Ship Motions and Sea Loads

By Nils Salvesen, 1 Associate Member, E. O. Tuck, 2 AssociateMember, and

O d d Faltinsen, 3 Visitor

A new strip theory is presented for predicting heave, pitch, sway, roll, and yaw
motions as well as wave-induced vertical and horizontal shear forces, bending
moments, and torsional moments for a ship advancing at constant speed with arbi-
trary heading in regular waves. A computer program based on this theory and
with accurate close-fit section representation has been developed. Comparisons
between computed values and experimental data show satisfactory agreement in
general. In particular, very good agreement is shown for the heave and pitch
motions and the vertical loads. Accurate results are also obtained for the coupled
sway-roll motions in beam waves. Although comparisons are not yet available for
the sway-roll-yaw motions in oblique waves, the satisfactory agreement shown for
the horizontal loads in oblique waves suggests that the theory may also predict the
horizontal motions quite well.

1. Introduction mizing the wave-induced loads. Considering the

importance of the seaworthiness problem, it is very
Preface encouraging indeed to note the tremendous ad-
vancement in this field over the past two decades.
THE ULTIlVIATI~criterion for the hull design of a
The welI-known paper of St. Denis and Pierson
ship should be the performance of the ship in a
(1953) 4 on the application of the principle of
realistic seaway. Prediction of the ship motions
superposition to the ship-motion problem started
and the dynamic sea loads is such a complex prob-
a new era in this field by hypothesizing that the
lem, however, that the naval architect has been
responses of a ship to irregular waves can be con-
forced to use the ship's effective power perfor-
sidered as the summation of the responses to regu-
mance in calm water and the ship's maximum bend-
lar waves of all frequencies. T o d a y the validity
ing m o m e n t in the static "one-over-twenty" wave
of the application of the superposition to ship
as his main design criteria. Until very recently
motion and sea loads is generally accepted in our
ship motions and wave-induced loads were barely
field, and in particular for the vertical motions
considered in the design procedure.
and loads this validity " m a y be considered as
The design of high-speed dry-cargo ships and
proven, beyond the fondest hopes of earlier inves-
huge tankers has made us more aware of the im-
tigators" (Ogilvie, 1964). Assuming that the
portance of reducing the ship motions and of mini-
principle of superposition is also valid for the
horizontal responses, the complex problem of pre-
1 Naval Architect, Naval Ship Research and Develop- dicting ship motions and sea loads in a seaway can
ment Center, Washington, D. C.
e Reader, Department of Mathematics, University of be reduced to the two problems: (i) the predic-
Adelaide, Adelaide, South Australia. tion of the ship motions and loads in regular
3 Applied Mathematician, Det norske Veritas, Oslo,
Norway.
Presented at the Annual Meeting, New York, N. ., 4 References are listed in alphabetical order at the end.
November 12-13, 1970, of THE SOCIETYOF NAVALARCH- In the paper itself they are identified by author's name and
ITECTSAND M A R I N E ENGINEERS. year of publication.

250
 sinusoidal waves and (ii) the prediction of the
statistical responses in irregular waves using the
regular wave results.
If the responses for a ship in regular waves are
known, there are now available procedures which
follow the method of St. Denis and Pierson for
determining the statistical responses not only for
a given sea state, but for a distribution of sea con-
ditions which a ship m a y encounter in its life span
(Abrahamsen, 1967). However, a major difficulty
in seaworthiness analysis has been to make ac-
curate predictions of motions and sea loads for a
ship in regular waves. Therefore the objective of
this paper is to present a practical numerical
method with sufficient engineering accuracy for
predicting the heave, pitch, sway, roll, and yaw
motions as well as the wave-induced shear forces,
bending moments, and torsional moments for a
ship advancing at constant speed at arbitrary
heading in regular sinusoidal waves.
With the motion and load theory presented here
and with the available statistical methods, it is
felt that the naval architect will have a useful tool
for determining the seaworthiness characteristics
of a ship. If the designer knows the geometric
description and the weight distribution and has
adequate information about the sea environment,
he can calculate the motions and the dynamic
loads for a ship in a seaway with reasonable ac-
curacy.
Historical Background
Since tile St. Denis and Pierson paper, there
have been spectacular developments in both ex-
perimental and theoretical methods for predicting
ship responses in regular waves. Large experi-
mental facilities for testing models in oblique
waves were in full operation in 1956 at the Nether-
lands Ship Model Basin and a year later at the
Davidson Laboratory, and during the next ten
years such facilities were built at the Naval Ship
Research and Development Center, the Admiralty
Experimental Works in Haslar, England, and at
the Ship Re.search Institute in Mitaka, T o k y o 3
Furthermore, most of the tanks originally designed
for resistance and propuIsion tests have been
equipped with wavemakers so that they can be
used for head- and following-wave experiments.
Numerous ship-motion and wave-load tests have
been conducted in these facilities, but perhaps the
most significant and comprehensive tests are the
systematic experiments conducted at NSMB in
Wageningen on sixteen different Series 60 hull
6 Very recently a smaller seakeeping l a b o r a t o r y was com-
pleted at the U n i v e r s i t y of Tokyo.
Ship Motions and Sea Loads
forms. The motions, the power increase, and the
wave-induced loads were measured for each hull
in head, following, and oblique regular waves
(Vossers, Swaan, Rijken, 1960 and 1961). These
data have been invaluable in the study of the hull-
form effect on seakeeping characteristics. Un-
fortunately, for hull forms not closely related to
the Series 60 forms there exist no similar system-
atic experimental data. In fact for the non-
Series 60 forms most of the published data have
been only for heave and pitch motions in head
seas.
Since ship-motion and sea-load experiments are
extremely expensive and time consuming, it is not
usually feasible to perform these experiments for
individual ship designs. Therefore the paper of
St. Denis and Pierson has fttrther emphasized the
importance of the development of theoretical and
numerical methods for predicting the regular
wave responses. T h e strip theory for heave and
pitch motions in head waves of Korvin-Kroukov-
sky and Jaeobs (1957) was the first motion theory
suitable for numerical computations which had
adequate accuracy for engineering applications.
This theory was later extended by Jaeobs (1958)
to include the wave-induced vertical shear forces
and bending moments for a ship in regular head
waves.
I t is now apparent that the theory of Korvin-
Kroukovsky and Jacobs did not receive the recog-
nition it deserved. Purists felt that the theory
was not derived in a rational mathematical man-
ner but rather by use of "physical intuition."
Today, however, after more sophisticated motion
theories have been derived and more accurate ex-
perimental data are awdlable, it is becoming clear
that this original strip theory is one of the most
significant contributions in the field of seakeeping.
I t has been demonstrated in numerous publica-
tions over the past ten years that the theory pre-
dicts the heave and pitch motions as well as the
vertical shear forces and bending moments with
amazing accuracy for regular cruiser stern ships
at moderate speeds in head waves.
The Korvin-Kroukovsky and Jacobs theory has
since been modified and extended. For example,
W. E. Smith (1967) has shown that a modified
strip theory by Gerritsma and Beukelman (1967)
predicts the head-seas motions for a high-speed
destroyer hull which agree quite well with experi-
ments. In particular, by the use of close-fit meth-
ods, very significant improvements have been
made in the computation of the sectional added-
mass and damping coefficients, and Smith and
Salvesen (1970) have demonstrated that the head-
seas motions can be predicted quite accurately
even for high-speed hulls with large bulbous bows
251
when such close-fit methods are applied. I t
should also be noted that attempts have been made
to extend the original head-seas strip theory to
the case of heave and pitch in oblique seas; how-
ever, these extended oblique-seas theories are not
that accurate since the diffraction effect in the
exciting force has not been treated properly.
Even though the agreement between experi-
ments and the Korvin-Kroukovsky and Jacobs
strip theory has usually been quite satisfactory,
a major objection to this theory has been that the
forward-speed terms in the coefficients of the
equations of motion do not satisfy the symmetry
relationship proved by T i m m a n and Newman
(1962). During the past year, however., new strip
theories for heave and pitch motions in head waves
have been derived independently in Germany by
S6ding (1969), in Japan by Tasai and Takaki
(1969), and in the Soviet Union by Borodai and
Netsvetayev (1969). All of these new strip
theories have identical forward-speed terms satis-
fying the T i m m a n and Newman symmetry rela-
tionships, and, interestingly enough, the equations
of motion for heave and pitch in head waves de-
rived in the present work have the same speed
terms as those given in these three recent publica-
tions.
I t should be mentioned that Ogilvie and Tuck
(1969) have derived a completely new strip theory
for head seas by using slender-body theory. Un-
fortunately, there are some integral terms in their
theory which have not yet been evaluated; thus
their theory cannot be fully utilized or judged at
this time.
For the sway, yaw, and roll motions and for the
horizontal wave-induced loads, there exist few
computational methods. Tasai (1967) has de-
rived a strip theory for the sway-yaw-roll mo-
tions, but this theory is only applicable for the
case of zero forward speed. Grim and Schenzle
(1969), on the other hand, have considered for-
ward-speed effects in their strip theory, which
does include the sway-yaw-roll motions as well as
the horizontal loads. However, the forward-speed
terms in their equations of motion do not satisfy
the T i m m a n and Newman (1962) symmetry rela-
tionships and their theory lacks m a n y of the for-
ward-speed terms included in the theory presented
herein. Furthermore, comparisons between ex-
periments and the theory of Grim and Schenzle
exist only for the case of zero forward speed.
Present Theory
The theory presented herein can predict the
heave, pitch, sway, roll, and yaw motions as well
as the wave-induced vertical and horizontal shear
252 Ship Motions and Sea Loads
forces, bending moments, and torsional moments
for a ship advancing at constant speed in regular
waves.
Only the final equations are stated in the main
text while a detailed derivation of the hydrody-
namic coefficients is presented in the Appendices.
The derived equations of motion consist of two
sets of linear coupled differential equations with
frequency- and speed-dependent coefficients. One
set of equations is for the heave-pitch motions and
the other set is for the sway-yaw-roll motions.
The equations for the wave-induced loads are ex-
pressed in terms of the resulting motions and the
derived hydrodynamic coefficients.
A computer program based on this theory has
been developed jointly b y ' t h e Naval Ship Re-
search and Development Center, Washington,
D. C. and Det norske Veritas, Oslo, Norway.
T h e ship-motion part of the program was origi-
nally written by Werner Frank at the NSRDC.
Frank (1967) also developed the close-fit source-
distribution technique used in the program for
computing the two-dimensional added-mass and
damping coefficients. The program was later im-
proved and extended at Det norske Veritas to in-
elude the wave-induced loads. All the numerical
results presented here have been computed by this
program on the Univac 110S at Det norske
Veritas. A documentation of the program includ-
ing a users manual and a program listing will soon
be available as an N S R D C Report. 6
Comparisons between computed values and ex-
perimental data are also presented. The agree-
ment is very satisfactory for the heave and pitch
motions and the vertical loads in oblique and fol-
lowing waves as well as in head waves. Good
agreement between theory and experiments is also
obtained for the coupled sway-roll motions in beam
waves, while owing to lack of experimental data it
has not been possible to make comparisons for the
sway-roll-yaw motions in oblique waves. Never-
theless, the good agreement shown for the hori-
zontal shear forces, bending moments, and tor-
sional moments in oblique waves suggests that the
theory may also predict the horizontal motions
quite well.
2. Ship Motions
T h e equations of motion are presented in this
section for a ship advancing at constant mean for-
ward speed with arbitrary heading in regular
sinusoidal waves. The equations for pitch and
heave motions in head waves are compared with
the original strip theory of Korvin-Kroukovsky
6 "Manual, NSRDC Ship-Motion and Sea-Load Com-
puter Program," by Sheridan and Salvesen, NSRDC Re-
port 3376 (in review, 1971).
and Jacobs (1957). Comparisons between com- /13
p u t e d and experimental m o t i o n values are also
shown. z
'V
General Formulation of Equations of Motion
I t is assumed t h a t the oscillatory motions are
linear and harmonic. L e t (x,y,z) be a right- ..... \ //

