Ocean Engineering 187 (2019) 106165

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Ocean Engineering
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/oceaneng

Equivalent standard manoeuvres for pod-driven ships

Maciej Reichel a, b, *
a
Ship Handling Research and Training Centre, Foundation for Safety of Navigation and Environment Protection, Gda�
nsk, Poland
b
Faculty of Ocean Engineering and Ship Technology, Gda�
nsk University of Technology, Gda�nsk, Poland

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: Procedures for carrying out the manoeuvring tests presented in International Maritime Organisation (IMO)
Ship manoeuvring resolution MSC.137(76) are based on the capabilities of ships with conventional steering-propulsion systems.
Pod propulsion Therefore they do not correspond to ships with other steering-propulsion devices, like pod drives. IMO is aware
IMO
of this shortcoming and for ships with non-conventional steering and propulsion system may permit the use of
Standard manoeuvring tests
Free running model tests
comparative steering angles to the rudder angles specified by the resolution.
Manned model To elaborate these comparative angles for pod-driven gas carrier, experiments with free-sailing manned model
have been carried out. For comparison two sister ships have been taken into consideration, i.e. twin-pod and
twin-propeller twin-rudder configurations.
For both ship versions, manoeuvres according to standard IMO procedures have been carried out. For twin-pod
configuration, additionally manoeuvres with various pod propulsor settings have been performed to find the
comparative, i.e. rudder-equivalent pod propulsor angles.
Results show an obvious fact, that for twin-pod ship version similar results of standard manoeuvre parameters,
as for twin-propeller twin-rudder version, are obtained for other than IMO recommended 35� steering angle. It is
shown that, for turning circle parameters, a single comparative or rudder-equivalent angle does not exist. Various
turning circle parameters are obtained for different pod propulsor angles.

1. Introduction
Majority of ships have to satisfy manoeuvring standards issued by the
International Maritime Organisation. Elaboration of these standards was
initiated in 1960’s and published as a final resolution with explanatory
notes in 2002 (International Maritime Organization, 2002). Testing
procedures presented in these documents are based on analysis of
manoeuvring abilities of ships, especially with insufficient turning and
course keeping abilities. However, to prepare the rules and requirements
regarding standard manoeuvring tests, only ships with conventional
propeller-rudder systems were taken into consideration.
Therefore, as shipbuilding industry is rather conservative, designers
and researchers applied the IMO manoeuvring standards to pod-driven
ships with some suspicions (Reichel, 2017).
In case of pod-driven ships, the practice of applying the same steering
angles as for ships with conventional steering-propulsion system during
manoeuvring tests might be for different reasons questioned. Experi­
ments with similar ships equipped with either conventional unit or pod
propulsion unit have been conducted to compare manoeuvring abilities
of those ships (Toxopeus and Loeff, 2002). It was concluded that turning
ability of the specific ship with pod propulsors, which was investigated,
is better than the one with conventional propeller-rudder arrangement.
On the other hand it was shown that IMO standards could be satisfied
already for much smaller pod steering angles.
Similar research about differences of manoeuvring abilities of ships
with conventional rudders and pod drives is presented in the case of fast
ro-pax ship (Woodward et al., 2002). First of all, results of turning circle
tests present an evident fact, that the podded ship shows some im­
provements over the classical arrangement. Furthermore, to reach the
same turning circle parameters, helm angles are definitely smaller for
pod propulsors than for classic rudders. However, no quantitative
analysis of those angles is provided. Comparable qualitative results of
model tests of a generic frigate with twin tractor pods is presented by
Ball (2004). One of the conclusion was, that for certain Froude number
both the tactical diameter and speed loss in steady turn for integrate
hull-pod frigate with 25� pod azimuth angle were similar to that for
conventional frigate with a 35� rudder angle.
As a consequence, smaller pod propulsor deflection angles will

* .Foundation for Safety of Navigation and Environment Protection, Chrzanowskiego 36, 80-387 Gda�
nsk, Poland.
E-mail address: maciejr@portilawa.com.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.oceaneng.2019.106165
Received 29 October 2018; Received in revised form 3 June 2019; Accepted 29 June 2019
Available online 9 July 2019
0029-8018/© 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
M. Reichel Ocean Engineering 187 (2019) 106165

