The prediction of wave resistance in naval architecture is an important aspect especially at high Froude numbers where a great percentage of total resistance of ships and submerged bodies is caused by waves. In addition, during hull form optimization, wave resistance characteristics of a ship must closely be observed. There are potential, viscous and experimental methods to determine the wave resistance of a ship. Reynolds-averaged Navier–Stokes equation–based methods usually follow the experimental method that determines the form factor first. However, it is proven in recent studies that the form factor changes with the Reynolds number. As the Reynolds number increases, this change in the form factor is being neglected. In this study, a Reynolds-averaged Navier–Stokes equation–based prediction of wave resistance is presented that overcomes this flaw. The methodology is validated with the benchmark problems of submerged and surface-piercing bodies to determine the effectiveness of the proposed method. The method is also validated by experiments carried out at the Ata Nutku Ship Model Testing Laboratory of Istanbul Technical University for a totally submerged ellipsoid and the benchmark KRISO Containership. Results reveal the robustness of the present methodology.
ITTC 7.5-02-02-01:2011. Recommended procedures and guidelines: resistance test, revision 03.
3.
MollandAFTurnockSRHudsonDA. Ship resistance and propulsion. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2011.
4.
MichellJH. The wave resistance of a ship. Philos Mag1898; 45: 106–123.
5.
HavelockTH. The calculation of wave resistance. P R Soc Lond A: Conta1934; 144: 514–521.
6.
SclavounosPD. The diffraction of free-surface waves by a slender ship. J Ship Res1984; 28(1): 29–47.
7.
NestegardASclavounosPD. A numerical solution of two-dimensional deep-water wave-body problems. J Ship Res1984; 28(1): 48–54.
8.
NakosDESclavounosPD. On steady and unsteady ship wave patterns. J Fluid Mech1990; 215: 263–288.
9.
NakosDESclavounosPD. Kelvin wakes and wave resistance of cruiser-stern and transom-stern ships. J Ship Res1994; 38(1): 9–29.
10.
RigbySGNicolaouDSprostonJL. Numerical modeling of the water flow around ship hulls. J Ship Res2001; 45(2): 85–94.
11.
BalS. Prediction of wave pattern and wave resistance of surface piercing bodies by a boundary element method. Int J Numer Meth Fl2008; 56: 305–329.
12.
BalS. High-speed submerged and surface piercing cavitating hydrofoils, including tandem case. Ocean Eng2007; 34: 1935–1946.
13.
BalS. A numerical method for the prediction of wave pattern of surface piercing cavitating hydrofoils. Proc IMechE, Part C: J Mechanical Engineering Science2007; 12: 1623–1633.
14.
BalS. The effect of finite depth on 2-D and 3-D cavitating hydrofoils. J Mar Sci Technol2011; 16(2): 129–142.
15.
TarafderSSuzukiK. Numerical calculation of free-surface potential flow around a ship using the modified Rankine source panel method. Ocean Eng2008; 35: 536–544.
16.
ChenZM. A vortex based panel method for potential flow simulation around a hydrofoil. J Fluid Struct2012; 28: 378–391.
17.
ChenZM. A dissipative free-surface approach for an underwater body in a uniform stream. J Mar Sci Technol2013; 18: 182–191.
18.
HeG. An iterative Rankine BEM for wave-making analysis of submerged and surface piercing bodies in finite water depth. J Hydrodyn2013; 25(6): 839–847.
19.
BelibassakisKAGerostathisTPKostasKV. A BEM-isogeometric method for the ship wave-resistance problem. Ocean Eng2013; 60: 53–67.
20.
WehausenJV. The wave resistance of ships. Adv Appl Mech1973; 13: 93–245.
21.
NewmanJN. Marine hydrodynamics. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1977.
JohanssonSHDavidsonLOlssonE. Numerical simulation of vortex shedding past triangular cylinders at high Reynolds number using a k − ε turbulence model. Int J Numer Meth Fl1993; 16: 859–878.
33.
