TOWARDS A CFD-BASED PREDICTION OF SHIP PERFORMANCE ---

PROGRESS IN PREDICTING FULL-SCALE RESISTANCE AND SCALE EFFECTS

H.C. Raven, A. van der Ploeg, A.R. Starke; Maritime Research Institute Netherlands (MARIN), Netherlands
L. Eça, Instituto Superior Técnico (IST), Portugal

SUMMARY
This paper discusses scale effects on the viscous and wave resistance of ships, as found from CFD computations; and
compares these with the usual assumptions in the extrapolation of model test results to full scale. For some different ships
computations of the viscous flow and wave pattern have been made for model and full scale, using the free-surface RANS
code PARNASSOS. For these cases the viscous resistance appears to be approximately proportional to flat-plate frictional
resistance (constant form factor 1+k), but relative to the ITTC 57 line 1+k increases clearly from model to ship. Computed
scale effects on the wave pattern are reviewed. For a containership a 20% scale effect on wave resistance is found. A
standard extrapolation method applied to the model-scale resistance here underestimates the full-scale resistance by 10%, but
the empirical correlation allowance approximately corrects for that difference. This work shows how methods to predict full-
scale resistance could be improved using results of today’s CFD methods.

NOMENCLATURE that are not always adequate, and which are not needed
1+k form factor for the CFD tools now available. However, in the long
Ca correlation allowance experience with these extrapolation methods empirical
Cb block coefficient corrections have been established, based on correlations
Cf frictional resistance coefficient between predictions and trial measurements for a large
Cf0 flat plate friction coefficient sample of ships. These corrections provide an added
Ct total resistance coefficient accuracy which is not necessarily easy to beat using a
Cv viscous resistance coefficient CFD approach.
Cvp viscous pressure resistance coefficient
Cw wave resistance coefficient We consider that a completely CFD-based prediction of
Fn Froude number the full-scale power is still not reliable enough in view of
ks hull roughness parameter the large interests involved and the large accuracy
Lpp ship length between perpendiculars required. On the other hand we believe that CFD has the
Rn Reynolds number potential to support and improve the extrapolation
S wetted surface procedures in a near future; e.g. by giving insight in the
V ship (or model) speed validity of the scaling assumptions, providing corrections
ρ density of water for certain ship types, or replacing parts of the
extrapolation procedures by CFD computations. One of
1. INTRODUCTION the goals of Workpackage 1 of the EC-sponsored project
CFD tools are being used more and more extensively in VIRTUE is to lay the basis for this. The first objective
practical ship hull form design today. Viscous-flow was to increase the accuracy of the resistance prediction.
computations are used to provide detailed predictions of The next step was to make detailed computations of scale
the flow around the hull, the wake field, occurrence of effects in resistance and wave patterns, and to compare
flow separation, for appendage alignment, etc. Based on these with the extrapolation methods. This step is the
the predictions and the insight obtained the hull form focus of the present paper.
design may be modified to improve the flow quality, prior
to any model testing. This CFD use already has enabled In the next sections, for reference we will first briefly
significant advances in design. describe the usual model-ship extrapolation method, and
the RANS method used. Section 4 summarises recent
However, when it comes to the final prediction of the research by MARIN and IST on the accuracy of the
power and RPM of the ship at full scale, in most cases a resistance prediction. Sections 5 and 6 discuss the scaling
model of the final or near-final form is tested in a model of the viscous and wave resistance, respectively, and
basin. The performance predictions based on the model compare these with the usual assumptions. Section 7
tests are still considered decisive. compares a direct prediction at full scale, with an
extrapolation based on the computational model scale
This is a somewhat paradoxical situation, because the results, indicating some important differences.
prediction procedure based on model test results, the so- Conclusions are presented in Section 8.
called ‘extrapolation procedure’, relies on simplifications
2. EXTRAPOLATION OF MODEL TEST
RESULTS
A resistance test for a ship model follows the procedure
originally proposed by William Froude. The
(hydrodynamic) resistance of a ship is considered to be
the sum of two independent main contributions: the
viscous (or frictional) resistance, and the wave (or
residual) resistance. The former depends on the Reynolds
number Rn, but is supposed to be unaffected by wave
making; the latter depends on the Froude number Fn, but
is supposed to be unaffected by viscosity. Therefore, the
simplification is:
Ct(Fn,Rn) = Cw(Fn) + Cv(Rn) (1)
in which all resistance coefficients have been
nondimensionalised with ½ ρV2 S.
The model is tested at equal Froude number as the ship.
In that case the wave pattern is supposed to be
geometrically similar and the wave resistance coefficient
Cw equal for model and ship. However, the viscous
resistance coefficient Cv differs between model and ship,
and is dealt with separately. Thus the full-scale resistance
coefficient is:
Cts = Cws + Cvs = Ctm – Cvm + Cvs (2)
where the subscripts s and m indicate ship and model,
respectively. The essence now is how to estimate the
difference in viscous resistance coefficient between
model and ship.
In form-factor methods, which are mostly used today, the
viscous resistance coefficient is supposed to be
proportional to the frictional resistance coefficient of a
flat plate at equal Reynolds number:
Cv(Rn) = (1+k) . Cf0(Rn) (3)
The ‘form factor’ 1+k is a constant that depends on the
hull form but is supposed to be independent of the
Reynolds and Froude numbers. Therefore,
Cvm – Cvs = (1+k) . [Cf0(Rnm) – Cf0(Rns)]
Empirical expressions are available for the plate friction
coefficient Cf0 as a function of the Reynolds number; so-
called plate friction lines, as shown in Fig.2. So if the
form factor is known, the viscous resistance is known for
both the model and the ship, and the ship resistance can
be estimated from (2).
One approach to determine the form factor is to measure
the total resistance at a low speed, at which the wave
resistance can be neglected or is so small that it can be
corrected for. 1+k then follows directly from the viscous
resistance and Cf0.
To the total ship resistance coefficient so found, a
‘correlation allowance’ Ca is added, an empirical
coefficient, possibly from the institute’s own data, that
includes the effect of hull roughness and other effects.
Clearly, this extrapolation procedure is fairly crude. The
assumed scale effect is determined by a single hull form-
dependent form factor and the plate friction line; the
experimental determination of the form factor is often less
accurate, its equality for model and ship is an
approximation, and wave/viscous interaction effects are
disregarded. While overall the procedure works
satisfactorily, we believe it is of interest to check and
perhaps improve its different components, hoping to
increase the accuracy of the power prediction. Today’s
computational tools should enable this.
3. THE RANS SOLVER
3.1 GENERAL
The code we use is PARNASSOS [1,2], a RANS solver
developed and used by MARIN and IST, dedicated to the
prediction of the steady turbulent flow around ship hulls.
It solves the discretised Reynolds-averaged Navier-Stokes
equations for steady incompressible flow. Various eddy-