minimise the risk of high loads on the pod housings. Especially during and over, and chemical tankers and gas carriers regardless of the length.
first phase of turning circle the forces on pod propulsors might be even Regarding the test parameters that relate to steering device settings,
as much as twice larger than during the steady phase (Woodward et al., the Standards say:
2009) and therefore result in failures and damages.
Other reason for questioning the IMO standard steering angles, ◦ Turning circle manoeuvre is the manoeuvre to be performed to both
especially for fast and slender ships, could be minimising the risk of large starboard and port with 35� rudder angle or the maximum rudder
heel angles during turning circles. Heel angles during turning, especially angle permissible at the test speed, following a steady approach with
in the first phase of turn might reach large (Betancourt, 2003) or zero yaw rate.
extremely large values of up to 30� (Toxopeus and Loeff, 2002). The ◦ The 10� /10� zig-zag test is performed by turning the rudder alter­
reason of such phenomena might be the differences in hull shape be­ nately by 10� to either side following a heading deviation of 10� from
tween conventional and pod-driven sister ships, much higher steering the original heading in accordance with the following procedure:
rates for pods than for rudders or simply different metacentric height. 1. after a steady approach with zero yaw rate, the rudder is put over
These factors are inseparable from the pod-driven ship design and as to 10� to starboard or port (first execute);
such cannot be redesigned. The main reason for huge difference in 2. when the heading has changed to 10� off the original heading, the
maximum heel angle for certain type of ships is much larger steering rudder is reversed to 10� to port or starboard (second execute);
force initiated by the pods than by rudders. A brief comparison of forces and
generated by pod propulsors and comparable rudders is presented by 3. after the rudder has been turned to port/starboard, the ship will
Toxopeus and Loeff (2002). The analysis was done for bollard pull continue turning in the original direction with decreasing turning
conditions, but it clearly shows the differences in longitudinal and rate. In response to the rudder, the ship should then turn to port/
lateral forces generated by both steering devices. As the transverse force starboard. When the ship has reached a heading of 10� to port/
generated by pod propulsors in open water conditions is almost inde­ starboard of the original course the rudder is again reversed to 10�
pendent of the advance coefficient (Grygorowicz and Szantyr, 2004; to starboard/port (third execute).
Reichel, 2007) it may be concluded that the same applies to the behind ◦ The 20� /20� zig-zag test is performed using the procedure given
hull conditions. above using 20� rudder angles and 20� change of heading, instead of
It should be underlined that, the applicability of the IMO criteria as 10� rudder angles and 10� change of heading, respectively.
such is not questioned in this paper. The IMO criteria can be applied
directly as they provide equivalent information about the manoeuvring It has to be noted, that these procedures have been developed for and
response of pod-driven ships as for conventionally propelled ships on the basis of ships with conventional steering and propulsion systems.
(Woodward et al., 2009). The value of 35� steering angle, opposite to the conventional rudders,
The main objective of the paper was to show that although the angles does not therefore mean much in the case of pod propulsors. It is also not
on pod propulsors are smaller than those required by IMO for turning possible to define the maximum angle for non-conventional steering-
circle, the manoeuvring criteria are met and therefore the requirement propulsion devices, as they can produce the steering force in any of 360�
of 35� of steering device for pod-driven ships is not necessary. Second directions. Therefore, the presented paper focuses on the turning circle
objective was to show, for which pod propulsor angles, the pod-driven standard test, as in this case, i.e. for larger steering angles, much more
ship response might be similar to the response of sister ship with con­ might be said about differences between hydrodynamics of pods and
ventional steering-propulsion system. Theses so called equivalent an­ rudders.
gles, i.e. pod propulsor angles, for which these responses are identical in
terms of different manoeuvring characteristics are found and discussed. 2.2. Specifics on model tests
Some preliminary results of this investigation have already been pre­
sented in Reichel (2018). All tests for both propulsion arrangement configurations have been
carried out for approach speed of around 1.26 m/s, which corresponds
2. Model tests to 12 knots in full scale. The tests have been carried out in April, June
and September 2018 at an open-air station at Ship Handling Research
A model of an LNG carrier built for ship handling training purposes and Training Centre near Ilawa in Poland. The lake is 59 ha large and
was used for described research. The model has been built to a scale 1:24 provides unique opportunity to check manoeuvring abilities of ships
in three sister ship versions with replaceable stern parts. The available both on deep and shallow water.
versions are: single-propeller single-rudder, twin-propeller twin-rudder Programme of model tests is shown in Table 1. First stage of exper­
and twin-pod with pulling propellers. During the presented research, iments covered tests carried out according to standard IMO procedure
those versions with two propellers have been used for experiments. including spiral, pull-out, turning and zig-zag tests, while the second
During the tests, manned model fully equipped for ship handling stage additional turning and zig-zag tests with various pod drive angles.
training was used. It was equipped with classic engine telegraph and The tested models were equipped with GPS system, with RTK
wheel for twin-propeller twin-rudder version and angle/thrust joysticks
for twin-pod version. Table 1
Model tests have been divided into three stages. First, when both ship Model tests programme.
versions have been checked according to IMO standard procedure; Test Twin-propeller Twin-pod version
second, when proposed manoeuvres with twin-pod version have been twin-rudder version
carried out for various, different than IMO recommended, steering de­
First stage Spiral �35, �25, �15, �10, 35, 25, 15, 10,
vice angles; third, when manoeuvring tests have been carried out for pod curve (� ) �5, �1, 0 6, 4, 1, 0, 1
propulsor deflections equal to equivalent angles determined after second 35, 25, 15, 10, 5,
stage of tests. 2, 1, 0, 1
Pull-out ( ) �
– �35 -> 0
Turning 35 35
2.1. IMO standard manoeuvres procedure circle (� )
Zig-zag (� ) 10/10, 20/20 10/10, 20/20
The Standards for ship manoeuvrability have been adopted by In­ Second Turning 10, 15, 25
ternational Maritime Organization (2002) and are the governing regu­ stage circle (� )
Zig-zag (� ) 15/15
lations for ships of all rudder and propulsion types, of 100 m in length

