2013

Discussion on Effects of
LCB Location on

Seakeeping Analysis

ENGR 473-SHIP DYNAMICS

JAKE BROHAWN

SUNY MARITIME COLLEGE

CONTENTS
Table of Figures ............................................................................................................................... 2 Introduction .................................................................................................................................... 3 Sea Spectrum .................................................................................................................................. 5 Definition of Parameters................................................................................................................. 7 Response Amplitude Operator (RAO) ............................................................................................. 9 Parametric Investigation ............................................................................................................... 10 Pitch RAO Comparison .............................................................................................................. 10 Roll RAO Comparison ................................................................................................................ 12 Heaving RAO .............................................................................................................................. 14 Discussion on RAOs .................................................................................................................. 16 Added Resistance .......................................................................................................................... 17 Slamming....................................................................................................................................... 20 Bow Slamming ........................................................................................................................... 20 Stern Slamming ......................................................................................................................... 21 Motion Sickness Index .................................................................................................................. 22 Conclusion ..................................................................................................................................... 25

pg. 1

TABLE OF FIGURES
Figure 1-Maxsurf Model Hydrostatics ............................................................................................ 4 Figure 2-Sea States.......................................................................................................................... 6 Figure 3- Remote Locations ............................................................................................................ 7 Figure 4-Maxsurf Model Remote Locations ................................................................................... 8 Figure 5- Nordforsk 1987 Crieria .................................................................................................... 9 Figure 6- Pitch RAO ....................................................................................................................... 11 Figure 7-ROLL RAO ........................................................................................................................ 13 Figure 8-Heaving RAO ................................................................................................................... 15 Figure 9-Added REsistance............................................................................................................ 18 Figure 10-Polar Plot Bow Slamming.............................................................................................. 21

pg. 2

INTRODUCTION

The purpose of this report is to investigate the effects of changing the Longitudinal Center of Buoyancy of a model in Maxsurf Motions on the seakeeping results. The base model for the analysis has been chosen from the Maxsurf example models, see Figure 1 for its hydrostatic properties. From there the model was parametrically transformed in Maxsurf Modeler. In the parametric transformation all properties were left the same except for the LCB. The LCB was shifted first 1% and 2% forward of the original position and then 1% and 2% aft of the original. These refer to percent of the length of the waterline that the LCB was shifted. All references are from amidships and percent of waterline length is relative to amidships a well. This process has given us 5 Maxsurf Models with slightly different properties. The properties are tabulated in Figure 1 and you can clearly see the differences. Further in the report each models individual seakeeping analysis will be compared to see what the LCB change has affected. Along with the comparison will be a discussion of several of the slamming properties and the severity of sea sickness that can be expected on the ship.

pg. 3

Displacement Draft Amidships WL Length Beam Wetted Area Max sect. area Waterpl. Area Cb Cwp LCB length LCF length LCB % LCF % KB BMt BML GMt corrected GML KMt KML Immersion (TPc) MTc

Ship 1(orig) Ship 2(1%f) Ship 3 (2%f) Ship 4 (1%a) Ship 5 (2%a) Units 5086 5086 5085 5085 5085 t 5.25 5.25 5.25 5.25 5.25 m 100.453 100.453 100.453 100.453 100.453 m 16.495 16.495 16.494 16.494 16.495 m 1904.109 1905.855 1907.273 1902.507 1900.863 m^2 84.875 84.919 84.942 84.924 84.912 m^2 1156.152 1160.579 1165.831 1151.334 1146.818 m^2 0.57 0.57 0.57 0.57 0.57 0.698 0.7 0.704 0.695 0.692 -1.277 -0.409 0.596 -2.147 -3.035 from midships m -3.355 -2.678 -1.88 -4.03 -4.722 from midships m -1.271 -0.407 0.593 -2.138 -3.021 from midships % Lwl -3.34 -2.666 -1.872 -4.012 -4.7 from midships % Lwl 2.853 2.854 2.856 2.851 2.849 m 4.073 4.097 4.124 4.048 4.022 m 116.763 117.253 118.021 116.303 116.03 m 6.926 6.951 6.98 6.899 6.871 m 119.615 120.107 120.878 119.153 118.879 m 6.926 6.951 6.98 6.899 6.871 m 119.615 120.107 120.878 119.153 118.879 m 11.851 11.896 11.95 11.801 11.755 tonne/cm 60.673 60.921 61.302 60.431 60.294 tonne.m

