EHP VALUE OF MINI LNG SHIP WITH FORM FACTOR FROM PROHASKA AND IRLS METHOD USING SHIP RESISTANCE TESTING DATA

Widodo; Agoes  Santoso; Erwandi; Achmad  Baidowi

doi:10.11113/jurnalteknologi.v85.19575

Authors

Widodo ᵃDepartment of Marine Engineering – Faculty of Marine Technology, Institute of Technology Sepuluh Nopember, Surabaya City-Indonesia ᵇThe National Research and Innovation Agency, Indonesia https://orcid.org/0009-0009-5514-1066
Agoes Santoso Department of Marine Engineering – Faculty of Marine Technology, Institute of Technology Sepuluh Nopember, Surabaya City-Indonesia
Erwandi The National Research and Innovation Agency, Indonesia https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3200-0550
Achmad Baidowi Department of Marine Engineering – Faculty of Marine Technology, Institute of Technology Sepuluh Nopember, Surabaya City-Indonesia https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6544-4372

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.11113/jurnalteknologi.v85.19575

Keywords:

Effective Horse Power, experimental, form factor, linear regression method, Prohaska method

Abstract

The ship model test was believed to be one of the effective methods for figuring out the boundaries and reliability of the ship's horsepower. The ship's form factor determines a full-scale ship's effective horsepower. Determination of the form factor value can be done experimentally through the Prohaska method. The new method proposed in this study is employed the regression Iteratively Reweighted Least Squares (IRLS) method by utilizing the principle dimension of the ship, such as L_WL, B, C_B, C_P, C_M, W_SA, T, ∆. etc. The Indonesian Hydrodynamics Laboratory has a database of ships with various principle dimensions which have undergone the towing model test. Through the database, the form factor can be predicted with the IRLS method. The method is then verified and validated with the Prohaska method. The result shows a good agreement with the Prohaska method. The obtained results from the IRLS method also show that the EHP & Resistance calculations are identical with old fashion Prohaska methods. The residual bias factor established by the IRLS method was verified in comparison to the value of the form factor generated by the Prohaska method. Comparison between the two methods results in a small error.

References

Roh, M. Il, and K. Y. Lee. 2017. Prediction of Resistance and Power. Computational Ship Design. 37-57.

Doi: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-4885-2.

Dogrul, A., S. Song, & Y. K. Demirel. 2020. Scale Effect on Ship Resistance Components and Form Factor. Ocean Engineering. 209(March): 107428.

Doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.oceaneng.2020.107428.

Bertram, V. 2012. Resistance and Propulsion. In Practical Ship Hydrodynamics. 73-141.

Doi: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/b978-0-08-097150-6.10003-x.

ITTC. 2002. Resistance Uncertainty Analysis, Example for Resistance Test. ITTC–Recommended Procedures. 1-17.

ITTC. 2017. 1978 ITTC Performance Prediction Method. ITTC-Recommended Procedures and Guidelines, Revision 04. 1-15.

García-Gómez, A. 2000. On the Form Factor Scale Effect. Ocean Engineering. 27(1): 97-109.

Doi: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0029-8018(98)00042-0.

Korkmaz, K. B., S. Werner, and R. Bensow. 2021. Verification and Validation of CFD based Form Factors as a Combined CFD/EFD Method. Journal of Marine Science and Engineering. 9(1): 1-30.

Doi: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/jmse9010075.

Min, K. S., and S. H. Kang. 2010. Study on the Form Factor and Full-scale Ship Resistance Prediction Method. Journal of Marine Science and Technology. 15(2): 108-118.

Doi: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00773-009-0077-y.

Lee, Y. G., Y. J. Ha, S. H. Lee, and S. H. Kim. 2018. A Study on the Estimation Method of the Form Factor for a Full-scale Ship. Brodogradnja. 69(1): 71-87.

Doi: https://dx.doi.org/10.21278/brod69105.

Terziev, M., T. Tezdogan, Y. K. Demirel, D. Villa, S. Mizzi, & A. Incecik. 2021. Exploring the Effects of Speed and Scale on a Ship’s Form Factor using CFD. International Journal of Naval Architecture and Ocean Engineering. 13: 147-162. Doi: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijnaoe.2020.12.002.

Xhaferaj, B. 2022. Investigation on Some Conventional Hulls Forms of the Predictive Accuracy of a Parametric Software for Preliminary Predictions of Resistance and Power. Brodogradnja. 73(1): 1-22.

Doi: https://dx.doi.org/10.21278/brod73101.

Hughes, G., and Allan, J. F. 1951. Turbulence Stimulation on Ship Models. Trans. SNAME. 59: 281-314.

Lee, S. B., W. Seok, and S. H. Rhee. 2021. Computational Simulations of Transitional Flows around Turbulence Stimulators at Low Speeds. International Journal of Naval Architecture and Ocean Engineering. 13: 236-245.

Doi: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijnaoe.2021.03.004.

Heller, V. 2011. Scale Effects in Physical Hydraulic Engineering Models. Journal of Hydraulic Research. 49(3): 293-306.

Doi: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00221686.2011.578914.

Terziev, M., T. Tezdogan, and A. Incecik. 2022. Scale Effects and Full-scale Ship Hydrodynamics: A Review. Ocean Engineering. 245(November 2021): 110496.

