CFD Letters 15, Issue 11 (2023) 67-78

CFD Letters
Journal homepage:
https://semarakilmu.com.my/journals/index.php/CFD_Letters/index
ISSN: 2180-1363

Numerical Investigation of the Scale Effect on the Flow around the Ship
by using RANSE Method
Tat-Hien Le1,2,*, Tran Van Tao1,2
1
Ho Chi Minh City University of Technology (HCMUT), Vietnam
2 Vietnam National University Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam

ARTICLE INFO ABSTRACT

Article history: The paper deals with the numerical simulation results of scale effect on flow field
Received 27 February 2023 around ship by using RANSE method. The differences in resistance coefficient
Received in revised form 24 March 2023 components and flow around the ship such as wave pattern on free surface, wave
Accepted 20 April 2023 profile along the hull of the ship, dynamic pressure and wall shear stress distributions
Available online 1 November 2023
on the surface of the ship and nominal wake field between the model and full-scale
ship are provided and analysed in this paper. The obtained numerical simulation
Keywords: results are compared with the measured data in order to verify and validate simulation
Flow; RANSE; Scale Effect; Resistance results.

1. Introduction

In designing a ship, the accurate estimation of ship resistance plays a crucial role as this parameter
also be a primary input of other problems related to defining the ship propulsion system and power
in order to archive the designed speed. It is no deniable that conducting towing tank test then
extrapolate the result into the full-scale ship currently is the most reliable ship resistance predicting
method. However, towing tank test method can only ensure the similarly of geometry and Froude
number between the model scale and full-scale ship and it cannot satisfy the same value of the
Reynolds number, which causes the differences in the characteristics of flow around the model scale
ship and the full scale one [1-4]. As a result, it is significantly important to consider these differences
in various model scales that can support in identifying the accurate characteristics of flow around the
ship and solving the other problems like optimizing the ship hull, designing the propeller, etc. at the
full scale.
Presently, thank the considerable development of computational resources, and numerical
method, RANSE method is broadly applied to solve the hydrodynamics problems in general [5-7] and
ship hydrodynamic problems in particular [4,7-23]. In comparison with the experiment, RANSE
method provides relatively reliable results, saving computational time and expenditure as no physical
model requires [8,10,24]. In addition, RANSE also advances in simulating the ship resistance at full

*
Corresponding author.
E-mail address: hienlt@hcmut.edu.vn (Tat-Hien Le)

https://doi.org/10.37934/cfdl.15.11.6778

67
CFD Letters
Volume 15, Issue 11 (2023) 67-78

scale. Moreover, the post-RANSE analysis can provide all necessary information on the flow around
the ship characteristics.
Various authors have carried out the research of scale effect on the flow around the ship
[1,3,4,25,26]. Those research results proved that model scale definitely effects on the flow field
around the ship. The magnitude of difference depends on the discrepancy in model scale. Hänninen,
S. and J. Sehweighofer [25] reported that resistance coefficients, wave pattern and streamlines
strongly depends on the Reynolds number. Dogrul, A et al., [1] presents a study of the scale effect on
the ship resistance components and form factor for two different ship hull forms by RANSE method.
The conclusion of authors in [1] is that the difference in boundary layers, wave pattern and viscous
pressure resistance between model scale and full scale. The magnitude of these differences depends
not only on the discrepancy in scale model, but also ship hull form.
Inheriting the previous studies, this research will focus on studying the impact of scale effect on
the characteristics of the flow around a KCS containership by employing RANSE method.

2. Methodology
2.1 Reynolds-Averaged Navier-Stokes Equations

The Reynolds-Averaged Navier-Stokes Equations (RANSE) are defined as follows [15]:

 (  ui )
=0 (1)
xi

 (  ui )  p  ij
t
+
x j
( )
 ui u j +  uiu j = − +
xi x j
(2)

Where xi and ui are the position and velocity vector, ρ is the fluid density,  uiuj is the Reynolds
stress tensor, p is the mean pressure, t is the time and  ij is the mean viscous stress tensor  ij is
defined as follows:

 ui u j 
 ij =   +  (3)
 x j xi
 

Where μ is the dynamic viscosity.

2.2 Turbulence Models

Realizable k–ε two layer, which is model that solves equations for turbulence kinetic energy (k)
and the turbulence dissipation rate (ε) in order to determine the eddy viscosity t by equation:

t = C f  kT (4)

Where fμ is a damping function, T is a turbulent time scale and Cμ is a model coefficient.

