See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/283628790

Mathematical model for the manoeuvring ship motion in shallow water

Article in Journal of the Japan Society of Naval Architects and Ocean Engineers · January 1986

CITATIONS READS

86 990

1 author:

Yasuo Yoshimura
Hokkaido University
177 PUBLICATIONS 1,262 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Reduction of pitching motion and thrust generation View project

Designe and research on Sail equipped ship View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Yasuo Yoshimura on 01 June 2021.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

(Translated by Yasuo Yoshimura from original paper J. of KASNAJ vol. 200 pp.42-51, Mar.1976)

Mathematical Model for the Manoeuvring Ship Motion

in Shallow Water
[Application of MMG mathematical model to shallow water]

By Yasuo Yoshimura (member)

Hiratsuka R & D center of Sumitomo Heavy Industries, Ltd.

Summary

Manoeuvring behavior significantly changes according to the water depth. It is indispensable for
the examination of the safety in harbor navigation to clarify the characteristics of ship motion in shallow
water. After the full-scale trial of Esso Osaka, many kinds of model tests have been performed in deep
or shallow water, where the characteristics of hydrodynamic forces acting on hull or rudder have been
measured. However, these hydrodynamic data are not sufficient for the prediction of the manoeuvring
motion in shallow water, and more theoretical approaches as well as experimental data have been
desired.
In this report, the predicting technique of manoeuvring ship motion in shallow water is
investigated based on the well-known MMG’s mathematical mode1. Through the present study, the
following conclusions are obtained.
1）MMG’s mathematical model is also available for the prediction of the manoeuvring motion in
shallow water.
2）Predicted ship motions fairly agree with the observed motions in each water depth .
3）Sinkage and trim in shallow water can be easily predicted by the following simple forms proposed by
Tuck8) and presented here respectively.

S  d  C  
= 1.5    b  Fn2 
L  L  L B  
3 
T  d  C  
= 30.    b  Fn2 
L  
L L B  

where Fn = U hg , h: water depth

1. INTRODUCTION shallow water were also performed in many institutes, and

The manoeuvrability of ships in shallow water is quite
different from that in deep water, and many studies have
been conducted. Recently, the evaluation of navigation
safety in the port area has become stricter. It is desired to
establish the prediction method under such circumstances.
Meanwhile, after the full-scale trials of “Esso Osaka”,
many research and articles about the estimation of
manoeuvrability in shallow water, and model tests in
then the shallow water effects on forces acting on hull and
rudder have begun to be clarified. However, it is not
enough data to predict the manoeuvring ship motion in
shallow water, since the special equipment and enormous
experimental man-hours are required to measure the
hydrodynamic forces in shallow water.
In this report, based on the above situation, we tried to
apply the MMG model that was developed for the

- 41 -
mathematical model in deep water, to the expression of
manoeuvring motion in shallow water. As a result, it is
confirmed that the MMG model can be used with sufficient
accuracy for practical use by somewhat improvements and
using the coefficient of hydrodynamic forces at each water
depth.
In addition, the author investigated the sinkage and trim
of ship in various water depth, which is important for
manoeuvring in shallow water. For the prediction
mathematical model of the sinkage and trim, the author Fig.1 Arrangement of the false bottom
proposes the empirical forms by means of improving
Tuck's simple estimation formula8).
The test vessels used in this report is a Pure Car Carrier
(PCC), whose principal particulars are listed in Table 1.

Table 1 Principal particulars of the ship models.

