407
1 INTRODUCTION
As with other modes of transportation, ships are also
at risk of accidents. Ship accidents can be caused by
adverse natural conditions or human factors. Such
incidents can be highly detrimental, leading to
property losses and even fatalities. Notably, between
2003 and 2019, there were 120 recorded ship accidents
in Indonesia, with 41% involving grounding and
sinking incidents. Motorized vessels accounted for the
majority of these accidents, comprising 89% of the total
cases. The majority of these accidents occurred in the
Java Sea, with 44 reported cases. This situation
warrants special attention, especially since the Java Sea
holds significant fishery potential and is a hub of
intensive fishing activities.
Fishing vessels play a crucial role in supporting
fishing operations and represent one of the most
commonly operated types of ships in Indonesia. This is
further underscored by the fact that Indonesia has the
world's second-longest coastline, exceeding 90,000 km.
Consequently, the fisheries sector, particularly capture
fishing, has become a viable profession for coastal
communities. According to data from the Ministry of
Marine Affairs and Fisheries (KKP), in 2021, there were
approximately 900,000 marine fishing vessels,
predominantly consisting of motorized boats and
motorized canoes, with over 2.4 million. However,
most fishing vessels in Indonesia are still traditional,
and be built using conventional methods [1].
When operating at sea, fishing vessels require
reliable seakeeping capabilities. This is based on the
fact that fishing activities are inherently hazardous, as
these vessels often encounter relatively high waves [2].
Good seakeeping performance not only ensures
passenger safety but also enhances the efficiency of
Numerical Analysis of the Effect of Passive Free Surface
Tank on Rolling Motion of Batang-Type Traditional
Fishing Vessel
D. Chrismianto, H. Yudo, B. Arswendo Adietya, A. Firdhaus & A. Abel Salassella
Diponegoro University, Semarang, Central Java, Indonesia
ABSTRACT: Ship accidents are caused by various factors, one of which is excessive roll motion that can lead to
capsizing. To address excessive rolling, the passive free surface tank device is a potential solution that can be
applied. In order to ensure good performance of the passive free surface tank, it is necessary to investigate the
effect of the tank's dimensional configuration on the damping it generates. By identifying the best tank
configuration, it is hoped that this study can provide useful references for the design of passive free surface tanks,
especially for traditional fishing vessels. The analysis begins by creating several tank specimens with variations
in length and fluid height. The performance of the passive free surface tank is evaluated based on the RMS values
generated by the ship with the tank, which are then compared to the RMS values of the ship without a tank. In
the analysis, FEM-based software is used to assist in the calculations. The results show that the ship with the
addition of passive free surface tank type C1 produces the highest roll damping, with a damping percentage of
20.01% at empty load, 25.12% at half load, and 24.37% at full load.
http://www.transnav.eu
the International Journal
on Marine Navigation
and Safety of Sea Transportation
Volume 19
Number 2
June 2025
DOI: 10.12716/1001.19.02.09
408
crew operations. Conversely, excessive motion
amplitudes indicative of poor seakeeping performance
can disrupt the functionality of fishing gear, adversely
impacting the fishing process [3].
One critical aspect of seakeeping is the rolling
motion, which is the rotational movement of a vessel
about its longitudinal axis in response to wave action.
Rolling causes the vessel's sides to alternately tilt from
right to left in a repetitive manner [4]. Excessive rolling
can negatively affect vessel stability, posing a risk to
the crew and even leading to dangerous situations such
as capsizing [5], [6]. Large rolling amplitudes increase
the likelihood of vessel instability, which can result in
accidents or sinking.
Various methods can be employed to mitigate
rolling and its negative effects, including the addition
of bilge keels, active fins, or anti-roll tanks. An anti-roll
tank functions by creating a counteracting moment
induced by the oscillatory flow of fluid within the tank
[7], which gradually dampens the rolling motion
caused by incoming waves.
Anti-roll tanks are categorized into two types:
active anti-roll tanks and passive anti-roll tanks.