FIGURE 1-MAXSURF MODEL HYDROSTATICS

pg. 4

SEA SPECTRUM
In this analysis we will be using the Bretschneider ocean wave spectrum. This wave spectrum is defined by the equation below. Wave spectrum is used to describe irregular ocean waves mathematically. To develop a sea spectrum from the Bretschneider formula we need two inputs, the characteristic wave height and the average period. Both of these parameters can be defined by a common Sea State system. This system generalizes the various conditions of waves into different seastates as defined below.
EQUATION 1 - BRETSCHNEIDER OCEAN WAVE SPECTRUM

( )

*where

is frequency in rad/sec Is the average frequency Is the significant wave height in meters

pg. 5

WMO Sea State Code Wave Height (meters)

Characteristics

Calm (glassy)

0 to 0.1

Calm (rippled)

0.1 to 0.5

Smooth (wavelets)

0.5 to 1.25

Slight

1.25 to 2.5

Moderate

2.5 to 4

Rough

4 to 6

Very rough

6 to 9

High

9 to 14

Very high

9
FIGURE 2-SEA STATES

Over 14

Phenomenal

pg. 6

The definition of each seastate includes several key characteristics besides the significant wave height and the average period. One of them is the Zero crossing period which can be defined as the mean time interval between the crossings of the zero point upwards or downwards. This is a number describing the average time it takes before the wave reaches the zero point at that seastate. Another one of the characteristics defined in the sea state is the wind speed range. This indicates how fast the wind would be if that particular sea state was observed. These properties can be simplified into single phrases used in everyday conversion like Calm, Rough, or Very High.

DEFINITION OF PARAMETERS
Defining several remote locations help with the analysis of the operability criteria. These remote locations will be used in the Maxsurf Motions program to compare severity of certain effects of ships motions. A total of four remote locations are defined for the Maxsurf model, Deck Wetness, Slamming at the bow, slamming at the stern, and the bridge. These locations are defined by Figure 3 and can be seen in the picture of the model in figure 4. Remote Location Long. Position From FP Deck Wetness FWD MOST (containership) Slamming BOW -15 m Slamming STERN -95 m Bridge -85 m
FIGURE 3- REMOTE LOCATIONS

Height 5.5 m 5.5 m 5.5 m 14.5 m

pg. 7

FIGURE 4-MAXSURF MODEL REMOTE LOCATIONS

Setting up a range of headings in steps of 15 from 0 - 360 degrees ensures that we can analyze all the different RAOs at their worst headings. For example, Rolling will be at its worst with waves coming abeam to the ship (90 degrees) while Pitching is at its worst with seas coming ahead (180 degrees). Comparing the RAO values plotted verse the encounter frequency will give us insight into the changes that the LCB make to the overall ship dynamics. The analysis will assume a value of .1 for the non-dimensional roll dampening factor. This value is needed because the Maxsurf Motions software does not compute viscous effects, which consist of the majority of the roll dampening. It is also important to define the criteria we are using as the Nordforsk 1987 Seakeeping Criteria as defined below.

pg. 8

FIGURE 5- NORDFORSK 1987 CRIERIA

RESPONSE AMPLITUDE OPERATOR (RAO)

An RAO for a ship represents how the ship reacts to the given sea conditions and is used in this experiment to compare different designs. An RAO value of 1.0 will show that the ships motion is following the wave motion and is in unison with its pattern. As you increase the RAO it will show that the ship will react with increased intensity to the waves its encountering. Generally speaking at low encounter frequency pitch and heave RAOs are close to 1.0 because the ship follows the wave pattern approaching it, this can be thought of as a ship floating like a cork. In contrast the RAO value at high encounter frequency approaches zero because there are so many waves along the length of the vessel that the forces are canceled out and the ship does not react. The RAO will see its highest value at the natural frequency of the ship.

pg. 9

PARAMETRIC INVESTIGATION

PITCH RAO COMPARISON The pitch RAO represents the pitching induced by the ships reaction to the ocean waves. Pitching can be considered greatest during head on seas. Heavy pitching can cause severe bow slamming and damage to the ship as discussed later in this paper. It is Ideal to have the lowest value for the Pitch RAO to avoid slamming. Overall the Pitch RAO values between the models were different depending on the location of the LCB. The most difference can be seen at the peak which is around and encounter frequency of around 1.15 rads/sec. The original design is the darkest line on the graph and it is clear to see that it is in the middle of the other four.

