Marine Technology, Vol. 25, No.4, Oct. 1988, pp.

262-271
Maneuverability of Frigates in Waves
J. P. Hooft
1
and J. B. M. Pieffers
2
This paper describes the setup of a mathematical model for the prediction of the of
by means of computer simulations. For the maneuverability in still water, math IS
used while dynamic effects are addedfor the description of the maneuverability In a seaway. Inthls latter de-
scription, the dynamir; effects of the rudder action on the ship's roll behavior are also incorporated.
o
x
e
2. Mathematical model
Generally, the differential equations of motions are described
relative to a ship-fixed system of coordinates through the center
of gravity Gof the ship, assuming the coordinate axis being the
principal axis of inertia [17-20]:
m (U +Q X V) =F (1)
I n+ 'IT X (I Q) =M (2)
where V is the ship's velocity in the ship-fixed coordinate sys-
tem and Qis the ship's rate of rotation.
In the simulation process, one determines at each moment of
time the force and moment components in the ship-fixed coor-
dinate system. From equation (1), one then determines the
accelerations in the ship..fixed coordinate system. From an inte-
gration procedure one obtains the linear and rotative velocities
u, v, W, p, q, and r in the ship-fixed coordinate system. The
position of the ship in an earth-fixed system of coordinates is
defined by the distances X
e,
Ye, and Ze relative to the origin 0 and
by the directions (roll angle), e (pitch angle), and l/; (yaw
angle) as shown in Fig. 1.
the subsequent harmonically changing roll angle will largely
vary as a function of the frequency of oscillation. Examples of
this phenomenon will be shown in Section 5.
This complex response of the ship's roll angle to the rudder
motion will require special attention in designing the controller
of the rudder motions to stabilize the roll motions [13-16].
FOR THE PREDICTION of the maneuverability of frigates at
the design stage, use is made of time-domain computer simula-
tions. The hydrodynamic coefficients in the mathematical de-
scription ofthe ship's maneuverability are derived from captive
model tests using a planar motion mechanism. Often, a compre-
hensive test program is required for the assessment of all coeffi-
cients of a particular ship sailing under various conditions.
In the initial design, most of the ship's dimensions are not yet
fixed so that in this stage an extensive test program is not well-
timed. Yet, one often desires in the initial design stage to ascer-
tain the influence of various factors of the ship's form on the
maneuverability. For this reason, reliable estimations are need-
ed of the hydrodynamic coefficients as a function of the ship's
form parameters.
For merchant ships, various methods have been developed
for the approximation of the hydrodynamic maneuvering coef-
ficients (see, for example, Inoue [1],3 Soding[2], and Clarke [3]).
In these methods, use is made of empirical descriptions of the
hydrodynamic coefficients which were available for a large vari-
ety of ships.
Most information in the existing empirical methods refers to
ships which have a larger block coefficient and sail slower than
frigate-type ships. Therefore, an adaptation has been devel-
oped for the prediction of hydrodynamic maneuvering coeffi-
cients of fast navy ships. This adapted method consists of the
suggestions by Jacobs [4] and Fedyayevski [5], amplified by
literature information such as given by Gerritsma [6, 7] and
Hooft [8].
In considering the maneuverability of frigates also, the inter-
action with the roll motions should be taken into account [9-
12].
For the study of the ship's behavior in a seaway one has to
take into account that waves and wave-induced motions will
influence the maneuverability of a ship while also rudder forces
and horizontal ship motions induced by the rudder forces will
influence the seakeeping of the ship especially its rolling. In
Section 4, a description will be given of dynamic aspects effect-
ing the maneuverability in a seaway.
In turning the rudder from zero to a constant position, it will
be noted that the ship starts to roll to one side, due to the rudder
force, and will ultimately heel to the opposite side, due to the
hull forces. As a consequence of this phenomenon, the phase
difference between a harmonically oscillating rudder angle and
1. Introduction
1 Maritime Research Institute Netherlands (MARIN), Wageningen,
the Netherlands.
2 Rivers, Navigation and Structures Branch, Delft Hydraulics, Delft,
the Netherlands; formerly, the Royal Netherlands Navy.
3 Numbers in brackets designate References at end of paper.
Presented at the October 21, 1987 meeting of the Chesapeake Section
of THE SOCIETY OF NAVAL ARCHITECTS AND MARINE ENGINEERS.
Fig. 1 Definition of position of ship in earth-fixed system of coordinates
Once the position of the ship has been established the ship-
fixed velocities (u, v, W, p, q, r) are transformed to the velocities
(u
e
, V
e
, We, ;p, e, f) in the earth-fixed system of coordinates,
where D
t
is the transformation matrix that is described in detail
in reference [19J. Furthermore,
in which the hull forces will be discussed in more detail in the
next sections.
The propeller forces can be estimated for instance from the
information by Oosterveld [21], Strom-Tejsen [22],and Yoshi-
mura [23J, whereas model testing is required for special types of
propulsion devices.
In the mathematical model used in the study of which some
results will be shown in this paper. onlv the longitudinal compo-
nent of the propeller generated force has been considered -ac-
cording to the following description:
(13)
(12)
where the coefficient Y
uu6
has been determined experimentally
as a function of the rudder configuration characterized by its
area, aspect ratio, sweep angle, and taper ratio. Furthermore:
In equation (7), the rudder forces can be estimated from the
information provided by, for instance, Inoue [24], Soding [25],
Whicker [26J, Goodrich [27], Hirano [28], Lotveit [29], and
Hagen [30], whereas more precise information for special type
rudders is obtained experimentally.
In the mathematical model used in the present study, the
rudder forces were described as a function of the ship motions
U, v, r, and cf>, of the propeller loading, of the rudder angle 0, and
of the momentary flow velocities due to waves. The normal
forces on the rudder is described by
where AUpr is the flowincrement due to the propeller and U
wa
is
the waveinduced longitudinal velocity (see, for example. Renil-
son [31J and Aalbers [32])
0e = 0 +(- C
u
v +c
r
xrud r - cwavwa)/ueR (14)
where Xrud is the longitudinal position of the rudder and where
the coefficients c.; c., and C
wa
express the effectivity of the
lateral velocity at the rudder as a consequence of the ship's
lateral velocity v, yaw rate r, and the wave-induced lateral
velocity vwa, respectively (see also Fedyayevski [5J and Soding
[25]).
As a consequence of the rudder normal force, the following
force components on the ship will be generated:
(4)
(5)
(6)
(3)
= p + (q sin cf> + r cos cf tan 0
0= qcoscf>-rsincf>
if; = (qsincf>+rcoscf/cosO
Integration of the velocities in the earth-fixed system provides
the new position of the ship in the earth-fixed system of coordi-
nates: x., Ye, Ze, cf>, 0, and 'f.
These new positions and earlier determined new velocities
will be used to determine the forces in equation (1) at the next
time step in the simulation process. The forces in equation (1)
are mostly subdivided in hydrodynamic hull forces, propeller
generated forces, and rudder forces, in addition to various kinds
of environmental forces caused by, for example, wind, waves,
current, passing ships, and bank suction.
where Zrud' is the arm of the rudder force to the center of gravity
Gand the coefficients c, Y and CeN are larger than unity because
of the additional lateral force on the stern by the flow induced
by a rudder deflection.
X p=(1-0p)Tp (8)
r; = 0.5 P U
ep
2
c; (9)
U
ep
2
= ((1 - 'fp) u)2 +(0.77rDpnp)2 (10)
{3p = atan ((1 - 'fp) u/(0.77r Dpnp)) (11)
where T is propeller thrust, Dp propeller diameter, U
ep
the
effective inflow velocity, and Cr ({3p) the thrust coefficient as a
function of the blade angle of attack {3p over the four quadrants.
X
R
=Yrud sino
Y
R
=ceY Yrud coso
K
R
= Zrud'Y
rud
coso
N
R
=CeNXrudYrud coso
(15)
(16)
(17)
(18)
--------------- Nomenclature ---------------
APP = aft perpendicular
B = center of buoyancy
B = 'ship's breadth
CB = block coefficient = v ILBT
CD = drag coefficient
CDc = crossflow drag coefficient
CSc = cross-section coefficient = S(x)/BT
CT = propeller thrust coefficient
Tp/(O,5p7rI 4D
pZUepZ)
Dp = propeller diameter
Ii =excitation force = (X,Y,Z)
FPP = forward perpendicular
G =center of gravity
I = inertial moment of ship
i = average momentary immersion of ship
K = roll moment
Ka'
= K
a
/ pgBLZ
L = L
pp
= ship's length between
perpendiculars
?i =pitch moment
M = excitation moment = (K,M,N)
m = mass of ship
N =yaw moment
p = roll rate of turning
q = pitch rate of turning
R'j = retardation function of force in direction
i due to a motion in direction j
Ryv' = Ryol pgBT
r = yaw rate of turning
5 =local underwater cross-sectional area
T = ship's draft
Tp = propeller thrust
t = trim = TAPp -TFPP
t =time
t' =
U= resultant speed of ship = (u,v,w)
Ur, = ship's speed at given rpm of propeller
when sailing straight ahead in an
undisturbed environment
Uep = effective inflow velocity at propeller
location
UeR = effective inflow velocity at rudder
location
u = longitudinal velocity component
v =lateral velocity component
w =vertical velocity component
W = ship's weight
X = longitudinal force component
Y= lateral force component
y v' = Yv/pLBT
r: =Yvlp..jgL BT
Z = vertical force component
Zb =vertical buoyance force =-pgLB i C
B
o=rudder angle
0. =effective angle of flow to rudder
riJ = roll angle
(J = pitch angle
Up =propeller thrust deduction coefficient
l/; = course angle
l/;p =propeller wake factor
l/;R =rudder wake factor
w = frequency of oscillation