2
M. Reichel Ocean Engineering 187 (2019) 106165

reference station owned by Ship Handling Research and Training

Centre, what gives nominal position monitoring accuracy of 10 mm. The
heading was measured with the use of gyrocompass with 0.1� accuracy.
It should be noted, that both the approach speed, the course of the model
and the course changes were set manually, i.e. by a experienced
helmsman.

2.3. Investigated ship

The investigated LNG carrier is in full scale about 270 m long and has
the capacity of 160,000 cubic metres. Principal dimensions of the model
versions are shown in Table 2. In Figs. 1 and 2 shape of stern part of
tested models is presented. It has to be noted that both versions have
been designed according to the best knowledge to achieve the
compromise between propulsion and manoeuvring abilities. As a
consequence, the stern part of both ship versions differ slightly between
each other. Almost all of the differences are above the water, e.g. for
accommodation of steering gears. However, some minor odds might be
Fig. 1. Investigated LNG carrier in twin-propeller twin-rudder version.
seen on the underwater transom part including the length of rudder head
boxes. This may influence for instance roll response during manoeu­
vring, but should not change the overall conclusions on the equivalent
manoeuvres.
It should be mentioned that in case of twin-propeller twin-rudder
configuration the aft perpendicular is on the rudder stock and in case of
twin-pod configuration on the propulsors vertical axis.

3. Model test results

First of all, in case of both ship versions, the spiral curve has been
carried out to identify the first iteration of equivalent angles. Later on,
pull-out manoeuvre was carried out as additional test to check the twin-
pod version course instability. At the end of the first and during the
second stage of tests a set of turning circle and zig-zag tests presented in
Table 1 has been carried out. Results of both stages are however com­
bined to show the overall tendency and to clearly show the described
hydrodynamic phenomena.

3.1. Spiral curve

Fig. 2. Investigated LNG carrier in twin-pod version.

In Fig. 3 the spiral curves for both ship versions are presented. Dif­
angle should increase to match the equivalent pod angles.
ference in course stability for both tested ship versions is visible. The
reversed spiral curve for the twin-pod version has not been carried out, Furthermore, it cannot be expected, that all the analysed manoeu­
vring characteristics defined by IMO, like turning diameter, advance in
but based on previous experience, an instability loop width of around 6�
might be predicted. It is noted, that for twin-propeller twin-rudder turning circle and overshoot angles will have the same or even similar
correlation.
version the spiral curve is very steep in the range 5� –5� . From the angle
of around �5� , the difference in rate of turns between tested ship ver­
sions increases and for 35� steering angle, the rate of turn for twin-pod
3.2. Pull-out test
version is 50% higher than for twin-propeller twin-rudder version.
From Fig. 3 it might be stated, that the values of rate of turn for twin-
As the spiral test results show that the twin-pod version is course
propeller twin-rudder ship for rudder angles larger than 35� have been
unstable, the pull-out test have been carried out to confirm this phe­
extrapolated according to the third order polynomial based on the spiral
nomenon. Fig. 4 shows the results of pull-out test done with twin-pod
curve. This extrapolation does not take any hydrodynamic principles
version. It is clearly seen, that indeed, this ship version has some de­
into account and is simply hypothetical to show how much the rudder
gree of inherent instability.