T = Te (5)

68
CFD Letters
Volume 15, Issue 11 (2023) 67-78

Where Te = k /  is the large-eddy time scale. The transport equations for k and the ε are given as
follows:

    
(  k ) +   (  kv)=    + t  k  + Pk −  ( −  0 ) + Sk (6)
t  k  

     1   0 
(  ) +   (  v)=    + t    + C 1 P − C 2 f 2   −  + S (7)
t     Te  Te T0 

Production terms Pk and Pε are given by Eq. (8) as follows:

Pk = fcGk + Gb −  M ; P = fc Sk + C 3Gb (8)

The damping functions is given by Eq. (9) as follow:

k 1 (9)
f2 = ; f =
k +   1  S *3    k
C 4 + 6 cos  cos −1  6   S : S + W :W
  3  S * : S *3    

3. Numerical Simulations
3.1 General Information of a KCS Containership

The research object is a KCS containership. This ship is often applied in studying the flow around
the ship by RANSE method as its 3D model and experimental results are published online [27,28].
Table 1 and Figure 1 illustrate the KCS containership at model scales of 1/31.6 and full scale.

Fig. 1. KCS container ship model

69
CFD Letters
Volume 15, Issue 11 (2023) 67-78

Table 1
Main characteristics of KCS containership
Value
Parameters Symbol Unit
Full scale Model

Length of the ship LPP [m] 230.00 7.278

Breadth of the ship B [m] 32.20 1.019

Draught of the ship T [m] 10.80 0.341

Displacement  [m3] 52030 1.649

Wetted surface area S [m2] 9530 9.544

3.2 Simulation Setup

The influence of the model scale on the change of flow characteristics around the ship hull is
stimulated with the following computational cases and conditions:

i. Simulation at two different scales including full scale and ship model with a scale of 1/31.6.
These two scales are considered because it is possible to compare the simulation results
and the experiment ones in the towing tank and the actual transferred calculation results
to the full scale ship, which have been provided in [27,29,30].
ii. The environmental conditions considered for the ship at the model and full scale are taken
the same as the test conditions in [27,29].

3.2.2 Computational domain size and boundary condition

The size of the virtual towing tank was defined as corresponding to the guidelines of the
International Towing Tank Conferences [31]. Typically, the domain length is extended 1.5LPP forward
the ship bow and 2.5LPP backward its stern. Meanwhile, the bottom and top of the virtual towing
tank are placed at a distance of 2.5LPP and 1.5LPP from the free surface, respectively. The sidewall of
the virtual towing tank is placed at a distance of 2.5LPP from the longitudinal symmetric plane of the
vessel (see Figure 2).

Fig. 2. The size of virtual towing tank

70
CFD Letters
Volume 15, Issue 11 (2023) 67-78

The type of boundary conditions is defined as follows: The velocity inlet is applied on inlet, top
and bottom of virtual towing tank, the flow behind the hull is pressure outlet, the two sides of virtual
towing tank are the symmetry plane. No-slip wall condition is used on the ship hull [32].

3.2.3 Mesh generation and physical model

Mesh type and mesh generation have a significant effect on the numerical simulation results. In
the prediction of ship resistance using RANSE method, 3 types of mesh are used: surface mesh,
trimmed mesh, and prism mesh [33]. In order to minimize the number of meshes used while keeping
acceptable accuracy of the simulation results, the mesh will be refined in the vicinity of the ship
(especially in the bow and stern regions having complex curvature), at the free surface to have the
best capture of Kelvin waves.
The mesh generation will be done in the same manner for the ship at model scale and the full-
scale ship, the only difference is the wall thickness of the first layer of the prism mesh of the full-scale
ship and the model scale to ensure that the average value of Y+ of the model ship is 50 and the mean
value of Y+ of the full-scale ship is about 400 (see Figure 3). The resulting of mesh generation for the
model and the full-scale ship are depicted in Figure 4.

Fig. 3. Y+ value on hull surface

The physical model used in the ship resistance simulation is a real fluid model (viscous and
incompressible) using the Unsteady RANSE. The Realizable k–ε two layer turbulent model is used to
close the RANSE equation, as according to [34,35] the Realizable k–ε two layer turbulent model
provides relatively accurate results in calculating the ship hydrodynamics in general and ship
resistance in particular. The Volume of Fluid method is employed to solve the free surface. The DFBI
Equilibrium option is used to model motion of the ship with two degrees of freedom (trim and
sinkage).
One of the key issues determining the accuracy of numerical results is choosing the time step. For
resistance simulation, according to ITTC procedures [36] the time step is defined by Eq. (10) as
follows:

t = 0.005 0.01L / V (10)

where L and V are the ship’s length and speed, respectively.

