International Journal of Advanced in Management, Technology and Engineering Sciences ISSN NO : 2249-7455

DESIGN OPTIMISATION OF SHIP HULL USING CFD ANALYSIS

KIRAN BHAGATE1, ROHAN HAWRE2 and DIPIKA DEVI3
1
Director, IDAC India Private Limited, Pune, India,kbhagate@googlemail.com
2
Engineering Analyst, IDAC India Private Limited, Pune, India.rohanhaware8@yahoo.com
3
Associate Professor, Civil Engg. Deptt. NERIST, India, dipikace.nerist@gmail.com

ABSTRACT-
One of the most active fields of ship hydrodynamics research today is the development of methods for computing the drag coefficient
of the steady, free-surface, viscous flow around a ship hull. Experimental tests are often used as a reliable method for the prediction of ship
performance. Nowadays, with the development of new numerical tools, advancements in computer technology and improved data processing
capabilities, Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD) has made remarkable progress. This has allowed ship designers to create a computer-
generated model of a ship and check its performance, at various speeds, in a simulated environment, for subsequent optimization processing. The
results from the CFD simulations are necessary to understand the complicated flow characteristics for an optimal hull design and to establish low
drag and high propulsive efficiency. This allows the designers to predict if the total resistance of the ship is at an acceptable level.This paper
describes a Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD) Analysis of a ship hull design. A CFD analysis was carried out on a hull line profile. A steady
state analysis was carried out for current study. Two phases were considered such as water and air. The flow will turbulent and hence appropriate
turbulent model i.e. SST k- model was used. Upon studying the original design results, a second hull profile was proposed in order to assess the
impact of the design changes on the overall hull resistance.

Keywords: Hydrodynamics, CFD, Ship Hull

1. INTRODUCTION

Shipbuilding has been practised since pre-historical times, and advances in the field have been essential in the rise of our modern
society. Today safety demands together with increasing ecological awareness lead to evermore stricter demands for new ships. For the
shipbuilding industry to meet these requirements, new and/or enhanced methods have to be applied. In general, two different approaches can be
taken, namely experimental and mathematical. While experimental methods have presumably been used throughout the history, the first
mathematical approaches to ship hydrodynamics can be traced back to the 19th century [1] [2].
Whereas experimental methods focus on measuring (most often) real model scale behaviour of a ship or part of it, mathematical approaches
concentrate on modelling these. The rapid growth of computer capacities during the past half-century has opened new horizons for mathematical
approaches. One of these is the use of computational fluid dynamics (CFD). With CFD the governing equations of fluid flow are solved
numerically, and a numerical solution for the whole flow field is attained as a result. As the flow around a ship hull is a complex phenomenon,
CFD demands a lot of computational effort and has thus been out of the reach of hydrodynamics until lately. The development of CFD-tools has
followed that of computers, more computational capacity has led to more complex simulations [3].
Modern computers can solve full scale problems with free surface flow and turbulence, a quantum leap from the mathematical methods used
before the emergence of CFD. However, completely calculating all the different scales of a flow problem, known as Direct Numerical
Simulation (DNS), is still out of question even for the most powerful supercomputers. This is due to the wide range of length scales involved in
turbulence. Thus, different methods have been developed where parts of the flow problem are modelled instead of being completely solved.
Currently the most important such models are different Reynolds-Averaged Navier-Stokes Equations (RANS) where the fluctuations of the flow
are not solved accurately in the spatial dimension. Instead, only an averaged solution is attained. The RANS solutions are important for academia
as well as many industrial fields as they produce high quality results compared to their computational requirements [4] [5] [6].

Volume 7 Issue 11 2017 57 http://ijamtes.org/

International Journal of Advanced in Management, Technology and Engineering Sciences ISSN NO : 2249-7455

In this study, the initial geometry (iteration 1) is as shown in Fig.1. A two-phase

phase steady state CFD analysis was carried out for a fixed speed of
the ship with fixed draft level. The initial flow conditions were considered from literature. The CFD analysis was carried ou
out according to ITTC-
Recommended Procedures and Guidelines.
The CFD analysis for the modified hull (iteration 2) was carried out keeping the same analysis settings as in case of Iterati
Iteration-1 to ensure the
consistency in the solution. The hull geometry was replaced for Iteration-2
Iteration keeping all other parameters i.e. the domain size, mesh parameters,
fluid properties, boundary conditions and the solution options constant.
The CFD analysis of the hull was split into the following phases:
Preparing the CAD geometry for CFD meshing
Meshing
Solution setup and
nd checking, including convergence monitoring
Post-processing and reporting
The analysis in this project was performed using ANSYS Fluent and post-processing
post processing was carried out using ANSYS CFD Post [7].