., x

h a n d e d coordinate syste.m fixed with respect to I

I I
the m e a n position of the ship with z vertically up-
ward t h r o u g h the center of g r a v i t y of the ship, x m = surge na = heave ns = pitch
in the direction of forward motion, a n d the origin n2 = sway m = roll n8 = yaw
in the plane of the u n d i s t u r b e d free surface. L e t Fig. 1 Sign convention for translatory and angular dis-
placements
the t r a n s l a t o r y displacements in the x, y, and z
directions with respect to the origin be ~t, n2, and
ha, respectively, so t h a t m is the surge, W is t h e m e t r y (symmetric a b o u t the x, z plane) a n d t h a t
sway, and na is the heave displacement. F u r t h e r - the center of g r a v i t y is located at (0, 0, zc), t h e n
more, let the angular displacement of the rota- the generalized mass matrix is given b y
tional m o t i o n a b o u t the x, y, and z axes be ~4, ~,
and n6, respectively, so t h a t n4 is t h e roll, ~ is the
pitch, and ~6 is the y a w angle. T h e coordinate
s y s t e m and t h e t r a n s l a t o r y and angular displace-
Mjk =
[+000 0 OO
0
0
0 --~fge 0
M
0
0 --Mzc
M 0
I4 0
0
0
--I46
0
0 (2)
m e n t s are shown in Fig. 1.
Mzc 0 0 0 I5
U n d e r the assumptions t h a t the responses are
0 0 -I46 0 I6 _]
linear and harmonic, the six l i n e a r c o u p l e d dif-
ferential equations of m o t i o n can be written, where M is the mass of the ship, I j is the m o m e n t
using subscript notation, in the following abbrevi- of inertia in the j t h mode, and [~, is the p r o d u c t
ated f o r m : of inertia. Here the inertia terms are with respect
6
to the coordinate s y s t e m shown in Fig. 1. T h e
k=l
only p r o d u c t of inertia which appears is I4G, the
= Fjei'~t; j = 1 . . . 6 (1) roll-yaw product, which vanishes if the ship has
fore-and-aft s y m m e t r y and is small otherwise.
where Mjk are the c o m p o n e n t s of the generalized T h e other nondiagonal elements all vanish if the
mass m a t r i x for t h e ship, A j~ a n d B~k are the origin of the coordinate s y s t e m coincides with the
added-mass and d a m p i n g coefficients] Cjk are the center of g r a v i t y of the ship; however, it is fre-
h y d r o s t a t i c restoring coefficients, s and Fj are q u e n t l y m o r e convenient to t a k e the origin in the
the complex amplitudes of the exciting force water plane, in which case zc is not equal to zero.
and m o m e n t , with the force and m o m e n t given b y F o r ships with lateral s y m m e t r y it also follows
the real p a r t of Fjei~'t. 9 F1, F,., and F~ refer to the t h a t the added-mass (or damping) coefficients are
amplitudes of the surge, sway, and heave exciting
forces, while F4, Fs, and F~ are the amplitudes of
the roll, pitch, and y a w exciting m o m e n t s ; ~0 is 0 A22 0 A24 0
the f r e q u e n c y of encounter and is the same as the A~, ( o r B j k ) = 1 0 Aaa 0 As5 (3)
frequency of the response. T h e dots s t a n d for A+=0 A. 0 o4/
time derivatives so t h a t #~ and ~}x are velocity and LA~:t 0 A+a 0 d.5.+
acceleration terms. A++ 0 A++ 0 A++I
If it is assumed t h a t the ship has lateral sym-
F u r t h e r m o r e , for a ship in the free surface the only
nonzero linear h y d r o s t a t i c restoring coefficients
7 Note that A;k (for j ~ k) are the added-mass cross- are
coupling coefficients for the kth mode coupled into thejth
mode of motion, so that for example As5 is the added-mass
coefficient for pitch coupled into heave. Caa, C44, C~, and Ca5 = Csa (4)
8 Here Cj~ are defined as the hydrostatic restoring coeffi-
cients and hence independent of frequency, while the If the generalized mass matrix (2), the a d d e d - m a s s
added-mass coefficients A i~ are so defined that they include and d a m p i n g coefficients (3), a n d t h e restoring
all the oscillatory hydrodynamic forces proportional to the
aceeleration. Some other authors prefer to include certain coefficients (4) are substituted in the equations of
hydrodynamic terms in the Cik's which are included in the motions (1), it is seen t h a t for a ship with lateral
Ajk's here. s y m m e t r y , the six coupled equations of motions
9 It is understood that real part is to be taken in all ex-
pressions involving e'or. (1) reduce to two sets of equations: one set of

Ship Motions and Sea Loads 253

t h r e e c o u p l e d e q u a t i o n s for surge, h e a v e , a n d p i t c h
a n d a n o t h e r set of t h r e e c o u p l e d e q u a t i o n s f o r
s w a y , roll, a n d y a w . T h u s , for a s h i p w i t h l a t e r a l
s y m m e t r y , surge, h e a v e , a n d p i t c h a r e n o t c o u p l e d
w i t h s w a y , roll, a n d y a w .
If one assumes that the ship has a long slender
h u l l f o r m in a d d i t i o n t o l a t e r a l s y m m e t r y , t h e n it
c a n b e s h o w n (as s e e n in A p p e n d i x 1) t h a t t h e h y -
drodynamic forces associated with the surge mo-
tion are much smaller than the forces associated
w i t h t h e five o t h e r m o d e s of m o t i o n so t h a t it is
consistent within these assumptions not to include
surge. H e n c e t h e t h r e e c o u p l e d e q u a t i o n s of m o -
t i o n for surge, h e a v e , a n d p i t c h r e d u c e t o t w o
coupled equations for pitch and heave.
Heave and Pitch Motions
Under the assumption that the oscillatory mo-
t i o n s a r e l i n e a r a n d h a r m o n i c , it f o l l o w s f r o m
e q u a t i o n s (1) t h r o u g h (4) t h a t f o r a s h i p w i t h
lateral symmetry and a slender hull form the
c o u p l e d e q u a t i o n s of m o t i o n for h e a v e a n d p i t c h
c a n b e w r i t t e n in t h e f o r m
(M + A~3)h~ + B#73 + C~3,j~+ A3~;i~
+ B35i7~ + C3~5 = F3e i'~t (5)
As~/* + B537)~ + C5~ + (/5 + A55);/5
+ B55i15 + C~5 = Fse i't (6)
T h e r e l a t i o n s h i p s for t h e a d d e d - m a s s a n d d a m p i n g
coefficients, A j, a n d Bjk, a n d t h e a m p l i t u d e of t h e
e x c i t i n g f o r c e a n d m o m e n t , F3 a n d Fs, a r e d e r i v e d
in A p p e n d i x 1. H o w e v e r , t h e m a i n a s s u m p t i o n s
m a d e in t h e d e r i v a t i o n in A p p e n d i x 1 a r e signifi-
c a n t in t h e a p p l i c a t i o n of t h e t h e o r y a n d t h e r e f o r e
will b e r e s t a t e d here. F i r s t of all it is a s s u m e d
t h a t all v i s c o u s effects c a n b e d i s r e g a r d e d . H e n c e ,
t h e o n l y d a m p i n g c o n s i d e r e d is t h e d a m p i n g d u e
to t h e e n e r g y loss in c r e a t i n g f r e e - s u r f a c e w a v e s .
T h i s a s s u m p t i o n is j u s t i f i e d b e c a u s e t h e v i s c o u s
d a m p i n g is v e r y s m a l l f o r t h e v e r t i c a l s h i p m o -
tions. F u r t h e r m o r e , in o r d e r t o l i n e a r i z e t h e

.Nomenclature
(Additional nomenclature used in the Appendices are defined only as they appear)
Ajk = added-mass coefficients (j,k = 1, 2 . . . 6) bjk = two-dimensional sectional damping coefficient
.~t ik o = speed-independent part of Ajk bj~A = bjk for aftermost section
Awp = area of water plane b44" = sectional viscous damping in roll
B= ship beam d = sectional draft
Bjk = damping coefficients dl = element of arc along a cross section
Bik o = speed-independent part of Bjk fj = sectional Froude-Kriloff "force"
B44* viscous damping in roll g = gravitational acceleration
Cik = hydrostatic restoring coefficients hj = sectional diffraction "force"
C.= cross section at x hi 4 = hi for aftermost section
D1 = hydrodynamic force and moment due to body mo- ix = sectional mass moment of inertia about x-axis
tion j,k = subscripts (j,k = 1, 2 . . . 6)
Ej = exciting force and moment on portion of hull k = wave number
~= exciting force and moment m = sectional mass per unit length
Fn = Froude number om= sectional metacentric height
GM= metacentrie height s = sectional area coefficient
~= moment of inertia in j t h mode t = time variable
Ilk= product of inertia x,y,z = coordinate system as defined in Fig. 1
Iwp = moment of inertia of water plane XA = x-coordinate of aftermost cross section
K= damping coefficiei~t zc = z-coordinate of center of gravity
L= length between perpendiculars = z-coordinate of sectional center of gravity
M= mass of ship V = displaced volume of ship
il~rik= generalized mass matrix for ship a = incident wave amplitude
Mwp = moment of water plane = angle between incident wave and ship heading (fl
Ni= two-dimensional sectional generalized normal = 180 deg for head seas); see Fig. 2
components (j = 2, 3, 4) ~/i = displacements, ( j = 1, 2 . . . 6 refer to surge, sway,
Rj = restoring force on portion of hull heave, roll, pitch, and yaw respectively; see
U= ship speed Fig. 1)
dynamic load components (see Fig. 9 for defini- X= wave length
tions) // = variable of integration in x-direction
a submerged sectional area p = mass density of water
ajk = two-dimensional sectional added-mass coefficient ~i = two-dimensional velocity potential
ajk A = ask for aftermost section o~ = frequency of encounter
b= sectional ship beam w0 = wave frequency