n=resultant rate of turning =(p,q,r)
(,&,-J,)
V = volume of displaced water in
undisturbed condition
la= wave height amplitude
p = fluid density
OCTOBER 1988 263
(28)
In Fig. 2, the approximation of Ylixis given as a function of the
form of the local cross section. In this approximation, use has
been made of the results of Papanikolaou [34].
Viscous reaction forces. When considering only the low-
frequency motions of a maneuvering ship, it can be assumed
that the reaction forces are mainly caused by viscous effects and
can be described by time-independent hydrodynamic coeffi-
cients. One first determines the longitudinal force (that is, the
ship's resistance) as a function of the ship's ahead speed. For
this purpose, the estimation method presented by Holtrop [35]
can be used, which provides a rather accurate prediction of the
ship's resistance.
One then considers the forces generated by a drift velocity or
a rate of turning of the ship. It is assumed that these reaction
forces can be described by a summation of linear force compo-
nents prevailing at small amounts of motions and nonlinear
forces. Various empirical descriptions have been presented in
literature for the linear force components. These descriptions
only refer to merchant ships sailing at speeds corresponding to
lowFroude numbers. A new description has been developed for
the estimation of the linear maneuvering coefficients of frigate-
type ships which depend on the ship's main dimensions and
trim at zero speed and on the Froude number. For the deriva-
tion of this estimation method, a series of planar motion mecha-
nism (pmm) tests with various frigate models has been used,
together with the results of Gerritsma [6,7]. The lateral nonlin-
ear reaction forces are assumed to originate from crossflow
induced drag [e,36]. Asshown in Fig. 3, the crossflow is generat-
ed by the local lateral velocity v(x):
1.0
0'--- "'--__-.,-'--__-'"
0.4
1. 501""'
1.
"
a.751-'20...-----::>'-40<7----+-----1
3
4
5
v ,
-: ::: __'v_x--.,,-
v 0.5 p n T
2
BIT =
'1'::> 1
,
3. Maneuverability in still water
Added-mass coefficients. For the estimation of the maneu-
verability in still water it is assumed that all added mass coeffi-
cients are frequency independent. Various empirical descrip-
tions can be derived from literature for the estimation of the
inertial mass [3, 33]. The following descriptions are recom-
mended:
esc
Fig. 2 Influence of B/Tratio and cross-sectional coefficient on dimen-
sionless lateral added mass per unit length (from reference [34])
7r [ CJ13 5.1 ]
Y , =- - p LT2 1 +0.16 - - --
ov 2 T (LjB)2
(19)
(20)
'--
-
'J
___"T - u
\ p
--L..-
u
where Y
Dx
is the acceleration force coefficient per unit length at
the location x:
(29) v(x) =v +xr
Fig. 3 Schematic indication of crossflow phenomenon underneath ship
where
v = lateral velocity in the center of reference
x = distance of the cross section considered relative to the
center of reference
r =rate of tum
The lateral force Y
cx
per unit length now reads
Ycx(x) = - 0.5p CDc(x) T (x) v(x) Iv(x)j (30)
where T(x) is the local draft and CDc(X) the local crossflow drag
coefficient. It will be obvious that a proper knowledge about the
drag coefficient CD is essential for a correct determination of
the nonlinear component of the lateral force. Many factors may
influence this coefficient, such as
the form of the cross section [37],
the local Reynolds number,
the form of the ship in the longitudinal vertical plane and
in the longitudinal horizontal plane, and
the Froude number (see Fig. 4).
The nonlinear force will also depend on the lateral flow distri-
bution along the ship. Flow-straightening effects will cause
drastic differences between the local ship velocity v(x) and the
actual crossflow velocity. With respect to these two aspects
(27)
(26)
(25)
(24)
(23)
(22)
(21)
i
FPP
Y
t
= YDx(x) x dx
APP
Y , = - z L
2
T2 r0',67 - 0 0033 ('!i)21
or ? P (T /P.\' 'T'
- L \ / J
7r [ CBB 4]
N,=--pL
3T2
1+020----
or 24 . T (LIB)
If the inertial force coefficients of a specific ship with an unusu-
al hull form have to be determined, then a more precise method
can be applied for the lateral force coefficients:
I
FPP
Y
D
= Ylix(x) dx
APP
264 MARINE TECHNOLOGY
(32)
(31)
(35
(34
(33)
to h=2/3 b
x h=l b
h=Z b
*Disk chap.
1 .
=K" (WI) - - RKv(t) smwItdt
WI 0
for an arbitrary frequency WI at which K"is known. The suffix o:
in the coefficient indicates the value of the added mass a
where Kv(t) is the momentary potential reaction roll moment K
due to the history of sway velocities and RKv(t) is the retarda-
tion function to be determined from a Fourier transformation
of the frequency-dependent damping coefficient Kv(w):
2
RKv(t) =- Ku(w) coswt dw
7r .0
The constant added-mass coefficient in this example is
derived from
2.
b=9 in.
Wave and/or spray
I
O!:""-__---l. -l.. .-;.... ..l-__---J
o 4
F
h=V/,;g!1
Fig. 4 Influence of Fraude number on drag coefficient of surface-
piercing flat plates according to Hay (see Hoerner [37])
Because of all these interaction effects, it is strongly recom-
