Journal of Marine Science and Application

https://doi.org/10.1007/s11804-018-0010-z

RESEARCH ARTICLE

CFD Analysis of Ship-to-Ship Hydrodynamic Interaction

A. D. Wnęk 1 & Serge Sutulo 1 & C. Guedes Soares 1

Received: 1 March 2017 / Accepted: 16 May 2017

# Harbin Engineering University and Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2018

Abstract
A numerical study of ship-to-ship interaction forces is performed using a commercial CFD code, and the results are compared
with experimental data and with the results of a panel method analysis. Two ship models have been used in the interaction forces
analysis: a tug and a tanker, advancing parallel to each other with different lateral distances and two different values of the fluid
depth. Computations are carried out with four different flow models: inviscid and viscous flow with the free surface modeled as a
rigid wall and inviscid and viscous flow with the deformable free surface. A fair agreement was obtained with available
experimental data and results obtained by panel method. The influence of viscosity in the computations is found to be compar-
atively weak, while the wavemaking effects may be important, at small magnitude of the horizontal clearance.

Keywords Hydrodynamic interaction . Computational fluid dynamics (CFD) . Flow model . Comparative computations .
Ship-to-ship interaction . Shallow water

1 Introduction planning safe sea replenishment operations, some approaches

Although the majority of ships, especially the seagoing ones,
typically operate in more or less unbounded water areas and
methods for estimating hydrodynamic forces in free sailing
are of primary importance, not so rare are situations when
the vessels approach rigid boundaries or other objects closely
enough to make account for the hydrodynamic interaction
absolutely necessary for adequate modeling of the behavior
of these ships. These situations include sailing in canals and
other restricted areas, overtaking and encountering at small
lateral distances occurring in areas of intense ship traffic such
as haven approach channels, lightering operations, and
berthing and unberthing, entering locks.
The hydrodynamic interaction typically observed in the
form of somewhat unexpected suction, repulsion, or forced
yawing effects has been known to seafarers since long ago
but formerly there were no urgent necessity for predicting
actual values of the interaction forces and moments as good
seamanship practice of avoiding close proximity maneuvers at
a more or less tangible speed was sufficient. However,
to working out environmental maneuvering standards, needs
of expert assessments of certain maritime accidents, and, es-
pecially, necessity of adequate reproduction of the behavior of
ships on computerized bridge simulators made the hydrody-
namic interaction problem important enough to trigger multi-
ple experimental, theoretical, and numerical studies.
A rather comprehensive review of literature on the hydro-
dynamic interaction was presented by Sutulo and Guedes
Soares (2012), and here, emphasis will be given to more re-
cent contributions not available at the time of preparation of
the cited paper.
It should be noted that in some cases, the hydrodynamic
interaction is considered in a somewhat extended sense em-
bracing also interaction related to the sea waves action with
such effect as water flow in the gap between two ships moored
close to each other, wave sheltering effect, and influence of
interaction on ship motions in waves. These issues were
discussed by Faltinsen (2011) but the present review is dealing
exclusively with interaction in calm water caused by non-zero
speed of advance of at least one of involved vessels or by
some steady current.

* C. Guedes Soares 1.1 Experimental Studies

c.guedes.soares@centec.tecnico.ulisboa.pt

1
Centre for Marine Technology and Ocean Engineering (CENTEC),
Instituto Superior Técnico, Universidade de Lisboa, Av. Rovisco
Pais, 1049-001 Lisbon, Portugal
There exists a large group of recent contributions dedicated
mainly to experiments with scaled models although some of
them are complemented with CFD modeling. One of the most

