Analytical Review of Numerical Analysis in Hydrodynamic Performance of the Ship: Effect to Hull-Form Modifications

Aldias Bahatmaka, Deni Fajar Fitriyana, Samsudin Anis, Achmad Yanuar Maulana, Mamad Tamamadin, Sang Won Lee, Joung Hyoung Cho

Abstract

This review paper provides an overview of simulation-based hydrodynamic design optimization for ship hull forms. It also includes a numerical analysis that is aimed to accomplishing early-stage simulation-based design in terms of hydrodynamic performance. A hydrodynamic module, a hull surface modeling module, and an optimization module are the primary components of this numerical analysis. The hydrodynamic module includes both simple design approaches and high-fidelity numeric tools; these integrated tools are used to evaluate hydrodynamic performances at different design stages. The hull surface modeling module offers a variety of techniques for ship hull surface representation and modification. It is also used to automatically create hull forms or change existing hull forms based on hydrodynamic performance and design constraints. The optimization module includes several optimization algorithms and surrogate models that are used to determine optimal designs in terms of given hydrodynamic performance. Numerical findings indicate that the current tool is well suited for hull form design optimization at the early design stage because it can produce effective optimal designs within a short time.

Full Text:

PDF

References

1. E. Sariöz, “An optimization approach for fairing of ship hull forms,” Ocean Eng., vol. 33, no. 16, pp. 2105-2118, 2006.

2. L. Lan, Y. Sun, and W. Luo, “An application of a multi-objective evolutionary strategy to the ship hull form optimization,” in Maritime Technology and Engineering 5 Volume 1, CRC Press, 2021, pp. 315-321.

3. Y. Lu, X. Chang, X. Yin, Z. Li, and others, “Hydrodynamic design study on ship bow and stern hull form synchronous optimization covering whole speeds range,” Math. Probl. Eng., vol. 2019, 2019.

4. D. Villa, F. Furcas, J. O. Pralits, G. Vernengo, and S. Gaggero, “An effective mesh deformation approach for hull shape design by optimization,” J. Mar. Sci. Eng., vol. 9, no. 10, p. 1107, 2021.

5. Z. C. Hong, Z. Zong, H. T. Li, H. Hefazi, and P. K. Sahoo, “Self-blending method for hull form modification and optimization,” Ocean Eng., vol. 146, no. November 2016, pp. 59-69, 2017.

6. E. Rotteveel, R. Hekkenberg, and A. van der Ploeg, “Inland ship stern optimization in shallow water,” Ocean Eng., vol. 141, no. February, pp. 555-569, 2017.

7. J. Čerka, R. Mickevičienė, Ž. Ašmontas, L. Norkevičius, T. Žapnickas, V. Djačkov, and P. Zhou, “Optimization of the research vessel hull form by using numerical simulaton,” Ocean Eng., vol. 139, no. April, pp. 33-38, 2017.

8. R. Deng, D. Huang, L. Yu, X. K. Cheng, and H. G. Liang, “Research on factors of a flow field affecting catamaran resistance calculation,” J. Harbin Eng. Univ., vol. 32, no. 2, pp. 141-147, 2011.

9. X. Cheng, B. Feng, Z. Liu, and H. Chang, “Hull surface modification for ship resistance performance optimization based on Delaunay triangulation,” Ocean Eng., vol. 153, no. January, pp. 333-344, 2018.

10. K. Suzuki, H. Kai, and S. Kashiwabara, “Studies on the optimization of stern hull form based on a potential flow solver,” J. Mar. Sci. Technol., vol. 10, no. 2, pp. 61-69, 2005.

11. X. Liu, W. Zhao, and D. Wan, “Linear reduced order method for design-space dimensionality reduction and flow-field learning in hull form optimization,” Ocean Eng., vol. 237, no. April, p. 109680, 2021.

12. D.-W. Park and H.-J. Choi, “Hydrodynamic Hull Form Design Using an Optimization Technique,” Int. J. Ocean Syst. Eng., vol. 3, no. 1, pp. 1-9, 2013.

13. G. J. Grigoropoulos, C. Bakirtzoglou, G. Papadakis, and D. Ntouras, “Mixed-fidelity design optimization of hull form using cfd and potential flow solvers,” J. Mar. Sci. Eng., vol. 9, no. 11, 2021.

14. L. Wang, F. Huang, C. Yang, and R. Datla, “Hydrodynamic optimization of a wedge hull,” in SNAME International Conference on Fast Sea Transportation, 2015, p. D021S005R001.

15. S. Percival, D. Hendrix, and F. Noblesse, “Hydrodynamic optimization of ship hull forms,” Appl. Ocean Res., vol. 23, no. 6, pp. 337-355, 2001.

16. K. Hochkirch and C. Fassardi, “Analysis of wave making resistance and optimization of canting keel bulbs,” in SNAME Chesapeake Sailing Yacht Symposium, 2007, p. D021S002R007.

