SECTOR / MR · MARINE HYDRODYNAMICS
Ship resistance CFD that holds up against the tank.
Hull, propeller and appendage hydrodynamics run to ITTC procedure. We hold total resistance to within 2 percent of towing-tank measurement, against a field that averages 3.0 to 3.4 percent, and we state the threshold before the first production run rather than after seeing the answer.
The reference study
KCS Case 2.1, six speeds, against the tank.
The KRISO Container Ship at model scale, six Froude numbers, free to sink and trim, compared against the Tokyo 2015 towing-tank measurement. This is the study we run to show a marine buyer what our work looks like end to end, and it is the template every hull job follows.
against a field that averages 3.0 to 3.4 percent across all Tokyo 2015 submissions
THE FULL STUDY →Who this is for
A technical manager at a shipyard or design office, a superintendent in an owner's technical department, or a hydrodynamicist inside a class society or a consultancy reviewing other people's CFD.
What do I hand the chief engineer or the surveyor when they ask how you know?
What we take on
- Calm-water resistance, sinkage and trim, and powering prediction
- Self-propulsion and propulsive coefficients
- Propeller open-water performance and cavitation assessment
- Nominal and effective wake field on the propeller plane
- Energy-saving device and appendage retrofit assessment
- Seakeeping and added resistance in waves
- Sloshing, ballast and tank flow
- Hull-form optimisation against a declared objective
What you hold at the end
- Resistance, sinkage and trim across the condition set, each stated against the threshold it was judged on
- A three-grid convergence study with the observed order of accuracy, and grid uncertainty reported by both the GCI and the ITTC factor-of-safety method
- A wall-treatment audit published as a distribution over wetted area rather than as a maximum
- Nominal wake field on the propeller plane in the split-disc layout a propeller designer expects
- ITTC-78 extrapolation to full scale with its sensitivity band, and the limits of that extrapolation stated
- A case archive that re-runs from a clean checkout, with wall clock and core hours on named hardware
Run to
Naming the procedure is not the same as claiming approval under it. We run the work to these procedures and cite them on every threshold; certification and approval are the authority's to give, not ours to claim.
How to engage
Four rungs, stepping by depth of evidence. Most first engagements start at S0, which is priced so a manager can commit without procurement, and the whole fee credits into whatever comes next.
| Rung | Best for | Fee | Duration | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| S0 | Threshold Study | A first, small, low-risk piece of work with a supplier you have not used | $3,800 - $6,500 | 2 weeks |
| S1 | Verification Study | Is our numerical answer sound on its own terms? | $16,000 - $28,000 | 3 to 5 weeks |
| S2 | Validation Study | Does it agree with a measurement we did not produce? | $38,000 - $68,000 | 6 to 10 weeks |
| S3 | Design Closure | Now use it to pick the design, and show what lost | $75,000 - $145,000 | 10 to 18 weeks |
Threshold Study
We write the check matrix for your case before anyone runs it. You get every threshold with the procedure number or published statistic it was set from, a named comparator with its provenance and a written answer on whether it is actually obtainable, the tooling and versions we would pin, and the wall clock and cost of the study that would close it. If no comparator exists for your context of use, we say so in writing and the study stops there. That answer is worth the fee on its own.
- Three-band check matrix, every row carrying quantity, threshold and published basis
- Comparator dossier: source, publisher, licence position, stated experimental uncertainty, and a go or no-go on obtainability
- Tooling and version pin list, hardware spec, and machine-hour estimate from a measured timing rather than a guess
- The checks we expect to be hardest, named in advance, with the mechanism
- A fixed-fee SOW for the rung above, valid 60 days
DONE MEANS: YOU HOLD A CHECK MATRIX YOUR REVIEWER CAN RED-LINE BEFORE A SINGLE CORE-HOUR IS SPENT. THE FULL FEE CREDITS INTO ANY RUNG ABOVE IT IF COMMISSIONED WITHIN 60 DAYS.
Verification Study
Your geometry, your conditions, closed against the verification and requirements bands. Mesh quality audited and published, near-wall resolution reported as an area fraction rather than a maximum, iterative convergence demonstrated by solution stationarity rather than a residual floor, a three-grid convergence study with the observed order of accuracy and the discretisation uncertainty stated as a number, and domain and boundary-condition sensitivity quantified.
- Case archive that re-runs from a clean checkout with one command
- Container definition with a published image digest
- Verification report with the full convergence tables, histories and mesh quality
- Verification and requirements bands filled with measured values against declared thresholds
- Per-run wall clock and core hours, and a SHA-256 manifest
DONE MEANS: EVERY VERIFICATION AND REQUIREMENTS ROW CARRIES A MEASURED VALUE AGAINST ITS DECLARED THRESHOLD, NO ROW REMOVED AND NO THRESHOLD EDITED AFTER THE FIRST RESULT WAS READ.
Validation Study
Everything in the verification study, plus the comparison against measured data with the delta stated as a number against the band it was judged on. Where the comparator carries its own experimental uncertainty, that uncertainty sets the band rather than a tolerance we picked.
- All verification deliverables
- The validation band filled, every row with its delta against the declared threshold
- Comparator provenance, retrieval date and licence position
- The rows that failed, published at the same weight as the rows that passed
- A report written in the form your reviewer or surveyor expects
DONE MEANS: AGREEMENT, OR DISAGREEMENT, IS STATED AS A NUMBER AGAINST A THRESHOLD THAT WAS FIXED FIRST, AND THE ARCHIVE REPRODUCES IT.
Design Closure
The model becomes a design tool. Candidates screened against the declared objective, the winner closed, the rejected candidates published with the number that disqualified each one, and release geometry generated from the closed solution.
- All validation deliverables
- The design space explored, with the screening criteria declared first
- Rejected candidates published with their disqualifying numbers
- Release geometry generated from the closed solution
- A design report that traces every figure to an artefact
DONE MEANS: YOU HOLD A CHOSEN DESIGN, THE EVIDENCE IT WAS CHOSEN ON, AND THE RECORD OF WHAT IT BEAT.