viscosity turbulence models are available. No wall
functions are used, not even for full-scale computations.
Structured multiblock body-fitted grids are used, usually
of H-O topology. A finite-difference discretisation is used,
with second and third-order schemes for the various terms.
The momentum and continuity equations are solved in
their original, fully coupled form, without resorting to e.g.
a pressure-correction or artificial-compressibility method.
The whole method has been developed with numerical
accuracy in mind. In practice, it is often perfectly possible
to converge the solution to machine accuracy if that is
needed; to work with very dense grids with large aspect
ratio cells near the ship hull, etc. Full-scale computations
can be done routinely.
3.2 FREE-SURFACE TREATMENT:
THE STEADY ITERATIVE FORMULATION
The method is of a free-surface fitting type: the upper
boundary of the computational domain coincides with (an
approximation of) the wave surface, which is repeatedly
updated in the course of the solution. Free-surface
boundary conditions are imposed here: a kinematic
condition that the flow is along the wave surface; and a
dynamic condition that the pressure is atmospheric and no
shear stress is exerted on the wave surface.
Almost all other methods for computing viscous free-
surface flows follow a time-dependent procedure, starting
from an initial condition and continuing until a steady
result is obtained. Instead, we use the ‘steady iterative’
approach, first proposed in [3] and derived in more detail
in [4], which solves the steady free-surface problem
directly by iteration. The iterative solution is enabled by
an alternative formulation of the free-surface boundary
conditions, obtained by substituting the wave elevation
from the dynamic condition into the kinematic condition.
The resulting combined condition gives rise to a quickly
converging iterative solution, as follows:
• the RANS equations are solved (iteratively) subject
to the combined condition and the tangential dynamic
conditions, imposed at the current wave surface;
• the wave surface is updated using the normal
component of the dynamic condition.
• the grid is deformed so as to fit the new wave surface.
The deformations are generated using a torsional-
spring analogy method.
Several applications [5,6,7] have shown that this
procedure is very efficient, often requiring an order of
magnitude less CPU time than other methods. A
theoretical accuracy analysis [6] has indicated that we
have a third-order numerical damping and dispersion,
explaining the good wave pattern predictions obtained.
4. ACCURACY OF RESISTANCE
PREDICTION
Predicting the resistance might seem the easiest part of a
ship viscous flow computation. Integrating the
longitudinal component of the tangential and normal
forces over the wetted surface yields the frictional and
pressure resistance, respectively. However, the accuracy
of these results requires more care than one would expect.
The frictional resistance has usually rather little grid
dependence and a numerical accuracy of about 1% is
achievable, or less than that for some turbulence models.
On the other hand, the frictional resistance depends
significantly on the turbulence model used, and
differences of about 5% can occur.
The pressure resistance, however, is a larger problem. It
consists of a viscous pressure resistance and a wave
resistance. For slender ships it can usually be determined
accurately; but not for full forms like tankers at low Fn.
While for those the wave resistance can be very small, the
viscous pressure resistance is of interest. The numerical
prediction of the viscous pressure resistance is extremely
sensitive to whatever disturbance, such as minimal
pressure level changes in part of the flow domain due to
incomplete convergence, the implementation and location
of boundary conditions etc. As an example of the
consequences, at the Tokyo workshop 2005 [7] many
groups presented computations for the same KVLCC2
tanker test case; and while the flow fields were quite
comparable, the standard deviation between all
predictions for Cvp amounted to 23% (against 6.1% for
Cf).
In VIRTUE, we have now done research [8,9,10] to
improve the resistance estimates from PARNASSOS. Many
possible influences have been checked, and progress was
made on some:
• The force integration has been refined to deal more
precisely with bow and stern contours that do not
coincide with grid lines of the H-O type grids.
• The implementation of symmetry conditions at the
still-water surface, in double-body flow computations,
appeared to have an unexpected effect. A first-order
discretisation at the symmetry plane results in gross
errors in Cvp, a second-order scheme still shows a
strong grid-dependence even on a grid of several
millions of cells, but an improved formulation was
found that removes most of the grid dependence [8].
• Also, these different implementations of the
symmetry conditions led to different predictions of
the scale effect on the viscous pressure resistance.
For some, the scale effect was 50-100% smaller on
coarse grids than on fine grids [8]. The numerical
prediction of scale effects thus requires small
numerical uncertainties in the components of the
viscous resistance, which is achieved by the present
implementation in reasonably sized grids.
• The size of the computational domain also was found
to influence the pressure resistance significantly. In
particular if uniform-flow outer boundary conditions
are used, large domains are required to remove the
effect on the resistance [10].
These and other steps have resulted in more accurate and
reliable resistance and scale effect predictions from our
code; and thus have enabled the studies described below.
5. SCALING OF VISCOUS RESISTANCE
In a towing-tank test, usually the form factor is
determined from eq.(3) by measuring the total resistance
at low speed, at which the wave resistance contribution
vanishes or can be estimated. However, this can be
rather inaccurate. Compared with this experimental
procedure, determining a corresponding viscous
resistance from RANS computations is more
straightforward: the deformation of the water surface is
simply not taken into account, and a ‘double-body flow’
computation is done. If we make such computations for
model and full scale we can determine the scale effect on
the viscous resistance. We are going to compare that
computed scale effect with the scaling assumptions in
extrapolation methods.
5.1 HAMBURG TEST CASE
Our first test case is the so-called ‘Hamburg Test Case’, a
containership that was the subject of a workshop held
recently in the VIRTUE project. Extensive measurements
for this ship, at model and full scale, have been done by
HSVA [11].
 line”. This is, however, not a real plate friction line; it was
The model-scale grid had 440×100×52 nodes (2.3×106 established in 1957 as an aid to give better extrapolations
cells) in longitudinal, wall-normal and girthwise of ship resistance if no form factor method was used. It is
directions. For full scale, the same grid but with 140 cells given by:
in normal direction (3.2×106 cells) and increased 0.075
contraction rate was used to resolve the larger velocity Cf 0 =
(log Rn − 2)2
gradients near the wall. The grid, of HO topology, was
Evaluating this for model and full-scale Reynolds number
also contracted longitudinally towards bow and stern. All
yields:
y+ values were below 1 and no wall functions were used.
model Cf0×103= 2.917
The turbulence model used was the recent k - k√L model
ship Cf0×103 = 1.497
by Menter [12]. Computations were made for Rn =
ratio 0.513
1.177×107 (model scale) and 1.2×109 (full scale).
From the computed viscous resistance for model and ship
we then get the form factors:
1+k model= 1.138
1+k ship = 1.222

