The effect of ship shape

and anemometer location

on wind speed
measurements obtained
from ships
B I Moat1, M J Yelland1, A F Molland2 and R W Pascal1
1) Southampton Oceanography Centre, UK
2) School of Engineering Sciences, Ship Science,
University of Southampton, UK

4th International Conference on Marine CFD, University of

Southampton, 30-31 March 2005.

NOTE: as of 1st May 2005 Southampton Oceanography Centre

becomes National Oceanography Centre, Southampton
• Wind speed measurements can be
severely biased by the presence of the
ship
• CFD can be used to predict/correct
wind speed measurements
 OUTLINE
• Background
• Description of the CFD code
• CFD code validation
• Results
– research ships (individual ships)
– tankers/bulk carriers/general cargo ships (generic
modelling approach)
– Container ships
• Conclusions
 Background
• Research ships limited coverage, but
measurements of high quality.
• Merchant ships routinely report
meteorological parameters at sea
surface (wind speed and direction)
• Data used in satellite validation, ocean
atmosphere modelling forcing and
climate research
 Background: impact of flow
distortion on climate studies
• 10 % error in mean wind speed
– 27 % bias in the momentum exchange
– 10 % bias in the heat exchange
 CFD code description
• Commercial RANS solver VECTIS
• Mesh generation
– Non-uniform Cartesian mesh
– (generate 500,000 cells/hour)
• 3-dimensional and isothermal
• MEAN FLOW ONLY (STEADY STATE)
• RNG turbulence model
• Simulations based on up to 600,000 cells
• All results normalised by the wind speed profile at
the measurement site
 VALIDATION

• Comparison to 2 previous wind tunnel

studies
– Martinuzzi and Tropea (1993)
– Minson et al. (1995)
• Comparison to in situ wind speed
measurements made from a ship
– Moat et al. (2005)
 Validation: channel flow over a
surface mounted cube
tunnel roof
accelerated
flow

decelerated flow H = cube

z/H height

Re=105

cube top

normalised wind speed

• Good comparison with RNG

 Validation: boundary layer flow
over a surface mounted cube

decelerated flow

H = cube
z/H height

accelerated Re=4x104
flow

normalised wind speed

• Good comparison with RNG
 Validation: In situ wind speed
measurements from RRS Charles
Darwin
Measurements were
made using 6
anemometers.

Instruments were
located on a 6 m mast.

Only beam-on wind

speed data used.

Wind speed profile measured above a ‘block like’ ship.

 Validation: comparison with in
situ wind speed measurements

decelerated flow

accelerated flow
H = bridge to
sea level height
z/H
Re=1.3x107

normalised wind speed

• Agreement to within 4%
 Accuracy of CFD simulations

• Comparisons of simulations show

variations of:
– Mesh density (1 %)
– Turbulence model (2 %)
– Scaling the geometry (3 %)
– Wind speed profile (4 %)
• VECTIS agrees to 4 % or better with in
situ wind speed data
 RESULTS: research ships
• Project running since 1994
• Over 11 ships have been studied
– American, British, Canadian, French and
German
• Present results from well exposed
anemometers in the bow of 2 UK ships
– RRS Discovery
– RRS Charles Darwin
 Results: RRS Discovery

typical
anemometer
location

length overall = 90 m

• Wind speed measurements are biased by about 5 %

 Results: RRS Charles Darwin

typical
anemometer
location

length overall = 70 m

• Wind speed measurements are biased by about 10%

 Results: research ships
Wind speed bias (%)

bow RRS Discovery

port starboard RRS Charles Darwin

Relative wind direction

Streamlined superstructure needed
Locate anemometers as high as possible above the
platform, not in front
 Research ship design:
RRS James Cook

Anemometer location

First steel cut 26th January 2005

• CFD will be used to determine the best

sensor locations
 RESULTS: tankers, bulk
carriers and general cargo
ships
Typical
anemometer
location

www.shipphotos.co.uk

Large number of ships. Cannot be studied individually.