Fig.2 Coordinate system

2. CAPTIVE MODEL TESTS AND center of gravity of ship, and xG represents the location of
MATHEMATICAL MODEL the C.G. in x-axis direction. X, Y and N represent the hydro
Captive model tests as well as free running model tests dynamic forces and moment acting on the mid-ship of
were carried out in the experimental model basin hull.These forces can be described as the following
Sumitomo Heavy Industries, Ltd. As shown in Fig.1, a components according to the concept of MMG model.
false bottom the size of 28m×15m was constructed in the
model basin. This bottom consists of 105 concrete panels X = XH + XR + XP 
 (2)
of 4m×1m. Each concrete panel was adjusted in the =
Y YHP + YR 
= ′
N N HP + N R 
direction of up and down with 4 bolts. This adjustment 
leads the overall bottom level within ±2 mm. The water
depth was adjusted by changing the water level of the where, the subscripts H, P and R refer to hull, propeller
basin. and rudder respectively according to the concept of MMG.
As for the mathematical model, equation of motion is
described using the coordinate system as shown in Fig. 2. 2.1 Forces and Moment Acting on Hull
X’H, Y’HP and N’HP are approximated by the following
m(u G − vG r ) = X  eq.(3) with β and r'. The coefficients of the polynomials

m(vG + u G r ) = Y 
(1) are called hydrodynamic derivatives.
I zz r = N − xG Y  Measured hull forces and moment obtained CMT are
shown in Fig.3 with three different water depth. (h/d=18.3,
where, m : mass of ship 1.5 and 1.2) In each figure, symbol marks show the
I ZZ : moment of inertia of ship in yaw motion measured data and the fitted curves show the identified
The notation of uG,vG and r are velocity components at hydrodynamic forces and moment using eq.(3).

- 42 -
 X H′ =−m′x uG′ + X 0′ + X ββ ′ β 2 + ( X β′ rr − m′y ) β r ′ The coefficients that are called hydrodynamic derivatives

are listed in Table 2. Added mass; mx and my were
+ X rr′ r ′2 + X βββ
′ r β 3 r ′ + X ββββ
′ β4 
 separately obtained by CAT (Constant Acceleration Teat)
′ =
YHP −m′y vG′ + Yβ′ β + (Yr′ − m′x ) r ′ + Yβββ ′ β3  (3)
 method9). Meanwhile, added moment of inertia; Jzz are
+ Yββ′ r β 2 r ′ + Yβ′rr β r ′2 + Yrrr
′ r ′3 
 obtained by PMM. my were also obtained by PMM and the
′ =
N HP ′ rG′ + N β′ β + N r′r ′ + N βββ
− J ZZ ′ β3  obtained value are almost the same as the results of CAT.
+ N ββ′ r β r ′ + N β′ rr β r ′ + N rrr
2 2
′ r′3 
 As for the change of XH , (X'βr-m'x) is dominant, and the
where β=-sin (v/U), r'=r(L/U)
-1 non-linearity at the large sway and turning motion that is
expressed by X'βββr becomes larger as the water depth
decreasing. As for YHP and NHP, they increase when water
Table 2 Hydrodynamic coefficients of mathematical model. depth becomes shallower.

2.2 Propeller Force

The component of propeller force XP is expressed as the
following formula using thrust deduction factor: tP.

2 (1 − t P ) KT ( DP2 Ld ) (1 − wP )
X P′ =
2
J2 (4)

where, KT =a1 + a2 J + a3 J 2 , J= (1 − wP ) u 2
nD P

0 a1, a2 and a3 are the coefficients of propeller open

－ characteristics and they are assumed to be unchanged
against the water depth. As for the wake fractions (1-wP) is
obtained from the measured characteristics as shown in the
upper part of Fig.5. It can be expressed using (1-wP0) that is
the (1-wP) at straight running.

{
1 − wP =1 − wP 0 1 − (1 − cos 2 β P ) (1 − β P )} (5)
1 − wP 0 =b1 + b2 J 0 + b3 J 2
0

where, β P= β − lP′ r ′ , J 0= (1 − wP 0 ) u nDP

2.3 Rudder Force

XR, YR, NR are expressed as the following formulas using
the rudder normal force FN.

X R′ =− {(1 − t R ) − (1 − t P ) CT δ } FN′ sin δ 

 (6)
YR′ =−(1 + aH ) FN′ cos δ 
′
NR = ′ ′ ′
−( xR + aH xH ) FN cos δ 


where, FN′ = FN ( ρ 2 ) LdU 2 , δ is rudder angle, xR

represents the location of rudder (=-L/2), and tR, aH, xH and
CTδ are the interactive force coefficients among hull and
rudder. In this model test, CTδ is assumed to be zero. These
coefficients can be obtained from constant rudder tests.
Among them, aH can be expressed as the following.