sophisticated experimental studies was performed by Lataire
et al. (2011) in a shallow water tank equipped with two car-
riages one of which was two-coordinate. Over 2000 static and
dynamic tests were performed, and regression models appli-
cable to lightering and overtaking scenarios were devised.
Duffy and Renilson (2011) carried out a somewhat simpler
experiment measuring loads on a moored model when another
model was passing by at close distances.
Arslan et al. (2011) studied a less usual case of hydro-
dynamic interaction between two ships in the transverse
flow which corresponds to the case of ships moored stern
to pier and subject to a current along the pier. The exper-
iment was carried out in a circulating water tunnel with
cylindrical models representing the ship sections. In addi-
tion, 2D computations with the code Fluent using the
Smagorinsky LES model were performed demonstrating
qualitative agreement of the flow fields.
Some latest studies focused on working out empiric “uni-
versal” regression models for fast estimation of the interaction
forces (Chetvertakov et al. 2011).
This approach was brought to perfection by Gronarz (2011)
who proposed the so-called “hybrid regression” which result-
ed in a relatively simple algorithm for describing all interac-
tion loads on two ships moving parallel to each other with
various velocities and various length ratio values. Although,
the method seems quite elegant, it is not able to embrace cases
of non-parallel motion. Xu and Sun (2012) have used a novel
approach approximating ship-to-ship experimental data for
the overtaking and encountering parallel motion with an
artificial neural network.
Sano et al. (2012) have studied experimentally interaction
of a ship with the channel bank having created polynomial
regressions for the interaction forces followed by a rather in-
teresting local stability analysis. However, the used linearized
mathematical model raises certain doubts: the effects of the
heading and drift angles seem to be blended, and it is
overlooked that at nonzero balancing parameters, the surge
equation cannot be decoupled from the sway-yaw equations
even in the linear approximation. Another linear regression
was obtained by Ibaragi et al. (2012) for the ship-to-bank
interaction, and this study seems also to suffer from mixed
effects of the heading and drift.
Probably, impossibility of creation of universal multifactor
regression models valid for arbitrary relative motion of
interacting ship and the desire to have a very fast estimator
stimulated the appearance of ultimately simple interaction
models or the so-called “field theory” based on the concept
of zones of higher and lower pressure around the ship’s hull
(McArthur 2011; Maxwell 2011). This concept can be useful
in training as it gives a simple explanation, e.g., for the bank
suction and rejection but, obviously, it is impossible to expect
reasonable quantitative predictions with such simplistic
method.
Journal of Marine Science and Application
1.2 Potential Codes
As long as empiric methods practically are not capable to
account for all possible combinations of mutual positions
and motions of interacting objects, numerical methods were
considered as alternative. To be used online, a method must be
sufficiently fast which can only be achieved in the case of
boundary element potential algorithms.
Sutulo and Guedes Soares (2008) developed a double-body
code which is based on the method of Hess and Smith (1964).
Being relatively fast and flexible, the code is appropriate for
online computations in ship simulators of the interaction
forces for arbitrary number of ship hulls with arbitrary relative
positions and motion. In the beginning, the algorithm was
used only for deep waters. Later, it was extended to cover
the cases of the flat bed shallow water and arbitrary shape of
the bottom and banks (Zhou et al. 2010). The algorithm was
also combined with the maneuvering simulation code and was
used to simulate motion of two ships in overtaking maneuver
(Sutulo and Guedes Soares 2009).
Yasukawa and Yoshida (2011) have modeled two Wigley
hulls advancing at close proximity with the lifting surface
vortex panel method. Effect of thickness was completely
neglected. Some of the studied cases were for one of the hulls
deflected by 5 or 10°. Obviously, effects of the nonzero drift
angle and of the changed configuration were then blended.
Skejić et al. (2011) used the slender-body developed by
Tuck and Newman (1974) for estimating interaction between
a ship maneuvering around a fixed or freely drifting cargo
storage facility of hexagonal shape. Qualitatively satisfactory
results were obtained in spite of poor applicability of the
slender-ship concept to this case. However, Xiang et al.
(2011) discovered that the slender-body theory typically
overpredicts the interaction forces compared to the results
obtained with a 3D panel code developed earlier by Xiang
and Faltinsen (2010).
Van der Molen et al. (2011) estimated forces in a moored
ship induced by a passing by one using a finite-Froude-
number panel method.
Von Graefe et al. (2015) applied the Rankine source meth-
od to the interaction between a container ship and a feeder
vessel. A similar method, in a more general formulation
comprising also effects caused by incoming waves was
applied to two Wigley hulls in parallel motion by Yuan et al.
(2015) but that study was more focused on interaction effect in
the seakeeping sense.
Perspectives for preferable application of the double-body
potential-flow model for modeling interaction loads were also
outlined by Pinkster (2016) who suggested a multi-domain
variation of the method facilitating computations in the case
of complex bank and fairway configurations. In (Van
Hoydonck et al. 2016), the potential code ROPES was thor-
oughly validated for two hull forms in shallow water and with
A.D. Wnęk et al.: CFD Analysis of Ship-to-Ship Hydrodynamic Interaction
possible presence of tank walls. It was found that the code is
able to predict reliably interaction forces in encounter
maneuvers with certain underestimation of peak values. The
latter inspired a suggestion to introduce appropriate empiric
corrections.
Sutulo et al. (2012) presented a validation of the potential
interaction code against experimental results that were obtain-
ed in the towing tank for a tug operating near a large vessel.
The comparisons of the results corresponding only to parallel
motion and equal speeds showed good agreement with exper-
iments for the sway force and yaw moment in most cases.
Large discrepancies were, however, noticed at very small dis-
tances between the ship sidewalls which were attributed to the
influence of viscosity and/or wavemaking effects neglected by
the double-body potential code.
Recently, Kadri and Weihs (2015) have revisited the
slender-body theory applying it to the problem interaction
of two bodies of revolution in parallel motion in unbound-
ed fluid. The authors have compared their numerical re-
sults with classic experimental data obtained by Newton
(1960). The authors focused on obtaining higher-order
solutions and demonstrated that they provide better agree-
ment with experiments. The slender-body technique may
result in very fast algorithms but is not able to properly
account for the specifics of shapes of interacting bodies
that may become important in very close proximity.
1.3 Application of Field Computational Methods
Lately, a number of publications were dedicated to application
of various CFD codes implementing the Reynolds-averaged
Navier–Stokes (RANS) model. Such codes cannot be applied
directly in maneuvering simulations but they are very impor-
tant for acquiring better insight into the details of the flow and
can serve as a substitute for physical experimentation.
Benedict et al. (2011) presented a comprehensive study
emphasizing that “the implementation into simulators requires
a holistic model valid for the entire range of parameter com-
binations”. To handle the most general cases with the CFD,
the so-called overset method using overlapping grids was de-
veloped on the basis of the finite volume and level-set tech-
niques. However, most of the results refer to the parallel mo-
tion where they were compared with the experimental data
showing rather good overall (over the range of instantaneous
stagger in the overtaking) agreement though very large dis-
agreement could be present at some specific relative positions.
The crossing motion case was studied only numerically using
the “transformed space”, i.e., reversing the flow around the
larger vessel.
Yang et al. (2011) studied Wigley and KVLCC2 hulls by
means of the commercial code FLUENT, and the RANS re-
sults were compared with those obtained with the potential
flow method developed by Xiang and Faltinsen (2010).
Agreement in the passing by maneuver for two identical
Wigley hulls at a low Froude number was perfect. The
RANS computations with the KVLCC2 forms were carried
out for the Froude number values 0.037 and 0.055. Zhang and
Zou (2011) have studied the interaction of two ships (KCS and
Osaka types) in encountering and overtaking in a shallow
canal with the code FLUENT using the layering method of
dynamic meshing. The sway force and yaw moment coeffi-
cients were computed for Fn = 0.04, 0.08 and for various
values of the canal width, relative depth, and lateral distance
to the bank.
Sadat-Hosseini et al. (2011) performed CFD computations
of the interaction between two tanker models (KVLCC2 and
Aframax) advancing with the same speed in shallow water.
The in-house RANS code CFDShip-Iowa adapted to
multi-object configurations was used, and results of the com-
putations were compared to the towing tank measurements.
The overall number of grid points exceeded 8 × 106, and the
Froude number varied from 0.046 to 0.06, i.e., was very small
but the free-surface effects, though not very significant, were
captured by the level-set method. The agreement between
measured and computed values was rather large and in most
cases varied from 30% to 200% but it must be also noted that
measured absolute values of the loads were very small for 3–
4 m models, due to very small velocities.
Much better agreement was reached by Simonsen et al.
(2011) who applied the commercial code Star CCM+ for study-
ing interaction between a tanker ship and a tug in deep water
using an unstructured grid in coarse (1.8 × 106 cells), medium,
and fine (8.9 × 106 cells) variants. The isotropic k − ε/k − ω
SST turbulence model with wall functions was used.
Satisfactory and even good agreement with the tank data was
demonstrated for parallel motion and also for the tug’s relative
heading 20°, bow inwards. It must be noted that in some cases,
much better agreement was reached with the coarse grid than
with more refined ones, which probably is related to the fact
that monotone convergence over the grid refinement was not
quite certain.
Zou and Larsson (2012) studied interaction between an
Aframax tanker and a KVLCC2 type ship using the finite-
volume RANS solver XCHAP. Only the case of parallel
centerplanes and equal velocities was considered. The
wavemaking was neglected, and the double-body model was
used. Not only the hulls but also the rudders and propellers
were modeled with the overall number of cells reaching 5.5 ×
106. The computed results were validated against available
independent computational and experimental data. While the
agreement with the CFD results obtained at the Iowa
University is always good, this is much less so when it goes
about comparison with the tank data: the discrepancies in the
sway force and yaw moment reached 100% and even more.
Nikushchenko et al. (2012) have presented data about interac-
tion forces and moments in parallel steady motion computed

for two Wigley hulls using three commercial codes: ANSYS
Fluent (data presented for the surge force only), NUMECA
FINE/Marine, and Star CCM+. The agreement between re-
sults obtained with different codes varied from quite good to
relatively large (30%–50%) discrepancies depending on the
component and on relative position of the hulls. Some devel-
opment of these studies for the KCS container ship in over-
taking maneuver at relatively high (up to 0.26) values of the
Froude number and using different turbulence models was
presented by Nikushchenko and Zubova (2015).
Fonfach et al. (2011) used commercial CFD codes to model
the flow between the same tug and tanker forms as studied in
(Sutulo et al. 2012) using four different flow models with
viscous or inviscid fluid and with or without wavemaking.
In that study, viscous flow was modeled for the full-scale
Reynolds numbers. The obtained data showed that, likely,
account for the free-surface effects is more important than that
of viscosity. However, it must be emphasized that in general,
the results of the cited reference are harder to assess and
discuss as computations were performed using two different
commercial codes with different grids and different turbulence
models so that effects of those factors were mixed with the
effect of the flow model per se. In addition, viscous
computations were performed for the full scale that made
comparisons with the tank experimental data less
meaningful. In many cases, iterative convergence was not
achieved. As result, the conclusions, presented there, even if
they happened to be correct, must be viewed as uncertain
let alone any quantitative assessments.
In the paper by Sian et al. (2016) interaction of an LNG
carrier with a ship of Series 60 hull was studied in a towing
tank and with the commercial CFD code Fluent V15 for the
case of parallel overtaking motion in a shallow canal was con-
sidered. The SST k − ωturbulence model was used, and all re-
ported computations were performed with 2Mcells. The exper-
imental and numerical results showed satisfactory agreement
with some under-prediction (from slight to moderate) of the
sway force and some over-prediction for the yaw moment
while data for the surge force were only presented for few
cases. In the contribution (Toxopeous and Bhawsinka 2016),
interaction effects on a full-bodied ship entering a lock were
predicted using the in-house CFD code ReFRESCO, validated
with the scaled-model experimental data and compared with
predictions obtained with the in-house double-body potential
flow code ROPES. In the CFD modeling, a combined sliding
and deforming grid approach was used but the free-surface
effects were neglected as the maximum Froude number 0.026
(or 0.091 when based on the water depth) was considered small
enough for application of the rigid-wall condition. The SST k
− ωturbulence model was applied and wall functions were used
for modeling the flow close to the hull surface. Two grids with
1.6 and 4.6 Mcells were applied. The panel method
computations were performed using 1650 panels on the hull
Journal of Marine Science and Application
and 2091 panels on the lock walls. Agreement with the
experimental data was demonstrated to vary from reasonable
to good, especially at smaller time steps. Refinement of the grid
in RANS computations improved agreement for the surge force
but worsened it for the sway force. The potential flow model in
most cases heavily underpredicted the magnitudes of the sway
force and of the yaw moment.
Yuan and Incecik (2016) described results of application of
the in-house potential flow method MHydro. Unlike many
other potential interaction codes, this code accounts for
wavemaking effects applying the linear steady flow
free-surface condition which is quite adequate for the
ship-bank interaction but much less so for the overtaking ma-
neuver with substantial difference of velocities of the
interacting ship. Comparisons with tank data, two CFD codes
and the double-body potential code ROPES did not show any
definite patterns. For instance, while the code MHydro pre-
dicts the sway interaction force better than other codes, it fails
to predict the yaw moment.
A very comprehensive attempt to investigate capabilities of
various interaction prediction methods was undertaken by Van
Hoydonck et al. (2015) who compared tank results for a
KVLCC2 model with those obtained with the CFD codes
Re FRESCO and ISIS-CFD and with the potential code
ROPES mentioned in the previous subsection. The Froude
number was 0.055, and the Reynolds number was 1.5 × 106
(model scale). In some ReFRESCO computations, not only
the hull but also the rudder and the propeller (on the body
force level) were modeled. The overall number of cells varied
from 2.9 to 34.7Mcells. Even for the finest grid, no interaction
convergence was achieved with oscillating deviations
reaching 6.6% in sway interaction force, and for the yaw mo-
ment, these deviations were even much larger than the average
value. Also, practically, no convergence over the grid density
was reached, especially for the surge force. Most of computa-
tions with the code ISIS-CFD were carried out for 16M cells.
The grid convergence studies carried out for four grids with
the number of cells varying from 5 to 29.7 M showed better
trends than in the case of ReFRESCO but uncertainty at 16M
cells is not quite excluded. Comparisons between experimen-
tal responses and those obtained with various codes look rath-
er disappointing in the sense that no one of the codes was able
to predict reliably all components, and the divergences are
often significant reaching 50%, 100%, and even 200%.
Also, it must be noted that the observed influence of the pro-
peller was substantially stronger than could be predicted with
the potential flow method (Sutulo and Guedes Soares 2012).
Shevchuk et al. (2016) have performed a thorough numer-
ical study of the flow between the ship hull and the bottom of a
shallow canal with an in-house CFD code based on the
OpenFoam software. In particular, it was found that at very
small underkeel gaps the boundary layers on the hull and on
the bottom are fused which leads to an additional pressure
A.D. Wnęk et al.: CFD Analysis of Ship-to-Ship Hydrodynamic Interaction