71
CFD Letters
Volume 15, Issue 11 (2023) 67-78

Fig. 4. Structure of mesh

4. Simulation Results
4.1 Mesh Convergence Study

It is crucial to study the convergence of the mesh at the beginning of numerical calculation.
Following the Guidelines provided by ITTC [37], in this research, the authors studied the mesh
convergence at Fr=0.260 with 3 sizes of mesh including coarse, medium, and fine mesh which are
generated by the refinement ratio rG = 2 . As a result, the numbers of mesh cells used in the
simulation for model scale is 0.79, 1.77, and 3.71 million cells, respectively. Meanwhile, those are
1.02, 2.08, 4.79 million cells, respectively at the full-scale simulation. Eq. (11) depicts the definition
of convergence ratio:

RG =  21 /  32 (11)

When RG > 1, the mesh is not converged; and if RG < 0, the mesh is oscillatory convergence.
Otherwise, it is known as monotonous convergence. ε12 and ε23 can be estimated as follows:

 21 = (S1 − S2 ) / S1;  32 = (S2 − S3 ) / S2 (12)

Where S1, S2, S3 – are resistance obtained by fine, medium, and coarse meshes, respectively. The
results deflection between numerical simulation (S) results and towing tank experiment
measurements (D) is estimated as follows:

(D − S )
E%D = .100% (13)
D

Table 2 depicts the mesh convergence results for ship at model and full scale. It can be observed
from Table 2 that, the mesh is monotonous convergence as increasing the number of mesh cells. The
simulation result obtained by fine mesh is close to the towing tank measurement (for ship at model
scale) and the extrapolate result to full-scale ship. In particular, the difference in the ship total
resistance coefficient (CT), between simulation results and experimental measurements, at model

72
CFD Letters
Volume 15, Issue 11 (2023) 67-78

and full scale are 1.08% and 3.22%, respectively. Thus, the fine mesh is selected to visualize the
difference of flow around the ship hull at different model scales. Moreover, it can be seen from Table
2 a huge difference in the frictional resistance component (CF) between model and full- scale ships.
Specifically, this coefficient is twice times larger in model scale than in full scale ships. This can be
explained by the difference in Reynolds number between the model scale and full-scale ships, leading
to the difference in the shear stress coefficient on the hull surface shown below this paper.

Table 2
The mesh convergence results at Fr=0.260
Mesh
Parameters EFD (D) [28] ε32 % ε21 % RG
Coarse Medium Fine
Ship at model scale
Value 3.711 3.845 3.815 3.751 -0.79 -0.02 0.02
CTx10-3 [-]
E%D / 3.610 2.800 1.080 / / /
-3
CF x10 [-] Value / 3.341 3.328 3.311 -0.39 -0.01 0.01
CP x10-3 [-] Value / 0.504 0.487 0.440 -3.49 -0.11 0.03
Full scale ship
Value 2.361 2.516 2.457 2.437 -2.40 -0.82 0.34
CT x10-3 [-]
E%D / 6.570 4.070 3.220 / / /
CF x10-3 [-] Value / 1.591 1.586 1.583 -0.32 -0.19 0.60
CP x10-3 [-] Value / 0.925 0.871 0.854 -6.20 -1.99 0.32

4.2 Influence of Model Scale on the Flow Around the Ship

The influence of scale effect on wave shape at free surface and wave profile along the ship hull
at Fr=0.26 is presented in Figures 5 and 6.
It can be observed in those figures, the difference in surface wave shape between the model scale
and full-scale ship appears in the wake flow behind the ship hull. Especially, the stern wave created
by the moving ship at full-scale ship is bigger than obtained at the model scale. Otherwise, concern
to the profile of wave along the ship hull, the discrepancy located near the ship bow and stern. The
wave profile obtained at full scale is greater than that of model scale. These results are coincident
with the results published by the previous worldwide authors [25].

Fig. 5. Influence of model scale on

73
CFD Letters
Volume 15, Issue 11 (2023) 67-78

(a) (b)
Fig. 6. Comparison of wave profiles between model and full scale (a) along the ship (b) at y/LPP =0.1

4.2.2 Distribution of shear stress coefficient on the model hull

The influences of model scale on the distribution of shear stress on the ship surface at different
speeds are depicted in Figures 7, 8 and 9. It can be observed from these figures that the model scale
has a great impact on shear stress coefficient on the ship surface. The greater the model scale (the
smaller the model), the bigger the shear stress coefficient is and vice versa. That can partly be
explained by the difference in Reynolds numbers between each model. This difference also leads to
the bigger ship friction resistance at model scale than at the full scale.