Although passive anti-roll tanks are less effective than
active systems, they are more economical in terms of
operational costs. Moreover, passive systems are
simpler, relying solely on the movement of fluid within
the tank without the need for pump systems. There are
various types of passive anti-roll tanks, with the
simplest being the free-surface tank (or flume tank) and
the U-tube tank. The free-surface tank consists of a
single tank structure, while the U-tube tank comprises
a dual-tank configuration connected at the bottom by a
channel.
Previous studies have investigated the effects of
applying anti-roll systems on ships, including bilge
keels, passive U-tube tanks, and active fins. The use of
bilge keels has been shown to reduce rolling motion by
1–3%. Active fins provide a rolling reduction effect of
75%, while U-tube anti-roll tanks achieve a reduction
of 26.5% [8]. Meanwhile, passive free-surface tanks
offer a rolling reduction effect 50% greater than that of
U-tube tanks [9].
Among fishing vessels, bilge keels are the most
commonly used anti-roll systems. However, their
performance is inferior to that of passive anti-roll
tanks. The main drawback of bilge keels is that they
increase the vessel's resistance [10]. On the other hand,
while active fins deliver optimal rolling reduction
performance, their application involves significantly
higher costs compared to passive anti-roll tanks. Thus,
the adoption of passive anti-roll tanks offers an
advantage in terms of cost-effectiveness,
outperforming bilge keels in efficiency while
remaining affordable.
Based on these considerations, designing an anti-
roll system for fishing vessels is necessary to mitigate
rolling motion. The selected system is a passive anti-
roll tank of the free-surface tank type, chosen for its
simple geometry, which makes it particularly easy to
implement, especially for fishermen operating fishing
vessels.
However, further research is needed to determine
the effects of tank dimensions and fluid fill levels
within passive free-surface tanks. Such studies would
identify the optimal tank dimensions and fluid height
configurations that achieve the best rolling reduction
performance. By determining the most effective
configuration, this research is expected to serve as a
reference for developing anti-roll systems, specifically
passive free-surface tanks.
2 METHOD
2.1 Research Object
The sample used in this study is a traditional vessel
from the Batang region operating in the Java Sea. The
vessel, as shown in Figure 1, has the main dimensions
listed in Table 1.
Figure 1. Linesplan of KM Barokah Rezeki
Table 1. Vessel Data of KM Barokah Rezeki
Size
Unit
Length Waterline (LWL)
m
Length Over All (LOA)
m
Breadth (B)
m
Height (H)
m
Draft (T)
m
Gross Tonnage (GT)
tons
Service Speed (Vs)
knot
GMT
m
2.2 Research Parameters
This study aimed to investigate changes in rolling
amplitude, expressed as Root Mean Square (RMS),
after the application of a passive free-surface tank on a
fishing vessel. The RMS values of the rolling motion of
the vessel with the passive free-surface tank were
compared to those without the tank to determine the
reduction in RMS, which reflects the damping effect.
The research variables are categorized into fixed
and independent variables, as described below.
Fixed Variables
1. Placement of the passive free-surface tank on the
vessel, as illustrated in Figure 3.
2. Wave parameters, including a significant wave
height (Hs) of 1 meter and an average peak period
(Tp) of 5 seconds.
3. Fluid used to fill the passive free-surface tank.
4. The main dimensions of the passive free-surface
tank, based on previous studies, as detailed in Table
2.
409
Table 2. Main Dimension of the passive tank
Size
Value
Unit
Tank Width (BT)
3.50
m
Tank Height (HT)
1.60
m
Independent Variables are include:
1. Length of the Passive Free Surface Tank, as shown
in Table 3 and illustrated in Figure 2.
2. Fluid Height in the Passive Free Surface Tank, as
detailed in Table 4.
3. Vessel Loading Conditions, varied into three states
as listed in Table 5.
