar for both ships. First the cases
simulated will be explained, followed by the presentation of the results (for the KVLCC2, for both
parametrizations); then the performed mesh dependence study is presented; each section will end with
the analysis and discussion of these results, evaluating the influence of the parameters and making
comparisons with the calm water situations.
6.1. Wigley hull
6.1.1. Setup of cases and results
The study of the performance of the Wigley hull in regular head waves is conducted through a series
of wavelengths similar to the used to validate the software with the KVLCC2. They can be seen in
Table 12, ranging from a 30% to a 200% of the length of the ship. The speed is kept the same as
previously, with Fn=0.316, and the same settings and mesh are used as defined in section 5.1.
Table 12: Cases of regular head waves simulated for the Wigley hull
λ/L Wave Steepness H/λ Model Wave Length λ [m] Model Wave Height H [m]
0.3 1/50 1.477 0.029
0.5 1/50 2.461 0.049
0.7 1/50 3.446 0.069
1 1/100 4.923 0.049
1.2 1/100 5.908 0.059
1.3 1/100 6.401 0.064
1.4 1/100 6.892 0.069
1.6 1/100 7.877 0.079
2 1/100 9.847 0.098
The original Wigley hull and all the modified designs are tested in all these cases, from which the
wave resistance for each design under each condition can be extracted. Finding the difference between
this wave resistance result and the one obtained during the calm water evaluation of every design, it is
possible to extract the added resistance due to waves. Doing this for so many different cases of regular
waves allows to find out around which wavelengths is the added resistance higher and where it is
almost irrelevant; more attention can be paid to the cases where the differences are more significant.
These simulations will result in a set of twenty curves, one for each design (plus one more curve
corresponding to the original Wigley hull), representing the wave added resistance through all the
studied wavelengths, as it can be seen in Figure 27, Figure 28, Figure 29 and Figure 30. The modified
36
designs are divided in groups of five, to make the plots clearer; and the original Wigley is included in
all four figures in order to act as a common reference and to make comparisons easier. Each line
representing a design is painted following a colour scheme: the designs that are better than the original
in calm water have green tones, while the designs with orange and red colouring have a bigger wave
resistance in calm water than the original. The full numerical results can be found in Appendix A.
R AW i n %, de s i gns 1 -5
Design 1 Design 2 Design 3 Design 4 Design 5 Original
65
55
45
35
%
25
15
-5 0.3 0.5 0.7 0.9 1.1 1.3 1.5 1.7 1.9

λ/L
Figure 27: Added wave resistance for designs 1-5
R AW i n %, de s i gns 6 -1 0
65
55
45
35
%
25
15
-5 0.3 0.5 0.7 0.9 1.1 1.3 1.5 1.7 1.9

λ/L
37
R AW i n %, de s i gns 11 -1 5
65
55
45
35
%
25
15
0.3 0.5 0.7 0.9 1.1 1.3 1.5 1.7 1.9

-5
λ/L
R AW i n %, de s i gns 1 6 -2 0

65
55
45
35
%
25
15
0.3 0.5 0.7 0.9 1.1 1.3 1.5 1.7 1.9

-5
λ/L
38
6.1.2. Mesh dependence study
All these simulations have been conducted using the default fine mesh setting of Shipflow. For the
Wigley hull, this means running the simulations with 51,981 panels and 52,785 nodes. Using a mesh
already defined as fine presupposes that the results obtained have a good accuracy and are quite loyal
to reality, to the extent of what CFD software can do; however, it is of interest to investigate how big
the changes in the resistance results are when the precision of the mesh varies.
Shipflow includes other two possible default settings for the mesh besides the fine option: these are the
coarse and medium choices. And if that is not enough, it also allows to increase the panel density
beyond the fine mesh by introducing a multiplying factor. By running the same simulations with these
different meshes it is possible to quantify the influence that the number of panels has over the total
wave resistance results.
Starting with the study with the Wigley in calm water, extra simulations are done with the default
coarse and medium meshes. The numerical results obtained of these computations can be observed in
Table 13. In a more graphical approach, the wave resistance as a function of the number of panels can
be seen in Figure 31.
Table 13: Results of mesh dependence study of Wigley hull in calm water
Mesh Panels Wave resistance [N] Deviation [%]

Coarse 12,544 15.884 -1,62
Medium 32,482 16.033 -0,70
Fine 51,981 16.146 —
From these mesh dependence results, it is noticed that the variations among meshes are quite small.
The absolute difference in wave resistance at this model size is of less than 0.3 N among the fine and
the coarse mesh; in percentage that represents barely a 1.6%. The figure shows too that the slope is
reduced in the second sector, so it tends to convergence. The variations in resistance observed for the
parametrically modified designs of the Wigley hull are larger than this. Taking everything into
account, it can be said that the accuracy of the mesh will not interfere with the validity of the results.
Mesh dependence of wave resistance in calm water

16.20
16.15
16.10
16.05
RW [N]
16.00
15.95
15.90
15.85
0 10000 20000 30000 40000 50000 60000
Panels
Figure 31: Wave resistance of the Wigley hull in calm water as a function of the number of panels
39
In order to focus more on the results of the resistance in waves, the study has been continued at a
couple of representative wavelengths with meshes of higher panel density. To do so, the fine mesh has
been used as a base and then the mentioned multiplying factors have been introduced with values of
1.2, 1.5 and 2. Visually, this results in a progressive refinement of the free surface mesh as seen in
Figure 32.
Figure 32: From top to bottom, appearance of meshes of the Wigley hull study in waves with fine mesh,
fine mesh with panel density factor 1.2, fine mesh with panel density factor 1.5 and fine mesh with panel
density factor 2
The simulations of the original Wigley hull have been run again at the wavelengths of 30% and 120%
of the length of the ship; they have been done using these new refined meshes, plus with the default
coarse and medium meshes. The results are listed in Table 14; percentages of variation are calculated
taking as a reference the results with the fine mesh, as it is the one that has been used in the whole
40
project for the rest of computations. Figure 33 and Figure 34 show graphically the evolution of the
wave resistance as the number of panels increase in both wavelengths.
Table 14: Results of mesh dependence study of Wigley hull in selected regular head waves
Wave resistance at Wave resistance at

Deviation Deviation
Mesh Panels wavelength 30% LPP wavelength 120% LPP
[%] [%]
[N] [N]
Coarse 12,544 15.847 -1.48 23.513 -0.78
Medium 32,482 15.879 -1.28 23.596 -0.43
Fine 51,981 16.086 — 23.699 —
Fine x1.2 72,674 16.260 1.07 23.889 0.79
Fine x1.5 110,338 16.328 1.50 24.041 1.44
Fine x2 194,755 16.438 2.18 24.220 2.19
From all these mesh dependence results, it is possible to observe that even increasing almost 4 times
the number of panels, the wave resistance does not change excessively. The deviation of the result
obtained with the default fine mesh and the finest one is of only about a 2.2% for both wavelengths.
Taking into account the computational power needed to run a simulation with almost 200,000 panels,
the accuracy of the fine mesh is good enough for the optimisation purposes of the project. And
especially at the wavelength of 120% of the length of the ship, where the differences between designs
show deviations in resistance of up to an 18%, this variation as a function of the mesh panels is
certainly minor.
Wave resistance at wavelength of 30% LPP

16.5
16.4
16.3
16.2
16.1
RW [N]
16.0
15.9
15.8
15.7
15.6
15.5
0 20000 40000 60000 80000 100000 120000 140000 160000 180000 200000
Panels
function of the number of panels
41

