Numerical assessment of the impact of biofilm on the resistance characteristics and nominal wake is carried out within this study. Therefore, roughness function models are implemented within the wall function of the commercial software package. Extensive verification study as well as the estimation of numerical uncertainties in the prediction of the resistance characteristics and nominal wake is made. Furthermore, numerical uncertainties in the prediction of the change in resistance characteristics and nominal wake are assessed as well. Thereafter, validation study is carried out by comparing the obtained increases in the frictional and total resistance with the increases obtained using Granville similarity law scaling method. The significant impact of biofilm on the resistance characteristics as well as on the nominal wake is noted. Thus, total resistance and frictional resistance increase due to the presence of biofilm, while wave resistance decreases, contradicting the classical methods, which consider that only frictional resistance is affected due to the presence of roughness. Furthermore, nominal wake coefficient is increased due to the presence of biofilm, which causes slowdown of the flow.
United Nations Conference on Trade and Development. Review of maritime transport 2018 (Report, United Nations). New York: United Nations Conference on Trade and Development, 2018.
2.
MartelliMFaggioniNBerselliG.Fuel saving in a marine propulsion plant by using a continuously variable transmission. Proc IMechE, Part M: J Engineering Maritime Environment. Epub ahead of print 29 October 2018. DOI: 10.1177/1475090218806977.
3.
WangKYanXYuanY, et al. Optimizing ship energy efficiency: application of particle swarm optimization algorithm. Proc IMechE, Part M: J Engineering Maritime Environment2018; 232(4): 379–391.
4.
TranTA.Optimization of the energy efficiency operational indicator for M/V NSU JUSTICE 250,000 DWT by Grey relational analysis method in Vietnam. Proc IMechE, Part M: J Engineering Maritime Environment. Epub ahead of print 26 December 2017. DOI: 10.1177/1475090217748756.
5.
TilligFRingsbergJWMaoW, et al. A generic energy systems model for efficient ship design and operation. Proc IMechE, Part M: J Engineering Maritime Environment2017; 231(2): 649–666.
6.
AdlandRCariouPJiaH, et al. The energy efficiency effects of periodic ship hull cleaning. J Clean Prod2018; 178: 1–13.
LindholdtADam-JohansenKOlsenSM, et al. Effects of biofouling development on drag forces of hull coatings for ocean-going ships: a review. J Coat Technol Res2015; 12(3): 415–444.
9.
FarkasADegiuliNMartićI.Towards the prediction of the effect of biofilm on the ship resistance using CFD. Ocean Eng2018; 167: 169–186.
10.
TunawattanaNNormanRRoskillyAP.Design of an underwater positioning sensor for crawling ship hull maintenance robots. Proc IMechE, Part M: J Engineering Maritime Environment2010; 224(2): 115–125.
11.
NugrohoBGanapathisubramaniBUtamaIKAPSuastikaIK, et al. Managing international collaborative research between academics, industries, and policy makers in understanding the effects of biofouling in ship hull turbulent boundary layers. Int J Marit Eng2017; 159(A3): A-291–A-300.
12.
HolmEHaslbeckECusanelliD.So, your ship is not operating efficiently (because of biofouling) – now what? In:
Proceedings of the 2nd hull performance & insight conference (ed BertramV), Ulrichshusen, 27–29 March 2017, pp.242–252, http://data.hullpic.info/hullpic2017_ulrichshusen.pdf
13.
GundermannDDirksenT. A statistical study of propulsion performance of ships and the effect of dry dockings, hull cleanings and propeller polishes on performance. In: Proceedings of the 1st hull performance & insight conference (ed BertramV), Castello Di Pavone, 13–15 April 2016, pp.282–291. Olso: Nordic Energy Research.
14.
TarełkoW.The effect of hull biofouling on parameters characterising ship propulsion system efficiency. Pol Marit Res2014; 21(4): 27–34X.
15.
