# Effect of Monohull Type and Catamaran Hull Type on Ocean Waste Collection Behavior Using OpenFOAM

^{1}

^{2}

^{*}

## Abstract

**:**

## 1. Introduction

## 2. Numerical Methods

#### 2.1. Round-Bilge Monohull and Inner Flat Catamaran Model

#### 2.2. Sampling Location

#### 2.3. Computational Domain

#### 2.4. Meshing Process

#### 2.5. Validation

_{t}) and resistance coefficient (C

_{t}). The results of both parameters were close to the experimental results. The experimental Ct was 4.961 × 10

^{−3}, then the current simulation Ct was 4.555 × 10

^{−3}. The differences were below 9%. The experiment procedure was determined using the ITTC guideline. This difference in numbers occurred because the model used in this simulation was not exactly the same as the model used in the experiment. The wet surface area of the experimental model was 1.945 m

^{2}, then the wet surface area of the simulation model was 1.896 m

^{2.}There was a difference of 2.519%, because the experimental and simulation models were not totally the same. In addition, the R

_{t}and C

_{t}from the present simulation were also compared to numerical results [32,33]. The experimental Rt was 12.77 N, then the current simulation Rt was 12.02 N. The results indicate that the differences were less than 5%. Then, a comparison was also made with a Prelimina solver [34], and the difference was quite large because there must have been different characteristics between the model used in this study and Prelimina.

#### 2.6. Uncertainty Analysis

_{i}

_{.}A good alternative that applied is $ri=\sqrt{2}$, as it provides a fairly large parameter refinement ratio and at least enables prolongation of the coarse-parameter solution as an initial guess for the fine-parameter solution. The change between medium-fine ${\epsilon}_{i,21}={\widehat{S}}_{i,2}-{\widehat{S}}_{i,1}$ and coarse-medium ${\epsilon}_{i,32}={\widehat{S}}_{i,3}-{\widehat{S}}_{i,2}$ solutions are used to defined the convergence ratio ${R}_{i}={\epsilon}_{i,21}/{\epsilon}_{i,32}$, where ${\widehat{S}}_{i,1},{\widehat{S}}_{i,2},\mathrm{and}{\widehat{S}}_{i,3}$ are the solutions of fine, medium, and coarse input parameters, respectively [39,40]. The total resistance at 1 m/s will be used as the solution of each mesh.

- Monotonic convergence: 0 < R
_{i}< 1 - Oscillatory convergence: R
_{i}< 0 - Divergence: R
_{i}> 1

**GCI**estimated for the grid independence test of the total resistance over two grid solutions can be expressed as [41]:

**Fs**is defined as a safety factor and implies 95% confidence for the uncertainty estimate [37],

**Fs**= 1.25 is suggested for employment over these grids [42]. Since all

**GCI**values are below 1.5% [38], it is verified that the dependency of numerical results on the grid size has been reduced and the solution achieves the grid-independent solution.

## 3. Results

#### 3.1. Flow Characterization

#### 3.2. Dynamic Pressure

_{0}is static pressure. The pressure coefficient distribution under the hull was higher on the monohull model than on the catamaran model. The bottom wetted surface of the monohull was much larger. As a result, it will amplify the pressure acting on the surface as well as the pressure force. It is identical to a ship without a conveyor, whereas catamaran ships typically have less resistance than monohull ships [43,44]. The pressure coefficient distribution on conveyor surface was similar between both models. The high magnitude of pressure was distributed at bottom end section of the conveyor. This corresponds to the deeper part immersed in the water, which is expected to have greater pressure from incoming flow. Therefore, at this location, it is necessary to provide more structural reinforcement than the other parts.