Table 2
Principal particulars of tested ship versions.
3.3. Turning circle
Principal particular Twin-propeller Twin-pod version
twin-rudder version
In Figs. 5 and 6 the turning circle test results are shown for starboard
Length overall (m) 11.55 11.35 (SB) and portside (PS) respectively in standard non-dimensional form.
Length between 11.33 10.93
These figures present both the turning circles done according to IMO
perpendiculars (m)
Beam (m) 1.80 1.80 standard 35� of rudder/pod deflections and for other steering angles
Draft (m) 0.50 0.50 used to determine the equivalent pod propulsor angles. In both figures,
Displacement (t) 8.210 8.210 the trajectory of twin-propeller twin-rudder ship centre of gravity is
Block coefficient 0.790 0.804 marked as dashed line and trajectory of twin-pod ship centre of gravity
Rudder area ratio (%) 1.81
as solid lines.
–

3
M. Reichel Ocean Engineering 187 (2019) 106165

4
Rate of turn [°/s] 6
x/L
rudder version
3 5 pod version

2 10°
4
15°
1 3
Rudder/pod angle [°] 25°
0 2
-40 -30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30 40 35°
-1 1

-2 0
-1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 y/L
7
-3
rudder version -1

-4 pod version
-2
Fig. 3. Rate of turn in spiral test for both tested ship versions.
Fig. 5. SB turning circle trajectories.

Rate
5.00 of turn [°/s] 6
x/L
rudder version
4.00
pod version 5
3.00
10° 4
2.00
15°
1.00
3
25°
0.00
0 20 40 60 80 Time100
[s] 35° 2
-1.00

-2.00 1

-3.00
0
-7 -6 -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 y/L
1
-4.00
-1
-5.00
Fig. 4. Pull-out test result for twin-pod version.
-2
3.4. Zig-zag manoeuvre Fig. 6. PS turning circle trajectories.

In Figs. 7–10 the results of standard zig-zag tests carried out with
both tested ship versions have been presented. Similar to trajectories
from Figs. 5 and 6, in case of zig-zags the rudder angle and corre­
sponding heading angle have been marked as dashed line while pod
angles and corresponding heading angle as solid lines. It might be seen,
that the differences in overshoot angles between twin-propeller twin-
rudder and twin-pod versions are small both for 10� /10� and 20� /20�
zig-zag tests. However, the time of response in the tests with twin-
propeller twin-rudder version is longer than in case of twin-pod version.
In Figs. 11 and 12 together with standard zig-zag tests 10� /10� and
20� /20� for twin-pod version, the results of an additional zig-zag 15� /
15� have been presented. Results of this test have been taken into
consideration when identifying the equivalent angles for initial turning
ability and overshoot angle from 20� /20� test.
4. Results on rudder-equivalent pod propulsor angles test
The second stage of the experiments have been done with the twin-
pod model version only. Several turning circle tests and zig-zag ma­
noeuvres have been carried out to find the equivalent angles. The tests

4
M. Reichel Ocean Engineering 187 (2019) 106165

40
Rudder,pod/heading angle [°] rudder version 40
Rudder,pod/heading angle [°] rudder version
pod version pod version
30 30

20 20

10 10

0 0
0 50 100 150[s]
Time 0 50 100 150[s]
Time
-10 -10

-20 -20

-30 -30

-40 -40
Fig. 7. 10� /10� zig-zag test, first turn to SB. Fig. 9. 20� /20� zig-zag test, first turn to SB.

40
Rudder,pod/heading angle [°] rudder version 40
Rudder,pod/heading angle [°] rudder version
pod version pod version
30 30

20 20

10 10

0 0
0 50 100 150[s]
Time 0 50 100 150[s]
Time
-10 -10

-20 -20

-30 -30

-40 -40
Fig. 8. 10� /10� zig-zag test, first turn to PS. Fig. 10. 20� /20� zig-zag test, first turn to PS.

were started with steering angles equal to recommended by IMO and
later on continued with different values until similar manoeuvring
characteristics as in the first stage for twin-propeller twin-rudder version
have been achieved. Figs. 13–18 show the equivalent angles in terms of
turning ability (i.e. rate of turn, tactical diameter, advance, transfer and
speed loss) determined after the turning circle tests. Figs. 19–22 present
the equivalent angles elaborated after zig-zag tests, i.e. the
figures describe initial turning ability and yaw checking ability. It has to
be noted, that due to influence of environmental conditions and some
asymmetries in the propellers, rudders and pod propulsors, the results
might be different for starboard and port rudder/pod deflections. The
curves presented in above mentioned figures are interpolated on the
turning circles data shown in Figs. 5 and 6 and zig-zag tests data from
Figs. 7–12. Some extrapolation to lower pod propulsors angles has been
done to show the overall tendency. In all figures, values of respective
parameters for twin-propeller twin-rudder version are marked and
compared to the pod deflection angle with the same parameter value.
Values of rudder-equivalent pod propulsors angles are presented in
numbers in all figures.
Fig. 13 shows the equivalent pod propulsors angle, for which the rate
of turn in turning circle is equal for twin-pod and twin-propeller twin-
rudder version. It might be seen, that the difference in rudder and

