1

2015,27(1):1-23
DOI: 10.1016/S1001-6058(15)60452-8

Recent progress in CFD for naval architecture and ocean engineering*

STERN Frederick1, WANG Zhaoyuan1, YANG Jianming1, SADAT-HOSSEINI Hamid1, MOUSAVIRAAD

Maysam1, BHUSHAN Shanti2, DIEZ Matteo3, YOON Sung-Hwan1, WU Ping-Chen1, YEON Seong Mo1,
DOGAN Timur1, KIM Dong-Hwan1, VOLPI Silvia1, CONGER Michael1, MICHAEL Thad1, XING Tao4,
THODAL Robert S.5, GRENESTEDT Joachim L.5
1. IIHR-Hydroscience and Engineering, University of Iowa, Iowa City, IA, USA,
E-mail: frederick-stern@uiowa.cn
2. Center for Advanced Vehicular Systems, Mississippi State University, Starkville, MS 39759, USA
3. CNR-INSEAN, Rome, Italy
4. Department of Mechanical Engineering, University of Idaho, Idaho 83844-0902, USA
5. Department of Mechanical Engineering and Mechanics, Lehigh University, Bethlehem, PA, 18015, USA

(Received January 1, 2015, Revised January 14, 2015)

Abstract: An overview is provided of CFDShip-Iowa modeling, numerical methods and high performance computing (HPC),
including both current V4.5 and V5.5 and next generation V6. Examples for naval architecture highlight capability and needs. High
fidelity V6 simulations for ocean engineering and fundamental physics describe increased resolution for analysis of physics of fluids.
Uncertainty quantification research is overviewed as the first step towards development stochastic optimization.

Key words: CFD, naval architecture, ocean engineering

Introduction and utilizing billions of grid points.

CFD capabilities continue to advance at ever-fa-
ster speed and ever-more-impressive accomplishments,
as recently reviewed for ship hydrodynamics by Stern
et al.[1]. None-the-less CFD is slow in its adaptation by
industry since most users are at universities and R&D
laboratories[2]. However, slowly-but-surely CFD is
transforming engineering design as the build-and-test
design spiral approach transforms to the simulation
based design (SBD) approach offering innovative out-
of-the-box 21st century design concepts with impro-
ved safety, energy and economy. First generation SBD
capability has focused more on functionality than high
fidelity and exascale computing requiring significant
advancements to achieve the next generation SBD ca-
pability for fully resolved, fully coupled, sharp-inter-
face, multi-scale, multi-phase, multi-disciplinary tur-
bulent ship flow including fluid structure interactions
* Biography: STERN Frederick (1949-), Male, Ph. D.,
Professor
Herein, recent progress in CFD for naval archite-
cture and ocean engineering is overviewed based spe-
cifically on CFD Ship-Iowa URANS/DES toolbox, as
an example of the current state-of-the-art. The empha-
sis is on the latest research since Stern et al.[1]. For a
more complete list of references with regard to the de-
velopment and applications of CFD Ship-Iowa
URANS/DES toolbox within the field of computatio-
nal ship hydrodynamics, the readers are referred to
Stern et al.[1]. Iowa science and technology paradigm
for the development of the SBD capability is descri-
bed. An overview is provided of CFDShip-Iowa mo-
deling, numerical methods and HPC, including both
current V4.5 and V5.5 and next generation V6. Exa-
mples for naval architecture highlight capability and
needs. High fidelity V6 simulations for ocean engi-
neering and fundamental physics describe increased
resolution for analysis of physics of fluids. Uncertai-
nty quantification research is overviewed as the first
step towards development stochastic optimization. Re-
cent progress deterministic and stochastic optimiza-
tion research is not reviewed herein since recently
provided by Campana[3].
2

1. Paradigm for development SBD for ship hydro- k -  / k -  based isotropic and algebraic stress model
dynamics (ASM) based anisotropic RANS, and DES approaches
Rapid advancements in simulation technology with near-wall models or wall functions. A single-
are revolutionizing engineering practice, as SBD and phase level-set method is used for free-surface captu-
ultimately virtual reality are replacing current reliance ring. Captive, semi-captive, and full 6DOF capabili-
on experimental observations and analytical methods. ties for multi-objects with parent/child hierarchy are
It is expected that a major shift in how scientific me- available. The fully discretized propeller or body-
thod forms its basis of conceptual truth, a shift from force propeller model can be employed for propulsion.
reliance on observations, based on experiments, to re- The water-jet propulsion can be included using actual
liance on logic, based on simulations supported by ex- water-jet with detailed simulation of the duct flow or
periments. SBD covers a broad range from compute- water-jet model with the reaction forces and moments.
rized systems based methods to solutions of physics Incompressibility is enforced by a strong pressure/ve-
based initial boundary value problems (IBVP). Present locity coupling, achieved using either PISO or proje-
interest is in solutions of physics based IBVP for ship ction algorithms. The fluid flow equations are solved
hydrodynamics. SBD for ship hydrodynamics merges in an earth-fixed inertial reference system, while the
traditional fields of resistance and propulsion, seakee- rigid body equations are solved in the ship system.
ping, maneuvering, open-ocean and littoral environ- Other modeling capabilities include semi-coupled two
mental effects, and offers new opportunities for future phase air/water modeling, environmental waves and
ships to meet challenges of the 21st century. Develop- winds, bubbly flow, and fluid-structure interaction.
ment SBD involves new paradigm for hydrodynamics
research in which CFD, experimental fluid dynamics
(EFD), and uncertainty analysis (UA) are conducted
simultaneously for benchmark geometries and condi-
tions using an integrated approach along with optimi-
zation methods, all of which serve as internal engine
guaranteeing simulation fidelity. International collabo-
rations with other research institutions and organiza-
tions include participation in ITTC and NATO AVT
working groups and naval engineering educational
consortium (NEEC), organizing international CFD
workshops and current NICOP projects. Those activi-
ties are mutual-beneficial and magnifying individual
institute capabilities, which has been foundational in
the unprecedented achievements of computational
ship hydrodynamics.

2. CFDShip-Iowa URANS/DES/LES SBD Toolbox

CFDShip-Iowa is general-purpose CFD simula-
tion software developed at the University of Iowa’s
IIHRHydroscience and Engineering for support of
student thesis and project research as well as transition
to Navy laboratories, industry, and other universities.
CFDShip-Iowa has been a leading ship hydrodyna-
mics CFD code for over 20 years, which has been ve-
rified and validated for many applications in ship
flows. The current versions include CFDShip-Iowa
V4.5, V6.1, and V6.2, with V5.5 and V6.3 under de-
velopment.
Fig.1 Free surface deformation around ship hull for fixed static
2.1 V4.5 and 5.5 modeling, numerical methods, HPC condition
CFDShip-Iowa V4.5 is an incompressible
URANS/DES solver designed for ship hydrodynami- Numerical methods include finite difference dis-
cs[4]. The equations are solved in either absolute or re- cretization on body-fitted curvilinear grids, with high
lative inertial non-orthogonal curvilinear coordinate order upwind schemes for the convection terms and
system for arbitrary moving but non-deforming con- second-order centered for the viscous terms. The tem-
trol volumes. Turbulence models include blended poral terms are discretized using a second-order back-