Table 3. Variations in Passive Tank Length
Type
Length
Unit
A
0.5
m
B
1.0
m
C
1.5
m
Table 4. Variations in Fluid Height
Type
Fluid Height
Unit
1
0.3
m
2
0.6
m
3
0.9
m
Table 5. Variations in Vessel Loading Conditions
Condition
Loading Condition
Description
K
0 %
Empty
S
50 %
Half-load
P
97 %
Fully-load
Figure 2. Front and side view geometries of the passive tank
for (a) Type A, (b) Type B, (c) Type C
Figure 3. Illustration of Passive Free Surface Tank Placement
on KM Barokah Rezeki
2.3 Data Analysis
Data analysis was conducted to identify the tank
variation that achieves the highest percentage of
rolling reduction. This involved evaluating the
influence of fluid height and tank length of the passive
free-surface tank on the vessel's rolling motion,
expressed in terms of RMS. The steps involved in the
analysis are as follows:
1. Analyzing the Vessel’s Rolling Motion Without a
Tank The results from this analysis serve as a
baseline for comparing the damping effects of the
tank variations, expressed as a percentage
reduction in rolling.
2. Analyzing the Vessel's Center of Gravity and Draft
for Different Loading Conditions The values
obtained are used as input for the rolling motion
analysis.
3. Performing Rolling Motion Analysis for Each Tank
and Loading Variation Using Numerical
Computation Software Fluid height within the tank
is a key input for this stage.
4. Processing Rolling Motion Analysis Results (RAO
to RMS)
5. Validating the RMS of the Vessel Without a Tank by
calculating the percentage difference in RMS.
6. Comparing Results for Vessels With and Without
Passive Free-Surface Tanks By calculating the
percentage rolling reduction for each tank variation
based on the comparative analysis.
7. Interpreting the Rolling Reduction Percentages
achieved by each passive free-surface tank
variation.
3 RESULT AND DISCUSSION
3.1 3D Modeling of the Vessel and Tank
To conduct analysis using FEM-based software, the
vessel geometry and passive free-surface tank must be
modeled in three dimensions. The 3D representation of
the vessel and the tank placement is shown in Figure 4.
410
Figure 4. 3D Model of the Modified Vessel With the Addition
of a Tank
3.2 Determination of Center of Gravity, Displacement,
and Draft
The center of gravity and displacement are essential
inputs for analyzing the vessel's rolling motion and
must be determined for each tank variation.
Additionally, the draft is critical as it serves as a
boundary for the submerged area of the vessel in the
rolling motion analysis. The data for the center of
gravity, draft, and displacement are presented in Table
5 for empty load condition (0%), Table 6 for half-full
load condition (50%), and Table 7 for fully loaded
condition (97%).
Table 6. Data on Center of Gravity, Displacement, and Draft
under 0% load
Type
Draft (m)
LCG (m)
VCG (m)
TCG(m)
Disp(kg)
A1-K
0.93
4.73
1.19
0.003
21459
A2-K
0.95
4.76
1.19
0.003
21916
A3-K
0.96
4.78
1.19
0.003
23895
B1-K
0.95
4.76
1.26
0.003
21916
B2-K
0.98
4.81
1.25
0.003
22830
B3-K
1.00
4.86
1.25
0.003
23744
C1-K
0.96
4.78
1.33
0.003
22373
C2-K
1.00
4.86
1.32
0.003
23744
C3-K
1.05
4.92
1.31
0.003
25115
Table 7. Data on Center of Gravity, Displacement, and Draft
under 50% load
Type
Draft (m)
LCG (m)
VCG (m)
TCG (m)
Disp (kg)
A1-S
1.14
5.57
1.49
0.01
26648
A2-S
1.15
5.58
1.48
0.01
27105
A3-S
1.16
5.58
1.48
0.01
27562
B1-S
1.15
5.58
1.55
0.01
27105
B2-S
1.18
5.59
1.53
0.01
28019
B3-S
1.20
5.60
1.52
0.01
28933
C1-S
1.15
5.57
1.59
0.01
27243
C2-S
1.19
5.59
1.56
0.01
28614
C3-S
1.23
5.61
1.55
0.01
29986
Table 8. Data on Center of Gravity, Displacement, and Draft
under 97% load
Type
Draft (m)
LCG (m)
VCG (m)
TCG (m)
Disp (kg)
A1-P
1.22
6.09
1.49
0.01
31661
A2-P
1.31
6.09
1.48
0.01
32118
A3-P
1.32
6.09
1.48
0.01
32575
B1-P
1.31
6.09
1.54
0.01
32118
B2-P
1.33
6.08
1.52
0.01
33032
B3-P
1.35
6.08
1.52
0.01
33946
C1-P
1.30
6.07
1.58
0.01
31956
C2-P
1.34
6.07
1.55
0.01
33327
C3-P
1.37
6.07
1.54
0.01
34699
3.3 Vessel Motion Analysis
The motion analysis focuses on the rolling motion
experienced by the vessel. A wave heading angle of 90
degrees was chosen, as it produces the largest response
to rolling [11]. FEM-based software was utilized to
facilitate numerical computations. The output of the
analysis is in the form of a Response Amplitude
Operator (RAO), which represents the vessel's
response to regular waves.