The ships are large complex shapes
 Results: A generic ship model

bow stern

• Ship dimensions from RINA publication

Significant ships (1990-93)
• Tankers/bulk carriers/general cargo ships can
be represented by a simple shape.
 Results: A generic ship model
bridge
anemometers

bow stern

• Perform CFD simulations over the simple

geometry
• Bridge anemometers
• Flows directly over the bow
Wind tunnel: flow visulisation
mean flow direction

Standing vortex
in front of the
deck house
 Wind tunnel: flow visulisation
mean flow direction

Vortices produced
above the bridge top
Standing vortex
in front of the
deck house
• Decelerated region increases with distance from the
leading edge
 Wind tunnel: flow visulisation
mean flow direction

Less disturbance
with increase in
height
Vortices produced
above the bridge top
Standing vortex
in front of the
deck house
• Complex flow pattern
 CFD: Airflow above the bridge
accelerated flow
3D simulation of the
airflow over the tanker.
(RNG turbulence closure)

decelerated flow
Tanker with recirculation.

Flow direction

Qualitatively, the numerical model reproduces the

general flow pattern quite well.
 CFD: Airflow above the bridge
accelerated flow.
3D simulation of the
airflow over the tanker.
(RNG turbulence closure)

decelerated flow
Tanker with recirculation.

Flow direction

Qualitatively, the numerical model reproduces the

general flow pattern quite well.
 Normalised wind speed profile

deceleration and
z/H recirculation
H

bow stern

Normalised wind speed

• Wind speed accelerated by about 10 %

• Decelerated by up to 100 %
 Normalised wind speed profile

deceleration and
z/H recirculation
H

bow stern

Normalised wind speed

Region of high
velocity gradients
 RESULTS: typical merchant
ships
Anemometer position
height, z (m)

Bridge
Depth of the
Bow recirculation region

Distance from leading edge, x (m)

• Anemometers will be less distorted in the bow

• Locate anemometers as high above the deck as
possible and above the leading edge
 Container ships
Anemometer
locations

www.shipphotos.co.uk

• More complex shape than a typical tanker

• Irregular container loading ???
 Container ships: General flow
decelerated pattern

1.0 accelerated 1.0 accelerated

container ship
1.0

bow bridge

accelerated
1.0 1.0

accelerated decelerated
decelerated
(Moat et al. 2005)
 Container ships: General flow
decelerated pattern

1.0 accelerated 1.0 accelerated

container ship
1.0

bow bridge

accelerated
1.0 1.0
typical tanker
accelerated decelerated
decelerated
(Moat et al. 2005)

• Bow influences the bridge flow

• Complex flow and the subject of future work
 APPLICATION OF RESULTS:
MERCHANT SHIPS
• To predict the wind speed bias
– Ship type
– Ship length
– Anemometer position
• Parameters are now available (WMO-
47)
 CONCLUSIONS: Research
ships
• CFD is a valid research tool to examine
the mean airflow over ships
• anemometers biased by about 10% or
less (highly dependent on position)
• Streamlined superstructure needed for
accurate wind speed measurements
 CONCLUSIONS: Tankers/bulk
carriers/general cargo
• anemometers biased high by 10% and
low by 100%
• Position anemometers as high as
possible above the deck
• If possible: locate anemometers in the
bows of the ship
 FUTURE WORK

time = 3 sec

• How does the turbulence structure

change with ship shape ?
 FUTURE WORK

LES code GERRIS

Iso-surface of
wind speed
at 90% of the
inflow velocity
time = 3 sec

• Good representation of atmospheric

turbulence in the wake region of a ship
 Acknowledgements
Partial funding from Meteorological Service
of Canada and the Woods Hole
Oceanographic Institution, USA.

Contact
ben.moat@soc.soton.ac.uk
www.soc.soton.ac.uk/JRD/MET/cfd_shipflow.php