Manoeuvring prediction of a container ship in shallow water using numerical planar motion mechanism

References

• Amin OM, Hasegawa K. 2008. Generalised mathematical model for ship manoeuvrability considering shallow water effect. Conference Proceedings of the Japan Society of Naval Architects and Ocean Engineers; Japan.
   Google Scholar
• Balagopalan A, Tiwari K, Krishnankutty P. 2017. Horizontal planar motion mechanism (HPMM) incorporated to the existing towing carriage for ship manoeuvring studies. 5th International Conference on Ships and Offshore Technology; IIT Kharagpur, India.
   Google Scholar
• Balagopalan A, Tiwari K, Rameesha TV, Krishnankutty P. 2019. Manoeuvring prediction of a container ship using numerical PMM test and experimental validation using free running model test. J Ships Offshore Struct. 15:1–14.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bogdanov P, Vassilev P, Lefterova M, Milanov. 1987. “Esso Osaka” tanker manoeuvrability investiga-tions in deep and shallow water, using PMM. Int Ship Build Progr. 34(390):30–39.
   Google Scholar
• Carrica P, Ismail MF, Hyman M, Bhushan S, Stern F. 2013. Turn and zigzag maneuvers of a surface combatant using a URANS approach with dynamic overset grids. J Mar Sci Technol. 18:166–181.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chuang C, Xinyong C, Chuanbo Z, Min C. 2012. Numerical simulation on ships maneuverability in shallow water. J Chongqing Univ. 35(8):116–121.
   Google Scholar
• Crane CL. 1979. Maneuvering trials of the 278,000 DWT Esso Osaka in shallow and deep water. Trans SNAME. 87:251–283.
   Google Scholar
• Cura-Hochbaum A. 2011. On the numerical prediction of the ship’s manoeuvring behaviour. Ship Sci Technol. 5(9):27–39.
   Google Scholar
• Deng G, Leroyer A, Guilmineau E, Queutey P, Visonneau M, Wackers J. 2016. CFD simulation of PMM motion in shallow water for the DTC container ship. MASHCON2016; Hamburg, Germany: 93–98.
   Google Scholar
• Di Mascio A, Dubbioso G, Notaro C, Vivan M. 2011. Investigation of twin-screw naval ships maneuverability behavior. J Ship Res. 55(4):221–248.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dubbioso G, Durante D, Broglia R. 2013. Zig-zag maneuver simulation by CFD for tanker like vessel. Proceedings of 5th International Conference on Computational Methods in Marine Engineering; Hamburg, Germany.
   Google Scholar
• Eryuzlu NE, Hausser R. 1978. Experimental investigation into some aspects of large vessel navigation in restricted waterways. Proceedings Symposium on Aspects of Navigability; Delft, Netherlands.
   Google Scholar
• Fabbri L, Campana E, Simonsen C. 2011. An experimental study of the water depth effects on the KVLCC2 tanker. AVT-189 Specialist Meeting on Assessment of Stability and control prediction method for NATO air and sea vehicles; Portsdown West, UK.
   Google Scholar
• Gertler M. 1959. The DTMB planar motion mechanism system. Symposium of Towing Tank Facilities; Zagreb, Yugoslavia.
   Google Scholar
• Hasegawa K, Kang D, Sano M, Nabeshima K. 2006. Study on the maneuverability of a large vessel installed with a mariner type super VecTwin rudder. J Mar Sci Technol. 11:88–99.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• ICORELS (International Commission for the Reception of Large Ships). 1980. Report of working group IV, PIANC bulletin no 35.
   Google Scholar
• IMO. 2002. Explanatory notes to the standard for ship manoeuvrability. Resolut MSC. 137:76.
   Google Scholar
• ITTC. 2011. Practical guidelines for ship CFD application. ITTC Recommended Procedures and Guidelines 7.5-03-02-03. Proceedings of 26th International Towing Tank Conference; Aug 28–Sep 3; Rio de Janeiro, Brazil.
   Google Scholar
• ITTC recommended procedures and guidelines. 2008a. Testing and extrapolation methods for manoeuvrability in captive model tests.
   Google Scholar
• ITTC recommended procedures and guidelines. 2014b. Practical guidelines for ship CFD applications.
   Google Scholar
• ITTC recommended procedures and guidelines. 2014c. Captive model test procedures.
   Google Scholar
• Kobayashi E. 1995. The development of practical simulation system to evaluate ship maneuverability in shallow water. Proceedings PRADS95: 712–723.
   Google Scholar
• Liu C, Liu JX. 2016. Study on under-keel clearance algorithms for very large 177 ships in restricted waters. ISOPE 2016; Rhodes, Greece: 933–939.
