Several models of the hydrodynamic forces acting on a ship hull in maneuvering have been developed in the last 50 years. These models make possible analysis of ship maneuverability in high and low speeds. Following Bernitsas et al. [1], such hydrodynamic models may be classified into two major schools: the hydrodynamic derivatives (HD) models (first school) and “cross-flow” models (second school). The former is based on Taylor series expansion of the forces while the corresponding coefficients are determined experimentally and remain velocity independent for relatively low velocities. The second school heuristically combines short-wing theory (Jones) and cross-flow experimental data. The aim of this work is to establish and review a certain discrepancy observed in post pitchfork bifurcation paths depending on which school of modeling is adopted. This discrepancy exists in the practical problem of a Single-Point Mooring (SPM) system in a steady ocean current. This discrepancy appears immediately after the point of pitchfork bifurcation of the equilibrium yaw angle versus the longitudinal position of the line attachment point on the hull. According to HD models (e.g., Abkowitz [2]) such a bifurcation curve is a square-root post pitchfork path (e.g., Papoulias and Bernitsas [3]) while cross-flow models (e.g. Leite et al. [4]) predict a different shape of this path at the onset of the post bifurcation curve. Although the practical effect of such a discrepancy may be negligible for SPM systems, this is valuable in assessing an important difference in the distinct approaches followed by the hydrodynamic schools of modeling. Specifically, viscous forces are modeled by odd nonlinear terms in velocity, which are bilinear in the cross-flow models and cubic in the HD models. In this work, experimental results on the aforementioned post pitchfork bifurcation paths are presented and the origin and relevance of the observed discrepancy are discussed. Finally, results presented by Hooft [5] show that yaw angle dependence on bilinear velocity terms regarding cross-flow coefficients would be necessary for a more precise representation of bifurcation patterns near the pitchfork bifurcation. Such patterns may be strongly influenced by hull form.

1.
Bernitsas, M. M., Garza-Rios, L. O., and Kim, B. K., 1999, “Mooring Design Based on Catastrophes of Slow Dynamics,” Proceedings of 8th Offshore Station Keeping Symposium, SNAME, Houston, Texas, February 25–26, pp. 76–123.
2.
Abkowitz, M., 1964, “Lectures on Ship Hydrodynamics, Steering and Manoeuvrability,” Hydro-Og Aerodynamisk Laboratorium, Report Hy-5, Lyngby, Denmark, p. 113.
3.
Papoulias
,
F. A.
, and
Bernitsas
,
M. M.
,
1988
, “
Autonomous Oscillations, Bifurcations and Chaotic Response of Moored Vessels
,”
J. Ship Res.
,
32
(
3
), September, pp.
220
228
.
4.
Leite
,
A. J. P.
,
Aranha
,
J. A. P.
,
Umeda
,
C.
, and
de Conti
,
M. B.
,
1998
, “
Current Forces in Tankers and Bifurcation of Equilibrium of Turret Systems: Hydrodynamic Model and Experiments
,”
Appl. Ocean. Res.
,
20
, pp.
145
156
.
5.
Hooft
,
J. P.
,
1994
, “
The Cross-Flow Drag on a Manoeuvring Ship
,”
J. Contemp. Phys.
,
21
(
3
), pp.
329
324
.
6.
Takashina
,
J.
,
1986
, “
Ship Manouvering Motion due to Tugboats and its Mathematical Model
,”
Journal of the Society of Naval Architects of Japan
,
160
, pp.
93
104
.
7.
Newman, J. N., 1966, “Some Hydrodynamic Aspects of Ship Maneuverability,” Proceedings of the 6th Symposium on Naval Hydrodynamics, Washington, D.C., pp. 203–237.
8.
Faltinsen, O. M., Kjaerland, O., Liapis, N., and Walderhaug, H., 1979, “Hydrodynamic Analysis of Tankers at Single-Point-Mooring Systems,” Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Behavior of Off-Shore Structures, BOSS 79, pp. 177–205.
9.
Oltmann, P., and Sharma, S. D., 1984, “Simulation of Combined Engine and Rudder Maneuvers using an Improved Model of Hull-Propeller-Rudder Interactions,” Proceedings of the 15th Symposium on Naval Hydrodynamics, Hamburg, pp. 83–108.
10.
Simos
,
A. N.
,
Tannuri
,
E. A.
,
Pesce
,
C. P.
, and
Aranha
,
J. A. P.
,
2001
, “
A Quasi-Explicit Model for the Dynamic Analysis of a Moored FPSO Under Current Action
,”
J. Ship Res.
,
45
(
4
), December, pp.
289
301
.
11.
Garza-Rios
,
L. O.
, and
Bernitsas
,
M. M.
,
1999
, “
Slow Motion Dynamics of Turret Mooring and its Approximation as Single Point Mooring
,”
Appl. Ocean. Res.
,
1
(
21
), February, pp.
27
39
.
12.
Simos, A. N., Tannuri, E. A., and Pesce, C. P., 1998, “Dynamics of a Turret-FPSO System and Hydrodynamic Models,” Proceedings of the 17th International Conference on Offshore Mechanics and Artic Engineering, OMAE, Lisbon, paper# 0410.
13.
Bernitsas, M. M., and Papoulias, F. A., 1990, “Nonlinear Stability and Maneuvering Simulation of Single Point Mooring Systems,” Proceedings of Offshore Station Keeping Symposium, SNAME, Houston, Texas, February 1–2, pp. 1–19.
You do not currently have access to this content.