HirtCWNicholsB. Volume of fluid (VOF) method for the dynamics of free boundaries. J Comput Phys1981; 39(1): 201–225.
34.
KinaciOKKuknerABalS. On propeller characteristics of DTC post-panamax container ship. Int J Ocean Syst Eng2013; 3(2): 77–89.
35.
El MoctarOShigunovVZornT. Duisburg Test Case: post-panamax container ship for benchmarking. Ship Tech Res2012; 59(3): 50–65.
36.
JonesDAClarkeDB. Fluent code simulation of flow around a naval hull: the DTMB 5415. Report, Project no. DSTO-TR-2465, September2010. Canberra, ACT, Australia: Maritime Platforms Division, Australian Government Department of Defence.
37.
LaunderBESharmaBI. Application of the energy dissipation model of turbulence to the calculation of flow near a spinning disc. Lett Heat Mass Trans1974; 1(2): 131–138.
ShihTHLiouWWShabbirA. A new k − ε eddy viscosity model for high Reynolds number turbulent flows. Comput Fluids1995; 24(3): 227–238.
40.
VersteegHKMalalasekeraW. An introduction to computational fluid dynamics—the finite volume method. Harlow: Pearson Education Limited, 2007.
41.
RheeSHMakarovBPKrishinanH. Assessment of the volume of fluid method for free-surface wave flow. J Mar Sci Technol2005; 10(4): 173–180.
42.
ANSYS Inc. ANSYS fluent theory guide, release 14.0. Canonsburg, PA: ANSYS Inc., 2011.
43.
ITTC 7.5-02-01-03:1999. ITTC recommended procedures and guidelines, procedure, rev. 00.
44.
ITTC 7.5-02-02-02:2002. Testing and extrapolation methods resistance, uncertainty analysis, example for resistance test: ITTC recommended procedures and guidelines, procedure, rev. 01.
45.
DelenC. Experimental uncertainty analysis of ship resistance. MSc Thesis, Graduate School of Science Engineering and Technology, Faculty of Naval Architecture and Ocean Engineering, Istanbul Technical University, Istanbul, 2015 (in Turkish).
46.
FarrellC. On the wave resistance of a submerged spheroid. J Ship Res1972; 17: 1–11.
47.
SukasOF. Prediction of wave resistance by experimental and computational methods. MSc Thesis, Graduate School of Science Engineering and Technology, Faculty of Naval Architecture and Ocean Engineering, Istanbul Technical University, Istanbul, 2014.
48.
MoraesHBVasconcellosJMLatorreRG. Wave resistance for high-speed catamarans. Ocean Eng2004; 31: 253–282.
49.
MillwardABevanMG. Effect of shallow water on a mathematical hull at high subcritical and supercritical speeds. J Ship Res1986; 30(2): 85–93.
50.
NoblesseFMcCarthyJH. Ship wave-resistance computations. In: Proceedings of the 2nd DTNSRDC workshop, Bethesda, MD, 16–17 November 1983, pp.5–35.
51.
UsluYBalS. Numerical prediction of wave drag of 2-D and 3-D bodies under or on a free surface. Turk J Eng Environ Sci2008; 32: 177–188.
52.
RheeSHSternF. Unsteady RANS method for surface ship boundary layer and wake and wave field. Int J Numer Meth Fl2001; 37: 445–478.
53.
OgiwaraSKajataniH. Pressure distribution on the hull surface of Series 60 (CB = 0.60) model. In: Proceedings of the CFD workshop, Tokyo, Japan, 22–24 March 1994, vol. 1, pp.350–358.
54.
TodaYSternFLongoJ. Mean-flow measurements in the boundary layer and wake and wave field of a Series 60 CB = 0.6 model ship—part 1: Froude numbers 0.16 and 0.316. J Ship Res1992; 36(4): 360–377.
55.
SimonsenCDOtzenJFJoncquezS. EFD and CFD for KCS heaving and pitching in regular head waves. J Mar Sci Technol2013; 18: 435–459.