   Google Scholar
• Masoyoshi H, Takashina J, Moriya S, nakamura Y. 1988. An experimental study on manoeuvring forces in shallow water. Japan Soc Naval Arch Ocean Eng. 59:101–110.
   Google Scholar
• Menter FR. 1993. Zonal two quation k-ω turbulence models for aerodynamic flows. AIAA Paper. 93-2906.
   Google Scholar
• Millward A. 1992. A comparison of the theoretical and empirical prediction of squat in shallow water. Int Shipbuild Progr. 39(417):69–78.
   Google Scholar
• Miyazaki H, Sawada H, Tukada Y, Kuroda T. 2013. Experimental and numerical study about the static heel effect on the turning ability. ISOPE 2013; Anchorage, Alaska, USA.
   Google Scholar
• Nonaka K, Miyazaki H, Nimura T, Ueno M, Hino T, Kodama Y. 2000. Calculation of hydrodynamic forces acting on a ship in manoeuvring motion. Proceedings of MARSIM 2000, International Conference on Marine Simulation and Ship Manoeuvring; Orlando, Florida, USA: 307–317.
   Google Scholar
• Ogawa A, Koyama T, Kijima K. 1977. MMG report-I, on the mathematical model of ship maneuvering. Bull Soc Naval Archit Jpn. 575:22–28.
   Google Scholar
• Quadvileg FH. 2017. The importance of benchmarking of manoeuvring prediction methods-ststus 2014. Keynote lecture presented at the international workshop on ship manoeuvring and control; Shanghai, China.
   Google Scholar
• Rameesha T, Krishnankutty. 2017. Numerical study on the manoeuvring of a container ship in regular waves. J Ships Offsh Struct. 14(2):141–152.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sakamoto N, Carrica PM, Stern F. 2012. URANS simulations of static and dynamic maneuvering for surface combatant: part 1. Verification and validation for forces, moment, and hydrodynamic derivatives. J Mar Sci Technol. 17:422–445.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Shenoi R, Krishnankutty P, Selvam RP. 2014. Study of manoeuvrability of container ship by static and dynamic simulations using RANSE based solver. J Ships Offsh Struct. 11(3):316–334.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• SIMMAN. 2014. Workshop on verification and validation of ship manoeuvring simulation methods. Copenhagen. http://www.simman2014.dk/.
   Google Scholar
• Simonsen CD, Otzen JF, Klimt C, Larsen NL, Stern F. 2012. Maneuvering predictions in the early design phase using CFD generated PMM data. Proceedings of 29th Symposium on Naval Hydrodynamics; Gothenburg, Sweden.
   Google Scholar
• Smitt and Chislett. 1974. Large amplitude PMM tests and manoeuvring predictions for a mariner class vessel. Proceedings of the 10th symposium on naval hydrodynamics; Cambridge: 131–157.
   Google Scholar
• Son KH, Nomoto K. 1981. On the coupled motion of steering and rolling of a high speed container ship. J Soc Naval Arch Japan. 150:73–83.
   Google Scholar
• Stern F, Wilson R V, Coleman HV, Paterson EG. 2001. Comprehensive approach to verification and validation of CFD simulations – Part 1: methodology and procedures. ASME J Fluids Eng. 123(4):793–802.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Strom-Tejsen J, Chislett MS. 1964. A model testing technique and method of analysis for the prediction of steering and maneuvering qualities of surface ships. Hydro-Og Aerodynamisk Laboratorium, Hy. A7; Lyngby, Denmark.
   Google Scholar
• Vantorre M, Eloot K. 1997. Requirements for standard harmonic captive manoeuvring tests. Proceedings of 4th IFAC Conference on Manoeuvring and Control of Marine Craft: MCMC’97; Brijuni, Croatia: 93–98.
   Google Scholar
• Wilson R, Shao J, Stern F. 2004. Discussion: Criticisms of the “correction factor” verification method 1. SME J Fluids Eng. 126:704–706.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Xing-Kaeding Y, Jensen AG. 2006. Simulation of ship motions during maneuvers. Ship Technol Res Schiffstech. 53(4):159–182.
   Google Scholar
• Yasukawa H. 1998. Computation of effective rudder forces of a ship in shallow water. Symposium of forces acting on a maneuvering vessel (MAN98); Val de Reuil: 125–133.
   Google Scholar
• Yeo D, Yun K, Kim Y, Kim S. 2013. Benchmark HPMM tests for KCS in shallow water. Proceedings of 3rd International Conference on ship Manoeuvring in Shallow and Confined Waters; Ghent, Belgium: 249–255.
   Google Scholar
• Yun K, Park B, Yeo D-J. 2014. Experimental study of ship squat for KCS in shallow water. J Soc Naval Arch Korea. 51:34–41.
   Google Scholar