Therefore 1+k increases substantially from model to ship.

An extrapolation using a fixed form factor would
underestimate the ship viscous resistance by 7% !

0.004
ITTC57
Schoenherr
Grigson
Katsui et al.

0.003
CF

Figure 1 Computed wake fields for the Hamburg Test 0.002

Case, model scale (left) and full scale (right).

Fig.1 compares the model and full-scale wake fields,

illustrating the usual features: a reduction of the width of
0.001
the viscous wake at full scale, and a weakening of the 6 7 8 9 10
‘hook shape’ caused by the longitudinal vortex. log(Rn)
Rather than on the flow field, here we focus on the Figure 2 Flat-plate friction lines and the ITTC 57 model-
viscous resistance coefficients shown below: ship correlation line.

Cf×103 Cvp×103 Cv×103
model double body 2.794 0.524 3.318
ship double body 1.546 0.282 1.828
From model to ship Cv decreases by a factor of 0.55 in
this case.
In extrapolation methods the viscous resistance
coefficient of a ship is supposed to be proportional to the
friction coefficient of a flat plate at equal Rn, eq.(3). In
the usual “ITTC 78” method, a common choice for the
plate friction line is the “ITTC 57 model-ship correlation
However, the form factors evidently depend on the plate
friction coefficients assumed, so let us see what other
choices of the plate friction coefficients would give. Fig.2
from [13] shows the friction line proposed by Schoenherr
and the more modern proposals by Grigson [14] and
Katsui [15]. The difference in Rn-dependence is limited
but sufficient to lead to significantly different
performance predictions. Clearly the ITTC 57 line is
highest at lower Rn and has a larger slope, while
Grigson’s line is highest at high Rn and has the lowest
slope.
The form factors for model and full scale based on these
lines are shown below:
friction line 1+k model 1+k ship ratio
ITTC 57 line 1.138 1.222 1.074
Schoenherr line 1.161 1.221 1.052
Grigson line 1.154 1.157 1.003
Katsui line 1.179 1.202 1.020
Therefore, the computed scaling of the viscous resistance
for this case matches best the Grigson line or the Katsui
line if the form factor is supposed to be constant.
We cannot conclude yet that some of these friction lines
are more adequate than others. The Reynolds-number
dependence of the predicted form factor depends on at
least 3 aspects:
• the validity of the plate friction line,
• the proportionality of the viscous resistance of a ship
to the equivalent plate friction;
• probably, the turbulence model used,
and we will now consider the second and third aspect.
Different turbulence models appear to give slightly
different scale effects for ship viscous resistance
coefficients. The same appears to be true for computed
flat plate friction coefficients. Eça and Hoekstra [13] have
done very careful plate friction computations, using again
the PARNASSOS code, and show computed plate friction
lines for a variety of turbulence models. As a matter of
fact these appear to differ slightly from the lines of Fig. 2,
dependent on the turbulence model. Therefore the third
aspect, the turbulence model used, does play a role.
The second aspect, the proportionality of the ship viscous
resistance to flat plate friction, can now be assessed by
determining the ratio of the computed viscous resistance
for the ship and the computed plate friction, using the
same turbulence model. So we use the numerical friction
lines for the individual turbulence models, in this case the
k-√kl model[12], and get the results listed below:
Cf0 model ×103 = 2.736 1+k model = 1.213
Cf0 ship ×103 = 1.490 1+k ship = 1.227
ratio 1.012
Therefore, for this Hamburg Test Case, we conclude:
• that the proportionality of the ship viscous resistance
and flat plate resistance is well reproduced, if both
are computed using the same turbulence model;
• that the same is true if one of the modern friction
lines is used, but not the ITTC 57 line;
• that the computed resistances indicate that a
prediction of full-scale viscous resistance using a
fixed form factor together with the ITTC 57 line (i.e.
the usual approach), would be 7% too low.
5.2 KVLCC2 TANKER
The second case we consider is the KVLCC2 tanker form
[16], at Rn= 4.6×106 (model) and 2.03×109 (ship). A very
careful study, using the same PARNASSOS code, has been
done for this case by Eça et al [17]. Extensive grid
dependence studies have been done for model and full
scale, and the numerical uncertainty has been established.
The finest grid had 4.16×106 cells.
0.47 SST
BSL
0.46
TNT
Mνt
KSKL
ITTC
0.45 Katsui
Grigson
0.44
0.43
0.42
0.41
0.4
Figure 3 Full scale / model scale viscous resistance ratio
for KVLCC2 and equivalent flat plate.
Scale effects on the viscous resistance were then derived
for 5 different turbulence models. Fig.3 displays the
results in the form of a bar chart for the ratio of ship and
model viscous resistance, compared with the various plate
friction lines, both experimental and computed. The first
5 bars represent the computed ratios for the KVLCC2,
using 5 different turbulence models. The right 5 bars
show the same but now for a flat plate. The middle 3
columns show the scaling according to the ITTC 57 line