ward difference Euler scheme. Since the solver is de-
signed for high-Reynolds number flows, the transport
and re-initialization equations are weakly elliptical
and thus pentadiagonal line solvers in an alternate-di-
rection-implicit (ADI) scheme are used. A MPI-based
domain decomposition approach is used, where each
decomposed block is mapped to one processor. The
resulting algebraic equation is solved with the PETSc
toolkit using block Jacobi incomplete factorization
(ILU) pre-conditioners and bi-conjugate gradients sta-
bilized (BCGSL). All equations of motion are solved
in a sequential form and iterated to achieve converge-
nce within each time step.
Extension of CFDShip-Iowa Version 4.5 to
Version 5.5 with a fully coupled two-phase flow so-
lver using the volume-of-fluid (VOF) method is in
progress. The approach includes implementing the hi-
ghly accurate geometric VOF interface tracking me-
thod developed for V6, developing fully-coupled two-
phase flow solver, implementing cavitation and mix-
ture models for air/water/vapor three-phase interaction,
and developing capabilities for the necessary applica-
tions. The numerical methods, HPC, and SBD functio-
nal areas are similar to Version 4.5. The VOF method
has been implemented into V5.5 to replace the level
set method for the interface tracking and incorporated
into the single phase flow solver. The current version
of the code works with single-phase flow solver,
multi-block grids, turbulence, and full 6DOF motions
without overset grids. Figure 1 shows free surface de-
formation around the Numerette Planing Hull for
fixed static condition.
2.2 V6.1, 6.2 and 6.3 modeling, numerical methods,
HPC
The next-generation high-fidelity SBD tools,
CFD Ship-Iowa V6, are already under development
for milestone achievement in increased capability fo-
cusing on orders of magnitude improvements in accu-
racy, robustness, and exascale HPC capability.
In Version 6.1, Cartesian grids are used with im-
mersed boundary methods for complicated geome-
tries[5], and the level set based ghost fluid method is
used for sharp interface treatment and fully two-phase
coupling with the VOF method for interface tracking.
Extension to orthogonal curvilinear grids was made in
V6.2[6] with enhanced technologies for the interface
modeling[7,8] and similar numerical methods and HPC
capabilities as V6.1.
A finite-difference method is used to discretize
the governing equations on a non-uniform staggered
grid, in which the velocity components are defined at
the cell face centers. All other variables are defined at
the cell centers. Time advancement is based on the
semi-implicit four-step fractional step method. The
diagonal diffusion terms are advanced with the seco-
nd-order Crank–Nicholson method and the other
3
terms by the second-order explicit Adams-Bashforth
method. The pressure Poisson equation is solved to
enforce the continuity equation. The convective terms
are discretized using the fifth-order WENO scheme.
The other terms are discretized by the second-order
central difference scheme. The pressure Poisson equa-
tion is solved using a semi-coarsening multi-grid so-
lver from the HYPRE library.
The code is parallelized via a domain decomposi-
tion (in three directions) technique using the MPI li-
brary. All inter-processor communications for ghost
cell information exchange are in non-blocking mode.
Parallel I/O using MPI2 have been implemented such
that all processors read from and write to one single
file simultaneously[9]. In order to speed up the compu-
tations and improve the accuracy and efficiency for
very large grid simulations (billions of grid points),
some enhanced technologies have been implemented
such as semi-Lagrangian advection schemes and opti-
mized memory usage. The water/air interface is extra-
cted as PLY polygon file format for post-processing.
A multi-block grid capability has been recently incur-
porated into CFD Ship-Iowa Version 6.2.
Development of the general curvilinear grid so-
lver, V6.3, is in progress, which is built on the success
of V6.1 and V6.2 to achieve all functionalities of V4.5
and beyond. CFDShip-Iowa V6.3 is aimed at the high-
fidelity, high-resolution simulations of fully coupled,
multi-scale, multi-phase, turbulent ship flows with
fluid-structure interactions utilizing billions of grid
points. The approaches include finite volume method,
multi-block, body-fitted, general non-orthogonal cur-
vilinear structured grids, overset background
Cartesian grids, and highly modularized, developer-
friendly code structure written in Modern Fortran
(2008) and MPI.
The second-order finite volume method with ac-
curate geometric approximations for non-smooth,
non-orthogonal structured grids is used for the discre-
tization. A generic transport equation is solved for
momentum components and scalars with central diffe-
rence and high-order upwind schemes used for face-
centered value reconstruction. Exact projection me-
thod is implemented for machine-accuracy mass con-
servation where central difference and high-order up-
wind schemes for contra-variant volume flux reconst-
ruction at cell face centers. Scalable MPI communica-
tion using new MPI-3 features will be implemented
and MPI sub-array data type is extensively utilized for
scalable MPI communication and I/O in V6.3.
3. Naval architecture
3.1 Resistance and seakeeping, captive and free ru-
nning maneuvering, free running course keeping,
and intact and damaged stability
Resistance and seakeeping predictions are inclu-
4

ded in Gothenburg 2010 (G2010) and upcoming vanced turbulence and propeller models for improve-
Tokyo 2015 (T2015) workshops. Prediction of resista- ments in the CFD predictions of static and dynamic
nce is the oldest application of CFD in ship hydrody- PMM maneuvers. Overall, the average error for capti-
namics and its accuracy has been significantly impro- ve maneuvering simulation was 13.6%D . The largest
ved since Gothenburg 1980 (G1980), the first CFD error values were generally observed for pure yaw and
workshop held in 1980. In G2010, 89 submissions of static rudder simulations. For linear derivatives, the
resistance prediction are documented, which is the lar- average error was much larger for yaw moment
gest number in the workshop series[10]. More than (40% D) than sway force (15% D ) . For nonlinear de-
90% of the simulations were conducted using grids rivatives, the average error value was about 40%D .
smaller than 10M points. The resistance prediction si- Free running maneuvering simulations were reported
mulations were carried out for a wide range of appli- for limited cases in the SIMMAN 2008 workshop.
cations and conditions. Other than resistance, sinkage The maneuvering simulation included standard ma-
and trim, local flow fields such as boundary layer and neuver test cases such as turning circle and zigzag.
wake, and wave patterns were also predicted by many The results showed 6%D error for trajectories for tu-
simulations. Different geometries including tankers,
rning maneuver prediction while larger errors
container ships, and surface combatants were studied
(13% D) were obtained for zigzag maneuver. The grid
at a range of very small to large Froude numbers ( Fr ) .
sizes were from 0.4 M to 14.9 M points for these si-
The simulations showed average error of 3.3%D for
mulations. For most SIMMAN 2008 computations,
resistance for both low and high Fr while sinkage the propulsion was implemented as an axisymmetric
and trim showed less errors for high Fr . The average body force distributed in the propeller disk. The body
error for sinkage/trim at low and high Fr was 9.7 / force was specified in a non-iterative manner in which
11%D and 35 / 55%D , respectively. For seakeeping, the ship wake on the body force was neglected. Rece-
several seakeeping test cases were included in G2010 ntly, Wu et al.[12] used Yamasaki propeller model cou-
with numerous contributions for each case. CFD com- pled with the RANS code to give a model that intera-
putations of seakeeping have been rapidly increasing ctively determines propeller-hull interaction without
since Tokyo 2005 CFD workshop (T2005) in which requiring detailed modeling of the propeller geometry.
there was only one forward-speed diffraction case Yamasaki model is based on a potential theory formu-
with no motions. The applications for seakeeping pre- lation, in which the propeller is represented by bound
dictions included a wide range of wave conditions, vortex sheets on the propeller disk and free vortices
Froude numbers, and motion conditions. Similar to the shed from them downstream of the propeller. Wu et
resistance test cases, different geometries including al.[12] showed the Yamasaki propeller model could
tankers, container ships, and surface combatants were predict successfully the asymmetric wake field. In ad-
studied. Grid sizes ranging from 0.4 M to 71 M points dition, the propeller rpm was predicted with less than
were used with a clear trend toward increasing accura- 0.5%D error for Yamasaki compared to 12%D for
cy with grid size. The CFD predictions are assessed
separately for 1st order vs. 2nd order terms. The mean
value of resistance and the amplitude of motions were
considered 1st order terms whereas the amplitude of
resistance and mean value of motions were considered
2nd order terms. The simulations showed large avera-
ge error for the second order terms (44% D) while the
average error was less than 15%D for the first order
terms.
Captive and free running maneuvering simula-
tions are included in the SIMMAN 2008 workshop[11]
and upcoming SIMMAN 2014. The applications for
captive predictions included PMM-type forced motio-
ns such as static rudder, static drift, pure sway, pure
yaw, and yaw and drift conditions for different geo-
metries. For SIMMAN 2008, 16 submissions were re-
ceived for the forced motion simulations, comprising
different CFD-based methods such as RANS, URANS,
and DES. Grid sizes ranging from 2.1 M to 250 M
points were used. It was concluded that finer grids
were needed especially for the rudder and appendages
and in regions of large vortices, as well as more ad- Fig.2 Turning maneuver simulation with water-jet propulsion

