The present study concerns assessing and comparing the operability of two surface combatants with conventional and modern wave-piercing hulls. The operability is measured in terms of the percent-time-operable (PTO), based on the capability of missions in the annual operating condition by seakeeping analysis. The seakeeping criteria of the surface combatant in various missions are selected by the literature review applicable to the basic design stage. The numerical seakeeping analysis is performed to obtain ship motion spectra in seaways around the Korean peninsula and North Pacific, after corrected by comparison to the experiments in regular waves. It is found that the wave-piercing hull has higher PTO than the flared hull under a generic operation scenario owing to reduced pitch motion and low resonance frequency of roll motion, the main restraint of seakeeping performance in PTO assessment.
SeoJChoiH-KJeongU-C, 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(5): 442–455.
2.
KimY-CKimK-SKimJ, et al. Analysis of added resistance and seakeeping responses in head sea conditions for low-speed full ships using URANS approach. Int J Nav Archit Ocean Eng2017; 9(6): 641–654.
3.
OhSKimB. Hybrid radiation technique of frequency-domain Rankine source method for prediction of ship motion at forward speed. Int J Nav Archit Ocean Eng2021; 13: 260–277.
4.
BaitisEWoolaverDABeckTA. Rudder roll stabilization for coast guard cutters and frigates. Nav Eng J1983; 95(3): 267–282.
5.
GrahamROSS. Motion-induced interruptions as ship operability criteria. Nav Eng J1990; 102(2): 65–71.
6.
HosodaRKunitakeYMaruyamaH, et al. Integrative evaluation of seakeeping performance in Initial Ship Design (1st Report). J Soc Naval Architects Jpn1983; 1983(153): 151–161.
7.
MAS. Common procedures for seakeeping in the ship design process. NATO standardization agreement, 4154. 3rd ed. Brussels: North Atlantic Treaty Organization, 2000.
8.
ComstockENBalesSLGentileDM. Seakeeping performance comparison of air capable ships. Nav Eng J1982; 94(2): 101–117.
9.
SchafferRLByersDWSlagerJJ. Towards an improved hull form design methodology. Nav Eng J1983; 95(3): 109–126.
10.
Naval Sea Systems Command. Interface Standard for Shipboard System: Section 301A Ship Motion and Attitude. Washington, DC: United States Department of Defense Interface Standard1399, 1986.
11.
Nordforsk. Assessment of Ship Performance in a Seaway -The Nordic Co-operative Project: Seakeeping Performance of Ships-. Hirtshals Bogtryk/Offset A/S, 1987.
12.
BalesNKCieslowskiDS. A guide to generic seakeeping performance assessment. Nav Eng J1981; 93(2): 59–66.
13.
Espinoza HaroMPSeoJSadat-HosseiniH, et al. Numerical simulations for the safe return to port of a damaged passenger ship in head or following seas. Ocean Eng2017; 143: 305–318.
14.
JiaoJChenCRenH. A comprehensive study on ship motion and load responses in short-crested irregular waves. Int J Nav Archit Ocean Eng2019; 11(1): 364–379.
15.
OlsonSR. An evaluation of the seakeeping qualities of naval combatants. Nav Eng J1978; 90(1): 23–40.
16.
Van WalreeFCaretteNFAJ. Validation of time domain seakeeping codes for a destroyer hull form operating in steep stern-quartering seas. Int J Nav Archit Ocean Eng2011; 3(1): 9–19.
17.
ToxopeusSSadat-HosseiniHVisonneauM, et al. CFD, potential flow and system-based simulations of fully appended free running 5415M in calm water and waves. Int Shipbuilding Progress2018; 65(2): 227–256.
18.
BishopRCBelknapWTurnerC, et al. Parametric investigation on the influence of GM, roll damping, and above-water form on the roll response of Model 5613. Report for the Naval Surface Warfare Center Carderock Division. Report no. NSWCCD-50-TR-2005/027, 2005. West Bethesda, MD.
19.
LeeSKYouJ-MLeeH-H, et al. Preliminary tests of a damaged ship for CFD validation. Int J Nav Archit Ocean Eng2012; 4(2): 172–181.
20.
DiezMSeraniACampanaEF, et al. Multi-objective hydrodynamic optimization of the DTMB 5415 for resistance and seakeeping. In: 13th International conference on fast sea transportation, Washington, DC, USA, 2–4September2015.
21.
BasslerCPetersACampbellB, et al. Dynamic stability of flared and tumblehome hull forms in waves. In: Proceedings of the 9th international ship stability workshop, Hamburg, Germany, 2007.
22.
BelenkyVBasslerCCSpyrouKJ. Development of second generation intact stability criteria. Report for the Naval Surface Warfare Center Carderock Division. Report no. NSWCCD-50-RT-2011/065, 2011. West Bethesda, MD.
23.
WuPCHossainMAKawakamiN, et al. EFD and CFD study of forces, ship motions and flow field for KRISO container ship model in waves. J Ship Res2020; 64(1): 61–80.
24.
ITTC. Seakeeping experiments. ITTC-Recommended Procedures and Guidelines, Report no. 7.5-02-07-02.1, 2021. International Towing Tank Conference, Zurich, Switzerland.
25.
LeeSYouJ-MLeeH-H, et al. Experimental study on the six degree-of-freedom motions of a damaged ship floating in regular waves. IEEE J Oceanic Eng2016; 41(1): 40–49.
26.
KimSHRheeKP. Annual sea state occurrences around the Korean Peninsula. J. Ship Ocean Technol2003; 7(2): 20–28.
27.
KehoeJWBrowerKSComstockEN. Seakeeping and combat system performance - the operators’ assessment. Nav Eng J1983; 95(3): 256–266.
28.
BarnabySL. Analytical evaluation of UNREP methods using the model BFORM, MS Thesis, Naval Postgraduate School, USA, 1988.
