Final Format Ijsct 89

Trans RINA, Vol 151, Part B1, Intl J Small Craft Tech, 2009 Jan-Jun
EFFECT OF WATER DEPTH ON MOTIONS IN BEAM SEAS FOR A TYPICAL

LANDING CRAFT
A Rolls, M Renilson and G Macfarlane, Australian Maritime College, Australia
S Cannon, Defence Science and Technology Organisation, Australia
SUMMARY
A set of model experiments have been conducted at the Australian Maritime College to investigate the effect of water
depth on the motions of a typical landing craft in beam seas. Tests were conducted at different wave heights in two
water depths: deep, corresponding to a depth to draught ratio of 9.0; and shallow, corresponding to a depth to draught
ratio of 1.5.
The influence of non-linearity on model motion, particularly in roll, was determined, as was the effect of water depth. It
was shown that the motions in shallow water were significantly different to those in deep water.
NOTATION landing craft is known both in deep water (i.e. close to

the mother ship) and whilst moving in shallow water
B = Ship model beam (mm) towards the shoreline.
D = Ship model moulded depth (mm)
f = Wave frequency (Hz) It is well known that in shallow water a ship’s motions in
g = Gravitational constant (m/s2) waves are influenced by water depth. However, most of
these studies have focused on large vessels operating in
H = Wave height (mm)
channels [2, 3], which is clearly a different scenario to
h = Water depth (mm)
that of a landing craft approaching a beach. Van
k = Radius of gyration (mm)
Oortmerssen [2] developed a numerical method based on
L = Ship model length (mm)
a potential theory, Green function method at zero speed,
T = Ship model draught (mm)
while Andersen [3] investigated a similar problem using
x3 = Heave magnitude (double amplitude) (mm) strip theory as well as fluid finite element methods at
x3 slow speeds.
x3 = Non dimensional heave, x3 =
H
x4 = Roll magnitude (double amplitude) (rad) Svendsen and Madsen [4] on the other hand use a
simplified approach to examine the motions of a
x4 g rectangular cross-section vessel in pure beam seas at zero
x4 = Non dimensional roll, x4 =
ω2H speed, a similar situation to the experiments carried out
x4 in the current project. However, even this is a significant
x4 Norm = Normalised roll (rad/mm), x4 Norm = simplification of the complex problem of a landing craft
H
Δ = Ship model displacement (kg) operating in shallow water. Their work did consider
ω = Wave frequency (rad/s) extremely shallow water such as that being experienced
by a moored vessel.
1 INTRODUCTION Van Oortmerssen [2] suggests that there are two

principal effects of shallow water on motions. Firstly,
Landing craft are a maritime platform used by many the incident waves are influenced by the restricted depth,
Navies throughout the world. One particular role is to hence the wave forces and moments acting on the vessel
transport materiel from a mother ship, such as an LPD will be different. Secondly, the hydrodynamic
(Landing Platform, Dock) to shore [1]. In order to coefficients of the ship are changed by the close
achieve this activity the naval architect is typically proximity of the vessel to the sea floor. He states that the
limited to producing a hull form that resembles a flat influence of limited water depth can be first noticed at
bottomed, monohull vessel1. The landing craft also has approximately h/T=4, and can be considered significant
relatively high buoyancy for its principal parameters, at a ratio of 2.
thereby enabling a range of cargoes to be carried,
together with a relatively low draught which enables the Inglis and Price [5] also conducted an investigation
cargo to be delivered close to the shore. With this role in examining the motions of a slender vessel in shallow
mind it is imperative that the motion behaviour of a water. The model used in this numerical investigation
was fine form with an L/B ratio of 9 and B/T ratio of 3.5.
The results of this study suggest that one effect of a
1 reduction of water depth is a reduction in roll resonance
Alternative hull forms such as catamarans and
frequency.
hovercraft are possible, but not considered typical.
©2009: The Royal Institution of Naval Architects

Table 1.1 Test program (model scale values)