(a) (b)
Fig. 7. Influence scale effect on shear stress distribution on the ship surface at Fr=0.260 (a) Model scale; (b)
Full scale

Fig. 8. The influence scale effect on shear stress distribution at Z/T =0.5
and Fr = 0.260

74
CFD Letters
Volume 15, Issue 11 (2023) 67-78

Fig. 9. The influence scale effect on shear stress distribution at Z/T =0.25 and
Fr = 0.260

4.2.3 Distribution of pressure on the hull surface

Figures 10 and 11 depict the influence of scale effect on the distribution of pressure on the surface
of the ship at various speeds. It can be observed from these figures that the model scale has smaller
effect on the dynamic pressure distribution than the shear stress distribution. Moreover, the
difference in dynamic pressure mainly appears in the vicinity of ship stern and it increases as reducing
the scale of the model.

Fig. 10. The influence of model scale on dynamic pressure distributed on the hull
surface at Fr = 0.260

75
CFD Letters
Volume 15, Issue 11 (2023) 67-78

Fig. 11. The influence of model scale on dynamic pressure distribution at

4.2.4 Wake field at propeller disc

The influence of the model scale on the wake field behind the ship hull at propeller disc
(x=0.0175LPP) is presented in Figure 12. It can be observed that, the model scale has a significant
impact on the wake field. The greater the model scale (ship model), the larger wake field is as the
Reynolds number of the ship model is smaller than that of the full scale.

Fig. 12. The influence of model scale on wake field behind the ship hull at propeller
disc and Fr = 0.260

5. Conclusions

This research has succeeded in using RANSE method to study the influence of model scale on the
change of flow field around the ship. The achievements are mentioned as follows:

i. Predicted the ship resistance at model scale and full scale. The simulation results are close
to the measurements obtained in towing tank and the full-scale ship converted according
to ITTC’s guidelines with differences are 1.08% and 3.22%, respectively.

76
CFD Letters
Volume 15, Issue 11 (2023) 67-78

ii. Provided and analyzed the influence of model scale on the change of flow around the hull
characteristics including surface wave shape created by the ship’s movement, wave
profile along the ship hull, wake field at the propeller disc. These pieces of information
may support the designer in defining the optimal hull form, predicting ship power, and
other systems with higher accuracy.

Acknowledgment
We acknowledge the support of time and facilities from Ho Chi Minh City University of Technology
(HCMUT), Vietnam National University Ho Chi Minh City (VNU-HCM) for this study.