254 Ship Motions and Sea Loads

potential problem, it is assumed t h a t the wave-
resistance p e r t u r b a t i o n potential and all its de-
rivatives are small enough to be ignored in t h e
formulation of the m o t i o n problem, m Physically
this means t h a t the free-surface waves created b y
the ship a d v a n c i n g at c o n s t a n t speed in calm
water are assumed to h a v e no effect on the mo-
tions. This appears to be a reasonable assump-
tion for fine slender hull forms.
Finally, in order to reduce the three-dimensional
problem to a s u m m a t i o n of two-dimensional prob-
lems, it is necessary t o assume t h a t the frequency
is (relatively) high. This means t h a t t h e waves
created b y the ship's oscillations should have a
wave length of the order of the ship b e a m r a t h e r
than the ship length. This is a critical assumption
since the m a x i m u m responses are in the fairly
low-frequency range (the long-wave range) ; how-
ever, t h e pitch and heave motions in the low-fre-
q u e n c y range are d o m i n a t e d b y the h y d r o s t a t i c
forces so t h a t inaccuracies in t h e h y d r o d y n a m i c
coefficients in this range h a v e a m i n o r effect on t h e
final results.
T h e added-mass and d a m p i n g coefficients as
derived in Appendix 1 are
U
Aaa = f a:lad~ -- ~ baaA (7)
Baa = fbaad~ + Uaaaa (s)
U2
B~5 = f ~2baad~ + ~ - B a a
+ UXA2(2,33A -~- U2~ XAba3 A (14)
~z
Here aaa and baa are the two-dimensional sectional
added-mass and d a m p i n g coefficients for heave.
All the integrals are over the length of the ship
and U is the forward speed of the ship. Aaao and
Baa refer to the speed-independent p a r t of Aaa and
B33; xa is the x-coordinate of t h e a f t e r m o s t cross-
section of the ship ; and a33A and b33a are the added-
mass and d a m p i n g coefficients for the aftermost
section.
T h e h y d r o s t a t i c restoring coefficients, which
are i n d e p e n d e n t of f r e q u e n c y and forward speed,
follow directly from h y d r o s t a t i c considerations as
Caa = pgfbd~ = pgAwp (15)
Ca5 = Csa = - pgf~bd~ = -- p g M w e (16)
C55 = pgf~2bd~.! = pglwp (17)
Here b is the sectional b e a m of the ship, p is the
mass density of the water, g is the gravitational
acceleration, and the integration is over the length
of the ship. A w p , M w p , and I w p are the area,
moment, and m o m e n t of inertia of the water plane.
T h e amplitudes of the e.xciting force and mo-
m e n t as derived in A p p e n d i x 1 are

U F3 = pa ( (fa + ha)d~ + pa U ha.4 (18)

Aa5 = -- J" e a aad( -- ~ Baa
d 20~

U 0 2
+ j x~ba# - - - aa3 A (9)
0a 2

Ba5 = ~ f ~ bagl~ + UAa - - pa U_ xaha a (19)

CO
U 2 with the sectional Froude-Kriloff "force" defined
- - Uxaaaa a -- - ~ baaa (10)
by

U U fa(X) = ge -ikxcst~ ( Naeikysint~ekSdl (20)

A~a = -- f ~a#l~ --k ~ Baa + ~ xabaa a (11)
d( 7~
B~a = - - f ~ b a a d ~ - UAaa -- Uxaaaa A (12) and the sectional diffraction "force" b y
U2
As~ = f ~=aaad~ + ~ Aa3 ha(x) = ~e-ikxest~ __ft, (iN,, -- N2

U xa voaaa + -U= X ';infl)eik:'sinek*~badl (21)

~ xaaaa A
60 ~
x0 But it must be emphasized that this is an a priori as-
sumption of ldae present theory. For example, the analysis
of Ogilvie and Tuck (1969) includes some contributions
(believed to be small) arising from interaction between the
steady and unsteady flow fields.
(13)
Here a is the wave amplitude, k is the w a v e n u m -
ber, ~ is the heading angle (see Fig. 2 for defini-
tions), dI is an element of arc along the cross section
C~, a n d wo = g ~ is t h e w a v e frequency which is
related to w, the frequency of encounter, b y
~0 = o~ + kUcos/3 (22)
F u r t h e r m o r e , haa refers to h~ for t h e a f t e r m o s t sec-

Ship Motions and Sea Loads 255

tion, N2 and Na are the components in the y and z
directions of the two-dimensional outward unit
~:60.,~ BEAM
"~ :120
normal vector in the y-z plane, and Ja is the veloc-
ity potential for the two-dimensional problem of
a cylinder with the same shape as the given cross-
a:30o/
QUARTERING~ \
/ / a:,50o
BOW

section, C,, oscillating in heave in the free surface. FOLLOWING ~ \ / / HEAD

Examination of the relationships for the coeffi-
cients in the equations of motion, equations (7) :0o' I
through (17), and the relationships for the exciting
force and moment, (18) and (19), shows that the Fig. 2 Definition of incident-wave directions
coefficients and the excitation can be obtained
easily by simple numerical integration over the
length of the ship if one knows the sectional two-
dimensional added mass aaa, damping baG, and presented here with the original strip theory for
velocity potential ~a. The computation of these heave and pitch in head waves by Korvin-Krou-
two-dimensional hydrodynamic quantities is the kovsky and Jaeobs (1957). The equations of
most difficult and time-consuming part of com- motion (5) and (6) have the same form in both
puting the ship motions. It is necessary to deter- theories and the coefficients are also the same for
mine these quantities for approximately t w e n t y the zero-speed case, while the excitation and the
sections along the length of the ship and, since speed terms in the coefficients differ. In the nota-
these quantities are frequency dependent, they tions and conventions of this paper, the hydrody-
have to be computed at each station for some 20 namic added-mass and damping coefficients given
to 30 frequencies. Accurate estimates for these by Korvin-Kroukovsky and Jacobs may be writ-
sectional quantities are absolutely necessary in ten in the form
order to obtain useful final results. A discussion
is presented in Appendix 2 of available numerical (23)
methods for solving the two-dimensional problem B~ = Sbj~ + Ua3~a (24)
together with a comparison between computed
and experimental values of the sectional added U U2
A3~ = - $ ~a~d~ - ~ B~ - -- a~# (25)
mass, damping, and exciting force. ~0 2

In the hydrodynamic coefficients, (7) through

J~3~ = -- f~b33d~ + U A ~ -- Uxaa33A (26)
(14), and in the exciting force and moment, (18)
and (19), there are several end terms associated A~3 = -- f~a33d~ (27)
with the added mass, the damping, and the diffrac-
tion at the aftermost section, a~3a, b~3a, and h3a.
B~ = -$~b31~- UA3#- Ux~a~# (28)
Such end terms are usually not included in strip U
theories. However, computations have shown A,~ = f~2a3~d~ + ~ B3~ + ~ A33
that these end terms have a considerable effect
on the motions of ships with wide transom sterns. U2
+ jxxa33 a (29)
One m a y question altogether the justification for
applying strip theory to transom-stern ships be- B ~ = $~2b~3d~ + VxA2a3# (30)
cause of the sudden geometric change at the stern
which apparently violates the assumption of small One should note t h a t the end terms, a3~A, were not
changes in the longitudinal direction. On the included in the final form of the coefficients given
other hand, if it is recalled that at higher speeds by Korvin-Kroukovsky and Jacobs (1957). T h e y
the flow pattern at the transom has no sudden assumed that the added mass at the aftermost sec-
jump it seems reasonable to assume that the tion a~3a was equal to zero. If a33A is assumed to
changes in the hydrodynamic quantities in the be nonzero, then the end terms given in the fore-
longitudinal direction can be considered small going follow directly from the work of Korvin-
even at the transom so that the strip-theory as- Kroukovsky and Jacobs.
sumption can be restored. Strictly speaking, the In comparing the coefficients presented here, (7)
only real justification for including such end terms through (14), with those derived b y Korvin-
in computing the motions for transom-stern ships Kroukovsky and Jacobs, (23) through (30), the
is t h a t the computed results seem to agree better coefficients will be considered first without the end
with experiments when these terms are included. terms. Then the two sets of coefficients are the
Comparison with other theories. At this point same except for A~, A55, and Bs~. In the theory
it is of interest to compare the equations of motion of Korvin-Kroukovsky and Jacobs, both the co-

2 56 Ship Motions and Sea Loads


-1
-2
g to support the speed terms presented here in equa-
w tion (1.4).
L)
-~: -4
-5
I --~ WITHOUT SPEED EFFECT
-6
2 4 6
FREQUENCY OF ENCOUNTER,~O,~g
Fig. 3 Added-mass cross-coupling coefficient, As~, for
Friesland at F~ = 0.45
effieients Aa3 and Bsa are speed independent (dis-
regarding end terms), while the coefficient As~
has an additional speed term, UB3~/o2. Numeri-
cal computations indicate t h a t the speed term in
the added-mass cross-coupling coefficient, A~,
which is included in this theory but not in Korvin-
Kroukovsky and Jacobs, has a considerable effect
on the computed motions, while the difference in
the speed terms associated with the coefficients
A~ and ]3~,~ seems to have less numerical signifi-
cance. 11
T h e speed effect on A~ as presented in this
theory is believed to be correct for two reasons:
(i) T i m m a n and Newman (1962) have proved, for
a slender ship with pointed ends (a3~a = b33a = O)
and fore-and-aft symmetry, that A35 and A53 must
have the same forward speed terms but opposite
sign. The coefficients given here satisfy this sym-
11 M o r e r e c e n t w o r k seems to i n d i c a t e t h a t for c e r t a i n
h i g h - s p e e d h u l l s t h e speed t e r m s in t h e coefficients A55 a n d
B55 can h a v e as larg e an effect on t h e c o m p u t e d m o t i o n s as
t h e speed t e r m s in t h e coefficient A53.
Ship Motions and Sea Loads
metry requirement. (ii) Experiments by W. E.
Smith (1967) presented in Fig. 3 show that A~a
has a fairly strong speed dependence. T h e points
in the figure represent his experimental results for
the Friesland destroyer hull at F,~ = 0.45 and the
two curves show calculated v~flues. The broken
line is the computed coefficient, A~a, without speed
effects, whereas the solid line includes the speed
term UBa;~/~o2 [see eqnation (11)]. Furthermore,
it is interesting to note that the experiments by
Smith (t.967) for the coefficient B~ indicate that
it is also speed dependent and comparisons seem
Consideration of the end terms in the coeffi-
cients presented here, equations (7) through (14),
and in the coefficients by Korvin-Kroukovsky and
Jacobs, (23) through (30), shows that Korvin-
Kroukovsky and Jaeobs only have the end terms
associated with the added mass, aaaa, and none of
the end terms associated with the damping, b3aa,
which are included in this theory.
In order to compare the exciting force and
moment derived here for arbitrary heading, (18)
and (19), and those derived by Korvin-Kroukov-
sky and Jacobs for head waves, it is necessary to
rework some of the expressions. Considering only
head waves (5 = 180 deg) the sectional diffraction
"force" (21) becomes
ha = i~0eik~ fc~ Na~aek~dl (31)
Korvin-Kroukovsky and Jacobs made an empiri-
cal assmnption in their work that the exponential
part of the integrand, e kz, could be replaced by
e -kds where d is the sectional draft and s is the sec-
tional area coefficient (area divided by beam and
draft). If this assumption is used, the exponential
term can be expressed in terms of the added mass
a3~ and damping b~ as
h~ ,.~. iwoeikxe-kds ( N~3d!
d c~,
_ 1 oo ei~:Xe_kd~(w%~ _ iwb~.~) (32)
pw
Use of the same assumption when computing sec-
tional Froude-Kriloff "force," (20), results in
f3 = geik~e-kd" fc= N:~dI = geik~e-ka~b (33)
where b is the sectional beam. If these two rela-
tions, (32) and (33), are substituted in the equa-
tions for the exciting force and moment, (18) and
(19), it follows that the exciting force can be writ-
ten in the simplified form
257