mended that the ship's maneuverability in waves be deter-
mined from a math model consisting of a six-degree-of-freedom
(6DOF)set of differentialequations. Insucha math model, one
can introduce all such interaction effects which seem relevant
to the problem and about which satisfactorily accurate infor-
mation is available from literature, theory, or model tests.
Potential phenomena. When the ship is excited at higher-
frequency motions-in waves, by wind gusts, etc.-it is ob-
served that damping forces are excited originating mainly from
free-surface effects which can be described by potential flow
theories (McCreight [18], Perez [42], and Ankudinov [43]). Due
to these potential phenomena, both the added-mass coeffi-
cients as well as the damping coefficients depend on the fre-
quency of oscillation of motion. These potential forces can be
determined by means of various existing strip theories (see, for
example, Gerritsma [44], Papanikolaou [34], Salvesen [45], and
Vugts [46]) or by means of three-dimensional diffraction theo-
ries such as those presented by van Oortmerssen [47], Chang
[48], or Inglis [49].
If the excitation forces should vary randomly in time, the
potential reaction forces should be described by means of con-
stant added mass coefficients and retardation functions Rij [47,
50, 51] leading to a damping at each moment of time of, for
example,
1.5t----+-----r--....-'
j
F??
N, = Ycx(x) x dx
AP?
Evaluation of simulations. With the above results, in the
mathematical model it will be possible to assess the ship's
maneuverability from time-domain computer simulations. For
design purposes, it is found that the present method leads to
ship's maneuvering characteristics which depend on the ship's
main dimensions as they influence the linear coefficients and on
the longitudinal distribution of the cross-sectional forms as
they influence the crossover drag coefficients. The correctness
of these results were first established by a comparison with
model test results. The results of this comparison have been
shown in Fig. 5 and in more detail in Tables 1 through 4.
From an extensive series of full-scale maneuvering trials, a
further evaluation of the simulation results was performed. In
Fig. 6, some results of this comparison are presented. From
these and various other comparisons, it is concluded that the
maneuverability of a frigate in its initial design stage can be
estimated satisfactorily accurately from time-domain comput-
er simulations using approximate hydrodynamic coefficients
derived empirically.
4. Dynamic effects
General. Due to practical limitations, it will not be feasible
to make a 100 percent model of the reality. Therefore, a model
will contain only those characteristics of the reality which ex-
press as accurately as possible those features needed for a spe-
cific purpose. This means that in the present context the ship's
maneuverability is modeled most accurately when all aspects
are taken into account which might influence the ship's turning
ability directly or indirectly. Direct aspects are, for example,
the ship's longitudinal moment of inertia I
zz
and the yawdamp-
ing moment in combination with the excited yaw moments.
Indirect aspects are, for example, the yawing moment effects
induced by the motions in other directions such as
the heave motion by which the added mass moment, yaw
damping moment, and wave-excited yawmoment vary due
to the change of the ship's immersion (see, for example,
Fig. 7); and
the roll motion, which may effect the yaw damping mo-
ment and the rudder effectivity [41], and by which addi-
tional yawing moments may be induced as has been shown
byEda [9J.
(that is, CD value and the actual crossflow velocity), little is
known in literature. Soding [2] suggests a constant factor of CD
=1.5 irrespective of the influence of the Reynolds number, the
Keulegan-Carpenter number, the position x, the angle of inci-
dence arcsinus (v/U), etc. Detailed descriptions about the CD
distribution have been presented by Ankudinov [36, 38], for
example, who adapted Martin's data fit to a more accurate
estimation of the CD as a function of L/TandE/T. In the papers
by Sharma [39] and Wichers [40], more information is given
about the possible distribution of CD-valuesalong the length of
the ship irrespective of the ship's motion components.
Note that all these rough methods lead to acceptable accu-
rate values of the nonlinear lateral force component. This leads
to the conclusion that the approach of determining the lateral
drag force by means of drag coefficients is realistic, though
various improvements can still be introduced.
Integration of the local lateral force Y
cx
over the ship's length
leads to the following description of the nonlinear total force
and moment contribution:
j
F??
Y
c
= Ycx(x) dx
AP?
OCTOBER 1988 26
around the ship, by which the potential reaction forces will
also change (seeHuijsmans [52] and the example in Fig. 8).
The heave and roll motions will cause a change of immer-
sion and consequently a change in various potential force