Doi: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.oceaneng.2021.110496.

Gao, Q., and D. Vassalos. 2011. Study of Froude and Hughes Methods by Numerical Towing Tank. Transactions of the Royal Institution of Naval Architects Part A: International Journal of Maritime Engineering. 153(2): 99-104.

ITTC. 2005. The Resistance Committee. 25th International Towing Tank Conference. I(1): 17-71.

Jamaluddin, A. J., and D. K. Kentjanawati. 2018. Experimental Study of Viscous Form Factor on Catamaran Ship Resistance (In Bahasa Indonesia). Wave: Jurnal Ilmiah Teknologi Maritim. 7(1): 1-6.

Doi: https://dx.doi.org/10.29122/jurnalwave.v7i1.3193.

Molland, A. F., S. R. Turnock, and D. A. Hudson. 2011. Model-Ship Extrapolation. In Ship Resistance and Propulsion: Practical Estimation of Propulsive Power. 69-84. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Doi: https://dx.doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511974113.007.

Holtrop, J. 1984. A Statistical Re-analysis of Resistance and Propulsion Data. International Shipbuilding Progress. 31(363): 272-276.

Widodo, A. Santoso, Erwandi, and A. Baidowi. 2022. Form Factor Prediction Based on Ship Model Test Data by Statistical Method. IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science. 1081(1): 012017.

DoI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1088/1755-1315/1081/1/012017.

Boukerche, A., L. Zheng, and O. Alfandi. 2020. Outlier Detection: Methods, Models, and Classification. ACM Computing Surveys (CSUR). 53(3): 1-37.

Doi: https://dx.doi.org/10.1145/3381028.

Ben-gal, I. 2014. Outlier detection Irad Ben-Gal Department of Industrial Engineering. Research Gate. November. 0-11. Doi: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/0-387-25465-X.

Goldstein, M., and S. Uchida. 2016. A Comparative Evaluation of Unsupervised Anomaly Detection Algorithms for Multivariate Data. Plos one. 11(4): e0152173: 1-31.

DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.7910/DVN/OPQMVF.

Siswanto, Raupong, and Anisa. 2017. Estimation of Robust Regression M in a Completely Randomized Factorial Design Containing Outliers (In Bahasa Indonesia). 13(2): 171-181.

Arina, F. 2017. Robust Regression to Overcome Outlier Data (In Bahasa Indonesia). Journal Industrial Servicess. 3(1b): 182-184.

Rasheed, H. A. 2021. Robust Regression Methods/a Comparison Study. Turkish Journal of Computer and Mathematics Education. 12(14): 2939-2949

Taylor, P., F. R. Hampel, and F. R. Hampel. 2012. The Influence Curve and its Role in Robust Estimation. Journal of the American Statistical Association. January 2014: 37-41. Doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01621459.1974.10482962.

Yang, J., and S. Rahardja. 2019. Outlier Detection : How to Threshold Outlier Scores ? Proceedings of the International Conference on Artificial Intelligence, Information Processing and Cloud Computing. 1-6.

Hu, J., Y. Zhang, P. Wang, and F. Qing. 2020. Numerical and Experimental Study on Resistance of Asymmetric Catamaran with Different Layouts. Brodogradnja. 71(2): 91-110. Doi: https://dx.doi.org/10.21278/brod71206.

Niklas, K., and Pruszko, H. 2019. Full-scale CFD Simulations for the Determination of Ship Resistance as a Rational, Alternative Method to Towing Tank Experiments. Ocean Engineering. 190(April): 106435.

Doi: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.oceaneng.2019.106435.

Seok, J., and J. C. Park. 2020. Numerical Simulation of Resistance Performance According to Surface Roughness in Container Ships. International Journal of Naval Architecture and Ocean Engineering. 12: 11-19.

Doi: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijnaoe.2019.05.003.

Yuan, Z., X. Zhang, C. Ji, L. Jia, H. Wang, & A. Incecik. 2018. Side Wall Effects on Ship Model Testing in a Towing Tank. Ocean Engineering. 147(2): 447-457.

Doi: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.oceaneng.2017.10.042.

Wang, H., M. J. Bah, and M. Hammad. 2019. Progress in Outlier Detection Techniques: A Survey. IEEE Access. 7: 107964-108000.

Doi: https://dx.doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.2019.2932769.

Farkas, A., N. Degiuli, and I. Marti. 2018. Assessment of Hydrodynamic Characteristics of a Full-Scale Ship at Different Draughts. Ocean Engineering. 156(March): 135–152.

Doi: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.oceaneng.2018.03.002.

Yıldız, B. 2022. Prediction of Residual Resistance of a Trimaran Vessel By Using an Artificial Neural Network. Brodogradnja. 73(1): 127-140.

Doi: https://dx.doi.org/10.21278/brod73107.

Miller, J. N. 2015. Using the Grubbs and Cochran Tests to Identify Outliers. Analytical Methods. 7(19): 7948-7950.

DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1039/c5ay90053k.

Chiroșcă, A. M., and L. Rusu. 2021. Comparison between Model Test and Three CFD Studies for a Benchmark Container Ship. Journal of Marine Science and Engineering. 9(1): 1-16.

Doi: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/jmse9010062.