and the Katsui and Grigson flat plate friction lines,
respectively. We observe:
• that for the ship there is some variation in resistance
ratio (so in the scaling of the ship viscous resistance)
between turbulence models;
• that the same goes for the flat plate computations,
and that the differences between turbulence models
have partly the same pattern as for the ship but are
smaller. Therefore the use of a numerical plate
friction line for the same turbulence model gives
somewhat more consistent changes in the form factor
from model to full scale.
• that the computed resistance ratios for the ship are all
smaller than their counterparts for the flat plate,
indicating that the form factor 1+k (if calculated from
the numerical friction lines) decreases from model to
full scale by 1-4%.
• that the Katsui line gives a ratio closely
corresponding with both the numerical plate friction
lines and the ship results, and would give a fairly
constant form factor (-3 to +1%); while the use of the
Grigson line would yield a significant decrease (3-
7%), the ITTC 57 line a significant increase (4-8%)
of the form factor 1+k from model to full scale.
Therefore, this second case suggests that the assumption
of a constant form factor is still quite reasonable but not
as precise as for the more slender previous case. Again
the ITTC 57 line deviates significantly from the computed
scaling of both the plate friction and the ship viscous
resistance.
The slightly different scalings obtained for a
containership and a tanker may be related to the
occurrence of flow separation at the stern for the tanker,
which is present at model scale but not at full scale. In
any case, there is little fundamental support to the form
factor concept and we must be prepared for its validity to
depend on the case. Several more ships need to be done to
establish the trends.
It is of interest to go back to the results submitted to the
Gothenburg 2000 workshop, for the same KVLCC2 case.
Eight different sets of model and full-scale double-body
flow results were submitted by different groups. Form
factors 1+k based on the ITTC 57 line showed a
significant increase from model to full scale, varying
between 5 and 17%. Also the full-scale form factors were
much higher than those found now. But we believe that
in the 2000 results, those indications were significantly
affected by numerical and modeling inaccuracies. On the
other hand, in the much more accurate computations of
today we begin to discern the deficiencies of
extrapolation methods.
6. SCALE EFFECTS ON WAVE MAKING
6.1 THE WAVE PATTERN
The other main assumption to be scrutinised is that of the
equality of the wave resistance coefficients for model and
ship, which is based on the assumed similarity of the
model and ship wave patterns. This is a quite reasonable
approximation. In general, the boundary layer around the
hull is thin over the forward part of the hull, and in that
region the pressure field is hardly affected by viscous
effects. Correspondingly, we expect hardly any viscous
effect on the wave making of the forebody. On the other
hand, along the afterbody the boundary layer thickens
quickly due to the decreasing girth length and the
increasing pressure towards the stern. The displacement
thickness of the boundary layer and wake reduce that
pressure increase, and more so at model scale than at full
scale. The reduced pressure increase in most cases leads
to a reduced stern wave generation, again more
pronounced at model than at full scale; but this depends
on the stern shape.
It is to be noted that, while viscous effects thus affect the
generation of the waves, they are much less pronounced
on the wave propagation. Viscous attenuation of ship
waves is negligible, only there could be an indirect
refraction effect caused by propagation of the waves over
the viscous flow field.
Series 60
0.03
inviscid flow
`h / L;Y/L;V3
viscous (model)
`h / L;Y/L;V3 y / Lpp = 0.0755
viscous (ship)
0.02 `h / L;Y/L;V3
experiments (model)
`h / L;Y/L;V3
0.01
pp
0
/
0.01
Figure 4. Longitudinal wave cut for Series 60 Cb = 0.60.
Fig. 4 illustrates an early computation of a wave pattern
scale effect from [6]. The case considered is the Series 60
parent form, Cb=0.60, at Fn=0.316, Rn =3.4 × 106
(model) and 8.4 × 108 (ship). Grids of 1.8 and 2.3 M cells
were used for model and full scale, respectively. The
figure shows a wave cut at 0.0755 Lpp off the centreline.
The domain used at that time was rather short and just
shows little of the stern wave system. However, the graph
exactly agrees with our expectations: the inviscid flow
computation using the free-surface panel code RAPID
[18], the model and full scale wave cuts from the RANS
code, and the experimental cut from [19] all agree closely
for most of the length; but aft of the stern the inviscid-
flow computation overestimates the stern wave amplitude,
the model-scale RANS/FS computation is close to the
model experiment, and the full-scale computation is in
between.
 5
inviscid flow
z;Y/L;V3
viscous (model)
z;Y/L;V3 y / Lpp = 0.0900
viscous (ship)
z;Y/L;V3
experiments
z;Y/L;V3 (model)