components.
In the present study, only the effect of the ahead velocity has
been taken into account, while all other secondary order contri-
butions have been disregarded.
No theory exists for the determination of the potential reac-
tion forces at higher speeds. Therefore, an extensive program of
model tests has been carried out for the ship considered in this
paper. The tests were performed at two ahead speeds corre-
sponding to F
n
= 0.225 and 0.45 in addition to strip-theory
calculations at zero speed (see example in Fig. 8).
Roll stabilitycoefficients. In the present study, rudder-roll
effects such as the simulation of the ship's maneuverability in
following waves have also been considered. For this reason, the
roll hydrodynamic characteristics were also described as accu-
rately as possible in the mathematical model of the ship's dy-
namic behavior. The most important aspect to be simulated
correctly was the roll restoring moment in combination with
heave andwaves.
Due to the immersion of the ship, only an earth-fixed vertical
buoyancy reaction force Zb will be generated which will apply in
the center of buoyancy B of the immersed volume of the ship.
Since the center of buoyancy B does not correspond to the
center of gravity G, a roll and pitch moment will also be generat-
ed on the ship. The buoyancy force and roll moment are de-
Simulations
Nodel tests o x
,nm / \
, / J
r-
. /
I ]/
1 ,..-.(
- ~ - - x :
,U No trim
8
121---------------1
an infinite frequency of oscillation while the frequency-depen-
dent part of the added mass is embodied in the integration of
the retardation function.
In the simulation process, the integration in equation (33) is
performed by summation of 30steps of 0.5 s in the past. This is
carried out for three retardation functions in sway, roll, and yaw
for each of the three equations of motions in sway, rolland yaw.
No retardation effects were considered in the hydrodynamic
coefficients in the other directions. Various effects will cause
the potential reaction forces to change, such as:
The longitudinal velocity u will influence the wavepattern
Fn = 0.52
Test Sim.
Fn = 0.37
Test Sim.
Fn = 0.22
Characteristics Test Sim.
Table 3 Comparison between results of simulated zig zag
characteristics and model test for a frigate: LpplB = 8.4; LppIT =
24.9; CB =0.50; no trim; T' ee TUo/L p,,; r' =rLpplU
o
0.6 0.4
I
0.2
0'---__---:-'-:-__---:-'-:-__-::-'
o
Fn
Fig. 5 Comparison of turning circle diameter 0 from simulations and
model tests for various Froude numbers and loading conditions
Table 1 Comparison between results of simulated turning circle
Z Maneuver! oN =10/10
T' 2nd 1.18 1.55 0.93 1.55 1.45
characteristics and model test for a frigate: LpplB =8.4; LppIT =
Overshoot angle 3.00 3.60 3.00 4.50 6.00
24.9; CB =0.50; no trim; rudder angle = 35 deg; r' =rLpplUo; T' =
Dimensionless
TUoILpp overshoot time 0.50 0.62 0.72 0.93 0.72
Dimensionless
Fn =0.22 Fn =0.37 Fn =0.52
period 7.07 7.13 9.09 8.26 7.95
Characteristics Test Sim. Test Sim. Test Sim.
r
f
max 0.15 0.19 0.14 0.18 0.19
Z Maneuver: oN =20/20
Advance/Lj 2.82 2.81 3.57 3.01 4.40
T'2nd 1.49 1.55 1.45 1.55 1.45
Transfer/Lpp 1.45 1.57 1.77 L81 2.41
Overshoot angle 8.0 9.30 12.00 12.70 15.80
Tact. dialLpp 3.48 3.64 4.11 3.90 4.62
Dimensionless
Fin. dialLpp 3.37 3.55 3.87 3.76 3.92
overshoot time 0.74 1.05 1.14 1.55 1.88
T'90 3.84 4.21 4.96 4.13 5.50
Dimensionless
T'180 7.44 7.93 9.30 8.47 9.83
period 8.06 8.68 9.61 10.02 10.56
T'360 14.38 15.31 14.98 15.50 16.49
r '
max 0.30 0.33 0.31 0.31 0.33
r' 0.44 0.42 0.42 0.42 0.44
U/Uo 0.74 0.75 0.81 0.79 0.86
Table 2 Comparison between results of simulated turning circle
characteristics and model test for a frigate: LpplB = 8.4; LppIT =
25.3; CB =0.50; trlmlLpp =0.0080; rudder angle =35 deg; r' =
rLpp/Uo; T' =TUoILpp
Fn =0.22 Fn =0.37 Fn =0.52
Characteristics Test Sim, Test Sim, Test Sim,
Advance/Ls 2.92 3.17 3.69 4.00 5.70
Transfer/Lpp 1.53 1.93 1.97 2.21 4.60
Tact. dia/Lpp 3.73 4.35 4.52 4.67 9.52
Fin. dia/Lpp 3.65 4.33 4.19 4.57 9.47
T'90 3.90 4.83 4.65 5.48 8.39
T'180 8.00 9.11 8.99 10.12 16.05
T'360 15.56 17.91 16.01 18.80 31.53
r' 0.42 0.36 0.40 0.31 0.20
U/Uo 0.77 0.78 0.84 0.82 0.95
Table 4 Comparison between results of simulated zig zag
characteristics and model test for a frigate LpplB =8.4; LppIT = 25.3;
CB = 0.50; trlmlLpp = +0.0080
Fn =0.22 Fn = 0.37 Fn = 0.52
Characteristics Test Sim, Test Sim. Test Sim.
Z Maneuver: oN= 10/10
T' 2nd 1.24 1.55 1.14 1.55 1.30
Overshoot angle 2.00 2.70 3.00 3.40 4.20
Overshoot time 0.43 0.56 0.62 0.83 1.16
Period 7.50 7.44 9.19 8.99 8.68
if; max 0.13
f \ ' ~ f\ "
0.15 0.16 V.J..U V.J..-'i
Z Maneuver. oN = 20/20
T' 2nd 1.55 1.86 1.65 2.07 2.17
Overshoot angle 6.00 7.30 11.00 9.80 12.30
Overshoot time 0.68 0.87 1.03 1.03 1.45
Period 8.37 8.68 9.61 9.81 10.12
fmax 0.27 0.28 0.28 0.27 0.27
266 MARINE TECHNOLOGY
15
o
X
10
Simulated
---- (strip theory)
F
n
D
0.225
,
11/
,
-- i
I
i /1"
I
I X; / i
I / !
,
IX/'fI
i
1/
i
"
N
'i I I
!
\ It\,
J
.
"-I'
-1. 0
-2.0
0.04
01.
45
-y: .
v
(38)
(36)
(37)
Transfer (TR)