F~ = ~ f e~k~e-~'{ pgb -- ~oo(,oa~ -- ib~)}d~
--0d7-- U eik~ e - kd'wo(wa~3a ibj__~
a) (34)
0 only in order to simplify the numerical computa-
and the exciting m o m e n t in the form
F5 = - - a f eik~e-kds {~[pgb -- cOo(wa~3 -- ib~3)]
U ib3____!3)}d}
i ; ~,o(~m~ -
~- ol:-U eik:,e_kd,cooXA(coa33.4 _ ib3.~) (35)
~w
Comparison of these relationships for the exciting
force and m o m e n t for head waves with the work
b y K o r v i n - K r o u k o v s k y and Jacobs shows t h a t the
three underlined terms in (34) and (35) are not
included in their theory. Numerical investigations
have shown t h a t these three additional terms in
the exciting force and m o m e n t have only a small
effect on the computed motions.
I t should be pointed out t h a t for predictions in
head waves it is m u c h easier and faster eomputa-
tionally to use the exciting force and m o m e n t in
the form (34) and (35) rather t h a n in the more
general form (18) and (19). However, numerical
computations have shown t h a t it is only accurate
to replace the t e r m e k* b y e -kds for sections with
very regular shapes. For example, for bulbous-
bow sections, use of the exciting force and m o m e n t
b y K o r v i n - K r o u k o v s k y and Jacobs and the excit-
ing force and m o m e n t expressed in (34) and (35)
would give inaccurate results.
T h e original strip theory of K o r v i n - K r o u k o v -
sky and Jaeobs has been modified and extended
by several investigators [see, for example, Ger-
ritsma and Beukelman (1967)]. These modified
theories all lack the additional speed terms in-
eluded here and they did not satisfy the T i m m a n -
N e w m a n (1962) s y m m e t r y relationship. How-
ever, during the last year S6ding (1969), Tasai and
T a k a k i (1969), and Borodai and N e t s v e t a y e v
(1969) independently presented new strip theories
for heave and pitch motions. These theories are
similar and, except for the end-effect terms, they
all have the same forward-speed-effect terms as
those given in the present work. I t should be
emphasized, on the other hand, t h a t in the deriva-
tives of these theories the "strip-theory" approxi-
mations were applied in the initial formulation of
the problem, while in the present derivation the
hydrodynamic coefficients in the equations of
motion [equations (117) through (123) in Appen-
258 Ship Motions and Sea Loads
dix 1] and the exciting force and m o m e n t [equa-
tion (146)] have been derived without use of any
strip-theory approximations. T h e strip-theory
approximations have been introduced in this work
tions; therefore, the forward-speed terms and the
end terms derived here are in no way restricted b y
the strip-theory approximations.
Comparison with experiments. A few com-
parisons between computed and experimental
values for heave and pitch motions will be pre-
sented here in order to demonstrate the generally
satisfactory agreement. Figure 4 shows the
heave and pitch amplitudes and phases '2 for the
Mariner hull form in head waves at Froude num-
ber 0.20.13 T h e points in the figure represent ex-
perimental results b y Salvesen and Smith (1970)
while the solid line is computed b y the present
theory and the broken line b y the theory of Korvin-
K r o u k o v s k y and Jacobs (1957). For the heave
and pitch phases the difference between the two
theories is so small t h a t only the curve for the
present theory is shown in the figure. Note t h a t
the pitch amplitude, 75, is scaled b y the wave
amplitude, a, and multiplied b y half the ship
length, L/2, so t h a t the pitch values, ~sL/2a,
shown on the plot are nondimensional vertical bow
displacements due to pitch. 14 I t is seen in Fig. 4
t h a t both theories agree quite well with the ex-
periments and t h a t for the pitch amplitudes the
present theory seems to agree somewhat better
with the experiments than the theory of Korvin-
K r o u k o v s k y and Jacobs.
Figure 5 gives theoretical and experimental
pitch and heave values for the Davidson A hull
form in head waves at Froude number 0.45.15
T h e Davidson A is a destroyer form with a very
large bulbous bow and a transom stern. An
accurate account of the effects of the bulb is ob-
tained b y using the F r a n k close-fit method in com-
puting the sectional added mass and damping for
both theories. The end-effect terms as previously
discussed were included in both theories. T h e ex-
perimental values shown in Fig. 5 were measured
by Smith and Salvesen (1970) using a free-running
model. T h e vertical motions were measured b y
sonic transducers in order to eliminate the me-
chanical damping which was present in the heave
12The phase angles express the lead with respect to
maximum wave elevation at midship.
13Froude number of 0.20 corresponds to approximately
14 knots for the 528-ft Mariner ship.
14 Pitch is conventionally scaled by the maximum wave
slope; however, it has been found in comparing theory and
experiments and in comparing the relative importance of
pitch and heave that it is more convenient to present the
pitch as "vertical bow displacement."
a5 Froude number of 0.45 corresponds to approximately
35 knots for a 500-ft ship.
 3.5 25
- - PRESENT T H E O R Y PRESENTTHEORY
------ K-K AND J T H E O R Y - - - - - - K-K AND J THEORY
Q EXPERIMENT ~ s EXPERIMENTS
SALVESEH(1970) / / ~ SMITH(1970)
2,0
3.0

1.5
2.5

.a :z:
1.0
2.0
a.

0.5

1.5

0 I I I
2,5
1.0

A
2.0
0.S

1.5

0 I I I _/ \~ ~
45
1.0

0 HEAVE
0.5
_ \~---~~A~~.~A
~
-45
I _I I
0

HEAVE
-45 --

-135 011'

-911

-180

- I I A ~ -135

-270
0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 -180
L/k

Fig. 4 H e a v e and pitch a m p l i t u d e s and p h a s e s for

Mariner in head w a v e s at Fn = 0 . 2 0 -225

-2"70
0.4 0.6 0.8 I0 1.2
Fig. 5 H e a v e and pitch amplitudes and p h a s e s for k
D a v i d s o n A in head w a v e s at Fn = 0.45 L/X

Ship Motions and Sea Loads 259

staff. 16 I t is seen in Fig. 5 t h a t for this hull form - - THEORY
b o t h the heave and pitch amplitudes c o m p u t e d b y O EXPERIMENT,WAHAB(1967)
the present t h e o r y agree slightly b e t t e r with the
experiments t h a n does the t h e o r y of K o r v i n - O O BOW'S=t30
K r o u k o v s k y and Jacobs.
0.6 _
Finally, in Fig. 6 the pitch amplitudes '7 in
oblique and following waves are shown for the
Series 60 s t a n d a r d hull form with block coefficient
0.80 at F r o u d e n u m b e r 0.15. T h e curve repre- 0.4
sents c o m p u t a t i o n s b y the present t h e o r y and the
points are results b y W a h a b (1967). Satisfactory
agreement between t h e o r y and experiments is
seen for bow, quartering, and following waves while 0.2

there is some discrepancy for b e a m waves.

Sway, Roll, and Yaw Motions 0

0,2
I t follows f r o m the general formulation of the BEAM,,B=90

equations of m o t i o n [equations (1) t h r o u g h (4)]

t h a t for a ship with lateral s y m m e t r y the coupled
differential equations governing the sway, roll, and I I
y a w motions can be written in the form
OUARTERING,,8=50

(-Z122 -~- ~"f)#2 -~- B22~2 + (~124 -- -{]Zc)~4

0.4
-]- B24~ -~- ,426~6 Jr- Bo.6(76 = F2e i'~t (36)

0.2
+ C.n~ + ( A ~ - L~)#~ + B~0~0 = Iqe i'~* (37)

+ (A~ + h)#~ + B~O~ = F~E~ (3S) I I

FOLLOWlNG,,8=IO
T h e added-mass and d a m p i n g coefficients, Ajx and
Bj~, as derived in Appendix 1 using linear poten- 0.6 I-- \O
tial-flow theory, c a n n o t be used for the ease of
sway, yaw, and roll w i t h o u t including a correction
for viscous damping. Comparison between t h e o r y
and experiments shows t h a t the roll-damping co- 0.4
efficient, B~4, is significantly affected b y viscosity
even in the absence of bilge keels, and the ampli-
tude of the roll displacement can be c o m p u t e d
with reasonable a c c u r a c y in near-resonance con- 0.2
dition only if t h e viscous roll d a m p i n g is included
[see Vugts (1968)]. Therefore the h y d r o d y n a m i c
coefficient given in A p p e n d i x 1 will be used with
an additional term, B44", which represents quasi- 2 3
linear viscous-damping effects in roll~S:
WAVE FREQUENCY, C a o l / ~ -

Fig. 6 Pitch amplitudes for Series 60, CB = 0.80 in

16Smith and Salvesen (1970) have shown that there is a bow, beam, quartering and following waves at F~ = 0.15
noticeable difference between the heave amplitudes mea-
sured by free-running models and by the heave-staff tech-
nique for hulls with very large bulbs.
17The pitch amplitude is scaled in Fig. 6 in the conven-
tional way by the maximum wave slope. A2~ = fa2~dt - ~ b2~a (39)
is Methods for computing the roll viscous damping term
B44" and its effect on the roll displacement are discussed in
more detail at the end of this section. B22 = fb22d~ + Ua22a (40)
260 Ship Motions and Sea Loads
 U b)24A (41) parisons between computed and experimental
d 2 4 = A42 = fct24d} -- -~
values for these two-dimensional sectional quanti-
ties are made. After the sectional coefficients are
B24 = B42 = fb~4d~ q - Ua.24 a (42) determined all the h y d r o d y n a m i c coefficients in
the equation of motion can be obtained b y
U U XAb22A straightforward integration over the length of the
ship. I t should be recalled t h a t A j0 and B~k refer
U~ (43) to the speed-independent part of the coefficients
and t h a t xa, CbjlaA, and b s "t refer to values at the
aftermost section.
U~
B26 = f~b22d~ -- UA220 -J- UX Aa22 A -Jr- -~7 b2uA For heave and pitch mdtions there were four
hydrostatic restoring coefficients, equations (15)
(44) through (17), while for sway', yaw, and roll there
is only the one restoring coefficient:
A44 = fa.,t4d~ -- U b~4a (45) G,, = p g V G ~ I (55)
o"

B.~t = fb44d~ @ Ua44 A -}- B44" (46) where V is the displaced volume of the ship and
G-~f is the metacentric height.
.d46 = f~a24d~ + a~-UB240_ U Xab24a I t follows from the results in Appendix 1 t h a t
the amplitude of the sway exciting force is
U=
-iv ~ - a24 a (47) F2 = ao f (f2 q- h:,)d( q- up _ h~.A
go0
(56)

B46 = f~b~4d~ -- UA~4 t h a t the amplitude of the roll exciting n m m e n t is

U 2 e4 = c~p ( ( f 4 -~- h4)d~ + a p U7 h4 A (57)