In this study, the RAO values for rolling with and
without the passive free-surface tank are presented as
graphs. Figure 5 displays RAO rolling comparison for
the vessel at 0% load (Condition K), while figure 6
displays RAO rolling comparison for the vessel at 50%
load (Condition S), and figure 7 displays RAO rolling
comparison for the vessel at 97% load (Condition P).
Figure 5. RAO rolling comparison for the vessel at 0% load
(a) Tye A, (b) Type B, (c) Type C
411
Figure 6. RAO rolling comparison for the vessel at 50% load
(a) Type A, (b) Type B, (c) Type C
Based on Figures 5, 6, and 7, it can be observed that
the implementation of the passive free-surface tank on
the fishing vessel has a varying impact on the peak
RAO rolling values. The dominant effect is the
reduction in the peak RAO rolling value. This occurs
because the peak RAO at the center is damped by the
passive free-surface tank [12]. The lowest peak RAO
rolling values for all loading conditions are observed
for the vessel with the passive free-surface tank, which
has a length of 1.5 meters (Type C) and a fluid height
of 0.3 meters (Variation 1).
In reality, ocean waves are always irregular
(random), so the RAO values do not fully represent the
actual vessel response. To determine the vessel's
response under real conditions at sea, the RAO needs
to be converted into a response spectrum by
multiplying the square of the RAO values with the
wave spectrum (Sζ) [13].
Figure 7. RAO rolling comparison for the vessel at 97% load
(Condition P) (a) Type A, (b) Type B, (c) Type C
To convert RAO into the response spectrum, wave
parameters must be defined, namely the significant
wave height (HS) and the peak period (TP),
corresponding to the conditions in the Java Sea. In this
study, a significant wave height (HS) of 1 meter and a
peak period (TP) of 5 seconds were established.
These wave parameters are used to calculate the
wave spectrum (Sζ) by inserting them into Equations 1
to 4. For the wave spectrum calculation, the ITTC
formula is used due to the lack of a specific spectrum
for the Java Sea waters [14].
( ) ( )
1
2
1 cos


=

−


ITTC e ITTC w
w
SS
V
g
(1)
( )
4
/
5
e
−
=
w
B
ITTC w
w
A
S
(2)
412
( )
2
24
4
483,5 /
−
=
s
p
H
A m s
T
(3)
( )
4
4
1944,5
−
=
p
Bs
T
(4)
where ωw is the wave frequency (rad/s), ωw is the
encountering frequency (rad/s), V is the vessel velocity
(m/s), g is the gravitational acceleration (9.8 m/s²), μ is
the wave heading (degrees), HS is the significant wave
height (m), and TP is the peak period (seconds).
Figure 8. Response spectrum for the vessel at 0% load
(Condition K): (a) Type A, (b) Type B, (c) Type C
In this study, the response spectrum for the vessel
with and without the passive free-surface tank is
shown in graphical form for each loading condition.
Figures 8 display the response spectrum for the vessel
at 0% load (Condition K), Figure 9 display the response
spectrum for the vessel at 50% load (Condition S), and
Figure 10 display the response spectrum for the vessel
at 97% load (Condition P).
The effect of the passive free-surface tank can be
observed in Figures 8, 9, and 10. The effect generated
mostly reduces the peak values and the area under the
response spectrum curve. The reduction in the area
under the curve indicates the damping effect produced
by the passive free-surface tank.
