Journal of Ship Research, Vol. 44, No. 1, March 2000, pp.

59-82

CFD Calculation of Sinkage and Trim

Anil K. S u b r a m a n i , 1 Eric G. Paterson, 2 and Fred Stern 3

A computational fluid dynamics (CFD) code for surface-ship boundary layers, wakes, and wave
fields is extended by incorporating into it the capability of predicting sinkage and trim. The method
is described and results are presented for the naval combatant FF1052 and the Series 60, CB =
0.6 parent hull. Resistance, sinkage and trim, and wave profile on the hull are compared between
the calculations and the experimental data. The trends in the data are predicted correctly and
there is also good quantitative agreement overall between the calculations and the data.

Introduction marily inviscid methods based on potential flow theory--grow

in sophistication and attain a level of maturity. Jensen et al
A STEADILY advancing surface ship has a natural tendency
(1989) and Bertram (1994), for example, performed calcula-
to sink and trim in response to the hydrodynamic forces that
tions of the free-surface potential flow around a steadily ad-
act upon it. These characteristics are depicted in Fig. 1, which
vancing ship while taking sinkage and trim into account. The
shows the changes in sinkage and trim, with ship speed, of
inviscid methods have also made advances in the analysis of the
the naval combatant FF1052 (West 1964). It is also well recog-
more general seakeeping problem, as demonstrated by Bingham
nized (e.g., from towing tank experiments of scaled ship models,
et al (1994). Of relevance here, Bingham et al, in the validation
which may be conducted with the model either fixed to the tow-
of their three-dimensionM panel code for the transient motions
ing carriage or free to sink and trim) that there are significant
of ships in the presence of a free surface, calculated the steady-
effects associated with sinkage and trim. Figure 2, which com-
state wave resistance and sinkage and trim for the Series 60,
pares the resistance test results of a Series 60, C B = 0.6 model
CB = 0.7 hull over a range of Froude numbers. Interestingly,
in the fixed and free conditions (Ogiwara & Kajitani 1994),
the inclusion of sinkage and trim effects received greater at-
shows the total resistance coefficient to be slightly higher in
tention, at least initially, in studies of the motion of floating
the free condition, with the percentage difference showing a
bodies in shallow or restricted waters, where the problem be-
Froude number dependence. While the effects at low Froude
comes critical not only due to the increased risk of grounding
n u m b e r - - u p to 0.2--are relatively small, the total resistance
with the increased immersion of the hull but also due to the de-
at Fr = 0.3 and above shows a 7 to 8% increase with sinkage
crease in yaw stability accompanying a forward trim. See Kim
and trim.
et al (1994) for a recent example.
Recognizing these important effects, the numerical methods
Recently, computational fluid dynamics (CFD) methods in-
for the estimation of ship resistance--which began to be de-
volving the solution of the Reynolds-averaged Navier-Stokes
veloped in increasing numbers in the 1970s with the advent of
(RANS) equations for ship flows have been making rapid
the high-speed c o m p u t e r - - h a v e long sought to include sinkage
strides. The development of these viscous flow methods can be
and trim in the calculations. Bai & McCarthy (1979) provide
traced from the SSPA-CTH-IIHR Workshop on Ship Viscous
some early examples. Often, an added motivation for the con-
Flow (Larsson et al 1991). The CFD Workshop Tokyo (1994)
sideration of sinkage and trim is the availability of accurate
enabled an assessment of the state of the art in this field primar-
resistance data, for purposes of validation, mainly in the free
ily through comparative computations of the free-surface flow
condition. The continued and sizable growth in computational
around a ship advancing steadily in calm water. For a clearer
resources in the 1980s saw the computational methods--pri-
appraisal, the applications of inviscid flow codes to the same
problem were also featured.
1Graduate research assistant, Department of Mechanical Engi- The workshop indicated that the status of CFD for ship hy-
neering and Iowa Institute of Hydraulic Research, The University drodynamics is such that the predicted steady resistance and
of Iowa, Iowa City; currently, doctoral candidate in Naval Architec- flow are nearly at the accuracy of the d a t a - - a t least for slender
ture and Marine Engineering and Scientific Computing, University hull forms. However, the inherent complexities of the problem
of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan.
have limited the focus thus far to obtaining a solution for the
2Assistant research engineer, Iowa Institute of Hydraulic Research,
The University of Iowa, Iowa City, Iowa. case of a fixed ship. The point was also made at the workshop
3professor and research engineer, Department of Mechanical En- that given the significant effects of sinkage and trim on the
gineering and Iowa Institute of Hydraulic Research, The University resistance, they should be adjusted for in the numerical calcu-
of Iowa, Iowa City, Iowa. lations. The present paper is consequently concerned with the
Manuscript received at SNAME headquarters December 30, 1998; extension of the method of Tahara & Stern (1994), which was
revised manuscript received June 24, 1999. shown to be one of the better methods demonstrated at the

MARCH 2000 0022-4502/00/4401-0059500.73/0 JOURNAL OF SHIP RESEARCH 59

 ' I .... i . . . . I . . . . I . . . . I .... I ' ' u n c e r t a i n t y could b e e x p e c t e d in t h e fixed-condition r e s i s t a n c e
Sinkage: Trim:
-0.006 calculations. T h e p r e s e n t e x t e n s i o n would exclude this uncer-
W e s t (1964) . . . . . West(1964) t a i n t y t h r o u g h t h e s i m u l a t i o n of t h e ship's s t e a d y a d v a n c e in
.o -0.004 A CalculatedAZm,/L Calculated t h e "free to sink a n d t r i m " condition.
Calculated A Z ~ Haussling et al (1997) recently p r e s e n t e d such a s i m u l a t i o n - -
.~,E . =~-0.oo2 / of t h e D T M B M o d e l 5415's s t e a d y a d v a n c e m e n t in a s u n k a n d
/
t r i m m e d orientation. T h e y too were m o t i v a t e d by t h e desire
a_______2, stem (AZJL)-7
Sinkage /" - to validate t h e i r C F D c o m p u t a t i o n w i t h t h e available free-
.~ 0.000
c o n d i t i o n r e s i s t a n c e data. ~ r t h e r , t h e i r choice of M o d e l 5415
*r" u~
u n d e r s c o r e s t h e recent i n t e r e s t in t h e a p p l i c a t i o n of a d v a n c e d
'~ "~ 0.002 c o m p u t a t i o n a l m e t h o d s t o naval c o m b a t a n t s (see Ratcliffe 1998
for a c o m p a r a t i v e a s s e s s m e n t of some of t h e existing m e t h o d s ) .
~v o.004 However, t h e i r calculation was p e r f o r m e d w i t h t h e ship fixed
Sinkage atbow (z~.~IL) ---/ in a sunk a n d t r i m m e d o r i e n t a t i o n from t h e s t a r t (the orienta-
0.006 tion was p r e s c r i b e d using sinkage a n d t r i m d a t a o b t a i n e d f r o m
, I .... I .... I , t , , i , , , i I i , r , I , I a m o d e l test). Allowing t h e ship t o r e s p o n d d y n a m i c a l l y t o
0.15 0.20 0.25 0.30 0.35 0.40 t h e h y d r o d y n a m i c forces a n d to settle eventuMly into a s t a b l e
Froude number sunk a n d t r i m m e d position, as in t h e p r e s e n t work, not only
enables a p r e d i c t i o n of t h e t r u e sinkage a n d t r i m , b u t is also
Fig. 1 Changes in s i n k a g e and trim with speed for the naval combatant
an i m p o r t a n t prerequisite for seakeeping calculations.
FF1052 (dimension 126.5mL 14.2mB 2.8m-/-)
In t h e following section, t h e c o m p u t a t i o n a l m e t h o d as ex-
t e n d e d w i t h t h e inclusion of sinkage a n d t r i m is described. Next,
workshop, by i n c o r p o r a t i n g into it t h e c a p a b i l i t y of a c c o u n t i n g
for sinkage a n d trim. results are p r e s e n t e d for t h e FF1052, at t h e F r o u d e n u m b e r s
T h e i m m e d i a t e m o t i v a t i o n for t h e a t t a i n m e n t of this capa- 0.29 a n d 0.39, a n d also for t h e Series 60, CB = 0.6 p a r e n t hull
bility was g e n e r a t e d in t h e wake of t h e successful e x t e n s i o n of form (to which t h e m e t h o d s of T a h a r a & S t e r n 1994 a n d m a n y
t h e m e t h o d - - n o w C F D S H I P - I O W A - - f o r t h e naval c o m b a t a n t , o t h e r s at t h e C F D W o r k s h o p Tokyo 1994 were applied), at Fr
FF1052, as p a r t of an ongoing Office of Naval R e s e a r c h p r o j e c t = 0.316. I t e r a t i v e convergence of t h e calculations is d e m o n -
( S t e r n et al 1996). T h e totM r e s i s t a n c e for t h e FF1052 was cal- s t r a t e d a n d t h e r e s u l t s - - p a r t i c u l a r l y , t h e resistance, t h e sink-
c u l a t e d (at Froude n u m b e r s 0.29 a n d 0.39) to w i t h i n 10% of t h e age a n d t r i m , a n d wave profiles on t h e h u l l - - a r e v a l i d a t e d by a
e x p e r i m e n t a l data. However, since t h e d a t a were available only c o m p a r i s o n w i t h t h e available data. A l t h o u g h a rigorous verifi-
for t h e m o d e l in t h e free c o n d i t i o n (Stern et ai h a d t o correct cation analysis (as in, e.g., S t e r n et al 1999) was not p e r f o r m e d ,
t h e i r wave profile calculation w i t h t h e a p p r o p r i a t e a m o u n t s of grid sensitivity is s h o w n t h r o u g h results o b t a i n e d for t h e Series
sinkage a n d t r i m for a c o m p a r i s o n w i t h t h e d a t a ) , a d d i t i o n a l 60, CB = 0.6 on two different grids. T h e calculations are s h o w n

Nomenclature
AP = aft perpendicular Fpz = nondimensionalized p = static pressure, non-
B = maximum molded vertical piezometric dimensionalized by pU2
breadth at design pressure force 15 = nondimensionalized
waterline Fr = Froude number, U o / 4 g L piezometric pressure,
4 = geometric coefficients ITTC = International Towing P + Z/Fr 2
C B = block coefficient Tank Conference Re = Reynolds number, UoL/~
CB = center of buoyancy lap = index in x-direction S = body-wetted surface a r e a
CF = center of flotation corresponding to T = design draft
CG = center of gravity X / L = 1.0 Ui = velocity components (U, V, W) in
CP = center of pressure /max, Jmax, Cartesian coordinates
C F = frictional-resistance kmax = size of grid in ~, rh (- U0 = reference velocity (ship speed)
coefficient directions ui, uj = Reynolds stress tensor
Cp = pressure-resistance ~,3, k = unit vector in Cartesian W = still-water displacement of hull
coefficient coordinate system x i = Cartesian coordinates (X, Y, Z)
C T = total resistance J = Jacobian Y+ = wall coordinate, U.rY/~
coefficient L = characteristic length
D W L = design waterline (ship length between Greek symbols
F = net heaving force on perpendiculars, L p p )
hull, nondimen- M = net trimming moment on 5a = incremental sinkage correction
sionalized by pU2L2/2 hull, nondimension- 5T = incremental trim correction
FB = nondimensionalized alized by pU3L3/2 p = fluid density
buoyancy force cr = nondimensionalized mean sink-
m = meter, unit for length
FFx = nondimensionalized n = unit vector normal to age, ( A Z F p + A Z A p ) / 2 L
axial frictional force T= nondimensionalized trim (positive
hull surface, with
F P = fore perpendicular components by bow), ( A Z F p -- A Z A p ) / L
FPx = nondimensionalized ~i = curvilinear coordinates (~, ~/, ~)
(nxz , ny), nzk )
axial pressure force = wave elevation
AZ = change in water level at hull