drop and intensifies the squat. Besides the more or less usual Table 1 Main characteristics of the ship
RANS modeling, a hybrid (RANS+LES) closure was applied Characteristics Tug (ship 1) Tanker (ship 2)
with a much finer grid (13 instead of 4Mcells) and then
self-sustained motions of the ship in heave and pitch caused Full scale Model Full scale Model
by the unsteady flow separation were captured. However, that
Length (o.a.)/m 29.5 1.18 189.5 7.58
does not change substantially the time averaged values of the
Length (p.p.)/m 25.6 1.024 186.2 7.44
sinkage and trim.
Breadth/m 11.0 0.44 31.6 1.26
Rattanasiri et al. (2014) applied the commercial code
Draft/m 4.6 0.184 10.3 0.41
ANSYS CFX to a less common problem of hydrodynamic
interaction between several autonomous underwater vehicle Displacement/m3 649.0 0.0416 49,197.0 3.15
operating in tight formations. Numerical results were com-
pared to experimental ones, and special attention was paid to
larger tanker model (ship 2 or tanker) at the scale 1:25. The
effects of alteration of resistance and to possible gains that can
main characteristics of the vessels in two scales are presented
be achieved on optimized configurations.The presented re-
in Table 1 and their hull forms are outlined in Fig. 1.
view of the published results rather clearly demonstrates that
Considered were two values of the water depth given in
so far, in spite of considerable efforts, it has not been possible
Table 2, and corresponding to the conditions of the tank tests
to obtain definite and crisp estimates of possible discrepancies
is described in (Sutulo et al. 2012), where also all necessary
between predictions of hydrodynamic interaction loads ob-
details about the experimental setup are given. Two ship
tained with various methods, and the performed comparative
lengths are presented in Table 1, the length overall (o.a.),
studies are not sufficient and must be continued.
and the length between perpendiculars (p.p.).
As result, it was decided to revisit one of the scenarios
The axes Cxyz were linked to each ship with the x-axis
considered earlier and perform thorough comparative compu-
pointing forward, y-axis—to the starboard, and the z-axis—
tations with the recognized commercial code Star CCM+.
downwards. The origin was defined as the intersection of the
Although the scenario covers the cases studied in (Sutulo
centerplane, midship plane, and waterplane. The both
et al. 2012) and (Fonfach et al. 2011), the present study is
centerplanes were remaining parallel in the present study,
quite independent and original and is aiming at obtaining
and the position of the tug relative to the tanker was described
more credible data on relative importance of accounting for
by location of the origin of the tug’s frame in the body axes of
wavemaking and viscous effects in interaction load prediction.
the tanker, i.e., by its longitudinal stagger ξand the signed
Special attention was paid to appropriate choice of computa-
lateral distance ηbetween the centerplanes which is always
tional domains and grids, to selection of a single turbulence
negative for a tug located at the port side from the tanker.
model, and to convergence studies. At each interaction con-
The following nondimensional position parameters will be
figuration, CFD computations were performed for four possi- 2 / L2, 2 / B2, where the subscript 2
used further:
ble combinations formed by accounting or non-accounting for
means the ship number associated with the tanker. It is clear
viscosity and wavemaking. In addition, experimental and pan-
that ξ′ = 0 when the midship planes of the both vessels coin-
el method data are also shown for comparisons. To avoid any
cide, and ξ′ = 1 means that the midship of the tug coincides
ambiguities, it should be taken into account that through the
with the fore perpendicular of the tanker (Fig. 2).
present paper, the term “Free Surface case” means the case
Due to specifics of the interaction configuration character-
when the actual kinematic and dynamic boundary conditions
ized by a large difference in the dimensions of the interacting
on the free surface are met and the wavemaking effects are
ships, the interaction forces of surge X, sway Y, and the
modeled. This is opposed to the “Rigid Wall” case when the
non-penetration (and free-slip when the viscosity is present)
condition is applied on the free surface of the fluid and all
wavemaking is neglected. The main purpose of the study is
to try to demonstrate relative importance of purely inertial
forces (provided by the double-body potential theory) and of
influence of viscosity and wavemaking in problems of hydro-
dynamic interactions.

2 Ship Models and Interaction Configuration

Computations of the interaction forces were performed on two

ships: a smaller tug model (designated as ship 1 or tug) and a Fig. 1 Tug (top) and tanker (bottom) hull forms (different scales)