References
[1] Dogrul, Ali, Soonseok Song, and Yigit Kemal Demirel. "Scale effect on ship resistance components and form
factor." Ocean Engineering 209 (2020): 107428. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.oceaneng.2020.107428
[2] Bhushan, Shanti, Tao Xing, Pablo Carrica, and Frederick Stern. "Model-and full-scale URANS simulations of Athena
resistance, powering, seakeeping, and 5415 maneuvering." Journal of Ship Research 53, no. 04 (2009): 179-198.
https://doi.org/10.5957/jsr.2009.53.4.179
[3] Terziev, Momchil, Tahsin Tezdogan, and Atilla Incecik. "Scale effects and full-scale ship hydrodynamics: A
review." Ocean Engineering 245 (2022): 110496. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.oceaneng.2021.110496
[4] Song, Ke-wei, Chun-yu Guo, Chao Wang, Cong Sun, Ping Li, and Ruo-fan Zhong. "Experimental and numerical study
on the scale effect of stern flap on ship resistance and flow field." Ships and Offshore Structures 15, no. 9 (2020):
981-997. https://doi.org/10.1080/17445302.2019.1697091
[5] Abobaker, Mostafa, Sogair Addeep, Lukmon O. Afolabi, and Abdulhafid M. Elfaghi. "Effect of Mesh Type on
Numerical Computation of Aerodynamic Coefficients of NACA 0012 Airfoil." Journal of Advanced Research in Fluid
Mechanics and Thermal Sciences 87, no. 3 (2021): 31-39. https://doi.org/10.37934/arfmts.87.3.3139
[6] Arafat, Mohammad, Izuan Amin Ishak, Ahmad Faiz Mohammad, Amir Khalid, Md Norrizam Mohmad Jaát, and
Mohd Fuad Yasak. "Effect of Reynolds number on the wake of a Next-Generation High-Speed Train using CFD
analysis." CFD Letters 15, no. 1 (2023): 76-87. https://doi.org/10.37934/cfdl.15.1.7687
[7] Subramaniam, Thineshwaran, and Mohammad Rasidi Rasani. "Pulsatile CFD Numerical Simulation to investigate
the effect of various degree and position of stenosis on carotid artery hemodynamics." Journal of Advanced
Research in Applied Sciences and Engineering Technology 26, no. 2 (2022): 29-40.
https://doi.org/10.37934/araset.26.2.2940
[8] Le, Tat-Hien, Mai The Vu, Vu Ngoc Bich, Nguyen Kim Phuong, Nguyen Thi Hai Ha, Tran Quoc Chuan, and Tran Ngoc
Tu. "Numerical investigation on the effect of trim on ship resistance by RANSE method." Applied Ocean
Research 111 (2021): 102642. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apor.2021.102642
[9] Hoa, Nguyen Thi Ngoc, Bich Ngoc Vu, Ngoc Tu Tran, Nguyen Manh Chien, and Tat Hien Le. "Numerical investigating
the effect of water depth on ship resistance using RANS CFD method." Polish Maritime Research (2019).
https://doi.org/10.2478/pomr-2019-0046
[10] Tu, Tran Ngoc, Do Duc Luu, Nguyen Thi Hai Ha, Nguyen Thi Thu Quynh, and Nguyen Minh Vu. "Numerical prediction
of propeller-hull interaction characteristics using RANS method." Polish Maritime Research 2 (2019): 163-172.
https://doi.org/10.2478/pomr-2019-0036
[11] Tu, Tran Ngoc. "Numerical simulation of propeller open water characteristics using RANSE method." Alexandria
Engineering Journal 58, no. 2 (2019): 531-537. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aej.2019.05.005
[12] Niklas, Karol, and Hanna Pruszko. "Full-scale CFD simulations for the determination of ship resistance as a rational,
alternative method to towing tank experiments." Ocean Engineering 190 (2019): 106435.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aej.2019.05.005
[13] Can, Ugur, Cihad Delen, and Sakir Bal. "Effective wake estimation of KCS hull at full-scale by GEOSIM method based
on CFD." Ocean Engineering 218 (2020): 108052. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.oceaneng.2020.108052
[14] Luu, Do Duc, Tran Ngoc Tu, Tran Khanh Toan, Tat-Hien Le, Nguyen Duy Anh, and Nguyen Thi Hai Ha. "Numerical
Study on the Influence of Longitudinal Position of Centre of Buoyancy on Ship Resistance Using RANSE
Method." Naval Engineers Journal 132, no. 4 (2020): 151-160.
[15] Kraskowski, Marek. "CFD Optimisation of the Longitudinal Volume Distribution of a Ship’s Hull by Constrained
Transformation of the Sectional Area Curve." Polish Maritime Research 29, no. 3 (2022): 11-20.
https://doi.org/10.2478/pomr-2022-0022