---- Cal curat eo

Prototype

Advance (AOV)
Tactical diameter (TO) Dri f t angle (8)
00 20 40 0""0
10 101-----+-_"---1
with W being the weight of the ship. 0.02
The arm ZN in equation (37) is the distance of N from Galong
the ship-fixed z-direction, as is shown in Fig. 9, ZN being posi-
tive if N lies below G. From equation (37) it is concluded that
K
b
=-ZbZN sine
where T is the draft that follows from the equilibrium
Zb(T; Z =0, <:/I =0) +W =0
scribed in equations (36) and (37) as a function of the ship's
immersion (z +T) and heel angle <:/I;
Fig. 6 Comparison of turning circle characteristics from full-scale mea-
surements and simulations
15
00""
Rudder angle in deg.
00 20 40
Rudder angl e in deg.
-3. 0 __-'-__",--_......JL-_--.l.__-l
o
t'
Fig. 8 Influence of ship's velocity on potential sway force Y as
reaction to sway velocity v
2 o
II
\\ I
\",
-

I
I
"
I
I
,
i
'" -
!
i
,
I
!
I I I
-2
o
R'
yv
w'
4
T/L
pp
= 1/26.3
T/L?p = 1;35.2
-----,
N'
Fig. 7 Influence of draft (ship's immersion) on wave-excited
moment: wave direction 45 deg; N' = Nip gLp/B Sa' WI = w"Ug
OCTOBER 2E
WAVE NODE W.4VE CREST
Fig. 11 Schematization of variation of wave-excited moment on a
heeled ship
Fig.9 Schematic indication of arm ZN in equation (37)
where K() is the stillwater buoyancy moment which depends
on the immersion and thus on the heave motion
The wave excited roll moment K(r; ) depends on the ship's
heel angle and can be described at each moment of time in the
simulation process according to equation (42) (see also Fig. 11)
the arm ZN should be negative since the restoring moment K;
should be negative for a positive heel angle, while the buoyancy
force Zbis negative in the ship-fixed system of coordinates. The
restoring moment will increase if -ZN increases, which can be
realized by lowering the position of G or elevating the position
of N. Fromthe model tests with frigates, it is found that the roll
restoring moment K() is influenced noticeably by the ahead
velocity of the ship:
The influence of the ship's immersion T on the position of N
is shown in Fig. 10. It is seen that this influence is not very
significant at smaller roll angles. However, the immersion T
does have a significant influence on the roll restoring moment
because of the increase of the buoyancy force Zb. Especially for
ships with smaller draft-about, say, 4 m (13 ft)-a change of
immersion of about 1 m (3.3 ft) which is not very unrealistic for
a frigate, will cause drastic changes in the buoyancy force and
subsequently in the roll restoring moment.
The interaction effect of the waves on the buoyancy moment
can be described as (see also Paulling [53))
K(r; ) = Kwa(t) - Zwa(t)ZNsin(t) (42)
Figure 12 compares some test results with results derived from
equation (42). From equation (42) it is seen that the heel effect
on the wave excited roll moment is minimal when the wave-
excited vertical force Zwa(t) is minimal, which leads, to the
following observations:
o tlKwa() is minimal at the time that Za sin (wt +twa) is zero;
see the ship's position in beam waves on the left side of Fig.
11.
o tlK
wa
() is minimal at the frequency that the response
function Zalra is minimal; see "AIL = 0.54 for !J.wa = 60 deg in
Fig. 12. This observation is confirmed by the results of
Barrie [54] and Boroday [55J.
Wave effects. The wave-excited forces on the ship consid-
ered in this study have been derived at three speeds Fn = 0.3,
0.375, and 0.45 from model tests and at zero speed from strip-
theory calculations. From these methods the wave forces and
moments have been determined as a function of
o wave height, frequency and direction,
o ship's ahead speed,
o vertical position of G,
o ship's draft, and
o ship's roll angle.
The variation of the wave-excited forces in time can be de-
scribed in various ways [56]. In the present study, use has been
made of the following procedure [57]:
N
" r;
Fwa =L- (!J.wa'wnma) ran
1 a
* wnwl- W
n
; a
2
x wa+nwa + F (!J.wa,wnwa)] (43)
(40)
(41)
(39) K() =K(; u)
K() =K(; z, u)
K(, t) = K() +K(r; )
_A.lJ_
0.54 ------ x
2.58 0
v
wa
= 30' lJ
wa
= 60

