In this study, it was aimed to obtain an accurate extrapolation method to compute lift and drag forces of high-speed vessels at full-scale by using CFD (Computational Fluid Dynamics) based GEOSIM (GEOmetrically SIMilar) method which is valid for both fully planing and semi-planing regimes. Athena R/V 5365 bare hull form with a skeg which is a semi-displacement type of high-speed vessel was selected with a model family for hydrodynamic analyses under captive and free to sinkage/trim conditions. Total drag and lift forces have been computed for a generated GEOSIM family of this form at three different model scales and full-scale for Fr = 0.8 by an unsteady RANS (Reynolds Averaged Navier–Stokes) solver. k–ε turbulence model was used to simulate the turbulent flow around the hulls, and both DFBI (Dynamic Fluid Body Interaction) and overset mesh technique were carried out to model the heave and pitch motions under free to sinkage/trim condition. The computational results of the model family were used to get “drag-lift ratio curve” for Athena hull at a fixed Fr number and so the corresponding results at full scale were predicted by extrapolating those of model scales in the form of a non-dimensional ratios of drag-lift forces. Then the extrapolated full-scale results calculated by modified GEOSIM method were compared with those of full-scale CFD and obtained by Froude extrapolation technique. The modified GEOSIM method has been found to be successful to compute the main forces (lift and drag) acting on high-speed vessels as a single coefficient at full scale. The method also works accurately both under fully and semi-planing conditions.
SavitskyD. Hydrodynamic design of planing hulls. Mar Technol SNAME News1964; 1: 71–95.
2.
BhushanSXingTCarricaP, et al. Model-and full-scale URANS simulations of Athena resistance, powering, seakeeping, and 5415 maneuvering. J Ship Res2009; 53: 179–198.
3.
KandasamyMOoiSKCarricaP, et al. CFD validation studies for a high-speed foil-assisted semi-planing catamaran. J Mar Sci Technol2011; 16: 157–167.
4.
KandasamyMPeriDOoiSK, et al. Multi-fidelity optimization of a high-speed foil-assisted semi-planing catamaran for low wake. J Mar Sci Technol2011; 16: 143–156.
5.
BrogliaRZaghiSDi MascioA. Numerical simulation of interference effects for a high-speed catamaran. J Mar Sci Technol2011; 16: 254–269.
6.
NiCBZhuRCMiaoGP, et al. Hull gesture and resistance prediction of high-speed vessels. J Hydrodyn2011; 23: 234–240.
7.
LotfiPAshrafizaadehMKowsari EsfahanR. Numerical investigation of a stepped planing hull in calm water. Ocean Eng2015; 94: 103–110.
8.
LeeHRheeSH. A dynamic interface compression method for VOF simulations of high-speed planing watercraft. J Mech Sci Technol2015; 29: 1849–1857.
9.
SeoJChoiHKJeongUC, et al. Model tests on resistance and seakeeping performance of wave-piercing high-speed vessel with spray rails. Int J Nav Archit Ocean Eng2016; 8: 442–455.
10.
SukasOFKinaciOKCakiciF, et al. Hydrodynamic assessment of planing hulls using overset grids. Appl Ocean Res2017; 65: 35–46.
11.
BrogliaRDuranteD. Accurate prediction of complex free surface flow around a high speed craft using a single-phase level set method. Comput Mech2018; 62: 421–437.
12.
DumanSŞenerBBal. Performance prediction of a planing vessel using dynamic overset grid method. In: 11th symposium on high speed marine vehicles, Naples, Italy, 2017, pp. 113–121.
13.
DumanSSenerBBalS. LCG effects on resistance, lift and trim characteristics of R/V Athena Hull. Int J Small Craft Technol2018; 160: 43–56.
14.
KahramanogluEYildizBYilmazH. Numerical calculations of resistance and running attitude of a planing hull. In: Int-Nam 2018, Istanbul, Turkey, 2018, pp. 583–594.
15.
NajafiANowruziH. On hydrodynamic analysis of stepped planing crafts. J Ocean Eng Sci2019; 4: 238–251.
16.
KahramanogluEPenninoSYilmazH. Numerical evaluation of hydrodynamic characteristics of planing hulls by using a hybrid method. Proc IMechE, Part M: J Engineering for the Maritime Environment2021; 235: 344–355.
17.
LeeYGHaYJLeeSH, et al. A study on the estimation method of the form factor for a full-scale ship. Brodogradnja2018; 69: 71–87.
18.
TerzievMTezdoganTIncecikA. A geosim analysis of ship resistance decomposition and scale effects with the aid of CFD. Appl Ocean Res2019; 92: 101930.
19.