24.3
24.2
24.1
24.0
23.9
RW [N]
23.8
23.7
23.6
23.5
23.4
23.3
0 20000 40000 60000 80000 100000 120000 140000 160000 180000 200000
Panels
It is worth mentioning that the lower the number of panels, the lower the total wave resistance is.
Coarser meshes always predict a smaller resistance than the finer ones. This happens not only for the
calm water case and at the depicted wavelengths, but also at the other cases of regular waves; the mesh
dependence study has been conducted for the rest of wavelengths with the default coarse and medium
meshes. They show that the deviations among meshes are similar at all the wavelengths, not only for
the ones in this section. The numerical results of the rest of the cases in waves can be consulted in
Appendix B.
6.1.3. Discussion of results
In the plots of section 6.1.1, the added resistance due to waves is presented as a percentage. It indicates
how big this added resistance is compared to the calm water wave resistance of the same design;
mathematically expressed, it is RAW / RW, calm water.
One of the things standing out in these results is that at the lower wavelengths the added wave
resistance appears to be sometimes negative, which does not seem to be logical. Nonetheless, this
already appears in the research performed by Sun et al. (2014) [10]. He studied the added wave
resistance of the Wigley hull with different Froude numbers, wave amplitudes and wavelengths, and
the added resistance is seen to be negative under certain circumstances. So this is not a new result, but
a characteristic feature of the Wigley hull at determined conditions.
Another striking observation comes when it is seen that the higher value of added resistance due to
waves is not produced at the same wavelength for all designs. For the KVLCC2, the larger added
resistance was found when the wavelength was 1.2 times the length of the ship; the peak of added
wave resistance for the original Wigley hull is when the wavelength equals 1.3 times the length of the
Wigley. For the rest of the Wigley modified designs, this higher resistance is found in a wavelength
between 1.2 and 1.4 times the length of the ship. This is an important finding, because it shows how
wrong the conclusions could be if, following the example of KVLCC2, the Wigley hull study was
performed only with a wavelength of a 120% of the length of the ship.
42
Looking at the general trends of the results of the Wigley hull added resistance, it is observed that the
lowest and highest wavelengths are of small interest: the differences noted between designs are too
low. In Table 15 it is possible to see these maximum variations at each wavelength in the added
resistance; so for example, at a wavelength that equals 200% of the length of the ship the difference in
this resistance will be of barely 1% among the designs with the best and worst results. This table also
shows how in the middle area the differences start to grow, skyrocketing at a wavelength of 140% of
the ship’s length, reaching a maximum variation of above 30%.
Table 15: Maximum percentage of difference in added resistance due to waves between designs at
studied cases
Maximum difference of RAW

Wavelength λ
between designs [%]
30% of LPP 1.49
50% of LPP 1.60
70% of LPP 2.02
100% of LPP 5.78
120% of LPP 18.55
130% of LPP 19.17
140% of LPP 30.98
160% of LPP 10.14
200% of LPP 1.04
Seeing these results, the focus is put in the resistance in the wavelengths between 120% and 160% of
the Wigley hull’s length, as in this area the differences are considered important. Then, it is seen that
there are many interesting aspects and features that can be pointed out.
First, the designs that were better than the original Wigley in calm water are observed. These seven
designs (1, 2, 3, 8, 13, 17 and 18) are all better than the original at the wavelength of 120%, and some
of them are even noticeably better, showing an increase of resistance about a 10% lower.
Nevertheless, when the wavelength is increased all these designs turn out to be suddenly worse,
displaying the bigger added wave resistance variations seen in all the results.
Secondly, it can be appreciated that there are four designs that have a better percentage of wave added
resistance than the original for all the relevant wavelengths: those are designs 5, 6, 9 and 12. What is
interesting about these designs is the fact that all of them have a significantly higher resistance than
the original Wigley in calm water; design number 5 even was the one yielding the larger resistance in
calm water of all the modified hulls. When looking at the characteristic features of these designs, some
common traits can be appreciated: they have at least one parameter out of Low and Underwater_low
taking a negative value; this means that the shape near the baseline is sharp and the flare angle is
small. However, the parameters Underwater_high and Medium take either a neutral or a positive
value, making the ship more rounded especially at the waterline; a trend that is kept until a certain
point in the surface up to one third below it, where the transition between these two clearly different
shapes usually takes place. When it comes to the High parameter it is seen that it takes every possible
value, so there is no specific trend defining it. An example of one of these shapes yielding good added
resistance through all the important wavelengths is seen in Figure 35, where the body plan of design
number 9 is shown.
43
Figure 35: Body plan of design number 9
The rest of the designs appear to have better added wave resistance than the original at some
wavelengths and worse at some other ones; the seven designs mentioned before as better in calm water
also fall in this category. This is a common result, and it is where routing needs to be taken into
account.
Routing implies that the itinerary that the ship will follow, or at least the areas where it will navigate,
are known beforehand. If this knowledge is provided then it is also possible to find out how is the
profile of the sea conditions in these areas, so the most common wavelengths and wave amplitudes are
known. This way, the form of the hull can be optimized for a specific operation.
For example, if the ship will be navigating always in calm water, using a hull with the shape of design
1 would be the best option. If it is known that it will also have to go through relatively small waves,
with a wavelength never exceeding 120% of the ship’s length, then a hull like design 18 would be
even a better option; it presents both good results in calm water and a lower wave added resistance up
to this wavelength. On the other hand, if the ship will have to sail in an area that has commonly rough
sea, with waves of many wavelengths present and especially bigger than a 120% of the length, then a
better choice would be design 6; this one performs well in all wavelengths and also has the lower
peaks of maximum added resistance. In the case that the area of navigation has unknown sea
conditions or very unpredictable ones, then design 12 would be a good compromise solution; it has an
average wave resistance in calm water and a good performance through all wavelengths.
Finally, there could be also the option of carrying out a more exhaustive study, analysing the statistics
of waves and combining that with the results of added wave resistance. Doing so, it could be possible
to calculate in a more specific way the average of reduction of wave resistance of a design for a
detailed sea profile.
The conclusion of all this implies that there are some designs with specific shapes that are better on
average in waves; however, it is not possible to choose an optimum design based only on this
knowledge. The choice depends on many other parameters, mainly concerning the sea conditions of
the route and area where the ship will operate. At the same time, other factors such as the speed or a
44
limit in the displacement variation might also play an important role, so choosing the best design is not
an easy task.
6.2. KVLCC2
6.2.1. Setup of simulations and results
For the study of the added resistance due to waves of the KVLCC2, the ship and its modified designs
produced by the first parametrization approach are tested in head regular waves. The wavelength is of
a 120% the ship’s length, and the wave amplitude of one hundredth of that value. This wave setting is
the same used in one of the cases of the software validation; to be precise, it corresponds to the case
where the wave added resistance showed the largest for this ship.
The studies with the Wigley hull showed that it is not advisable to analyse the wave added resistance
at just one wavelength; different hull designs might show the maximum resistance value at different
wavelengths. Despite that, it is considered that this is not a concern here; these modifications applied
on the hull surface of KVLCC2 are less severe than the ones of the Wigley hull, and the resulting
variations of the hull are smaller too and do not affect the general forebody shape. However, the
second approach of parametrization produces variations in the hull significantly larger, which may
change the wavelength at which this higher value is produced. Due to this, the simulations in waves of
the second parametrization approach are also carried at the wavelengths of 100% and 140%.
After taking these decisions, the simulations are started; as in the previous sections using the
KVLCC2, the design speed of 15.5 knots is kept, which results in a Fn=0.142. The mesh
configuration, Reynolds number, water temperature and the rest of simulation settings are also kept as
in chapter 4. The result of the original KVLCC2 in waves of wavelength 1.2 times its length is of a
total wave resistance RW=10.097 N, for the model size used. The added resistance due to waves is
obtained subtracting from this the wave resistance in calm water, yielding a result of RAW=8.625 N.
Following the same reasoning, the added wave resistance at the wavelengths of 100% and 140% is
5.339 N and 6.957 N, respectively.
For the first approach of parametrization, each one of the six parameters is tested independently, being
given different values while the others remain unchanged; again the range of values used will be
between ±2 and ±1, as done in calm water in section 5.2.2. In Table 16 are presented the results for all
the cases of modified designs tested in this approach, showing the value given to each parameter and
the added wave resistance obtained for every modification. The resistances are given as absolute
values in Newton and as a percentage compared to the added wave resistance of the original hull.
Table 16: Added resistance due to waves results in waves of wavelength 120% of LPP of KVLCC2 giving
positive and negative values to each parameter
Value = -2 Value = -1 Value = +1 Value = +2