#### 3.3. Flow Patterns

#### 3.4. Velocity Contour and Velocity Sampling in Front of Model

## 4. Conclusions

## Author Contributions

## Funding

## Institutional Review Board Statement

## Informed Consent Statement

## Data Availability Statement

## Acknowledgments

## Conflicts of Interest

## References

- Chiba, S.; Saito, H.; Fletcher, R.; Yogi, T.; Kayo, M.; Miyagi, S.; Ogido, M.; Fujikura, K. Human footprint in the abyss: 30 year records of deep-sea plastic debris. Mar. Policy
**2018**, 98, 204–212. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Bergmann, M.; Tekman, M.B.; Gutow, L. Marine litter: Sea change for plastic pollution. Nature
**2017**, 544, 297. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Leal Filho, W.; Hunt, J.; Kovaleva, M. Garbage Patches and Their Environmental Implications in a Plastisphere. J. Mar. Sci. Eng.
**2021**, 9, 1289. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - UNEP. Marine Litter Vital Graphics. 2016. Available online: https://www.grida.no/publications/60 (accessed on 21 December 2021).
- Pradit, S.; Noppradit, P.; Loh, P.-S.; Nitiratsuwan, T.; Le, T.P.Q.; Oeurng, C.; Mohamed, C.A.R.; Lee, C.W.; Lu, X.; Anshari, G.Z.; et al. The Occurrence of Microplastics in Sediment Cores from Two Mangrove Areas in Southern Thailand. J. Mar. Sci. Eng.
**2022**, 10, 418. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - IPCC. Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability. Part B: Regional Aspects; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 2014. [Google Scholar]
- World Bank Group. Hotspot Sampah Laut Indonesia; World Bank Group: Jakarta, Indonesia, 2018. [Google Scholar]
- Sugianto, E.; Chen, J.H. Buy marine debris: A digital platform for sustainable marine debris management involving fishermen. Int. J. Humanit. Soc. Sci.
**2021**, 3, 36–48. [Google Scholar] - Sugianto, E.; Chen, J.H. Ships for waste management in Indonesian seas: Contexts and challenges. In Proceedings of the 12th International Indonesia Forum Conference: Rising to the Occasion: Indonesian Creativity, Ingenuity, and Innovation in a World in Transition, Tainan, Taiwan, 26–27 June 2019. [Google Scholar]
- Sugianto, E.; Chen, J.H. Preliminary concept of ship use to waste management in sea shallow water. In Proceedings of the 33th Asian-Pacific Technical Exchange and Advisory Meetings on Marine Structures (TEAM 2020), Tainan, Taiwan, 14–17 October 2019. [Google Scholar]
- Rizzuto, E.; Soares, C.G. Sustainable maritime transportation and exploitation of sea resources. In Proceedings of the 14th International Congress of the International Maritime Association of Mediterranean (IMAM), Genova, Italy, 13–16 September 2011. [Google Scholar]
- Chrismianto, D.; Adietya, B.A.; Sobirin, Y. Pengaruh variasi bentuk hull kapal catamaran terhadap besar hambatan total menggunakan CFD (The effect of variations in the hull shape of a catamaran on the total resistance using CFD). Kapal J. Mar. Sci. Technol.
**2014**, 11, 99–106. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Basir, N.B.; Trimulyono, A.; Santoso, A.W.B. Analisa pengaruh penggunaan chine pada hambatan kapal ikan tipe katamaran (Analysis of the effect of using chine on catamaran-type fishing vessel resistance). Kapal J. Mar. Sci. Technol.
**2015**, 3, 183–192. [Google Scholar] - Hu, J.; Zhang, Y.; Wang, P.; Qin, F. Numerical and experimental study on resistance of asymmetric catamaran with different layouts. Brodogradnja
**2020**, 71, 91–110. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Yanuar; Ibadurrahman; Waskito, K.T.; Karim, S.; Ichsan, M. Interference resistance of pentamaran ship model with asymmetric outrigger configurations. J. Mar. Sci. Appl.
**2017**, 16, 42–47. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Najafi, A.; Saeed, S.M. RANS simulation of hydrofoil effects on hydrodynamic coefficients of a planing catamaran. Brodogradnja
**2016**, 67, 43–66. Available online: https://hrcak.srce.hr/154715 (accessed on 26 May 2022). - Farkas, A.; Degiuli, N.; Martic, I. Numerical investigation into the interaction of resistance components for a series 60 catamaran. Ocean Eng.
**2017**, 146, 151–169. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Dubrovsky, V.A. Multi-Hulls: Some new options as the result of science development. Brodogradnja
**2010**, 61, 142–152. Available online: https://hrcak.srce.hr/56871 (accessed on 26 May 2022). - Shaw, H.J.; Chen, W.L.; Li, Y.H. A CFD study on the performance of a passive ocean plastic collector under rough sea conditions. Ocean Eng.
**2019**, 188, 106243. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Ji, C.Y.; Guo, J.T.; Ye, R.C.; Yin, Q.L.; Xu, W.Y.; Yuan, Z.M. Experimental study of an ocean surface cleaning system. Ocean Eng.
**2022**, 249, 110937. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Papanikolaou, A.; Xing-Kaeding, Y.; Strobel, J.; Kanellopoulou, A.; Zaraphonitis, G.; Tolo, E. Numerical and Experimental Optimization Study on a Fast, Zero Emission Catamaran. J. Mar. Sci. Eng.
**2020**, 8, 657. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Shi, G.; Priftis, A.; Xing-Kaeding, Y.; Boulougouris, E.; Papanikolaou, A.D.; Wang, H.; Symonds, G. Numerical Investigation of the Resistance of a Zero-Emission Full-Scale Fast Catamaran in Shallow Water. J. Mar. Sci. Eng.
**2021**, 9, 563. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Dorner MFG Corp. Full Specification dorner Aquapruf Aquagard, Doner Move Fast and Smart. 2009. Available online: https://www.dornerconveyors.com/asia/aquagard-vs-aquapruf (accessed on 3 November 2021).
- Pramoko, A.G.; Kurniawati, H.A. Studi perancangan trash-skimmer boat di perairan Teluk Jakarta (Study on the design of a trash-skimmer boat in the waters of Jakarta Bay). J. Tek. ITS