Fig.3 The grid topology and propeller vortices for KVLCC2 free running simulations with fully discretized propeller
Fig.4 5415M maneuvering simulations in calm water
non-iterative axisymmetric body force. Free running
simulations are also conducted with more advanced
propulsion system such as water-jet. Sadat-Hosseini et
al.[13] performed maneuvering simulations for a cata-
maran and validated the results against the experime-
ntal data (See Fig.2). The simulations were conducted
either for bare hull with integral force models for
water-jet or with actual water-jet with body force im-
peller defined by pump curves. Turning maneuver si-
mulations showed average error of 9% D - 22.6% D
for CFD simulations with minimum error for the ac-
tual water-jet simulation. Zigzag maneuvers showed
larger errors. In addition, the extremely large over-
shoot angles in zigzag showed the deficiency of
water-jet propulsion system for maneuvering. Since
CFD is computationally expensive for maneuvering in
comparison to system based (SB) methods, some stu-
dies have focused on improving the SB mathematical
model by using CFD with system identification me-
thods. Araki et al.[14] employed CFD free running out-
puts to improve a 4DOF mathematical model develo-
ped for maneuvering in calm water and following
waves. The CFD predictions were first validated agai-
nst the experimental data from different facilities
5
including IIHR wave basin[15,16]. For calm water, it
was shown that the average system based prediction
error drops from 16%D to 8%D using the
maneuvering coefficients and rudder forces estimated
from CFD free running instead of those from captive
experiments. For waves, Araki et al.[14] showed that
the mathematical model with wave loads estimated
from CFD outputs provides better prediction for
maneuvering in moderate following and quartering
waves, compared to the original mathe-matical model
with the wave loads computed from slender body
theory. However, the improved mathematical model
was too stable in severe waves and unable to predict
the instabilities such as periodic motion or broaching.
For SIMMAN2014 workshop, Sadat-Hosseini et al.[17]
conducted simulations for free running maneuvers of
KVLLCC2 in calm water using body-force propeller
model and actual propeller (see Fig.3). The grid size
was 6.8M-8.4M for different cases. The computational
cost was 3-5 times higher for the simulations with the
actual propeller. The results for turning maneuver
showed E = 6.6% D using propeller model and
much less error ( E = 2.2% D) using actual propeller.
6
Fig.5 The predicted transom free surface and vortex structures for turning maneuver simulation
Fig.6 Course keeping simulation in irregular oblique waves
Similarly, zigzag simulations showed better prediction
using actual propeller. Sadat-Hosseini and Stern[18]
performed maneuvering simulations for 5415M test
cases of SIMMAN 2014 using twin counter-rotating
propellers based on body-force propeller model with
total grid size of 6.7M points (see Fig.4). The results
showed about E = 12% D for turning and zigzag 20/
20 while larger errors were shown for zigzag 10/10. In
addition, Sadat-Hosseini and Stern[18] conducted sys-
tem-based simulations for 5415M maneuvering in
calm water. The maneuvering coefficients were found
from system identification using CFD outputs. To es-
timate the coefficients, parallel processing technique
was used in which CFD free running data for several
turning and zigzag maneuvers were first combined
and then used to estimate one set of maneuvering coe-
fficients. The system based predictions showed an
average error of 5.30%D , 12.64%D and 4.67%D
for trajectories for turning 35, zigzag 10/10 and 20/20,
respectively.
Among free running maneuvering simulations,
there are very limited studies on local flow. Recently,
Sadat-Hosseini et al.[19] studied DES predictions of the
local flow including transom wave field and vortex st-
ructures in turning maneuver. Similar study was pre-
viously conducted only for straight-ahead condition[20].
The mean and unsteadiness of transom wave field
were predicted with 9%D and 11%D error while the
trajectories were predicted with  3%D . The asy-
mmetry of mean wave field was significantly under
predicted due to surprisingly large asymmetry of EFD
data. The unsteadiness spectra at few points in the
transom wave field showed f 1.5 scaling. The reso-
lved turbulence kinetic energy was 86% in the tran-
som region. The simulations showed Karman-like in-
stability at transom, horseshoe vortices at the juncture
of strut-hull and strut-shaft, and shear layer instability
at the strut-hull intersection. Figure 5 shows the predi-
cted transom wave field and vortex structures. Com-
pared to straight-ahead condition, the Karman-like fre-
quencies were 3% higher while others were 8%-35%
lower for turning. In addition, the predicted frequency
for Karman-like, horseshoe and shear layer vortex
shedding in turning showed 2.4%, 3.7%-7.7% and
8.6% asymmetry, respectively.
There are few simulations conducted to investi-
gate free running course keeping and instability. Stern
and Toxopeus[21] and Sadat-Hosseini et al.[22] perfor-
med course keeping simulations in calm water, regular
and irregular waves for the fully appended 5415M
ship hull, in collaboration with NATO AVT 216 se-
ssion “Evaluation of Prediction Methods for Ship Ma-
neuvering and Control”. The results were validated
against the experiments not only for the ship motions
but also for the loads on the appendages. The results
showed good prediction for the trajectories and loads
on the appendages ( 10% D) even for very complex
geometries with dynamic stabilizer and rudders (see
Fig.6). Comparing the irregular wave results with the
results computed from regular wave simulations at se-
veral discrete wavelength conditions showed that the

Fig.7 Overall vortical structures predicted by CFDShip-Iowa URANS (a2, b2) and DES (a3, b3) predictions on adapted 84M grid for
5415 with bilge keels
ship has similar motion in both regular and irregular
waves with same wavelength condition. The course
keeping simulations focusing on intact instability are
summarized in Stern et al.[1], showing good prediction
for different instabilities including parametric roll,
broaching and capsize, surf-riding, and periodic mo-
tion. For damaged stability, Sadat-Hosseini et al.[23]
showed good prediction for both ship motions and
water heights inside the compartment for damaged
ship in calm water and waves.
Overall, free running simulations have been in-
creasing in past few years and it is expected that the
future challenges and method development efforts for
modelling, numerical methods and HPC will focus on
free running rather than captive simulations. In addi-
tion, more research will focus on improving the SB
mathematical model by using CFD since CFD is com-
putationally expensive in comparison to SB methods.
3.2 Turbulence
Prediction of turbulent viscous flow for ship hulls
is of central importance and focused topic at CFD
Workshops since G1980 to most recent G2010. Veri-
fication and validation of CFD predictions have been
performed for tanker KVLCC2, container KCS and
surface combatant 5415 hull forms at straight ahead
conditions. In recent workshop extensive local-flow
analysis was performed for KVLCC2 (bluff body) and
5415 (slender body) focusing on the effect of turbule-
nce modeling. URANS with anisotropic turbulence
model performed better than isotropic model. For
KVLCC2, URANS under predicted axial velocity and
7
vortical strength by 10% and over predicted turbulent
structures by 35%, when compared with the experime-
ntal data. DES predicted unsteady flow with up to
95% resolved turbulence. DES mean flow predictions
were quantitatively comparable to that of URANS, but
were over predictive for both velocity and vortical and
turbulent structures. DES showed grid induced separa-
tion inside the boundary layer and modeled stress de-
pletion. The former was resolved by using delayed
DES approach, whereas the latter issue was unreso-
lved. For 5415, URANS provided reasonably good ag-
reement with the experimental data, but under predi-
cted the vorticity magnitude and boundary layer bulge,
and over predicted turbulent structures at nominal
wake plane. In DES, the resolved TKE levels were
less than 3%, thus the results were unacceptable. No-
netheless, for the first time it provided plausible de-
scription of the overall vortex structures, and helped in
understanding the sparse experimental data. Overall
firm conclusions were not possible since grid and tur-
bulence modeling errors could not be separated and
sparseness of experimental data, especially for turbu-
lence variables and onset and progression of 5415 vor-
tices.
NATO AVT-183: Reliable Prediction of Separa-
ted Flow Onset and Progression for Air and Sea Vehi-
cles research effort for the sea facet focused on procu-
rement of detailed experimental data using PIV tech-
niques, and evaluation and validation of CFD predi-
ctions using different codes by NATO members[24-26].
The study focused on three ship hulls: KVLCC2 at
8
Fig.8 Variation of Qpeak (LEFT) and TKE (RIGHT) at primary
vortex cores predicted by best CFDShip-Iowa simulatio-
ns are compared with EFD data. (a) URANS predictions
on 84M grid for sonar dome vortex (SDV) and fore body
keel vortex (FBKV) cores is compared for straight ahead
case. (b) DES predictions on 84M grid for sonar dome tip
vortex (SDTV) and bilge keel tip vortex (BKTV)
static drift  = 30o , 5415 with bilge keels at straight
ahead and  = 20o , and Delft Catamaran at static drift
conditions. Note that for 5415 cases, EFD data were
procured for both planar sections and volumes surrou-
nding the primary vortices. This allowed evaluation of
Q - criteria along the vortex, which enabled validation
for the vortex core predictions for the first time. Vali-
dation of 5415 case has been largely completed, and
discussed below. CFDShip-Iowa simulations for the
5415 cases were performed using anisotropic URANS
and DES models using finest adaptive grids to date, to
reduce grid errors. In both the cases, URANS results
do not improve when the grid is refined beyond 50M
points. The best URANS predictions showed excessi-
ve decay of the vortices as shown in Fig.7, and resu-
lted in large errors for the progression of the vortices
as shown in Fig.8(a), when compared with experime-
ntal data. Considering that the results did improve
with grid refinement, the large errors in URANS pre-
dictions were attributed to modeling errors. DES pre-
dictions for the straight-ahead case showed very low
resolved turbulence levels, similar to G2010. For the
static drift case, DES predictions improved with grid
resolution. On the finest 84M grid, the resolved turbu-
lence levels were  95% , and the flow predictions
compared better with experimental data than those ob-
tained using URANS. However, as shown in Fig.8(b),
they predicted stronger vortex strength at onset and
weaker vortex strength downstream. Note that the
large errors could be partly due to grid resolution is-
sues. CFD submissions using other codes were mostly
using URANS, and one submission for the straight
ahead case was using DES. The URANS results from
other codes were very similar to that of CFDShip-
Iowa for the static drift case. However for the straight
ahead case, solvers predicted different decay rate of
the vortices for similar size grids. The differences
could be due to differences in numerical methods, grid
topologies or turbulence model implementation,
which needs to be investigated. The DES submission
for the straight-ahead case, showed significantly high
vortex strengths than experiments, similar to
CFDShip-Iowa prediction, affirming the limitations of
DES models.
Vortex onset and separation in the straight ahead
case was identified due to open-type cross flow sepa-
ration. The vortex separates from the surface due to
the presence of adverse axial pressure gradient along
converging streamline, and is identified from the peak
of div ( w ) . The vortex separation pattern for the sta-
tic drift case included both open-, closed- and open-
closed type separations. The separation pattern and to-
pology were consistent with those available in the li-
terature. The closed-type separation satisfied the topo-
 9

logical rules expected for a close-separation formed

over an isolated body or body intersecting a wall or
free-surface.
Overall, turbulence modeling is a roadblock for
improved prediction of viscous flow for ship hulls, as
URANS is too dissipative and DES has limitations for
both slender and bluff bodies. For the slender body at
straight ahead condition, DES fails to trigger resolved
turbulence. For slender bodies at static drift and bluff
bodies at both straight ahead and static drift conditions,
DES predicts sufficient resolved turbulence levels and
the predictions are better than that of URANS, but
shows large comparison errors for the progression of
the vortices probably due to modeled stress issue. LES
are ideal for accurate CFD predictions, as they have
less dependence on modeling, however, they are pro-
hibitively expensive due to grid resolution requireme-
nts in the boundary layer. Hybrid RANS/LES models
provide a reasonable alternative, wherein URANS is
used in the boundary layer and LES in the wake.
However, more advance hybrid RANS/LES models
should be investigated to address the DES modeling
issues. The research should particularly focus on inve-
stigation of: turbulence trigger models to enable tran-
sition from RANS to LES for slender body simula-
tions, blended RANS-LES models with explicit LES
modeling that are more rigorously validated than the
LES mode of single parameter models, such as DES,
and physics based RANS-LES blending rather than
grid based blending to address modeled stress deple-
tion issues.