Table 2 Depth of the ship
Absolute depth in Depth [m] relative to draft of:
full scale/m
Tug T1 Tanker T2
H1 = 12.25 2.66 1.19
H2 = 15.57 3.38 1.51
interaction yaw moment N, were only computed for the small-
er ship (tug). Each interaction force was obtained as the dif-
ference between its total values obtained in presence and in
absence of the interacting large ship. All the forces and mo-
ments were non-dimensionalized as: X ′ = 2X/(ρAV2), Y ′ = 2Y/
(ρAV2), N ′ = 2N/(ρALV2), where ρ is the water density, A ¼
p ffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
3
∇ 1 ∇ 2 is the reference area, ∇ is the ship displacement, and L
is the length between perpendiculars. The subscripts 1 and 2
here and further correspond to the tug and tanker respectively.
Computations were carried out for two different speed
values as shown in Table 3, where standard definitions for
the Froude number based on the ship length and water depth
pffiffiffiffiffiffi pffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
H are used, i.e., Fn ¼ V= gL and FnH ¼ V= gH respec-
tively with g being the magnitude of the gravity acceleration.
No results for the loads in heave, roll, and pitch are pre-
sented in this paper as, first, they are less important in inter-
action scenarios, and, second, the authors did not possess any
experimental data for them.
3 Problem Formulation
3.1 Computational Domain
The finite computational domain has the shape of a parallele-
piped (Fig. 3) whose transverse section and location of the
hulls corresponded to the actual tank layout and had longitu-
dinal extensions: 2.5L2 to the front of the larger ship and 4L2
Fig. 2 Relative position of two ship models in the horizontal and
transverse planes: left: ξ' = 0.014, H1 = 0.49 m, η' = − 1.42, − 1.97; right:
ξ' = 0.62, H2 = 0.623 m, η' = − 1.36, − 1.4
Journal of Marine Science and Application
behind it. The depth was defined equal to H1 or H2 (depending
on the case) in model scale from the undisturbed free surface.
In the case of the deformable free surface handled with the two
phase flow model, the air layer extended 0.1L2 up from the
still water-free surface. The width of the domain was always
8 m which is not arbitrary but is the actual width of the towing
tank used in the tests described in (Sutulo et al. 2012). Also,
exactly as it was in the tank tests, the transverse location of the
smaller ship was in the central longitudinal plane of the do-
main or tank while the larger model was shifted in the lateral
direction to set the required distance |η| between the
centerplanes of the ship hulls.
3.2 Governing Equations, Turbulence Model
and Boundary Conditions
The standard Reynolds-averaged Navier–Stokes equations
were applied in the whole computational domain and used
for the both flow phases:
  !
∂ u u
∂ui i j 1 ∂p ∂τ ij
þ ¼ Fi− þ ð1Þ
∂t ∂x j ρ ∂xi ∂x j
where t is the current time; Fi are components of the volumet-
ric force which is only here represented by the vertical gravity
force; ui are the components of the averaged fluid velocity; xi
are the Cartesian coordinates; ρ is the water or air density; p is
the averaged pressure; and τ ij are the turbulent stresses
disappearing when the inviscid fluid model is considered
and the momentum equation becomes the Euler equation.
Obviously, this equation must be complemented with the
continuity equation
∂u j
¼0 ð2Þ
∂x j
and with the closing equations representing the turbulence
model.
Although the review presented in the Introduction indicates
that the SST k − ω turbulence model was preferred by most
researchers, no solid explanations of this choice for interaction
problems were presented. That is why, an auxiliary compara-
tive study performed for the smallest water depth H1 and lat-
eral distance ξ′ = 1.36 with account for the deformable free
surface with the following turbulence models:
1) SST k − ω model without transition model (fully
turbulent)
2) SSTk − ω model with the Turbulence Suppression transi-
tion model
3) SST k − ω model with the γ − Reθ transition model
4) k − ε model
A.D. Wnęk et al.: CFD Analysis of Ship-to-Ship Hydrodynamic Interaction

Table 3 Speed of the ships

Speed Froude number based on: Reynolds number

Full scale/kn Model scale/(m s−1) L1 L2 H1 H2 Full scale Model scale

4 2.06 0.412 0.13 0.048 0.188 0.167 5.3 × 107 4.2 × 105
7
6 3.09 0.618 0.195 0.072 0.282 0.25 7.9 × 10 6.3 × 105

The Turbulence suppression model allows the user to mim-
ic the effect of transition from the laminar to turbulent flow if
the location of transition is known priori while the γ − Reθ
model is determining that location automatically and therefore
is used more often. In all variants, the SST model requires a
finer mesh with an increased number of mesh cells around the
surface to capture the viscous sublayer effects which result in a
significantly larger computation time. It was found that while
the force/moment coefficients obtained with various turbu-
lence models varied insignificantly, the speed of iterative con-
vergence turned out rather different (Fig. 4) with somewhat
better behavior for the k − ε model which pre-determined the
final choice as the required computations are very time-
consuming.
Hence, the main set of computations was performed using
the k − ε turbulence model described by:
   
∂ðρkÞ ∂ ρu j k ∂ μ ∂k
þ ¼ μþ t þ 2μt S ij S ij −ρε
∂t ∂x j ∂x j σk ∂x j
& Air–water separation surface: the non-penetration condi-
tion for the rigid-wall model (RW) or the velocity and
pressure continuity otherwise;
& Hull surface: no-slip condition (zero velocity) for the vis-
cous fluid model and non-penetration condition for the
inviscid fluid.
Of course, in computations with the inviscid fluid, the tur-
bulent stresses τ ij vanishes, and the RANS (1) reduce to the
Euler equations, and part of the boundary conditions are sim-
plified accordingly.
3.3 Computational Grid
The final meshes adopted for the present study were generated
after a number of comparative computations, and they were of
the same type as adopted in Wnęk and Guedes Soares (2015).
ð3Þ Although in general, inviscid flow computations allow much

and
   
∂ðρεÞ ∂ ρu j ε ∂ μt ∂ε
þ ¼ μþ
∂t ∂x j ∂x j σε ∂x j ð4Þ
ε ε2
þ2C 1ε μt S ij S ij −C 2ε ρ
k k
where k is a turbulent kinematic energy; ε is a turbulent dissi-
pation rate; μ is the fluid viscosity; μt is the dynamic turbulent
viscosity, Sij is a component of a fluid element deformation
rate, with i, j = 1, 2, 3, and σk, σε, C1ε, C2ε are the model
constants, as presented by Versteeg and Malalasekra (2007).
As the considered problem was steady, the reversed flow
was modeled with the following boundary conditions:

& Inlet plane: the incoming homogenous flow velocity as

defined in Table 3; undisturbed free surface;
& Outlet plane: pressure equal to the hydrostatic pressure in
the water domain and atmospheric pressure in the air;
& Bottom and sidewalls: the non-penetration condition and
zero shear stresses;

Fig. 3 Computational domain: the horizontal plane view
Fig. 4 Surge force X convergence plots for viscous flow with free
surface; η' = − 1.36, H1 = 0.49 m; the k - ε model (top); the SST model
without transition (upper middle), the SST model with turbulence
suppression (lower middle), the SST model with γ - Reθ transition
(bottom)

