J Mar Sci Technol (2006) 11:65–75

DOI 10.1007/s00773-005-0209-y

Original articles

Measurements of hydrodynamic forces, surface pressure, and wake

for obliquely towed tanker model and uncertainty analysis for
CFD validation
Kenichi Kume, Jun Hasegawa, Yoshiaki Tsukada, Junichi Fujisawa, Ryohei Fukasawa,
and Munehiko Hinatsu
National Maritime Research Institute, 6-38-1 Shinkawa, Mitaka, Tokyo 181-0004, Japan

Abstract This article presents hydrodynamic forces and mo-
ments, surface pressures, estimated side force distributions,
and wakes under oblique towing conditions for a practical
tanker model (model KVLCC2M), which was designed by the
Korea Research Institute of Ships and Ocean Engineering
(KRISO). Ship offset data is readily available and can be
obtained from the Internet. The model ship has no append-
ages and no rudder. Trim and sinkage were adjusted to zero
in the static condition and the model ship was constrained
against any motion. Although the drift angle b was primarily
set to 0°, 6°, and 12°, other settings were used in some experi-
ments. All experimental results were processed using uncer-
tainty analysis. The uncertainty analyzing method follows the
ANSI/ASME Performance Test Code (PTC19.1-1985) and
the AIAA Standard S-071-1995. Only a few error components
were considered here and they were empirically chosen be-
cause they had a heavy weighting when used in the uncertainty
calculation. The results of these towing tank experiments will
contribute to the development of computational fluid dynam-
ics (CFD) research in ship hydrodynamics.
Key words Towing tank test · Oblique towing · Uncertainty ·
CFD validation
1 Introduction
Computational fluid dynamics (CFD) software is rap-
idly developing and has come to be applied not only to
straightforward towing conditions but also to oblique
towing conditions. Higher accuracy is required in ex-
perimental results when they are used as validation data
for CFD research. Although such experimental data are
invaluable for CFD researchers, only a few data sets are
presently available.
Address correspondence to: K. Kume (kume@nmri.go.jp)
Received: May 13, 2005 / Accepted: October 5, 2005
The National Maritime Research Institute (NMRI)
carried out several kinds of tank tests for a practical
tanker model under oblique towing conditions in which
the drift angles were primarily 0°, 6°, and 12°. The
tested items were the hydrodynamic forces and mo-
ments, surface pressures, and wakes. These items were
measured in the 400-m-long towing tank at the NMRI
with a width and depth, respectively, of 18 m and 8 m.
The side force distributions were estimated by integra-
tion of the surface pressures measured along the girth
direction. In the following sections, procedures and
results of the experiments and the uncertainties are
presented.
2 Ship model
The principal dimensions of the model ship tested are
shown in Table 1. The ship was designed by the Korean
Institute of Ships and Ocean Engineering (KRISO).
The model has no appendages and was made of paraffin
wax with a wooden frame. It was trimmed by a numeri-
cally controlled shaping machine and hand finished.
Studs with trapezoidal heads were nailed to the
surface of a ship hull at 10-mm intervals at S.S.9 1/2
(x/LPP = −0.45, see Fig. 1) and at the midsection of the
bow bulb to stimulate turbulent flow.
3 Experimental apparatus
3.1 Hydrodynamic forces
The model ship was supported at two fixed positions
under oblique towing conditions. The system is shown
in Fig. 2. The hydrodynamic forces FX (along the x-
direction, see Fig. 3) and FY (along the y-direction)
were measured using two load cells. The ship’s fixed
coordinates are designated (x, y, z), as shown in Fig. 3.
66 K. Kume et al.: Obliquely towed tanker model

Table 1. Principal dimensions of the model tested

Item Symbol Unit Value

Length between perpendiculars LPP m 4.9700

Breadth (molded) B m 0.9008
Draft (molded) d m 0.3231
Wetted surface area without appendages SW m2 6.5597
Displacement without appendages ∇ m3 1.1712
Center of buoyancy from midship (forward, +) lcb %LPP 3.50
Blockage coefficient CB — 0.8098

with an electrical strain generator at the beginning of

each day’s experiments.
-0.5 0 0 .5
(F.P.) x/LPP (A.P.)

3.2 Surface pressure

Fig. 1. Location of studs for turbulence stimulation (dashed
lines)
Fig. 2. Oblique towing system (top view)
Surface pressures on the ship hull were measured by a
semiconductor type transducer, which was connected to
pressure holes on the hull surface with vinyl tubes filled
with water. The pressure holes were manufactured as
follows. Firstly, a hole was drilled orthogonal to the ship
hull and then a metal tube was mounted in it. The inside
diameter of the pressure hole was 1.0 mm. Calibration
of the pressure transducers was carried out before each
day’s experiments by changing the head of water by
moving the transducers up and down. Degassed water
was used to fill the vinyl tubes to avoid air bubbles
blocking the tubes.

