日本財団 図書館

共通ヘッダを読みとばす


Top > 産業 > 運輸.交通 > 成果物情報

Conference Proceedings Vol. I, II, III

 事業名 海事シミュレーションと船舶操縦に関する国際会議の開催
 団体名 日本船舶海洋工学会 注目度注目度5


A STUDY ON MANOEUVRABILITY STANDARDS FOR A SHIP WITH A POD PROPULSION SYSTEM
Tomihiro Haraguchi (NMRI, JAPAN)
Tadashi Nimura (NMRI, JAPAN)
 
 Abstract: A pod propulsion system is noble and popularizing because it is very useful in manoeuvring a ship in port. On the other hand, it was reported at the meeting of 44th Design and Equipment Subcommittee of International Maritime Organization (IMO-DE44) that a model ship with pod propulsion systems was neither able to carry out 10deg/10deg zigzag manoeuvre nor 20deg/20deg zigzag manoeuvre as required according to IMO resolution [1] and that a kind of the modified zigzag manoeuvre was alternatively proposed in order to evaluate the course keeping ability of ships with pod propulsion systems. In this paper, the relations between spiral loop width and overshoot angles in modified zigzag manoeuvre are shown by the simulation for both ships having a pod propulsion system and a conventional one. Then they are compared with those in 10deg/10deg and 20deg/20deg zigzag manoeuvre and it is concluded that the overshoot angles in 10deg/10deg and 20deg/20deg zigzag manoeuvre is better item than those of modified ones. In addition, the level of the criteria on course keeping and yaw-checking ability is described for both ships with a pod propulsion system and with a conventional one.
 
1. INTRODUCTION
 A pod propulsion system was developed for an icebreaker in 1993 and widely equipped to many ships including cruse vessels. The ship equipped with the novel propulsion system is characterized in good controllability and has often the buttock flow shape at stern in order to improve the propeller efficiency. The stern profile is not good for course keeping ability [2] but most of ships are reported to have the good course keeping ability as well as the turning ability because they have often two propulsion systems that give the large lateral area [3].
 
 On the other hand, there is an example that a ship with pod propulsion systems but with low L/B ratio and high B/d ratio did not comply with IMO Resolution A.751(18). Accordingly a kind of the modified zigzag manoeuvre (25deg/1deg Z) was alternatively proposed at IMO-DE44 in order to evaluate the course keeping and yaw-checking ability of ships with pod propulsion systems.
 
 The course keeping ability is closely related to safe operation of ships and evaluated by the loop width of spiral characteristics that is affected by hydrodynamic forces acted on the hull. The hull form is therefore very important for attaining the good course keeping ability.
 
 In this paper, the course keeping and yaw-checking ability of a ship equipped with a pod propulsion system is described, compared with a conventional ship. The relation between overshoot angle and loop width had already been shown [4] and the overshoot angles in 10deg/10deg and 20deg/20deg Z manoeuvre are adopted in the resolution A.751(18) and MSC137(76) as the items on the course keeping and yaw-checking ability.
 
 Accordingly, the overshoot angles in various zigzag manoeuvres are simulated for both ships with a conventional propulsion system and with a pod one. Then the relation between the overshoot angles and loop width are described and it is shown that overshoot angles in 10deg/10deg and 20deg/20deg Z manoeuvre are better than those in modified zigzag manoeuvre and that both ships can almost comply with the resolution A.751(18) for same loop width. It is conclude from the fact that the criteria of the course keeping and yaw-checking ability in the resolution is same level for the both ships that have different ratio of ship length and ship speed(L/U). In addition, the level is discussed when the ships have the same L/U.
 
2. THE COURSE KEEPING ABILITY OF A CONVENTIONAL SHIP
2.1 The models for simulation
 
 The hull form, especially stern profile, is important in a conventional ship equipped with a single propeller and rudder in order to comply with the resolution. The models for simulation are built up based on the experimental results [5]. They have same principal dimensions but different stern profiles as shown in Table 1 and Fig.1.
 
Table 1 Principal Dimensions of Ships for Simulation
Ship Type A B C
Length(Lpp)(m) 180.000
Breadth(B)(m) 32.626
Draft(d)(m) 10.857
Trim(m) 0.000
AR/(Ld) 1/74
L/B 5.520
B/d 3.010
Cpa 0.756 0.753 0.750
Medium
shape
Stern Form V shape U shape between
V and U
L/U(sec) 31.0
 
Fig.1 Body Plan of Ships for Simulation
 
Ship A
 
Ship C
 
Ship B
 
Fig.2 Coordinate System
 
Fig.3 Spiral Characteristics of Ships for Simulation
 
 Ship A has a V-shaped stern profile and ship B has a U-shaped one. Ship C has the medium stern profile between ship A and ship B. The effects of different stern profiles to the manoeuvrability are shown by means of simulations using the models. The ships are imaginary tankers and their velocity (U) is 11.3 knot in the simulation. The coordinate system is shown in Fig.2 and the motion equations are described by the Kijima's expression [6].
 
 The spiral characteristics are shown in Fig.3. The horizontal and vertical axes respectively mean helm angle (δ) and nondimensional yaw rate (r'=rL/U), where r is yaw rate in turning. The positive value expresses turning to starboard.
 
 It is clear that these ships have almost same turning ability and different loop widths. In the three ships, ship A has 8.9deg in the loop width and the widest. Ship B has almost 0deg and the narrowest. Then ship C has 2.9deg and the medium between ship A and ship B. The loop widths result from the different stern profiles and it is clear that the stern profile is important for the course keeping ability.
 
 The heading angles (ψ) of a ship in 10deg/10deg zigzag manoeuvre are shown in Fig.4. The horizontal and vertical axes respectively express time and heading angle. It shows that ship A has the largest overshoot angle and that ship B has the smallest one in three ships. Then Ship C has the medium one. The relation is the same as that of the loop width and the time that the heading angle reaches the peak. Accordingly, the overshoot angle expresses the course keeping and yaw-checking ability. It had therefore been adopted as the item of the ability in the resolution A.751(18) and MSC137(76).







サイトに関するご意見・ご質問・お問合せ   サイトマップ   個人情報保護

日本財団会長笹川陽平ブログはこちら



ランキング
注目度とは?
成果物アクセスランキング
124位
(31,444成果物中)

成果物アクセス数
103,614

集計期間:成果物公開〜現在
更新日: 2019年8月24日

関連する他の成果物

1.MARSIM'03 開催報告
2.本会議及びワークショップ開催状況写真
3.九州における離島住民からみた交通バリアフリー化に関する調査研究?鹿児島県をモデルケースとして? 報告書
  [ 同じカテゴリの成果物 ]


アンケートにご協力
御願いします

この成果物は
お役に立ちましたか?


とても役に立った
まあまあ
普通
いまいち
全く役に立たなかった


この成果物をどのような
目的でご覧になりましたか?


レポート等の作成の
参考資料として
研究の一助として
関係者として参照した
興味があったので
間違って辿り着いただけ


ご意見・ご感想

ここで入力されたご質問・資料請求には、ご回答できません。






その他・お問い合わせ
ご質問は こちら から