5
M. Reichel Ocean Engineering 187 (2019) 106165

40 / heading
Pod/heading
rudder
POD / heading
angle
angle
angle
[°][°][°] 10°/10° 4.0
Rate of turn [°/s] SB turn
15°/15° PS turn
30 20°/20° 3.5

20 3.0

2.5 16°
10

2.0 17°
0
0 50 100 150[s]
Time
1.5
-10
1.0
-20
0.5
-30
POD/rudder angle [°]
0.0
-40 0 10 20 30 40
Fig. 11. Combined results of zig-zag tests, first turn to SB. Fig. 13. Rudder-equivalent pod angles owing to the rate of turn.

40 / heading 10°/10° 7.0

Tactical diameter [TD/L] SB turn
Pod/heading
POD
rudder / heading
angle
angle
angle
[°][°][°]
15°/15° PS turn
30 20°/20° 6.0

20 5.0

10 4.0

0 21°
3.0
0 50 100 150[s]
Time 24°
-10
2.0

-20
1.0

-30 POD/rudder angle [°]

0.0
0 10 20 30 40
-40
Fig. 14. Rudder-equivalent pod angles owing to the tactical diameter in
Fig. 12. Combined results of zig-zag tests, first turn to PS. turning circle.

rudder-equivalent pod propulsors angle is large and equal to 19� and 18�
for starboard and port turns respectively, giving values of rudder-
equivalent pod angles of 16� and 17� .
One of the analysed IMO criterial parameters from turning circle test,
i.e. tactical diameter, is shown in Fig. 15. In this case, rudder-equivalent
pod propulsors angles differ also quite much, reaching values of 21� and
24� for starboard and port turns respectively. The difference is mainly
caused by the difference in tactical diameter for twin-propeller twin-
rudder ship for starboard and port turns.
The other IMO criterial parameter, i.e. advance, is presented in
Fig. 15. Surprisingly, for twin-pod version and for twin-propeller twin-
rudder version, the same advance in turning circle test was reached for
pod propulsors deflection angle of 35� and 34� for starboard and port
turns respectively. So, almost identical values of pod propulsors and
rudders gave the same advance value. Taking the trajectory of centre of
gravity from Figs. 5 and 6 into account, it might be concluded that the
ship with pod propulsors reacts in the first phase of turning circle with
more or less identical rotational velocity for the same 35� helm angle.
Afterwards, in the second phase of turning circle, the rotational velocity
of pod propulsor version is much higher than of rudder version.
Transfer and speed loss in turning circles shown in Figs. 16 and 17
are the most influenced by direction of turn to starboard and port. The

6
M. Reichel Ocean Engineering 187 (2019) 106165

6.0
Advance [AD/L] SB turn 0.9
Speed loss [u/U0] SB turn
PS turn PS turn
0.8
5.0
0.7

4.0 0.6
18°

0.5 21°
3.0 34°
0.4
35°
2.0 0.3

0.2
1.0
0.1
POD/rudder angle [°] POD/rudder angle [°]
0.0 0.0
0 10 20 30 40 0 10 20 30 40
Fig. 15. Rudder-equivalent pod angles owing to the advance in turning circle. Fig. 17. Rudder-equivalent pod angles owing to the speed loss in turning circle.

3.0
Transfer [TR/L] SB turn 7.0
Steady turning diameter [STD/L] SB turn
PS turn PS turn
6.0
2.5

5.0
2.0

4.0
1.5
21° 29° 3.0
22°
1.0
2.0 23°

0.5
1.0

POD/rudder angle [°] POD/rudder angle [°]