77
CFD Letters
Volume 15, Issue 11 (2023) 67-78

[16] Saydam, Ahmet Ziya, Serhan Gokcay, and Mustafa Insel. "CFD based vortex generator design and full-scale testing
for wake non-uniformity reduction." Ocean Engineering 153 (2018): 282-296.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.oceaneng.2018.01.097
[17] Jasak, Hrvoje, Vuko Vukčević, Inno Gatin, and Igor Lalović. "CFD validation and grid sensitivity studies of full scale
ship self propulsion." International Journal of Naval Architecture and Ocean Engineering 11, no. 1 (2019): 33-43.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijnaoe.2017.12.004
[18] Choi, J. E., K-S. Min, J. H. Kim, S. B. Lee, and H. W. Seo. "Resistance and propulsion characteristics of various
commercial ships based on CFD results." Ocean engineering 37, no. 7 (2010): 549-566.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.oceaneng.2010.02.007
[19] Farkas, Andrea, Soonseok Song, Nastia Degiuli, Ivana Martić, and Yigit Kemal Demirel. "Impact of biofilm on the
ship propulsion characteristics and the speed reduction." Ocean Engineering 199 (2020): 107033.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.oceaneng.2020.107033
[20] Sun, Wenyu, Qiong Hu, Shiliang Hu, Jia Su, Jie Xu, Jinfang Wei, and Guofu Huang. "Numerical analysis of full-scale
ship self-propulsion performance with direct comparison to statistical sea trail results." Journal of marine science
and engineering 8, no. 1 (2020): 24. https://doi.org/10.3390/jmse8010024
[21] Tran, Thai Gia, and CV HUYNH. "Improving the accuracy of ship resistance prediction using computational fluid
dynamics tool." International Journal on Advanced Science Engineering Information Technology 10, no. 1 (2020):
171-177. https://doi.org/10.18517/ijaseit.10.1.10588
[22] Nabawi, Rahmat Azis. "Study Reduction of Resistance on The Flat Hull Ship of The Semi-Trimaran Model: Hull Vane
Vs Stern Foil." CFD Letters 13, no. 12 (2021): 32-44. https://doi.org/10.37934/cfdl.13.12.3244
[23] Nasirudin, Ahmad, I. Ketut Aria Pria Utama, and Andreas Kukuh Priyasambada. "CFD Analysis into the Resistance
Estimation of Hard-Chine Monohull using Conventional against Inverted Bows." CFD Letters 15, no. 6 (2023): 54-
64. https://doi.org/10.37934/cfdl.15.6.5464
[24] Tu, Tran Ngoc, Marek Kraskowski, Nguyen Manh Chien, Vu Tuan Anh, Do Luc Luu, and Nguyen Kim Phuong.
"Numerical study on the influence of trim on ship resistance in trim optimization process." Naval Engineers
Journal 130, no. 4 (2018): 133-142.
[25] Hänninen, Satu, and Juha Sehweighofer. "Numerical investigation of the scale effect on the flow around a ship
hull." Ship Technology Research 53, no. 1 (2006): 17-25. https://doi.org/10.1179/str.2006.53.1.004
[26] Hochkirch, Karsten, and Benoit Mallol. "On the importance of full-scale CFD simulations for ships." In 11th
International conference on computer and IT applications in the maritime industries, COMPIT. 2013.
[27] SIMMAN 2008 Workshop, [Online]. Available from: http://www.simman2008.dk/kcs/container.html.
[28] Hino, Takanori, Frederick Stern, Lars Larsson, Michel Visonneau, Nobuyuki Hirata, and Jin Kim, eds. Numerical ship
hydrodynamics: an assessment of the Tokyo 2015 Workshop. Vol. 94. Springer Nature, 2020.
https://doi.org/10.1179/str.2006.53.1.004
[29] Kim, W. J., S. H. Van, and D. H. Kim. "Measurement of flows around modern commercial ship models." Experiments
in fluids 31, no. 5 (2001): 567-578. https://doi.org/10.1007/s003480100332
[30] Technical report results of resistance test for containership KCS. CTO, Poland 2017.
[31] ITTC 2014. Recommended procedures and guidelines 7.5-03-02-04. Available from:
https://ittc.info/media/4198/75-03-02-04.pdf.
[32] Tu, Tran Ngoc, Do Duc Luu, Nguyen Thi Hai Ha, Nguyen Thi Thu Quynh, and Nguyen Minh Vu. "Numerical prediction
of propeller-hull interaction characteristics using RANS method." Polish Maritime Research 2 (2019): 163-172.
https://doi.org/10.2478/pomr-2019-0036
[33] Choi, J. E., K-S. Min, J. H. Kim, S. B. Lee, and H. W. Seo. "Resistance and propulsion characteristics of various
commercial ships based on CFD results." Ocean engineering 37, no. 7 (2010): 549-566.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.oceaneng.2010.02.007
[34] Yong, Zhao, Zong Zhi, Zou Li, and Wang Tianlin. "Turbulence model investigations on the boundary layer flow with
adverse pressure gradients." Journal of Marine Science and Application 14, no. 2 (2015): 170-174.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11804-015-1303-0
[35] Tu, Tran Ngoc, Vu Minh Ngoc, Nguyen Thi Thu Quynh, Nguyen Manh Chien, Nguyen Thi Hai Ha, and Nguyen Thi Ha
Phuong. "Effects of Turbulence Models On RANSE Computation Of Flow Around DTMB 5415 Vessel." Naval
Engineers Journal 133, no. 3 (2021): 137-151.
[36] Procedures, ITTC Recommended. "Uncertainty analysis in CFD verification and validation, methodology and
procedures." ITTC Recommended Procedures and Guidelines (2017): 7-5.
[37] ITTC Specialist Committee. "Recommended procedures and guidelines-uncertainty analysis in CFD verification and
validation methodology and procedures." In 28th International Towing Tank Conference. 2017.

78