= 90
10
3
K'
a
-sa-
o I

-25 0 25 -25 0 25 -25 0 25

in deg.
<P in deg. in deg.
Flg.12 Influence of heel angle on wave-excited roll moment for various
conditions
I
100
.::::.:,:::::::
I
50
---- T' =0.2504 ; Zs = -.4193
---- T' = 0.3267 ; Zs = -.4953
---- T' = 0.4031 ; Zs = -.5713
in deg.
Influence of total immersion Ton position of center of buoyancy
B: T' = T/B and Z8' = Z81pgLBT
0.75 ,..-------------,------r---......,
Fig. 10

O.
268 MARINE TECHNOLOGY
1 deg.
-8
10 15 25
t = UiL
pp
Fig. 13 Simulated roll motion during a turning circle test at Fn =0.27
6
max
;: 20 deg.
'" 'i'max = 10 deg .

c \C=!J

I
where Ian is the nth component of the total N harmonic compo-
nents by which the sea state is simulated:
'"
'" -e
<=
(44)
where Swa is the spectral density description of the sea state
considered. In equation (43), the location X
wa
of the ship is
defined in the direction of propagation of the waves:
150 50 100
t ' = tu/L
pp
Example of a zig zag test with a frigate sailing at Fn = 0.27 Fig. 15
(45) X
wa
= x
e
+Y
e

----f::
1
---:3l:-0--...J
40
Rudder angl e in deg. to 5B
Fig. 14 Simulated steady roll angle in a turning circle maneuver com-
pared with full-scale measurements: Fn = 0.27
-------- Mathematical model 6
a
= 10 deg.
---- Mathematical model c
a
= 30 deg.
Full scale observations
ol::-----'---!-_LI
o 2 3
200t------i----....=""",-d---------+-----1
'"
QJ
U
<=
.,."'l?"' -20t-----t---+----t---+---+----1
Flg.16 Comparison between simulated and full-scale trial results of roll
response to rudder motions at Fn =0.27
action can be applied to counteract the wave-induced roll mo-
tions, leading to a rudder-roll stabilization (RRS) system.
In the design of the RRS autopilot [13],special attention had
to be devoted to the limitations of the rudder amplitude and
rudder rate of turning. With these aspects taken into account,
an RRS-ASA pilot has been developed by means of which roll
reductions have been achieved, as shown in Fig. 18. From Fig.
18it is seen that a rudder enginewith increasedrate of turning
is needed for an effective reduction of the roll amplitudes by
means of the RRSASA pilot.
The RRS-ASA pilot has been designed to oscillate the rudder
at wave frequencies to counteract the roll motions and to oscil-
late the rudder at low frequencies to maintain the ship on a
straight course. It has been found that the application of the
rudder roll stabilization does not deteriorate the wave frequen-
cy course deviations. In most cases, the wave frequency course
deviations even decreased when turning to the RRS mode.
--- Simulated
Full scale trials
0'
QJ
U
c
'"
.,.
QJ
-4
'"
s:
'"

c
'-
c-, -6
-e
"