Figure 9. Response spectrum for the vessel at 50% load
(Condition S) (a) TYpe A, (b) Type B, (c) Type C
The response spectrum needs to be processed into
the root mean square (RMS) to assess the amplitude of
the rolling experienced by the vessel. The rolling
amplitude serves as a parameter to measure the
magnitude of the damping effect generated by the
passive free-surface tank on the vessel. Larger
movement amplitudes indicate a poor vessel response
to incoming waves. RMS is obtained by taking the
square root of the equivalent value of the area under
the response spectrum curve.
Figure 11 shows the RMS for each loading
condition, grouped by the same tank length. Figures
11a, 11b, and 11c shows RMS for the vessel with a
passive free-surface tank of 0.5 meters (Type A), 1
meter (Type B), and 1.5 meters (Type C), respectively
413
Figure 10. Response spectrum for the vessel at 97% load
(Condition P) (a) Type A, (b) Type B, (c) Type C
In Figures 11a, 11b, and 11c, the lowest RMS value
is shown by the tank with a fluid height of 0.3 meters
(height variation 1) in all loading conditions. On the
other hand, the highest RMS values are shown by the
tank with a fluid height of 0.9 meters (height variation
3) across all loading conditions. This indicates that the
tank's fluid filling condition, specifically the fluid
height, affects the rolling amplitude experienced by the
vessel. This is related to the damping effect produced
by each tank variation.
Figure 11. RMS rolling for the vessel with a passive free-
surface tank in terms: (a) Type A, (b) Type B, dan (c) Type C
In Figure 11, it can generally be observed that there
is a correlation between the fluid height and the RMS
rolling of the vessel: RMS rolling increases as the fluid
height increases. This suggests a reduction in the
performance of the passive free-surface tank. This
finding supports the theory related to passive free-
surface tanks, where the damping effect generated by
the fluid oscillation inside the tank decreases when the
fluid’s movement space is limited.
Based on Figure 11, it can be concluded that the
highest damping effect is generated by the passive free-
surface tank with a fluid height of 0.3 meters (height
variation 1) in all tank length variations. For variation
A1, the average damping value is 10.41%, for variation
B1 it is 13.98%, and for variation C1 it is 23.17%.
414
Figure 12. RMS rolling RMSof the Vessel with Passive Free
Surface Tank Evaluated at the Same Fluid Height: (a)
variation 1, (b) variation 2, and (c) variation 3.
Figure 12 shows the RMS results for each loading
condition grouped by fluid height, which is used as the
parameter for assessment. Figures 12a, 12b, and 12c
show RMS rolling for the vessel with a passive free-
surface tank filled with fluid at a height of 0.3 meters,
0.6 meters, and 0.9 meters, respectively.
In Figures 12a, 12b, and 12c, it can be observed that
the lowest RMS value of the rolling motion is shown by
the passive free surface tank with a length of 1.5 meters
(Type C) under all loading conditions. Meanwhile, the
highest RMS value is shown by the passive free surface
tank with a length of 0.5 meters (Type A) under all
loading conditions. This review indicates that the
length of the passive free surface tank influences the
rolling motion experienced by the vessel. This is related
to the damping effect provided by the passive free
surface tank, where, based on Figure 12, the damping
value produced by the tank is directly proportional to
its length. Other studies explain that increasing the
tank length longitudinally can be an option to enhance
the damping effect, as it increases the mass of water
and the moment of the tank [15].
Based on Figure 12, it can be concluded that the
highest damping value for rolling is produced by the
passive free surface tank with a length of 1.5 meters
(Type C) across all variations of fluid height. Variation
C1 results in an average damping value of 23.17%,
Variation C2 produces a damping of 10.86%, and
Variation C3 results in an average damping of 3.40%.