60 MARCH 2000 JOURNAL OF SHIP RESEARCH

 xlO J
Relatively small
= effects
o
gQ Q g # g
o
~ t10 9
O
o 4
.o
3
Mark
O O
I ,
0.1
Froude n u m b e r
Fig. 2 Effects of sinkage and trim on total resistance of a Series 60, CB = 0.6
model, adapted from Ogiwara 8z Kajitani (1994)
to reproduce the appreciable effects of sinkage and trim seen in
the data. Lastly, some concluding remarks are made.
Computational method
Herein, a brief description is provided, first, of the computa-
tional method, CFDSHIP-IOWA. (For a detailed documenta-
tion of the method, including uncertainty anMysis and verifi-
cation procedures, see Stern et al 1996.) This is followed by a
description of the manner in which the capability of account-
ing for sinkage and trim is incorporated into the method. In
particular, the points described are: the calculation of the hy-
drodynamic forces and moments on the ship hull; the determi-
nation of incremental sinkage and trim corrections necessary to
balance these forces and moments; and the interfacing of the
sinkage and trim calculations with the flow solver.
CFDSHIP-IOWA solves the unsteady, incompressible RANS
and continuity equations in Cartesian coordinates (X, Y, Z) us-
ing the Baldwin-Lomax turbulence model. The equations a r e
transformed from the physical domain in Cartesian coordi-
nates into the computationM domain in nonorthogonal curvi-
linear coordinates (~, ~, ~). The RANS equations are solved us-
ing finite-analytic spatial and first-order backward-difference
temporal discretization. The pressure equation is derived from
a discretized form of the continuity equation and solved us-
ing second-order central finite differences. The exact nonlin-
ear kinematic and approximate dynamic free-surface boundary
conditions are employed, and a body-free-surface conforming
grid is used. The overall solution procedure is based on the
two.step pressure-implicit-split-operator (PISO) algorithm. For
steady flow, subiteration convergence is not required and time
serves as an iteration parameter.
Figure 3 shows the multi-block grid system for the FF1052.
The grid transforms into a simple rectangular parallelepiped
with equal grid spacing in the computational domain. The co-
ordinates are nondimensionalized by the characteristic length,
MARCH 2000
7 to 8%
increase
oOO OO
O
O
O
o o ooO
Schoenherr Friclion Line
Condilon Temp.
Free 11.7C
Fixed 12.3.C
I I I
0.2 03
L. In the absence of any port-starboard asymmetry in the
flow, a "half-domain" solution suffices (i.e., the solution do-
main may exclude the half, Y < 0). Referring to Fig. 3, the
specified boundaries of the solution domain are: the body sur-
face, S b 07 : 1); the inlet plane, S i (~ : 1); the exit plane, Se
(~ -- i . . . . ); the symmetry plane, Sk (~ = 1 and parts of~ = 1);
the outer boundary, So (~ -- jmax); the multi-block interfaces,
Stub (~ = iap + 1 and ~ = iap + 2); and the free-surface, S
(~ = kmax; ~ = 1 too, for a full-domain simulation).
The RANS and kinematic free-surface boundary-condition
equations are solved using separate grids. The RANS grid is H-
type with constant-X planes stacked to form a complete three-
dimensional grid (as in Fig. 3). The constant-X cross-plane
grids are generated elliptically by solving a Poisson equation
for the transformation between (Y, Z) and (~, ~). The initial
grid extends to an elevation sufficiently above the design wa-
terline (at Z = 0) to a l l o w for wave crests. As the wave field
develops, the RANS grid is updated to conform to the free
surface.
In the grid-conforming process, the initial distribution of the
grid points along the ~ = constant, or girthwise lines, is saved.
As the free-surface elevation changes, the grid point on the
free surface is moved to the new elevation and all the points
below the free surface slide along the 7/ = constant line so as
to maintain their initial relative distribution. This procedure
plays an important part in the prediction of sinkage and trim
as shall be elaborated upon subsequently. An illustration of the
free-surface conforming operation is reproduced in Fig. 4, which
shows the initial and adapted crossplane grids for the FF1052
at an exemplary cross section.
The kinematic free-surface boundary condition grid is two-
dimensional and is updated iteratively to fit the wave-hull in-
tersection. It is different from the RANS grid in that instead
of high near-wall resolution, more points are distributed in the
outer flow to resolve the wave field. A bilinear interpolation
JOURNAL OF SHIP RESEARCH 61
 0.00

Sb

-0.05
Z/L

-0.10 ! .rl ~ - - - - _ _ . _ _ _

-------________
Sk--/ 7

-I.00 t I
0.0o 0.05 0.10 0.15/ ~ 0.90 0.95 1.00
So - - J Y/L
(a) block 1 crossplane at X / L = 0.05

Y/L

~mb

(b) longitudinal free-surface plane

Fig. 3 Grid configuration: I:1c1052 multi-block grid system

scheme is used to transfer the velocity field and wave eleva-
tion across the two different grids--the velocity field from the
uppermost plane of the RANS grid is interpolated onto the
free-surface grid and the wave elevation is interpolated from
the free-surface grid onto the uppermost plane of the RANS
grid.
A description of the manner in which the method is extended
for the problem of steady forward speed flow with sinkage and
trim follows.
Formulation of the problem
A ship that is moving straight ahead with uniform velocity
in the "free to sink and trim" condition can continue in steady,
unaccelerated motion only when the resultant vertical hydro-
dynamic force and the resultant trimming moment about its
center of gravity vanish. A ship satisfying this condition is said
to be in a state of static equilibrium or sailing with a sinkage
and trim. If the pitching moment and the heaving force were
not zero, the ship would experience a rotational acceleration
in the direction of the unbalanced moment as well as a verti-
cal acceleration of its center of mass, with a coupling between
these two modes. Eventually, it would attain a new position
of stable equilibrium defined by a mean sinkage (at amidships)
and trim.
The procedure for the calculation of sinkage and trim is as
follows. A converged solution is first obtained with the ship hull
held fixed at its design waterline. Next, the net heaving force
and the net trimming moment (about the center of gravity) on
the hull are calculated and the sinkage and trim corrections nec-
essary to balance this force and moment are determined. Then,
the hull is repositioned accordingly and the grid regenerated
around the shifted hull. Further iterations are performed within
the flow solver. This cycle is repeated until the hull attains a
stable configuration with no net heaving force and trimming

62 MARCH 2000 JOURNAL OF SHIP RESEARCH

 I . . . . I . . . . I . . . . I

0i
0.0

-0.06 I

-0.08
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0 0.05 0.1 0.15
Y/L Y/L
(a) initial crossplane grid (b) conformed crossplane grid
Fig. 4 Free-surface conforming process

moment. A flowchart depicting the overall solution procedure over the wetted surface area. The fluid stress tensor is com-
is drawn in Fig. 5. prised of components due to pressure, viscous stress and tur-
bulence
Hydrodynamic forces and moments
Tij = --P(~ij + R e-1 (OUi/Oxj + OUj/OXz) - uiu j (1)
The hydrodynamic forces on the hull, shown in Fig. 6, can be
The third term in (1) does not contribute to the forces since the
obtained by integration of the normal and tangential stresses Reynolds stresses are zero on the hull surface. The fluid force is
then determined by carrying out, on the ~ = 1 computational
plane (which represents the hull surface), the integration

Generate grid ] F = f s TijnidS (2)

around hull
geometry
where n is the unit-vector normal to the hull surface
t
through
Iterate
flow solver
t
I Increasenumber of
globaliterations
n = nx~ + n y j^ + n z k =

and dS is the local surface area element

1 (b2~+ b~) + b~/) (3)

dS = Jv=ld~d( (4)

The geometric coefficients, /~/, and the Jacobian, J, are stan-

dard Cartesian-to-computational-domain transformation met-
rics and are defined in Stern et al (1996); in two dimensions (as
on the hull surface, 77 = 1), the Jacobian is given by

Calculate hydrodynamicforces I 4:1 = v/(bl )2 + (b )2 + 2 (5)

and m o m e n t s acting on hull
Equation (2) may be expanded using (1) to give the different
forces in their component directions. The force due to pressure

,No~
I Obtainincrementalsinkage comes from the first term in equation (1); the axial and vertical
and trim corrections
components of the pressure-resistance, when nondimensional-
ized by pUgL2/2, are

Fpx = - 2 ~ ~ - (Z/Fr2)]b~d~d( (6)

FPz ---- - 2 f S pb2d~d( (7)

For the calculations herein, Fpy = 0. Also, note that in the

formulation, the hydrostatic term ( Z / F r 2) is included in the
Fig. 5 Flow chart of overall solution procedure axial pressure force (6), while it is separated out from the ver-

MARCH 2000 JOURNAL OF SHIP RESEARCH 63

 z

_ FFx.._~ ZFx

FP
Fig. 6 Hydrodynamic forces on a ship hull

tical pressure force (7) so that the buoyancy force is available
directly:
FB = 2 ./ (Z/Fr2)b~d~d(
The force due to wall-shear stress, FF, may be obtained di-
rectly by inserting the second term of (1) into (2). It is calcu-
lated instead in a way that exploits the fact that the normal
shear stress is identically zero. In this approach, the magnitude
of the wall-shear stress vector is first calculated: :
I~-~ I = Re OlO~l
where Re is the Reynolds number and O]U__I/On is the hull-
normal velocity gradient which is evaluated using the veloc-
ity magnitude a t - - a n d the distance t o - - t h e first grid point of[
the hull. Next, the wall-shear stress vector is aligned with the
hull-tangential contravariant velocity components at the same
location:
U1
~-~ = l~-~ol
~/U 12 ~- U 22 -}- V 32
Tw, = 0
U3
~-~ = I~-,oI
x/U 12 + U 22 + U 32
Using transformation relations, ~'wx, 7wv, and Twz are ob-
tained and these are integrated over the hull surface for the
frictional resistance
FFx = / S "rwxdS
FFz = ~S TwzdS
Although calculated, FFz is typically very small. Lastly, FFy =
0, since the calculations are symmetrical about the centerplane.
The still-water displacement of the hull, W, and the longitu-
dinal position of the center of gravity, about which the moments
of the hydrodynamic forces are taken, are determined from hy-
drostatics: the RANS grid, which extends all the way up to the
deck, is conformed to the design waterline (i.e., ( = kinax, in
(8) the half-domain simulation, is set to the D W L , Z = 0) and the
total hydrostatic pressure force in the vertical direction is com-
puted using (8). Then, longitudinal equilibrium requires that
W equals FB and XCG equals XCB.
The effective locations of the hydrodynamic forces (i.e., XCB,
X P z , ZFx and Z p x ) are calculated by taking simple first mo-
ments of the elemental forces about the corresponding axes and
dividing the respective moments by the total force. However,
(9) since ZCG is not determined from hydrostatics as easily, it was
assumed to be at the level of the design waterline in the calcu-
lations. An equivalent physical experiment with a ship model
free to sink and trim, therefore, would have to have the towing
point at the same transverse location as the model's longitudi-
nal center of buoyancy (in still water) and at a height above
the keel line equal to the still-water floating draft.
With a knowledge of the system of forces and their effec-
tive locations, the net heaving force, F, and the net trimming
moment, M, on the hull can be computed
(10)
F=FB-W+Fpz (15)
(11)
M = F B ( X c G -- XCB ) -[- Fpz(XCG -- X p z )
+ FFx (ZcG - ZFx ) + Fex (ZcG - Z p x ) (16)
(12)
In the convention adopted, an upward acting force is taken as
positive, as is a counterclockwise moment about the transverse
axis passing through the ship's center of gravity.
Sinkage and trim corrections
(13) In the right-handed coordinate system shown in Fig. 6, the
ship is assumed to float initially at an even-keel draft with its
design waterline coinciding with the undisturbed free surface
(14) (Z = 0). The mean sinkage and the trim are defined from
measurements of the change in the water level (with respect to
the undisturbed free surface) at the fore and aft perpendiculars:
O"= ( A Z F p + A Z A p ) / 2 L (17)
w = (AZFp - AZAp)/L (18)

