Roll stabilisation using passive water

tanks
Henry Way 25435647
Introduction

Roll on a ship can produce some unwanted effects. For example on a passenger ship,
passengers find rolling unpleasant. Also extreme roll could cause the ship to capsize. To
reduce the amount of roll a ship has when excited by a wave, there are several methods:
1.
2.
3.
4.

Stabilizer fins
Active pumping of water around the ship
Bilge keel
Passive water tanks

The cheapest methods of reducing roll are methods 3 and 4. In this report, the effect of a
passive water tank on a model ship will be assessed on how much of a damping effect it
produces. Passive tanks at as roll stabilizers by the water in the tanks sloshing with a
counter active action against the roll of the ship.
Aims
To assess the effects of damping with a passive water tank
Objectives
Measure the response of a ship model fitted with a water tank acting as a passive roll
stabilizer, both with the stabilizer in operation and without, in order to determine the
reduction on roll achieved by the stabilizer.
Method
The model ship was attached to the tow post of the tank, so that it was perpendicular to
the sides of the tank. This was done so that waves created from the rolling model did not
reflect off the sides of the towing tank and interfere (cause a damping effect) on the roll
of the ship. Also the model was placed 2/3 the way down the tank, to allow the wave
making machine to absorb the waves created by the model. To achieve forced oscillation,
a mechanism of rotating weights is placed at the rear of the model and rotated with
varying frequencies.
The equations used in this lab are:
Slope of rolling moment wave created by mechanism

Roll amplification factor

Slope of change in roll angle against roll angle graph

To measure roll angle a transducer was used. This means a calibration had to be done.
This was achieved by hold the ship at a roll angle of 20 and -20 degrees, and recording
voltage produced by the transducer. Table 1 below shows how many volts represents 1
degree of roll and the static heel angle.
1

Volt

15.807 degree
1
s
static heel
=
1.5153 degree
angle
63
s
Table 1 table to show calibration and static heel angle.
Results
Free motion

time
second
s

roll
angle
degr
ees

2.87

19.38

3.84

12.6

4.77

7.86

5.73

4.05

roll
angle
radian
s
0.3382
45
0.2199
11
0.1371
83
0.0706
86

average roll
angle

change in roll
angle

radians

radians

time
period
second
s

0.279078147

0.118333323

0.97

0.178547182

0.082728607

0.93

0.103934357

0.066497045

0.96

T (seconds)

0.953333333

1 (rad/s)

6.590753819
0.072208598

Table 2 data acquired and

processed for undamped case

roll
angle

time

1.26

16.27

2.18

8.703

3.12

3.13

4.05

1.1

roll
angle
0.2839
65
0.1518
96
0.0546
29
0.0191
99

average roll
angle

change in roll
angle

0.217930537

0.132069064

0.92

0.103262405

0.097267199

0.94

0.036913714

0.035430184

0.93

T (seconds)
1 (rad/s)

time
period

0.93
6.756113234
0.107318178

Table 3 data acquired and processed for damped case

0.14

f(x) = 0.67x

0.12

f(x) = 0.45x

0.1
0.08
change in roll angle (radians)

undamped

0.06

Linear (undamped)
damped

0.04

Linear (damped)

0.02
0
0

0.1

0.2

0.3

average roll angle (radians)

Figure 1 graph to show change in roll angle against average roll angle for damped and
un-damped case

10
9
8
7
6

Roll Amplification Factor

Unstabilized - Measured

Stabilized - Measured
4

Unstabilized - Theoretical
Stabilized - Theoretical

3
2
1
0

Roll Frequency

Figure 2 graph to show roll amplification factor against roll frequency for measured and
theoretical stabilized and un-stabilized data
Discussion of results
Using the data in tables 2 and 3, Figure 1 was drawn. The gradient of this graph enabled
us to calculate damping factor . Table 3 shows that is larger with the use of a

passive water tank, then without a passive water tank. This shows that the
passive water tank does produce a damping/roll stabilising effect.
Figure 2 shows both theoretical values and measured data for roll amplification
factor against roll frequency for stabilised and un-stabilised cases. For
theoretical and measured data cases, the stabilised case produced a lower roll
amplification factor than the un-stabilized case, showing that the passive tank is
producing a damping effect on the roll of the ship. The difference in maximum
values of roll amplification factor between stabilised and un-stabilised for

measured data is approximately 2, and for theoretical case the difference

between maximums is also approximately 2. This further shows that the passive
water tanks are producing a damping/stabilising effect. This shows that a passive
water tank reduces the roll amplitude.
The difference in maximums between measured and theoretical data is 2.34 for
un-stabilised and for stabilised 2.99. The reason for the difference between
theoretical and measured data is due to experimental error. For example, waves
created by the ship rolling could be reflected off the ends of the tank and then
interfere with the roll of the ship, which would increase the damping factor. Also
the processing of the data involved reading values of a graph in excel, which is
not a very consistent way of attaining data, as due to human error, values could
be read from the graph wrong. The transducer records a lot of noise, which
further made it difficult to read values off the graph.

Conclusion
To conclude, the damping factor for the model ship was calculated with and without a
passive water tank acting as a roll stabiliser. It was shown in tables 2 and 3 that damping
factor was increased with the use of a passive water tank.
The model was then forced to be rolled with a given frequency with and without the
passive water tank. Figure 2 shows that roll amplitude is reduced with the use of a
passive water tank for both theoretical and experimental data. It also showed that
theoretical values are lower than the measure values, which could be due to
experimental errors such as wave interference and noise.