RAW RAW RAW RAW Parameter RAW RAW RAW RAW
[N] [%] [N] [%] [N] [%] [N] [%]
8.490 -1.56 8.567 -0.66 Bulb_length 8.716 1.07 8.801 2.04
8.623 -0.02 8.640 0.18 Bulb_height 8.633 0.10 8.620 -0.05
— — 8.600 -0.28 Bulb_position 8.687 0.73 — —
— — 8.632 0.09 Bulb_width 8.701 0.89 — —
8.305 -3.71 8.473 -1.75 WL_angle 8.814 2.20 8.979 4.12
8.254 -4.30 8.451 -2.01 Flare_angle 8.819 2.26 8.988 4.21
45
For the second approach, the same five modified designs used in calm water in section 5.2.3 are
simulated. The focus is still on the wavelength of a 120% of the ship’s length; but some of these
designs applied to the Wigley hull had the higher resistance value at another wavelength. Due to this,
the simulations of the modified KVLCC2 designs are extended to the consecutive wavelengths of
100% and 140% of the length of the ship. This will avoid ignoring the possibility of having the larger
values of added resistance somewhere else and to evaluate accurately these designs. The results of
these simulations can be seen in Figure 36, presented in the same style as the previous Wigley hull
results in section 6.1.1: the percentage of the left axis represents how big is the added resistance due to
waves in relation to the calm water wave resistance of the same design. The colour identification of
designs is also the same used for the Wigley hull plots: green indicates good performance in calm
water, while the red and orange tones point to a worse behaviour in those conditions. The complete
numerical results represented here can be found in Appendix C.
R AW i n % of KV LCC2
700
600
500
400
%
300
200
100
0
0.9 1 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5
λ/L
Figure 36: Added wave resistance for the modified KVLCC2 designs applying the second parametrization
It is also relevant to point out that the percentages of added resistance compared to the calm water
wave resistance are higher for the KVLCC2 than for the Wigley hull; that happens even with the
shapes as a function of the wavelength being practically the same. This is due to the difference of
speed between the two ships: the KVLCC2 has a Froude number that is approximately half the one of
the Wigley hull, and it is completely a displacement ship. That means a lower resistance in calm water,
so when the wave resistance increases with the waves, the rise is relatively big.
6.2.2. Mesh dependence study
All the KVLCC2 simulations have been performed with the default fine mesh of Shipflow, like for the
Wigley hull. With this ship, using the fine mesh means using a total number of 35,405 panels and
36,270 nodes. In order to examine the accuracy of the results obtained in both calm water and in
46
waves, a mesh study has been conducted too for the KVLCC2. The simulations with the original hull
are run again with the default coarse and medium settings for the mesh; moreover, a refined mesh
using a panel density factor of 1.2 has been added too.
The results of this study in calm water are shown in Table 17; the percentages are given in relation to
the wave resistance obtained with the fine mesh, as it is the one that has been used for the rest of the
project. The change in the result of wave resistance as a function of the number of panels of the
simulation is represented graphically in Figure 37.
Table 17: Results of mesh dependence study of KVLCC2 in calm water
Mesh Panels Wave resistance [N] Deviation [%]

Coarse 8,413 1.778 20.78
Medium 22,011 2.157 46.54
Fine 35,405 1.472 —
Fine x1.2 46,599 1.450 -1.47
Mesh dependence of wave resistance in calm water

2.2
2.0
1.8
RW [N]
1.6
1.4
1.2
0 5000 10000 15000 20000 25000 30000 35000 40000 45000 50000
Panels
Figure 37: Wave resistance of the KVLCC2 in calm water as a function of the number of panels
Looking at the table and plot, it stands out how big the deviations are for the coarse and medium
meshes; especially striking is the deviation presented by the medium mesh, reaching almost a 50%.
However, when the mesh is refined from the fine default version to the one with the increased panel
density, the percentage of variation turns immediately smaller; then it is in the order of what was
observed for the Wigley hull in section 6.1.2. Seeing this, it can be concluded that using some of the
coarser meshes would yield distant, unreliable results for the KVLCC2 in calm water. On the other
hand, improving the quality of the mesh from the used fine to the more refined one would only
produce a not so relevant minor change, while the computational time would definitely increment.
Nevertheless, in regular waves the differences observed among meshes are not that relevant, as the
results in Table 18 show. Here the results of the wave resistance in regular head waves of a
wavelength of 120% of the ship’s length are presented, and it is seen that the percentages of variation
47
become smaller, below 3.3% even for the coarser mesh. For the refined mesh, the percentage is in the
same order than the observed previously in the Wigley hull. Finally, Figure 38 shows how the wave
resistance at this wavelength changes with the number of panels; this demonstrates how the slope
between segments gets reduced at the last section, approaching a steadier value.
Table 18: Results of mesh dependence study of KVLCC2 in regular waves of wavelength 120% of LPP
Mesh Panels Wave resistance at wavelength 120% LPP [N] Deviation [%]
Coarse 8,413 10.427 3.27
Medium 22,011 10.393 2.94
Fine 35,405 10.097 —
Fine x1.2 46,599 10.158 0.60

10.45
10.40
10.35
10.30
RW [N]
10.25
10.20
10.15
10.10
10.05
0 5000 10000 15000 20000 25000 30000 35000 40000 45000 50000
Panels
Figure 38: Wave resistance of the KVLCC2 in head regular waves of wavelength 120% of LPP as a
It should be mentioned that unlike in the Wigley hull study, the wave resistance does not continuously
grow (or decrease) as a function of the number of panels; instead, it is more variable and goes up and
down, displaying larger differences and changes of signs of the percentages of deviation. Finally, these
percentages are quite small when the simulations go beyond 30,000 panels, so the accuracy of the fine
mesh used appears to be good. However, this consideration also depends on the variations observed
with the parametrically modified hulls; percentages that are in this order or smaller could not be too
reliable.
6.2.3. Discussion of results
Starting with the results of the first parametrization approach, it is seen in section 6.2.1 that giving
Bulb_length a negative value will reduce the added wave resistance; while making the bulb longer will
increase it. It is also possible to appreciate from the percentages of Table 16 that the changes
produced, despite being small, are quite linear in the range used, which eliminates many uncertainties
48
concerning the accuracy of these results. The behaviour of this parameter in waves is different from
the calm water situation, where it was seen that neither making the bulb shorter or longer would make
improvements. In this case, shortening the bulb shows a clear tendency of reducing the added wave
resistance, at least up to a certain length; there will presumably be some point where the bulb is too
short to have any positive influence over the ship’s resistance.
However, with the Bulb_height the situation is quite different. It can be appreciated that changing the
value of the parameter to ±1 will result in a larger resistance and giving it a value of ±2 will reduce it;
this does not sound logical. Despite that, it can be observed that the variations produced by this
parameter are small, not even reaching a 0.2%. Therefore it cannot be assured that changing the height
of the tip of the bulb in any direction will have a positive or negative impact over the added wave
resistance. At the same time, this also shows a change from the calm water results; there lowering the
position of the tip of the bulb meant improving the resistance, but here that does not necessarily mean
any positive effect.
The Bulb_position parameter only takes values of ±1, and the percentage of variation of the added
wave resistance that these values yield is approximately in the order of the rest of the bulb parameters.
Giving it a negative result, lowering the overall position of the bulb, will slightly improve the
resistance. Doing the opposite will make it marginally worse. It must be noted that this parameter
behaves in the same way in calm water and in waves, as there giving positive and negative values also
resulted in the same pattern of changes in the resistance. Despite this, the variations observed in waves
are significantly smaller, being just around a fifth of the ones observed in calm water.
For the Bulb_width parameter, using only values of ±1, the situation observed in waves at this
wavelength of 120% is the same that in calm water. Both giving it positive and negative values will
make the added resistance due to waves larger, as it already happened in calm water. Also here the
variation produced is smaller than the ones seen in waves. The results obtained here, showing an
increase of wave added resistance of less than a 1%, could be a product of the margin of error.
The WL_angle parameter also shows the same behaviour in regular head waves and in calm water,
with some considerations to take into account. First, when positive values are given and the shape
turns more into a U, the added wave resistance increases; but the variation is smaller than the observed
in calm water, as already observed for many parameters. The percentage is of a 4% compared to a
20%. With negative values and a more V shape the resistance is decreased, but it turns out that in this
case the variation observed is bigger than in calm water, something more uncommon. At the same
time, it can be observed that the variation between different values is more linear than it was in calm
water; the percentages are almost the same for a value with different signs, a totally opposite case from
the extreme differences seen in calm water. Nevertheless, the variations in resistance observed for this
parameter are still significantly higher on average than for the rest of bulb parameters; even if the
difference has been reduced.
Finally, the Flare_angle performs in a manner similar to the WL_angle. Negative values improve the
added resistance due to waves and positive values make it larger, like it happened in calm water too.
However, the variations seen here are far away from the maximum increase of 14% found in calm
water. Here the maximum increment barely rises above a 4%, which is also about the same percentage
of maximum resistance reduction. This points out another trait in common with the WL_angle, as the
flare also shows a more linear resistance variation when subjected to changes in waves than in calm
water. But when it comes to resistance reduction, it can be noticed that the percentages obtained are
similar for both calm water and in waves. All this indicates that the Flare_angle parameter, together
49
with the WL_angle, still have a bigger influence on the added resistance due to waves and on the
overall wave resistance than the bulb parameters.
Analysing the results of all parameters in these conditions in waves, it can be seen that most of them
follow the same patterns they had in the study in calm water. The parameters controlling the flare
angle and the entrance angle are still the ones having bigger effects. At the same time, it is noticed that
the percentage of variation that a parametric modification causes is generally smaller in regular waves
than it was in calm water. This is clearly seen with the two parameters changing the main shape of the
hull, whose influence when they are given positive values is radically reduced. And despite this drastic
fall, the variations they cause in the added wave resistance are still at least twice as big as the ones
produced by the rest of bulb parameters. The parameter showing a more different behaviour from the
calm water evaluation is the Bulb_length; this one did not appear to have a too big effect previously
over the wave resistance, but in waves it has showed to have a trend of improvement when the length
is reduced (even if the reduction is small). On the other hand, the parameters controlling the bulb’s
height, position and width have shown to have an almost irrelevant influence over the added wave
resistance in the range studied. The variations they produce are of less than a 1%, while in calm water
they had a more significant effect.
In calm water it was already warned that the changes produced by most of the parametric variations
were too small to be completely trusted, as they can be just a result of the margin of error of the
simulations; that warning is even more severe here. It has been mentioned many times that the
percentages of variation observed in this section are on average even smaller than in calm water, and
in the order of accuracy of the mesh according to the mesh dependence study. This means it is quite
possible that many of the closer results are not accurate enough. As a consequence, many data should
be treated with a moderate scepticism. What can be assumed as quite certain is that both reducing the
flare angle and the entrance angle will have a moderate positive impact on the added resistance due to
waves; and to a certain extent, it is probable that reducing the length of the bulb will help too.
Moving to the second parametrization approach, Figure 36 shows practically the same results as
observed for the Wigley hull. As it already happened with the first ship, the designs that were better in
calm water are also better in waves just until a certain wavelength. When this barrier, situated after a
wavelength of 120% of the ship’s length, is crossed, then these designs turn to be worse than any other
option. At the same time, the other designs also show similar behaviours to the Wigley hull cases:
designs 5 and 12 get better performance as the wavelength increases, having significantly better
performance than the original hull in waves when the differences between designs grow larger. Design
14 exhibited a more variable behaviour depending on the studied wavelength with the Wigley hull, but
here it still depicts a performance not far away from the original KVLCC2.
The similarities in the wave resistance results of applying the same parametric variations to the Wigley
hull and the KVLCC2 were already seen in calm water in section 5.2.3. Then, the last results in waves
demonstrate that in these cases the parallelism still exists; and all the conclusions that were extracted
from the effects of parametric variation of the hull form of the Wigley hull also can be applied to the
KVLCC2.
In order to compare the results from the two different parametrization approaches to the KVLCC2,
Table 19 is a great help (and especially the central columns, corresponding to the wavelength of 120%
of the length of the ship) as it presents the results of the second parametrization in a similar style to the
results of the first parametrization, in Table 16. The added resistance due to waves is numerically
given for each design and wavelength, both as an absolute value in Newton and as a percentage
relative to the added resistance of the original KVLCC2.
50
Table 19: Added resistance due to waves results in waves at selected wavelengths with modified designs
of KVLCC2
100 % LPP 120 % LPP 140 % LPP