**2013**, 2, 11–16. [Google Scholar] - Sugianto, E.; Chen, J.H.; Purba, N.P. Numerical investigation of conveyor wing shape type effect on ocean waste collection behavior. E3S Web Conf.
**2021**, 324, 01005. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - ITTC. Guideline for VIV Testing. In ITTC—Recommended Procedures and Guidelines, Proceedings of the Ocean Engineering Committee of the 29th ITTC, Virtual, 13–18 June 2021; Chapter 7.5-02-03-10; Available online: https://ittc.info/media/9876/0_0.pdf (accessed on 3 November 2021).
- Versteeg, H.-K.; Malalasekera, W. An Introduction to Computational Fluid Dynamics—The Finite Volume Method, 2nd ed.; Pearson Education Limited: London, UK, 2007. [Google Scholar]
- ITTC. Practical Guidelines for Ship CFD Applications. In ITTC—Recommended Procedures and Guidelines; 26th ITTC Executive Committee: Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, 2011; Chapter 7.5-03-02-03. [Google Scholar]
- Vant Veer, R. Experimental Results of Motions and Structural Loads on the 372 Catamaran Model in Head and Oblique Waves, 1130; TU Delft Rep: Wageningen, The Netherlands, 1998. [Google Scholar]
- Vant Veer, R. Experimental Results of Motions, Hydrodynamic Coefficients and Wave Loads on the 372 Catamaran Model; Delft University of Technology: Wageningen, The Netherlands, 1998. [Google Scholar]
- Broglia, R.; Jacob, B.; Zaghi, S.; Stern, F.; Olivieri, A. Experimental investigation of interference effects for high-speed catamarans. Ocean Eng.
**2014**, 76, 75–85. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Broglia, R.; Zaghi, S.; Di Mascio, A. Numerical simulation of interference effects for a high-speed catamaran. J. Mar. Sci. Technol.
**2011**, 16, 254–269. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Remmlinger, U. The Resistance of the Delft 372 Hull; VDI Verlag: Düsseldorf, Germany, 2014. [Google Scholar]
- Bašić, J.; Blagojević, B.; Andrun, M. Improved estimation of ship wave-making resistance. Ocean Eng.
**2020**, 200, 107079. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Roy, C.J. Review of code and solution verification procedures for computational simulation. J. Comput. Phys.
**2005**, 205, 131–156. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Paudel, S.; Saenger, N. Grid refinement study for three dimensional CFD model involving incompressible free surface flow and rotating object. Comput. Fluids
**2017**, 143, 134–140. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Roache, P.J. Perspective—A Method for Uniform Reporting of Grid Refinement Studies. J. Fluid Eng.
**1994**, 116, 405–413. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Roache, P.J. Verification of codes and calculations. AIAA J.
**1998**, 36, 696–702. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - ITTC. Uncertainly analysis in CFD verification and validation methodology and procedures. In ITTC—Recommended Procedures and Guidelines; 28th ITTC Executive Committee: Wuxi, China, 2017; Chapter 7.5-03-01-01. [Google Scholar]
- Islam, H.; Soares, C.G. Uncertainty analysis in ship resistance prediction using OpenFOAM. Ocean Eng.
**2019**, 191, 105805. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Lin, Y.-H.; Li, X.-C. The Investigation of a Sliding Mesh Model for Hydrodynamic Analysis of a SUBOFF Model in Turbulent Flow Fields. J. Mar. Sci. Eng.
**2020**, 8, 744. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Roache, P.J. Quantification of uncertainty in computational fluid dynamics. Annu. Rev. Fluid Mech.
**1997**, 29, 123–160. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Adietya, B.A.; Gustiarini, E.D. Studi perbandingan performa kapal trimaran, katamaran, dan monohull sebagai kapal penyeberangan di Kepulauan Karimunjawa (Comparative study of the performance of trimaran, catamaran, and monohull vessels as crossing vessels in the Karimun Jawa Islands). Kapal J. Mar. Sci. Technol.
**2018**, 15, 18–23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Zakki, F.Z.; Chrismianto, D.; Widyandari, A.; Ilham, R. On the development of catamaran hull form for fish processing vessel to support domestic fishing activities in Indonesia. Brodogradnja
**2021**, 68, 175–188. Available online: https://hrcak.srce.hr/262617 (accessed on 26 May 2022). [CrossRef] - Bigdeli, M.; Mohammadian, A.; Pilechi, A.; Taheri, M. Lagrangian Modeling of Marine Microplastics Fate and Transport: The State of the Science. J. Mar. Sci. Eng.
**2022**, 10, 481. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - De Leo, A.; Cutroneo, L.; Sous, D.; Stocchino, A. Settling Velocity of Microplastics Exposed to Wave Action. J. Mar. Sci. Eng.
**2021**, 9, 142. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]