Condition Water Depth Nominal Nominal Run Numbers
Number h/T Wave Height Wave Frequencies
(mm) (mm) (Hz)
1 9.0 900 20 Preliminary Tests Only 4 to 34
2 9.0 900 20 0.5, 0.6, 0.7, 0.8, 0.9, 1.0, 1.1, 35 to 56
1.2, 1.3, 1.4, 1.5, 1.6
3 9.0 900 40 0.5, 0.6, 0.7, 0.8, 0.9, 1.0, 1.1, 57 to 81
1.2, 1.3, 1.4, 1.5, 1.6
4 9.0 900 60 0.5, 0.6, 0.7, 0.8, 0.9, 1.0, 1.1, 82 to 94
1.2, 1.3, 1.4, 1.5, 1.6
5 1.5 150 20 0.5, 0.6, 0.7, 0.8, 0.9, 1.0, 1.1, 95 to 116 and
1.2, 1.3, 1.4, 1.5, 1.6 156 to 159
6 1.5 150 40 0.5, 0.6, 0.7, 0.8, 0.9, 1.0, 1.1, 117 to 135 and
1.2, 1.3, 1.4, 1.5, 1.6 153 to 155
7 1.5 150 60 0.5, 0.6, 0.7, 0.8, 0.9, 1.0, 1.1, 135 to 152
1.2, 1.3, 1.4, 1.5, 1.6
Figure 1.1 Body plan view of the model.
The study by Inglis and Price did suggest that the The experiments were conducted in regular beam seas in
hydrodynamic damping coefficients may have been deep and shallow water for a range of wave heights.
underestimated; resulting in unrealistically high This current investigation forms part of a larger study
magnitude roll motions and this could be corrected by into the development of stability regulations for landing
considering additional fluid damping contributions. craft.
The research described above considers large and/or 2 TEST PROGRAM

slender vessels operating in a port environment such as
shipping channels. With this in mind, this paper The complete test program for the present study is shown
describes a set of model experiments that have been in Table 1.1. Note that all dimensions and results refer to
conducted at the Australian Maritime College (AMC) to model scale only.
investigate the influence of water depth on vessel
motions, in particular those associated with landing craft.

3 MODEL PARTICULARS acquisition cards and recorded on an HP computer. The

data acquisition process was controlled by Labview
The model was constructed at a scale of 1:10. Principal based software developed in-house. The digital video
particulars are provided in Table 3.1 and the body plan is motion data was recorded using Qualisys Track Manager
shown in Figure 3.1. Note that all dimensions and results software and then post-processed using a Microsoft
refer to model scale only. Excel spreadsheet developed in house.
4 FACILITY DETAILS 6 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
The Model Test Basin is situated on the Australian 6.1 ANALYSIS PROCEDURE
Maritime College campus in Launceston, Tasmania,
Australia. The basin is 35m long by 12m wide with a As the wavemaker did not always generate exactly the
variable water depth between 0 to 1.0m. The floor of the required wave height the results for the nominal wave
basin is level to within +/- 10mm from horizontal. heights were obtained by interpolation. The non
dimensional response from each run was plotted as a
Table 4.1 Model Principal Particulars function of wave height, as shown in Figure 6.1. The
Length overall LOA 2410 mm value at each of the nominal wave heights was extracted
Moulded beam B 638 mm for use in the frequency dependent plots.
Moulded depth D 272 mm
Draught T 100 mm The non-dimensional roll and heave motions from the
Displacement Δ 100.59 kg deep water tests are shown in Figures 6.2 and 6.3
Vertical centre of VCG 210 mm respectively. The error bars that are shown in these
gravity figures represent 5% error bars. The 5% value has been
Longitudinal centre LCG 1023 mm determined with experience from previous testing and
of gravity from the stated accuracy of the instruments that have
Radius of gyration in k 227 mm been used. This is the error associated with the model
roll experiment, and not with extrapolation to full scale.
The basin has a multi-element piston type wavemaker at 6.2 EFFECT OF WAVE HEIGHT ON MOTIONS IN
one end and a wave absorber at the other. DEEP WATER (h/T = 9.0)
The basin also has an eight camera three dimensional The effect of the wave height in deep water can be seen
digital video tracking system supplied and installed by in Figures 6.4 and 6.5 for the non dimensional roll and
Qualisys of Sweden. the non dimensional heave respectively. As can be seen,
there is a fair degree of non-linearity, particularly around
5 INSTRUMENTATION the roll resonance peak.
5.1 WAVE PROFILES 6.3 EFFECT OF WAVE HEIGHT ON MOTIONS IN