FlackKASchultzMP.Roughness effects on wall-bounded turbulent flows. Phys Fluids2014; 26(10): 101305.
16.
SchultzMPFinlayJACallowME, et al. Three models to relate detachment of low form fouling at laboratory and ship scale. Biofouling2003; 19(S1): 17–26.
17.
AnomanLSahooPKKokaKA.A numerical approach to assess marine fouling tolerability on the hull of surface vessels. Marine Technol Soc J2017; 51(2): 49–58.
18.
SchultzMP.Effects of coating roughness and biofouling on ship resistance and powering. Biofouling2007; 23(5): 331–341.
19.
DemirelYKTuranOIncecikA.Predicting the effect of biofouling on ship resistance using CFD. Appl Ocean Res2017; 62: 100–118.
20.
NuriogluAGEstevesACCde WithG.Non-toxic, non-biocide-release antifouling coatings based on molecular structure design for marine applications. J Mater Chem B2015; 3(32): 6547–6570.
SwainGWKovachBTouzotA, et al. Measuring the performance of today’s antifouling coatings. J Ship Prod2007; 23(3): 164–170.
23.
YeginbayevaIGranhagLChernorayV. Experimental quantification of drag change of commercial coatings under the effect of surface roughness and soft fouling. In: Proceedings of the 3rd hull performance & insight conference (ed BertramV), Redworth, 12–14 March 2018, pp.169–177, https://www.scribd.com/document/404709653/3rd-Hull-Performance-Insight-Conference-2018-pdf
24.
OwenDDemirelYKOguzE, et al. Investigating the effect of biofouling on propeller characteristics using CFD. Ocean Eng2018; 159: 505–516.
SchultzMPWalkerJMSteppeCN, et al. Impact of diatomaceous biofilms on the frictional drag of fouling-release coatings. Biofouling2015; 31(9–10): 759–773.
27.
FarkasADegiuliNMartićI.Numerical simulation of the viscous flow around a tanker model. Brodogradnja2017; 68(2): 109–125.
28.
KinaciOKSukasOFBalS. Prediction of wave resistance by a Reynolds-averaged Navier–Stokes equation–based computational fluid dynamics approach. Proc IMechE, Part M: J Engineering Maritime Environment2016; 230(3): 531–548.
29.
FarkasADegiuliNMartićI.Numerical investigation into the interaction of resistance components for a series 60 catamaran. Ocean Eng2017; 146: 151–169.
30.
RavenHCVan der PloegAStarkeAR. Computation of free-surface viscous flows at model and full scale by a steady iterative approach. In: Proceedings of the 25th symposium naval hydrodynamics, St. John’s, NL, Canada, 8–13 August 2004. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
31.
FarkasADegiuliNMartićI.Assessment of hydrodynamic characteristics of a full-scale ship at different draughts. Ocean Eng2018; 156: 135–152.
32.
OliveiraDLarssonAIGranhagL.Effect of ship hull form on the resistance penalty from biofouling. Biofouling2018; 34(3): 262–272.
TezdoganTDemirelYKKelletP, et al. Full-scale unsteady RANS CFD simulations of ship behaviour and performance in head seas due to slow steaming. Ocean Eng2015; 97: 186–206.
36.
PereiraFSEçaLVazG.Verification and validation exercises for the flow around the KVLCC2 tanker at model and full-scale Reynolds numbers. Ocean Eng2017; 129: 133–148.
37.
FarkasADegiuliNMartićI, et al. Numerical and experimental assessment of nominal wake for a bulk carrier. J Mar Sci Technol. Epub ahead of print 12 November 2018. DOI: 10.1007/s00773-018-0609-4.
38.
KimWJVanSHKimDH.Measurement of flows around modern commercial ship models. Exp Fluid2001; 31(5): 567–578.
39.
Brodarski Institute. Report 6389-M (Technical Report). Zagreb: Brodarski Institute, 2014.