64 MARCH 2000 JOURNAL OF SHIP RESEARCH

 It follows that the sinkage is positive when the hull's cen-
ter of gravity is further immersed and that the trim is positive
when the ship's bow goes down (relative to its stern). Not co-
incidentally, a positive sinkage also corresponds to an increase
in the upward buoyancy force, and a positive trim corresponds
to a net increase in the counterclockwise moment about the
center of gravity due to buoyancy.
The amounts of sinkage and trim to be given to the ship hull
in order to counter the unbalanced heaving force and trimming
moment--which are computed from (15) and (16), respectively
- - a r e determined by what may be termed hydrostatic balance.
In this procedure, the hull is first given perturbations from its
current position and the changes in F and M due to the altered
buoyancy distribution are noted. (No contributions to changes
in F and M come from the pressure and frictional forces, as
explained below.) Then, a system of two linear algebraic equa-
tions for the necessary sinkage and trim corrections is solved
easily.
Specifically, when the hull is perturbed from its current po-
sition, the new resultant heaving force and trimming moment
become, respectively:
F' = F + dF (19)
M' = M + d M (20)
where
OF OF
d F = -0(5a)
- " &r + 0 ( - - ~ " ($r (21)
0M 0M
dM = 0((S:~ (S: + 0 ~ 7 ~ (S: (22)
where (Sa and (ST represent the sinkage and trim components,
respectively, of the shift in the hull's position.
Commonly encountered in the seakeeping literature as hy-
drostatic restoring force coefficients (see, e.g., Lewis 1989), the
stability derivatives, OF/O(aa), OM/O(aa), OF/O(ST), and OM/
O((Sr) depend on the hull geometry and the characteristics of
the flow. (They are also not unlike the stability derivatives en-
countered in the problem of longitudinal static stability and
control of aircraft; see, e.g., Nelson 1989.) They are determined
by independently applying a pure sinkage perturbation, 5a, and
a pure trim perturbation, ~r, and noting the changes in the net
heaving force and the net trimming moment due to the altered
buoyancy distribution. Specifically, OF/O(aa) and OM/O(6a)
are obtained following a sinkage perturbation, and OF/O(aT)
and OM/O(aT) following a trim perturbation.
As indicated earlier, the versatile free-surface conforming ca-
pability within CFDSHIP-IOWA is utilized effectively. In the
above procedure, the free surface (especially the wave profile
on the hull) is maintained at the same global level as the hull
is given separate sinkage and trim perturbations. The altered
buoyancy force and its longitudinal location in the perturbed
orientations may be computed using equation (8) after con-
forming the RANS grid, generated afresh around the perturbed
hull, to the current wave profile. The pressure and frictional
forces (and their effective locations) are not recomputed, how-
ever, owing to the incongruity of integrating the local pres-
sures and shear stresses on a grid--as generated around the
perturbed hull--which is different from the one in which they
were obtained. Hence, the only contributions to dF and d M
in the perturbed orientations come from the altered buoyancy
distribution. A sensitivity study was carried out to estimate
the appropriate levels of sinkage and trim perturbations to be
given for a practical hull form. These were found to be (see
Subramani 1996 for details): 5a = 1.0 x 10 - 3 (or about 2% of
the ship draft), and ~r = 2.5 X 10 - 3 (equivalent to a rotation
of about 0.14 deg in the X - Z plane).
MARCH 2000
Returning to equations (19) and (20): for equilibrium, the
net heaving force and the net trimming moment are to vanish,
accompanied by suitable corrections in the sinkage (Scr) and
the trim (ST). By setting F / and M / to zero and solving (19)
to (22), the required corrections may be determined exactly:
OF OM
M . - - - F . - -
O(Sr) O(6r) (23)
6a = OF OM OF OM
0(&)'0(&)-0(&) 0(Sa)
OM OF
F . - - - M . - -
O(Sa) O(Sa) (24)
5r = OF OM OF OM
0(&)'0(St)- 0(&) 0(5)
Overall solution methodology
The obtained sinkage and trim corrections may be applied,
if significant, by repositioning the hull accordingly. The grid is
regenerated around the shifted hull and further iterations for
a converged solution of the flow field initiated within the flow
solver.
Iterative convergence within CFDSHIP-IOWA is determined
by using the L2 norms (residuals) of the solution variables be-
tween time steps (n and n - 1):
imax jmax kmax
RES = i=1 j = l k=l (25)
ntotal
where ~ represents U, V, W, /5, or ~ and ntotal is the total
number of grid points (i.e., /max * jmax * kmax). Starting from
the initial free-stream condition, RES usually displays a 3 to 4
orders of magnitude drop for a converged solution in the fixed
condition (this corresponds to the criterion, RES < 10-4).
With the hull repositioned following a sinkage and trim cor-
rection, RES spikes up an order or two. Iterative convergence
is then attained when RES ebbs to satisfy the convergence
criterion again.
As depicted in Fig. 5, the above cycle of determining and
applying the sinkage and trim corrections is repeated until the
attainment of stable equilibrium, when the net heaving force
and trimming moment, and hence the sinkage and trim correc-
tions, converge to zero. Lastly, given that the stability deriva-
tives depend on the characteristics of the flow, it is important
that the perturbations, 5a and 5% be applied and the values
of the stability derivatives be updated each time that the sink-
age and trim corrections are to be determined (with continued
iterations). This is because even a small change in the values
of the derivatives would affect equations (23) and (24) for the
exact corrections.
Evaluation of the hydrodynamic forces
Integration schemes
In CFD methods, two important factors that affect the cal-
culations of the resistances (integral quantities, as formulated
in the previous section) are the accuracy of the numerical in-
tegration scheme adopted and possible approximations in the
representation of the body geometry (depending on the chosen
gridding scheme and topology). It is important to note that the
calculations herein were made using version 1.0 of CFDSHIP-
IOWA (Stern et al 1996). Due to the built-in free-surface adap-
tation scheme, this version is restricted, for nonzero Fr, to H-
type grids with ccnstant-X crossplane grids. As such, nonverti-
cal (in the X - Z plane) portions of the geometry--such as bul-
JOURNAL OF SHIP RESEARCH 65
 Table 1 Ship hydrostatic particulars

Hull: Series 60, CB = 0.6 FF1052

Conditions: Fr = 0.316 Fr = 0.316 Fr = 0.29 Fr = 0.39
Re=4000000 Re=4000000 R e = 14 9 0 0 0 0 0 R e = 20 100000
Grid: 180 40 x 30 360 60 30 207 60 40 207 60 40
Surface area
(to DWL)t: SOW L
Calculation 0.170204 0.170297 0.117715 0.117715
Data 0.169962 0.169962 0.118166 0.118166
Difference 0.14% 0.20% -0.38% -0.38%
Displacement*
Calculation 42.403 10 - 3 42.422 10 - 3 22.302 10 - 3 12.331 10 - 3
Data 42.728 10 - 3 42.728 10 - 3 23.259 10 - 3 12.861 10 - 3
Difference -0.76% -0.72% -4.12% -4.12%
Longitudinal center
of buoyancy +
Calculation 0.514662 0.514707 0.483298 0.483298
Data 0.515000 0.515000 0.497000 0.497000
Difference - 0.07% - 0.06% - 2.76% - 2.76%
Axial hydrostatic
pressure force # 0.06 10 - 3 0.04 x 10 - 3 - 0 . 3 1 10 - 3 - 0 . 1 7 10 - 3
Resistance data, CT 5.88 10 - 3 5.88 x 10 - 3 4.27 10 - 3 4.61 10 - 3
As percent of CT 1.0% 0.8% -7.2% -3.7%

t Nondimensionaiized by L2.
* Nondimensionalized by pU2L2/2.
+ Nondimensionalized by L.
# Nondimensionalized by pU2SDWL/2.

bous bows and cruiser s t e r n s - - c o u l d be resolved only approxi-
mately, in a staircase-like fashion. Further, the extension of the
m e t h o d for sinkage and t r i m calculations was, at the outset,
faced with a key consideration: whereas for the fixed-condition
calculations only the resistances [equations (6) and (13)] were
quantities of interest, for the meaningful prediction of sinkage
and trim, it was i m p e r a t i v e t h a t all of the h y d r o d y n a m i c forces
[equations (7), (8), (15), and (16), in addition] be determined
as accurately as possible. Therefore, careful consideration was
given to errors arising out of g e o m e t r y approximations and the
numerical evaluation of the forces.
Firstly, five different numerical integration schemes were se-
lected and tested for accuracy by performing some analytical
calculations. Only a s u m m a r y of the s t u d y is provided here; for
details, the reader is referred to S u b r a m a n i (1996). T h e schemes
tested involved: (a) simple s u m m a t i o n s using the trapezoidal
rule, (b) successive one-dimensional integrations (using either
the trapezoidal rule or Simpson's rule) along the length and
the girth, (c) s u m m a t i o n of the area elements based on the
J a c o b i a n of the transformation, (d) successive one-dimensional
trapezoidal-rule integrations using the Jacobian, and (e) suc-
cessive one-dimensional integrations along the length and the
girth, using cubic-spline-fitted data.
T h e schemes were tested by c o m p u t i n g the surface areas and,
where applicable, the axial hydrostatic force in still fluid (a
q u a n t i t y theoretically zero) for simple two- and three-dimen-
sional b o d y shapes and comparing the percentage differences of
the calculations from the analytical results. For a b e t t e r assess-
ment, the calculations were performed on three grids: a coarse
51 1 51 grid, a m e d i u m 101 1 101 grid, and a fine
201 1 201 grid.
In the original method, T a h a r a &: Stern (1994) evaluated
the resistances using successive one-dimensional integrations
t h a t combined the use of the J a c o b i a n and cubic-spline-fitted
data. However, the scheme based on successive one-dimensional
trapezoidal-rule integrations using the J a c o b i a n was found to
be the most accurate of all in S u b r a m a n i ' s (1996) s t u d y - -
supporting Stern et al's (1996) and T a h a r a 8z S t e m ' s (1996)
selection of the same scheme for their resistance calculations.
It was therefore chosen for use in the ensuing sinkage and t r i m
calculations.
Secondly, while the integration scheme chosen was the same,
a refinement was m a d e over Stern et al (1996) and T a h a r a &
Stern (1996) in terms of how the forces were evaluated, so as to
account for the g e o m e t r y approximations properly. This refine-
ment and its effect on the calculated resistances are explained
below, following a detailing of the status of the integration
scheme for the hydrostatics calculations.
Ship hydrostatics
In an application to the ship forms of i n t e r e s t - - t h e Series 60,
CB = 0.6 hull and the F F 1 0 5 2 - - t h e chosen integration scheme
was used to calculate the wetted hull surface area, the still-
water displacement, the longitudinal center of buoyancy, and
the axial hydrostatic pressure force. These hydrostatic partic-
ulars are presented along with the ship d a t a in Table 1 (the
conditions and grids for these calculations are described in the
next section, along with the main results).
T h e calculated surface area (up to the DWL) is off by 0.2%
from the d a t a for the Series 60, CB = 0.6 and by - 0 . 3 8 % for
the FF1052, a hull form considerably more complex. (Note t h a t
in contrast to the s t a n d a r d form of the Series 60, CB = 0.6, the

66 MARCH 2000 JOURNAL OF SHIP RESEARCH

 Table 2 Resistances for the F F 1 0 5 2 at Fr = 0.29 and 0.39

Conditions: Fr = 0.29 F r = 0.39

Re = 14 900 000 Re = 20 100 000
Grid: 207 60 x 40 207 x 60 x 40
Ship Attitude: W i t h Sinkage W i t h Sinkage
Fixed and T r i m Fixed and Trim
Pressure-resistance
coefficient: C p
Calculation 0.74 1.66 1.78 2.09
Piezometric 1.47 2.13 2.53 2.71
Hydrostatic -0.73 -0.48 -0.76 -0.63
Frictional-resistance
coefficient: CF
Calculat ion 2.97 2.79 2.58 2.65
I T T C correlation 2.80 2.80 2.67 2.67
Difference 6.1% -0.4% -3.4% -0.8%
Total resistance
coefficient: CT
Calculation 3.71 4.45 4.35 4.74
D a t a (West 1964) 4.27 4.27 4.61 4.61
Difference - 13.1% 4.2% - 5.6% 2.8 %
Increase in CT with
sinkage and trim:
Calculation 19.9% 9.0%
Data Unavailable Unavailable
NOTES:
Resistance coefficients based on surface area calculated to DWL.
All values multiplied by 103 .
D a t a of West (1964) collected in the free condition.