Figure 13. RMS Rolling of the Fishing Vessel Before and After
the Addition of the Passive Free Surface Tank
Table 9. RMS values of the Vessel Before and After the
Application of the Passive Free Surface Tank Along with the
Damping Percentage for Each Specimen
Type
Condition K
Condition S
Condition P
Average
RMS
%
damping
RMS
%
damping
RMS
%
damping
RMS
%
damping
Non
8.41
0.00
8.19
0.00
7.91
0.00
8.17
0.00
A1
7.99
-4.91
7.23
-11.73
6.76
-14.58
7.33
-10.41
A2
8.32
-1.05
7.42
-9.38
7.34
-7.22
7.69
-5.88
A3
8.54
1.63
8.35
2.05
8.29
4.77
8.40
2.82
B1
7.51
-10.64
7.00
-14.51
6.58
-16.78
7.03
-13.98
B2
7.99
-4.90
7.38
-9.88
7.22
-8.71
7.53
-7.83
B3
8.52
1.32
8.28
1.19
7.60
-3.91
8.13
-0.47
C1
6.72
-20.01
6.13
-25.12
5.98
-24.37
6.28
-23.17
C2
7.52
-10.52
7.20
-12.09
7.12
-9.98
7.28
-10.86
C3
8.13
-3.26
7.97
-2.66
7.57
-4.29
7.89
-3.40
Figures 13 and Table 9 present the RMS values of
the vessel’s rolling motion, both before and after the
application of the passive free surface tank under each
loading condition. The negative values for the
damping percentages indicate the damping effect
generated by the passive free surface tank. It can be
observed that most of the specimens have a positive
impact, as they result in lower RMS values compared
to the vessel without the passive free surface tank.
However, there are some variations that do not reduce
the rolling motion experienced by the vessel, namely
variations A3-K, A3-S, A3-P, B3-K, and B3-S.
Meanwhile, the vessel response that results in the
smallest RMS values is the variation with a tank length
of 1.5 meters and a fluid height of 0.3 meters (Variation
C1), both under the 0% load condition (6.725°), 50%
load condition (6.130°), and 97% load condition
(5.983°). The average damping percentage generated
by tank variation C1 is 23.17%.
3.4 Validation of Ship Motion Analysis
The validation process was carried out by comparing
the RMS results from the ship motion analysis obtained
through numerical calculations with analytical
calculations. The numerical calculations were
415
performed using FEM-based software, along with data
processing software, while the analytical calculations
were conducted using a different software tool.
The vessel used for validation was the one without
the tank, under all loading conditions, namely 0% load
(condition K), 50% load (condition S), and 97% load
(condition P). The maximum allowable discrepancy
was set to 10%.
Figure 14. The comparison of RMS rolling results for the
vessel at each loading condition: (a) 0% load, (b) 50% load,
and (c) 97% load.
In this study, the calculation for the ship with 0%
load (Non-K) resulted in an RMS value of 8.91° in the
numerical calculation, while the analytical calculation
gave a value of 8.41° as shown in Figure 14a. The
difference in RMS values for the empty load condition
is -5.65%.
Figure 14b (Non-S) shows the comparison of RMS
for the vessel with 50% load (half load). The numerical
calculation resulted in 8.19°, while the analytical
calculation showed 8.18°. The percentage difference in
RMS is 0.07%.
Figure 14c (Non-P) illustrates the comparison of
RMS rolling for the vessel with 97% load (full load).
The numerical calculation yielded a value of 7.91°,
while the analytical calculation showed 7.83°. The
percentage difference in RMS is 1.04%.
4 CONCLUSION
Based on the research conducted, it was found that the
application of passive free surface tanks on fishing
vessels has a positive effect on the ship's motion. The
dominant effect observed is the reduction in the rolling
amplitude experienced by the fishing vessel. This is
indicated by the decrease in the RMS value of the
modified ship relative to the original ship. However,
there are some variations that result in an increase in
the rolling amplitude under certain conditions.
In general, the damping effect provided by the
passive free surface tank increases as the length of the
tank increases. Additionally, in relation to the fluid
height, the damping effect decreases as the fluid height
increases. Therefore, the variation with the largest
damping effect that can be applied to the fishing vessel
is the one with the longest tank dimensions (Type C)
and the lowest fluid height (variation 1), namely
variation C1, with an average damping percentage of
23.17%.
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
This research is funded by Directorate General of Higher
Education, Research, and Technology in schema Penelitian
Fundamental with Contract No: 601-72/UN7.D2/PP/VI/2024.