Figure 5. Dyne tanker at Fn = 0.165. Computed longitudinal wave cut from PARNASSOS at model scale and full scale, from
inviscid-flow code (RAPID), and from model experiment.
computations have been done for free trim and sinkage, at
Another case from [6], the Dyne tanker, has a very full Fn=0.238, Rn=1.177 × 107 and 1.2×109. Consistently
hull form with Cb=0.87 and a cylindrical bow shape. The good agreement was found with the experimental wave
computations were made for Fn=0.165, Rn=8.5×106 and cuts; more on the validations for this case will be shown
1.83×109. Fig.5 shows that a drastic reduction of the stern in [21]. Fig.8 compares the wave patterns from the
waves occurs compared with the inviscid computations; inviscid-flow code and the viscous-flow results. There is
both for the full scale and, somewhat stronger, for model close agreement except for the stern wave system, of
scale. The slight scale effect on the amplitude of which the amplitude is reduced by viscous effects. Fig. 9
transverse waves along the hull, from the fore shoulder aft, illustrates the model and full scale wave patterns and
is unexpected, but may be connected with the large confirms that the scale effects are local and rather limited.
pressure gradients at the fore shoulder. There is good
agreement with the experimental data from [20].

For the KVLCC2 tanker (Cb=0.81), we have also

performed RANS/FS computations. However, for the low
Froude number considered, Fn=0.147, the waves are quite
short and the grid used (1.8 M cells) may still have been
somewhat coarse. Fig.6 compares the full scale and
model-scale wave patterns, Fig.7 compares wave cuts for
both with those from the inviscid-flow prediction. There
is again a drastic reduction of the stern wave system
compared with inviscid flow, while the model / full scale
difference is relatively minor but the full-scale stern wave
amplitude is somewhat larger. Slight differences in the
transverse wave system along the hull are also observed,
which suggest that again there is some viscous effect on
these waves as well.
Figure 6. Computed wave pattern of KVLCC2
The final, and most complete, set of results we consider is tanker at Fn=0.147; full scale (left) and model scale
again for the Hamburg Test Case, which is much more (right)
slender (Cb=0.645) than the two preceding ones. The

Figure 7. Longitudinal wave cuts for KVLCC2, at
y=0.125L (top) and 0.20 L (bottom); from inviscid, full
scale and model scale computations.
Figure 8. Wave pattern of Hamburg Test Case,
Fn=0.238; from potential-flow (top) and RANS
computation for full scale (bottom).
Figure 9. Stern view of computed wave patterns of
Hamburg Test Case at Fn=0.238, for full scale (left) and
model scale(right). Wave heights multiplied by 5.
Figure 10. Hamburg Test Case, Fn=0.238. Longitudinal
wave cuts at y/L=0.184 , full scale, model scale and
inviscid.
Fig. 10 compares wave cuts at y/L = 0.184, from the
inviscid flow computation and the model and full scale
RANS/FS computations. In this more precise comparison
there appears to be no viscous effect on the bow wave
system, and therefore no scale effect. The graph suggests
some viscous effects on the short diverging waves at
x/Lpp=0.1, but we believe these are due to the numerics
of the panel code rather than physics. The stern wave
system displays a strong reduction by viscous effects and
a significant scale effect. Fig. 11 shows a wave cut at the
centreline aft of the transom, illustrating the large
difference with the inviscid-flow result in this area.
From the examples given we note that a reduction of the
stern wave system by viscous effects, sometimes also
with a change of character (e.g. less transverse waves), is
rather common; and this reduction is largest for model
scale. For the two tanker hull forms the viscous reduction
of the stern wave amplitude was comparable for model
and ship and very substantial; and there seem to be also
some viscous changes of the waves along the hull. In [22],
viscous and scale effects of a different nature are
considered for dry and wetted transom sterns.
single coarse grid computation (grid spacings doubled in
longitudinal and girthwise directions) yielded a model
scale resistance 1.4% higher than on the fine grid. In view
of uncertainty results for other cases we consider the
accuracy of the resistance comparisons sufficient for the
statements made, which are based on differences between
computations with exactly similar settings and grids.
Table 1 shows that the wave resistance coefficient is 20%
larger at full scale than at model scale. This increase,
which is contrary to the common assumption in Froude’s
hypothesis, seems consistent with the increase of the stern
wave system. In the potential-flow result, the stern waves
are still much higher, and the wave resistance coefficient
computed is still 47% higher, so this fits well with the
present results.