-1- UXAa24 A -k ~ b24A (4s) d o

and t h a t the amplitude of the yaw exciting mo-

U U (49) m e n t is
A~ = j'~a~d~ - ~ B22o - ~ x~b~

B~,?. = f~b22d~ -{- UA,.,2 q- Uxaa22 A

// U +
N64 = f~a.e4d~ -- ~; B24 --
B64 = f~b24d~ --}- UA._,4 ~- Uxact24 a
A 66 = f(2a22d~ q- U~2~A 2.,, -- Uo xa2b,2a
0.~" 50"
U2
+ ~
U2
B66 = f(2622d~ q- ~ ]32~ q- UXA2a22 A
u~
Here the integrations are over the length of the
ship, a~.2 mad b2.~are the two-dimensional sectional
added mass and damping in sway, a44 and b44 a r e
the sectional added mass and damping in roll, and
a24 and b24 are the two-dimensional added-mass
and damping coefficients due to cross coupling be-
tween sway and roll. In Appendix 2, numerical
methods for computing the sectional added-mass
and damping coefficients are described and corn-
g**h (ss)
(51) ~
where the sectional Froude-Kriloff "forces '" are
(52)
f j = ge-ik .... ~ I _ N~eiky~in~ek~dl; j = 2, 4 (59)
.2 Ux
and the sectional diffraction "forces" are
x~a~_ A (53)
h.~ = OOoe- i k . . . . ~ fc', (iNa -- N.,.sin3)eiky~i"aek~fll,"
j = 2, 4 (60)
Thus, the exciting forces and m o m e n t s can be ob-
bo" (54) tained b y simple numerical integrations first over
the cross section, C,, and then over the length of
the ship if the sectional two-dimensional velocity
potentials for sway and roll, ~b.~and 4, are known.
Methods for computing these two-dimensional
potentials are discussed in Appendix 2.
T h e work of G r i m and Schenzle (1969) is the
only previously published work known to the
authors on the equations of motion for sway, roll,
and yaw for a ship with forward speed. A de-
tailed comparison between the equations derived

Ship Motions and Sea Loads 261

'=--WAVEANDVSC0US..,
00o ,, ------0N'YDA
pNGDA'PN
WAVE0 /:7
I
. I
. EXPERIME H T S ,
z
--
5.0 --
o Fig. 8 Sway amplitude for Series 60, CB = 0.70 in beam
2.s_ . t
~ "
~ 1 ~ _
0 I
2.5 5.0
FREQUENCY,wIN SEC -1
Fig. 7 Theoretical and experimental roll amplitudes for
rectangular cylinder in beam waves
by Grim and Schenzle and those presented here
would require too much space; however, it should
be noted that the coefficients in the equations of
motion given here satisfy the symmetry relation-
ship stated by T i m m a n and Newman (1962) while
the coefficients used by Grim and Schenzle lack
several of the forward-speed terms included here
and do not satisfy this symmetry relationship.
As was stated, the roll motions in the near-
resonance condition are strongly affected by vis-
cous damping. This can be seen in Fig. 7, where
theoretical and experimental roll amplitudes for a
round-bilge rectangular cylinder in beam waves
are shown. The points in the figure are experi-
mental values from Vugts (1968a). T h e broken
line is the computed roll amplitude using linear
potential-flow theory including wave damping but
neglecting viscous effects, while the solid line
represents the computed roll amplitude including
both wave and viscous damping. The maximum
roll amplitude computed b y potential theory is
not shown in the figure, but it is several times
larger than the maximmn measured amplitude.
The viscous roll damping has been computed by
equations derived by Kato (1958) for skin friction
and by T a n a k a (1960) for eddy-making resistance.
Use of these results of K a t o and T a n a k a permits
the viscous roll-damping effects which are non-
262
t
- - THEORY
EXPERIMENTS
(TASAI, 1965)
1.0 1.5 2.0
PERIOD IN SECONDS
waves at zero speed
linear with respect to the roll velocity, ~4, to be
introduced in the equations of motion as the quasi-
linear term
I B44* = K r l 4 .... (61)
7.5 10.0
where K depends on the frequency, the viscosity,
the bilge-keel dimensions, and the hull geometry.
Here ~4..... is the maximum roll velocity and must
be estimated before the motions are computed. If
the difference between the estimated and the com-
puted ~4maxis tOO large, a new value for ~4~x must
be estimated and the motions are then recom-
puted.
Vugts (1968a) has reported experimental sway
and roll amplitudes for several cylinder forms in
beam waves and, as shown in Fig. 7 for a sample
case, the agreement between his test results and
the computed motions is generally satisfactory
when the viscous effects are included by equation
(61). Furthermore, comparisons have been made
with sway and roll experiments by Tasai (1965)
for Series 60, CB = 0.70 in beam waves at zero
speed. As seen in Fig. S, the agreement between
the computed and experimental motions is quite
good. The dip in the computed curve is due to
the coupling of roll into sway in the roll-resonance
condition.
Unfortunately, it is not possible to make a de-
tailed comparison between experiments and theory
for the sway, yaw, and roll motions in oblique
waves. For those few experiments where these
motions have been measured, adequate informa-
tion about the weight distribution needed for com-
puting the responses is not available in most of the
cases. Therefore it is difficult to make general
statements with respect to the accuracy of sway,
yaw, and roll motions in oblique seas as computed
by this theory. On the other hand, the satisfac-
Ship Motions and Sea Loads
tory agreement between experiments and theory [ v2
shown in S e c t i o n 3 herein for t h e h o r i z o n t a l w a v e -
i n d u c e d l o a d s m a y b e t a k e n as an i n d i c a t i o n t h a t
t h e c o m p u t e d m o t i o n s s h o u l d be r e a s o n a b l e .

3. Sea Loads
R e l a t i o n s h i p s a r e p r e s e n t e d in t h i s section for
t h e d y n a m i c s h e a r forces a n d t o r s i o n a l a n d b e n d - V, = compression force V4 = torsional moment
V~ horizontal shear V5 = vertical bending
ing m o m e n t s for a ship a d v a n c i n g a t c o n s t a n t force moment
m e a n speed a t a r b i t r a r y h e a d i n g in r e g u l a r sinu- V3 = vertical shear V6 = horizontal bending
force moment
soidal waves. Comparisons between computed
a n d e x p e r i m e n t a l w a v e - i n d u c e d loads are m a d e . Fig. 9 Sign convention for dynamic wave-load com-
ponents
Dynamic Load Equations
L e t t h e s h e a r a n d c o m p r e s s i o n force a t a cross so t h a t e q u a t i o n (64) a p p l i e s to t h e t o r s i o n a l a n d
section of t h e ship be b e n d i n g m o m e n t s (j = 4, 5, 6) as well as t h e s h e a r
V = V~i + V2j + V3k (62) forces (j = 2, 3).
T h e i n e r t i a force: is the,. m a s s t i m e s t h e accelera-
where Vx is t h e compression,19 V2 is t h e h o r i z o n t a l tion. If t h e i n e r t i a force is expressed in t e r m s of
s h e a r force, a n d V~ is t h e v e r t i c a l s h e a r force. t h e sectional i n e r t i a force (the sectional m a s s t i m e s
Similarly, let the bending and torsional moment t h e sectional acceleration), we find t h a t
a t a section b e
Is = fm(~/~ + ~i/6 -- ~4) d} (65)
1V[ = 174i + Vsj + V6k (63)
f3 = f m ( # 3 -- ~ 5 ) d} (66)
w h e r e V4 is t h e t o r s i o n a l m o m e n t , V5 is t h e v e r t i -
cal b e n d i n g m o m e n t , a n d V8 is t h e h o r i z o n t a l If a s i m i l a r p r o c e d u r e is followed for t h e m o m e n t -
b e n d i n g m o m e n t . 2o T h e sign c o n v e n t i o n used for o f - i n e r t i a terms, we find t h a t
t h e d y n a m i c w a v e - l o a d c o m p o n e n t s is shown in
Fig. 9. N o t e t h a t V~ is a c t u a l l y t h e b e n d i n g 14 = f{i:,#4 -- m~(#2 + ~#6)]d~ (67)
m o m e n t a b o u t t h e h o r i z o n t a l axis b u t it has be- I5 = -J;z(~ - x ) (#~ - ~#5)d~ (6S)
come c u s t o m a r y a m o n g n a v a l a r c h i t e c t s t o refer to
V5 as t h e v e r t i c a l b e n d i n g m o m e n t since it is t h e f6 = f r n ( ( -- x)(#2 + ~#6 -- ~#4)d( (69)
m o m e n t d u e to t h e v e r t i c a l forces. S i m i l a r l y V6,
H e r e m is t h e sectional m a s s per u n i t l e n g t h of t h e
which is t h e m o m e n t a b o u t t h e v e r t i c a l axis, is re-
ferred to as t h e h o r i z o n t a l b e n d i n g m o m e n t since ship, ~ is t h e v e r t i c a l p o s i t i o n of c e n t e r of g r a v i t y
it is d u e to t h e h o r i z o n t a l forces. of t h e s e c t i o n a l mass, a n d i~ is t h e sectional m a s s
T h e d y n a m i c s h e a r force a t a cross section is t h e m o m e n t of i n e r t i a a b o u t t h e x-axis. T h e i n t e g r a -
difference b e t w e e n t h e i n e r t i a force a n d t h e s u m tion is o v e r t h e l e n g t h of t h e ship f o r w a r d of t h e
of e x t e r n a l forces a c t i n g on t h e p o r t i o n of t h e hull cross section being considered.
f o r w a r d of t h e section in question. If t h e e x t e r n a l T h e h y d r o s t a t i c r e s t o r i n g forces a n d m o m e n t s
a r e given b y
force is s e p a r a t e d i n t o t h e s t a t i c r e s t o r i n g force
R j, t h e e x c i t i n g force E~, a n d t h e h y d r o d y n a m i c
R~ -= - - p g fb(n3 -- }ns)d( (70)
force d u e to t h e b o d y m o t i o n Dj, we find t h a t
V~- = L - R~ - E~ -- D~ (64) R4 = g~4 f ( p a ~ -- m ~ ) d } (71)

if I~ is t h e i n e r t i a force. S i m i l a r l y , t h e t o r s i o n a l R5 = og, f b ( ~ - x)(~ - ~5)d~ (72)

a n d b e n d i n g m o m e n t s a r e e q u a l to t h e difference
b e t w e e n t h e m o m e n t d u e t o t h e i n e r t i a force a n d
t h e m o m e n t d u e to t h e s u m of t h e e x t e r n a l forces,
~9 Under the assumptions applied in deriving the equa-
tions of motion, the compression force Vx is small (of
higher order) and hence will not be considered further.
20 The torsional and the bending moments are expressed
here with respect to a local coordinate system with the
origin in the given cross section, but otherwise oriented as
the coordinate system shown in Fig. 1.
w i t h R2 = 0 a n d R~ = 0. H e r e b is t h e sectional
b e a m , a is t h e s u b m e r g e d sectional area, a n d o m is
t h e d i s t a n c e b e t w e e n t h e w a t e r p l a n e a n d t h e sec-
tional metaeenter.
T h e e x c i t i n g force a n d m o m e n t o v e r t h e p o r t i o n
of t h e ship f o r w a r d of t h e cross section x c a n b e
o b t a i n e d d i r e c t l y f r o m e q u a t i o n s (151), (152), a n d
(153) in A p p e n d i x 1 b y r e p l a c i n g t h e m o m e n t a r m
w i t h (} -- x). I t follows f r o m this t h a t t h e ex-