3.3 Ship-ship interaction

CFD computations of ship-ship interaction have
been reported in the recent International Conference
on Ship Maneuvering in Shallow and Confined Water.
Mousaviraad et al.[27] used CFDShip-Iowa to study
Hope and Bobo in replenishment condition in calm
water and waves, and in overtaking maneuver in
waves. The average error against EFD was 21% D for
calm water, and 10%D for replenishment in waves.
The sheltering effect was significant for oblique
waves, with 105% difference between mid-mid and
mid-bow configuration. The separation distance effect
was more important for head waves than oblique
waves, being 43% and 23% respectively. During the
overtaking, the interaction effect decreases motions
and increases sway forces, roll and yaw moments,
being more significant for the smaller vessel. Sadat-
Hosseini et al.[28] and Wu et al.[12] investigated the in-
teraction between two different tankers Aframax and Fig.9 WAM-V CFDShip-Iowa regular head wave results in
KVLCC2 using CFDShip-Iowa. The ships were free most probable conditions of SS3 ( Fr  0.52 (10 kt))
to heave and pitch advancing in shallow water with
same speed and fixed separation distance. Both ships Overall, the simulations showed large errors for predi-
were appended with rudder and operating propellers, cted forces, moments and motions compared with the
which were modelled by axisymmetric body force experimental data. Later, it was found the longitudinal
propeller model with same RPM as experiments. positions of the two ships in the experiments were not
10
Fig.10 WAM-V hydrodynamic modeling for CFD simulations in regular head waves compared with EFD sea trials in random seas
Fig.11 WAM-V 2-post testing (a) and 6-post suspension simulation (b) using CFD results as inputs. Comparison of payload accele-
rations is shown (c) for 6-post simulation (white) and 2-post test data (grey)
reported correctly. Therefore, the simulations were re-
peated with the revised conditions but the errors were
still large and thus more studies should be conducted
to evaluate the experimental setup. In addition, the ac-
curacy of the axisymmetric body-force propeller
model for propulsion in shallow water should be inve-
stigated.
3.4 Advanced hull forms and fluid-structure intera-
ction: ACV/SES, WAM-V, planing hulls
CFD studies of advanced hull forms impose sig-
nificant challenges due to complex and multi-discipli-
nary modeling requirements, very high speeds intro-
ducing different physics than conventional ships, and
difficulties in validation studies due to limitations in
model testing and limited measurements in sea trials.
Modeling requirements are different for specific hulls,
e.g., fluid-structure interactions (FSIs) including
multi-body dynamics (MBD) for suspension systems
and finite element (FE) modeling for flexible hulls.
ACV/SES capabilities are implemented in
CFDShip-Iowa including cushion models, seal models,
air-flow over the above water seals and superstructure,
decoupled cushion cavity flow, waterjet propulsion
with side forces and yaw moments induced by nozzle
rotations and reverse buckets, and air-fan propulsion
model. Validation simulations are carried out for a
combined SES/ACV ship (T-Craft) for captive tests in
deep and shallow water. Free-running simulations of
T-Craft in turning and zigzag maneuvers in deep and
shallow water and in calm water and waves are also
carried out. Recent analyses showed that the resista-
nce and moment due to cushion pressure distribution
inside the cavity is significant for seakeeping cases
while not considered in the initial simulations. The
improved results will be published for captive valida-
tion studies and free-running demonstration simulatio-
ns.
The wave adaptive modular vessel (WAM-V) is
an ultra-light flexible catamaran that conforms to the
surface of the water through a collective suspension
and is modularly designed enabling a wide variety of
applications. The springs, shock absorbers, and ball
joints articulate the vessel such that the hulls can
move semi-independently and along with the inflate-
ble pontoons adapt to the water surface/waves to miti-
gate structural stresses and reduce drag. WAM-V ca-
pabilities are implemented in CFDShip-Iowa inclu-
ding: LS_IBM (level-set immersed boundary) method
for treatment of the gap between pontoon and hinged
pod, a two-body dynamics model for hinged pod mo-
tions, and a jet force model moving with hinged pod
for free-running simulations. Captive calm water veri-
fication and validation studies are carried out with
average error of 5.7% D [29]. Validation against full-
scale sea trial data and coupling with MBD modeling
 11

trial data in calm water and seas[30]. For simulations in

waves, statistical analysis of the sea trial data in waves
is conducted to provide an estimate of the dominant
encounter frequency. CFD regular head waves simula-
tions (Fig.9) are carried out at the dominant encounter
frequency and with a wave height over wavelength of
H /  = 1/ 64 , the typical value for sea state 3. The re-
sults are compared with sea trial data in Fig.10 and
show that although the EFD data have large peaks,
their standard deviation (SD) values converge to va-
lues very close to CFD. The CFD regular head wave
results are then used by Virginia Technology Univer-
sity as inputs to run a 2-post shaker rig testing and a
SIMULINK virtual shaker rig modeling and the resu-
lts for the payload suspension motions are shown in
Fig.11 with very good agreement. MBD modeling for
the suspended payload is carried out for a 2DOF cyli-
nder drop as a first step to WAM-V suspended pay-
load modeling. The SIMULINK MBD code is cou-
pled with CFDShip-Iowa in 1-way weak coupling and
2-way strong coupling approaches and the results are
shown in Fig.12. The 2-Way coupling results show
significant improvement over 1-Way results: for the
un-sprung mass displacement the initial slope after the
pontoon hits the water free surface is more accurately
predicted, the double hump at the first peak is predi-
cted, and the frequency of occurrence is maintained
correctly through the displacement curve, for the sp-
rung mass displacement, 2-Way results follow the
EFD displacement curves both in magnitude and fre-
quency, especially for the first second, while after 1 s
the sprung mass displacement is slightly over-predi-
cted. Overall the results are validated with acceptable
agreement. Future work will couple the CFDShip-
Iowa and the MBD model for WAM-V, and perform
validation studies against measurements of the motio-
ns/accelerations of the suspended payload during the
full-scale sea trials.

Fig.12 CFD-MBD 2DOF 1-Way and 2-Way coupling results

for cylinder drop compared with EFD data for pontoon
((a), (b)) and sprung mass ((c), (d)) motions
Fig.13 Underwater surface photo from EFD for USNA planing
are carried out in collaboration with Prof. Mehdi model at Fr = 1.83 (a) and comparison with CFDShip-
Ahmadian of Virginia Technology University. Free- Iowa predictions
running validation studies are carried out against sea
12

Fig.15 Irregular wave slamming pressures for USNA planing

hull: (a) EFD slamming events aligned by peak pressure,
(b) CFDShip-Iowa validation showing expected value
(EV) and +/– standard deviation (SD) bars for re-ente-
ring and emerging pressures and duration

Fig.14 USNA planing hull regular wave simulations using

CFDShip-Iowa and NFA compared with experiments

Planing hull capabilities including hydrodynamic

performance and structural loads and slamming are
implemented and validated for calm water, regular
waves, and irregular waves for the Fridsma geome-
try[31,32]. CFD and EFD studies are carried out to vali-
date the hydrodynamic forces, moments, hull pressu-
res, accelerations, motions, and the multiphase free-
surface flow field generated by the USNA planing
craft at high-speed ( Fr = 1.8 - 2.1) in calm water and
regular and irregular waves[33]. The work is conducted
by collaborations with Carolyn Judge of United States
Naval Academy (USNA). CFDShip-Iowa simulations Fig.16 CFD-FEA simulation results for FSI studies showing
for calm and regular waves were carried out blind, be- force and displacement distribution for the bay 4, port
panel on the full-scale Numerette planing vessel in re-
fore EFD data was available. Calm water spray root at gular head waves corresponding to sea state 3 most
Fr = 1.83 is compared in Fig.13 with underwater sur- probable wave condition at Fr = 0.7

