Thrust and Torque Estimation Scheme Based on Chebyshev Polynomial for Ship Manoeuvring Simulation

Enhancing A Reliable Ship Performance Evaluation in Dynamic Maneuvering Conditions – A Gap Analysis

“…The study which assessed shipstopping behavior and hull-propeller-interaction properties throughout the maneuver based on measurement data revealed that data and knowledge pertaining to the properties during crash stopping were scarce and difficult to obtain without even considering the work of Harvald (1967) previously. However, agreement with such postulation was still found in many later studies up to nowadays (Sunarsih, 2018;Sutulo and Soares, 2015;Artyszuk, 2011;Sutulo and Soares, 2011;Sung andRhee, 2005, Artyszuk, 2003).…”

“…For the mathematical model of ship standard maneuvers including crash stopping, Benvenuto Brizzolara, and Figari (2001) suggested the propulsion factors of wake and thrust deduction to be estimated from the Holtrop method (Holtrop, 1984;Holtrop and Mennen, 1982) + 𝑐 19 𝑐 20 (4) 𝑡 = 0.25014(𝐵/𝐿) 0.28956 (√𝐵𝑇/𝐷) 0.2624 /(1 − 𝐶 𝑃 + 0.0225𝑙𝑐𝑏) 0.01762 + 0.0015𝐶 𝑠𝑡𝑒𝑟𝑛 (5) Sung and Rhee (2005) who proposed a new prediction method for ship stopping ability of diesel ships fitted with FPP employed constant wake and thrust deduction fractions based on Taylor (1910) as expressed in Equation 6and Hideo and Oh (1971) formula given by 𝑡 = 0.905 × {0.17 + 0.2𝐶 𝐵 − 0.015(𝐿/𝐵) + 0.01(𝐵/𝑇 − 2.5)} (6) Artyszuk (2011) who previously proposed the determination of various thrust deduction fractions as a function of maneuvering time while assuming the wake fraction as constant (Artyszuk, 2003) employed default constant wake and thrust deduction fraction values respectively by 0.3 and 0.15 to evaluate propulsive and stopping performance of cellular container carriers. Zero propulsion factors (w,t = 0) which according to Harvald (1976) were also frequently used in some studies were partially applied by Sunarsih, Izzuddin, and Priyanto (2015) and Ye et al (2012). Both works assumed the wake fraction as a function of the ship's speed Vs while the thrust deduction fraction was the function of propeller loading n, although constant values were given for both properties as accordingly listed in Equation 7and Equation 8.…”

“…Meanwhile, the use of zero value signifies the absence of the ship and propeller interaction. Definitely, the assumption and use of constant and zero wake and thrust deduction values for four quadrant ship maneuvering modeling are invalid since the values fail to account for the dynamic behavior of ship and propeller interactions at various operating conditions involving various ship speed and propeller rotational rate combinations which vary considerably particularly during transition operation in crash stop maneuver (Sunarsih, 2018).…”

“…However, knowledge and data on the hull-propeller interaction properties in various maneuvering conditions are very limited (Ye et al, 2012;Sutulo and Soares, 2011;Artyszuk, 2003;Harvald, 1976). The work of Harvald (1977Harvald ( , 1967 as the pioneer (Artyszuk, 2003) since more than a half-century ago is still referred to by various researchers in the field and related areas up to now (Illes et al, 2021(Illes et al, , 2020Sunarsih, 2018;Trodden and Haroutunian, 2018;Sutulo and Soares, 2011). Only recently, Sunarsih (2018) was recorded to execute similar research and took advantage of the properties developed to evaluate ship-stopping ability based on the Standards framework.…”