0.0
0 10 20 30 40
Fig. 16. Rudder-equivalent pod angles owing to the transfer in turning circle.
difference for twin-propeller twin-rudder version in transfer is 20% and
in speed loss 17%. Due to this, the equivalent angles also differ signifi­
cantly. These angles were estimated for transfer to have the values of 21�
and 29� for starboard and port turn respectively. In case of speed loss the
equivalent angles due to the curve steepness do not differ significantly
and have the values of 18� and 21� for starboard and port.
Fig. 18 shows that the steady turning diameter for twin-propeller
twin-rudder version does not depend so strong on the direction of turn
like transfer and speed loss. As it might be seen, similar value of steady
turning diameter as for 35� of rudders is reached for around 22� pods
deflections for both starboard and port turns.
Initial turning ability for twin-propeller twin-rudder and twin-pod
0.0
0 10 20 30 40
Fig. 18. Rudder-equivalent pod angles owing to the steady turning diameter in
turning circle.
versions are shown in Fig. 19. As it was expected the difference in
rudder angles and equivalent pod propulsor angles are not so large as for
turning circles. For starboard turn the equivalent angle is 6� and for port
turn 8� .
As seen in Fig. 20, due to the excellent yaw-checking ability of twin-
propeller twin-rudder version and due to the inherent instability of twin-
pod version, it was barely possible in case of port turn (3� ) and not
possible in case of starboard turn to determine the equivalent angles for
the first overshoot angle in 10� /10� zig-zag test.
In case of the second overshoot angle in 10� /10� zig-zag test in
Fig. 21, the equivalent pod propulsor angles were equal to 7� and 9� for

7
M. Reichel Ocean Engineering 187 (2019) 106165

2.0
Initial turning ability [x010/L] SB turn 14.0
Overshoot angle [°] SB first
1.9 PS turn PS first
12.0
1.8

1.7 10.0

1.6
8.0
1.5 8°
7°
6° 6.0
1.4 9°

1.3 4.0
1.2
2.0
1.1
POD/rudder angle [°] POD/rudder angle [°]
1.0 0.0
0 10 20 30 0 10 20 30
Fig. 19. Rudder-equivalent pod angles owing to the initial turning ability in Fig. 21. Rudder-equivalent pod angles owing to the second overshoot angle in
10� /10� zig-zag test. 10� /10� zig-zag test.

14.0
Overshoot angle [°] SB first 14.0 SB first
Overshoot angle [°]
PS first PS first
12.0 12.0

10.0 10.0

8.0 8.0
8°
6.0 6.0 11°

4.0 3° 4.0

2.0 2.0

POD/rudder angle [°] POD/rudder angle [°]

0.0 0.0
0 10 20 30 0 10 20 30
Fig. 20. Rudder-equivalent pod angles owing to the first overshoot angle in Fig. 22. Rudder-equivalent pod angles owing to the first overshoot angle in
10� /10� zig-zag test. 20� /20� zig-zag test.

starboard and port first turns respectively. The reason for such small
difference between rudder and equivalent pod propulsor angles might
be again the course instability of pod propulsors ship version and her
sensitivity on the environment conditions.
The 20� /20� zig-zag test shown in Fig. 22 proves, that for larger
rudder and pod deflections, the differences between the rudder and
equivalent pod propulsor angles are more significant. Similar first
overshoot angles in 20� /20� zig-zag test have been reached for equiva­
lent pod propulsor angles of 8� and 11� for starboard and port first turns
respectively.
In Tables 3 and 4 the equivalent angles for twin-pod version are
summarized for starboard and port turning circle tests respectively.
Tables 5 and 6 show the rudder-equivalent pod propulsors angles from
zig-zag tests. Both the IMO criteria parameters and in case of turning
circle some additional parameters have been collected and are
presented.
Figs. 23 and 24 show all the gathered results combined and divided
to starboard and port turn direction or first rudder execution in case of
zig-zag tests. Both turning test and zig-zag tests are presented in the
same figures to show overall tendency of determined equivalent angles.