Fig.17 Average, min and max of EFD (experimental fluid dynamics) strain with its expected value (EV) and standard deviation (STD)
at peak compared with CFD/FE predicted strain for sea state 3 most probable wave condition and Fr = 2.9
face photo from EFD indicating very close agreement.
CFDShip-Iowa V5.5 simulations with volume of fluid
free surface solver showed negligible effects on resi-
stance and motions, while the extension of the jet
spray flow was resolved better than V4.5 level-set so-
lver. Regular wave results for USNA experiments (run
43 and 44) and CFD simulations using CFDShip-Iowa
V4.5 and NFA solvers are compared in Fig.14 for mo-
tions and slamming pressure. The phase of the heave
and pitch is well predicted, while the amplitude of the
numerical simulations is greater than measured expe-
rimentally. Pitch motions at twice the lowest freque-
ncy are not evident in simulations performed using ei-
ther CFDShip-Iowa or NFA. Single point pressure
measurements show good agreement for slam duration
while the re-entering pressure amplitudes are under-
predicted for both codes. A smaller time step may be
needed to capture the peak pressure. The emerging
peak pressures are missed in NFA simulations while
captured in CFDShip with close agreement. Irregular
waves simulations are validated with good agreement
in terms of expected values and standard deviations of
motions, accelerations, and slamming pressures. Sla-
mming statistical studies are carried out for both expe-
rimental data and simulation results and validation re-
sults are shown in Fig.15 for slamming pressure. Ex-
treme slamming events are studies both for EFD and
CFD by examining the standard score for re-entering
pressure ( z P = ( P  EVP ) / SDP ) . For EFD, 4 slam
events with z P  2 and 6 events with 1  z P  2 are
detected. These events are found to correlate with ship
motions, namely the vertical velocity of the ship bow
at the time of impact. CFD studies are carried out to
provide further insight by correlating the extreme slam
events with relative bow/wave motions as well as his-
tory of previous zero crossing waves. The CFD extre-
me events are grouped in 3 categories: z P  1.5 (3
events), 1  z P  1.5 (4 events), and 0  z P  1 (14
events). For each slam event, wavelength over ship
length ( / L) and wave height over wave-length
13
( H /  ) values for the immediate wave, as well as
averaged values for the last 2, 3, 4, and 5 waves are
calculated. In group 1, slam pressures correlate 100%
with smaller  / L and larger H /  for the last 3
waves. For groups 2 and 3, strongest correlations are
for larger H /  averaged over the last 2 and 3 waves,
respectively. Considering all the slams in all 3 groups,
strongest correlation is found for smaller  / L from
the last 3 waves and larger H /  from the last 2
waves. Type-2 slams characterized by containing only
one pressure peak (re-entering pressure) with smaller
peak values and shorter duration are identified both in
EFD and CFD.
FSI studies[34] are carried out for the Numerette
planing hull (slamming load test facility at Lehigh
University) to provide a better understanding of sla-
mming using benchmark full-scale validation EFD
data. The studies are conducted in collaboration with
Dr. Joachim Grenestedt of Lehigh University. Initially
rigid body CFD simulations are conducted for both
bare hull and appended hull with sterndrive unit and
body-force propeller model excluding the superstru-
cture. The predicted motions and loads are used for
one way coupling with FE model for composite bo-
ttom panels to evaluate displacement, strain, and stress.
CFDShip-Iowa is used for CFD simulations and the
commercial FE code ANSYS is used as structural sol-
ver. Studies are carried out in calm water ( Fr = 0.7)
and different regular head waves conditions at Fr =
0.7, 2.24 and 2.9. CFD/FE results show good predi-
ction for displacement, strain, and stress distribution
for both starboard and bottom panels. Figure 16 shows
the panel force and displacement for a regular head
wave simulation with Sea-State 3 most probable wave
conditions at Fr = 0.7 . Figure 17 shows EFD and
CFD-FE strain for a regular head wave simulation
with sea state 3 most probable wave condition at
Fr = 2.9 . Two-way coupling will be implemented by
first using modal analysis with added mass modeling,
and then fully coupled CFD-FEA. FSI V&V studies
14
Fig.18 Vortical structures with Q - criterion (left) and energy spectra of the streamwise velocity in the shear layer (right)
are also planned for slamming loads on Athena semi-
planing hull.
4. Ocean engineering
Simulations of 3-D unsteady separation (vortex
shedding) around offshore structures and wave run-up
induced by ocean waves are still challenging for ocean
engineering applications. Recently, the capabilities of
state-of-the-art CFD codes for vortex shedding and
wave run-up are investigated in ITTC ocean enginee-
ring workshop held in Nantes, France October 17-18,
2013. The capabilities of CFDShip-Iowa V4.5 and
V6.2 for these applications are reported in Yeon et
al.[35] and Yoon et al.[36]. The studies focused on the
flow around single/multiple cylinder(s), a typical geo-
metry for both applications.
4.1 Single- and two-phase vortex shedding
In Koo et al.[37] the two-phase turbulent flow past
an interface-piercing circular cylinder was studied
using large-eddy simulation with a Lagrangian dyna-
mic subgrid-scale model. It was shown that the air-
water interface makes the separation point more dela-
yed for all regimes of Re and the air-water interface
structures are remarkably changed with different
Froude numbers. However, the deep flow did not dis-
play the correct single-phase flow behavior due to the
deficient grid resolution and non-conservative conve-
ction scheme, among other issues, employed with
CFDShip-Iowa V6.2. Yeon et al.[35] conducted a detai-
led study of the single-phase vortex shedding around a

Fig.19 Drag coefficient, RMS lift coefficient, separation angle,
and base pressure vs. Re
circular cylinder for ITTC ocean engineering work-
shop test cases. The simulations are conducted using
CFDShip-Iowa V6.2, covering sub- to super-critical
15
Re . A careful verification and validation study were
carried out. The effects of aspect ratio/span length,
conservative vs. non-conservative convection schemes,
and grid resolution were investigated. The mean velo-
city, mean pressure, Reynolds stresses, and TKE dis-
tribution were obtained and discussed. The snapshot
POD method was employed to analyze flow structures
in the boundary layer, shear layer and wake. Figure 18
shows coherent flow structures visualized with iso-
surface of Q criterion colored by the non-dimensio-
nal eddy viscosity. The wake width and amplitude of
the shedding is large for the sub-critical Reynolds
number ( Re) and become smaller as Re increases.
Energy spectra of the streamwise velocity in the shear
layers are also shown in Fig.18. At lower wavenum-
bers the energy spectra give scaling exponents close to
the Kolmogorov slope, which verifies that the large-
eddy simulations properly modeled the turbulence and
preserved the correct energy decay behavior, although
the ranges of wavenumbers with the 5/3 spectral
slope become narrower as Re increases. On the other
hand, for larger wave numbers, the rates of energy
decay are faster than Kolmogorov’s decay law and the
scaling slopes become much steeper. A main cause of
this rapid decay is the numerical dissipation from the
upwind convection schemes used in the simulations.
The Kolmogorov wavenumbers estimated from the
local velocity fluctuations are smaller than the grid
cut-off wavenumbers. This indicates the grid resolu-
tion is adequate in the shear layers, where the turbule-
nce intensity is usually lower than that in the wake.
Figure 19 shows comparisons for CD , CLRMS ,  LS /
TS , and C pb . The drag crisis is well predicted, al-
though more cases in the critical and post-critical re-
gime are desirable. The LES CLRMS is close to the most
reliable data for sub-, critical and super-critical Re .
The angle of separation is close to the experiments for
sub- and critical Re , but substantially under predicted
for super-critical Re . The base suction pressure shows
good agreement with the experiments for sub- and
super-critical Re , but is under predicted for critical
Re . The largest difference is for critical Re , where
the drag drops sharply with small changes in Re resu-
lting in large changes in CD between facilities and li-
kely simulations. The grid resolution, convection sc-
heme, and the effect of upstream disturbance ubiqui-
tous in experiments, but missing in the simulations,
are most likely responsible for the under-predicted se-
paration angle for the critical Re .
4.2 Wave run-up
CFD simulations of wave run-up around single/
multiple truncated vertical cylinder(s) for ITTC ocean
engineering workshop tests cases were conducted by
16

Fig.20 EFD and CFD comparison of mean wave field for single cylinder cases

Fig.21 Mean and 1st harmonic amplitude of the wave field cases

Yoon et al.[36]. The simulations were conducted in re-
gular head waves for various wave conditions inclu-
ding  / D = 4.7 and  / D = 21.9 with 1/30, 1/16
and 1/10. Sensitivity studies are conducted for the ef-
fects of grid distribution, domain size and turbulence
model. Validation studies focused on averaged wave
height at crest/trough and 0th, 1st and 2nd harmonics for
wave elevation and horizontal force. CFD predictions
were assessed separately for 1st and 2nd order variables.
The averaged wave height at crest/trough and the 1st