coarser grids than the full RANS modeling, in this particular
study, it was decided to apply as similar grids as possible in all
flow models to exclude the factor of approximation of the hull
surfaces. The finally adopted hexahedral mesh counted
around 0.65 × 106 cells for the inviscid flow without free sur-
face and 0.9 × 106 cells when the viscosity was accounted for.
In the inviscid flow case, the same mesh was kept except that
denser prismatic layers were removed in the vicinity of the
hull. Also, in the case of wavemaking computations when the
two-phase flow was modeled, the meshes were somewhat
larger counting about 1.6 × 106 cells for inviscid flow and
about 2.3 × 106 cells for viscous one because of additional
meshing above the undisturbed free surface. The exact num-
ber of cells also somewhat depended on the lateral distance
between the two hulls. In the viscous flow cases, 14 prismatic
layers on the surface of the tug hull were generated with the
first layer’s thickness proportional to the dimensionless wall
distance y+ ≈ 1 , and the so-called “all-y+ wall treatment” op-
tion (STAR CCM+ User Manual 2014) was activated which is
emulating the wall-function approach for coarse meshes and is
resolving the viscous sublayer for fine meshes The mesh was
also refined in the free-surface region (Figs. 5 and 6).
Table 4 presents some results of the mesh refinement con-
vergence study for the viscous two-phase flow for the smaller
depth H1, dimensionless longitudinal stagger ξ′ = 0.014, and
for the dimensionless lateral distance |η′| = 1.47. The mesh size
was being reduced until the convergence was captured with
reasonable certainty. Unfortunately, it turned out impossible to
reach rather definite convergence for the smallest distance
|η′| = 1.36 with the available resources which makes estimates
for smallest distances less certain. However, in view of rather
poor results of the grid convergence study presented in (Van
Hoydonck et al. 2015) for even much finer grids, this is not
surprising and indicates that the interaction problem is espe-
cially sensitive to the grid refinement and studies in that di-
rection must continue.
3.4 Time-Domain Convergence Studies and General
Remarks
The code Star CCM+ was applied in this study in the unsteady
mode presuming settling of the final steady regime. For the
purpose of the time-domain convergence studies, simulations
Fig. 5 Hexahedral mesh on the surface of the models
Journal of Marine Science and Application
Fig. 6 Hexahedral mesh in the vicinity of the tug model and the free
surface elevation
corresponding to the 40 s duration with the time step 0.01 s
(selected after preliminary tests) and with ten iterations for
each step were carried out. The minimum convergence crite-
rion of 1.0 × 10−4 relative error for all scalars was easily ful-
filled in all the cases with the rigid flat-free surface and all
forces of interest attained steady values. Typically, conver-
gence was reached after 20,000 iterations; however, in some
cases 40,000 iterations turned out necessary (Figs. 7 and 8).
In the case of deformable free-surface simulations for vis-
cid and inviscid flow two-phase flow, the convergence was
more difficult to achieve. Values of the forces only stabilized
sufficiently after more than 50,000 iterations (Fig. 8) and even
more for some cases.
The most serious convergence difficulties were met at the
larger depth H2, when the smaller model was located in the
wake of the larger one (Fig. 9). Apparently, the main cause of
poor decay of oscillations was the almost one-dimensional
propagation of induced waves in the shallow water. Those
waves have wavelengths comparable to the length of the larg-
er ship and contain a lot of energy generated by the impulsive
start of the ships.
All computations were carried out for model-scale values
of the Reynolds number as indicated in Table 3 The used
hardware was represented by a cluster with 8 CPUs, Intel®
Xeon® E5420, 4 cores each, clock frequency 2.50 GHz and
with 16GB of RAM available.
4 Results
4.1 Interaction Forces
All CFD computations were performed for exactly the same
conditions for which experimental values were available and
also they were carried out for the isolated tug which was
necessary to get the pure interaction loads. It is, however, clear
that due to the flow symmetry, the own load was non-zero for
only the surge component.
The dimensionless values for the forces and moments are
presented in Fig. 10 for the depth H1 and in Fig. 11 for the
depth H2 in the form of graphs as functions of the relative
lateral distance η′. Besides, the isolated symbols correspond-
ing to four different flow models and to the experimental data,
presented are solid lines representing the data obtained with
A.D. Wnęk et al.: CFD Analysis of Ship-to-Ship Hydrodynamic Interaction
Table 4 Mesh refinement study
X′ Y′
CFD mesh 1.85 × 106 − 0.0117 0.0314
CFD mesh 1.9 × 106 − 0.0115 0.0291
CFD mesh 2.1 × 106 − 0.00651 0.0302
CFD mesh 2.4 × 106 − 0.00974 0.0291
CFD mesh 3.3 × 106 − 0.01002 0.0291
CFD mesh 3.8 × 106 − 0.00981 0.0291
the panel method. The results for the viscous flow with free
surface are presented with error bars representing the maxi-
mum and minimum force or moment values present on the
final interval of the iterative convergence plots. Similar error
bars are not shown for the case of inviscid flow with the free
surface in order to not congest the graphs too much, although
in those cases, the iterative convergence was even more diffi-
cult to achieve, likely, because of the absence of natural dis-
sipation. It should be emphasized that the thus estimated un-
certainty caused by poor iterative convergence is probably
exaggerated as the physical flow itself can keep oscillatory
character which is probably typical for flows in narrow gaps
with the wavemaking effects, and in such cases time-averaged
values must be taken as estimates anyway. Although the au-
thors do not possess experimental time histories, this is indi-
rectly confirmed by the fact that absence of iterative conver-
gence was also observed by Van Hoydonck et al. (2015).
While the graphs provide general view of the dependence
of the interaction forces on the lateral distance, they are diffi-
cult to analyze in detail, and the same responses are duplicated
in the form of bar charts presented in Figs. 12, 13, and 14.
Data corresponding to various flow models are marked as
follows: “RW” means “Rigid Wall” which corresponds to
the non-penetration and free-slip condition on the undisturbed
free surface without any wavemaking (double-body approxi-
mation); “FS” means “Free Surface” which is deformable and
modeled with the two-phase flow with wavemaking. It is also
marked (directly or with the acronym “IF”) whether the fluid
was assumed to be inviscid (i.e., the Euler equations were
modeled) or the viscosity was accounted for and RANS
Fig. 7 Residuals for viscous flow (rigid wall): (1) continuity equation, (2)
x-momentum, (3) y-momentum, (4) z-momentum, (5) turbulent kinetic
energy, and (6) turbulent dissipation rate
N′
− 0.00197
− 0.00177
− 0.00197 Fig. 8 Sway force Y convergence for viscous flow with free surface, η' =
− 0.00197 − 1.97, H1 = 0.49 m
− 0.00197
− 0.00197 equations served as the governing equations (acronym
“VF”). Experimental and panel method data are taken from
(Sutulo et al. 2012). It should be noted that while the experi-
mental results had been obtained in the towing tank with the
lateral dimensions corresponding to the computational do-
main described above, the panel method computations had
been performed for the horizontally unbounded fluid. It is,
however, obvious that for the present interaction configuration
(see Fig. 3), the influence of the tank walls that could have
been accounted for by placing fictitious series of hulls at ap-
propriate distances could only be insignificant that can be
roughly estimated extrapolating the plots on Figs. 10, 11,
and 12.
Analysis of results turned out not very easy as the character
of agreement/disagreement between various flow models is
rather different for different force/moment components, vari-
ous lateral distances, and even for various water depths.
4.1.1 Surge Force
First of all, remarkable is the fairly good agreement between
results obtained with the panel method and with the CFD code
for the IF+RW flow model. It must be noticed that the applied
version of the panel method tends to provide somewhat biased
results for the surge force while capturing the qualitative be-
havior (Sutulo and Guedes Soares 2016). In theory, the
Fig. 9 Surge force X (top), sway force Y (middle), yaw moment N
(bottom) convergence for viscous flow with free surface, η’ = − 1.36,
H2 = 0.623 m

Fig. 10 Plots of interaction forces for smaller depth H1: surge force (top),
sway force (middle), and yaw moment (bottom)
responses could be identical as in both cases, the fluid was
perfect and the wavemaking was absent. The observed differ-
ence can be partly explained by a much finer discretization in
the field method but also by accounting for the tank sidewalls
while in the panel method computations, the fluid was assumed
unbounded in the horizontal plane. On the other hand, finite
distances of the inlet and outlet boundaries do not exactly cor-
respond to the absence of such boundaries in the panel method.
Accounting for the viscosity and/or wave making always
improved the agreement with experimental data, especially at
closer lateral distances but separate influence of these two
factors looks more complicated. Although it could be
Journal of Marine Science and Application
Fig. 11 Plots of interaction forces for larger depth H2: surge force (top),
sway force (middle), yaw moment (bottom)
expected that the most realistic flow model accounting for
both viscosity and the wavemaking, this does not happen in
all the cases: often the perfect fluid model provides better
agreement although the differences caused by viscosity are
not so large. But rather certain is that neglecting the
wavemaking effects makes the agreement worse. In particular,
relatively large magnitudes of the surge force at close dis-
tances are caused by the flow blockage mainly caused by
wave making although also to some extent—by viscosity.
Of course, neither the panel method, nor the IF+RW field
method are able to capture this effect.
A.D. Wnęk et al.: CFD Analysis of Ship-to-Ship Hydrodynamic Interaction
Fig. 12 Values of the dimensionless surge force: top— smaller depth H1,
bottom— larger depth H2
4.1.2 Sway Force
Agreement between the panel method and the CFD computa-
tion without viscosity and wavemaking is again good. Some
difference at the smallest lateral distance is certainly caused by
a relatively small number of panels. For relative lateral dis-
tances greater than 1.4 agreement is good for all data although
account for the wave making and viscosity gives better agree-
ment with the experiment. At smaller distances, however, the
Fig. 13 Values of the dimensionless sway force: top— smaller depth H1,
bottom— larger depth H2
Fig. 14 Values of the dimensionless yaw moment: top— smaller depth
H1, bottom— larger depth H2
methods neglecting wavemaking are not able to capture the
drop of the suction force and even its transition to repulsion.
Obviously, ever increasing suction at unlimited approach is
theoretically correct for the pure potential flow without
free-surface effects but it has always been clear that in real
fluid, the flow will be sooner or later blocked, the suction will
disappear, and the zone of the higher pressure in the fore part
of the hull will result in repulsion. This should happen even in
the absence of the free surface and wavemaking effects but the
results presented here showed decisive role of the
wavemaking. Although sometimes the full RANS model
VF + FS gave better agreement than the model IF+FS, in other
cases, the observed agreement was even worse. However, it
must be taken into account that at smaller lateral clearances,
the uncertainty of the RANS computations is higher as long as
the grid convergence was not achieved. Apparently, viscous
blocking without free surface should also come into the effect
but it will likely happen at much smaller gaps than explored
here. There is also little doubt that a panel method with ac-
count for the actual free surface boundary condition would
also provide fair prediction of the sway force inversion effect.
4.1.3 Yaw Moment
The interaction yaw moment near a much larger vessel results
from differences in the suction/repulsion loads on the fore and
aft parts of the ship in concern. As result, the observed differ-
ences between data provided by various methods and flow
models are here larger than for the sway force but the sign
inversion effect at small lateral distances is not present.
Results for the smaller depth H1are rather peculiar showing
unexpectedly large divergences between the panel method
 Journal of Marine Science and Application

