6.1.1
The PIT technique is a general
methodology for the determination of the numerical values for a certain
number of parameters in a given analytical model, in such a way that
the model can represent the physical behaviour of the system under
analysis in the given conditions. Although the PIT technique is also
suitable for the direct analysis of roll decays in calm water in order
to obtain the ship natural frequency and the damping parameters, the
roll motion of a ship in beam sea is dealt with in this document.
6.1.2
The general idea on which the
PIT is based is that the given analytical model is assumed to be able
to predict the amplitude of roll motion of the ship in beam sea, and
this model is characterized by a general form with a certain number
of free parameters. The free parameters should be fixed in order to
obtain the best agreement between available experimental data and
numerical predictions from the model. When such parameters are determined,
the model is assumed to be suitable for extrapolation. In the case
of roll motion in beam sea, the model parameters is fit by using the
ship roll response data for a small steepness in order to predict
the ship behaviour at a larger steepness for which direct experiments
cannot be carried out, or for which direct experiments are not available.
6.1.3
The general equation assumed
suitable for the modelling of roll motion in beam sea is, according
to the Guidelines, the following:
6.1.4
Where the following parameters
are in principle to be considered as free (units are reported assuming
the roll angle to be measured in radians):
|
-
|
Damping coefficients: μ (linear damping (1/s)), β (quadratic
damping (1/rad)), δ (cubic damping (s/rad2));
|
|
-
|
Natural frequency ω
0 (rad/s);
|
|
-
|
Nonlinear restoring
coefficients: γ
3 (cubic term (nd)), γ
5 (quintic term (nd));
|
|
-
|
Effective wave
slope coefficients: α
0 (constant (nd)), α
1 (linear term (nd)), α
2 (quadratic
term (nd)).
|
6.1.5
The wave steepness s,
as well as the forcing frequency ω (to be measured
directly from the roll time histories in order to account for Doppler
effect if the drift speed is large), are given data from experiments.
6.1.6
The total number of free parameters
is, thus, in principle, equal to 9. Such a large number of parameters
can be effectively determined from experimental data only when the
number of experiments is large, i.e., at least two (but is better
three) wave steepnesses leading to response curves spanning a large
range of rolling angles from the linear range (below, say, 10°)
up to the nonlinear range (say, at least 40°). In addition, experimental
data should span a large range of frequencies from low to high frequency
range (say, from about 0.8 or lower to about 1.2 or higher). The necessity
of spanning such a large domain is due to the fact that different
parameters have a different importance in different ranges.
6.1.7
While damping plays an important
role mostly around the peak region, the effective wave slope is better
determined if the low frequencies region of the response curve is
also available. Linear terms in both damping and restoring are dominant
in the region of small rolling amplitudes, while the effects of nonlinear
terms are noticeable only in the region of large rolling amplitudes.
The roll response curve tends to bend to the low frequency region
when is of the softening type, and towards the high frequency
region when is of the hardening type. Both type of bending could be
noticeable when the righting lever is of the S-type.
6.1.8
The general use of the PIT
in the framework of the experimental determination of the roll angle φ
1r (See the Guidelines) will likely to be
similar to that of the Three steps procedure, i.e. as follows:
-
.1 carry out experiments at a single steepness s
exp smaller than the required one s
req;
-
.2 determine model parameters in order to fit
the experiments at s
exp;
-
.3 utilize the obtained parameters in order to
predict the peak of the ship roll response at s
req;
6.1.9
Since only one steepness is
likely to be available, the number of parameters should be reduced
in order to achieve convergence of the methodology without spurious
effects on undetectable parameters. A reduced model is then to be
used.
6.1.10
On the bases of a series of
studies and on the experience gained in the past (see, e.g., [1][2]),
the following reduced model can be proposed when only one steepness
is available:
1 steepness reduced model:
where the damping has been considered to be purely
quadratic due to the fact that only one amplitude response curve is
available. The frequency dependence of the effective wave slope has
been dropped because we are mainly interested in this context in the
ship response at peak, and so the tails are of less (or none) importance
for the final evaluation of φ
1r (even
if the low frequency tail of the roll response is fundamental for
the fitting of the value of α
0). As a
note, the coefficient α
0 in the reduced
model (N-6.2) corresponds to the effective wave slope "r"
of the Three Steps Procedure. A cubic nonlinear restoring term has
been kept, but it can be removed if the curve is sufficiently linear in the expected response
range, or if there is no evidence of bending from the experimental
response curve (provided the experimental peak is sufficiently large
to allow the identification of the possible nonlinear behaviour).
6.1.11
In the case where two response
curves are available determined at two different steepnesses, it is
possible to introduce an additional linear damping term and an additional
5th degree restoring term:
2 steepness reduced model:
6.1.12
Regarding the damping term
in the previous reduced models, in general the quadratic damping component
seems to be more suitable for the analysis of hulls with bilge keels
or with an expected large vortex generation. On the other hand, the
substitution of the quadratic term with a cubic term could be more suitable for bare hulls.
6.1.13
The use of different nonlinear
damping models, can lead to different results in the prediction of
the final rolling amplitude. For this reason, in the absence of sufficient
evidence for the selection of one nonlinear model versus the others,
the use of the average of the two predicted peak rolling amplitudes
is recommended. A pure linear model, on the other hand, is almost
always inadequate for the representation of roll damping at zero speed.