Design
RAW [N] RAW [%] RAW [N] RAW [%] RAW [N] RAW [%]
Original 5.339 — 8.625 — 6.957 —
1 3.616 -32.26 7.128 -17.34 8.853 27.26
5 6.494 21.64 8.996 4.31 6.653 -4.36
12 6.160 15.39 8.773 1.72 6.599 -5.13
14 5.674 6.29 8.786 1.87 6.862 -1.34
18 3.462 -35.14 6.844 -20.64 9.013 29.56
Focusing on the common wavelength of 120% of LPP, it is seen again that the variations in resistance
are larger with the second approach than with the initial one: the maximum reduction goes from a 4%
to a 20%. Out of the selected designs there is none displaying such a large increase at this wavelength;
however, moving to some of the other wavelengths present on the table these percentages grow even
larger. All in all, this shows large differences in the added resistance between designs, percentages
definitely bigger than for the first approach. With the second approach, there is higher room for
improvement and reduction of the wave resistance of the KVLCC2 in waves; even if the designs used
as example are not good enough due to too large shape variations or other reasons, this
parametrization with other values yielding minor hull form changes would still be a good tool to find
shapes with significantly big resistance reductions.
51
Summary and conclusions
7. Summary and conclusions

This project has consisted of analysing the changes in the seakeeping performance of two ships when
they are subjected to parametric hull form variations. To do so, the wave resistance has been the focus
of the project. First it was observed in calm water; later, in regular head waves, from whose difference
the added resistance due to waves was extracted and used as the object of study. The first ship used
has been the Wigley hull, a simple model for which an extensive work has been performed, both in
waves and in calm water. The second one has been the KVLCC2, an oil tanker, for which a parallel
study was conducted focusing on the most interesting scenarios. Due to the conclusions extracted from
the Wigley hull and initial simulations with this ship, some features from the first one were later
replicated with the KVLCC2 to analyse the similarities.
All in all, it must be noted how time consuming this project has been. In total, 336 simulations have
been carried out (236 for the Wigley hull and 100 for the KVLCC2), counting the ones performed with
original hulls, modified designs, all sea conditions tested and mesh dependence studies; and that does
not include all the previous simulations part of the learning process of how to use the software.
Depending on the shape of the hull and the condition simulated, a single simulation with a fine mesh
can last between four and eight hours as an average. A normal computer allows to run up to four
simulations in parallel, speeding the process about one third; however, the chance of using the SSPA
cluster, which allows to carry out many more simulations at the same time, has reduced significantly
the time spent on computation.
The simulations have been performed with the ships at model size. The Wigley hull uses a length of
4.924 meters, while the length of KVLCC2 is of 4.706 meters, so the numerical values in Newton of
resistance correspond to that size. Despite that, as the module of Shipflow is a potential flow solver,
ignoring the viscous effects, the only step necessary to translate those results to real size is to apply the
scale factor. However, the percentages of variation in results are kept the same, no matter what the
actual size of the model is. That is why these can be accurately analysed, and the conclusions extracted
can be applied to all ship sizes.
7.1. Encountered difficulties
This project has presented many challenges at all stages. To begin with one, it would be the choice of
the Froude number used for the Wigley hull study. With such an academic type of hull, there is not a
defined design speed, and a wide range of velocities have been used in many previous studies. But
only one could be chosen for the project, and the benefits of choosing the final Fn=0.316 were many.
First, it was already included in the Shipflow pack as a part of the examples and tutorials, so it was
proven to work correctly. At the same time, this value fell comfortably in the range of most used
speeds in the literature, and it was close to a velocity for which there was a lot of reliable data for
comparison. And finally, while the KVLCC2 has a Froude number typical of big displacement ships,
this one for Wigley is too high for it; this speed falls in the range of semi-displacement ships, which
are ordinarily smaller craft than oil tankers. This difference brings variety to the project, but at the
same time it must be taken into account when comparisons are to be stablished between the two ships:
what could be an improvement at a Froude number of 0.142, could mean something different at
Fn=0.316.
Many more problems appeared during the parametrization phase of the hulls. Parametrizing some
aspects as the length and height of the bulb was fairly simple and straightforward, as tutorials have it
easily described. However, when it comes to the main surface of the hull, deciding how to do the
52
parametrization was trickier. Controlling it through spline lines did not yield successful results, so the
point control grid was used as the best alternative. Then, first for the Wigley hull, it had to be decided
how many parameters to use and how to integrate them with the control grid. The first attempts often
ended in hull forms that did not look like a ship at all or in infeasible designs; then the attenuation
factors were introduced and all parameters were set to have influence at most parts of the hull, it being
smaller or bigger depending on these multiplier factors. As the parametrization of both ships was
carried out almost in parallel, the KVLCC2 was parametrized paying more attention to the bulb and
using the simpler WL_angle and Flare_angle parameters for the forebody, following most of the
literature approaches. When the results were analysed, it was observed that the influence of the
changes in the bulb was significantly smaller than the ones of the general hull. Then it was decided to
adapt the parametrization used for the hull of the Wigley hull to the KVLCC2, in order to try to find
larger variations in the resistance than the ones with the initial approach.
Another issue with the parametrization appeared when the parameters used did not change the hull in
the desired form. The best example of this is the WL_angle of the KVLCC2, which was intended to
simply vary the entrance angle at the waterline. Instead of that, it ended changing the entire general
shape of the forebody of the ship; although it still affects the entrance angle, it mostly makes the hull
form change between a V and U type of ship. Another case, also with the KVLCC2, was produced
when the angle between the bulb and the bow in the vertical plane was tried to be parametrized. Many
efforts were put into it, but the best results only accomplished to modify the bulb and bow together;
when different values where given to this parameter, the resistance results obtained turned out to be
exactly the same that the ones produced by the Bulb_position parameter, so this line of work was
ended.
Other difficulties appeared in the phase of simulations. Once the speed was decided, the simulations in
calm water were straightforward. However, in waves there were some decisions to be made. The range
of wavelengths was chosen to be between a 30% and a 200% of each ship’s length because these
wavelengths are the most commonly studied. Then, the exact cases chosen to be simulated for the
initial software validation with the KVLCC2 were due to those cases also being quite popular in the
studies found for the ship. When the setup of cases had to be done for the Wigley hull, it was only
logical to follow the same one already used. But looking at the results of the first cases simulated with
the Wigley, it was quickly seen that some changes could be introduced. The most interesting area was
between the wavelengths of 100% and 160% of the Wigley’s length; it did not appear to be necessary
to include the wavelength of 90% (widely seen in the literature research of the KVLCC2), but instead
it seemed to be more interesting to introduce an extra case at a wavelength of 130%. Here the
differences between designs could be more relevant; later it was observed that the larger added wave
resistance value for most of the designs tested appeared at this last wavelength.
The focus of the simulations in waves of the KVLCC2 was on the wavelength of 1.2 times the ship’s
length, because the software validation showed that the peak of added resistance due to waves is
produced around here. As the study of the Wigley hull has shown, the larger differences in added
resistance appear close to this peak; so it is good enough to pay attention to this area and ignore the
results at the less relevant wavelengths at the ends. However, if only the wavelength where the peak is
produced is analysed, it can lead to an error: the Wigley hull shows that a certain modification in the
hull can be good to improve resistance at a certain wavelength, but terribly bad for a close value. Thus,
disregarding too the wavelengths similar to 120% could cause that these variations are not taken into
account. The hull form variations produced for the initial parametrization of KVLCC2 are considered
to be too similar to the original hull to change too much the wavelength of the larger resistance value,
but there could still be some error; on the other hand, the second approach, in the stage introducing the
53
Wigley hull parametrization, creates hull forms different enough to actually alter this peak. That is
why not only the wavelength of 1.2 is simulated, but the simulations are done also at 1 and 1.4,
showing that the peak gets displaced to higher wavelengths for certain parametric variations.
Then comes the question of how trustworthy all these results obtained from the simulations are. The
software validation performed with the original KVLCC2 shows a good accuracy of Shipflow results
compared to all the other data available in regular waves. The original Wigley hull in calm water also
has a wave resistance coefficient in agreement with the results of other researchers. This alone already
proves that the results will be loyal to reality, but the performed mesh dependence studies help to
confirm this supposition. For the Wigley hull, the results of wave resistance change around a 2% as
maximum when the number of panels used for the simulation are either divided or multiplied by 4.
This is a small percentage, considering how much the number of panels (and the computation time
needed) change at the same time. For the KVLCC2, the findings are curious: in calm water, coarser
meshes than the one used show variations of almost a 50% of the wave resistance, while with the next
finer mesh the variation will be of only about 1.5%. And in regular head waves, the percentages vary
quite a lot depending on the wavelength observed. However, for the most relevant wavelengths
between 100-140% of the ship’s length the variations are smaller and point to reliable results: with a
mesh four times coarser than the one used the wave resistance never changes more than a 5%, while