Fig.22 Flow charts of three different strong coupling schemes in one time step for fluid-structure
harmonics were considered as the 1st order variables,
whereas the 0th and 2nd harmonics were considered as
the 2nd order variables. In addition, the wave field pa-
ttern around cylinder(s), vortex shedding, and intera-
ction among cylinders were analyzed. The grid sensi-
tivity for the 1st and 2nd order variables was 3.17% and
77.74%, respectively, both less than the facility bias
estimated from the provided experimental data from
two facilities. Nonetheless, the 2nd order variable sen-
sitivity was large indicting the need for finer grids to
resolve 2nd order terms. The domain size sensitivity
was also very small, 1.14% and 2.34% for 1st and 2nd
order variables. The turbulence model sensitivity was
conducted using URANS and DES and the sensitivity
for 1st and 2nd order variables was 1.64% and 6.55%,
respectively, suggesting that the URANS turbulence
model is sufficient for the validation studies. The vali-
dation studies showed 10%D error for wave crest/
trough, 7%D error for the 1st harmonic of wave ele-
vation, and 70%D error for the 2nd order variables in-
cluding the 0th and 2nd harmonics of wave elevation.
The horizontal forces also showed 9%D error for the
1st harmonic amplitude while larger errors are predi-
cted for the mean and 2nd harmonics. The detailed
study of the wave field showed that the mean wave
field elevations are similar to the free surface eleva-
tions for a cylinder in a steady flow due to the large
wave induced current (up to 15% of the orbital velo-
city for the steepest wave). The results showed larger
effects of the wave steepness on the wave mean and
2nd amplitude than on the 1st harmonic amplitude. The
wave steepness effect was also more prominent for
 / D = 4.7 than  / D = 21.9 . The studies were also
conducted on the total wave field to evaluate the di-
ffracted wave pattern. The nonlinearities in the incide-
nt wave caused difficulties extracting the diffraction
17
wave from the total wave field. However, the total
wave field could show the diffraction wave at upst-
ream which was more dominant for  / D = 4.7 and
steeper waves. Figures 20 and 21 show the wave field
for single and four cylinder cases. The studies on vor-
tex structures showed more vortex shedding for longer
wave conditions as its longer wave period provides
enough time to develop vortices around the cylinder.
For both wavelength conditions, the vortex shedding
is more at instants the wave crest is located near the
cylinder as the flow field velocity is larger. Lastly, the
comparison of four and single cylinder cases shows
that the interaction of cylinders increases wave trough
for 4%-10% while the wave crest increases about 9%-
25%. The largest interaction effect is found for the
shoulder side of the cylinders.
5. Fundamental physics
5.1 IBM for idealized and practical geometries
Immersed boundary methods are simple and effi-
cient approaches for many problems with complex
geometries and moving boundaries, thanks to the rela-
xation of the requirement of generating boundary-fi-
tting grids in numerical simulations. CFDShip-Iowa
V6.1 is a Cartesian grid solver utilizing a direct for-
cing immersed boundary method. The research focus
is on efficient strong coupling schemes for FSIs and
the extension to wave-body interaction problems in
naval architecture and ocean engineering. In Yang and
Stern[38] an efficient strong coupling scheme for 6DOF
motion prediction was developed. The predictor-co-
rrector loop in each time step includes the adjustments
of the structure displacements and velocities, but the
fluid flow solver was excluded. Then in Yang and
18
Fig.23 Stokes wave breaking
Stern[39] an efficient and robust immersed boundary
setup procedure was developed for further accelera-
ting the strongly coupled simulations of FSIs. This
approach can be a viable choice for particulate flows
as shown in Yang and Stern[40]. Currently a non-itera-
tive strong coupled scheme has been developed.
Figure 22 shows the flow charts of three different st-
rong coupling schemes in one time step for FSI pro-
blems. Compared with the scheme in Yang et al.[41]
with a complete iterative loop including multiple
Poisson solves and the scheme in Yang and Stern[38]
with one Poisson solve but multiple local reconstru-
ction steps, the present scheme utilizes an intermedia-
te step with a non-inertial reference frame (NIRF) at-
tached to a solid body and no iterative loop is invo-
lved. The improved efficiency and reduced algorithm
complexity is evident. The next step of development
will be combination of this new scheme with an effi-
cient two-phase flow solver for ultra-scale simulations
of 6DOF motions in naval architecture and ocean en-
gineering. It should be pointed out that the develop-
ment of wall models in immersed boundary methods
is necessary if high Reynolds number flows are the
target application and a reasonable approximation of
the turbulent boundary layers is required.

Fig.24 (a) Cavitating NACA66 hydrofoil with a 6o angle of
attack, 2-D solution showing cavity growth and she-
dding. (b) Close up views of a sharp interface simu-
lation of a cavitating NACA66 hydrofoil with a 6°
angle of attack showing bubble growth, merging,
and advection shortly after inception at the leading
edge
5.2 Bubble, droplet, and spray in breaking waves
Air entrainment, bubbles, droplets, jets, and
spray in breaking waves are of great importance to
ship hydrodynamics. Previous experimental and com-
putational studies are mainly focused on the global st-
ructures of the wave breaking. With the development
of the CFD technology, detailed studies of the small
19
scale structures, such as water droplets and air bubbles,
in the two-phase region become possible. In the study
by Wang et al.[42], wave breakings around a wedge-
shaped bow and over a submerged bump are simula-
ted using very large grids (1.0109-2.2109 grid poi-
nts). This study is the first attempt to directly simulate
the unsteady and energetic wave breaking flows to the
scale of micrometers. In Wang et al.[43], even large
grids (up to 11.8109) are used in order to resolve the
bubbles/droplets in breaking Stokes waves at the scale
of several micrometers. Figure 23(a) shows the wave
profile at time t = 1.76 when the splash-ups are being
generated after the wave plunging. The 3-D interface
instability in the spanwise direction is clearly demon-
strated in Fig.23(b). The study of the flow over a
bump in a shallow water flume by Gui et al.[44,45] sho-
wed that the Görtler type centrifugal instability is the
most relevant mechanism for the free surface instabili-
ties. Figures 23(c) and 23(d) show the applications of
the Görtler inviscid instability and Rayleigh instability
theories in the stream-wise central plane, respectively.
In the wave breaking region, Görtler stability criterion
is violated in most locations and Rayleigh stability cri-
terion is broken only in small regions. These results
support the idea that breaking wave instabilities are
mainly due to Görtler type centrifugal instability.
Figure 23(e) shows the formation of bubbles/droplets
in the process of wave breaking. Power-law scaling
for the bubble size distribution was obtained with two
different slopes separated by a Hinze radius of
0.0012 m as shown in Fig.23(f). The simulation resu-
lts are in good agreement with the experimental fin-
dings.
5.3 Cavitation
Cavitation degrades the performance of lifting
surfaces found on ships, such as propeller blades and
rudders and may cause erosion. Past computational
models have generally been homogenous mixture mo-
dels, which average the effects of many bubbles, or
discrete bubble models, which model only a limited
number of bubbles. In Michael et al.[46] a new sharp
interface cavitation model was described within the
framework of CFD Ship-Iowa V6.2. The interface is
advected using a volume of fluid method with the ad-
dition of an additional velocity due to phase change.
The phase change component of the interface velocity
is modeled using a simplification of the Rayleigh-
Plesset equation computed through a volume source
term included semi-implicitly in the pressure Poisson
equation. A marching cubes method is used to compu-
te the interface area in each computational cell and for
the determination of the phase at the cell and face cen-
ters. Figure 24(a) shows a time series of cavitation on
a 2-D NACA66 hydrofoil at a 6o angle of attack. The
details of the shedding process can be seen. Figure
20

24(b) shows the bubble growth, merging, and adve- MC with dynamic metamodels was found the most
ction process in the simulation of the same foil in 3-D promising method overall. The high computational ef-
shortly after cavitation inception. This type of high fi- ficiency of dynamic metamodels, by auto-tuning and
delity simulation offers the opportunity for deeper in- adaptive sampling, makes the approach also recomme-
sight into the physics of cavitating flows. nded for stochastic optimization. Metamodel-based
UQ has been applied to stochastic design optimization
of DC in real ocean environment and operations, as
6. Uncertainty quantification shown in Diez et al.[54] and Tahara et al.[57]. Future ex-
Initial research focused on development and app- tensions include the application of metamodel-based
lication of deterministic verification and validation UQ and optimization to multi-disciplinary analysis
(V&V) methodologies and procedures for high-fideli- and optimization (MDA, MDO) of FSI problems.
ty CFD simulations. Initial studies for validation me-
thodologies[47] were subsequently extended to verifi-
cation procedures for deterministic uncertainties ste-
mming from iterative, grid and time-step converge-
nce[48,49]. V&V methodologies and examples were
presented at the AVT-147 Symposium on Computa-
tional Uncertainty[50]. Recently, the research focus
moved to stochastic uncertainty quantification (UQ)
methods as an essential part of stochastic design opti-
mization for real ocean environment and operations,
such as robust design optimization (RDO) and reliabi-
lity based design optimization (RBDO). UQ research
was undertaken within NATO AVT 191 “Application
of Sensitivity Analysis and UQ to Military Vehicle
Design”. The objective was the development and vali-
dation of efficient UQ methods for application to rea-
listic ship hydrodynamic problems. Non-intrusive UQ
methods were addressed with high-fidelity physics-
based CFD solvers. Evaluation metrics for efficient
UQ methods were developed, based on deterministic
and stochastic convergence criteria and validation ver-
sus numerical benchmark[51,52], and efficiency of over-
all UQ procedure by assessing the number of CFD si-
mulations required to achieved prescribed error thre-
sholds[53]. Numerical benchmarks were provided by
statistically convergent MC simulation with direct use
of CFD computations. UQ methods included metamo-
del-based Monte Carlo (MC) simulation, quadrature
formulas, and polynomial chaos methods. Applicatio-
ns covered unit studies and advanced industrial pro-
blems. Specifically, a unit problem for a NACA 0012
hydrofoil with variable Reynolds number was prese-
nted and assessed in Mousaviraad et al.[51]. The high-
speed Delft catamaran (DC) advancing in calm water
with variable Froude number and geometry was prese-
nted and studied in Diez et al.[54]. DC in stochastic ir-
regular and regular head waves (see Fig.25) with va-
riable speed and geometry was assessed in He et al.[55].
A combination of UQ problems for the DC was sele- Fig.25 Comparison of time history distributions from irregular
cted from Diez et al.[54] and He et al.[55] and used for wave (benchmark) and regular wave UQ for the Delft
further investigation in He et al.[56], focusing on the Catamaran in head waves, at sea state 6 and Fr = 0.5 .
polynomial chaos method, and Volpi et al.[53], focu- Empirical and Normal density functions are shown
sing on dynamic metamodels.
In conclusion, stochastic UQ methods were
found mature for application to realistic stochastic op- 7. Future research
timization problems. Based on the evaluation metrics, The oncoming exascale HPC era is to change our