17. A. Bahatmaka, “Studi Perancangan Lambung Small Waterplane Area Twin Hull (Swath) Kapal Protector Dengan Sistem Unmanned Surface Vehicle (Usv) Untuk Perairan Ambalat,” J. Chem. Inf. Model., vol. 53, no. 9, pp. 1689-1699, 2017.

18. M. Ahmadzadehtalatapeh and M. Mousavi, “A Review on the Drag Reduction Methods of the Ship Hulls for Improving the Hydrodynamic Performance,” Int. J. Marit. Technol., vol. 4, pp. 51-64, 2015.

19. D. Pan, X. Xu, B. Liu, H. Xu, and X. Wang, “A review on drag reduction technology: Focusing on amphibious vehicles,” Ocean Eng., vol. 280, p. 114618, 2023.

20. S. Kumar, K. A. Verma, K. M. Pandey, and K. K. Sharma, “A review on methods used to reduce drag of the ship hulls to improve hydrodynamic characteristics,” Int. J. Hydromechatronics, vol. 3, no. 4, pp. 297-312, 2020.

21. F. Pacuraru, A. Mandru, and A. Bekhit, “Cfd study on hydrodynamic performances of a planing hull,” J. Mar. Sci. Eng., vol. 10, no. 10, p. 1523, 2022.

22. W. U. Hao, O. U. Yongpeng, and Y. E. Qing, “Experimental study of air layer drag reduction on a flat plate and bottom hull of a ship with cavity,” Ocean Eng., vol. 183, pp. 236-248, 2019.

23. J. Todd and P. E. Peltzer, “Lifting Body Technology for Transformational Ship Designs,” in 9th Naval Platform Technology Seminar, 2003.

24. M. P. Wheeler, K. I. Matveev, and T. Xing, “Numerical study of hydrodynamics of heavily loaded hard-chine hulls in calm water,” J. Mar. Sci. Eng., vol. 9, no. 2, pp. 1-18, 2021.

25. M. Mansoori, A. C. Fernandes, and H. Ghassemi, “Interceptor design for optimum trim control and minimum resistance of planing boats,” Appl. Ocean Res., vol. 69, pp. 100-115, 2017.

26. R. K. Praja, D. Chrismianto, M. L. Hakim, A. Fitriadhy, and A. Bahatmaka, “Advancing Interceptor Design : Analyzing the Impact of Extended Stern Form on Deep-V Planing Hulls,” vol. 5, no. 5, pp. 59-77, 2024.

27. H. Yasukawa and Y. Yoshimura, “Introduction of MMG standard method for ship maneuvering predictions,” J. Mar. Sci. Technol., vol. 20, no. 1, pp. 37-52, 2015.

28. Y. Tominaga, A. Mochida, S. Murakami, and S. Sawaki, “Comparison of various revised k-ε models and LES applied to flow around a high-rise building model with 1:1:2 shape placed within the surface boundary layer,” J. Wind Eng. Ind. Aerodyn., vol. 96, no. 4, pp. 389-411, 2008.

29. V. Shigunov, O. el Moctar, A. Papanikolaou, R. Potthoff, and S. Liu, “International benchmark study on numerical simulation methods for prediction of manoeuvrability of ships in waves,” Ocean Eng., vol. 165, no. December 2017, pp. 365-385, 2018.

30. A. Bahatmaka, M. Y. Wibowo, A. A. Ghyfery, M. Harits, S. Anis, D. F. Fitriyana, R. F. Naryanto, A. Setiyawan, R. Setiadi, A. R. Prabowo, and others, “Numerical Approach of Fishing Vessel Hull Form to Measure Resistance Profile and Wave Pattern of Mono-Hull Design,” J. Adv. Res. Fluid Mech. Therm. Sci., vol. 104, no. 1, pp. 1-11, 2023.

31. J. Andersson, D. R. Oliveira, I. Yeginbayeva, M. Leer-Andersen, and R. E. Bensow, “Review and comparison of methods to model ship hull roughness,” Appl. Ocean Res., vol. 99, no. October 2019, p. 102119, 2020.

32. T. C. Smith, D. A. Walden, W. L. Thomas III, and D. T. R. C. B. MD, “Improvement of destroyer performance through optimized seakeeping design,” in International Conference on Interaction between Naval Weapon Systems and Warship Design, 1990, pp. 20-21.

33. A. Guha and J. Falzaranoa, “Application of multi objective genetic algorithm in ship hull optimization,” Ocean Syst. Eng., vol. 5, no. 2, pp. 91-107, 2015.

34. F. Huang and C. Yang, “Hull form optimization of a cargo ship for reduced drag,” J. Hydrodyn., vol. 28, no. 2, pp. 173-183, 2016.

DOI: https://doi.org/10.20961/mekanika.v23i1.83635

Refbacks

  • There are currently no refbacks.