Table 1: Computed resistance components for Hamburg

Test Case.
Cf×103 Cp×103 Ct×103
model free 2.852 0.839 3.691
surface
model 2.794 0.524 3.318
double-body
wave resistance model 0.373

Figure 11. Hamburg Test Case at Fn = 0.238. Wave cut

at centreline aft of the transom. Full scale, model scale
and inviscid.
6.2 SCALE EFFECTS ON WAVE RESISTANCE
As viscous and scale effects on the stern wave making are
present, the same must go for the wave resistance: a lower
stern wave system gives less radiated wave energy and
therefore a lower wave resistance. Below we consider the
limited data we have on this so far.
Here we define wave resistance as the difference between
the total resistance with wave making and without wave
making (i.e. in double-body flow). The case with wave
making has to be computed with free trim and sinkage.
The wave resistance mainly comes from a change of the
pressure resistance, but also contains changes of the
viscous resistance caused by the wavemaking; e.g. due to
the modified flow direction and pressure field along the
hull.
For the Hamburg Test Case, Table 1 shows the computed
resistance values. For model scale, the total resistance
appeared to be 10% lower than the experimental value of
Ct=4.1×10-3. About half of this difference is due to the
choice of the turbulence model; an additional calculation
using the SST model gave Ct=3.828×10-3. While no
complete grid dependence studies have been done here, a
ship free 1.588 0.689 2.276
surface
ship double 1.546 0.282 1.828
body
wave resistance ship 0.448
wave resistance inviscid 0.66
It is to be noted that this scale effect on the wave
resistance is a rather small quantity, and it can only be
determined from most accurate computations. As a matter
of fact, the study for the KVLCC2 hull at Fn=0.147,
shown in Fig. 6, illustrated this. The estimated wave
resistance at full scale amounted to 12% of the total
resistance, and again was higher than the model scale
wave resistance and intermediate between the model-
scale and potential-flow values. However, a minor change
in the discretisation of the free-surface boundary
conditions caused a change of the computed wave
resistance comparable with that scale effect. To get a
quantitative estimate of the scale effect for that case,
denser grids will be needed.
More of these studies have to be done before we can
establish the trends with some certainty.
7. A COMPARISON WITH MODEL-SHIP
EXTRAPOLATION
For the Hamburg Test Case, in the two previous sections
we have observed some substantial differences in the
resistance scale effects compared with what is assumed in
extrapolation methods:
• while the form factor approach in itself is applicable,
the ITTC 57 line is too steep and causes an
underestimation of the viscous resistance at full scale.
• the wave resistance coefficient for full scale is some
20% larger than that for model scale in this case.
To illustrate what this means, we compare with the result
of the standard extrapolation method, applied to our
model scale computations.
• From the double-body flow computation at model
scale we have found before a form factor of 1+k =
1.138 relative to the ITTC 57 line.
• For the ship the ITTC 57 line yields Cf0=1.497×10-3
(Section 5.1). Using the same form factor as at model
scale we get Cvs = 1.702×10-3.
• As shown in Table 1, the wave resistance coefficient
for model scale is Cwm = 0.373×10-3. The same value
is assumed for the ship at full scale, Cws = Cwm.
• From eq. (2) the ‘extrapolated’ total resistance
coefficient for the ship thus becomes Cts=2.075×10-3.
The table below compares this with the direct
computation.
Table 2 Comparison of extrapolated and directly
computed full-scale resistance components for Hamburg
Test Case.
Cv×103 Cw×103 Ct×103
extrapolated 1.702 0.373 2.075
computed 1.828 0.448 2.276
difference 7.4% 20.1% 9.7%
extrapolated+correlation allowance: 2.475
computed + roughness allowance: 2.423
difference -2.1%
It appears that the two deviations from the assumed scale
effects add up to an almost 10% difference in the
resistance of the ship at full scale! 6.1% of this is due to
the scaling of the viscous resistance, 3.6% due to the scale
effect on wave resistance. For the KVLCC2 case,
although with limited numerical certainty we got a very
similar difference.
However, to the extrapolated resistance usually a
‘correlation allowance’ or ‘roughness allowance’ Ca is
added. This is an empirical addition, derived from
analysis of the correlation between extrapolated power
predictions and trial measurements. Consistent with the
use of the ITTC 78 extrapolation method used as a
reference here is the use of the Bowden-Davison formula
[23]:
1
Ca = 0.105(ks / L pp ) 3 − 0.64 ×10−3
which has been derived from thrust measurements during
trials for single-screw ships, and “should be recognized to
be a correlation allowance including effects of roughness
rather than a mere roughness allowance” [24]. Assuming
the standard value of ks=0.00015 m yields a correlation