Fig. 3. Coordinate systems for hydrodynamic forces and
moment
The capacity of the each load cell was 294 N for both FX
and FY. The moment around the z-axis was calculated
by multiplication of force, FY, and the arm length,
which is the distance between the midship and the load
cell position. Calibration of FX and FY was undertaken
3.3 Wake
The wake was measured by the use of an 8-hole spheri-
cal pitot tube. It had an additional 3 holes compared
with the conventional 5-hole pitot tube to accommodate
a large angle of flow. The present pitot tube could be
used over the ranges −30° to +60° for vertical flows and
−30° to +30° degrees for horizontal flows. The pressure
measuring system used was the same as that employed
for the surface pressure measurements.
Calibration of the 8-hole pitot tube was carried out in
advance. The calibration was done at the towing tank at
a velocity of 1.0 m/s. A newly designed calibration appa-
ratus was used to set inflow angles of the pitot tube
precisely. The apparatus had a mechanism to adjust the
inflow angles by rolling the pitot tube around the axis
and turning the supporting point of the pitot tube. The
calibration range was the same as mentioned above, i.e.,
from −30° to +60° in the vertical plane and from −30° to
+30° in the horizontal plane. The measurement points
were arranged in a lattice-like configuration at intervals
of 5° to 10° to give the calibration plane of the pitot
tube.
K. Kume et al.: Obliquely towed tanker model 67

4 Experimental procedures and conditions

β
β
4.1 Hydrodynamic forces
The model ship used was supported at two points to fix
the ship’s motions as shown in Fig. 2. The front support

point was movable in the transverse direction to rotate
the model around the support pillar that was connected
to a towing carriage. The drift angles were calculated by
measuring the displacement of one point on the model
ship in the Y-direction. Because this oblique towing
system may cause internal forces as a result of adverse
conditions in the two supports, the system was set up
carefully to minimize these forces.
Hydrodynamic forces were measured in the longitu-
dinal direction (x) and the transverse direction (y). Drift
angles were set at every one degree between −3° to +6°
and at every three degrees for angles between +6° to
+18°. In addition, six to eight repeat measurements were
performed at angles of 0°, 9°, and 18° for the uncertainty
analysis. The Froude number ( Fn = U gLpp ) and
Reynolds number (Rn = ULpp/v) in the tests were 0.1424
and 3.945 × 106, respectively.
4.2 Surface pressure
The drift angles were 0°, 6°, and 12° and six semi-
conductor pressure transducers were employed. The
capacity of the transducers was 0.03 MPa. The model
ship had over 400 measurement points on its hull.
The points on the hull were equally divided into three
groups, located fore, mid, and aft, and the surface
pressures in each group were measured using a
Scanivalve (Liberty Lake, WA, USA) that had six sets
of input-switching devices of 24 steps each. Using this
measurement system, 144 sets of pressure data were
obtained per run. The measurement duration at each
point was approximately 5 s.
The measurements were performed eight times
at each point for the uncertainty analysis. This meant
that the precision errors were calculated for all measur-
ing points. The precision errors were defined as the
product of the standard deviation of the data and the
student value (t), which was affected by the sample
number.
The Froude number was 0.1424 in the tests, and the
Reynolds numbers were 4.280 × 106 (fore), 4.440 × 106
(mid) and 4.743 × 106 (aft). The differences were the
result of differences in water temperature.
4.3 Wake
Measurements were taken at drift angles of 0°, 6°, and
12°. The ranges of the measurement planes were deter-
β
Fig. 4. Ranges of measured velocity field in WAKE 1 plane
mined for each drift angle so as to cover large vortex
regions, as shown in Fig. 4. The measurement planes
were not in the y–z plane but in the plane vertical to the
towing direction instead. Those planes cut through
x/LPP = 0.48 at the centerline of a ship.
The ranges of the measurement fields were Y/LPP =
−0.04 to 0.04, Z/LPP = −0.07 to −0.01 at b = 0°; Y/LPP =
−0.04 to 0.12, Z/LPP = −0.07 to −0.01 at b = 6°; and Y/LPP
= −0.04 to 0.17, Z/LPP = −0.07 to 0.00 at b = 12°, where
(X, Y, Z) is the space-fixed coordinate system, as shown
in Fig. 3. Then the coordinate X can be written as:
X = x ⋅ cos β (1)
where b is the drift angle and x = 0.48LPP.
The Froude number was 0.1424 and the Reynolds
numbers were 4.011 × 106 (b = 0°), 3.967 × 106 (b = 6°),
and 4.000 × 106 (b = 12°).
5 Experimental results and uncertainty analysis
The uncertainty was calculated using the following
equations:
U RSS = B 2 + P 2
(θ ⋅ B ) + (θ )
2 2
B= ⋅ B2 +⋅⋅⋅
1 1 2
t ⋅ SD
P= (2)
M
where URSS is a 95% confidence uncertainty, Bi is the
magnitude of the bias limit, qi is the sensitivity of each
bias limit, t is the student value, SD is the standard
deviation of measured values, and M is the number of
sample data for calculation of SD.
68 K. Kume et al.: Obliquely towed tanker model