PITCH RAO
2 1.8 PITCH RAO AHEAD SEAS(180) 1.6 1.4 1.2 1 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0 0.2 0.7 1.2 ENCOUNTER FREQUENCY (RADS/SEC) 1.7 2.2 Series1 Series2 Series3 Series4 Series5

pg. 10

PITCH RAO
2 1.9 1.8 Series1 1.7 1.6 1.5 1.4 1 1.05 1.1 1.15 1.2 1.25 ENCOUNTER FREQUENCY (RADS/SEC) Series2 Series3 Series4 Series5

FIGURE 6- PITCH RAO

PITCH RAO AHEAD SEAS(180)

Zooming in on the peak we can see that the two ships with their LCB shifted aft have an increased Pitch RAO. The two ships with the LCB shifted forward have decreased RAO values for their Pitch RAO.

pg. 11

ROLL RAO COMPARISON The roll RAO represents the rolling induced by the ships reaction to the ocean waves. It is non-existent in the ideal ahead seas and greatest in abeam seas. Rolling is the most reactive ship motion because it is highly under dampened in comparison. This is due to the fact that the beam of a ship is far smaller than the length, which is the major factor in dampening. Overall the rolling RAO values between the different models were different depending on the location of the LCB. The most difference can be seen at the peak which is around an encounter frequency of .54 Rads/sec. The original design is the darkest of the lines on the graph and it is clear to see that it is in the middle of the other four.

ROLLING RAO
5.5 5 ROLL RAO- BEAM SEAS(90) 4.5 4 3.5 3 2.5 2 1.5 1 0.5 0.4 0.45 0.5 0.55 0.6 0.65 0.7 0.75 0.8 ENCOUNTER FREQUENCY(Rads/sec) 1 2 3 4 5

pg. 12

ROLLING RAO
5.4 ROLL RAO- BEAM SEAS(90) 5.2 5 1 4.8 4.6 4.4 4.2 4 0.45 0.5 0.55 ENCOUNTER FREQUENCY(Rads/sec) 0.6 0.65 2 3 4 5

FIGURE 7-ROLL RAO

Zooming in on the peak we can see that the two ships with their LCB shifted forward have an increased ROLL RAO. The two ships with the LCB shifted aft can be clearly seen with lower peak RAO values. Together it can be seen that an LCB shift of 1-2 % forward and aft of the original design has given an increase in RAO value in the forward direction and a decrease in the after direction.

pg. 13

HEAVING RAO The heave RAO represents the Heaving induced by the ships reaction to the ocean waves. It is present in all wave headings. Heaving is the up and down movement of the ship due to the waves it encounters. Because it is relevant in every heading it will be compared at 2 different headings to see differences. The first heading analyzed is ahead seas. The RAO values for all 5 ships were effectively unchanged by the shift in LCB in this heading. As seen in the graph below the slight differences match the more pronounced differences in the second heading analyzed.

HEAVE RAO
2.5 2 HEAVE RAO (AHEAD)

1.5

1 2

3 4

0.5

0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 ENCOUNTER FREQ (RADS/SEC)

pg. 14

HEAVE RAO
1.8 1.6 1.4 HEAVE RAO (BEAM) 1.2 1 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0 0 0.5 1 1.5 Axis Title 2 2.5 3 Series1 Series2 Series3 Series4 Series5

FIGURE 8-HEAVING RAO

For the second heading beam seas were analyzed. It can be seen that the heave RAO values are different between the models with different LCB locations. The following graph takes a closer look at the differences.

pg. 15

HEAVE RAO
1.6 1.5 1.4 HEAVE RAO (BEAM) 1.3 1.2 1.1 1 0.9 0.8 1 1.05 1.1 1.15 Axis Title 1.2 1.25 1.3 Series1 Series2 Series3 Series4 Series5

Looking at this graph it can clearly be seen that the original ship, the darkest line, is between the other four. The two ships that had the LCB moved forward have a slightly lower RAO value for heaving. In comparison the ships with the LCB shifted aft have a larger value for heaving RAO then the original.