c/1
5. Maneuverability in waves
From the math model in which all relevant dynamic effects
have been included, one first considers the effect of the motions
in the horizontal plane on the roll angle. In Fig. 13, an example
is given of the roll motion after the rudder has been executed to
a constant angle. In Fig. 14, an example is given of the constant
roll angle duringsteady turning. Figure15gives anexampleof a
o= 20 degN = 10 deg a-maneuver, from which it is clearly
observed that the rudder angle significantly effects the roll
motion. For a more precise definition of the rudder-roll effect,
full-scale trials have been carried out with harmonically oscil-
lating rudder motions. Some results of these tests are presented
in Fig. 16.
The rolling of a ship, when it is sailing in waves, is influenced
significantly by the action of the rudder (see the examples in
Fig. 17).
From an extensive study about the controllability of this ship
by means of an adaptive autopilot (ASA), it was concluded that
under all operational conditions-even in followingwaves-the
ship could be kept on course at minimal deviations with mini-
mal use of the rudder; 0'. is about 0.5deg, and 0'", is about 1.5deg
in beam waves in sea state 6. This result led to the conclusion
that when sailing on at a straight course, sufficient rudder
OCTOBER 1988 269
--- Autopilot 1
----- Autopilot 2
Waye direction 60' Waye direction 90"
10f----I-H----Y--i-------j
101--,--f-----..,-----i-----i-----i
.;,
~
10
c
'" -&
0
0
UJ
1
= w/C79
Flg.17 Influence of setting of automatic pilot on roll motions for Fn =0.27, regular
waves of amplitude Sa =1 m
6. Summary
This paper gives a rough description of the setup and use of a
mathematical model for the simulation of the dynamic behav-
ior of a frigate in waves with special emphasis to its maneuver-
ability. Analysis of a large series of test results together with the
correlation with full-scale trials has shown that sufficient phe-
nomena have been considered in order to establish a mathemat-
ical model by means of which a reliable prediction can be made
of a frigate in a wide variety of conditions. This information can
also be used at the design stage of a specificfrigate to determine
its hydrodynamic characteristics when its hull form is slightly
adapted.
An extensive research program has been executed, according
to the procedure presented herein, for the development of the
M-frigate class of the Royal Netherlands Navy from the point
of view of dynamic behavior, including maneuverability and
seaworthiness in operational and survival conditions.
References
1 Inoue, S. et al., "A Practical Calculation Method of Ship Ma-
noeuvring Motion," International Shipbuilding Progress, Vol. 28, No.
32,5,1981.
\2) Soding, H., "Prediction of Ship Steering Capabilities," Schiff-
stecnnik, Vol. 29, 1982.
3 Clarke, D. et al., "The Application of Manoeuvring Criteria in
Hull Design Using Linear Theory," Spring Meeting, Royal Institution
of Naval Architects, 1982.
4. Jacobs, W. R., "Estimation of Stability Derivatives and Indices
of Various Ship Forms and Comparison with Experimental Results,"
Davidson Laboratory Report 1035, Hoboken NJ, 1964.
C5) Fedyayevskl, K K and Sobolev, G. V., "Control and Stability in
Sh'tt)Design," Translation of U.S. Department of Commerce, Washing-
ton, DC, 1964.
6 Gerritsma, J., "The Effects of Beam on the Hydrodynamic Char-
acteristics of Ship Hulls," Tenth Symposium on Naval Hydrodynam-
ics, Boston, 1974.
7 Gerritsma, J., "Hydrodynamic Derivatives as a Function of
Draught and Ship Speed," Delft Technical University, Department of
Hydronautics, Report No. 477, Delft, the Netherlands, 1979.
8 Hoeft, J. P., "Further Considerations on Mathematical Maneu-
vering Models," Royal Institution of Naval Architects International
Conference on Ship Manoeuvrability, London, 1987.
9 Eda, H., "A Digital Simulation Study of Steering Control with
Effects of Roll Motions," Fifth Ship Control Systems Symposium,
1 9 ~ .
'0 Eda, H., "Maneuvering Performance of High-Speed Ships with
Ef ct of Roll Motion," Ocean Engineering, Vol. 7, 1980.
11 Son, K. H. and Nomoto, K, "On the Coupled Motion of Steering
and Rolling of a High-Speed Container Ship," Journal of the Society of
!{(UKl1 Architects of Japan, Vol. 150, 198!.
\).2) Hirano, M. and Takashina, J., "A Calculation of Ship Turning
MOtIon Taking Coupling Effect due to Heel into Consideration,"
Trans. West-Japan Society of Naval Architects, 1980.
13 van Amerongen, J. and van Nauta Lemke, H.R., "Rudder Roll
Stabilization," Fourth International Symposium on Ship Operation
Automation, Genoa, 1982.
14 van Amerongen, J. and van der Klugt, P. G. M., "Modeling and
Simulation of Roll Motions of a Ship," First Intercontinental Maritime
Simulation Symposium and Mathematical Modelling Workshop, Mu-
nich,1985.
15 Kallstrom, C. G., "Control of Yaw and Roll by a Rudder/Fin-
Simulations (--- sea state 5)
x Full sca l c
...-------.., .---------,
Wave direction 60
Q
:>Jave di rec t i on 90<> Wave direction 120
c
c
o
1001----,r---r--,----j
50 50
I 01 I 01 I
20 0 20 0 20
f 8
'max max max
Fig. 18 Roll reduction of a frigate by means of a rudder roll stabilization system as a
function of maximum attainable rudder rate of turning
270 MARINE TECHNOLOGY
Stabilization System," Sixth Ship Control Systems Symposium, Otta-
wa,1981.
16 Miao, G. P., "A Theoretical Study on the Effects of Rudder to
Roll Reduction in Astern and Beam Regular Waves," Ship Hydrody-
namics Report No. 60, Chalmers University of Technology, Gothen-
Sweden, 1981.
Q1J Feldman, J., "DTNSRDC Revised Standard Submarine Equa-
tions of Motion," DTNSRDC Report No. SPD-0393-09, David W. Tay-
lor Naval Ship Research and Development Center, Bethesda, Md.,
19.79..
Sixteenth
(19) Hoeft, J. P., "Computer Simulations of the Behavior of Mari-
ti'nre'Structures," MARINETECHNOLOGY, Vol. 23, No.2, April 1986,
pp-.l,39-157.
Norrbin, N. H., "Theory and Observations on the Use of a Math-