Ship Motions and Sea Loads 263

citing force and moment components are
E~ = oa { f (A + hj)d~
+ (~hj)~= ,}ei't; j = 2,3,4
E~ = --po~ f [ ( ~ -- x)(f3 + ha)
+ "twUhald~ei,~t
+ ,~uh~]d~, (75)
T h e sectional Froude-Kriloff "force" is given b y
fJ = ge-ik~st3f c NYky~i"t~ek*dl; j = 2, 3, 4
and the sectional diffraction "force" is given by
h~ = ~oe-~c~ f c (iNa -- N~sin~)eikS~i"'ek~fll;
j = 2,3,4
The hydrodynamic force and moment due to
the body motion on the portion of the ship for-
ward of a given cross section have been derived in
Appendix 3 and can be written in terms of the sec-
tional added mass and damping (a~ and b~x) and
the velocity and acceleration (~ and ;jj) in com-
ponent form as
+ a24~4 + b.z4i~,+ ~ b2~#~-- Ua2d~6 d~
- uc~(O2 + ~,~) - j b~(#~ + ~#~)
U2 1 b24~4)1
= - - + - cussed in Section 2. Computations have shown
- UU- - ~~+ U( ~ }~d ~-- [ ~ ) o ~
-- ~U baa(;/, - ~;/~) - - ~U~ (aaa#~ + ba~O,~)1
Da = - f {a44~4+ (b44"~-b44*)iN
+ a~(#~ + ~#o) + b2~(#~+ ~o) + ~U b~& --
264 Ship Motions and Sea Loads
- - Ua24i16}d~--IUa24(i72--}- ~i16)
- ~ U b24(2 31- ~6) -}- U ~. ((L24~6-~ b24~}6)
(73)
1
(74)
+ ua~3(~ - x~.O - ~ b~(~3 - x#~)
}
(76) D6 = -- f ( ~ -- x){a2z(#2 + ~#8) + b2~(~2 + ~6)
+ + f +
U U2
- ~ b22(#~ + x#0) + ~ (a~#~ + b2~)
(77)
+ U(~4 U b~#~}d~ (82)
with DI negligible. The coefficient b44" in equa-
tion (80) is the viscous sectional roll-damping co-
efficient and is computed in the same way as the
damping coefficient, B44", given by equation (61).
This completes the relationships for the dy-
namic shear force and bending and torsional
moments. Comparison of the equations presented
here with those of W. R. Jacobs (1958) for vertical
shear forces and bending moments in head waves
shows that the only difference between the two
theories is in the forward-speed terms in the exci-
tation and in the hydrodynamic force and mo-
ment due to the body motion. These differences
in the forward-speed terms are quite similar to
the differences between the present theory and
the theory of Korvin-Kroukovsky and Jacobs
(78)
(1957) for the equations of motions as was dis-
that these differences in the speed terms have an
appreciable effect on the computed vertical shear
forces and bending moments in the higher speed
range (F~ > 0.25).
(79) S6ding (1969) has also derived the vertical
shear forces and bending moments for a ship in
head waves. His shear and moment equations
are identical to those presented here for the case of
head waves. However, Grim and Schenzle (1969)
have derived the horizontal shear forces and bend-
ing moment as well as torsional moments for a ship
 \

advancing at arbitrary heading in regular waves. [

,8 EXPERIMENT THEORY
Their theory lacks several of the speed terms in- 170 o O
cluded here and, unfortunately, since they give 130 A - - - - - -

detailed comparisons between their theory and ~ 6

experiments only for the zero-forward-speed case,
little is known about the accuracy of their speed
terms.
Comparison with Experiments
Vossers et al. (1961) have conducted a very
systematic complete set of wave-load experiments.
T h e y measured both the vertical and horizontal
wave-induced loads for several Series-60 hull
forms in head, following, and oblique waves. Un-
fortunately the experiments were performed at
only 6 different wave lengths and these are not
really enough for a comparison between theory
and experiments. More detailed tests were rerun
b y W a h a b (1967) using the standard Series-60
hull form with CB = 0.80. These tests were con-
ducted at several wave lengths and most of the
test conditions were run at least twice. We believe
t h a t the experiments by W a h a b are the best avail-
able for a comparative study of the wave-induced
loads.
Vertical loads. A comparison between computed
and experimental vertical shear-force amplitudes
for the Series-60 hull form (CB = 0.80) in head
and bow waves at Froude n u m b e r 0.15 is shown
in Fig. 10. I t should be noted t h a t head waves
with/3 = 180 deg cannot be run conveniently at
the seakeeping t a n k in Wageningen, so t h a t the
head-wave experiments were conducted by W a h a b
with /3 = 170 deg. T h e numerical head-wave
computations are also for 6 --= 170 deg. Further-
more, one should note t h a t the m a x i m u m wave-
induced vertical shear forces occur close to the
forward and aft quarter lengths while, in order to
reduce expenses, the model W a h a b used in the
experiments was equipped with gages for measur-
ing the wave loads at the midship section only.
Fig. 10 shows quite satisfactory agreement with
small discrepancies in the higher frequency range.
Similar agreement is found in Fig. 11, where the
vertical bending-moment amplitudes in head,
quartering, and following waves are compared.
(Note t h a t 3 is 10 deg for following waves.) Con-
sidering the difficulties involved in making ac-
curate measurements for such experiments and the
drastic assumptions made in deriving the theory,
the agreement between experiments and theory
seen in Figs. 10 and 11 is little short of amazing.
W a h a b (1967) also presented a comparison be-
tween theory and his vertical-load experiments.
T h e computed values were obtained by an exten-
sion of the theory of K o r v i n - K r o u k o v s k y and
Jaeobs (1957) to include oblique waves. W a h a b ' s
~
~o
t~
u
> 2 / / . \ , ",
/
/
O
o I I ., I
2 3 4
WAVE FREQUENCY, ~ 0 [ V ~ / g
Fig. 10 Vertical shear-force amplitudes at midship for
Series 60, CB --- 0.80 in head and bow waves at F, = 0.15
comparisons show less satisfactory results than
shown here. 2L
Horizontal loads. Comparisons between theory
and experiments for the wave-induced horizontal
shear forces, bending moments, and torsional
moments are shown in Figs. 12, 13, and 14 respec-
tively. The comparisons are for the Series 60 hull
form with block coefficient 0.80 at Froude number
0.15. The experimental points shown in these
figures are by W a h a b and are all measured at the
midship section. Figures 12, 13, and 14 show quite
satisfactory agreement between the present theory
and experiments. This is extremely encouraging,
especially since no other comparisons between
computed and experimental wave-induced hori-
zontal loads for a ship with forward speed exist.
I t has been recognized for some time that, for
vertical motions and loads, strip theories usually
give quite reasonable results. However, little has
been known about the use of strip theory in pre-
diction of the horizontal motions and loads. I t
has been believed that sway-yaw-roll motions are
quite nonlinear and t h a t viscous effects are ap-
preciable so t h a t a linear strip theory would be
inadequate for determining these motions or loads.
~1 See Faltinsen (1!)70) for a more detailed comparison
between the present theory and the Series-60, CB = 0.80
wave-load experimenis by Wahab.

Ship Motions and Sea Loads 265

 Because of lack of experimental results it has not
fl EXPERIMENT THEORY been possible here to show t h a t the theory can
170
130 ------ prediet the sway-yaw-roll motions with sufficient
accuracy; nevertheless, the good agreement
shown for the horizontal shear forces, bending
moments, and torsional m o m e n t s suggests t h a t
the theory has strong potential for determining
the horizontal loads and perhaps also the hori-
zontal motions. T h e wave loads are computed
from the motions so the good agreement between
theory and experiments for the loads is a strong
indication t h a t the computed motions m a y be
\ \ quite accurate.
I / Comparison between the present theory and ex-
I \ periments has also been made for the horizontal
wave loads of a eontainership model at zero speed.
In the experiments conducted b y Hattendorff and
ARe (1968) the wave loads were measured at both
the midship and twenty percent of the length aft
P of midship. Figure 15 shows some samples from
5 -/
/ these comparisons and the correlation between
\ theory and experiments appears very satisfactory
for this case.
Finally, in Fig. 16 the computed torsional mo-
i-?
I I ment is plotted as a function of longitudinal posi-
o
g tion along the hull length for a containership in
bow waves. This figure shows that the m a x i m u m
B EXPERIMENT THEORY
computed wave-indueed torsional m o m e n t m a y
I0 not occur at midship but at a considerable dis-
50 ----
u
tance aft of midship. I t should be recalled t h a t
_

> the m a x i m u m vertical and horizontal bending

m o m e n t s are very close to midship for most ship
forms. This difference is emphasized here be-
\ cause most available experimental data for the
\ torsional m o m e n t s have been measured at the
\ midship section and thus m a y incorrectly be used
\ in design as an estimate for the m a x i m u m tor-
d. sional moment.
/ \
\ 4. Concluding Remarks
\ I t appears t h a t the computational method pre-
\ sented here can be a valuable design tool for pre-
\ dicting ship motions and sea loads. Similar com-
putational sehemes for predicting the heave and
pitch motions and the vertieal loads have already
/ proven to be of great value to the U. S. N a v y and
/t to Det norske Veritas in hull and structural design
/ of ships. T h e computer program based on this
theory has been applied in concept-design studies
of very large tankers at D e t norske Veritas. For
such large hulls the wave-induced loads are essen-
2 3 4 tial criteria in the evaluation of the structural
feasibility. Furthermore, the present computa-
WAVE FREQUENCY, ~ o [ ~ g
tional method has been shown to be very useful in
estimating the torsional m o m e n t and horizontal
Fig. 11 Vertical b e n d i n g - m o m e n t amplitudes at mid- shear forces for open hull forms such as those of
ship for Series 60, CB = 0.80 in head, bow, quartering,
and f o l l o w i n g waves at Fn = 0.15 containerships,

266 Ship Motions and Sea Loads

 --- THEORY E'ZPERIMENT, WAHAB(1967) --THEORY EXPERIMENT, WAHAB(1967)
6 2O - o 0 0
BOW,/~=130 o 0 I]I Bow,~:13o a
_
15
o

~0
~_ +'- e

u. 8
QUARTERING, ~:50 / l
0 l I l
< 6-- =o 25
QUARTERING, .8=50

,,=,
~7
o 4j m 2o
x:

2 OSO

0 I
2 3
WAVE FREQUENCY ,~oL~CTg'~
Fig. 12 Horizontal shear-force amplitudes at midship
for Series 60, CB = 0.80 in bow and quartering waves
T h e usefulness of this computational method is
not restricted to the design of single-hull ships.
Presently N S R D C and Det norske Veritas are ex-
tending the method to the case of catamarans,
trimarans, and drilling platforms. T h e computer
program now being completed for predicting mo-
tions and sea loads for c a t a m a r a n s will be of in-
valuable help in a planned feasilibility study of
the use of c a t a m a r a n s in the U. S. N a v y .
T h e potential of the present theory is quite evi-
dent; however, in order to utilize it more fully,
further research is necessary. There is a particu-
lar need for a more extensive evaluation of the
accuracy and the range of applicability of the
sway-roll-yaw and the horizontal-load computa-
tions. For the horizontal responses, satisfactory
agreement between theory and experiment is
shown here only for the horizontal loads for one
particular hull form, the Series 60, CB = 0.80 at
Fn = 0.15. This good agreement is very en-
couraging, but the following research is required
to confirm more precisely the accuracy of this
theory:
1. Investigation of the justification for assum-
ing in the derivations t h a t the derivatives of the
steady perturbation potential, $,, can be con-
sidered small. Even though the demonstrated
1 10 -
4
5
I I I
2 3 4
WAVE FREQUENCY, COoLI/L~-/g
Fig. 13 Horizontal bending-moment amplitudes at
midship for Series 60, CB = 0.80 in bow and quartering
waves at F. = 0.15
agreement between theory and experiments seems
to indicate that the steady perturbation potential
~s and its derivatives have only a small effect on
the ship motions and the wave loads, this assump-
tion does not appear consistent with the basic as-
sumption of slender-body theory.
2. Experimental evaluation of the various co-
efficients in the sway-roll-yaw equations of motion.
(Such experiments have recently been conducted
at the Technische Hogeschool of Delft, b u t the
final results are not yet available.)
3, A carefully conducted sway-roll-yaw mo-
tion experiment with investigation of possible non-
linearities in the responses. Significant non-
linearities can be expected for high-speed hulls in
quartering waves.
4. A more general experimental evaluation of
the horizontal wave loads. Preliminary experi-
ments indicate t h a t these responses are nonlinear
for hull forms with low block coefficients.