DogrulASongSDemirelYK. Scale effect on ship resistance components and form factor. Ocean Eng2020; 209: 107428.
MollandAFTurnockSRHudsonDA. Ship resistance and propulsion: practical estimation of ship propulsive power. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press, 2011.
22.
DelenCBalS. Telfer’s GEOSIM method revisited by CFD. Int J Marit Eng2021; 161: A467–A478.
23.
CanUDelenCBalS. Effective wake estimation of KCS hull at full-scale by GEOSIM method based on CFD. Ocean Eng2020; 218: 108052.
24.
DelenCCanUBalS. Prediction of resistance and self-propulsion characteristics of a full-scale naval ship by CFD-Based GEOSIM method. J Ship Res2020; 00: 1–16.
LewisEV. Principles of naval architecture: volume III-motions in waves and controllability. Jersey City, NJ: Society of Naval Architects and Marine Engineers, 1990.
27.
TelferEV. Ship resistance similarity. Trans R Inst Nav Archit1927; 69: 174–190.
28.
ITTC. Recommended procedures and guidelines. High speed marine vehicles resistance test. In: 28th international towing tank conference, Wuxi, China, September 17–22, 2017, pp. 1–19. ITTC.
29.
FaltinsenOM. Hydrodynamics of high-speed marine vehicles. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006.
30.
JenkinsDS. Resistance characteristics of the high speed transom stern ship R/V Athena in the bare hull condition. Report, David W. Taylor Naval Ship Research and Development Center. Bethesda, MD: FAO, 1984.
31.
ITTC. Recommended procedures and guidelines: Practical guidelines for ship CFD. In: 26th International towing tank conference, Rio De Jenario, 28 August-3 September 2011. ITTC.
32.
SternFYangJWangZ, et al. Computational ship hydrodynamics: nowadays and way forward. Int Shipbuild Prog2013; 60: 3–105.
33.
KahramanoğluEÇakıcıFDoğrulA. Numerical prediction of the vertical responses of planing hulls in regular head waves. J Mar Sci Eng2020; 8: 455–518.
34.
BenekJAStegerJLDoughertyFC, et al. Chimera: a grid-embedding technique. Technical Report AEDC-TR-85-64. Arnold Engineering Development Center, 1986.
35.
QuérardATemarelPTurnockSR. Omae2008-57 330. Proceedings of the ASME 27th international conference on offshore mechanics and arctic engineering. New York: ASME, 2008; 1–10.
36.
ShihT-HLiouWWShabbirA, et al. A new k-ϵ eddy viscosity model for high Reynolds number turbulent flows. Comput Fluids1995; 24: 227–238.
37.
CD-Adapco S. STAR-CCM+ documentation – version 13.06. New York, NY: CD-Adapco, 2017.
38.
HirtCWNicholsBD. Volume of fluid (VOF) method for the dynamics of free boundaries. J Comput Phys1981; 39: 201–225.
39.
SoydanABalS. An investigation of scale effects on marine propeller under cavitating and non-cavitating conditions. Ship Technol Res2021; 68: 166–178.
40.
RoachePJ. Verification of codes and calculations. AIAA J1998; 36: 696–702.
41.
ITTC. Recommended procedures and guidelines: Uncertainty analysis in CFD verification and validation methodology and procedures. In 25th International towing tank conference, Fukuoka, Japan, 14–20 September 2008, ITTC.
42.
De LucaFManciniSMirandaS, et al. An extended verification and validation study of CFD simulations for planing hulls. J Ship Res2016; 60: 101–118.
43.
TezdoganTDemirelYKKellettP, 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.
44.
CelikIBGhiaURoachePJ, et al. Procedure for estimation and reporting of uncertainty due to discretization in CFD applications. J Fluid Eng2008; 130: 078001.
45.
OzdemirYHDogrulABarlasB, et al. A numerical application to predict the resistance and wave pattern of Kriso container ship. Brodogradnja2016; 67: 47–65.
46.
OzturkD. Performance of a Magnus effect-based cylindrical roll stabilizer on a full-scale motor-yacht. Ocean Eng2020; 218: 108247.
47.
WilsonRSternF. Verification and validation for RANS simulation of a naval surface combatant. In: 40th AIAA aerospace sciences meeting and exhibit, Reno, NV, USA, 14–17 January 2002. AIAA.
48.
SongSDemirelYKAtlarM. Penalty of hull and propeller fouling on ship self-propulsion performance. Appl Ocean Res2020; 94: 102006.
49.
DemirelYKTuranOIncecikA. Predicting the effect of biofouling on ship resistance using CFD. Appl Ocean Res2017; 62: 100–118.