5.1 Hydrodynamic forces by averaging eight sets of data, this data deviates slightly
from the curve. It is assumed that the differences in the
The hydrodynamic forces analyzed in the present study
data are caused by a bias error as a result of the experi-
were the x- and y-direction forces CX and CY and the
ments being conducted on different days.
moment around the z-axis CN and N/Y. Capitalizing the
The error bars in the figures indicate the 95% confi-
letter C indicates that it is a dimensionless variable.
dence uncertainty levels. The components contributing
The hydrodynamic forces and moment were defined as
to the total bias limit were considered to be the standard
follows:
error of the estimate (SEE) of the load cells (B1) and the
SEE of the calibration line of the current meter (B2).
1  The bias limits of r, LPP, and d were neglected here
C X = FX ρVW2 LPP d  because we knew empirically they are relatively small
2 
1 compared to the other error components. The standard
CY = FY ρVW2 LPP d  deviation was considered as the principal component of
2  (3)
1  the precision index (P1). The sensitivities at every bias
C N = MZ ρVW LPP d 
2 2
limit are given by:
2

(
N Y = MZ FY LPP 
 )
∂CX ∂CX
θ1 = θ2 =
where FX and FY are the hydrodynamic forces [N], MZ ∂ FX ∂ VW
is the moment [Nm], r is the density of water [Ns2/m4], ∂ CY ∂ CY
VW is the towing speed relative to the water [m/s], LPP is θ1 = θ2 =
∂ FY ∂ VW
the length between the perpendiculars [m], and d is the
draft [m]. ∂ CN ∂ CN
θ1 = θ2 =
The experimental results are shown in Figs. 5–8. Be- ∂ FY ∂ VW
cause the data at 0°, 9°, and 18° in Fig. 6 were obtained
θ1 =
(
∂ N Y ) θ2 =
(
∂ N Y ) =0 (4)
∂ FY ∂ VW
-0.012

-0.013 0.040
0.035
-0.014
0.030
-0.015
0.025
CX

-0.016 0.020
CN

-0.017 0.015
0.010
-0.018
0.005
-0.019
0.000
-0.020 -0.005
-6 -3 0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 -0.010
b (deg)
-6 -3 0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21
b (deg)
Fig. 5. Hydrodynamic force coefficient, CX
Fig. 7. Hydrodynamic moment coefficient, CN

0.14 0.8
0.12 0.7
0.10 0.6
0.08
0.5
N/Y

0.06
CY

0.4
0.04
0.3
0.02
0.2
0.00
0.1
-0.02
-0.04 0.0
-6 -3 0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 -6 -3 0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21
b (deg) b (deg)

Fig. 6. Hydrodynamic force coefficient, CY Fig. 8. Length between midship and center of pressure, N/Y
K. Kume et al.: Obliquely towed tanker model 69

Table 2. Averages and uncertainties for the hydrodynamic force CX

Drift q1B1
angle (SEE of q2B2 (SEE of Total bias Total precision Uncertainty
b Average load cells) current meter) limit B index P (= P1) URSS

0° −1.756 × 10−2 1.842 × 10−4 −5.285 × 10−4 5.597 × 10−4 1.477 × 10−4 5.788 × 10−4
(10.8% of B) (89.2% of B) (93.5% of URSS) (6.5% of URSS) (3.3% of CX)
9° −1.729 × 10−2 1.842 × 10−4 −5.288 × 10−4 5.600 × 10−4 2.689 × 10−4 6.212 × 10−4
(10.8% of B) (89.2% of B) (81.3% of URSS) (18.7% of URSS) (3.6% of CX)
18° −1.370 × 10−2 1.842 × 10−4 −4.213 × 10−4 4.598 × 10−4 2.209 × 10−4 5.101 × 10−4
(16.1% of B) (83.9% of B) (81.2% of URSS) (18.8% of URSS) (2.9% of CX)

q, sensitivity of the bias limit; B, magnitude of the bias limit; SEE, standard error of the estimate

Table 3. Averages and uncertainties for the hydrodynamic force CY

Drift q 1B1
angle (SEE of q2B2 (SEE of Total bias Total precision Uncertainty
b Average load cells) current meter) limit B index P (= P1) URSS

0° −4.169 × 10−5 1.559 × 10−4 2.581 × 10−6 1.560 × 10−4 2.259 × 10−4 2.745 × 10−4
(100.0% of B) (0.0% of B) (32.3% of URSS) (67.7% of URSS) (658% of CY)
9° 4.553 × 10−2 1.559 × 10−4 −1.368 × 10−3 1.377 × 10−3 4.619 × 10−4 1.452 × 10−3
(1.3% of B) (98.7% of B) (89.9% of URSS) (10.1% of URSS) (3.2% of CY)
18° 1.239 × 10−1 1.559 × 10−4 −3.708 × 10−3 3.711 × 10−3 9.685 × 10−4 3.835 × 10−3
(0.2% of B) (99.8% of B) (93.6% of URSS) (6.4% of URSS) (3.1% of CY)