and the IF+RW model. Also, the trend shown in the latter case
is very different from that provided by all remaining data. The
initial guess that some occasional confusion happened, was
not confirmed, and the same phenomenon was present in ab-
solutely independent computations by Fonfach et al. (2011).
So far, it has not been possible to obtain absolutely clear ex-
planation of such anomalous behavior but, apparently, this
interaction configuration was especially sensitive to
free-surface effects, which are expected to be the most pro-
nounced in the gap between the vessels, although such effects
exist over all domain. A better agreement observed for the
panel method should be rather viewed as occasional, caused
by some error cancelation effects. This hypothesis is some-
what confirmed by the fact that for the larger depth such
anomalies are much less pronounced.
Furthermore, despite a rough overall agreement between
various flow models, account for the viscosity is not always
Fig. 15 Dynamic pressure contours on the hull of the tug model for ξ' =
beneficial from the view of closeness to empiric data and 0.014 (top) and ξ' = 0.62 (bottom) at viscous free surface flow, η’ = 1.36
although in most cases it increases the absolute value of the (pressure values in Pascals)
yaw moment, sometimes the effect is reversed. Besides, in-
creased uncertainty caused by insufficient grid convergence at
small lateral gaps mentioned above, it can be supposed that midship of the tug model was observed at inviscid flow for
this is the effect of inherent uncertainties of the RANS tech- lateral separation η′ = 1.47. It can be noticed that, as should be
nique dependent on specific turbulence models whose effec- expected, the velocity near the hull is higher in the inviscid
tiveness and adequacy have not been exhaustively explained. flow. Distribution of shear stresses in the viscous flow is pre-
Summing up, it can be stated that the disagreement be- sented in Fig. 17.
tween the most physically adequate VF + FS computational Figure 18 presents the velocity distribution around the tug
model and the experimental data is substantially higher than at the midship section of the hull for the larger depth H2 and
presented by Simonsen et al. (2011) who noticed the largest for the depth Froude number FnH = 0.25. In this case, the
discrepancies for the sway force. However, those computa- longitudinal stagger is also larger ξ′ = 0.62, and the tug is lo-
tions were performed for an apparently simpler deep water cated closer to the bow of the tanker; the velocity near the hull
case and for the sinkage, trim, and heel of the tug taken from of the tanker starts to increase. In this case, larger magnitudes
the experiment while these data were not available to the au- of the velocity are more visible also for a higher lateral dis-
thors of the present contribution. tance η′ = 1.47.

4.2 Pressure, Velocity, and Free-Surface Elevation

Distributions

Dynamic pressure contours on the tug corresponding to the

minimum lateral clearance and to two values of the two dif-
ferent longitudinal staggers ξ′ = 0.014 and ξ′ = 0.62 are shown
in Fig. 15.
The magnitude of dynamic pressure on the tug was also
higher when the model is located in the larger perturbations of
the flow at longitudinal stagger.
Figure 16 presents the velocity distribution around the tug
model at the midship section of the hull for the smaller depth
H1 and for the depth Froude number FnH = 0.188. The left side
of the figure shows velocity distributions for the inviscid flow
with the free surface, while the right side corresponds to the
viscous flow. In both cases, the velocity field is changing Fig. 16 Velocity distribution around tug model for smaller depth H1, ξ' =
similarly with changes of the lateral separation of the ship 0.014. Inviscid flow (left) and viscous flow (right), three lateral
models. The largest velocity magnitude (0.7 m/s) near the separations: η' = 1.36 (top), 1.47 (middle), 1.97 (bottom)
A.D. Wnęk et al.: CFD Analysis of Ship-to-Ship Hydrodynamic Interaction

Fig. 17 Shear stress distribution on the tug for smaller depth H1, ξ' =
0.014 at viscous free surface flow, η' = 1.36

Figure 19 shows velocity distribution on the free surface in

the viscous flow for two values of the longitudinal stagger ξ. It
is seen that perturbations of the flow are more pronounced in
the second case with a larger stagger. This is also confirmed by
Fig. 20 where the velocity vector fields are shown. The free--
surface elevation contour plots (Fig. 21) also show larger de-
formations of the free surface in the second case.
An interesting observation was made in the gap between
the two ship models for inviscid flow with free surface.
Figures 22 and 23 present the wave profile between the two
models and close to the tug with the distance 0.004 m from the
hull corresponding to the mid-distance between the sidewalls.
Fig. 19 Velocity distribution at the free surface for viscous flow; ξ' =
Comparison of wave profiles was made for three different 0.014 (top) and ξ' = 0.62 (bottom)
lateral separations of ship models η′ = 1.36, 1.47, 1.97. In the
case with a smaller depth H1 and stagger ξ′ = 0.014 (Fig. 22), a
between two ship models. The wave elevation decreases to-
sharp profile of the wave was generated for all three lateral
gether with the increase of lateral separation of the ships.
separations of the ships and high wave frequency was ob-
Expectedly, larger elevations of the free surface were traced
served. The case η′ = 1.47 is characterized by the largest dis-
tances between the crests and troughs.
At a larger depth H2 and stagger ξ′ = 0.62 (see Fig. 23), the
wave spatial frequency somewhat decreased what could be
expected. Likewise, more visible is the relation between the
elevation of the wave above the free surface and the distance

Fig. 18 Velocity distribution around tug model for larger depth H2, ξ' =
0.62. Inviscid flow (left) and viscous flow (right), three lateral Fig. 20 Velocity distribution and velocity vectors for smaller depth H1
separations: η' = 1.36 (top), 1.47 (middle), 1.97 (bottom) (top) and larger depth H2 (bottom) at viscous flow, η' = 1.36