improving its precision about one third will not change the result more than 1%.
Taking all these issues into account, it has also to be remembered that the seakeeping performance of
the ships is evaluated only assuming calm water and regular head waves simulations, the latter being
unusual in open seas. Irregular sea states and side waves are ignored. The influence of the amplitude of
the waves is not studied either, as it is kept as a constant percentage through the different cases (2% of
the wavelength when this one is smaller than the length of the hull, 1% when it is larger). And also
only one speed is evaluated, while normally the ship would change it depending on the sea state
encountered. These situations act as limitations of the project, reminding that there are many aspects of
a ship’s real performance that are simplified in order to obtain manageable results.
7.2. General conclusions
Starting with the Wigley hull, it has been seen that although a change in the displacement is normally
related to a direct change in the wave resistance, especially with the bigger variations, with small
changes it is not necessarily like that. A bigger displacement will not automatically indicate a larger
resistance, if the new shape is better than the old one; as an example, in calm water many of the
designs better than the original have a greater displacement. Continuing in the calm water part of the
evaluation, it has been noticed that despite the best designs having differences between them, they also
have some common features: the hull is more rounded under the water, especially close to the
waterline, but it transitions to a sharper shape with smaller entrance angles at the waterline and above
it.
At the same time, these Wigley designs present larger resistance variations when they are evaluated in
the full range of head waves than the original hull; they also have larger resistance than many other
designs. Their performance is tricky, as up to a wavelength of 120% of the ship’s length they appear to
have a good added wave resistance. However, when the wavelength rises above this value, the
performance of these designs gets suddenly bad. On the other hand, some of the designs that did not
perform so well in calm water have a smaller wave added resistance through the studied wavelengths,
some of them even being better than the original Wigley in all cases. The characteristic features of
these hulls with better added resistance due to waves are a sharp entrance angle near the baseline,
which turns to a more rounded shape when it approaches the waterline.
54
With the first parametrization approach of the KVLCC2, the one focusing mostly on bulb
modifications, the changes produced by parametric variation in the displacement of the model are of
less than a 0.5% even for the bigger modifications; this is considered to be a too small change to have
a direct effect over the wave resistance. What is seen in the section 5.2.2 is that the results of
parametric variations, especially the ones in the bulb, have also a small influence, with many cases
yielding a change of wave resistance lower than 2%. However, there is one thing that can be assured,
and it is that increasing even slightly the WL_angle and Flare_angle parameters will have a large,
negative effect over the resistance. On the other hand, reducing them, as well as lowering the bulb
position and the height of its tip, would have a beneficial influence; but it would be considerably small
compared to the consequences of altering the first two in that way.
In regular head waves, the results of these parametric hull form variations of the KVLCC2 are smaller
than in calm water. Even changing the parameters that had a bigger influence in calm water yields a
variation in added wave resistance of only about a 4%; still, the variations they produce are about
twice as big as the ones created by the other parametric modifications. Despite the reduction in the
percentages, the trends seen in calm water are mostly kept. Improvements in added wave resistance are
produced by reducing the flare angle and making the ship more V-shaped; shortening the bulb also
seems to have a positive effect. On the other hand, the most significant change is seen in the height
and length of the bulb: while in calm water changing the length had no effect and reducing the height
was good, the opposite happens at this wavelength. Here changing the height does not affect the result,
while reducing the length has a good influence on the resistance.
After seeing this, the KVLCC2 was parametrized again following the same strategy used for the
Wigley hull. With that parametrization, the KVLCC2 was given values that mimic some of the most
representative modified designs used with the Wigley hull: a couple that are better than the original in
calm water, another one clearly worse in calm water, and other two regular in calm water but with a
fairly good performance in waves. Simulating the modified KVLCC2 with these hull forms shows
that, in calm water, the percentages of change of the wave resistance are practically the same as the
observed with the Wigley hull: a reduction of over a 6% is reached, something impossible with the
original parametrization. The simulations in regular head waves also exhibit practically the same
trends here of the Wigley hull and larger variations in the numerical results, with the best designs in
calm water performing good up to a certain wavelength (one of them even giving a reduction of added
wave resistance over a 20% compared to the 4% obtained with the previous parametrization) clearly
worsening after it. At the same time, the worst designs get better with increasing wavelengths,
showing better behaviours than the original KVLCC2 around the peaks of higher resistance.
In general, these last results show that the same parametric modifications would affect in similar ways
the Wigley hull and the KVLCC2, producing similar shapes in order to improve wave resistance in
both calm water and regular head waves. This happens despite the differences between the original
hulls: the Wigley hull is sharp, while the KVLCC2 has a clear U-shape. Also, the presence of the bulb
in KVLCC2 is something that has a big influence over the ship’s wave resistance, and it cannot be
mirrored in the Wigley hull. Besides all that, the speeds used are also different, with the Wigley hull’s
Froude number being around twice the KVLCC2’s, which makes the two ships work in different
regimes. Even with all this, the results show that the best shapes in calm water are more rounded
underwater and especially near the baseline, while they should get thinner when they approach the
waterline, where the entrance angle should be sharper. These shapes will also produce good results in
regular waves, reducing the added wave resistance significantly, up to a wavelength of 120% of the
length of the ship; after that, their performance drops abruptly. On the other hand, when these hulls
have sharper shapes near the baseline and the more rounded part is upper, closer to the waterline, the
55
performance can be slightly worse in calm water; however, they exhibit a better behaviour in waves
almost independently of the wavelength, showing smaller variations and larger improvements.
All things considered, this project has helped me to deepen my understanding in seakeeping
performance of different kinds of ships. I learnt a lot more about added resistance in waves, and how
big and important is the role it plays compared to the total resistance. It has also been useful to observe
how some small variations in the surface of a hull can have a large impact on the resistance it will
have when navigating in waves; but also to see how some larger changes can barely have any effect.
As a consequence, the existing techniques of ship hull optimization have been analysed and applied in
a fitting way. And last but not least, I have experienced how to work with CFD software for a large
task, learning about troubleshooting, functioning, configurations and more, gaining an invaluable
knowledge.
56
References
8. References
[1] Wu C, Zhou D, Gao L, Miao Q, CFD computation of ship motions and added resistance for a high
speed trimaran in regular head waves, International Journal of Naval Architecture and Ocean
Engineering 3 (2011) 105-110.
[2] Zhang S, Zhang B, Tezdogan T, Xu L, Lai Y, Computational fluid dynamics-based hull form
optimization using approximation method, Engineering Applications of Computational Fluid
Mechanics Vol. 12 No. 1 (2018) 74-88.
[3] Raven H, van der Ploeg A, Starke A, Towards a CFD-based prediction of ship performance —
Progress in predicting full-scale resistance and scale effects, Marine CFD, The Royal Institution of
Naval Architects (2008).
[4] Choi H, Hull-form optimization of a container ship based on bell-shaped modification function,
International Journal of Naval Architecture and Ocean Engineering 7 (2015) 478-489.
[5] Grigoropoulos G, Chalkias D, Hull-form optimization in calm and rough water, Computer-Aided
Design 42 (2010) 977-984.
[6] Yang X, Ye H, Feng D, Computational research on wave making of moving Wigley hull in time
domain, Journal of Hydrodynamics 20-4 (2008) 469-476.
[7] Tzabiras G, Kontogiannis K, An integrated method for predicting the hydrodynamic resistance of
low-CB ships, Computer-Aided Design 42 (2010) 985-1000.
[8] Fang M, Chen T, A parametric study of wave loads on trimaran ships travelling in waves, Ocean
Engineering 35 (2008) 749-762.
[9] Castiglione T, Stern F, Bova S, Kandasamy M, Numerical investigation of the seakeeping behavior
of a catamaran advancing in regular head waves, Ocean Engineering 38 (2011) 1806-1822.
[10] Sun T, Yuan M, Wang W, Ye N, Study of wave added resistance on Wigley ship, Applied
Mechanics and Materials 468 (2014) 105-109.
[11] Guo B, Steen S, Evaluation of added resistance of KVLCC2 in short waves, Journal of
Hydrodynamics 23-6 (2011) 709-722.
[12] Kim M, Hizir O, Turan O, Incecik A, Numerical studies on added resistance and motions of
KVLCC2 in head seas for various ship speeds, Ocean Engineering 140 (2017) 466-476.
[13] Koechert C, Automatic CFD Optimizing of Hull Forms Using Strategy-Driven Transformation
Functions, 6th International Conference on Computer and IT Applications in the Maritime Industries
(2007) 523-529.
[14] Kim H, Choi J, Chun H, Hull-form optimization using parametric modification functions and
particle swarm optimization, Journal of Marine Science and Technology 21 (2016) 129-144.
[15] Tungadio D, Jordaan J, Siti M, Power system state estimation solution using modified models of
PSW algorithm: comparative study, Measurement 92 (2016) 508-523.
[16] Zhang S, Tezdogan T, Zhang B, Xu L, Lai Y, Hull form optimisation in waves based on CFD
technique, Ships and Offshore Structures Vol. 13 No. 2 (2018) 149-164.
57
References
[17] Bagheri H, Ghassemi H, Optimization of Wigley Hull Form in order to Ensure the Objective
Functions of the Seakeeping Performance, Journal of Marine Science and Application 13 (2014) 422-
429.
[18] Han B, Seo J, Lee S, Seol D, Ehee S, Uncertainty assessment for a towed underwater stereo PIV
system by uniform flow measurement, International Journal of Naval Architecture and Ocean
Engineering 9 (2017) 1-13.
[19] Park J, Choi J, Chun H, Hull-form optimization of KSUEZMAX to enhance resistance