Table 4. Averages and uncertainties for the moment force CN

Drift q1B1
angle (SEE of q2B2 (SEE of Total Total precision Uncertainty
b Average load cells) current meter) bias limit B index P (= P1) URSS

0° −6.449 × 10−5 1.728 × 10−5 7.069 × 10−7 1.729 × 10−5 1.013 × 10−4 1.028 × 10−4
(99.8% of B) (0.2% of B) (2.8% of URSS) (97.2% of URSS) (159% of CN)
9° 1.940 × 10−2 1.728 × 10−5 −5.963 × 10−4 5.966 × 10−4 5.856 × 10−4 8.360 × 10−4
(0.1% of B) (99.9% of B) (50.9% of URSS) (49.1% of URSS) (4.3% of CN)
18° 3.494 × 10−2 1.728 × 10−5 −1.075 × 10−3 1.075 × 10−3 7.178 × 10−4 1.292 × 10−3
(0.0% of B) (100.0% of B) (69.2% of URSS) (30.8% of URSS) (3.7% of CN)

Table 5. Averages and uncertainties for the point of application of the moment force N/Y
Drift q1B1
angle (SEE of q2B2 (SEE of Total Total precision Uncertainty
b Average load cells) current meter) bias limit B index P (= P1) URSS

0° 2.713 × 10−1 1.756 × 10−1 0.000 1.756 × 10−1 1.502 1.5124

(100.0% of B) (0.0% of B) (1.3% of URSS) (98.7% of URSS) (558% of N/Y)
9° 4.260 × 10−1 6.016 × 10−4 0.000 6.016 × 10−4 1.050 × 10−2 1.052 × 10−2
(100.0% of B) (0.0% of B) (0.3% of URSS) (99.7% of URSS) (2.5% of N/Y)
18° 2.820 × 10−1 1.319 × 10−4 0.000 1.319 × 10−4 4.636 × 10−3 4.638 × 10−3
(100.0% of B) (0.0% of B) (0.1% of URSS) (99.9% of URSS) (1.6% of N/Y)

The averages, bias limits, precision indices, sensitivities, large values because these are affected by the small
and uncertainties for CX, CY, CN, and N/Y are summa- average values. That is not to say that the absolute
rized in Tables 2–5, respectively. The percentages for values of the URSS in these conditions are especially
uncertainty, URSS, at drift angle 0° in Tables 3–5 take larger than the others.
 70 K. Kume et al.: Obliquely towed tanker model

0 0
0.2
0
-0.15 -0.15 -0.05

0.1
-0.1

.1
-0.02

-0
z/Lpp

-0.04

-0.06 -0.18
-0.3

-0 .
0.30 0.35 0.40 0.45 0.50 0.55 -0.5 -0.2 -0.1

4
x/Lpp
-0.6

Fig. 9. Surface pressure distribution for b = 0° (contour line

interval ∆CP = 0.01)
-0.
3 -0.2
-0.5 -0.1

-0.25
-0.20 -0.15
-0

-0. -0.05
.10

25 -0.25
-0.3
-0 -0.2 -0.1
. 4 -0.05
-0.5

-0.15 .1 -0.5 -0.4 -0.3 -0.2 -0.1 0

-0
5

-0.2 -0.05
-0.3 x/Lpp
-0.2

-0.35 a
-0.4

-0.45

-0.25 0.25

5
.0
-0.1

-0
-0. 0
-0.2

0.
-0.2 1

1
-0.3 -0 -0.2
-0.15

.25 -0.2 -0.

-0.

1
-0.05
3

-0.25 -0.25
-0.2

-0.1
-0

-0.1

0
0.1
-0.25

-0.3 -0
2

-
.2

-0.4 0.35 .3 -0.15 -0.1 -0.05

- 0.

2
5

0.
-0.45 0.25
0.2
-0.3
-0.5 -0.4 -0.3 -0.2 -0.1 0 0.1
0
a x/Lpp -0.2
-0.1
-0.15
0.25
0.1

-0.05 .1 -0.2 -0.1 -0.3

-0 0 -0.2
-0.
15
-0.1

-0.
-0.05 0 0.1 0.2

1
-0.2
-0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5
.15
-0
x/Lpp b
-0.1 .1
-0.05

0.1
0

Fig. 11. a Distribution of surface pressure coefficient for b =

0.2

0.25 12° (fore) (contour line interval ∆CP = 0.05). b Distribution of

2

surface pressure coefficient for b = 12° (aft) (contour line

0.2
-0.

5
-0.1
1

interval ∆CP = 0.05)

0.