- 43 -
 Fig.3 Hydrodynamic force coefficients X'H, Y'HP and N'HP

a H = c1 + c2 J P + c3 J P2 (7) =
UR u R 2 + vR 2 
(9)

δ − tan −1 ( −vR uR ) 
αR =
As for the dependence of aH on ship motion, Fujino3)
uR strongly depends upon the propeller stream and can be
pointed out them, however the dependence becomes small
expressed as following forms2).
in the shallow water as mentioned after.
uR uε (1 − wP 0 )
=
Rudder normal force FN is expressed as the following.
2 (10)
  K  
× η  1 + κ  1 + 8 T2 − 1  + (1 − η )
 A  U 
2
  πJ  
FN′ =  R  fα  R  sin α R (8)
 Ld   U  where, η = DP H , (H: rudder height), κ = k x ε
Fig.6 shows the analyzed uR from the measurement of FN in
where, AR is rudder area. fα is the graduent of the lift coeffi-
rudder tests of straight towing. In this figure, each curve
cient and approximated as the function of rudder aspect
show the approximated characteristics of uR by eq.(10). As
ratio Λ.
the dependence of sway and turning motion on uR is small,
this characteristic is represented by that of straight running.
fα = 6.13Λ /(2.25 + Λ )
Meanwhile, vR can be analyzed from the rudder angle
δR where the rudder normal force becomes zero at the
UR and αR represent the rudder inflow velocity and angle
constant β and r' of CMT. The formula obtaining vR is the
respectively, they can be described as the followings.
- 44 -
 Fig.4 Hydrodynamic force coefficients X'R, Y'R and N'R
following.
vR = −U R sin δ R
The obtained vR are shown in the lower part of Fig.7.
This characteristic is almost linear when propeller is
removed and it is expressed as the following.
γ R ( β − lR′ r ′ )
−vR( without propeller ) =
Then the rudder inflow angle becomes,
δ − γ R (U uR )( β − lR′ r ′ )
α R( without propeller ) =
However, vR has some kind of non-linearity as shown in
Fig.7, and then, the analyzed characteristics are directly
used for the manoeuvring simulation.
3. SHALLOW WATER EFFECT
In this section, the shallow water effects on the hydro-
dynamic force coefficients are summarized comparing
from the previous researches3), 5), 6).
(11)
3.1 Shallow water effects on hydrodynamic derivatives
Measured added mass mx, my and Jzz are plotted by the
symbol “〇” in Fig. 8 (a). The horizontal axis is d/h (d:
draught of ship, h: water depth) which means the decrease
of water depth. Each vertical axis shows the ratio that is
(12)
divided by each value in deep water. These coefficients
increase as the water depth decreasing. The thick broken
line in each figure show the calculation result by the 3D
(13)
singularity method, which are almost in agreement with
measured data.
The shallow water effects on the linear damping
derivatives are shown in the Fig.8(b) and Fig.8(c). Each
vertical axis shows the ratio that divided by each value in
deep water. Y'β and N'β increase as the water depth
decreasing. The sway damping lever of hull that is (N'β /
Y'β) also shown in the lower figure, where it is decreasing
- 45 -