performance, International Journal of Naval Architecture and Ocean Engineering 7 (2015) 100-114.
[20] Larsson L, Stern F, Visonneau M, Numerical Ship Hydrodynamics. An assessment of the

Gothenburg 2010 Workshop, ISBN 978-94-007-7189-5, Springer (2014).
[21] Guo D, Steen S, Deng G, Seakeeping prediction of KVLCC2 in head waves with RANS, Applied
Ocean Research 35 (2012) 56-67.
[22] Chen C, Noblesse F, Comparison Between Theoretical Predictions of Wave Resistance and
Experimental Data for the Wigley Hull, Journal of Ship Research Vol. 27 No. 4 (1983) 215-226.
[23] Cui H, Turan O, Application of a new multi-agent Hybrid Co-evolution based Particle Swarm
Optimisation methodology in ship design, Computer-Aided Design 42 (2010) 1013-1027.
[24] Yu J, Lee C, Lee I, Choi J, Bow hull-form optimization in waves of a 66,000 DWT bulk carrier,
International Journal of Naval Architecture and Ocean Engineering 9 (2017) 499-508.
[25] Papanikolau A, Holistic ship design optimization, Computer-Aided Design 42 (2010) 1028-1044.
[26] Huang J, Feng B, Investigation on Optimization Strategies for the Hydrodynamic Design of
DTMB 5415, Advanced Material Research Vols. 479-481 (2012) 1950-1954.
[27] Kang J, Lee B, Mesh-based morphing method for rapid hull form generation, Computer-Aided
Design 42 (2010) 970-976.
[28] Zhang B, Zhang Z, Research on theoretical optimization and experimental verification of

minimum resistance hull form based on Rankine source method, International Journal of Naval
Architecture and Ocean Engineering 7 (2015) 785-794.
[29] Feng B, Liu Z, Zhan C, Chang H, Cheng X, Ship hull automatic optimization techniques research
based on CFD, IEEE 10th International Conference on Computer-Aided Industrial Design &
Conceptual Design (2009) 663-667.
[30] Hawkes G, Scott R, Payne A, Rees S, Enhancement of marine craft design through the CFMS
programme: studies on the effect of meshing techniques and solver discretisation on solution fidelity
and computational cost, Marine CFD, The Royal Institution of Naval Architects (2008).
[31] Maisonneuve J, Dauce F, Towards ship optimal design involving CFD, Computational Fluid
Dynamics Technology in Ship Hydrodynamics, The Royal Institution of Naval Architects (2003).
[32] Starke B, Windt J, Two examples of hull-form optimization using viscous-flow computations,
Computational Fluid Dynamics Technology in Ship Hydrodynamics, The Royal Institution of Naval
Architects (2003).
58
References
[33] Dinham-Peren T, Craddock C, Lebas A, Ganguly A, Use of CFD for hull form and appendage
design assessment on an offshore patrol vessel and the identification of a wake focussing effect,
Marine CFD, The Royal Institution of Naval Architects (2008).
[34] Yu W, Chen X, Wu G, Liu J, Hearn G, A fast numerical method for trimaran wave resistance
prediction, Ocean Engineering 107 (2015) 70-84.
[35] Inoue Y, Kamruzzaman M, Analysis of hydrodynamic characteristics for arbitrary multihull ships
advancing in waves, Journal of Marine Science and Technology 13 (2008) 231-243.
[36] Zaghi S, Broglia R, Di Mascio A, Analysis of the interference effect for high-speed catamarans
by model tests and numerical simulations, Ocean Engineering 38 (2011) 2110-2122.
[37] Xu M, Zhang S, A numerical study on side hull optimization for trimaran, Journal of
Hydrodynamics 23-2 (2011) 265-272.
[38] Bouscasse B, Broglia R, Stern F, Experimental investigation of a fast catamaran in head waves,
Ocean Engineering 72 (2013) 318-330.
[39] Broglia R, Jacob B, Zaghi S, Stern F, Olivieri A, Experimental investigation of interference