2. CFDANALYSIS

2.1 Geometry
The initial geometry (iteration 1) and the modified geometry (iteration 2) of the hull surface wasmodelled
modelled by CAD tool.
tool The 3D model
was imported into ANSYS DesignModeler as an IGS file.The
file. hull geometry was simplified as is appropriate for a CFD analysis as shown
inFig.1.
A large fluiddomain
domain was created to ensure that the boundaries do not affect the flow around the hull. The domain was sliced to take
advantage of the symmetry plane. The domain was further sliced into several bodies in order to maximize the number of hexahedral
hexahedra elements.
The size of the domain can be seen in Fig. 2.
The individual sliced bodies were assembled as a multibody part in DesignModeller in order to get a continuous mesh between
connecting faces/edges.
Fig.3. Ship hull surface of original and modified geometry and
Fig.4.Ship
Ship hull line diagram of original and modified geometryshows
geometryshows the ship hull surface and hull line for original (iteration 1)and
modified (iteration 2)geometry used for current CFD analysis.

Fig.1. Ship Geometry

Volume 7 Issue 11 2017 58 http://ijamtes.org/

International Journal of Advanced in Management, Technology and Engineering Sciences ISSN NO : 2249-7455

Fig. 2.Fluid domain

Fig.3. Ship hull surface of original and modified geometry

Volume 7 Issue 11 2017 59 http://ijamtes.org/

International Journal of Advanced in Management, Technology and Engineering Sciences ISSN NO : 2249-7455

Fig.4.Ship
Ship hull line diagram of original and modified geometry

2.2 Finite Volume Model (CFD Mesh)

The fluid domain was imported into ANSYS Meshing and meshed with a combination of hexahedral, tetrahedral and prism elements.
The mesh was refined around the hullwall
wall boundaries to ensure an adequate solution of the flow field. Thus, the highest number of elements
were located around the ship. The mesh was inflated at the wallswith an appropriate value of +, achieved through most of the model (wall
function approach). The total number of elements is shown inTable 1. The mesh for hull domaincan be seen in Fig.55.Mesh and Fig.6.Mesh near
the hull wall

Table 1: Mesh Information

Finite Volume Model (CFD Mesh) Number of elements

Hull CFD domain (Half Model) 4,000,000

4,000,00

Fig.5.Mesh
Fig. for the domain of analysis

Volume 7 Issue 11 2017 60 http://ijamtes.org/

International Journal of Advanced in Management, Technology and Engineering Sciences ISSN NO : 2249-7455

Fig.6.Mesh near the hull wall

2.3 Fluid properties

Air and sea-water were the two fluids involved in the analysis. The value of properties assigned to these fluids given in Table 2 below
.
Table 2: Fluid Properties
Property Air Sea-water
water
3
Density (kg/m ) 1.18 1010
Dynamic viscosity (kg/ m-s) 1.8e-5 8.9e-4

2.4 Boundary Conditions

A two-phase steady
teady state CFD analysis was carried out. The free-stream
stream velocity of both water and air was set equal to the ship hull
velocity, i.e. 12 knots, with the ship considered as an immovable rigid body. Atmospheric pressure was assigned to
t the air phase and
hydrodynamic pressure distribution was assigned to the water phase. A no-slip wall boundary conditions was assigned to the ship hull.
hull.The initial
draft level was set equal to6000m. The
he analysis was carried out at calm sea condition (no waves). Fig.7.Boundary
Boundary Conditionsshows
Conditions the
boundary conditions assigned for the CFD analysis.

Volume 7 Issue 11 2017 61 http://ijamtes.org/

International Journal of Advanced in Management, Technology and Engineering Sciences ISSN NO : 2249-7455

Fig.7.Boundary Conditions

2.5Solution options
The analysis was carried out using ANSYS Fluent 16.1.
16.1 The Volume of Fluid (VoF) multiphase model was used to model the free surface flow.
The flow simulationwas run as a steady state analysis solving the Reynolds-Averaged Navier-Stokes (RANS) equationsalong with the
t k-omega
SST turbulence model. The solution were run
n until a stable convergence of the quantities of interest was achieved.

3. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

This section presents comparison of results for two
wo geometries used in iteration-1
iteration and 2. The pressure, wall shear plots and charts, resistance
calculations and power requirements are presented in this section.
Fig.8.Pressure at the front of the hull and Fig.9.Pressure
ressure near the propeller regionshows
region the pressure at the front and the back side of the hull.
Though there is less difference in the total pressure values for both the iterations, the pressure profile has slightly impro
improved on the Iteration-2
hull surface.