allowance for the Hamburg Test Case, including the
roughness effect, of 0.40×10-3. This brings the result of
the extrapolation based on the model-scale resistance to:
2.475×10-3.
On the other hand, Townsin et al [25] have proposed a
correlation for just the effects of hull roughness,
⎡ 1
− ⎤
1
ΔCf = 0.044 ⎢( AHR / Lpp ) 3 − 10 Rn 3 ⎥ + 0.125 ×10−3
⎣ ⎦
where AHR is a roughness measure that can here be
considered equal to ks. Again taking a standard value of
0.00015 m then yields a roughness allowance of
0.147×10-3. In other words, the difference between both
allowance estimates, 0.25×10-3, could be considered to
represent effects not related with roughness; such as
deviations in the extrapolation procedure.
Adding the roughness allowance ΔCf to our directly
computed full-scale resistance (which disregarded
roughness effects so far) we obtain a total resistance
coefficient of 2.423×10-3. This is in close agreement with
the total extrapolated resistance plus correlation
allowance. This is not to say that both ways of getting a
full-scale resistance are in agreement in general, but it
explains how there may be significant deviations in the
scaling assumptions in extrapolation methods, which still
lead to a generally accurate final prediction.
Even so we believe that, to increase the reliability of
model-ship extrapolation, it is desirable to decompose the
correlation allowance, which now amounts to 20% of the
extrapolated resistance, in contributions of known
physical effects and a remainder collecting any unknown
effects. E.g. if we would have a more precise knowledge
of the validity of the form factor approach for different
classes of ships, and of wave resistance scale effects
depending on fullness and stern type, corrections could be
made in the extrapolation. A correlation allowance then to
be added would hopefully have a smaller magnitude and
smaller variability, and lead to a full-scale power estimate
of greater reliability. Today’s CFD tools can either
provide information on this, or can perhaps replace parts
of the extrapolation procedures by computations.
Evidently, there is much more work to do before we are
there. One of the next steps in our research will be a study
on the prediction of roughness effects in RANS
computations, hoping to again obtain a more accurate
estimate of one of the contributions to the correlation
allowance.
8. CONCLUSIONS
The present paper has addressed scale effects in ship
resistance components, as found from RANS compu-
tations; and has compared these with the assumptions
underlying the ‘extrapolation methods’ used to predict
ship resistance from model tests.
The scaling of the viscous resistance has been determined
from double-body flow computations. For a containership
it was in agreement with a form factor method, i.e. the
viscous resistance at model and full scale was nearly
proportional to the frictional resistance of a flat plate;
provided that the latter is found from either the Grigson or
Katsui plate friction line, or is computed using the same
turbulence model. If instead the ITTC 57 line is used, the
form factor at full scale is significantly higher than at
model scale.
For a tanker, some decrease of the form factor from
model to ship was found if a proper plate friction line is
used, but again an increase if the ITTC 57 line is used.
Recent results for viscous and scale effects on ship wave
patterns have been surveyed. In all cases the stern wave
system appears to be reduced by viscous effects, and
more so at model scale than at full scale. Correspondingly,
for the same containership the wave resistance coefficient
was found to be 20% larger at full scale than at model
scale.
For the containership, the computed scaling of viscous
and wave resistance means that the directly computed
resistance for the full-scale ship is 10% higher than the
resistance found from the model-scale results using the
extrapolation method with ITTC 57 line. This difference
is compensated by the correlation allowance, which not
only corrects for roughness effects but also for deviations
in the resistance scaling. A better understanding of the
scaling, as obtained from CFD studies, could reduce the
required correlation allowance and its variability, and
therefore increase the reliability of the prediction.
Many more cases need to be studied before definitive
conclusions can be drawn. However, the present study
demonstrates how the advanced modelling used in CFD
today can contribute to increasing the reliability of
performance predictions based on model tests.
9. ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
The research reported in this paper formed part of
MARIN’s work in WP1 of the VIRTUE project, an
Integrated Project in the 6th Framework Programme
“Sustainable development, global change and
ecosystems” under grant 516201 from the European
Commission. This support is gratefully acknowledged.
10. REFERENCES
1. HOEKSTRA, M., "Numerical simulation of ship
stern flows with a space-marching Navier Stokes