-0.1
0

-0.2
-0
.1
-0 . P
CP =
05
-0.1

0 0.1 0.25
1 (5)
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5
ρU 2
x/Lpp 2
b

Fig. 10. a Distribution of surface pressure coefficient for b = 6° where P is the pressure on the ship’s hull [N/m2], r is the
(fore) (contour line interval ∆CP = 0.05). b Distribution density of water [Ns2/m4], and U is the towing speed
of surface pressure coefficient for b = 6° (aft) (contour line relative to the ground [m/s].
interval ∆CP = 0.05) In Eq. 5, the towing speed relative to the ground,
U, is used instead of VW, because the authors don’t
consider that VW gives a good estimation of the
5.2 Surface pressure
characteristic velocity, especially for surface pressure
The experimental results showing the surface pressures measurements under oblique towing condition. In
at drift angles of 0°, 6°, and 12° are shown in Figs. 9–11. spatially nonuniform residual flow, the characteristic
The pressure distributions are represented by a dimen- velocities for each pressure hole would be slightly dif-
sionless number called CP. CP is defined as: ferent by location, even if the pressure data were mea-
K. Kume et al.: Obliquely towed tanker model 71

sured at the same time. The effect of the residual flow is
implicitly included in the error of surface pressure, P, as
a consequence. The pressure measurements were re-
peated eight times at each pressure hole under the same
conditions. The average values were used to draw the
contours.
As the drift angle became larger, lower pressure areas
were observed in the region of the stem bottom on port
side and stern bottom on starboard side. The uncertain-
ties of the measured data are shown in Fig. 12. Although
this figure shows only the data for a drift angle of 12° at
S.S.1, the uncertainty levels were almost the same over
the hull surface and for every other drift angle.
The components of the total bias limit were the SEE
of the calibration line of the pressure transducers (B1),
an estimated maximum error in the carriage speed (B2),
and an estimated maximum difference of drift angles
(B3). The bias limit of r was neglected. The standard
deviation of measured data was considered as a princi-
pal component of the precision index (P1). The sensitivi-
ties of each bias limit were given by:
∂ CP ∂ CP ∂ CP
θ1 = θ2 = θ3 =
∂P ∂U ∂β
Averages, bias limits, precision indices, sensitivities,
and uncertainties for CP at y/LPP = 0 at S.S.1 are summa-
rized in Table 6. From the table, we see that the uncer-
tainty of CP mainly consists of B1. Similar trends were
observed for all measuring points and drift angles.
5.3 Interpolation accuracy of surface pressure
Since the pressure data was measured at coarse inter-
vals, it needed to be interpolated to draw smooth con-
tours over the hull surface. The interpolation method
used was “Kriging,” which was carried out by the
graphic software Tecplot (Bellevue, WA, USA).
Generally speaking, the interpolation process can
cause errors and therefore its accuracy must be vali-
dated by another method. The validation method was as
follows. First, a certain arbitrary function expressed in
terms of the coordinates was defined and the true values
over the whole hull surface were calculated. The equa-
tion adopted was as follows:
( )
f x, y, z = sin x 3 ⋅ sin z3 (7)
Then, using the true values of the pressure measure-
ment points, the values at the other points on the hull
surface were interpolated by the Kriging method. Com-
parison of the interpolated values with the true values
revealed the accuracy of the interpolation method. A
comparison is made in Fig. 13.
The interpolated values at the fore and aft of the
(6)
model ship coincide well with the true values because
enough measurement points were taken in these re-
gions; however, at the mid region, interpolation data
tends to be slightly inaccurate because of the insuffi-
ciency of measurement points.

0.2
0.1
0.0
CP

-0.1
-0.2
-0.3
-0.4
-0.05 0 0.05
y/LPP
Fig. 13. Contours of interpolated and true values. Upper,
Fig. 12. Uncertainty of surface pressure coefficient for b = 12° interpolated values; lower, true values; dots are the locations
at S.S.1 of pressure holes

Table 6. Averages and uncertainties for the surface pressure CP at y/LPP = 0 of S.S.1
Drift q1B1 (SEE of q2B2
angle pressure (Carriage q3B3 Total bias Total precision Uncertainty
b Average transducers) speed) (Drift angle) limit B index P (= P1) URSS

0° −5.794 × 10−2 1.662 × 10−2 4.008 × 10−3 −2.812 × 10−4 1.710 × 10−2 3.038 × 10−3 1.736 × 10−2
(94.5% of B) (5.5% of B) (0.0% of B) (96.9% of URSS) (3.1% of URSS) (30.0% of CP)
6° −7.481 × 10−2 1.662 × 10−2 4.008 × 10−3 −7.760 × 10−4 1.711 × 10−2 3.071 × 10−3 1.739 × 10−2
(94.3% of B) (5.5% of B) (0.2% of B) (96.9% of URSS) (3.1% of URSS) (23.2% of CP)
12° −1.511 × 10−1 1.662 × 10−2 4.008 × 10−3 −1.271 × 10−3 1.714 × 10−2 6.662 × 10−3 1.839 × 10−2
(94.0% of B) (5.5% of B) (0.5% of B) (86.9% of URSS) (13.1% of URSS) (12.2% of CP)
72 K. Kume et al.: Obliquely towed tanker model