Fig. 21 Free-surface elevation for smaller depth H1 (top) and larger depth
H2 (bottom) in viscous flow, η' = 1.36
at smaller water depth. At the same time, the largest descent of
the water level was observed at a larger depth, and in both
cases, this happened at the intermediate lateral clearance. The
latter is probably related to some local resonance phenomena.
In general, it can be stated that the interaction flow is of
rather complex character, and the role of nonlinear effects
seems to be significant. This explains, at least qualitatively,
certain observed “irregularities” in the influence of the viscos-
ity and wavemaking effects on the estimated values of the
interaction forces and moments. At the same time, it is now
clear that detailed investigation of these phenomena requires
much more extensive computations with simpler geometric
forms. At the same time, the data already obtained can be
helpful in estimating possible uncertainties related to adapta-
tion of this or that flow model and in selecting degree of
simplification appropriate in various applications.
Fig. 22 Wave profile between the ship models and close to the tug for
smaller depth H1, ξ' = 0.014, η' = 1.36 (solid), 1.47 (dashed), and 1.97
(dotted) and inviscid flow with free surface
Journal of Marine Science and Application
Fig. 23 Wave profile between the ship models and close to the tug for
smaller depth H2, ξ' = 0.62, η' = 1.36 (solid), 1.47 (dashed), and 1.97
(dotted) and inviscid flow with free surface
5 Conclusions
A CFD study of interaction forces using various flow models
for a small tug ship moving parallel to a larger vessel in shal-
low water has been carried out, and the resulting estimates of
the forces and moment were also compared with the model
test data and results obtained with the panel code developed
earlier. The overall impression is that the ship-to-ship interac-
tion problem is more challenging than most other problems
related to the flow around a single ship hull, and the difficul-
ties grow as the lateral clearance decreases. A number of au-
thors discovered difficulties in reaching iterative and grid con-
vergence using even commonly acknowledged and reliable
commercial codes. The present study has generally confirmed
those findings indicating that the problem still needs rather
extensive and thorough investigation. The authors have made
an attempt to study such factors as the fluid viscosity and
gravitational waves which may or may not be in effect in
various hydrodynamic models of the ship-to-ship interaction.
Unfortunately, besides a more or less obvious conclusion
about importance of the free-surface effects, it turned out that
no definite general recommendations about application of dif-
ferent flow models could be worked out yet. Meanwhile, the
following specific conclusions can be drawn from analysis of
the results:
1. There exists an overall rough agreement between the re-
sults obtained with different methods and flow models at
least at relatively large lateral distances between the side-
walls of interacting ships.
2. Differences between the results obtained with the panel
method and the same flow model (perfect fluid and
non-deformable free surface) implemented with the com-
mercial CFD code typically did not have qualitative char-
acter and in most cases remained moderate and corre-
sponding to the expected accuracy difference. The dis-
agreement was more pronounced for the yaw moment
A.D. Wnęk et al.: CFD Analysis of Ship-to-Ship Hydrodynamic Interaction
especially at smaller water depth where anomalous results
of the field method were registered.
3. The inviscid rigid wall flow models substantially
underpredict the magnitude of the surge interaction force
for all lateral distances. While accounting for viscosity
somewhat improves the agreement, rather the free-
surface effects are here decisive for reliable prediction.
4. Inversion of the sign of the interaction sway force hap-
pening, however, at horizontal clearances, which, howev-
er, are too small to be of practical significance, is only
correctly captured by the “true free surface” flow models.
5. The viscous flow model with the rigid wall-free surface is
of the least interest in studies of surface ships interactions
as being very heavy computationally fails to capture many
effects and does only lead to insignificant accuracy im-
provements compared to perfect fluid methods.
6. Account for the free-surface effects is always beneficial
for improvement of the interaction force predictions at
least when the exact free-surface boundary conditions
are fulfilled. As the flow in the gap between the sidewalls
may be of highly nonlinear character, it is unclear how
adequate a flow model with the linearized free-surface
condition will be and additional studies are required.
7. Account for viscosity in the free-surface flows in most
cases further improves predictions but likely this not very
certain improvement can be sacrificed in favor of possibly
much faster calculations in the perfect fluid. This conclu-
sion may, however, become not correct in the case of non-
parallel centerplanes not considered here.
8. Poor iterative convergence with the free-surface flow
models can probably reflect possible macroscopic un-
steadiness of the real flow in narrow gaps, and this effect
deserves special attention in the future.
In general, in spite of difficulties revealed in the present
study, reliable CFD codes can serve as valuable tool for ex-
ploring intricacies of the hydrodynamic interaction between
surface ships in close proximity.
Funding Information The study was performed within the project
PTDC/EMSTRA/5628/2014 “Maneuvering and moored ships in ports—
physical and numerical modeling,” funded by the Portuguese
Foundation for Science and Technology (FCT). The first has been fi-
nanced by FCT under contract number SFRH/BD/67070/2009.
References
Arslan T, Pettersen J, Visscher J, Muthanna C, Andersson HI
(2011) A comparative study of PIV experiments and numer-
ical simulations of flow fields around two interacting ships.
In: Pettersen B et al (ed) 2nd International Conference on
Ship Manoeuvring in Shallow and Confined Water: Ship to
Ship Interaction, May 18–20, 2011, Trondheim, Norway, p
31–37
Benedict K, Köpnick W, Baldauf M, Gronarz A, Friedhoff B, de Mello
Petey F (2011) Improved simulation model and methods for deter-
mination of the required passing distance between ships in restricted
fairways. In: Pettersen B et al (ed) 2nd International Conference on
Ship Manoeuvring in Shallow and Confined Water: Ship to Ship
Interaction, May 18–20, 2011, Trondheim, Norway, p 29–50
Chetvertakov AM, Lebedeva MP, Nikushchenko DV (2011) Numerical
investigation of bank influence on ship motion. In: Pettersen B et al
(ed) 2nd International Conference on Ship Manoeuvring in Shallow
and Confined Water: Ship to Ship Interaction, May 18–20, 2011,
Trondheim, Norway, p 83–88
Duffy JT, Renilson MR (2011) The importance of the form of time do-
main forces and moments on berthed ship interaction. In: Pettersen
B et al (ed) 2nd International Conference on Ship Manoeuvring in
Shallow and Confined Water: Ship to Ship Interaction, May 18–20,
2011, Trondheim, Norway, p 107–116
Faltinsen OM (2011) Modelling of manoeuvring with attention to ship-
ship interaction and wind waves. In: Pettersen B et al (ed) 2nd
International Conference on Ship Manoeuvring in Shallow and
Confined Water: Ship to Ship Interaction, May 18–20, 2011,
Trondheim, Norway, p 1–11
Fonfach JMA, Sutulo S, Guedes Soares C (2011) Numerical study of
ship-to-ship interaction forces on the basis of various flow models.
In: Pettersen B et al (ed) 2nd International Conference on Ship
Manoeuvring in Shallow and Confined Water: Ship to Ship
Interaction, May 18–20, 2011, Trondheim, Norway, p 137–146
Gronarz A (2011) A new approach in modelling the interaction forces. In:
Pettersen B et al (ed) 2nd International Conference on Ship
Manoeuvring in Shallow and Confined Water: Ship to Ship
Interaction, May 18–20, 2011, Trondheim, Norway, p 165–173
Hess JL, Smith AMO (1964) Calculation of nonlifting potential flow
about arbitrary three-dimensional bodies. J Ship Res 8:22–44
Ibaragi H, Nakiri Y, Furukawa Y (2012) Experimental study of bank
suction. International Conference on Marine Simulation and Ship
Maneuverability (MARSIM 2012), April 23–27, Singapore, paper
FP8–2-1410, 9p
Kadri U, Weihs D (2015) Higher order hydrodynamic interaction be-
tween two slender bodies in potential flow. J Mar Sci Technol 20:
249–256. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00773-014-0275-0
Lataire E, Vantorre M, Vanderbranke J (2011) Ship to ship interaction
forces during lightering operations. In: Pettersen B et al (ed) 2nd
International Conference on Ship Manoeuvring in Shallow and
Confined Water: Ship to Ship Interaction, May 18–20, 2011,
Trondheim, Norway, p 211–221
Maxwell GR (2011) Interaction—a practical viewpoint. In: Pettersen B
et al (ed) 2nd International Conference on Ship Manoeuvring in
Shallow and Confined Water: Ship to Ship Interaction, May 18–
20, 2011, Trondheim, Norway, p 233–237
McArthur PJ (2011) New thinking in ship generated hydrodynamic
fields: introducing concept for predicting bank suction and rejection.
In: Pettersen B et al (ed) 2nd International Conference on Ship
Manoeuvring in Shallow and Confined Water: Ship to Ship
Interaction, May 18–20, 2011, Trondheim, Norway, p 239–251
Newton RN (1960) Some notes on interaction effects between ships close
aboard in deep water. In: Proceedings of first symposium on ship
maneuverability, DTMB Report 1461, Washington, D.C., p 1–24
Nikushchenko DV, Zubova AA (2015) Hydrodynamic interaction phe-
nomena investigations during the ship overtaking maneuver for ma-
rine related simulators with the use of CFD methods. International
Conference on Ship Manoeuvrability and Maritime Simulation
(MARSIM 2015), Newcastle University, United Kingdom, 8–11
September 2015, paper 3–4-3, 13p
Nikushchenko DV, Zubova AA, Chetvertakov AM (2012) Investigation
of ship-to-ship interaction phenomena on the example of Wigley
body with the use of CFD methods. International Conference on