Ship Motions and Sea Loads 267

 ~ ~ ' ~
THEORYEXPERIMENT,WAHAB(1967) 1 ~ 4 -- THEORYOEXPERIMENY,
HATTENOORFF(I%8)J
loo o ~ ,

7s - ~ ~2 o
o :>~ 4 A
50 ~ 2

,
0
o 12

C 50 BEAM
fl=70o
, ~ -J ~ 4
J ~ 0 (
2..5 ~ 90 t20 ;50 180
~:
o ~ _ ~,,,,/~j ::c HEADINGANGLE,/~INDEGREES
O I I I Fig. 15 Horizontal shear-force and bending-moment
100 amplitudes versus heading angle for a containership at
QUARTERING'fl:30 zero speed (L/X = 0.80)
o
75

so
uJ
o.o - / ' i X ,

2s ~ ~ o.ol

0
2 3 4 -O.SO -0.25 ~ 0.25 0.50
WAVEFREQUENCY,w 0LPLPLPLPLPLPLPLPLP~'8/ LONGITUDINALDIRECTION,x/L
Fig. 14 Torsional-moment amplitudes at midship for Fig. 16 Computed torsional-moment amplitude for
Series 60, C~ = 0.80 in bow, beam, and quartering waves containership in bow waves (~ = 120 deg) with L/X =
at Fa = 0.15 2.0 and at Fn = 0.20

S. Investigation of the effects of rudder action
on the wave-induced motions and loads.
However, it should be stressed that, even with-
out this additional research, the present computa-
tional method should be of great assistance to the
naval architect in determining the seaworthiness
characteristics of new ship designs.
Acknowledgments
-~ The authors wish to express their appreciation
to Dr. Keith P. Keruey (NSRDC) for his careful
review of the paper and to Miss Claire E. Wright
(NSRDC) for typing the original manuscript.
References
E. Abrahamsen, "Recent Developments in the
Practical Philosophy of Ship Structural Design,"
S N A M E Spring Meeting, 1967.
I. K. Borodai and Y. A. Netsvetayev, "Ship
Motions in Ocean Waves" (in Russian), Sudo-
storenie, Leningrad, 1969.
O. Faltinsen, " A study of the two-dimensional
added-mass and damping coefficients by the
Frank close-fit method," Det norske Veritas,
Oslo, Norway, Report No. 69-10-S, 1969a.
O. Faltinsen, "A comparison of Frank close-fit
method with some other methods used to find two-
dimensional hydrodynamical forces and moments
for bodies which are oscillating harmonically in an
ideal fluid," Det norske Veritas, Oslo, Norway,
Report No. 69-43-S, 1969b.
O. Faltinsen, "Comparison between theory and
experiments of wave-induced loads for Series 60
hull with CB = 0.80," Det norske Veritas, Oslo,
Norway, Report No. 70-27-S, 1970.
W. Frank, "Oscillation of Cylinders In or Be-
low the Free Surface of Deep Fluids," N S R D C ,
Washington, D. C., Report 2375, 1967.
W. Frank and N. Salvesen, " T h e Frank Close-

268 Ship Motions and Sea Loads

Fit Ship-Motion Computer Program," NSRDC,
Washington, D. C., Report 3289, 1970.
J. Gerritsma and W. Beukelman, "Analysis of
the modified strip theory for the calculation of
ship motions and wave bending moments," Inter-
national Shipbuilding Progress, vol. 14, no. 156,
1967.
O. Grim and P. Schenzle, "Berechnung der
Torsionsbelastung eines Schiffes in Seegang,"
Institut ffir Schiffbau der Universit~it Hamburg,
Bericht Nr 236 amd Nr 237, 1969.
H. G. Hattendorff and R. ARe, "Seegangs
versuche mit dem Modell eines Containerschiffes
in regelmttssigen Wellen," Forschitngszentrum des
Deutschen Schiffbaus, Hamburg, Bericht Nr 3,
1968.
W. R. Jacobs, "The Analytical Calculation of
Ship Bending Moments in Regular Waves," Jour-
nal of Ship Research, vol. 2, no. 1, 1958.
H. Kato, "On the frictional resistance to the
roll of ships" (in Japanese), Journal of Zosen
Kiokai, vol. 102, 1958.
B. V. Korvin-Kroukovsky and W. R. Jaeobs,
"Pitching and Heaving Motions of a Ship in
Regular Waves," TRANS. SNAME, vol. 65, 1957.
J. N. Newman, "The Second-Order Time-
Average Vertical Force on a Submerged Slender
Body Moving Beneath a Regular Wave System,"
(in preparation, 1970).
T. F. Ogilvie, "Recent Progress Toward the
Understanding and Prediction of Ship Motion,"
Proceedings of the ONR Fifth Syrnposiu.m on Naval
Hydrodynamics, Bergen, Norway, 1964.
T. F. Ogilvie and E. O. Tuck, "A Rational
Strip-Theory of Ship Motion: Part I," Depart-
ment of Naval Architecture, The University of
Michigan, Report No. 013, 1969.
W. R. Porter, "Pressure Distributions, Added-
Mass and Damping Coefficients for Cylinders
Oscillating in a Free Surface," Institute of Engi-
neering Research, University of California Re-
port, 1960.
M. St. Denis and W. J. Pierson, "On the Motion
of Ships in Confused Seas," TRANS. SNAME, vol.
61, 1953.
N. Salvesen and W. E. Smith, "Comparison of
Ship-Motion Theory and Experiment for Mariner
Hull and Destroyer with Modified Bow," NSRDC,
Washington, D. C., Report 3337, 1970.
W. E. Smith, "Computation of Pitch and Heav-
ing Motions for Arbitrary Ship Forms," Inter-
national Shipbuilding Progress, vol. 14, no. 155,
1967.
W. E. Smith and N. Salvesen, "Comparison of
Ship-Motion Theory and Experiment for De-
stroyer with Large Bulb," Journal of Ship Re-
search, vol. 14, no. 1, 1970.
Ship Motions and Sea Loads
H. S6ding, "Eine Modifikation der Streifen-
method<" Sch,4~'stechnik Bd. 16, Heft 80, 1969.
N. Tanaka, "A Study on the Bilge Keels, Part
4, On the eddy-making resistance to the rolling
of a ship hull," Japan Society of Naval A rchitecls,
vol. ]09, 1960.
F. Tasai, "On the Damping Force and Added
Mass of Ships Heaving and Pitching," Report of
Research Institute for Applied Mechanics,
Kyuchu University, 1960.
F. Tasai, "Ship Motions in Beam Seas," Re-
search Institute for Applied Mechanics, vol.
XIII, no. 45, 1965.
F. Tasai, "On the swaying, yawing and rolling
motions of ships in oblique waves," International
Shipbuilding Progress, vol. 14, no. 153, 1967.
F. Tasai and M. Takaki, "Theory and calcula-
tion of ship responses in regular waves" (in
Japanese), Symposium on Seaworthiness of Ships,
Japan Society of Naval Architects, 1969.
R. Timman and J. N. Newman, "The Coupled
Damt)ing Coefficients of Symmetric Ships," Joltr-
nal of Ship Research, vol. 5, no. 4, 1962.
G. Vossers, W. A. Swaan, and H. Rijken, "Ex-
periments with Series 60 Models in Waves,"
TRANS. SNAME, vol. 68, 1960.
G. Vossers, W. A. Swaan, and H. Rijken, "Ver-
tical and Lateral Bending Me)merit Measurements
on Series 60 Models," International Shipbtilding
Progress, vol. 8, no. 83, 1961.
J. H. Vugts, "Cylinder Motions in Beam
Waves," Netherlands Ship Research Center TNO
Report No. 115S, 1968a.
J. H. Vugts, "The Hydrodynamic Coefficients
for Swaying, Heaving and Rolling Cylinders in a
Free Surface," Laboratorium voor Scheeps-
bouwkunde, Technische Hogesehool Delft, Report
No. 194, 1968b.
R. Wahab, "Amidships Forces and Moments on
a C~ = 0.80 Series 60 Model in Waves from Vari-
ous Directions," Netherlands Ship Research
Center TNO Report No. 100S, 1967.
Appendix 1
Hydrodynamic Coefficients and
Exciting Force and Moment
In this appendix the added-mass and damping
coefficients in the equations, of motion and the
wave exciting force and m o m e n t are derived.
Mathematical Formulation
Consider a ship adwmcing at constant mean
forward speed with arbitrary heading in regular
sinusoidal waves. It is assunted that the resulting
oscillatory motions are linear and harmonic. Let
269
(x,y,z) be a right-handed orthogonal coordinate
system fixed with respect to the mean position of
the ship, with z vertically upward through the
center of gravity of the ship, x in the direction of
forward motion and the origin in the plane of the
undisturbed free surface. Suppose t h a t the ship
oscillates as a rigid body in six degrees of freedom
with amplitudes f~ (j = 1, 2 . . . 6). 22 H e r e j -- 1,
2, 3, 4, 5, and 6 refer to surge, sway, heave, roll,
pitch, and yaw, respectively.
If viscous effects are disregarded the fluid mo-
tion can be assumed to be irrotational, so t h a t the
problem can be formulated in terms of potential-
flow theory. We know t h a t the total velocity
potential (x,y,z; t) m u s t satisfy, in addition to the
Laplace equation, the following "exact ''-~3 bound-
ary conditions:
DF
- 0 (83)
Dt
on the hull surface where the hull is defined by
F(x',y',z') = 0 with (x',y',z') a coordinate system
fixed in the ship, and
on the unknown free surface given b y z = Z(x,y;t),
plus suitable radiation conditions at infinity. 24
Here g is the gravitational acceleration and 0 is the
mass density of the fluid.
Separating the velocity potential ep(x,y,z;t) into
two parts, one the time-independent steady con-
tribution due to the forward motion of the ship
and the other the time-dependent p a r t associated
with the incident wave system and the unsteady
body motion, we get
(x,y,z;t) = [ - - g x -t- s(x,y,z)]
+ Cr(x,y,z)e i~t (85)
Here - - U x + Cs is the steady contribution with
U the forward speed of the ship, Cr is the complex
amplitude of the unsteady potential, and co is the
frequency of encounter in the moving reference
frame. I t is understood t h a t real p a r t is to be
taken inexpressions !nvolvipg ei~t.
In order to linearize the b o u n d a r y conditions
(83) and (84) it will be assumed t h a t the geometry
of the hull is such t h a t the steady perturbation
22 N o t e t h a t ~'i are t h e c o m p l e x a m p l i t u d e s while 7i, as
used in t h e m a i n t e x t of t h e paper, are t h e d i s p l a c e m e n t s ,
and t h a t ~i = Re~jei~t.
..3 I n t h i s work, " e x a c t " in q u o t a t i o n m a r k s refers t o ex-
act within the potential-flow theory.
D b
24 H e r e t h e s u b s t a n t i a l d e r i v a t i v e is g i v e n b y D t - b t
-I- v~-v.
270 Ship Motions and Sea Loads
potential Cs and its derivatives are small, and
further t h a t b y considering only small oscillatory
motions the potential Cr and its derivatives can
also be assumed to be small. Under these assump-
tions the problem can be linearized b y disregard-
ing higher-order terms in b o t h $s and Cr as well
as terms involving cross products between Cs and
CT- One should note t h a t these assumptions do
not appear consistent with the basic assumption
of slender-body theory which states t h a t the de-
rivatives in the transverse direction are larger
than the longitudinal derivatives. T h e assump-
tions applied here lead to equations of motion in
a form which can be quite easily solved numeri-
cally while the use of slender-body theory results
in a similar strip theory b u t with some additional
integral terms which have not yet been evaluated
[see Ogilvie and Tuck, (1969)]. Preliminary
numerical investigations seem to indicate t h a t
these integral terms will have a very small effect
on the computed motions. Considering t h a t our
main objective here is to derive a motion and load
theory with sufficient accuracy and in a form suit-
able for routine numerical computations, it seems
justified in this derivation to assume t h a t the
derivatives of perturbation potentials can be con-
sidered small.
Furthermore, in linearizing the problem it will be
convenient to linearly decompose the amplitude
of the time-dependent part of the potential
6
~ = ~, + ~D + ~2 ~J~J (86)
j=l
where q~1 is the incident wave potential, OD is the
diffraction potential, and Cj is the contribution to
the velocity potential from the j t h mode of too-
tion.
Including only linear terms and applying
T a y l o r expansions about the mean-hull position in
the hull condition (83) and about the undisturbed
free surface, z = 0 in the free-surface condition
(84), it can be shown t h a t the individual poten-
tials m u s t satisfy the following linear boundary
conditions :
a. T h e steady perturbation potential, ~bs must
satisfy the body condition
b
bn [ - Ux -t- q~s] = 0 on the hull at mean position
(ST)
and the free-surface condition
U2 52rks brks
+g~-z =nz= (S8)
b. The incident wave potential, ~ and the
diffraction potential, q~D m u s t satisfy
 b~ bgoo
- 0 on the hull at mean position = gO. o + gO.o (99)
'~(.0