approaches to grand scientific and engineering challe-
nges and to transform modeling and simulation into a
specified discipline of predictive science. Current
mainstream RANS solvers for ship hydrodynamics are
expected to continue performing well for even larger
grids of up to a few billions of points. However, there
will be a threshold that further increase of grid size
cannot improve the results anymore because of the in-
herently limited RANS/DES turbulence models and
the widely-used lower-order discretization schemes.
High-fidelity, first-principles-based simulations with
unprecedented resolution can reveal vast unknown
temporal-spatial correlations in multi-scale and multi-
physics phenomena that are beyond today’s compu-
ting and experimental capabilities. With comprehensi-
ve V&V procedures, assisted by targeted physical ex-
periments, and rigorous uncertainty quantification,
they are to revolutionize ship hydrodynamics research
and, along with optimization techniques, the ship desi-
gn process for greatly reduced design cycles and cost
and much improved operation safety and economy.
Therefore, the next-generation, high-fidelity ship hy-
drodynamics solvers have to be developed aiming at
the oncoming exascale computing platforms, and add-
ressing modeling issues, discretization schemes, and
HPC memory and scalability restraints at the same
time.
Acknowledgments
This work was supported by research Grants
from the Office of Naval Research (ONR), with Dr.
Patrick Purtell, Dr. Ki-Han Kim, Dr. Thomas Fu, Ms.
Kelly Cooper, Dr. Roshdy Barsoum, and Dr. Robert
Brizzolara as the program managers. The FSI studies
are performed in collaboration with Dr. Joachim
Grenestedt of Lehigh University. The WAM-V studies
are conducted in collaboration with Dr. Mehdi
Ahmadian of Virginia Technology University. The
planning hull studies are conducted in collaboration
with Dr. Carolyn Judge of USNA. The simulations
were performed at the Department of Defense (DOD)
Supercomputing Resource Centers (DSRCs) through
the High Performance Computing Modernization Pro-
gram (HPCMP).
The user profile obtained by the 26th Internatio-
nal Towing Tank Conference held in 2011 indicated
for ship hydrodynamics CFD: 65% universities and
model basins, 20% directly industry (shipbuilding or
engineering design companies), and 15% other. Re-
spondents rated themselves as intermediate/advance
CFD engineers. In addition, most model-basin work is
for experimental testing not CFD as requested their
customers and likely biased by investments in experi-
mental facilities. Ultimately, it depends on the custo-
mers at all levels and regulation agencies.
21
References
[1] STERN F., YANG J. and WANG Z. et al. Computatio-
nal ship hydrodynamics: Nowadays and way forward[J].
International Ship Building Progress, 2013, 60(1-4):
3-105.
[2] ITTC2011. The specialist committee on computational
fluid dynamics[C]. Proceedings of 26th International
Towing Tank Conference. Rio de Janeiro, Brazil,
2011.
[3] CAMPANA E. F. Ship design under uncertainty via
high-fidelity stochastic optimization[C]. Proceedings of
Annual General Meeting of the Schiffbautechnische
Gesellschaft E.V. Berlin, Germany, 2013.
[4] HUANG J., CARRICA P. M. and STERN F. Semi-cou-
pled air/water immersed boundary approach for curvili-
near dynamic overset grids with application to ship hy-
drodynamics[J]. International Journal for Numerical
Methods in Fluids, 2008, 58(6): 591-624.
[5] YANG J., STERN F. Sharp interface immersed-boun-
dary/level-set method for wave-body interactions[J].
Journal of Computational Physics, 2009, 228(17):
6590-6616.
[6] Wang Z., SUH J. and YANG J. et al. Sharp interface
LES of breaking waves by an interface piercing body in
orthogonal curvilinear coordinates[R]. AIAA paper
2012-1111, 2012.
[7] WANG Z., YANG J. and STERN F. A new volume-of-
fluid method with a constructed distance function on
general structured grids[J]. Journal of Computaional
Physics, 2012, 231(9): 3703-3722.
[8] WANG Z., YANG J. and STERN F. A simple and con-
servative operator-splitting semi-Lagrangian volume-
of-fluid advection scheme[J]. Journal of Computatio-
nal Physics, 2012, 231(15): 4981-4992.
[9] YANG J., BHUSHAN S. and SUH J. et al. Large-eddy
simulation of ship flows with wall-layer models on
Cartesian grids[C]. Proceedings of 27th Symposium
on Naval Hydrodynamics. Seoul, Korea, 2008.
[10] LARSSON L., STERN F. and VISONNEAU M. Nu-
merical ship hydrodynamics: An assessment of the
gothenburg 2010 workshop[M]. Gothenburg, Sweden:
Springer, 2014, 318.
[11] STERN F., AGDRUP K. and KIM S. Y. et al. Experie-
nce from SIMMAN 2008The first workshop on verifi-
cation and validation of ship maneuvering simulation
methods[J]. Journal of Ship Research, 2011, 55(2):
135-147.
[12] WU P. C., SADAT-HOSSEINI H. and TODA Y. et al.
URANS studies of ship-ship interactions in shallow
water[C]. Proceedings of 3rd Intl. Conference on
Ship Manoeuvring in Shallow and Confined Water.
Ghent, Belgium, 2013.
[13] SADAT-HOSSEINI H., CHEN X. and KIM D. H. et al.
CFD and system-based prediction of Delft catamaran
maneuvering and course stability in calm water[C].
Proceedings of 12th International Conference on
Fast Sea Transportation. Amsterdam, The
Netherlands, 2013.
[14] ARAKI M., SADAT-HOSSEINI H. and SANADA Y.
et al. System identification using CFD captive and free
running tests in severe stern waves[C]. Proceedings of
13th International Ship Stability Workshop. Brest,
France, 2013.
[15] SANADA Y., TANIMOTO K. and TAKAGI K., et al.
22
Trajectories for ONR Tumblehome maneuvering in
calm water and waves[J]. Ocean Engineering, 2013,
72: 45-65.
[16] SANADA, Y., ELSHIEKH, H., TODA Y. et al. Effects
of waves on course keeping and maneuvering for surfa-
ce combatant ONR tumblehome[C]. Proceedings of
30th Symposium on Naval Hydrodynamics. Hobart,
Tasmania, Australia, 2014.
[17] SADAT-HOSSEINI H., WU P. C. and CARRICA P. M.
et al. CFD simulations of KVLCC2 maneuvering with
different propeller modeling[C]. Proceedings of
SIMMAN2014 Workshop. Copenhagen, Denmark,
2014.
[18] SADAT-HOSSEINI H., STERN F. System based and
CFD simulations of 5415M maneuvering[C]. Procee-
dings of SIMMAN2014 Workshop. Copenhagen,
Denmark, 2014.
[19] SADAT-HOSSEINI H., KIM D. H. and TAYLOR G. L.
et al. Vortical structures and instability analysis for
Athena in turning maneuver with full-scale valida-
tion[C]. Proceedings of 30th Symposium on Naval
Hydrodynamics. Hobart, Tasmania, Australia, 2014.
[20] BHUSHAN S., XING T. and STERN F. Vortical stru-
ctures and instability analysis for Athena wetted tran-
som flow with full-scale validation[J]. Journal of Flui-
ds Engineering, 2012, 134(3): 031201.
[21] STERN F., TOXOPEUS S. Chapter 1–Experimental
and computational studies of course keeping in waves
for naval surface combatant[R]. Technical Report 161,
NATO AVT, 2013.
[22] SADAT-HOSSEINI H., STERN F. and TOXOPEUS S.
CFD simulations of course keeping in irregular waves
for 5415M[J]. Ocean Engineering, 2014, in Prepara-
tion.
[23] SADAT-HOSSEINI H., KIM D. H. and LEE S. K. et al.
CFD and EFD study of damaged ship stability in regu-
lar waves[J]. Ocean Engineering, 2014, in Preparation.
[24] YOON H., GUI L. and BHUSHAN S. et al. Tomogra-
phic PIV measurements for a surface combatant at st-
raight ahead and static drift conditions[C]. Proceedings
of 30th Symposium on Naval Hydrodynamics.
Hobart, Tasmania, Australia, 2014.
[25] ABDEL-MAKSOUD M., MÜLLER V. and XING T. et
al. Chapter 7Experimental and numerical investigatio-
ns on flow characteristics of the KVLCC2 at 30o drift
angle[R]. Technical Report 183, NATO AVT, 2015.
[26] FALCHI M., FELLI M. and GRIZZI S. et al. SPIV
measurements around the Delft 372 catamaran in steady
drift[J]. Experiments in Fluids, 2014, 55(11): 1844.
[27] MOUSAVIRAAD S. M., SADAT-HOSSEINI S. H. and
CARRICA P. M. et al. URANS studies and validation
of ship-ship interactions in calm water and waves for re-
plenishment and overtaking conditions[J]. Journal of
Ocean Engineering, 2014, Submitted.
[28] SADAT-HOSSEINI H., WU P. C. and TODA Y. et al.
URANS studies of ship-ship interactions in shallow-
water[C]. Proceedings of 2nd International Confere-
nce on Ship Manoeuvring in Shallow and Confined
Water. Trondheim, Norway, 2011.
[29] MOUSAVIRAAD S. M., BHUSHAN S. and STERN F.
URANS studies of WAM-V multi-body dynamics in
calm water and waves[C]. Proceedings of 3rd Interna-
tional Conference on Ship Maneuvering in Shallow
and Confined Water. Ghent, Belgium, 2013.
[30] CONGER M., MOUSAVIRAAD S. M. and STERN F.
et al. URANS CFD for two-body hydrodynamic simula-
tion of wave adaptive modular vessels (WAM-V) and
validation against sea trials[J]. Naval Engineers Jour-
nal, 2014, Accepted for Publication, special edition: the
current fleet, the next class and the new prototypes.
[31] MOUSAVIRAAD S. M., WANG Z. and STERN F.
URANS studies of hydrodynamic performance and sla-
mming loads on high-speed planing hulls in calm water
and waves for deep and shallow conditions[C]. Procee-
dings of 3rd International Conference on Ship Ma-
neuvering in Shallow and Confined Water. Ghent,
Belgium, 2013.
[32] MOUSAVIRAAD S. M., WANG Z. and STERN F.
URANS studies of hydrodynamic performance and sla-
mming loads on high-speed planing hulls in calm water
and waves for deep and shallow conditions[J]. Applied
Ocean Research, 2014, Submitted.
[33] FU T. C., BRUCKER K. A. and MOUSAVIRAAD S.
M. et al. A computational fluid dynamics study of the
hydrodynamics of high-speed planing craft in calm
water and waves[C]. Proceedings of 30th Symposium
on Naval Hydrodynamics. Hobart, Tasmania,
Australia, 2014.
[34] VOLPI S., SADAT-HOSSEINI H. and KIM D. H. et al.
Validation high-fidelity CFD/FE FSI for full-scale high-
speed planing hull with composite bottom panels sla-
mming[C]. Proceedings of International Conference
on Coupled Problems in Science and Engineering.
San Servolo Island, Venice, Italy, 2015.
[35] YEON S., YANG J. and STERN F. Large eddy simula-
tion of drag crisis in turbulent flow past a circular cyli-
nder[C]. Proceedings of ITTC Workshop on Wave
Run-Up and Vortex Shedding. Nantes, France, 2013.
[36] YOON S. H., KIM D. H. and SADAT-HOSSEINI H. et
al. High-fidelity CFD simulation of wave run-up around
vertical cylinders in monochromatic waves[C]. Procee-
dings of ITTC Workshop on Wave Run-Up and
Vortex Shedding. Nantes, France, 2013.
[37] KOO B., YANG J. and YEON S. et al. Reynolds and
Froude number effect on the flow past an interface-pie-
rcing circular cylinder[J]. International Journal of
Naval Architecture and Ocean Engineering, 2014,
6(3): 529-561.
[38] YANG J., STERN F. A simple and efficient direct for-
cing immersed boundary framework for fluid structure
interactions[J]. Journal of Computational Physics,
2012, 231(15): 5029-5061.
[39] YANG J., STERN F. Robust and efficient setup proce-
dure for complex triangulations in immersed boundary
simulations[J]. Journal of Fluids Engineering, 2013,
135(10): 101107.
[40] YANG J., STERN F. A sharp interface direct forcing
immersed boundary approach for fully resolved simula-
tions of particulate flows[J]. Journal of Fluids Engi-
neering, 2014, 136(4): 040904.
[41] YANG J., PREIDIKMAN S. and BALARAS E. A stro-
ngly coupled, embedded-boundary method for fluid st-
ructure interactions of elastically mounted rigid bo-
dies[J]. Journal of Fluids and Structures, 2008, 24(2):
167-182.
[42] WANG Z., YANG J. and STERN F. High-fidelity si-
mulations of bubble, droplet, and spray formation in
breaking waves[R]. HPC Insights, 2012, Fall Issue: 5-
7.
[43] WANG Z., YANG J. and STERN F. High-fidelity si-
mulations of bubble, droplet, and spray formation in
breaking waves[C]. Proceedings of 30th Symposium