Marine Simulation and Ship Maneuverability (MARSIM 2012),
April 23–27, Singapore, paper FP5–3-1120, 6p
Pinkster JA (2016) Progress on real-time prediction of ship-ship-shore
interactions based on potential flow. Proceedings 4th MASHCON:
International Conference on Ship Manoeuvring in Shallow and
Confined Water, Hamburg, Germany, 23–25 May 2016, p 157–167
Rattanasiri P, Wilson PA, Phillips AB (2014) Numerical investigation of a
fleet of towed AUVs. Ocean Eng 80C:25–35. https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.oceaneng.2014.02.001
Sadat-Hosseini H, Wu P-C, Toda Y, Carrica P, Stern F (2011) URANS
studies of ship-ship interactions in shallow water. In: Pettersen B
et al (ed) 2nd International Conference on Ship Manoeuvring in
Shallow and Confined Water: Ship to Ship Interaction, May 18–
20, 2011, Trondheim, Norway, p 299–308
Sano M, Yasukawa H, Hata H (2012) Experimental study on ship oper-
ation in close proximity to bank channel. International Conference
on Marine Simulation and Ship Maneuverability (MARSIM 2012),
April 23–27, Singapore, paper FP8–3-1350, 10p
Shevchuk I, Böttner C-U, Kornev N (2016) Numerical analysis of the
flow in the gap between the ship hull and the fairway bottom in
extremely shallow water, Proceedings 4th MASHCON:
International Conference on Ship Manoeuvring in Shallow and
Confined Water, Hamburg, Germany, 23–25 May 2016, p 37–42
Sian AY, Maimun A, Ahmed Y, Rahimuddin (2016) Simultaneous ship-
to-ship interaction and bank effects on a vessel in restricted water.
Proceedings 4th MASHCON: International Conference on Ship
Manoeuvring in Shallow and Confined Water, Hamburg,
Germany, 23–25 May 2016, p 197–207
Simonsen CB, Nielsen CK, Otzen JF, Agdrup K (2011) CFD based pre-
diction of ship-ship interaction forces on a tug beside a tanker. In:
Pettersen B et al (ed) 2nd International Conference on Ship
Manoeuvring in Shallow and Confined Water: Ship to Ship
Interaction, May 18–20, 2011, Trondheim, Norway, p 329–338
Skejić R, Breivik M, Berg TE (2011) Investigating ship maneuvers
around a floating structure under the influence of a uniform current
in deep and calm water. In: Pettersen B et al (ed) 2nd International
Conference on Ship Manoeuvring in Shallow and Confined Water:
Ship to Ship Interaction, May 18–20, 2011, Trondheim, Norway, p
339–350
STAR-CCM+ User Guide (2014) Version 9.02.005, CD-adapco
Sutulo S, Guedes Soares C (2008) Simulation of the hydrodynamic in-
teraction forces in close-proximity manoeuvring. Proceedings of the
27th Annual International Conference on Offshore Mechanics and
Arctic Engineering (OMAE 2008), Estoril. Portugal, 15–19
June 2008, Paper OMAE2008–57938
Sutulo S, Guedes Soares C (2009) Simulation of close-proximity maneu-
vers using an online 3D potential flow method. Proceedings of
International Conference on Marine Simulation and Ship
Manoeuvrability MARSIM 2009, Panama City, Panama, 17–20
August 2009, pp. M-9-1–M-9-10
Sutulo S, Guedes Soares C (2012) Hydrodynamic interaction forces on
ship hulls equipped with propulsors. Proceedings of the 31th Annual
International Conference on Offshore Mechanics and Arctic
Engineering (OMAE 2012), Rio de Janeiro, Brasil, 6–11
June 2012, Paper OMAE2012–84181
Sutulo S, Guedes Soares C (2016) Parametric study of a modified panel
method in application to the ship-to-ship hydrodynamic interaction.
Proceedings 4th MASHCON: International Conference on Ship
Manoeuvring in Shallow and Confined Water, Hamburg,
Germany, 23–25 May 2016, p 177–185
Sutulo S, Guedes Soares C, Otzen J (2012) Validation of potential-flow
estimation of interaction forces acting upon ship hulls in parallel
motion. J Ship Research 56(3):129–145. https://doi.org/10.5957/
JOSR.56.3.100031
Toxopeous SL, Bhawsinka K (2016) Calculation of hydrpdynamic inter-
action forces on a ship entering a lock using CFD. Proceedings 4th
Journal of Marine Science and Application
MASHCON: International Conference on Ship Manoeuvring in
Shallow and Confined Water, Hamburg, Germany, 23–25
May 2016, p 305–314
Tuck EO, Newman JN (1974) Hydrodynamic Interactions between
Ships. Proc. 10th Symposium on Naval Hydrodynamics,
Cambridge, Mass., USA, p 35–69
Van der Molen W, Moes J, Swiegers PB, Vantorre M (2011) Calculation
of forces on moored ships due to passing ships in shallow water. In:
Pettersen B et al (ed) 2nd International Conference on Ship
Manoeuvring in Shallow and Confined Water: Ship to Ship
Interaction, May 18–20, 2011, Trondheim, Norway, p 369–374
Van Hoydonck W, Toxopeus S, Eloot K., Bhawsinka K, Queutey P,
Visonneau M (2015) Bank effects for KVLCC2, World Maritime
Technology Conference (WMTC). Providence, RI, USA,
November 3–7, Paper No. 132, p 1–21
Van Hoydonck W, Delefortrie G, Peeters P, Mostaert F (2016) Evaluation
of ROPES for passing ships including a comparison with CFD re-
sults. Version 4.0. FHR Reports, 15_011. Flanders Hydraulics
Research: Antwerp, Belgium, 42 p
Versteeg H, Malalasekra W (2007) An introduction to computational
fluid dynamics: the finite volume method. Pearson Education Ltd,
Harlow
Von Graefe A, Shigunov V, el Moctar O (2015) Rankine source method
for ship-ship interaction problems. J Offshore Mech Arct Eng 137.
https://doi.org/10.1115/1.4029316
Wnęk AD, Guedes Soares C (2015) CFD assessment of the wind loads on
an LNG carrier and floating platform models. Ocean Eng 97:30–36.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.oceaneng.2015.01.004
Xiang X, Faltinsen O M (2010) Maneuvering of two interacting ships in
calm water. Proceedings, 11th International Symposium on Practical
Design of Ships and Other Floating Structures (PRADS 2010),
September 19–24, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, p 161–171
Xiang X, Skejić R, Faltinsen OM, Berg TE (2011) Hydrodynamic inter-
action loads between two ships during lightering operations in calm
water. In: Pettersen B et al (ed) 2nd International Conference on Ship
Manoeuvring in Shallow and Confined Water: Ship to Ship
Interaction, May 18–20, 2011, Trondheim, Norway, p 383–392
Xu Y, Sun Y (2012) Study on ship-ship hydrodynamic interaction by
ANN optimization. International Conference on Marine
Simulation and Ship Maneuverability (MARSIM 2012), April 23–
27, Singapore, paper FP4–3-0920, 10p
Yang H, Wu BS, Miao QM, Xiang X, Berg TE, Kuang XF (2011) Study
of the effects of unsteady ship to ship interaction by CFD method.
In: Pettersen B et al (ed) 2nd International Conference on Ship
Manoeuvring in Shallow and Confined Water: Ship to Ship
Interaction, May 18–20, 2011, Trondheim, Norway, p 393–398
Yasukawa H, Yoshida S (2011) Hydrodynamic interaction of two thin
ships with rudder in close proximity. In: Pettersen B et al (ed) 2nd
International Conference on Ship Manoeuvring in Shallow and
Confined Water: Ship to Ship Interaction, May 18–20, 2011,
Trondheim, Norway, p 399–406
Yuan Z-M, Incecik A (2016) Investigation of ship-bank, ship-bottom and
ship-ship interactions by using potential flow method. Proceedings
4th MASHCON: International Conference on Ship Manoeuvring in
Shallow and Confined Water, Hamburg, Germany, 23–25
May 2016, p 83–92
Yuan Z-M, Incecik A, Dai S, Alexander D, Ji C-Y, Zhang X (2015)
Hydrodynamic interaction between two ships travelling or station-
ary in shallow waters. Ocean Eng 108:620–635. https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.oceaneng.2015.08.058
Zhang C-X, Zou Z-J (2011) Numerical investigation on ship-ship hydro-
dynamic interaction in restricted waters. In: Pettersen B et al (ed)
2nd International Conference on Ship Manoeuvring in Shallow and
Confined Water: Ship to Ship Interaction, May 18–20, 2011,
Trondheim, Norway, p 407–412
A.D. Wnęk et al.: CFD Analysis of Ship-to-Ship Hydrodynamic Interaction
Zhou X Q, Sutulo S, Guedes Soares C (2010) Computation of ship-to-
ship interaction forces by a 3D potential flow panel method in finite
water depth. Proceedings of the 29th Annual International
Conference on Offshore Mechanics and Arctic Engineering
(OMAE 2010), Shanghai, People’s Republic of China, 6–11
June 2010, Paper OMAE2010–20497
Zou L, Larsson L (2012) Investigation of ship-to-ship interaction during a
lightering operation in shallow water using a RANS solver.
International Conference on Marine Simulation and Ship
Maneuverability (MARSIM 2012), April 23–27, Singapore, paper
FP6–3-0920