SHALLOW WATER (h/T = 1.5)
Water surface elevation was measured using capacitance
type wave probes through a multi-channel wave probe The vessel type that the model is based on performs a
monitor. large portion of its role in shallow water conditions. The
vessel’s response in these conditions is given in Figures
The two wave probes were both positioned 6.6 and 6.7. The water depth was 150mm model scale
approximately 500mm out from the side of the basin, the corresponding to a depth to draught ratio of 1.5.
first approximately 5.1m from the wavemaker and the
second transversely in line with the centre of the model. The effect of wave height in shallow water can also be
seen in Figures 6.6 and 6.7 for the non dimensional roll
5.2 MOTIONS and the non dimensional heave respectively. As with the
deep water there is some non-linearity. It is interesting to
The model’s motion was measured in all six degrees of note that the roll resonance peak is not apparent. This is
freedom by a non-contact digital video motion tracking assumed to be because the relationship between
system. The calibration of this system utilises a series of wavelength and frequency in shallow water is not the
16 permanent reference markers that have been surveyed same as that in deep water. Hence, the conventional
into position [6]. method of non dimensionalising the roll motion, based
on the deep water slope, may not be appropriate. Instead,
5.3 DATA ACQUISITION SYSTEM the results showing the normalised roll motion, obtained
by dividing roll magnitude by wave height are given in
The signals from the wave probes were digitised using Figure 6.8.
National Instruments PCI-6036E multifunction data

1.8
Non Dimensional Roll and Heave Response
h/T = 1.5
1.6
Wave Frequency = 0.9 Hz (model scale)
1.4 Roll
Heave
1.2
Non Dimensional Value
1.0
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.0
0 20 40 60 80
Wave Height mm (model scale)
Figure 6.1 Method used to obtain results at each nominal wave frequency.
3.5
Non Dimensional Roll Response
h/T = 9.0
Nominal Wave Height H = 20mm (model scale)
3.0
2.5
Non‐Dimensional Value
2.0
1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8
Wave Frequency Hz (model scale)
Figure 6.2 Non dimensional roll in deep water, nominal 20mm wave height.

1.2
Non Dimensional Heave Response
h/T = 9.0
1.0
0.8
Non‐Dimensional Value
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.0
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8
Figure 6.3 Non dimensional heave in deep water, nominal 20mm wave height.
3.5
h/T = 9.0
Various Nominal Wave Heights
3.0
Condition 2 - Nominal Wave Height = 20mm

2.5
2.0
1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8
Figure 6.4 Non dimensional roll in deep water.

1.2
h/T = 9.0
1.0

0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.0
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8
Figure 6.5 Non dimensional heave in deep water.
3.5
h/T = 1.5
3.0
2.5 Condition 7 - Nominal Wave Height = 60mm

Non dimensional value
2.0
1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8
Figure 6.6 Non dimensional roll response in shallow water.

1.2
h/T = 1.5
1.0

0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8
Figure 6.7 Non dimensional heave response in shallow water.
0.35
Normailised Roll Response
h/T = 1.5
0.30
0.25
roll magnitude / wave height
0.20
0.15
0.10
0.05
0.00
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8
Figure 6.8 Normalized roll response in shallow water.

0.35
h/T = 1.5 and 9.0
0.30
h/T = 1.5
h/T = 9.0
0.25
0.20
0.15
0.10
0.05
0.00
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8
Figure 6.9 Normalized roll response, nominal 20mm wave height.
0.35
h/T = 1.5 and 9.0
0.30
h/T = 1.5
h/T = 9.0
0.25
0.20
0.15
0.10
0.05
0.00
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8

0.35
h/T = 1.5 and 9.0
0.30
h/T = 1.5
h/T = 9.0
0.25
0.20
0.15
0.10
0.05
0.00
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8
1.2
h/T = 1.5 and 9.0
1.0
h/T = 1.5
h/T = 9.0
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8
Figure 6.12 Non dimensional heave response, nominal 20mm wave height.