**Figure 1.**Monohull model: (

**a**) front view of round bilge, (

**b**) 3D view of round bilge, and (

**c**) side view.

**Figure 2.**Catamaran model: (

**a**) front view of inner flat hull, (

**b**) 3D view of inner flat hull, (

**c**) side view.

**Figure 5.**Meshing in fluid domain with refinement levels: (

**a**) side view model, (

**b**) top view, (

**c**) front view.

**Figure 6.**The actual number of surface prism layers generated around the ship model using the snappyHexMesh tool: (

**a**) surface layers, (

**b**) yPlus.

**Figure 8.**Residual and force components evolution: (

**a**) residual iteration evolution, (

**b**) force components iteration evolution using 2,196,512 cells, (

**c**) location of velocity sampling, (

**d**) velocity convergence.

**Figure 9.**Pressure coefficient distribution (

**a**) and wave patterns (

**b**) on Delft catamaran 372 surface at Froude number 0.3.

**Figure 10.**Distribution of wave generated around round-bilge monohull 1 m/s: (

**a**) wave elevation, (

**b**) wave profile along body.

**Figure 11.**Distribution of wave generated around inner flat catamaran at 1 m/s speed: (

**a**) wave elevation, (

**b**) wave profile along body.

**Figure 17.**Pressure coefficient distribution on ship surface at 0.5 m/s: (

**a**) monohull, (

**b**) catamaran.

Parameter | Symbol | Monohull | Catamaran |
---|---|---|---|

Length overall [m] | Loa | 4.000 | 4.000 |

Length perpendicular [m] | Lpp | 3.950 | 3.950 |

Length of water line [m] | Lwl | 3.858 | 3.858 |

Maximum breadth [m] | B | 1.200 | 1.200 |

Height [m] | H | 0.600 | 0.600 |

Draft [m] | T | 0.300 | 0.300 |

Wetted surface area [m^{2}] | WSA | 6.232 | 5.723 |

Conveyor length [m] | Lc | 1.625 | 1.625 |

Conveyor angle [^{o}] | La | 20 | 20 |

Conveyor wide [m] | Lw | 0.600 | 0.600 |

Volume displacement | m^{3} | 0.90 | 0.36 |

Block coefficient | - | 0.625 | 0.25 |

Probes | X (m) | Y1 | Y2 | Y3 | Z |
---|---|---|---|---|---|

P1 | 3.5 | 0 | 0.15 | −0.15 | 0 |

P2 | 4.2 | 0 | 0.15 | −0.15 | 0 |

P3 | 4.5 | 0 | 0.15 | −0.15 | 0 |

P4 | 5.2 | 0 | 0.15 | −0.15 | 0 |

P5 | 5.5 | 0 | 0.15 | −0.15 | 0 |

Parameter | Velocity | Dynamic Pressure | α. Water | Omega | k |
---|---|---|---|---|---|

Inlet | fixedValue | fixedFluxPressure | fixedValue | fixedValue | fixedValue |

Starboard | zeroGradient | zeroGradient | variableHeightFlowRate | zeroGradient | zeroGradient |