effects for high-speed catamarans, Ocean Engineering 76 (2014) 75-85.
[40] Wang Z, Lu X, Numerical simulation of wave resistance of trimarans by nonlinear wave making
theory with sinking and trim being taken into account, Journal of Hydrodynamics 23-2 (2011) 224-
233.
[41] Yang C, Löhner R, Soto O, Optimization of a wave cancellation multihull ship using CFD tools,
Practical Design of Ships and Other Floating Structures (2001) 43-50.
[42] Tahara Y, Peri D, Campana E, Stern F, Single- and multiobjective design optimization of a fast
multihull ship: numerical and experimental results, Journal of Marine Science and Technology 16
(2011) 412-433.
[43] Hochkirch K, Mallol B, On the Importance of Full-Scale CFD Simulations for Ships, 12th
International Conference on Computer Applications and Information Technology in the Maritime
Industries (2013) 85-95.
[44] Alexandersson M, A Study of Methods to Predict Added Resistance in Waves, Master Thesis,
KTH Royal Institute of Technology Centre for Naval Architecture (2009).
[45] Tupper E, Introduction to Naval Architecture. Seakeeping, 4th edition (2004) 233-252.
[46] Course slides of Propulsion, Barcelona School of Nautical Studies, UPC Polytechnic University
of Catalonia-BarcelonaTech (2014).
[47] Shipflow Design Tutorials. Basic, Shipflow Revision 17 (2017).
[48] Shipflow Design Tutorials. Advanced, Shipflow Revision 4 (2017).
[49] Tutorials for Shipflow Motions 6.3, Shipflow (2017).
[50] Forebody Partially Parametric Model Description, Internal document at SSPA (2015).
59
Appendix A
9. Appendix A
Results of Wigley data obtained from the simulations with Shipflow. There is presented the wave
resistance, RW, for all 20 modified designs and the original hull at its model size; first, for the
simulations in calm water, and then for the different regular head waves cases. From their difference it
is obtained the added resistance due to waves, Raw, in both Newton and as a percentage.
Calm water Waves 30% LPP Waves 50% LPP
Design RW [N] RW [N] Raw [N] Raw [%] RW [N] Raw [N] Raw [%]
1 15.156 15.196 0.03903 0.26 14.789 -0.3672 -2.42
2 15.602 15.621 0.01895 0.12 15.168 -0.434 -2.78
3 15.564 15.580 0.01562 0.10 15.125 -0.4397 -2.83
4 17.964 17.882 -0.0828 -0.46 17.342 -0.622 -3.46
5 18.404 18.322 -0.0823 -0.45 17.723 -0.6816 -3.70
6 17.402 17.333 -0.0701 -0.40 16.763 -0.6401 -3.68
7 17.046 16.904 -0.1428 -0.84 16.399 -0.6479 -3.80
8 15.756 15.727 -0.0296 -0.19 15.263 -0.493 -3.13
9 17.124 17.016 -0.1086 -0.63 16.477 -0.648 -3.78
10 16.198 16.237 0.03847 0.24 15.732 -0.4666 -2.88
11 16.210 16.230 0.01931 0.12 15.732 -0.4792 -2.96
12 16.904 16.760 -0.1443 -0.85 16.268 -0.6371 -3.77
13 15.994 15.991 -0.0036 -0.02 15.504 -0.49 -3.06
14 16.567 16.465 -0.1025 -0.62 15.984 -0.584 -3.52
15 17.430 17.274 -0.1564 -0.90 16.747 -0.6829 -3.92
16 17.174 17.001 -0.1727 -1.01 16.5 -0.6741 -3.92
17 15.987 15.950 -0.037 -0.23 15.476 -0.5108 -3.19
18 15.369 15.423 0.05357 0.35 14.996 -0.3741 -2.43
19 17.293 17.095 -0.1981 -1.15 16.598 -0.695 -4.02
20 16.777 16.636 -0.1414 -0.84 16.151 -0.6262 -3.73
Original 16.146 16.086 -0.06 -0.37 15.609 -0.5373 -3.33
60
Appendix A
Waves 70% LPP Waves 100% LPP Waves 120% LPP
Design RW [N] Raw [N] Raw [%] RW [N] Raw [N] Raw [%] RW [N] Raw [N] Raw [%]
1 15.388 0.23169 1.53 16.673 1.51611 10.00 20.72 5.56355 36.71
2 15.76 0.15783 1.01 17.182 1.57955 10.12 21.975 6.37256 40.84
3 15.727 0.16197 1.04 17.202 1.63701 10.52 22.329 6.76452 43.46
4 18.039 0.07519 0.42 20.421 2.45658 13.67 26.617 8.65258 48.17
5 18.377 -0.0273 -0.15 20.521 2.11663 11.50 26.659 8.25431 44.85
6 17.318 -0.0848 -0.49 18.776 1.37356 7.89 23.586 6.18353 35.53
7 17.047 1.2E-05 0.00 19.094 2.04739 12.01 25.187 8.14047 47.75
8 15.861 0.10475 0.66 17.409 1.65307 10.49 22.725 6.96925 44.23
9 17.058 -0.067 -0.39 18.639 1.51416 8.84 23.612 6.4875 37.88
10 16.298 0.09922 0.61 17.548 1.34932 8.33 21.562 5.3633 33.11
11 16.308 0.09727 0.60 17.662 1.45173 8.96 22.317 6.10645 37.67
12 16.883 -0.0215 -0.13 18.786 1.88186 11.13 24.442 7.53771 44.59
13 16.107 0.11224 0.70 17.618 1.62388 10.15 22.833 6.83872 42.76
14 16.634 0.06655 0.40 18.671 2.103 12.69 24.968 8.4004 50.70
15 17.408 -0.0222 -0.13 19.538 2.1078 12.09 25.632 8.20193 47.06
16 17.17 -0.0037 -0.02 19.364 2.1894 12.75 25.649 8.47534 49.35
17 16.082 0.09468 0.59 17.760 1.77253 11.09 23.504 7.51677 47.02
18 15.585 0.21526 1.40 16.795 1.42478 9.27 20.312 4.94189 32.15
19 17.273 -0.0207 -0.12 19.537 2.24398 12.98 25.642 8.34871 48.28
20 16.794 0.01628 0.10 18.856 2.07843 12.39 24.76 7.98262 47.58
Original 16.216 0.06913 0.43 17.966 1.8199 11.27 23.7 7.55356 46.78
61
Appendix A
Waves 130% LPP Waves 140% LPP Waves 160% LPP
Design RW [N] Raw [N] Raw[%] RW [N] Raw [N] Raw [%] RW [N] Raw [N] Raw [%]
1 24.377 9.22136 60.84 23.343 8.18694 54.02 17.477 2.32013 15.31
2 24.922 9.32000 59.74 21.998 6.39541 40.99 17.171 1.56838 10.05
3 25.096 9.53213 61.24 21.894 6.32899 40.66 17.135 1.57008 10.09
4 25.523 7.55878 42.08 22.146 4.18133 23.28 19.158 1.19404 6.65
5 26.138 7.73404 42.02 22.644 4.23956 23.04 19.532 1.12748 6.13
6 25.718 8.31553 47.78 22.514 5.11087 29.37 18.461 1.05810 6.08
7 25.313 8.26642 48.49 21.621 4.57379 26.83 18.144 1.09669 6.43
8 24.802 9.04609 57.41 21.255 5.49848 34.90 17.030 1.27398 8.09
9 24.902 7.77774 45.42 21.582 4.45677 26.03 18.059 0.93436 5.46
10 24.721 8.52266 52.61 22.793 6.59423 40.71 17.780 1.58200 9.77
11 25.169 8.95885 55.26 22.293 6.08274 37.52 17.638 1.42733 8.80
12 24.613 7.70894 45.60 21.165 4.26022 25.20 17.885 0.98008 5.80
13 25.515 9.52110 59.53 22.269 6.27449 39.23 17.476 1.48206 9.27
14 25.354 8.78661 53.03 21.486 4.91761 29.68 17.768 1.19969 7.24
15 25.391 7.96176 45.68 21.792 4.36170 25.02 18.499 1.06845 6.13
16 25.381 8.20684 47.79 21.670 4.49589 26.18 18.285 1.11038 6.47
17 24.928 8.94128 55.93 21.244 5.25700 32.88 17.208 1.22050 7.63
18 23.726 8.35638 54.37 23.653 8.28326 53.89 17.820 2.45027 15.94
19 24.883 7.59057 43.89 21.439 4.14591 23.97 18.328 1.03466 5.98
20 24.628 7.85077 46.79 21.100 4.32284 25.77 17.806 1.02857 6.13
Original 24.948 8.80186 54.51 21.244 5.09738 31.57 17.318 1.17190 7.26
62
Appendix A
Waves 200% LPP
Design RW [N] Raw [N] Raw [%]
1 15.631 0.47483 3.13
2 16.080 0.47802 3.06
3 16.045 0.48094 3.09
4 18.486 0.52254 2.91
5 18.884 0.48029 2.61
6 17.767 0.36427 2.09
7 17.467 0.42056 2.47
8 16.180 0.42436 2.69
9 17.469 0.34433 2.01
10 16.626 0.42850 2.65
11 16.654 0.44392 2.74
12 17.279 0.37530 2.22
13 16.458 0.46450 2.90
14 17.037 0.46938 2.83
15 17.838 0.40875 2.35
16 17.587 0.41312 2.41
17 16.436 0.44916 2.81
18 15.819 0.44994 2.93
19 17.672 0.37887 2.19
20 17.180 0.40335 2.40
Original 16.581 0.43489 2.69
63
Appendix B
10. Appendix B
Full results of the Wigley hull mesh dependence study in regular head waves. The wave resistance
results with the default coarse, medium and fine meshes of Shipflow are presented. The percentages of
deviation are given compared to the fine mesh results.
Mesh Coarse Medium Fine