FF1052 has a pronounced bow, a sonar dome, transom stern,
and a skeg. This results naturally in additional g e o m e t r y de-
scription errors, considering the use of a non-body-fitted grid.)
T h e calculated still-water displacement (equivalent to the un-
derwater volume, or, exactly, the vertical hydrostatic pressure
at rest) and the position of the longitudinal center of buoy-
ancy are also closer to the d a t a in the case of the Series 60,
CB = 0 . 6 - - t h e displacement is within 1% of the d a t a of Todd
(1963) and the center of buoyancy is accurate to less t h a n 0.1%.
T h e calculations for the FF1052, compared to the particulars
provided in West (1964), show errors of about 4 and 3%, re-
spectively, in the displacement and the center of buoyancy. In
the ensuing h y d r o d y n a m i c calculations, therefore, one can ex-
pect a higher uncertainty in the calculations of the transverse
m o m e n t s for the FF1052, from the adding up of the uncertain-
ties in the calculations of the h y d r o d y n a m i c forces and their
effective locations.
T h e calculations also show a nonzero still-water axial hy-
drostatic pressure force (herein nondimensionalized based on
the surface area up to the DWL, to enable an assessment
against the total resistance d a t a which is presented usually in
this form). While quite small for the Series 60, CB = 0.6 [less
t h a n 1% of the total resistance coefficient, CT obtained from a
towing t a n k experiment (Longo &: Stern 1996)], the hydrostatic
error is significant for the FF1052 [4 to 7% of the experimental
CT (West 1964)]. (Note t h a t since the FF1052 calculations at
the two Froude numbers are on the same 207 x 60 x 40 grid, the
axial hydrostatic forces have to be of the same absolute magni-
tude. T h e different error percentages in their comparisons with
the total resistance d a t a are primarily due to the Fr? t e r m in
the d e n o m i n a t o r t h a t appears as a result of the nondimension-
alization.) Again, the increased error for the FF1052 is directly
related to the complexities of the hull and the use of a nonbody-
fitted grid.
N o t w i t h s t a n d i n g t h a t such fine-grid numerical integrations
are generally more accurate t h a n those c o m m o n l y employed in
the design process, 4 the minimization of these hydrostatic er-
rors is important. This is because the axial hydrostatic error
adds directly to other errors in the total resistance (e.g., due
to iterative and grid convergence), while errors in the other
hydrostatic forces and their effective locations propagate to er-
rors in the calculation of sinkage and t r i m through equations
(15), (16), (23), and (24). However, these propagated errors,
and also the uncertainty in the total resistance due to the com-
bined effects of g e o m e t r y description and numerical integration
errors, are difficult to estimate. It may be noted t h a t the more
recent versions of C F D S H I P - I O W A incorporate a free-surface
a d a p t a t i o n scheme t h a t is compatible w i t h curvilinear three-
dimensional body-fitted grids (Paterson et al 1998). As such,
the uncertainties due to g e o m e t r y approximations would be
minimized greatly, if not eliminated altogether.
To summarize: considering t h a t the hydrostatic calculations
with the present integration scheme are satisfactorily close to
the data, one may expect the h y d r o d y n a m i c forces and mo-
ments calculated with the chosen integration scheme to be suf-
ficiently accurate for the successful prediction of sinkage and
trim, assuming of course t h a t the flow field is predicted accu-
rately.
4It is well known that inviscid panel codes must necessarily cor-
rect for a similar (usually larger) calm-water hydrostatic error for a
reasonable estimation of the hydrodynamic forces.

MARCH 2000 JOURNAL OF SHIP RESEARCH 67

 Table 3 Resistances for the Series 60, CB = 0.6 at Fr = 0 . 3 1 6

Conditions: Fr -- 0.316 Fr = 0.316

Re = 4 000 000 Re --- 4 000 000
Grid: 180 40 30 360 x 60 30
Ship Attitude: W i t h Sinkage With Sinkage
Fixed and Trim Fixed and Trim
Pressure-resistance
coefficient: C p
Calculation 2.34 2.73 2.15 2.30
Piezometric 2.80 3.21 2.65 2.86
Hydrostatic -0.46 - 0 .4 8 - 0 .5 0 -0.56
Frictional-resistance
coefficient: CF
Calculation 3.77 3.73 3.75 3.98
I T T C correlation 3.54 3.54 3.54 3.54
Difference 6.5% 5.4% 5.9% 12.4%
Total resistance
coefficient: CT
Calculation 6.11 6.46 5.89 6.28
Data (Longo & Stern 1996) 5.88 5.88 5.88 5.88
Difference 3.9% 9.9% 0.2% 6.8%
Data (Kim & Jenkins 1981) 4.61 5.01 4.61 5.01
Increase in CT with
sinkage and trim:
Calculation 5.7% 6.6%
Data (Kim & Jenkins 1981) 8.5% 8.5%
NOTES:
Resistance coefficients based on surface area calculated to DWL.
All values multiplied by 103 .
Data of Longo & Stern (1996) collected in the free condition.
Data of Kim & Jenkins (1981) are for Fr --- 0.32, Re = 16.19 106.

Ship resistances 4.35 10 - 3 at Fr = 0.39. Note that the fixed-condition resis-

The fixed-condition resistances for the FF1052 and the Se-
ries 60, CB = 0.6 at the Froude numbers of interest (the condi-
tions and grids are detailed in the next section) are presented
in Tables 2 and 3, respectively. As is common practice, the re-
sistances are in terms of nondimensional resistance coefficients,
obtained by dividing the resistances by pU3SDWL/2 , where
SDWL is the wetted surface area up to the design waterline
(from the hydrostatics calculations). The pressure-resistance
has been split into piezometric and hydrostatic components to
show their relative magnitudes;, the latter component is not,
however, corrected by the calm-water hydrostatic error of 4
to 7% of CT. The frictional-resistance is compared with the
equivalent-area flat plate frictional-resistance prescribed by the
I T T C friction line ( I TTC 1957):
0.075
CFo = [(logl0 Re) - 2] 2
where Re is the Reynolds number.
The resistances show clear differences from the previously
computed results, though, on account of the previously men-
tioned refinement necessitated by the geometry approximations.
The pressure-resistance coefficient for the FF1052 shows signif-
icant decreases--at both Froude numbers 0.29 and 0.39---such
that the total resistance coefficient decreases by between 15
and 20% from the results of Stern et al (1996). (The frictional-
resistance coefficient shows very minor change from the previ-
ous results.) The calculated CT is 3.71 x 10 - 3 at Fr = 0.29 and
tances of Stern et al (1996) were already higher than the free-
condition resistance d a t a - - b y about 7% at Fr = 0.29 and about
12% at the higher Froude number. For the Series 60, CB = 0.6,
on the other hand, the differences between the present results
and those of Tahara & Stern (1996) are relatively small at less
than 2%, the calculated CT at Fr = 0.316 being 5.89 x 10 -3.
The reasons for the differences are as follows. First, owing to
the staircase-like resolution of geometrical features such as bul-
bous bows and cruiser sterns, there must necessarily be local
corrections to the calculated wetted surface area. However, al-
though Stern et al (1996) accounted for the reduction in the
cell areas at such locations in their surface area calculation,
they did not extend the surface area correction into the formu-
lation of the fluid forces [specifically, equations (6-8) and (13)].
For a detailed explanation of how the formulations of Stern
et al (1996) and Tahara 8z Stern (1996) were affected by the
(26) geometry approximations, see Subramani (1996).
Subramani (1996) explains in detail also why the corrected
formulation of the fluid forces affects the complex FF1052 hull
more than it does the Series 60, CB = 0.6 and the pressure-
resistance to a greater degree than the frictional-resistance.
Essentially, graphical depictions of the apportionment of the
pressure-resistance and the frictional-resistance over the hull
surface reveal, in the case of the FF1052, an intense concentra-
tion of the pressure-resistance at the bulbous bow, where the
geometry approximations are most significant. Therefore, any
omissions of the corrections to the wetted surface area from the
local fluid force integration at such locations would result, as

68 MARCH 2000 JOURNAL OF SHIP RESEARCH

they did in Stern et al's (1996) calculations, in significant devi-
ations from the actual resistances. Much less significant devia-
tions from the actual values are seen in the frictional-resistances
for the FF1052 and in both the pressure- and frictional-resistan-
ces for the Series 60, CB = 0.6 because of a comparatively uni-
form distribution of these resistance components over the hull
surface. A uniform distribution of the resistance components
would naturally cause the effects of the local corrections due
to the geometry approximations to be much smaller percentage
differences in the integrated quantities. While clarifying the dif-
ferences in the recently published results, the above study also
reiterates the importance of an accurate resolution of the com-
plex geometric features, such as would be realizable through
the use of body-fitted grids.
Results and discussion
In this section, results are presented for the naval combat-
ant FF1052 and for the Series 60, CB = 0.6 parent hull form.
Following Stern et al (1996), the calculations for the FF1052
were performed, while including sinkage and trim this time,
at the Froude numbers 0.29 and 0.39. This enables an exami-
nation of Froude number effects on sinkage and trim. For the
Series 60, CB = 0.6 hull, the sinkage and trim calculations
were performed at a single Froude n u m b e r - - F r = 0.316--but
on two different grids, thereby enabling a measure of the grid
convergence of the results. The conditions and grids pertain-
ing to the calculations are detailed below. Then, the available
experimental data (for validation of the calculations) are de-
scribed. Lastly, the aforementioned calculations are presented
and discussed.
Conditions and grids
FF1052--In their studies of the FF1052 in the fixed condi-
tion (fixed as in "restrained to float at its DWL"), Stern et al
(1996) performed calculations at the two Froude numbers 0.29
and 0.39--corresponding to medium and high speeds (model-
scale Re = 14.9 x 106 and 20.1 x 106, respectively)--and using
three RANS grids: a coarse grid of distribution 207 x 60 x 40
(496 800 grid points), a medium grid of distribution 252 x 60 x 45
(680 400 grid points), and a fine grid of distribution 302 x 60 x 50
(906 000 grid points). Grid convergence was shown to be g o o d - -
the change in the total resistance between the medium and fine
grids, for instance, was less than 1%. Since Stern et al (1996)
showed that the coarse grid adequately resolved the flow field,
the same grid (207 x 60 x 40) was used for the present calcula-
tions.
The inlet and exit boundaries are located at X = - 0 . 4 and
2.0, respectively, and the outer boundary is located at a radius,
r = 1. The first point off the body surface is located in the range
Y+ < 2, and the number of points in the axial direction over
the bulbous bow, mid- and after-body, and wake are 30, 95,
and 50, respectively. The free-surface grid has a distribution
460 x 100, the grid points being distributed uniformly in the
X-direction and with exponentially increasing spacing in the
positive-Y direction. The values of the time step and the under-
relaxation factors for velocity and pressure are, respectively,
0.2, 0.2, and 0.02.
Series 60, CB = 0.6--In their application of the original
method to the Series 60, CB = 0.6 in the fixed condition,
Tahara & Stern (1994) performed calculations for the Froude
number, 0.316 (Re = 4 x 106) on two RANS grids: a medium
grid of distribution 180 x 40 30 (216 000 grid points), and a
The inlet and exit boundaries for both the RANS grids are
located at X = - 0 . 4 and 2.1, respectively, and the outer bound-
ary is located at a radius, r -- 1. The first point off the body
surface in each grid is located in the range Y+ < 2. The num-
ber of points in the axial direction over the body and wake
are, respectively, 100 and 50 for the medium grid and 200 and
100 for the fine grid. The free-surface grid has a distribution of
460 x 100 for both cases. The values of the time step and the
under-relaxation factors for velocity and pressure are 0.1, 0.1,
and 0.02, respectively.
Available experimental data
The data for the FF1052 were collected by West (1964),
through towing tank experiments with the model in the free
condition. They consist of measurements of the bare-hull resis-
tances and the sinkage and trim over a range of Froude numbers
and wave profiles on the hull at Fr = 0.29 and 0.39.
The inclusion of the Series 60, CB = 0.6 model in the Co-
operative Experimental Program (CEP) of the I T T C for the
creation of a reliable model-scale database has resulted in the
availability of extensive global and local measurements against
which to validate the calculations. (See I T T C 1987 for a sum-
mary of the many findings of the CEP.) Moreover, extensive
experiments have also been carried out at the Iowa Institute of
Hydraulic Research (Toda et al 1991), providing features of the
flow field in sufficient detail for the validation of CFD methods.
Further, Longo & Stern (1996) recently took measurements of
the resistance, side force, yaw moment, sinkage, trim and heel
angle for a range of Froude numbers and yaw angles, in addi-
tion to collecting wave profile data in the fixed condition. In
the validation to follow, the free-condition resistance data and
the fixed-condition wave profile data of Longo & Stern (1996)
shall be used.
A more comprehensive validation of the present calculations
is made possible by the availability of tabulated data, in the
fixed and free conditions, through the work of Kim ~z Jenkins
(1981). (Longo & Stern's measurements do not include free-
condition wave profile data.) However, the quality of the wave
profile data collected by Kim & Jenkins is such that the fixed-
condition measurements show notable differences from those of
Longo &~ Stern, which have been shown to conform with those
reported through the CEP. Also, Kim & Jenkins' experiments
were conducted on a model of length such that the Reynolds
' ' ' i . . . . i . . . . i . . . . i . . . . i
10-~ l Incorporationof sinkage
and trim corrections
10-2
o
"~
= 103
104
10-5
1 0 -6 I , , i , 1 i , , I I , i , i I I , , ,
t it lllli
I i i r r 1 i , , , I