Portside | zeroGradient | zeroGradient | zeroGradient | zeroGradient | zeroGradient |

Atmosphere | pressureInletOutletVelocity | totalPressure | inletOutlet | inletOutlet | inletOutlet |

Bottom | zeroGradient | zeroGradient | fixedValue | zeroGradient | eroGradient |

Outlet | outletPhaseMeanVelocity | zeroGradient | variableHeightFlowRate | inletOutlet | inletOutlet |

Hull | movingWallVelocity | fixedFluxPressure | zeroGradient | omegaWallFunction | qRWallFunction |

**Table 4.**Average and standard deviation of force components vs. grid density for Delft catamaran 372 at Fr = 0.3.

Grid Density | Number of Cells | Pressure | Viscous | Total | Experiment Value | % Error |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|

Coarse | 737,304 | 5.38 | 8.22 | 13.60 | 12.77 | 6.5 |

Medium | 2,196,512 | 3.46 | 8.56 | 12.02 | 12.77 | 5.8 |

Fine | 4,400,870 | 2.62 | 11.71 | 14.33 | 12.77 | 12.2 |

Vs (m/s) | Fn | Re | R_{t} (N) | C_{t} × 10^{−3} | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|

Experiment [30,31] | 1.627 | 0.3 | 4.882 × 10^{6} | 12.77 | 4.961 |

Prelimina [34] | 1.637 | 0.3 | 4.882 × 10^{6} | 14.00 | 5.523 |

Present study | 1.627 | 0.3 | 4.882 × 10^{6} | 12.02 | 4.555 |

Percentage error with experiment (%) | - | - | - | 5.843 | 8.18 |

Percentage error with Prelimina (%) | - | - | - | 12.85 | 17.52 |

Grid | No. of Cells | ${\widehat{\mathit{S}}}_{\mathit{i},\mathit{n}}\left(\mathit{R}\mathit{T}\right)$ | ${\mathit{\epsilon}}_{\mathit{i},21}$ | ${\mathit{\epsilon}}_{\mathit{i},32}$ | ${\mathit{R}}_{\mathit{i}}$ | ${\mathit{P}}_{\mathit{i}}$ | $\mathbf{G}\mathbf{C}{\mathbf{I}}_{12}(\%)$ | $\mathbf{G}\mathbf{C}{\mathbf{I}}_{12}(\%)$ |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|

Fine | 7,735,423 | 141.51 | 1.59 | |||||

Medium | 3,143,952 | 143.10 | 6.38 | 0.2492 | 4.009 | 0.35 | 1.41 | |

Coarse | 945,286 | 149.48 |

Grid | No. of Cells | ${\widehat{\mathit{S}}}_{\mathit{i},\mathit{n}}\left(\mathit{R}\mathit{T}\right)$ | ${\mathit{\epsilon}}_{\mathit{i},21}$ | ${\mathit{\epsilon}}_{\mathit{i},32}$ | ${\mathit{R}}_{\mathit{i}}$ | ${\mathit{P}}_{\mathit{i}}$ | $\mathbf{G}\mathbf{C}{\mathbf{I}}_{12}(\%)$ | $\mathbf{G}\mathbf{C}{\mathbf{I}}_{12}(\%)$ |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|

Fine | 5,877,600 | 136.95 | −0.07 | |||||

Medium | 3,143,952 | 136.87 | −1.19 | 0.0623 | 8.007 | 0.0042 | 0.0042 | |

Coarse | 1,777,139 | 135.68 |

Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. |

© 2022 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).

## Share and Cite

**MDPI and ACS Style**

Sugianto, E.; Chen, J.-H.; Permadi, N.V.A. Effect of Monohull Type and Catamaran Hull Type on Ocean Waste Collection Behavior Using OpenFOAM. *Water* **2022**, *14*, 2623.
https://doi.org/10.3390/w14172623

**AMA Style**

Sugianto E, Chen J-H, Permadi NVA. Effect of Monohull Type and Catamaran Hull Type on Ocean Waste Collection Behavior Using OpenFOAM. *Water*. 2022; 14(17):2623.
https://doi.org/10.3390/w14172623

**Chicago/Turabian Style**

Sugianto, Erik, Jeng-Horng Chen, and Niki Veranda Agil Permadi. 2022. "Effect of Monohull Type and Catamaran Hull Type on Ocean Waste Collection Behavior Using OpenFOAM" *Water* 14, no. 17: 2623.
https://doi.org/10.3390/w14172623