Panels 12,544 32,482 51,981
RW with waves 30% LPP [N] 15.847 15.879 16.086
Deviation [%] -1.48 -1.28 —
Deviation [%] -1.57 -1.03 —
Deviation [%] -1.52 -0.97 —
Deviation [%] -2.01 -0.90 —
Deviation [%] -0.78 -0.43 —
Deviation [%] -0.61 -0.21 —
Deviation [%] -0.88 -0.92 —
Deviation [%] -0.86 -1.21 —
Deviation [%] -2.22 -1.57 —
64
Appendix C
11. Appendix C
Numerical results of the simulations of parametrically modified KVLCC2 in regular head waves.
These results are obtained with the second parametrization approach, the same used for the Wigley
hull. First there is the displacement and the calm water resistance, both given as absolute values for the
model size used and as a percentage (relative to the original hull). Then there are the results for the
different regular head waves cases, where the absolute wave resistance and the added resistance due to
waves are presented. This last one is given both in Newton and as a percentage relative to each
design’s wave resistance in calm water.
Waves 100% LPP

Displacement Calm water RW
Design RW [N] Raw [N] Raw [%]
[kg] [%] [N] [%]
Original 992.658 — 1.472 — 6.811 5.33850 362.53
1 993.230 0.06 1.373 -6.70 4.990 3.61627 263.20
5 999.431 0.68 1.680 14.13 8.174 6.49417 386.41
12 992.913 0.03 1.554 5.55 7.714 6.16043 396.34
14 993.982 0.13 1.581 7.38 7.255 5.67473 358.87
18 994.330 0.17 1.399 -4.95 4.862 3.46245 247.38
Waves 120% LPP Waves 140% LPP

Design RW [N] Raw [N] Raw [%] RW [N] Raw [N] Raw [%]
Original 10.097 8.62456 585.69 8.429 6.95676 472.43
1 8.5025 7.12862 518.83 10.228 8.85365 644.38
5 10.677 8.99671 535.32 8.334 6.65310 395.87
12 10.327 8.77348 564.45 8.154 6.59956 424.59
14 10.367 8.78638 555.66 8.444 6.86290 434.02
18 8.2438 6.84421 488.99 10.413 9.01361 643.98
65
TRITA TRITA-SCI-GRU 2018:299
www.kth.se

Parametric Hull Form Variation & Assessment of Seakeeping Performance WIGLEY - 2018 PDF

Diunggah oleh

Informasi Dokumen

Judul Asli

Hak Cipta

Format Tersedia

Bagikan dokumen Ini

Bagikan atau Tanam Dokumen

Opsi Berbagi

Apakah menurut Anda dokumen ini bermanfaat?

Apakah konten ini tidak pantas?

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

Parametric Hull Form Variation & Assessment of Seakeeping Performance WIGLEY - 2018 PDF

Diunggah oleh

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

DEGREE PROJECT IN MECHANICAL ENGINEERING,

SECOND CYCLE, 30 CREDITS

Parametric Hull Form Variation and

AINA PONS ROSER

KTH ROYAL INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY

Degree Project in Mechanical Engineering, Second Cycle, 30 Credits

School of Engineering Sciences

Gothenburg, July 2018

2.2. Resistance and added resistance

Figure 1: Main components of hull resistance

Figure 2: Radiating waves from the ship induced by vertical oscillation

Added wave resistance is an important factor in a large ship’s performance. It is of especial

2.3. CFD simulation methods

2.4. Ship hull form optimization

2.4.1. Transformation functions

2.4.2. Particle Swarm Optimization (PSO)

𝑣𝑖𝑘+1 = 𝜒[𝑤 𝑘 𝑣𝑖𝑘 + 𝑐1 𝑟1𝑘 (𝑝𝑖𝑘 − 𝑥𝑖𝑘 ) + 𝑐2 𝑟2𝑘 (𝑝𝑔𝑘 − 𝑥𝑖𝑘 )]

𝑥𝑖𝑘+1 = 𝑥𝑖𝑘 + 𝑣𝑖𝑘

2.4.3. Particle Swarm Without Velocity equation (PSWV)

2.4.4. Sequential Quadratic Programming (SQP)

2.4.5. Arbitrary Shape Deformation (ASD)

2.4.6. Genetic Algorithms (GA)

2.5. Ship hulls of the study

2.5.1. Wigley hull

Figure 3: Body plan and 3D view of the Wigley hull

Figure 4: Body plan and profiles of KVLCC2 [18]

KVLCC2 main particulars

3.1. Wigley hull

High factors Medium factors

Un_high factors Low factors Un_low factors

Figure 7: Longitudinal multiplying factor for the Wigley hull parametrization

Design number High Medium Un_high Low Un_low

3.2.1. Initial approach

Figure 14: Surface control grid for the WL_angle parameter

WL_angle longitudinal multiplier

Figure 15: Longitudinal multiplying factor for the WL_angle parameter

Flare_angle longitudinal multiplier

Figure 16: Longitudinal multiplying factor for the Flare_angle parameter

3.2.2. Second approach

Design number High Medium Un_high Low Un_low

4.1. Validation setup

Design speed Froude Scale Model speed Water temperature

Wave Wave Length Wave Height Wave Length Wave Amplitude

4.2. Validation results and evaluation

Coe ffi c i e nt for a dde d re s i s ta nc e i n w a ve s vs λ / L

5. Resistance in calm water

5.1. Wigley hull

5.1.1. Original Wigley hull

Table 7: Results of simulation of the original Wigley hull in calm waves

Model Model Wave Wave

5.1.2. Modified Wigley hull designs

Design number Displacement [kg] 103*CW RW [N] RW variation in %

RW and Displacement of Wigley modified designs

5.2.1. Original KVLCC2

Figure 25: Wave pattern of KVLCC2 in calm water at design speed

5.2.2. Modified KVLCC2, first approach

Value = -2 Value = -1 Value = +1 Value = +2

5.2.3. Modified KVLCC2, second approach

Design Calm water RW [N] RW variation [%]

6. Resistance in regular head waves

6.1. Wigley hull

6.1.1. Setup of cases and results

-5 0.3 0.5 0.7 0.9 1.1 1.3 1.5 1.7 1.9