fine grid of distribution 360 x 60 x 30 (648 000 grid points). Al- 0 lO00 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000
though Tahara &: Stern reported that the differences between
Iteration number
the solutions obtained using the two grids were small, both
grids were used herein so as to determine the effects of grid Fig. Z Iterative convergence for the FF1052 at Fr = 0.29 (20"? x 60
resolution on the prediction of sinkage and trim. 40 grid): residual o f axial velocity

MARCH 2000 JOURNAL OF SHIP RESEARCH 69

 2"0X10~3 . . . . I . . . . I . . . . I . . . .

I.OxlO -03

rr. O.OxlO+OO
. . . . . . . . ~: =- =--Z ~]L L_- L LI'L- L_ I-;

~ -1.OxlO -03
>

t"
-2.0x 10.03
Z

_3.0xlO "3

-4.0x 10 .03 , , , , , I , , , , I I I I I
4000 4500 5000 5500 6000
Iteration number
(a)

1'2x104 . . . . 1
I ' ' I ' ' ' '

8.0xlO -05

4.0xlO "5
e-

O.OxlO+
E !
iI '<, I ........ ILL
iI
-4.0x 10-05 I
11
E
I
,g .8.0xlO 5 I
ii

Z
I
iI

.1.2x10-o4 /

_l.6xlO "4 , , , I . . . . I . . . . I . . . .
4000 4500 5000 5500 6000
I t e r a t i o n number

(b)
Fig. 8 Vanishing of: (a) net heaving force, and (b) net trimming moment for the FF1052
at Fr = 0.29

n u m b e r for t h e i r e x p e r i m e n t s differed greatly, unlike L o n g o &=
S t e r n ' s , from t h a t of t h e n u m e r i c a l s i m u l a t i o n . Nevertheless,
t h e i r d a t a shall b e used h e r e u n d e r for a fuller discussion of t h e
t r e n d s a s s o c i a t e d w i t h sinkage a n d t r i m .
Next, t h e c a l c u l a t i o n s w i t h sinkage a n d t r i m are d e s c r i b e d
in d e t a i l for only one case, t h a t of t h e F F 1 0 5 2 a t Fr = 0.29;
for t h e o t h e r t h r e e cases, only t h e n o t a b l e results are p r e s e n t e d
a n d discussed. Nonetheless, in t h e process are e x a m i n e d b o t h ,
t h e F r o u d e n u m b e r effects o n sinkage a n d t r i m ( t h r o u g h t h e
results for t h e F F 1 0 5 2 ) a n d t h e effects of grid r e s o l u t i o n o n t h e
c a l c u l a t i o n s ( t h r o u g h t h e results for t h e Series 60, CB = 0.6).
FF1052 and effect of Froude number
In a slight v a r i a t i o n of t h e a d o p t e d s o l u t i o n p r o c e d u r e (re-
call Fig. 5)~ a converged s o l u t i o n of t h e flow field a r o u n d t h e
F F 1 0 5 2 a t Fr ---- 0.29 a n d 0.39 was first o b t a i n e d w i t h t h e
hull fixed, before i n i t i a t i n g a n y a d j u s t m e n t s for sinkage a n d
t r i m . A l t h o u g h t h e sinkage a n d t r i m c o r r e c t i o n s m a y b e g i n to
b e applied before a converged s o l u t i o n in t h e hull-fixed con-
d i t i o n is a t t a i n e d , d o i n g so in a s t e a d y - s t a t e c a l c u l a t i o n such
as t h i s m a y b e wasteful c o m p u t a t i o n a l l y . Yet, if t h e p r o c e d u r e
were t o b e e x t e n d e d for c a l c u l a t i n g b o d y m o t i o n s in a sea-
keeping s i m u l a t i o n - - a s is p o s s i b l e - - i t would of course b e nec-

70 MARCH 2000 JOURNAL OF SHIP RESEARCH

 0.006
Experiment (West 1964)
I Incremental correction
0.005 - - O- - Cumulative correction
Numbers in parantheses indicate percentage change
betweencorrectionsfor sinkageand trim
0.004

0.003

0.002
It
D
0.001 [

0.000 I ' i

-0.001 I I I I [
...... ........
,
.........
i
[]
I
: .....i ....i .....i ......
I [ I I

4000 4500 5000 5500 6000

Iteration number
(a)

0.005 . . . . I . . . . I . . . . _[
Experiment (West 1964)
I Incremental correction
0.O04 - - -A- - Cumulative correction
~ Numbersin paranthesesindicatepercentagechange I
:'''" bet. . . . . . . tionsfor sinkageand trim -[
0.oo3

0.002
.&-

0.001

0.000 ! ' ..... !

-0.001 , , , , I , , , , I . . . . I . . . .
4000 4500 5000 5500 6000
Iteration number
(b)
Fig. 9 Evolution of: (a) sinkage, and (b) trim corrections for FF1052 at Fr = 0.29

essary to d e t e r m i n e in a t i m e - a c c u r a t e m a n n e r the corrections
in the hull's position. For added convenience here, the existing
coarse grid, fixed-condition solutions of Stern et al (1996) were
used as the starting point for the sinkage and t r i m calculations.
T h e fixed-condition resistances, however, were duly corrected as
described previously and summarized in Table 2. Convergence
[corresponding to the criterion, R E S < 10-4; see equation
(25)] in the fixed condition was satisfied in 4000 iterations. This
is depicted in Fig. 7, which shows the convergence history of
the axial velocity. The c o m p u t a t i o n a l requirements on a C R A Y
C-90 were 36 megawords of m e m o r y and 20 hours of C P U time.
The iterative convergence of the sinkage and t r i m calcula-
tions to the final state of stable equilibrium can be studied
through an inspection of, besides Fig. 7, Figs. 8 and 9 - - a l l of
which are for Fr = 0.29. As shown in Fig. 8, the overall effect
of the flow field in the fixed condition is such t h a t there is a net
downward heaving force and also--reflecting the strong trim-
by-bow characteristics of the FF1052 at this ~ ' o u d e n u m b e r
(recall Fig. 1 ) - - a large t r i m m i n g m o m e n t by the bow. These
necessitate, through the coupled equations (23) and (24), the
positive sinkage and t r i m corrections seen in Fig. 9. W i t h the
incorporation of the first corrections for sinkage and trim, the

MARCH 2000 JOURNAL OF SHIP RESEARCH 71

 0.006
Experiment (West 1964)
| Incremental correction
0.005 - - O- - Cumulative correction
Numbers in parantheses indicate percentage change
between corrections for sinkage and trim
0.004

0.003 [ 1:3. . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
d
~o
.,
0.002

0.001

0.000

-0.001 I I I , I

4000 4500 5O00

Iteration number

(a)

0.005 ' I

Experiment (West 1964)

| Incremental correction
0.004 - - ,~- - Cumulative correction
Numbers in parantheses indicate percentage change
between corrections for sinkage and trtm

0.003
o

0.002
e-~

.E 0.001Z . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . &, . . . . . . . . . . . . . ~ .............. A- . . . . . . . --

0.000 .............................. II . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .....

-0.001 , , , , I , , , , I , ,
4000 4500 5000
Iteration n u m b e r
(b)
Fig. 10 Evolution of: (a) sinkage, and (b) trim corrections for FFI052 at Fr = 0.39

residuals (as d e m o n s t r a t e d in Fig. 7) spike up by over an or-
der of magnitude. U p o n performing 500 additional iterations
t h r o u g h the flow solver, t h e y fall back towards the original lev-
els. This p a t t e r n of increases and decreases in the residuals
following adjustments for sinkage and t r i m continues until sta-
ble equilibrium is a t t a i n e d - - w h e n the net heaving force and
t r i m m i n g m o m e n t (Fig. 8), and hence the incremental sinkage
and t r i m corrections (Fig. 9), converge to zero.
Interestingly, the net initial heaving force is almost com-
pletely balanced by the first (sinkage) correction; as a result,
the subsequent sinkage corrections are almost negligible. W i t h
further iterations, however, a net t r i m m i n g m o m e n t persists
and induces t r i m corrections by the stern for a few stages, be-
fore reversing directions and diminishing, as the pressure dis-
tribution on the hull stabilizes. T h e entire sequence lasts eight
stages (and 2000 additional iterations in all) and results in a
converged cumulative t r i m by the bow, as shown in Fig. 9.
The 0.39 Fr calculation shows different convergence charac-
teristics in progressing to a state of stable equilibrium. Ow-
ing to the smaller t r i m characteristic of the FF1052 at this
Froude n u m b e r (again, recall Fig. 1), a converged cumulative
sinkage and t r i m are obtained in only four stages (using 1300
additional iterations), as shown in Fig. 10. T h e additional it-
erations within the flow solver for a converged solution with

72 MARCH 2000 JOURNAL OF SHIP RESEARCH

 5 . 0 x 1if03 . . . . I . . . . I . . . . I . . . .
N u m b e r s in p a r a n t h e s e s indicate p e r c e n t a g e c h a n g e
b e t w e e n corrections for s i n k a g e a n d trim
.~ 4 . 0 X 1 0 "3

0
~ 3 . 0 x 1 0 3

L)

._~ 2 . 0 x l O 3
I

o=
"3
1.Ox 10 .03
D

0 . 0 x l 0 +oo . . . . I . . . . I . . . . I . . . .
4000 4500 5000 5500 6000
Iteration number
(a)
5.0x 10.03 . . . . I . . . . I ' ' '

N u m b e r s in p a r a n t h e s e s indicate p e r c e n t a g e c h a n g e
b e t w e e n corrections for s i n k a g e a n d trim
= 4 . 0 X 1 0 -3
(.)