on Naval Hydrodynamics. Hobart, Tasmania,
Australia, 2014.
[44] GUI L., YOON H. and STERN F. Experimental and
theoretical investigation of instabilities for flow over a
bump in a shallow water flume with steady downstream
wave train[R]. Technical Report 487, IIHR, University
of Iowa, 2014.
[45] GUI L., YOON H. and STERN F. Techniques for mea-
suring bulge-scar pattern of free surface deformation
and related velocity distribution in shallow water flow
over a bump[J]. Experiments in Fluids, 2014, 55(4):
1721.
[46] MICHAEL T., YANG J. and STERN F. Modeling cavi-
tation with a sharp interface[C]. Proceedings of 30th
Symposium on Naval Hydrodynamics. Hobart,
Tasmania, Australia, 2014.
[47] COLEMAN, H. W., STERN F. Uncertainties and CFD
code validation[J]. Journal of Fluids Engineering,
1997, 119(4): 795-803.
[48] STERN F., WILSON R. and SHAO J. Quantitative
V&V of CFD simulations and certification of CFD
codes[J]. International Journal for Numerical Me-
thods in Fluids, 2006, 50(11): 1335-1355.
[49] XING T., STERN F. Factors of safety for Richardson
extrapolation[J]. Journal of Fluids Enginerring, 2010,
132(6): 061403.
[50] STERN F. Quantitative V&V of CFD solutions and cer-
tification of CFD codes with examples for ship hydro-
dynamics[C]. Proceedings of Symposium on Compu-
tational Uncertainty, AVT-147. Athens, Greece, 2007.
[51] MOUSAVIRAAD S. M., HE W. and DIEZ M. et al.
Framework for convergence and validation of stochastic
uncertainty quantification and relationship to determini-
stic verification and validation[C]. International Jour-
nal for Uncertainty Quantification, 2013, 3(5): 371-
395.
23
[52] DIEZ M., CHEN X. and CAMPANA E. F. et al. Relia-
bility-based robust design optimization for ships in real
ocean environment[C]. Proceedings of 12th Interna-
tional Conference on Fast Sea Transportation,
FAST2013. Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2013.
[53] VOLPI S., DIEZ M. and GAUL N. J. et al. Deve-
lopment and validation of a dynamic metamodel based
on stochastic radial basis functions and uncertainty qua-
ntification[J]. Structural Multidisciplinary Optimiza-
tion, 2014, DOI 10.1007/s00158-014-1128-5, in Press.
[54] DIEZ M., HE W. and CAMPANA E. F. et al. Uncertai-
nty quantification of Delft catamaran resistance, sinkage
and trim for variable Froude number and geometry
using metamodels, quadrature and Karhunen-Loève ex-
pansion[J]. Journal of Marine Science and Technolo-
gy, 2014, 19(2): 143-169.
[55] HE W., DIEZ M. and ZOU Z. et al. URANS study of
Delft catamaran total/added resistance, motions and sla-
mming loads in head sea including irregular wave and
uncertainty quantification for variable regular wave and
geometry[J]. Ocean Engineering, 2013, 74: 189-217.
[56] HE Wei, DIEZ Matteo and CAMPANA Emilio
Fortunato et al. A polynomial chaos method in CFD-
based uncertainty quantification study for ship hydrody-
namic performance[J]. Journal of Hydrodynamics,
2013, 25(5): 189-217.
[57] TAHARA Y., DIEZ M. and VOLPI S. et al. CFD-based
multiobjective stochastic optimization of a water-jet
propelled high speed ship[C]. Proceedings of 30th
Symposium on Naval Hydrodynamics. Hobart,
Tasmania, Australia, 2014.