REFERENCES
[1] N. Zarma, A. F. Zakki, and A. Trimulyono, "Studi
Karakteristik Seakeeping Kapal Ikan Tradisional dan
Modern," Jurnal Teknik Perkapalan, vol. 3, no. 1, 2015.
[2] N. Im and S. Lee, “Effects of Forward Speed and Wave
Height on the Seakeeping Performance of a Small Fishing
Vessel,” Journal of Marine Science and Engineering, vol.
10, 1936, 2022, doi: 10.3390/jmse10121936.
[3] O. Yaakob, F. E. Hashim, M. R. Jalal, and A. Mustapa,
“Stability, Seakeeping and Safety Assessment of Small
Fishing Boats Operating in Southern Coast of Peninsular
Malaysia,” Journal of Sustainability Science and
Management, vol. 10(1), pp. 50-65, 2015.
[4] A. Widyatmoko, S. Samuel, P. Manik, and A. Trimulyono,
“Analisis Pengaruh Jumlah Bilge Keel terhadap Gerakan
Rolling pada Kapal Patroli 14 m,” Warta Penelitian
Perhubungan, vol. 33, no. 1, 2021, doi:
10.25104/warlit.v33i1.1667.
[5] A. Herbowo, D. Chrismianto, and M. Iqbal, "Analisa Fin
Stabilizer Terhadap Rolling Pada Kapal Ferry Ro-Ro 500
GT Dengan Metode CFD (Computational Fluid
Dynamic)," Jurnal Teknik Perkapalan, vol. 5, no. 1, 2017.
[6] O. A. Marzouk and A. H. Nayfeh, “Control of ship roll
using passive and active anti-roll tanks,” Ocean
Engineering, vol. 36, no. 9–10, pp. 661–671, 2009, doi:
10.1016/j.oceaneng.2009.03.005.
[7] R. Subramanian and P. Jyothish, “Genetic algorithm
based design optimization of a passive anti-roll tank in a
416
sea going vessel,” Ocean Engineering, vol. 203, p. 107216,
2020.
[8] F. A. Karim, A. F. Zakki, and M. Iqbal, “Desain Passive U-
Tube Tank pada Kapal Ikan Tradisional Tipe Kragan
Guna Menurunkan Rolling Kapal,” Kapal, vol. 15, no. 3,
pp. 95–101, 2019, doi: 10.14710/kapal.v15i3.17897.
[9] G. Kapsenberg and N. Carette, “A consistent method to
design and evaluate the performance of Anti-Roll Tanks
for ships,” Ship Technology Research, vol. 70, no. 2, pp.
117–145, 2023, doi: 10.1080/09377255.2022.2117496.
[10] A. Lloyd, “Seakeeping: ship behaviour in rough
weather,” Admiralty Research Establishment, Haslar,
Gosport, Publisher Ellis Horwood Ltd, John Wiley &
Sons, ISBN: 0 7458 0230 3, 1989.
[11] M. Iqbal, M. Terziev, T. Tezdogan, and A. Incecik,
“Operability analysis of traditional small fishing boats in
Indonesia with different loading conditions,” Ships and
Offshore Structures, vol. 18, no. 7, pp. 1060–1079, 2023,
doi: 10.1080/17445302.2022.2107300.
[12] N. Carette, R. P. Dallinga, and G. Kapsenberg, “On the
design of anti-roll tanks” Conference: 13th International
Symposium on Practical Design of Ships, Copenhagen,
Denmark, September 2016.
[13] M. A. Zahril, P. Manik, and K. Kiryanto, "Analisa
Pengaruh Penambahan Hull Fixed Bow Fin Terhadap
Gerak Pitching dan Heaving Pada Kapal Tanker 112
Meter," Jurnal Teknik Perkapalan, vol. 9, no. 3, 2021.
[14] R. Bhattacharyya, “Dynamics of marine vehicles”, John
Wiley & Sons Incorporated, 1978.
[15] C. S. Nielsen and U. D. Nielsen, “Reducing Roll Motion
by Passive Free Surface Tanks,” Proceedings of the ASME
2014 33rd International Conference on Ocean, Offshore
and Arctic Engineering, San Francisco, California, USA,
June 8-13, 2014, doi: 10.1115/OMAE2014-23299.