~D
0D 3 . 0 x 1 0 -3
~D
D

2 . 0 X 1 0 "3

........... q?__ I o - - -(5

0.0xl0+ I . . . . . . . . . I . . . . I , , 1 ,

4000 4500 5000 5500 6000

Iteration number
(b)
1 . 0 x l 0 ~2 . . . . I . . . . I ' ' '

[.-. N u m b e r s in p a r a n t h e s e s indicate p e r c e n t a g e c h a n g e
r..) b e t w e e n corrections for s i n k a g e a n d trim
~_r 8 . 0 X 1 0 "3
~D
"U

6.0x10_o3
O

(..)
N 4 . 0 x l O "3

. . . . . . [] . . . . . . . . . . [] . . . . . . . . . - 0 ........... f
!
"~ 2 . 0 x 10 "3
O 19.9% i n c r e a s e w i t h
sinkage and trim
0 . 0 x l 0 + . . . . I . . . . I . . . . I . . . .
4000 . 4500 5000 5500 6000
Iteration number
(c)
Fig. l l Convergence history o f resistances for FF1052 at Fr = 0.29

MARCH 2000 JOURNAL OF SHIP RESEARCH 73

 5.0x 10 ~3 I I
Numbers in parantheses indicate percentage change
between corrections for sinkage and trim
4 . 0 x 1 0 .03

~2
0
0
0 3.0x 10 .03
0
< ...................... ~ ............ -O- . . . . . . . . . . . . q ....... -<

2 . 0 x 1 0 .03
I
1.0xl0 .03 I

0 . 0 x l 0 *0o / , I . . . . I , ,
4000 4500 5000
Iteration number
(a)
5 . 0 x 1 0 .03 I I
Numbers in parantheses indicate percentage change
,,..a
between corrections for sinkage and trim
c- 4 . 0 x 1 0 .03
O

0 3 . 0 x 1 0 .03
0
o

2 . 0 x 1 0 .03
~
(

1 . 0 x 1 0 .03

0 . 0 x l 0 + . . . . I . . . . I , ,
4000 4500 5000
Iteration number
(b)
1.0xlO-2f I I
Numbers in parantheses indicate percentage change
between corrections for sinkage and trim
8"0X10-3f
"O
~2 6.0X 10 .03
O

e..)
..a
4 . 0 x 1 0 .03I

2 . 0 x 1 0 .03 9.0% increase with

sinkage and trim

. . . . I . . . . I , ,
0 . 0 x l 0 +
4000 4500 5000
Iteration number
(c)
Fig. 12 Convergence history o f resistances for FF1052 at Fr ---- 0.3g

74 MARCH 2000 JOURNAL OF SHIP RESEARCH

Table 4 Sinkage and trim for the FF1052 at Fr = 0.29 and 0.39 an increase in the calculated resistance. Figures 11 and 12 show
the convergence histories of the resistances, starting from the
Froude number: 0.29 0.39 fixed-condition solutions, for the low and high Froude number
Grid: 207 x 60 x 40 207 x 60 x 40 cases, respectively. Notable in these figures is the sharp rise in
Sinkage the pressure-resistance coefficient for Fr = 0.29; it is indicative
Calculation 1.69 x 10 - 3 3.06 x 10 - 3 of the considerable change in the hull surface pressure distri-
bution on account of the large trim. The resistances in the
Data (West 1964) 1.43 x 10 - 3 3.08 x 10 - 3
final state of converged sinkage and trim--equivalent to resis-
Difference 18.1% -0.6%
tances obtained from model tests in the free-to-sink-and-trim
Trim
condition--are also listed in Table 2. At Fr = 0.29, the pressure-
Calculation 2.40 x 10 - 3 0.95 x 10 - 3
resistance shows substantial increases in both the piezometric
Data (West 1964) 2.46 10 - 3 0.57 10 - 3 (44.9%) and hydrostatic components (34.3%) but, surprisingly,
Difference -2.3% 67.3% the frictional-resistance drops 6% from the fixed-condition re-
NOTES: sult. The total resistance increases significantly, by 19.9%, to
Sinkage and trim nondimensionalized by L. 4.45 10 - 3 , such that the agreement with the free-condition
Center of gravity in calculation set at the level of the design data of West (1964) is fairly close (4.2%). Note that the in-
draft. crease in the resistance with sinkage and trim is well above
Towing point at which data collected unknown.
the uncertainty to be expected on account of the calm-water
hydrostatic error (4 to 7%), grid convergence (1 to 2%), and
sinkage and trim required--on the CRAY C-90--36 megawords also iterative convergence (2% of C T , as per Stern et al 1996).
of memory and about 5 hours of C P U time for every 1000 ad- At Fr = 0.39, the pressure-resistance increases by 17.4% and
ditional iterations. It should be pointed out that the numbers
the frictional-resistance also increases slightly (2.3%). The to-
of iterations that were performed within the flow solver be-
tal resistance increases, but less substantially than for the Fr
tween successive sinkage and trim corrections were probably
more than were necessary to realize the appropriate correc- = 0.29 case, to 4.74 1 0 - 3 - - a 9.0% rise. The agreement with
tions. For instance, considering that the changes in the hull's the data in the free condition is again very good, the difference
position for the FF1052 at Fr = 0.39 were far smaller beyond being 2.8%.
the first correction (Fig. 10), much less numbers of subsequent The calculated sinkage and trim, which are presented in Ta-
iterations could have been performed while getting similar re- ble 4 and also depicted in Fig. 1, are in relatively good agree-
sults. Further, it is also likely that fewer than 500 iterations ment with the data of West (1964). At Fr = 0.29, the ex-
need have been performed following even the first, most sub- perimental sinkage is overpredicted by 18%, while the trim
stantial correction. There must exist an optimal (with regard calculation shows a difference of 2.3% from the data. At Fr
to minimizing the computational expenses while maintaining = 0.39, the calculated sinkage is only - 0 . 6 % from the data,
numerical stability) number of additional iterations to be per- while the trim calculation shows an error of 67.3%. It may
formed following each sinkage and trim correction. Such a num- be noted that the trim at this Froude number is very small;
ber could, perhaps, be arrived at by quantifying more suitably consequently, a small difference in the prediction results in a
the change in the solution between iterations. This merits fur- large relative error. Also, there may exist differences between
ther study. the towing height in the data, which could not be ascertained,
Predictably, the effect of the sinkage and trim corrections is and the prescribed vertical center of gravity in the calculations,

0.030
' ' ' I ' ' ' I ' ' ' I ' ' ' I ' ' '

o Experiment, model free (West t964)

- - Calculation, with sinkage and trim
................. Calculation, fixed condition
........... Stern et al (1996)

0.015

O.OlC

0.005
\ o i
\ 0 0 0 0 :.:=.-.-.~
~ _ _ o .0~---~-~ ..........

0.000
-~" .... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ~ o

-0.005

-0.010 , , , I , , , I , , , I
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
X/L

Fig. 13 Waves profiles along the hull for FF1052 at Fr = 0.29

MARCH 2000 JOURNAL OF SHIP RESEARCH 75

 0.030
' ' ' I ' ' ' I ' ' ' I ' ' ' I ' ' '

o Experiment, m o d e l f r e e (West 1964)

0.025 - - Calculation, with sinkage and trim
o
/~ .................. Calculation, fixed c o n d i t i o n
0.020 )/./....\ ........... Stem et al (1996)

VJL
0.010

\ ,~, O "
0.o05 "'., "~,, o~.~ :
'..." o ~ ............i
":..,'-, ____o. o ............ :
o.ooo ......... ----~''~-- o ............. -

-0.005

-o.om ' ' ' I , , , I , , , I , , , I , , ,

0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
X/L
Fig. 14 Waves profiles along the hull for FF1052 at Fr = 0.39

which was set at the level of the design draft. The effects on
the trim prediction of these possible differences are unknown.
The effects of sinkage and trim on the wave profile on the
hull can be gauged from Figs. 13 and 14, which are respec-
tively for the Froude numbers 0.29 and 0.39. In validating their
fixed-condition calculation using the free-condition wave pro-
file data of West (1964), which were measured with respect to
the design waterline, Stern et al (1996) accounted for sinkage
and trim by vertically translating and rotating their calculated
wave profile (measured with respect to the undisturbed free
surface) by the experimental sinkage and trim values. The re-
sulting comparison still showed the features of the flow to be
well predicted by the calculation. The present 0.29 Fr calcula-
tion (plotted as might be measured about the design waterline)
not only excludes the uncertainty due to sinkage and trim but
also shows considerable improvement; the mid-body wave crest,
particularly, is predicted better. However, there are still slight
deviations in the magnitude and phase; also, the bow shoulder-
wave trough is underpredicted slightly and displaced a little to
the aft. Little difference is seen, though, between the present
0.39 Fr calculation and that of Stern et al (1996), suggesting
that the changes in the wave profile due to sinkage and trim
at this higher Froude number are essentially in the physical
change of the hull's position rather than in the resulting flow.
With no uncertainty on account of the sinkage and trim, the
calculation shows very good agreement indeed with the data, al-
though some differences persist: an underprediction of the bow
wave (also predicted to lie more aft), an underprediction of the
wave crest that lies at about X/L = 0.32, a slightly higher wave
trough at X/L = 0.6, and a slightly underpredicted transom
wave.
Lastly, it may be noted that sinkage and trim do not influence
the overall flow field much. Comparisons of the wave-elevation
contours for the different ship attitudes, and also of the axial
velocity contours, crossplane vectors and pressure contours at
select crossplanes, indicate that while there are quantitative
differences in the near-field, qualitatively, the differences due
to sinkage and trim are negligible (Subramani 1996).
Series 60, CB = 0.6 and effect of grid resolution
As with the calculations for the FF1052, existing fixed-condi-
tion solutions--Tahara & Stern's (1994) Fr = 0.316 solutions
on the previously described medium and fine grids--were used
as the starting point for the sinkage and trim calculations for
the Series 60, CB = 0.6. A converged solution in the fixed con-
dition had been obtained in 20 000 iterations on the medium
grid and in 5000 iterations on the fine grid. The computa-
tional requirements for these calculations were: 17 megawords
of memory and 40 hours of CPU time on a CRAY YMP for
the medium grid calculation and 35 megawords of memory and
32 hours of CPU time on a CRAY C-90 for the fine grid cal-
culation. Point-wise grid convergence between the medium and
fine grids is assessed through Fig. 15, which compares the sur-
face pressure, the friction velocity, and the centerline velocity
at the free-surface plane and the center-plane across the two
grids. Some small differences, which may have an important
effect on the present calculations, can be seen between the two
grids. Notably, the surface pressure at the free-surface plane
and the center-plane show higher bow peaks with the fine grid
(and slight increases in the stern peaks as well), indicating a
greater bow-down trimming moment due to the pressure. The
bow and stern shoulder profiles at the free-surface are steeper,
too, implying similar differences in the wave profile along the
hull. The centerline velocity also shows differences at the free-
surface plane in the wake region. The friction velocity profiles
show little change between the two grids.
In consonance with these findings, the difference in the calcu-
lated resistances between the two grids (Table 3) is mainly in
the pressure-resistance, with the frictional-resistance showing
little change. The uncertainty in the pressure-resistance be-
tween the two grids is a substantial 8.8%, leading to an un-
certainty of 3.7% in the total resistance, with the fine grid
result comparing better with the data. Considering that the
frictional resistance is apportioned uniformly over the hull sur-
face whereas the pressure-resistance is concentrated largely at
the bow and the stern, these differences between the two grids

76 MARCH 2000 JOURNAL OF SHIP RESEARCH

 180x40x30 grid ............ 360x60x30 grid
' ' ' I . . . . I . . . . I . . . . t . . . . I ' ' I . . . . I . . . . I . . . . I . . . . I

0.15
i
~-)~ 0.10

~ 0.05

o.oo -I'
~ -0.05

= -0.10

-0,15
. . . . . . . I . . . . I . . . . I . . . . I , , I , , , , I . . . . I . . . . I . . . .

0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0
X/L X/L
. . . . I . . . . I . . . . I . . . . I . . . .