method", Thesis, Technical University of Delft,
October 1999.
2. VAN DER PLOEG, A., EÇA, L. and HOEKSTRA,
M., "Combining accuracy and efficiency with
robustness in ship stern flow calculation", 23rd Symp.
Naval Hydrodynamics, Val de Rueil, France, Sept.
2000.
3. RAVEN, H.C. and VAN BRUMMELEN, E.H., "A
new approach to computing steady free-surface
viscous flow problems", 1st MARNET-CFD
workshop, Barcelona, Spain, 1999.
4. VAN BRUMMELEN, E.H., RAVEN, H.C. and
KOREN, B., "Efficient numerical solution of steady
free-surface Navier-Stokes flow", Jnl. Computational
Physics, Vol. 174, 2001, pp. 120-137.
5. RAVEN, H.C. and STARKE, A.R., "Efficient
methods to compute ship viscous flow with free
surface", 24th Symp. Naval Hydrodynamics, Fukuoka,
Japan, 2002.
6. RAVEN, H.C., VAN DER PLOEG, A., and
STARKE, A.R., "Computation of free-surface
viscous flows at model and full scale by a steady
iterative approach", 25th Symp. Naval
Hydrodynamics, St.John’s, Canada, 2004
7. HINO, T. (editor), "CFD Workshop Tokyo",
National Maritime Research Institute, Tokyo, Japan,
2005.
8. RAVEN, H.C., VAN DER PLOEG, A., EÇA., L.
`Extending the benefit of CFD tools in ship design
and performance prediction’, 7th International
Conference On Hydrodynamics, Ischia, Italy,
October 2006
9. VAN DER PLOEG, A., RAVEN, H.C., `Accuracy of
viscous resistance computations for ships including
free-surface effects’, MARINE 2007 symposium,
Barcelona, 2007.
10. EÇA, L. AND HOEKSTRA, M., ‘On the Numerical
Accuracy of the Prediction of Resistance Coefficients
in Ship Stern Flow Calculations’, to be published in
Jnl Marine Science Techn.
11. LAUDAN, J., "Korrelation von Nachstrom-
aufmessungen an Modell und Grossausfuerung" (in
German), (BMFT Foerderungskenzeichen MTK
0185/2), HSVA Bericht Nr. 1529, April 1983.
12. MENTER F.R., EGOROV Y., RUSCH D. - `Steady Distributed Roughness”, NECIES Centenary
and Unsteady Flow Modelling Using the k-√kL Conference on Marine Propulsion, 1984.
Model,’ Turbulence Heat and Mass Transfer 5, 2006.
13. EÇA L., HOEKSTRA M., `The Numerical Friction
Line’, to be published in Journal of Marine Science 11. AUTHORS’ BIOGRAPHIES
and Technology, Springer, 2007.
14. GRIGSON, C. W. B., `A planar friction algorithm Hoyte Raven is Principal Researcher CFD at MARIN,
and its use in analysing hull resistance,’ RINA 1999. responsible for the coordination of R&D in this field, and
15. KATSUI, T., ASAI, H., HIMENO, Y., TAHARA, Y., mainly involved in research on computational prediction
`The Proposal of a New Friction Line’, Fifth Osaka of ship wave making.
Colloquium on Advanced CFD Applications to Ship
Flow and Hull Form Design, Osaka, Japan, 2005. Auke van der Ploeg is CFD Researcher at MARIN, a
16. LARSSON, L, STERN, F., BERTRAM, V., specialist in numerical methods, and a main developer of
“Gothenburg 2000: a workshop on numerical ship the free-surface approach in PARNASSOS.
hydrodynamics”, Chalmers Univ. Techn.,
Gothenburg, Sweden, 2000. Bram Starke is CFD Researcher at MARIN, and is
17. EÇA, L., HOEKSTRA, M., RAVEN, H.C., ‘Scaling mainly involved in the development and utilisation of
of viscous resistance coefficients based on the PARNASSOS, in particular the free-surface approach and
numerical friction line”, IST/MARIN cooperative propeller-hull interaction.
research report, January 2008.
18. RAVEN, H.C., "A solution method for the nonlinear Luís Eça is Assistant Professor at the Mechanical
ship wave resistance problem", Thesis, Technical Engineering Dept. of Instituto Superior Tecnico from the
University of Delft, 1996. Technical University of Lisbon. He is a main developer of
19. TODA, Y., STERN, F., LONGO, J., “Mean-flow the PARNASSOS code, and a specialist in CFD Uncertainty
measurements in the boundary layer and wake of a Analysis.
Series 60 Cb=.6 ship model for Froude numbers .16
and .316, IIHR report 352, Iowa, 1991.
20. LUNDGREN, H. and ÅHMAN, M., "Experimentell
och numerisk bestämning av vågmotstand för ett
tankfartyg (Dynetankern)", Report No. X-94/58, Dept.
Naval Architecture and Ocean Engineering,
Chalmers Univ. Techn., Gothenburg, Sweden, 1994.
(In swedish).
21. VAN DER PLOEG, A., RAVEN, H.C., WINDT, J.,
LEROYER, A., QUEUTEY, P., DENG, G. and
VISONNEAU, M., `Computation of free-surface
viscous flows at model and full scale --- a
comparison of two different approaches’, paper
accepted for 27th Symp. Naval Hydrodynamics, Seoul,
Korea, Oct. 2008.
22. STARKE, A.R., RAVEN, H.C., VAN DER PLOEG,
A., `Computation of transom-stern flows using a
steady free-surface fitting RANS method,’ 9th
International Conference on Numerical Ship
Hydrodynamics, Ann Arbor, Michigan, August 5-8,
2007
23. BOWDEN, B.S. DAVISON, N.J., “Resistance
Increments Due to Hull Roughness Associated with
Form Factor Extrapolation Methods”, NPL Ship
Report TM 3800, 1974
24. 24th ITTC, ‘Final report and recommendations of the
Specialist Committee on Powering Performance
Prediction,’ 2005.
25. TOWNSIN, R.L., MEDHURST, J.S., HAMLIN,
N.A., SEDAT, B.S., “Progress in Calculating the
Resistance of Ships with Homogeneous or