8
M. Reichel Ocean Engineering 187 (2019) 106165

Table 3 40
Pod angle [°]
Rudder-equivalent pod angles in turning test [SB turn].
Parameter Rudder angle Pod angle
35 Advance
Tactical diameter 35 21
Advance 35 35
Rate of turn 35 16
Transfer 35 21
30
Speed loss 35 18
Steady turning diameter 35 23
25 Steady turning diameter
Tactical diameter
Table 4 20 Transfer
Rudder-equivalent pod angles in turning test [PS turn].
Speed loss
Parameter Rudder angle Pod angle Rate of turn
15
Tactical diameter 35 24
Advance 35 34
Rate of turn 35 17
Transfer 35 29 10
Speed loss 35 21
2nd overshoot angle 10°/10° 1st overshoot angle 20°/20°
Steady turning diameter 35 22 Initial turning ability
5
1st overshoot angle 10°/10° Rudder angle [°]
Table 5 0
Rudder-equivalent pod angles in zig-zag test [SB first turn].
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
Parameter Rudder angle Pod angle
Fig. 23. Rudder-equivalent pod angles owing to the analysed parameters
Initial turning time 10 6
[SB turn].
1st overshoot angle 10� /10� 10 –
2nd overshoot angle 10� /10� 10 7
1st overshoot angle 20� /20� 20 8
-40 -35 -30 -25 -20 -15 -10 -5 0
0
Table 6
Rudder angle [°]
1st overshoot angle 10°/10°
Rudder-equivalent pod angles in zig-zag test [PS first turn].
-5
Parameter Rudder angle Pod angle
Initial turning ability
Initial turning time 10 8 2nd overshoot angle 10°/10°
1st overshoot angle 10� /10� 10 3 -10
2nd overshoot angle 10� /10� 10 9 1st overshoot angle 20°/20°
1st overshoot angle 20� /20� 20 11
-15
Rate of turn
It can be observed, besides advance in turning circle, all the rest of Speed loss -20
equivalent pod deflections are smaller than corresponding rudder Steady turning diameter
angles.
It has to be noted, that in case of 10� /10� zig-zag test with first pod
Tactical diameter
-25
execute to starboard it was not possible to determine the equivalent pod
propulsor angle. For the same test with first pod execute to port, the Transfer
equivalent angle was determined to be very small and close to 3� . This -30
was due to the inherent course instability of the twin-pod ship version, Advance
where the instability loop width is estimated to be around �3� .
-35
5. Equivalent manoeuvres test results
Pod angle -40
[°]
Figs. 25–28 show the results of turning circle model tests carried out
with the pod-driven ship version with pods deflected by previously Fig. 24. Rudder-equivalent pod angles owing to the analysed parameters
determined equivalent angles. For comparison, in every figure the tra­ [PS turn].
jectory of the centre of gravity is shown for both tested ship versions. In
case of advance [Fig. 25], tactical diameter [Fig. 26] and transfer identical for 21� pod propulsors angle, as shown in Fig. 28.
[Fig. 27] also the points where the analysed parameter has been found is As it was expected, the speed loss on turning circle for 35� pod
presented. propulsors deflection was significant and finally dropped down to 0.25
It might be seen, that the rudder-equivalent pod propulsor angles of approach speed. This is of course due to the larger drift angle of twin-
vary for different analysed manoeuvring parameters. To get the same pod version comparing to the twin-propeller twin-rudder version. It was
advance in turning circle as for 35� rudder deflection, pod propulsors anticipated, that the equal speed loss as for 35� of rudder deflection for
have to be deflected by 35� . To get the same tactical diameter as for 35� twin-propeller twin rudder version will be found for much smaller pod
rudder deflection, the equivalent pod propulsor angle is close to 25� , propulsor angles and rather close to the same steady turning diameter.
while for the same transfer, 30� of pod propulsor angle is necessary. Fig. 29 shows the equal speed loss on a turning circle carried out with
Whereas, steady turning diameter as for 35� rudder deflection was 35� of rudder deflection and determined corresponding equivalent pod

9
M. Reichel Ocean Engineering 187 (2019) 106165

6
x/L 6
x/L
rudder version rudder version

equivalent TR
pod version 5 pod version 5

4 4

3 30° 3
equivalent AD

35° 2 2

1 1

0 0
-7 -6 -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 y/L
1 -7 -6 -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 y/L
1

-1 -1

-2 -2
Fig. 25. Advance for 35 rudder angle and corresponding equivalent pod angle.
� Fig. 27. Transfer for 35� rudder angle and corresponding equivalent
POD angle.

6
x/L
rudder version 6
x/L
rudder version
equivalent TD

pod version 5 pod version 5

4
4

3
21° 3
25°
2
2

1
1

0
-7 -6 -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 y/L
1 0
-7 -6 -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 y/L
1
-1
-1
-2
Fig. 26. Tactical diameter for 35� rudder angle and corresponding equivalent
-2
pod angle. Fig. 28. Steady turning diameter for 35� rudder angle and corresponding
equivalent POD angle.
propulsors angle of 21� .
Finally, Fig. 30 shows values of particular manoeuvring parameters rudder deflection.
of turning circle that have been achieved from the tests with 35� rudder
deflection for twin-screw twin rudder version and with corresponding 6. Concluding remarks
equivalent angles for twin-pod version. The equivalent angles for which
the presented parameters have been achieved are presented in the In the paper the idea of equivalent pod propulsor angles has been
figure next to the parameter name. The grey solid line shows identity of presented. The equivalent angles mean angles of pod propulsors that in
analysed parameters get from tests with rudder and pod ship versions. It consequence give the same ship response in terms of various IMO
might be seen that parameter values from tests with rudder-equivalent manoeuvring parameters as the sister ship for corresponding conven­
pod propulsor angles match very well values from tests with 35� tional rudder deflection angles. The equivalent angles have been