DISCUSSION ON RAOS The five different models had differing values for the Response Amplitude Operators for Rolling, Pitching, and Heaving which proves that we have changed the dynamic properties of the ship by changing the position of the LCB. These differences however slight they may be can mean the difference in design choice to optimize comfort and safety. Also, using the peak values you can determine the worst possible situation in any of the given directions.
pg. 16

The base design performed only as a reference and represented as series 1 in all graphs can be seen as the darkest color. It is in the middle of the other four designs and holds the place as the average ship. Design number 2, which had its LCB shifted 1% forward of design 1, is represented by Series 2 and is the next lightest color. It performed better in Heaving and Pitching while doing worse in rolling. Design number 3, whose LCB is shifted 2% aft of design 1, improves on number 2 in heaving and pitching but does worse in rolling. The other two designs represented by the lightest colors on the graph can be seen as worse in heaving and pitching but better in rolling. Depending on what factor is important in your design you may choose any of the designs. The placement of the LCB of the ship affects the seakeeping performance of the ship in several different ways. This is due to the location of mass on the ship and the shape of the ships hull. The positioning of weight on the ship aids in the dampening of t he reactions to the waves the ship encounters. From the data collected it looks like the change in LCB aft improves Heaving and Pitching but hurts Rolling. This may not be the case for further change and it must be considered that further changing of the LCB may eventually increase these values. Thus further analysis is needed to draw solid conclusions.

ADDED RESISTANCE
Added resistance is defined as the resistance added because of the interaction of the ship with the waves. This affects the speed of the ship and slows the ship down in rough seas. In this section the added resistance is compared between different headings.

pg. 17

ADDED RESISTANCE (BEAM)

250 200 ADDED RESISTANCE KN/m2

150

1 2

100

3 4

50

0 0 -50 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3

ENCOUNTER FREQUENCY(RADS/SEC)

ADDED RESISTANCE (QUARTERING)

250

200

150

1 2 3

100

4 5

50

0 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3

FIGURE 9-ADDED RESISTANCE

pg. 18

As seen in the graphs the added resistance does change between each model along with the change in LCB with the exception of ahead seas. In beam seas it is apparent that the 2% shift forward in the LCB has increased the added resistances while the 2% shift aft has reduced it. The same conclusion can be made about the added resistance in quartering seas. In ahead seas there does not seem to be a significant change in added resistance.

Added Resistance(AHEAD)
300

250

200 Series1 Series2 150 Series3 Series4 100 Series5

50

0 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3

pg. 19

SLAMMING
Slamming can be defined as the impact of the ships hull with the surface of the water. It is usually observed when the ship is sailing into waves and the bow rises above the surface and eventually impacts it. In this section slamming will be compared on the original model through varying headings and sea states. The two seastates analyzed are sea state 3 and 7 which are defined above.

BOW SLAMMING This polar plot represents the relative vertical acceleration of the bow at various heading and speeds. Looking at the graph it is seen that the bow acceleration is greatest at full speed (25knts) and going straight with the waves. This is to be expected because the bow digging into the wave straight on will provide for a situation with the maximum submerged volume and therefore the maximum force. This force is what cause the most bow slamming forces and it can be assumed that it will happen in ahead seas as well.

pg. 20

FIGURE 10-POLAR PLOT BOW SLAMMING

STERN SLAMMING This polar plot represents the relative vertical acceleration of the stern at various headings and speeds. Looking at the plot it can be determined that the stern has the most acceleration at high speed when the waves are coming straight on to the ship. This is expected because the maximum motion of the stern happens when the most submerged volume happens. This happens when the ship digs into the wave and causes the maximum force in ahead seas.

pg. 21

MOTION SICKNESS INDEX

The Maxsurf Motions software calculates a number called the Motion Sickness Index. This number represents the percent of subjects that will vomit in the given time period. The data were derived from test on healthy, young, males students who were subjected to vertica l motions for a period of up to two hours. Thus extrapolation to other demographics or longer durations of exposure can be difficult.

pg. 22

This plot shows how the MSI at the bridge would be at various headings and speeds at SEA STATE 4. The maximum percent of people who would vomit at full speed and the worst heading is 14.1%. It is also seen that with waves coming from the stern there is a low

pg. 23

probability of people getting sick.

This second plot of the MSI is in SEA STATE 7. This sea state is clearly more intense as the maximum percent is 64.2 and much more of the plot is over 25% than under. This is due to the higher values for wave height. Also, between the two plots you can see that the severity goes down as the encounter direction moves to the stern which indicates that ahead seas cause significantly more discomfort than stern seas.

pg. 24

CONCLUSION
In this paper discussions on the effect of the longitudinal position of the center of buoyancy on the seakeeping performance of a ship were proposed. Hard data was crunched using the Maxsurf Motions and results were compared. It should be taken into consideration that the base model was an undeveloped base provided as an example in the Motions software and therefore may not prove to be comparable to other ships. This analysis however shows that the LCB shift does change the seekeeping data fairly consistently over the range of models used and this may show some validity. Finally, there is need for further analysis to provide proper conclusions to the questions stated in the introduction but use of the data as a basis for further investigation is acceptable.

pg. 25