0.5
∆YP [=FYP/(0.5ρU2LPPd)/dx]
0.5
0.6
0.4 0.7 0.
4 4 .5 0.6
0. 0
-0.02 0.3 0.7
0.8
0.3
0.5 0.8

0.4 0.3
0.4
0.2 0.9

0.
3
-0.04

z/LPP

0.3
0.1 0.2
0.9

0.2
0.0
-0.06
-0.1
-0.6 -0.4 -0.2 0 0.2 0.4 0.6
x/LPP
-0.08
Fig. 14. Estimated lateral force distribution for b = 6° -0.04 -0.02 0 0.02 0.04
y/LPP a
∆YP [=FYP/(0.5ρU2LPPd)/dx]

0.5

0.4 -0.02

0.3

0.2
-0.04
z/LPP
0.1

0.0
-0.06
-0.1
-0.6 -0.4 -0.2 0 0.2 0.4 0.6
0.2
x/LPP
-0.08
L
Fig. 15. Estimated lateral force distribution for b = 12° -0.04 -0.02 0 0.02 0.04
y/LPP b

Fig. 16. a Velocity field contours in WAKE 1 plane for b = 0°.

5.4 Lateral force distribution b Cross-flow vectors in WAKE 1 plane for b = 0°

The lateral force distributions were estimated by inte-

gration of the surface pressures measured along the
girth direction and are shown in Figs. 14 and 15. The
error bars in the figures indicate the uncertainty levels,
which were calculated using the precision error based
on the student value and the standard deviations of the
data at locations where it was measured eight times.
5.5 Wake
The experimental results of wake at drift angles of 0°,
6°, and 12° are shown in Figs. 16–18. The axial velocity,
u, and the tangential velocities, v and w, are dimension-
less values divided by the ship speed. Generally, only
one measurement was performed at each point.
Both Figs. 17a and 18a reveal a large vortex on the
right-hand side for the conditions of b = 6° and 12°. It
was generated at the fore part of the ship. There was
a region above the propeller boss where the wake
couldn’t be analyzed, particularly at b = 12°. This was
because the lateral flow angle exceeded the calibration
range of the pitot tube. It may be possible to estimate
the wake values at these points by the use of adjacent
data, but the contour lines in this region were not indi-
cated because it is difficult to extrapolate wake values
exactly and incorrect information can be generated.
In addition, uncertainty analysis was performed for
the velocities on the line of z/LPP = −0.0348. They
are given in Figs. 19–21. The error bars in the figures
indicate the uncertainty levels. The components that
contribute to the total bias limit are the estimated maxi-
mum difference of the setting angles of the pitot tube in
calibration (B1), the SEE of the calibration line of the
pressure transducers (B2), and the SEE of the current
meter (B3) as an error of the residual flow. The standard
deviation calculated from data that were measured
eight times was the principal component for calculating
the precision index (P1). The sensitivities at every bias
limit are given by:
 K. Kume et al.: Obliquely towed tanker model 73

0 1.0
u /U
0.8
0.5
-0.02 0.6 5
0.
0 .6
0.6
0 .7 0.7

u/U, v/U, w/U

0.
z/LPP

0.8 0.4
0.8 0.4
-0.04

0.4
0.9 w /U
0.2
5
0.

0 .4
0.9 8
0. 0.9
-0.06 0.0 v /U
-0.2
-0.04 -0.02 0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1 0.12 -0.4
-0.04 -0.02 0 0.02 0.04
a y/LPP y/LPP

0 Fig. 19. Axial and tangential velocities in WAKE 1 plane at

z/LPP = −0.0348, b = 0°
-0.02
z/LPP

-0.04 1.0

0.8
-0.06 u /U
0.2
0.6

u/U, v/U, w/U

-0.04 -0.02 0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1 0.12 0.4

b y/LPP 0.2 v /U

0.0 w/U
Fig. 17. a Velocity field contours in WAKE 1 plane for b = 6°.
b Cross-flow vectors in WAKE 1 plane for b = 6° -0.2

-0.4
-0.04 -0.02 0 0.02 0.04
y/LPP
0

-0.02 0.4 0.6 Fig. 20. Axial and tangential velocities in WAKE 1 plane at
z/LPP = −0.0348, b = 6°
0.5
0 .6 0 .7
0.