~.0.15

>2
.9
0 0.10
09
;>

0
U 0.05

. . . . I . . . . I . . . . I . . . . I . . . .
0.00
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
X/L X/L
1.0 ' ' ~'~1 . . . . I . . . . I . . . . I . . . . t ' '~-. I . . . . I . . . . I . . . . I . . . . I

,.J
..)
0.8 --

0 0.6
09
>
0.4

0.2

, , , , I . . . . I . . . . I . . . . I ,, . . . . , I , , , , , i , , I . . . .
0.0 '''
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0
X/L X/L
(a) free-surface plane (b) center-plane
Fig. 15 Pointwise grid convergence for the Series 60, Cs = 0.6 at Fr = 0316: surface pressure, friction
velocity, and centerline velocity

are clearly due to the effects of improved grid resolution, which and 17. Figure 16 shows the evolution of the sinkage and trim
was by design concentrated near the bow and the stern. corrections with iterations and Fig. 17 shows the convergence
The progression of the calculations to the final state of sta- histories of the resistances starting from the fixed-condition so-
ble equilibrium is demonstrated for the fine grid in Figs. 16 lution. The calculated resistances with sinkage and trim, for

MARCH 2000 JOURNAL OF SHIP RESEARCH 77

 0.006 ~ ,' I I I
Experiment (Longo and Stern 1996)
| Incremental correction
0.005 I-- - - U-- Cumulative correction
Numbers in parantheses indicate percentage change between

0.004
................. D ................ C] . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . [3 . . . . -'77-- - - "
0.0031
;

t-
0.002

0.001

0.000

-0.001 , , , I , , , , I , , , , I I I

5000 5500 6000 6500

Iteration number
(a)

0.005 I ' I
Experiment (Longo and Stern 1996)
I Incremental correction
---A-- Cumulative correction
0.004 Numbers in parantheses indicate percentage change between
correctmns for sinkage and trim

i.a
0.003
0

0.002

0O01Z

0.000 ! ............ ......... I ........

........... i ....................

-0.001 , , , , I . . . . I . . . . I , ,

5000 5500 6000 6500

Iteration number
(b)
Fig. 16 Evolution of: (a) sinkage, and (b) trim corrections for Series 60, Cs = 0.6 at
Fr = 0.316 (360 x 60 x 30 grid)

b o t h t h e m e d i u m a n d fine grid calculations, are p r e s e n t e d in t h e p r e s s u r e - r e s i s t a n c e increases by 16.7%, a l t h o u g h t h e fric-

T a b l e 3 too, for a c o m p a r i s o n w i t h t h e fixed-condition results
a n d t h e m e a s u r e d values. T h e 1800 a d d i t i o n a l i t e r a t i o n s w i t h i n
t h e flow solver for a converged s o l u t i o n w i t h sinkage a n d t r i m ,
using t h e fine grid, r e q u i r e d 35 m e g a w o r d s of m e m o r y a n d 11.4
h o u r s of C P U t i m e o n t h e C R A Y C-90. W i t h t h e m e d i u m grid,
8000 a d d i t i o n a l i t e r a t i o n s were necessary to o b t a i n a converged
c u m u l a t i v e sinkage a n d t r i m , a n d t h e y r e q u i r e d 17 m e g a w o r d s
of m e m o r y a n d 16 h o u r s of C P U t i m e o n t h e C R A Y Y M P .
As w i t h t h e FF1052, t h e c a l c u l a t i o n s show t h a t sinkage a n d
t r i m go t o w a r d s i n c r e a s i n g t h e resistance. O n t h e m e d i u m grid,
t i o n a l - r e s i s t a n c e shows little c h a n g e as a result of sinkage a n d
t r i m (it a c t u a l l y decreases by 1.1%). T h e increase in t h e for-
m e r is essentially in t h e p i e z o m e t r i c c o m p o n e n t (14.6%). T h e
increase in t h e t o t a l r e s i s t a n c e is by 5.7%, from 6.11 10 - 3
in t h e fixed c o n d i t i o n to 6.46 10 - a w i t h sinkage a n d t r i m ,
for a difference of 9.9% from t h e free-condition d a t a of Longo
8z S t e r n (1996). T h e d a t a of K i m & J e n k i n s (1981), a l t h o u g h
a t a different R e y n o l d s n u m b e r , show a c o m p a r a b l e 8.5% in-
crease in C T w i t h sinkage a n d t r i m . T h e results w i t h t h e fine

78 MARCH 2000 JOURNAL OF SHIP RESEARCH

 5.0x 10 -3 I ' ' ' I . . . . I ' '

4.0x10 "3
9

0
o 3.0x10 -~
0

2.0x10 -3
I

0 1 . 0 x l 0 -3
.~, N u m b e r s in p a r a n t b e s e s indicate p e r c e n t a g e c h a n g e
ej
b e t w e e n c o r r e c t i o n s for s i n k a g e a n d trim
i i I r i
0 . 0 x l 0 ~
5000 5500 6000 6500
Iteration number
(a)
5.0x10 -3 I I I

.) 4.0x10 -3

O
J
3.0x10 3
1.)
J

2.0x10 ~

1.0x 10 .03
Numbers in parantheses indicate percentage change 1
between corrections for sinkage and trim
1
0 . 0 x l 0 *
5000 5500 6000 6500
Iteration number
(b)
1.0x 10 -2

L)
8.0x 10 -03

.) 6.0x 10 .03
O
)

4.0x10 -3
6.6% increase with
sinkage and trim
I
2.0x 10 .03
O Numbers in parantheses indicate percentage change
[-.,
between corrections for sinkage and trim
0 . 0 x l 0 + . . . . I . . . . I . . . . f , ,
5000 5500 6000 6500
Iteration number
(c)
Fig. 17 Convergence history of resistances for Series 60, CB = 0.6 at Fr = 0.316 (360
60 30 grid)

MARCH 2000 JOURNAL OF SHIP RESEARCH 79

 Table 5 Sinkage and trim for the
Series 60, CB = 0.6 at Fr = 0 . 3 1 6
Grid: 180 x 40 x 30 360 x 60 x 30
Sinkage
Calculation 3.24 10 - 3 3.35 10- 3
Data (Longo ~z Stern 1996) 3.95 10 - 3 3.95 10 - 3
Difference -18.0% -15.2%
Data (Kim &: Jenkins 1981) 3.76 x 10 - 3 3.76 x 10 - 3
Difference -13.8% -10.9%
Trim
Calculation 0.17 10 - 3 1.21 x 10 -3
Data (Longo & Stern 1996) 1.69 x 10 - 3 1.69 x 10 -3
Difference - 89.9 % - 28.6%
Data (Kim &: Jenkins 1981) 2.41 x 10 - 3 2.41 x 10 - 3
Difference -92.9% -49.8%
NOTES:
Sinkage and trim nondimensionalized by L.
Center of gravity in calculation set at the level of the design
draft.
Towing point in data of Longo & Stern (1996) at a height
above keel of 0.24 times the design draft.
Towing point at which data of Kim & Jenkins (1981) were
collected unknown.
grid show an increase in both, the pressure- and the frictional-
resistance components. The total resistance increases by 6.6%,
from 5.89 10 - 3 in the fixed condition to 6.28 x 10 - 3 with
sinkage and trim, confirming the trend seen in the data (also,
recall Fig. 2). This increase is again well above the level of
uncertainty due to the axial hydrostatic error (less than 1% of
CT) and iterative convergence (2% of CT); it is a clear effect
of sinkage and trim. A comparison with the free-condition data
of Longo & Stern (1996), however, shows the resistance to be
overpredicted by 6.8%.
The calculated cumulative sinkage and trim are presented in
Table 5 along with, for comparison, the measurements of Longo
& Stern (1996). The sinkage and trim measurements of Kim &:
Jenkins (1981) axe also included, notwithstanding the uncer-
tainty associated with the data. Considering the error level of
the total resistance calculation, it may be said that the sinkage
calculated using the medium grid (3.24 10 -3) is in reasonably
good agreement with the measured value (3.95 x 10-3), the dif-
ference being 18%. However, the trim is predicted poorly. As
against a measured trim of 1.69 x 10 - 3 by the bow, the cal-
culated value is only 0.17 10 - 3 ( - 9 0 % difference from the
data of Longo & Stern 1996). While the sinkage in the fine grid
calculation (3.35 x 10 -3) shows some improvement over the
medium grid result, for a smaller difference of - 1 5 % from the
data of Longo Stern (1996), the trim calculation improves
considerably, the result (1.21 10 -3) underpredicting the data
by a much lower value of -29%. The reasons for this are recog-
nized easily. The sinkage is derived essentially from Fpz [with
FB for an advancing ship changing very slightly from W, it is
Fpz that mostly makes up the unbalanced heaving force F in
equation (12)], which may be estimated with sufficient accu-
racy. The trim, however, is very sensitive to the longitudinal
surface pressure distribution, since it is the net transverse mo-
ment due to the vertical pressure forces at each cross section
that contributes most substantially to the unbalanced trim-
ming moment M, in equation (13). As a result, even slight dif-
ferences in the surface-pressure calculation on account of the
grid resolution (especially at the bow and the stern, where the
pressure attains its maxima) can lead to grossly different trim
80 MARCH 2000
calculations. Figure 15, as shown earlier, displays precisely such
differences.
It should be noted that some differences in the trim may
also be due to the inconsistency between the towing height
in the data and the vertical center of gravity specified in the
calculation. The measurements of Longo & Stern (1996) were
taken with the ship model attached to the towing carriage at a
height above the keelline of 0.24 times the design draft (while
at the same transverse location as the longitudinal center of
buoyancy), whereas in the calculations the center of gravity
(which is the towing point equivalent) was assumed to be at the
level of the design draft. One of the findings reported through
the CEP (ITTC 1987) was that the trim (of the Series 60, CB =
0.6 model) was larger when the model was towed at a higher
position (the sinkage measurements were not affected by the
towing height). Consequently, a larger trim may be expected in
the present calculations were the center of gravity prescribed at
the same level as the model towing point; and understandably
so, for the contributions of the axial hydrodynamic forces to the
net trimming moment, equation (16), increase with the towing
height. In other words, the error in the trim calculation may
be expected to be less than the value of 29% suggested by the
present validation.
Plots of the calculated wave profiles along the hull, in the
fixed condition and with sinkage and trim, and of the change
in the wave profile as a result of sinkage and trim are presented
in Fig. 18 and compared with the data. First, it should be
noted that the data of Kim &: Jenkins (1981) not only show
notable differences from the fixed-condition measurements of
Longo & Stern (1996), but also display much scatter--as seen
in the change in the wave profiles with sinkage and trim (this
scatter in the data near the stern may also explain their sig-
nificantly different trim measurement, presented in Table 5).
Nevertheless, their measurements enable a useful comparison
of the trends associated with sinkage and trim. They show
that the bow wave crest increases and the stern wave crest
decreases with sinkage and t r i m - - t r e n d s indicative of the bow-
down trim. Further, the bow shoulder-wave trough decreases
while the stern shoulder-wave crest increases. All of these trends
are reproduced closely by the calculations. That the total re-
sistance for the ship is less in the fixed condition is also cor-
roborated by the wave profile calculation--the lower bow wave
and the steeper stern wave implying a lower resistance.
Concluding remarks
A CFD code for surface-ship boundary layers, wakes, and
wave fields is extended by incorporating into it the capability
of predicting sinkage and trim. This development realizes two
important objectives: (1) it enables the simulation of a ship's
advance in the "model free" condition, thereby excluding possi-
ble uncertainty, on account of sinkage and trim, in a validation
of the resistance calculation, and (2) it is an important prereq-
uisite for future extensions of the method for seakeeping calcu-
lations. The extended method was applied successfully to the
naval combatant FF1052 and also to the Series 60, CB ----0.6
parent hull. The important findings are summarized below.
The calculations confirm the trends seen in the experiments
that the total resistance increases significantly with sinkage and
trim. The increases observed in the calculations are well above
the level of uncertainty to be expected on account of grid con-
vergence (up to 2% of the total resistance), iterative conver-
gence (2%), and the calm-water hydrostatic error (4 to 7% for
the FF1052 and 1% for the Series 60, CB = 0.6). The calcu-
lated resistances, with sinkage and trim accounted for, were
validated by comparison with the available experimental data.
In the case of the Series 60, Ct3 = 0.6 at Fr = 0.316, the
JOURNAL OF SHIP RESEARCH
 0.02 ] I I I t I ~ I I I I I t t I I ~ I I I U

- - Calculation, with sinkage and trim

.......... Calculation, fixed condition
o Data, model free (Kim and Jenkins 198 I)
,,~ ~ v Data, model fixed (Kim and Jenkins 1981)
0.01 ,~r \ Data, model fixed (Longo and Stem 1996)