ematical Model for Ship Manoeuvring in Deep and Confined Waters,"
SSPA Report No. 68, Gotenburg, Sweden, 1971.
21 Oosterveld, M. W. C. and van Oossanen, P., "Further Computer
Analyzed Data of the Wageningen B-screw Series," International
Shipbuilding Progress, Vol. 22, 1975.
22 Strom-Tejsen, J. and Porter, R. R., "Prediction of Controllable
Pitch Propeller Performance in Off-Design Conditions," Third Ship
Control Systems Symposium, Bath, U.K, 1972.
23 Yoshimura, Y. and Nomoto, K, "Modelling of Manoeuvring
Behaviour of Ships with Propeller Idling, Boosting and Reversing,"
Journal of the Society of Naval Architects of Japan, Vol. 144,1978.
24 Inoue, S., Hirano, M., and Kijima, K, "Hydrodynamic Deriva-
tives on Ship Manoeuvring," International Shipbuilding Progress,
No. 321, 1981.
@ Soding, H., "Forces on Rudders Behind a Manoeuvring Ship,"
Thifd Symposium on Numerical Ship Hydrodynamics, Paris, 1980.
26 Whicker, L. F. and Fehlner, L. F., "Free-Stream Characteristics
of a Family of Low-Aspect-Ratio All-Movable Control Surfaces for
Application to Ship Design," DTNSRDC Report No. 933, David W.
Taylor Naval Ship R&D Center, Bethesda, Md., 1958.
27 Goodrich. G. J. and MoHand, A. F."Wind Tunnel Investigation
of Semi-Balanced Ship Skeg-Rudders,' Spring Meeting, Royal Institu-
tion of Naval Architects, 1979.
28 Hirano, M., et al., "Open Water Performance of Semi-Balanced
Rudders," Trans. West-Japan Society of Naval Architects, No. 64,
1982.
29 Lotveit, M., "A Study of Rudder Action with Special Reference
to Single Screw Ships," Trans., North East Coast Institution of Engi-
neers and Shipbuilders, Vol. 73,1959.
30 Hagen, G. R., "A Contribution to the Hydrodynamic Design of
Rudders," presented at the 3rd Ship Control Systems Symposium,
Bath, U.K, 1972.
31 Renilson, M. R., "Broaching-An Investigation into the Loss of
Directional Control in Severe Following Seas," Royal Institution of
Naval Architects Spring Meeting Paper No.9, 1981.
32 Aalbers.A, B. and van Gent, W., "Unsteady Wake Velocities due
to Waves and Motions Measured on a Ship Model in Head Waves,"
Ship Hydrodynamic Symposium, Hamburg, 1984.
33 Motora, S., "On the Measurement of Added Mass and Added
Moment of Inertia of Ships in Steering Motion," First Symposium of
Ship Manoeuvrability, David Taylor Model Basin Report 1461, Wash-
ington, D.C., 1960.
34 Papanikolaou, A., "Hydrodynamische Koefficienten fur die lin-
earen Schwingungen von Schwimmenden Zylindern,' Schiffstechnih,
Vol. 27, 1980.
35 Holtrop, J. and Mennen, G. G. J., "An Approximate Power
Prediction Method." b.ternational Shiobuildine Proeress. Vol. 24.
1982. . . - -' .
OCTOBER 1988
36 Ankudinov, V. K, "Ship Manoeuvring Simulation Model In-
cluding Regimes of Slow Speeds and Large Drift Angles," First Mari-
time Simulation International Symposium, Munich, 1985.
37 Hoerner, S. F., Fluid Dynamic Drag, Published by the author,
New York, 1965.
38 Ankudinov, V. K et al, "Ship Manoeuvrability Assessment in
Ship Design-Simulation Concept," Royal Institution of Naval Archi-
tects International Conference on Ship Manoeuvrability, 1987.
39 Sharma, S. D. and Zimmerman, B., "Schrsgschlepp und Dreh-
versuche in Vier Quadranten,' Parts 1 and 2, Schiff und HaienfKom-
mandobruche, Vol. 33, No. 10,1981 and Vol. 34, No.9, 1982.
40 Wichers, J. E. W., "Progress in Computer Simulations of SPM
Moored Vessels," Offshore Technology Conference Paper No. 5175,
Houston, Tex., 1986.
41 Burcher, R. K et al., "Rudder-Ship Interaction in Steady State
and Oscillatory Rudder Tests on a Ship Model," International Ship-
building Progress, Vol. 29, No. 338, 1982.
42 Perez, Y. and Perez, L., "A Time-Domain Solution to the Mo-
tions of a Steered Ship in Waves," Journal of Ship Research, Vol. 18,
1974.
43 Ankudinov, V. K, "Simulation Analysis of Ship Motion in
Waves," International Workshop on Ship and Platform Motions, Uni-
versity of California at Berkeley, 1983.
44 Gerritsma, J. and Beukelman, W., "Analysis of the Modified
Strip Theory for the Calculation on Ship Motions and Wave Bending
Moments," International Shipbuilding Progress, 1982.
45 Salvesen, N. et al., "Ship Motions and Sea Loads," Trans.
SNAME, Vol. 79, 1971.
46 Vugts, J. H., "The Hydrodynamic Forces and Ship Motions in
Oblique Waves," Technical University of Delft, Delft, the Netherlands,
1970.
47 van Oortmerssen, G., "The Motions of a Moored Ship in Waves,"
MARIN Report No. 510, Wageningen, the Netherlands, 1976.
48 Chang, M. S., "Computations of Three-Dimensional Ship Mo-
tions with Forward Speed," International Conference on Numerical
Ship Hydrodynamics, Berkeley, CA, 1977.
49 Inglis. R. Eo. "A Three-Dimensional Analysis of the Motion of a
Rigid Ship in Waves," thesis, University College, London, 1980.
.50 Cummins, W. E., "The Impulse Response Function and Ship
Motions," Naval Ship Research and Development Report 1661, Wash-
ington DC, 1962.
51 Ogilvie, T. F., "Recent Progress Toward the Understanding and
Prediction of Ship Motions," Fifth Symposium on Naval Hydrodynam-
ics, Bergen, Norway, 1964.
52 Huijsmans, R. H. M. and Hermans A. J., "A Fast Algorithm for
Computation of 3-D Ship Motions at Moderate Forward Speed," 16th
Symposium on Naval Hydrodynamics, University of California at
Berkeley, 1985.
53 Paulling, J. R. and Wood, P. D., "Numerical Simulation of Large
Amplitude Ship Motions in Astern Seas," SNAME T&RSymposium S-
3,1973.
54 Barrie, D. A., "The Influence of Diffraction on the Stability
Assessment of Ships," Royal Institution of Naval Architects, April
1985.
55 Boroday, J. R. and Nikolaeo, E. P., "Method for Estimating the
Ship's Stability in Irregular Seas," International Conference on Stabil-
ity of Ships and Ocean Vehicles," University of Strathclyde, Strath-
clyde, U.K, March 1975.
56 Dalzell, J. E., "Application of the Functional Polynomial Model
to the Ship Added Resistance Problem," 11th Symposium on Naval
Hydrodynamics, University College, London, April 1976.
57 Bhattacharyya, R., Dynamics of Marine Vehicles, Wiley, New
York, 1979.
271