0 .8
7
z/LPP

0.7 0.5
-0.04 0.9
0.6 0.8 0.8
0.6

0 .7
0.9
0.5
-0.06 0.9

1.0
-0.08
-0.04 -0.02 0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1 0.12 0.14 0.16 0.18 0.8 u /U
a y/LPP 0.6
u/U, v/U, w/U

0.4
0
0.2
v /U
-0.02
0.0
w/U
z/LPP

-0.04 -0.2

-0.4
-0.06 -0.04 -0.02 0 0.02 0.04
0.2 y/LPP
-0.08
-0.04 -0.02 0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1 0.12 0.14 0.16 0.18
y/LPP Fig. 21. Axial and tangential velocities in WAKE 1 plane at
b
z/LPP = −0.0348, b = 12°
Fig. 18. a Velocity field contours in WAKE 1 plane for b =
12°. b Cross-flow vectors in WAKE 1 plane for b = 12°

where f(a, f) is the function used to calculate

θ1 =
( )
∂ uU
θ2 =
( )
∂ uU
θ3 =
( )
∂ uU the influence on the wake velocities caused by any
misalignment of the pitot tube during calibration and
∂f (α , φ ) (
∂f PT , PB , PC , PS , PP ) ∂U f(PT,PB, PC, PS, PP) is the function used to calculate the
∂ (v U ) ( )
∂ vU ( )
∂ vU influence on the wake velocities caused by bias limits
θ1 = θ2 = θ3 = of the total pressures measured by the five holes of
∂f (α , φ ) (
∂f PT , PB , PC , PS , PP ) ∂U the eight-hole pitot tube. Parameters a and f are the
∂ (w U ) (
∂ wU ) (
∂ wU ) differences in the setting angles of the pitot tube during
θ1 = θ2 = θ3 = calibration.
∂f (α , φ ) (
∂f PT , PB , PC , PS , PP ) ∂U Averages, bias limits, precision indices, sensitivities,
(8) and uncertainties for u/U, v/U, and w/U are presented in
74 K. Kume et al.: Obliquely towed tanker model

Table 7. Averages and uncertainties for axial velocity u/U at y/LPP = 0 and z/LPP = −0.0348
Drift q1B1 q2B2(SEE of q3B3 Total
angle (Misalignment pressure (Residual Total bias precision Uncertainty
b Average in calibration) transducers) flow) limit B index P (= P1) URSS

0° 2.931 × 10−1 2.017 × 10−6 4.523 × 10−2 1.507 × 10−2 4.768 × 10−2 7.871 × 10−3 4.832 × 10−2
(0.0% of B) (90.0% of B) (10.0% of B) (97.3% of URSS) (2.7% of URSS) (16.5% of u/U)
6° 3.779 × 10−1 2.017 × 10−6 1.489 × 10−1 1.507 × 10−2 1.496 × 10−1 8.123 × 10−3 1.498 × 10−1
(0.0% of B) (99.0% of B) (1.0% of B) (99.7% of URSS) (0.3% of URSS) (39.7% of u/U)
12° 6.452 × 10−1 2.017 × 10−6 4.679 × 10−2 1.507 × 10−2 4.916 × 10−2 4.659 × 10−3 4.938 × 10−2
(0.0% of B) (90.6% of B) (9.4% of B) (99.1% of URSS) (0.9% of URSS) (7.7% of u/U)

Table 8. Averages and uncertainties for tangential velocity v/U at y/LPP = 0 and z/LPP = −0.0348
Drift q1B1 q2B2 (SEE of q3B3 Total
angle (Misalignment pressure (Residual Total bias precision Uncertainty
b Average in calibration) transducers) flow) limit B index P (= P1) URSS

0° −2.276 × 10−2 1.734 × 10−3 3.724 × 10−2 0.000 3.728 × 10−2 2.198 × 10−2 4.328 × 10−2
(0.2% of B) (99.8% of B) (0.0% of B) (74.2% of URSS) (25.8% of URSS) (190% of v/U)
6° 7.677 × 10−2 1.734 × 10−3 3.983 × 10−2 0.000 3.987 × 10−2 9.305 × 10−3 4.094 × 10−2
(0.2% of B) (99.8% of B) (0.0% of B) (94.8% of URSS) (5.2% of URSS) (53.3% of v/U)
12° 7.342 × 10−2 1.734 × 10−3 1.808 × 10−2 0.000 1.817 × 10−2 3.510 × 10−3 1.850 × 10−2
(0.9% of B) (99.1% of B) (0.0% of B) (96.4% of URSS) (3.6% of URSS) (25.2% of v/U)

Table 9. Averages and uncertainties for tangential velocity w/U at y/LPP = 0 and z/LPP = −0.0348
Drift q1B1 q2B2 (SEE of q3B3 Total
angle (Misalignment pressure (Residual Total bias precision Uncertainty
b Average in calibration) transducers) flow) limit B index P (= P1) URSS