1.2
h/T = 1.5 and 9.0
1.0
h/T = 1.5
h/T = 9.0
0.8
Non dimesnional value
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.0
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8
1.2
h/T = 1.5 and 9.0
1.0
h/T = 1.5
h/T = 9.0
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8

6.4 EFFECT OF WATER DEPTH
The effect of water depth on motions can be seen in

Figures 6.9 to 6.14. For these plots the roll motions have
been normalised as discussed above for convenient
comparison between water depths.
As can be seen, the magnitude of the peak roll response

is similar in the two water depths, however this occurs at
different frequencies. Hence, the vessel roll motions in
irregular waves would be expected to be significantly
different in shallow water compared to the motions in
deep water.
The heave motions are noticeably less in shallow water

for almost the complete frequency range. Again, this
means that the motions in irregular waves would be
significantly different in shallow water compared to deep
water.
7 CONCLUDING COMMENTS
Model experiments have been conducted at three

different wave heights in two water depths: deep,
corresponding to a depth to draught ratio of 9.0; and
shallow, corresponding to a depth to draught ratio of 1.5.
The influence of non-linearity on model motion,

particularly in roll, was evident, as was the effect of
water depth. It was shown that the motions in shallow
water were significantly different to those in deep water.
8 REFERENCES
1. Hopman, J (2000), The HNLMS Rotterdam – The

First RNLN LPD. How a long standing
requirement finally became a reality. Warship
2000 RINA London.
2. van Oortmerssen, G. (1976), The motions of a ship
in shallow water, Ocean Engineering. 3(4), pp.
221-255.
3. Andersen, P. (1979), Ship motions and sea loads in
restricted water depth, Ocean Engineering. 6(6),
pp. 557-569.
4. Svendsen, I.A. and P.A. Madsen (1981), The
dynamics of wave induced ship motions in shallow
water, Ocean Engineering. 8(5), pp. 443-479.
5. Inglis, R.B. and Price, W.G. (1980), Motions of
Ships in Shallow Water, Transactions, Royal
Institution of Naval Architects, pp. 269-284
6. Qualisys Track Manager - Marine Manual,
Qualisys Motion Capture Systems, 2005.

Final Format Ijsct 89

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

You might also like

Final Format Ijsct 89

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Final Format Ijsct 89

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Trans RINA, Vol 151, Part B1, Intl J Small Craft Tech, 2009 Jan-Jun

EFFECT OF WATER DEPTH ON MOTIONS IN BEAM SEAS FOR A TYPICAL

NOTATION landing craft is known both in deep water (i.e. close to

1 INTRODUCTION Van Oortmerssen [2] suggests that there are two

©2009: The Royal Institution of Naval Architects

Table 1.1 Test program (model scale values)

Figure 1.1 Body plan view of the model.

The research described above considers large and/or 2 TEST PROGRAM

©2009: The Royal Institution of Naval Architects

3 MODEL PARTICULARS acquisition cards and recorded on an HP computer. The

4 FACILITY DETAILS 6 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

5.1 WAVE PROFILES 6.3 EFFECT OF WAVE HEIGHT ON MOTIONS IN

©2009: The Royal Institution of Naval Architects

©2009: The Royal Institution of Naval Architects

Condition 3 - Nominal Wave Height = 40mm

Figure 6.4 Non dimensional roll in deep water.

©2009: The Royal Institution of Naval Architects

Condition 3 - Nominal Wave Height = 40mm

Condition 4 - Nominal Wave Height = 60mm

Figure 6.5 Non dimensional heave in deep water.

2.5 Condition 7 - Nominal Wave Height = 60mm

Figure 6.6 Non dimensional roll response in shallow water.

©2009: The Royal Institution of Naval Architects

Condition 6 - Nominal Wave Height = 40mm

Condition 7 - Nominal Wave Height = 60mm

Figure 6.7 Non dimensional heave response in shallow water.

Figure 6.8 Normalized roll response in shallow water.

©2009: The Royal Institution of Naval Architects

Figure 6.9 Normalized roll response, nominal 20mm wave height.

©2009: The Royal Institution of Naval Architects

Figure 6.11 Normalized roll response, nominal 60mm wave height.

©2009: The Royal Institution of Naval Architects

©2009: The Royal Institution of Naval Architects

6.4 EFFECT OF WATER DEPTH

The effect of water depth on motions can be seen in

As can be seen, the magnitude of the peak roll response

The heave motions are noticeably less in shallow water

Model experiments have been conducted at three

The influence of non-linearity on model motion,

1. Hopman, J (2000), The HNLMS Rotterdam – The

©2009: The Royal Institution of Naval Architects

You might also like