Abstract
This study investigated the resistance performance of ships, using the air resistance correction method. In general, air resistance is calculated using an empirical formula rather than a direct calculation, as the effect of air resistance on the total resistance of ships is relatively smaller than that of water. However, for ships with large superstructures, such as container ships, LNG (liquefied natural gas) carriers, and car-ferries, the wind-induced effects might influence the air resistance acting on the superstructure, as well as cause attitude (trim and sinkage) changes of the ship. Therefore, this study performed numerical simulations to compare the total resistance, trim, and sinkage of an 8000 TEU-class container, ship with and without superstructures. The numerical simulation conditions were verified by comparing them with the study results of the KCS (KRISO Container Ship) hull form. In addition, the differences in the above values between the two cases were compared using the coefficients calculated by the empirical formula to identify the effects on the air resistance coefficient.
Highlights
Shipyards and ship design engineering companies are continuously making numerous efforts to improve the performance of their ships, to satisfy the requirements of clients and meet various environmental regulations.The performance of a ship is determined by various factors, such as speed, fuel oil consumption (FOC), and deadweight
All three methods over-estimated the resistance values when compared with the numerical simulations in the case where the superstructures were considered, but the quantitative differences were reduced by using a CDA value lower than the default value
3ltoh%aadwepi.sfFpaHfiNmernroo00drei..wxla22naihn47mecrig74vegtaesehetrnoew,sldfipyen0eer.nltee1ehcd6syoe–ssb,0castn.ash2esu7raetmv.nho23eTae..fd3t70hr%ti83eorca46i.batrmelsHlessoauroiwmnvwltdesueadslovnaiffedntoritkorh,haneiitgngshsehetf,tuo23haes..rde81sxpty00peehc89exaeaedrrcs8eieesm0s,s0soueni0fnvmuTtetmamrEqilmeUaurrreai-iccasnzalunetalilddstt23sass..bi,st70mciei99wvonlu22oenkilwttaadhagt:iiiffneao,eenqrraseussnfahoecniexrptscittwehwasetaseisiv23rv8e..ec700eoo990dnqb780idufsfTeuaerEncrvetUteeint-ddaccetlaaiavttosesf container ship was conducted at the FN range of 0.16–0.27
Summary
Shipyards and ship design engineering companies are continuously making numerous efforts to improve the performance of their ships, to satisfy the requirements of clients and meet various environmental regulations. The analysis methods have evolved to consider other aspects, such as the free surface and variation in the ship’s attitude for accurate performance estimation. The estimation of resistance of a full-scale ship, through numerical simulations, is performed in the same method as in the experiment. While estimating the resistance performance of a full-scale ship in the experimental method, as well as in the numerical simulation method, the air resistance acting on the superstructure, which has a relatively smaller effect on resistance performance than water, is estimated using an empirical formula without directly considering the superstructure [6]. As the resistance acting on the ship can increase or decrease according to the ship’s attitude, an analysis that considers the superstructure is required for an accurate estimation of resistance performance. In this study, the effects of the presence or absence of the superstructure were evaluated by analyzing the resistance performance in two different cases; a model ship of an 8000 TEU-class container ship, with superstructures and without superstructures
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Free) 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call