0° −2.764 × 10−1 2.002 × 10−3 4.201 × 10−2 0.000 4.206 × 10−2 1.075 × 10−2 4.341 × 10−2
(0.2% of B) (99.8% of B) (0.0% of B) (93.9% of URSS) (6.1% of URSS) (15.7% of w/U)
6° −1.441 × 10−1 2.002 × 10−3 4.046 × 10−2 0.000 4.051 × 10−2 9.866 × 10−3 4.169 × 10−2
(0.2% of B) (99.8% of B) (0.0% of B) (94.4% of URSS) (5.6% of URSS) (28.9% of w/U)
12° −4.260 × 10−2 2.002 × 10−3 2.022 × 10−2 0.000 2.032 × 10−2 3.477 × 10−3 2.062 × 10−2
(1.0% of B) (99.0% of B) (0.0% of B) (97.2% of URSS) (2.8% of URSS) (48.4% of w/U)

Tables 7–9. These tables suggest that the error compo-
nent B2 is dominant at any drift angle.
6 Conclusion
Acknowledgments. The authors wish to thank Mr. T.
Kanai at the Shipbuilding Research Center of Japan
and Dr. Y. Ukon at NMRI for their assistance with
preparing offset data for the model ship.

Experimental results and uncertainties of hydrody- References

namic forces and moments, surface pressures, estimated
lateral force distributions, and wake are presented. The
series of tank experiments has been successfully com-
pleted, but the uncertainties in some cases still needed
to be reduced. Further ways of reducing the error must
be considered. These data are valuable for all CFD
researchers and we believe that they will help accelerate
the research and development of numerical ship
hydrodynamics.
1. AIAA (1995) Assessment of wind tunnel data uncertainty. AIAA
Standard S-071-1995
2. ANSI/ASME (1985) Measurement uncertainty: Part 1, Supple-
ment on instruments and apparatus. ANSI/ASME PTC 19.1–
1985
3. Bertram V, Chao KY, Lammers G, et al (1994) Experimental
validation data of free-surface flows for cargo vessels. In: Proceed-
ings of the CFD workshop, Tokyo, 1994, Vol. 1. pp 311–320
4. Coleman H, Steele G (1995) Engineering application of experi-
mental uncertainty analysis. AIAA J 33(10):1888–1896
K. Kume et al.: Obliquely towed tanker model
5. Fuwa T, Nonaka K, Nimura T (1983) Measurements of wake flow
and hydrodynamic force distribution on a numerical ship hull
form with drift angle. Papers of the Ship Research Institute No.71
6. Himeno Y, Nishio S, Takamatsu K (1990) Application of uncer-
tainty analysis for resistance test (in Japanese). J Kansai Soc Nav
Archit Jpn 216:39–47
7. Kume K, Ukon Y, Takeshi H (2000) Measurements of surface
pressure and local velocity field around a KCS model and
uncertainty analysis. In: Proceedings, a workshop on numerical
ship hydrodynamics, Chalmers University of Technology,
Gothenburg, Sweden
8. Larsson L, Stern F, Bertram V (2000) Proceedings, a workshop on
numerical ship hydrodynamics, Chalmers University of Technol-
ogy, Gothenburg, Sweden
9. Longo J, Stern F (1999) Resistance, sinkage and trim, wave
profile, nominal wake and uncertainty assessment for DTMB
Model 5512. In: Proceedings of the 25th ATTC, Iowa City, IA
10. Nishio S, Himeno Y, Takamatsu K (1991) Application of mea-
surement uncertainty analysis to resistance and self-propulsion
tests of ship model (in Japanese). J Kansai Soc Nav Archit Jpn
216:51–64
11. Pattenden RJ, Turnock SR, Bissuel M, et al (2005) Experiments
and numerical modeling of the flow around the KVLCC2
75
hullform at an angle of yaw. In: Proceedings of the 5th Osaka
colloquium, Osaka, Japan, pp 192–199
12. Stern F, Longo J, Maksoud M, et al (1998) Evaluation of surface–
ship resistance and propulsion model-scale database for CFD
validation. In: Proceedings of the first symposium on marine
applications of computational fluid dynamics, McLean, VA,
pp 19–21
13. Tahara Y, Longo J, Stern F (2002) Comparison of CFD and EFD
for the Series 60 CB = 0.6 in steady drift motion. J Mar Sci Technol
7:17–30
14. Tasaki R, Kitagawa H, Koyama K, et al (1969) Measurement of
residual current in a towing tank (in Japanese). J Kansai Soc Nav
Archit Jpn 135:15–24
15. Toda Y, Stern F, Longo J (1992) Mean-flow measurements in the
boundary layer and wake and wave field of a Series 60 CB = 0.60
ship model, Part 1: Froude numbers 0.16 and 0.316. J Ship Res
36(4):360–377
16. Van SH, Kim WJ, Yim GT, et al (1998) Experimental investiga-
tion of the flow characteristics around practical hull forms. In:
Proceedings of the 3rd Osaka colloquium on advanced CFD ap-
plications to ship flow and hull form design, Osaka, Japan