Fig.5 1-wP, aH and x'H for various propeller loads
Fig.6 uR/uP for various propeller loads
when the water depth becomes shallow. For the changes of
derivatives Y'r and N' r are plotted in Fig.8(c), where they
increase as the water depth decreasing. The yaw damping
- 46 -
lever of hull that is (N'r/(m'+m'x-Y'β)) is shown in the lower
figure of Fig.8(c), where it can be seen the increase as the
water depth
decreasing. As the result, stability lever increase as the
water depth decreasing.
3.2 Shallow water effects on the coefficients regarding
to rudder and propeller
The shallow water effect on (1-tP), (1-tR), aH and x'H are
shown in Fig.9(a) and Fig.9(b). Although (1-tP) and (1-tR)
are slightly decrease as the water depth decreasing, these
are assumed to be constant. Meanwhile, aH increases butx'H
decrease as the water depth decreasing. As for the value of
aH, it is larger than any other ships. This is caused by the
fact that the rudder horn is fixed on the main hull instead of
rudder. Then aH has the force component induced by horn
as well as the hull-rudder interaction force. This should be
noted when considering the shallow water effect of
hull-rudder interaction force.
Meanwhile, amplification factor of propeller stream on
rudder kx dose not so much change but ε increases as
shown in Fig.9(c).
As for the flow straightening factor γR does not change
when propeller is removed, but it once increases around
h/d=1.5 when propeller is working.
4. MANOEUVRING SIMULATIONS AND FREE-
RUNNING MODEL TESTS
In this section, the simulated manoeuvring motions are
validated by the results of free-runnning model tests.
Simulation is done using measured hydrodynamic
coefficients and derivatives as shown previously.
The comparisons of steady turning performances are
shown in Fig.11. Results of free-running model tests are
plotted by symbols and simulated results by dotted line,
respectively. From these comparisons, it is found that the
simulated results well agree with those of free-running
model tests. As for the shallow water effect on the
manoeuvring motion, turning speed particularly drift angle
(sway angle) reduces, and course stability becomes better
as the water depth decreasing.
The simulated turning trajectories and time histories are
compared in Fig.12 with the starboard 35° rudder angle.
The simulated results well agree with the results of free-
 Fig.7 u'R and v'R for various propeller loads s.

Fig.8 Shallow water effects on linear hydrodynamic derivatives

- 47 -
 Fig.9 Shallow water effects on interactive force coefficients
Fig.10 Shallow water effects on γR
running model tests.
In the comparisons of time history of rudder normal
force, the peak value after the steering motion decreases as
the water depth shallower. Regarding this point, it was
pointed out by Fujino et al.3) and it was difficult to simulate,
and it was thought to be a problem in the simulation in
shallow water. However, as shown in Fig.12, the simulated
rudder normal force can be well estimated at shallow water,
and it seems that the MMG concept can be also applied to
the manoeuvring ship motion in shallow water. The main
reason of the reduction of peak value of rudder normal
force comes from the reduction of decrease of effective
- 48 -
rudder inflow angle doe to the smaller drift angle at
shallow water condition as expressed by eq.(13).
5. SINKAGE AND TRIM IN SHALLW WATER
Another important issue in maneuverability in shallow
water is the sinkage and trim since they lead to the
dangerous situation in harbor navigation. This phenomenon
is called a squat. Fig. 13 shows the measured sinkage: S
and trim: T at the center of the hull when straight running.
In this figure, sinkage and trim are made non-dimensional
divided by ship length, respectively. Since the sinkage and
trim are also observed even in deep water, these data are
subtracted by those in deep water and shown the only
increments in the shallow water. Each horizontal axis
denotes Froude number against the water depth
( Fh = U Hg ), and the plus direction of sinkage and trim
are down and bow down respectively. The measured
characteristics of sinkage and trim increase as the
increasing of ship’s speed. Moreover, the magnitude may
depend on the fullness of ship. In Fig.13, the sinkage and
trim of wide-beam ship whose Cb/(L/B) is t0.217 and wice
larger than PCC are shown. From these comparisons, it is
found the sinkage and trim are also strongly depend on
Cb/(L/B).
 Fig.11 Comparison of steady turning characteristics, observed and simulated

As for the theoretical prediction of sinkage in open
7)
shallow water, Tuck showed using slender body theory
that it is proportional to Fh2 1 − Fh2 and fullness of
ship and proposed the following simple prediction
formula.
the same tendency can be seen from Fig.13. However,
such simple prediction formula as the sinkage cannot be
found in the previous research. Then, the author
identified and propose the following formula of the
increment of trim in open shallow water.