O0 0

g 0
J "'~'0
",X7 %7 0 0

".V //
-0.01

I I I I I I I I n I I I I I I I t I I I I
-0.02
0 0.25 0.5 0.75 1
X/L

(a)

0.004 Data (Kim and Jenkins 1981)

a Calculation

0.002
@

A A A ~A

O0
-0,002

-0.004
T . . . . I . . . . I I I I I I . . . . T
0 0.25 0.5 0.75 1
X/L
(b)
Fig. 18 Series 60, Cs = 0.6 at Fr = 0.316 (360 x 60 x 30 grid): (a) wave profiles
along hull, and (b) changes in wave profiles with sinkage and trim

c a l c u l a t i o n s ( w i t h t h e finer of two different grids) o v e r p r e d i c t of t h e sinkage a n d t r i m arise p r i m a r i l y t h r o u g h a p r o p a g a t i o n

t h e d a t a b y 7%, while t h e differences from t h e d a t a for t h e of errors in t h e c a l c u l a t i o n of t h e resistances a n d t h e o t h e r hy-
F F 1 0 5 2 are 4% a t Fr = 0.29 a n d 3% a t Fr = 0.39. d r o d y n a m i c forces o n t h e hull surface. T h e u n c e r t a i n t y in t h e
T h e sinkage a n d t r i m , w h i c h were o b t a i n e d i t e r a t i v e l y in four sinkage a n d t r i m calculations, therefore, are n o t easily q u a n t i -
to eight stages, were also e s t i m a t e d well. For t h e FF1052, a t fled.
b o t h t h e F r o u d e n u m b e r s studied, t h e t r e n d s in sinkage a n d T h e a p p r e c i a b l e effects of sinkage a n d t r i m on t h e wave pro-
t r i m were p r e d i c t e d correctly, a l t h o u g h t h e p e r c e n t a g e differ- files o n t h e hull were also r e p r o d u c e d closely. T h e wave profile
ences in t h e a b s o l u t e values varied w i t h F r o u d e n u m b e r . For t h e for t h e Series 60, CB = 0.6 a t Fr = 0.316 showed, b o t h qual-
Series 60, CB = 0.6 a t Fr ---- 0.316, t h e t r e n d s in sinkage a n d i t a t i v e l y a n d q u a n t i t a t i v e l y , t h e t r e n d s seen in t h e d a t a d u e
t r i m were a g a i n p r e d i c t e d correctly, b u t t h e differences from to sinkage a n d t r i m . Specifically, t h e b o w wave increased while
t h e d a t a were c o m p a r a t i v e l y large. T h e differences d e c r e a s e d t h e s t e r n wave decreased, a n d t h e wave profile in general be-
s u b s t a n t i a l l y , however, w i t h t h e fine grid, h i g h l i g h t i n g t h e im- came steeper, in c o m p a r i s o n w i t h t h e fixed-condition results.
p o r t a n c e of a d e q u a t e grid r e s o l u t i o n I e s p e c i a l l y in regions of For t h e FF1052, too, at b o t h t h e F r o u d e n u m b e r s studied, t h e
large p r e s s u r e g r a d i e n t s on t h e hull s u r f a c e - - i n t h e p r e d i c t i o n wave profiles showed very good a g r e e m e n t w i t h t h e d a t a , w h i c h
of t h e t r i m . It m a y b e n o t e d t h a t a n y errors in t h e c a l c u l a t i o n were available only in t h e model-free condition. Interestingly,

MARCH 2000 JOURNAL OF SHIP RESEARCH 81

it was o b s e r v e d in t h e Fr = 0.29 case t h a t t h e effects of sinkage
a n d t r i m went b e y o n d t h e p l a i n physical c h a n g e in t h e wave
profile due to t h e i m m e r s i o n of t h e h u l l - - a s a t Fr = 0 . 3 9 - - w i t h
t h e wave profile w i t h sinkage a n d t r i m t a k i n g o n a n a p p r e c i a b l e
m i d - b o d y h u m p . T h i s is d i r e c t l y r e l a t e d t o t h e significantly
larger t r i m (by t h e bow) c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of t h e hull a t t h e lower
F r o u d e n u m b e r . T h e s e results also provide a useful e x a m p l e for
a n y c a l c u l a t i o n s t h a t seek to a c c o u n t for sinkage a n d t r i m by
plainly t r a n s l a t i n g a n d r o t a t i n g t h e wave profile c a l c u l a t e d for
t h e ship fixed.
~ t u r e work lies in t h r e e areas. First, t h e t e c h n i q u e m u s t
b e i m p l e m e n t e d in t h e m o r e recent, generalized versions of
C F D S H I P - I O W A (versions 2.0 a n d higher), w h i c h use curvilin-
ear t h r e e - d i m e n s i o n a l b o d y - f i t t e d grids. T h i s would e l i m i n a t e
t h e u n c e r t a i n t y a s s o c i a t e d w i t h g e o m e t r y a p p r o x i m a t i o n s such
as t h e s t a i r c a s e q i k e r e s o l u t i o n of r a k e d bows a n d s t e r n s o n H-
t y p e grids. Second, a m o r e rigorous verification a n d v a l i d a t i o n
analysis is required, i n c l u d i n g f u r t h e r s t u d i e s t o e s t a b l i s h grid
c o n v e r g e n c e a n d t h e q u a n t i f y i n g of p r o p a g a t i o n errors in t h e
sinkage a n d t r i m corrections. Finally, t h e t e c h n i q u e h a s t o b e
e x t e n d e d to e n a b l e s e a k e e p i n g s i m u l a t i o n s as C F D S H I P - I O W A
c o n t i n u e s t o b e d e v e l o p e d for a n d is applied to u n s t e a d y flow
p r o b l e m s (e.g., W i l s o n et al 1998).
Acknowledgments
T h i s r e s e a r c h was s p o n s o r e d by t h e Office of Naval R e s e a r c h
( g r a n t N00014-93-1-0052), w i t h Dr. E. P. R o o d as t e c h n i c a l
m o n i t o r . T h e c o m p u t a t i o n s were p e r f o r m e d o n s u p e r c o m p u t e r s
a t t h e Naval O c e a n o g r a p h i c Office ( C R A Y Y M P a n d C-90) a n d
t h e S a n Diego S u p e r c o m p u t i n g C e n t e r ( C R A Y C-90). T h e first
a u t h o r would like to d e d i c a t e t h i s p a p e r to t h e late Dr. R. S.
A l w a r for i n s p i r i n g h i m t o w a r d s r e s e a r c h while a t t h e I n d i a n
I n s t i t u t e of Technology, M a d r a s .
References
BA1, K. J. AND MCCARTHY, J. H. 1979 Proceedings, Workshop
on Ship Wave-Resistance Computations. DTNSRDC Report, 1, 2.
BERTRAM, V. 1994 Free-surface potential flow around the Series
60 ship. Proceedings, CFD Tokyo Workshop, Tokyo, March, 1,
121-125.
BINGHAM, H., KORSMEYER, F., AND NEWMAN, J. 1994 Prediction
of the seakeeping characteristics of ships. Proceedings, 20th ONR
Symposium on Naval Hydrodynamics.
CFD WORKSHOP TOKYO 1994 Proceedings, Ship Research Insti-
tute, Ministry of Transport, Ship and Ocean Foundation, March
22-24, 1, 2.
CHEN, H. C., PATEL, V. C., AND JU, S. 1990 Solutions of
Reynolds-averaged Navier-Stokes equations for three-dimensional
incompressible flows. Journal of Computational Physics, 88, 2,
305-335.
HAUSSLING, H. J., MILLER, R. W., AND COLEMAN, R. M. 1997
Computation of high-speed turbulent flow about a ship model with
a transom stern. Proceedings, The 1997 ASME Fluids Engineering
Division Summer Meeting FEDSM'97, June 22-26.
I T T C 1957 Proceedings, 8th International Towing Tank Confer-
ence, Madrid.
82 MARCH 2000
I T T C 1987 Report of the resistance and flow committee. 18th
International Towing Tank Conference, Kobe, Japan, 47-92.
JENSEN, G., BERTRAM, V., AND SODING, H. 1989 Ship wave-resis-
tance computations. Proceedings, 5th International Conference on
Numerical Ship Hydrodynamics, Hiroshima, Japan.
KIM, Y.-H., AND JENKINS, D. 1981 Trim and sinkage effects on
wave resistance with Series 60, C B = 0.6, DTNSRDC R e p o r t /
SPD-1013-01, Sept.
KIM, K., CHOI, Y., JANSSON, C., AND LARSSON, L. 1994 Linear
and nonlinear calculations of the free surface potential flow around
ships in shallow water. Proceedings, 20th ONR Symposium on
Naval Hydrodynamics.
LARSSON, L., PATEL, V. C., AND DYNE, G. 1991 Ship viscous
flow--Proceedings of the 1990 SSPA-CTH-IIHR Workshop,
F L O W T E C H International Report No. 2.
LEWIS, E. 1989 Principles of Naval Architecture, Motions in
waves and controllability. The Society of Naval Architects and Ma-
rine Engineers, 3.
LONGO, J. F. AND STERN, F. 1996 Yaw effects on model-scale ship
flows. Proceedings, 21st ONR Symposium on Naval Hydrodynam-
ics.
NELSON, R. C. 1989 Flight Stability and Automatic Control.
McGraw-Hill, New York.
OGIWARA, S. AND KAJITANI, H. 1994 Pressure distribution on the
hull surface of the Series 60 (C B = 0.6) model. Proceedings, CFD
Tokyo Workshop, Tokyo, Japan, March, 1,350-358.
PATERSON, E. G., WILSON, R. V., AND STERN, F. 1998 CFDSHIP-
IOWA and steady flow RANS simulation of DTMB model 5415.
Proceedings, let Symposium on Marine Applications of CFD, May.
RATCLIFFE, T. 1998 Validation of free surface Reynolds-averaged
Navier Stokes and potential flow codes. Proceedzngs, 22nd ONR
Symposium on Naval Hydrodynamics.
STERN, F., PATERSON, E. G., AND TAHARA, Y. 1996 CFDSHIP-
IOWA: Computational fluid dynamics method for surface-ship
boundary layers, wakes and wave fields. IIHR Report No. 381,
Iowa Institute of Hydraulic Research, Iowa, July.
STERN, F., WILSON, R. V., COLEMAN, H., AND PATERSON, E. G.
1999 Verification and validation of CFD simulations. Proceed-
ings, 3rd A S M E / J S M E Joint Fluids Engineering Conference, San
Francisco, July.
SUBRAMAN1, i . K. 1996 Extensions of a viscous ship-flow CFD
method for the calculation of sinkage and trim. M.S. thesis, De-
partment of Mechanical Engineering, The University of Iowa, Iowa
City, Iowa, Dec.
TAHARA, Y. AND STERN, F. 1994 A large-domain approach for
calculating ship boundary layers and wakes for nonzero Froude
number. Proceedings, CFD Tokyo Workshop, Tokyo, Japan, March,
1, 45-55; also, Journal of Computational Physics, 127, 2, 1996,
398-411.
TODA, Y., STERN, F., AND LONGO, J. 1991 Mean-flow measure-
ments in the boundary layer and wake and wave field of a Series
60, C B = 0.6 ship model for Froude numbers 0.16 and 0.316. IIHR
Report No. 352, Iowa Institute of Hydraulic Research, Iowa.
TODD, F . H . 1963 Series 60--Methodical experiments with mod-
els of single-screw merchant ships. T M B Report No. 1712, DTRC.
WEST, U . E . 1964 Resistance characteristics and appendage ori-
entation data for DE 1052 represented by model 4989. D T N S R D C /
SPD-C-011_H01, Unclassified 3/13/81, Sept.
WILSON, R., PATERSON, E., AND STERN, F. 1998 Unsteady RANS
CFD method for naval combatants in waves. Proceedings, 22nd
ONR Symposium on Naval Hydrodynamics.
JOURNAL OF SHIP RESEARCH