Volume 7 Issue 11 2017 62 http://ijamtes.org/

International Journal of Advanced in Management, Technology and Engineering Sciences ISSN NO : 2249-7455

Fig.8.Pressure
Fig. at the front of the hull

Fig.9.Pressure
Fig. near the propeller region

Fig.10.Wall shear contour on the hull surfaceshows the wall shear stress on the hull surface. It can be observed that the wall shear stress has
improved along the centreline for iteration-2.
2. However the stresses have increased at the front
front area of the hull surface and near the appendages
appendages.

Fig.10
10.Wall shear contour on the hull surface

Volume 7 Issue 11 2017 63 http://ijamtes.org/

International Journal of Advanced in Management, Technology and Engineering Sciences ISSN NO : 2249-7455

Fig.11.Total
Total pressure distribution along the ship hull centrelineshows
centreline the total pressure distribution along the ship hull centreline. The
distributionsshows that the total pressure for iteration--2 has reduced compared to that of iteration-11 along the centreline.

Fig.11.Total
Total pressure distribution along the ship hull centreline

The shear stress has significantly reduced along the centreline

entreline for iteration-2
iteration as shown in followingFig.12.Shear
Shear stress distribution along the ship
hull centreline.. High values of shear stress are observed near the propeller region and on the front side of the ship hull.

Fig.12.Shear
Shear stress distribution along the ship hull centreline

Volume 7 Issue 11 2017 64 http://ijamtes.org/

International Journal of Advanced in Management, Technology and Engineering Sciences ISSN NO : 2249-7455

Calculations:

Drag Coefficient: = ,

Where, = Drag Force, w = 1010 kg/m3(water density),v = 5 m/s (free stream velocity),
Aw 2040 m2 (wet surface), Power = . v
Table 3: Comparison of CFD results for both iterationsshows the comparison of values of the resistances, drag-coefficient and power calculated
from the CFD analysis for both the iterations.

Table 3: Comparison of CFD results for both iterations

Sr. No. Result Iteration 1 Iteration 2
1 Pressure Force 139 kN 142 kN
2 Viscous Force 42 kN 39 kN
3 Total Resistance 179 kN 175kN
4 Drag Coefficient 0.0069 0.0055
5 Power 895 710 kW

4. CONCLUSIONS

High values of the wall shear stresses and the skin friction were observed near the propellers and the front section of the ship hull for
iteration 1.
The computed total drag force for iteration 1 was 179 kN.The drag coefficient was found to be 0.0069.The power needed to overcome
the aerodynamic resistance produced by the fluids was 895 kW.
The computed total drag force was 175kN for iteration 2. The drag coefficient was found to be 0.0055. The power needed to overcome
the aerodynamic resistance produced by the fluids was 710 kW.
The static pressure and total pressure contours slightly improved for iteration-2 as compared to iteration-1.

High values of wall shear stresses were observed near the bow and propeller region of the ship for iteration-1 compared to iteration-2.
However, the modification carried out for iteration-2 improved the shear stress plot along the centreline of the ship.
The smoothening of hull surface near the front area may reduce the drag forces and improve the performance of the ship.
The propellers and the front area of the ship are the main regions offering maximum resistance to ship. These areas can be focussed and
modified to reduce the resistance to the flow.
The propellers were not modelled in detail in this study. However, further localised study may be performed to analyse the flow through
the propellers.

5. REFERENCES
[1] Dunna Sridhar,T V K Bhanuprakash and H N Das, 2010, Frictional Resistance Calculations on a Ship using CFD, International Journal of
Computer Applications (24 31), Volume 11(5).
[2] Bertram. V (2014), Practical Ship Hydrodynamics, Second Edition.
[3] KaturiSamarpana, Ajay konapala and Duvvada Ramesh, 2013, Computational Investigation Of Free Surface Flow Around A Ship Hull,
International Journal of Application or Innovation inEngineering & Management, (98-107), Volume 2(5).
[4] Krishna Atreyapurapu,BhanuprakashTallapragada andKiranVoonna, 2014, Simulation of a Free Surface Flow over a Container Vessel Using
CFD, International Journal of Engineering Trends and Technology, (334-339), Volume 18(7).
[5] Aditya Kolakoti,,T.V.K.Bhanuprakash andH.N.Das, 2013, CFD Analysis Of Controllable Pitch Propeller Used In Marine Vehicle, Global
Journal of Engineering, Design&Technolgy, (25-33), Volume 2(5).
[6] Patankar, S.V. (1980), Numerical Heat Transfer and Fluid Flow, Hemisphere Publishing Co., New York.
[7] ANSYS 14.5 Documentation, ANSYS Inc.

Volume 7 Issue 11 2017 65 http://ijamtes.org/