=S 0.13 (U 2∇ hL2 )
3
(14) T  d  C 
= 30.    b  Fh2 (15)
L  L  L B 
where, ▽ is displacement volume(ft ) and U is ship’s
3

speed (kt). Above formula can be rewritten as the Calculated trim are plotted in the lower part of Fig.13,
following. which shows that the well prediction can be obtained,
though the measured data are restricted as two ship
S  d  C 
= 1.5    b  Fh2 (14’) models. This formula together with eq.(14’) may become
L  L  L B 
useful for the prediction of squat in shallow water.
As the results, the increment of sinkage in shallow water
is theoretically proportional to Fh2, d/L and Cb/(L/B).
As for the increment of trim in shallow water, almost

- 49 -
 Fig.12 Comparison of 35° turning trajectories and ship motions, observed and simulated

6. CONCLUSION
In this report, the author tried to apply the MMG model
that was developed in deep water for the prediction of
manoeuvring motion in shallow water. In addition, the
author proposed the prediction formulas of sinkage and
trim of ship in shallow water. The concluding remarks are
summarized as the followings.
1) The proposed mathematical model based on MMG's
model is still available for the manoeuvring prediction
in shallow water and prediction accuracy is good.
2) Hydrodynamic force coefficients were obtained by the
captive model tests and found that they are affected by
the water depth. Although some of them can be
calculated, most of them must depend on the
measurement of model tests. Then the experimental
hydrodynamic force data in shallow water should be
provided.
3) Important sinkage and trim in shallow water can be
Fig.13 Comparison of sinkage and trim, observed and predicted. estimated by modified Tuck's eq.(14') as well as eq. (15)

- 50 -
 proposed here. 4) Yumuro, A., “A Study on Prediction Method for
Maneuvering Derivatives in Shallow Water”,
Acknowledgments: Some of this research was supported Technical Report of IHI, Vol.24, No.4, 1984, (in
by the project of the Japan Shipbuilding Research Japanese)
Association (RR742) in 1984. The author would like to
5) Kijima K., Murakami M., Katsuno T., Nakiri Y., “A
express thanks for the project and its leader Prof. Koyama
Study on the Ship Manoeuvring Characteristics in
in University of Tokyo. The preparation and construction
Shallow Water”, T.WJSNA, vol.69, pp.111-123, 1984,
of false bottom was advised by Prof. Kose in Hiroshima
University. The author would like to express my gratitude (in Japanese)

to him. 6) Hirano M., Takanashi J., Moriya S., Nakamura Y.,

“An Experimental Study on Maneuvering Hydro-
REFERENCES dynamic Forces in Shallow Water”, T.WJSNA, vol.69,
1) Crane Jr. C. L., “Maneuvering Trials of 280 000DWT pp.101-110, 1984, (in Japanese)
Tanker in Shallow and Deep Water”, TSNAME,
7) Tuck, E.O.: Shallow water flows past slenderbodies,
Vol.87, 1979.
J.Fluid Mechanics, Vol.26, part 1, 1966.
2) Kose K., Yumuro A. and Yoshimura Y. “Concrete of
8) Tuck, E.O. and Yaylor, P.J.: Shallow water problems
Mathematical model for ship manoeuvrability”, 3rd S.
on ship manoeuvrability, SNAJ, pp.27-80, 1981, (in in ship hydrodynamics, 8th Sympo. Naval Hydro-

Japanese) dynamics, 1970.

3) Fujino M., Ishiguro T. “A Study of the Mathematical 9) Obokata J., Yoshimura Y., Sugita M., Nagashima J.,
Model Describing Manoeuvring Motions in Shallow “Measurement of Added mass of Ship with
Water” J. of SNAJ, vol.156, pp.181-193, 1984, (in Unconventional Dimensions (Constant Accelerating
Japanese) Test (CAT)”, J.of KSNAJ, vol.201, pp.1-6, 1988, (in
Japanese)

- 51 -

View publication stats