10
M. Reichel Ocean Engineering 187 (2019) 106165

1.1 for the twin-pod configuration additionally with various pod propulsor
Speed loss [u/U0] rudder version deflection angles.
1 pod version Besides an obvious conclusion about differences in manoeuvring
abilities of ships with azimuth thrusters, i.e. their possible inherent
0.9 course instability and better turning abilities, the present study has
generally confirmed the well-known findings indicating that the issue of
0.8 manoeuvring abilities of ships equipped with azimuth thrusters still
needs rather extensive and thorough studies.
0.7 Although forces have not been measured on pod propulsors and on
rudders, one of the most important conclusion is, that in case of sister
0.6 ships, for small deflection pod/rudder angles, the manoeuvring response
21° of ship with pod propulsors is comparable to the response of her rudder
0.5 sister ship version. For larger pod propulsor deflections, the differences
between analysed ships responses are much more significant and the
0.4 equivalent angles might be found with sufficient accuracy. Furthermore,
it has been shown, that for different analysed turning circle parameters,
0.3 different values of equivalent angles are reached, getting values lower
by up to more than 50% (see rate of turn and speed loss).
0.2 Of course, the overall aim of standard tests is to prove, that the ship
manoeuvring abilities are in compliance with IMO regulations. Never­
0.1 theless, the introduction of equivalent angles idea will increase the
Time [s] reliability of model test results for ships with non-conventional steering-
0 propulsion devices and may also increase ship designers and testing
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 facilities confidence and trust in rules and regulations on manoeuvring
Fig. 29. Speed loss for 35� rudder angle and corresponding equivalent safety of pod-driven ships, as they will be based on solid scientific fun­
POD angle. damentals. On the other hand, such equivalent pod propulsor angles
should be defined case-by-case for every ship, what might be time
consuming and inefficient in terms of cost and human resources. So, the
4 final conclusion is, that especially in case of ships, for which large heel
POD version
angles in turning circle are expected and a risk of high loads on pod
propulsors for large deflections is anticipated, some changes in
required/suggested pod steering angles in IMO standard manoeuvres
should be taken into consideration.
Tactical diameter 25°
3
Acknowledgments
Advance
35°
Research presented in the paper has been financed by National Sci­
Steady turning diameter 21° ence Centre, Poland under the grant 2017/01/X/ST8/00785 “Equiva­
16° Rate of turn lent standard manoeuvres for pod-driven ships”.
2
References

Ball, W.E., 2004. Model free-manoeuvring in calm-water by partially azimuthing podded

drive. Int. J. Marit. Eng. 146 (1), 67–77.
30° Transfer Betancourt, M.K., 2003. A Comparison of Ship Maneuvering Characteristics for Rudders
and Podded Propulsors. M.Sc. thesis. Naval Postgraduate School, Monterey,
1 California, USA.
Grygorowicz, M., Szantyr, J.A., 2004. Open water experiments with two pod propulsor
models. In: Proc. 1st Int. Conf. on Technological Advances in Podded Propulsion T-
Speed loss POD, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK.
21° International Maritime Organization, 2002. Standards for Ship Manoeuvrability -
Resolution MSC, vol. 137 (76).
Rudder version Reichel, M., 2007. Manoeuvring forces on azimuthing podded propulsor model. Pol.
0 Marit. Res. 14 (52), 3–7.
0 1 2 3 4 Reichel, M., 2017. Prediction of manoeuvring abilities of 10000 DWT pod-driven coastal
tanker. Ocean. Eng. 136, 201–208.
Fig. 30. Modules of analysed parameter values for 35 to port rudder angle and
�
Reichel, M., 2018. Rudder-equivalent pod propulsor helm angles for a gas carrier. In:
corresponding equivalent POD angle. MARSIM: Int. Conf. on Marine Simulation and Modelling, Halifax, Canada.
Toxopeus, S., Loeff, G., 2002. Manoeuvring aspects of fast ships with pods. In: Proc. 3rd
Int. EuroConf. on High-Performance Marine Vehicles HIPER’02, Bergen, Norway.
determined for different parameters on the basis of experiments with Woodward, M.D., Clarke, D., Atlar, M., 2002. An investigation into course stability and
free running manned model in two steering-propulsion arrangement control of a fast, pod-driven ropax”. In: Proc. 3rd Int. EuroConf. on High-
Performance Marine Vehicles HIPER’02, Bergen, Norway.
configurations. A series of IMO manoeuvring tests have been carried out Woodward, M.D., Atlar, M., Clarke, D., 2009. Application of the IMO manoeuvring
at open-air station at Ship Handling Research and Training Centre near criteria for pod-driven ships. J. Ship Res. 53 (2), 106–120.
Iława in Poland. For the twin-propeller twin-rudder configuration only
tests with IMO recommended steering angles have been carried out and

11