(89)
and gOo = gO,0 _ gOo0 (100)

where gOfl (j = 1, 2 . . . 6) m u s t satisfy the condi-

[(i~- U : x ) + g ~-zzl(, goD) tions
- Oonz=O (90)
bgOf
bn -- iconj on the mean hull position (t01)
c. T h e oscillatory potential components, gO;
(j = 1, 2 . . . . 6), must satisfy
and

bn - i~nl + U m j on the hull at m e a n position iw -- U ~ x gOfl + g b z = O o n z = 0 (102)

(91)
In addition to these linear boundary conditions
and the potentials gos, ~, gOD, and gOj m u s t each satisfy

( l;c0 -- U gOJ + g b z gO~ = 0 o n z = 0 (92)

the Laplace equation in the fluid domain and the
appropriate conditions at infinity.
This completes the formulation of the linear
where the generalized normal, n~, is defined b y conditions on the potentials. T h e next step is to
obtain the h y d r o d y n a m i c forces and m o m e n t s
(nl,n2,n3) = n and (n4,ns,n6) = r X n (93) acting on the hull. By Bernoulli's equation the
pressure in the fluid is
with n the outward unit normal vector and r the
position vector with respect to the origin of the
coordinate system and where m~ = 0 for j = l, 2, p = -p N + ~tv~,l ~ + gz (103)
3, 4 while
If the pressure is expanded in a T a y l o r series about
rn5 = n~ and m6 -= --no (94) the undisturbed position of the hull and the pres-
The hull condition (91) can be further simplified sure expression is then linearized b y including only
b y dividing the oscillatory potential into two parts terms to first order in gOs and gO~, it follows (ignor-
ing the steady pressure terms) t h a t the linearized
U time-dependent pressure on the hull is
CJ = gO? + i-~ C y (95)
p = -p i~- U~x ,~e ~
where ~0 will be shown to be speed independent.
This results in the two hull conditions -- pg(f~ + f.,y -- fsx)e ~* (104)

bgoJ
On -- iwn~ and ~-n
bgOy = icom;
Now since both gOfl and gOu m u s t satisfy the
Laplace equation, the same free-surface condition,
(92) and the same infinity conditions, ~'~ it follows
from the hull conditions (96) and the relationships
(94) t h a t 4~Y = 0 f o r j = 1, 2, 3, 4 and t h a t
4,~v = gO0 while gO6v = --gO2
Thus, we see t h a t the oscillatory potential com-
ponents can be expressed in terms of the speed-
independent part of the potential, gOfl, as
Cj = gOflforj = 1, 2, 3 , 4
2~ F o r t h e case of finite d e p t h , also the s a m e b o t t o m con-
dition.
(96) where within the accuracy of the linearization the
pressure can be conveniently evaluated at the un-
disturbed position of the hull. T h e last t e r m in
equation (104) gives the ordinary b u o y a n c y re-
storing force and m o m e n t which shall be ignored in
this appendixfl 6 Integration of the pressure (104)
(ignoring the buoyancy term) over the hulI surface
yields the h y d r o d y n a m i c force and m o m e n t
(97) amplitudes:
j = 1, 2 . . . 6 (105)
(98) Here the integration is over the m e a n position of
the hull surface S, and HI, Ho., Hs are the force
26 T h e b u o y a n c y effect is i n c l u d e d in t h e h y d r o s t a t i c re-
s t o r i n g coefficient in t h e m a i n t e x t of t he p a p e r .

Ship Motions and Sea Loads 271

 components in the x, y, z directions while H4, Ha,
//6 are the m o m e n t s a b o u t the x, y, z axes. By
applying equation (86) the force and m o m e n t can
be divided into two parts as
H a = Ft + a t
where Fj is the exciting force and m o m e n t :
FC / \ S forward of cross sections Cx, the closed curve C
Ft = --p J J s n;k'iw - - U ~xx)(dpi -~ CD)dS
and Gt is the force and m o m e n t due to the six de-
grees of body motion:
Gj = --P n t ioJ -- ~x ~ Gkds
k=l
6
= ~ T,d,,
k=l
Here Ttk denotes the h y d r o d y n a m i c force and
m o m e n t in the j t h direction per unit oscillatory
displacement in the kth mode:
Tjk = --p f f s n t ( i o ~ - - U:~x)kds
After separating Ttk into real and imaginary
parts as
Tie = ~o2Ajg - - iwBtk
the equation of motion can be written in the form
6 where Ca refers to the aftermost cross section of
k=X
+ Cj~]f~ = Fj
where M g is the generalized mass matrix for the
ship, Ate and Big are the added-mass and damping
coefficients, and Ctg are the hydrostatic restoring
coefficients resulting from the buoyancy term in
the pressure equation (104).
The problem left is to determine the added-mass
and damping coefficients [given b y the real and
imaginary p a r t of (109)] and the exciting force
and m o m e n t (107). T h e coefficients will be de-
rived first and then the exciting force and m o m e n t
will be obtained.
Hydrodynamic Coefficients
T h e h y d r o d y n a m i c coefficients in the equations
of motion were expressed in equation (109) in
terms of the oscillatory potential ~ (k = 1, 2 . . . . 6)
integrated over the hull surface. T h e relationship
for the coefficients will now be reduced to integrals
over the length of the ship of the sectional two-
dimensional added mass and damping.
First we shall need a v a r i a n t of Stokes' theorem.
A well-known form of Stokes' theorem (Milne-
Thomson, 2.50) is
272 Ship Motions and Sea Loads
P
ffs(n X V) X qds = J c dl X q (112)
where S is a surface situated in the fluid with the
closed curve C as boundary. Here q is any vector
(106) function and dl is the direction element of arc C.
Applying (112) to the portion of the hull surface
(107) will consist of C, plus the waterline forward of the
sections. Now b y letting q = Ui (for the case j
= 1, 2, 3) and q = ~Ui X r (for the c a s e j = 4, 5, 6)
and applying certain vector relationships given on
page 70 of Ogilvie and Tuck (1969), the following
variant of Stokes' theorem can be derived:
b
(10s)
(113)
where is a differentiable scalar function. Here
the line integral along the waterline has been ig-
nored b y assuming t h a t the angle between the
waterline and the x-axis is small.
(109) Applying (113) in the relationship for the added-
mass and damping coefficients (109), we have
Ttk -- -- oioJ ffs n#kds
(110)
+ Up f f s m/pkds -- U PfcA n/pkdl (114)
the ship. Now in view of equation (95) we m a y
define the "speed-independent" p a r t of Tjk as 27
(111)
T~k = -- pio~ f f, n~kds (115)
and the "speed-independent" p a r t of the line in-
tegral at any cross section C~ as
tjk = -pi~o __f~, n/pkds (116)
T h e added-mass and damping coefficients 014)
can now be expressed in t e r m s of the speed-inde-
pendent terms (115) and (116) b y applying the
expressions for the potential (98), (99), and (100).
I t follows t h a t for j,k -- 1, 2, 3, 4
I:~ = ~,~o + u t,~" (117)
where lieA refers to the line integral (116) evalu-
ated at the aftermost section.
F o r j = 5, 6 a n d k --- 1, 2, 3, 4
27 I t m u s t be recognized t h a t the potentials ~bk in equa-
tion (115) depend on the forward speed U t h r o u g h the free-
surface condition (102) so t h a t Tik are not, strictly speak-
ing, speed i n d e p e n d e n t at this point, b u t we shall find later
t h a t according to the high-frequency a s s u m p t i o n , 4k are
a p p r o x i m a t e l y independent of U.
 U speed. 3t I n p a r t i c u l a r it is i m p o r t a n t to n o t e t h a t
T,~g = Ts~ -- U rao q_ :-- t~. ~ (118)
~o "tw t h e e n d t e r m s , t~ka, in t h e coefficients (1.17)
t h r o u g h (12"3) a r e n o t a r e s u l t of a p p l y i n g " s t r i p -
U U theory" approximations but rather stem from the
1'6k = T6~ Jr- =- T2k + -7- t6F~ (119)
line i n t e g r a l in t h e S t o k e s t h e o r e m (112).
T h e s p e e d - d e p e n d e n t coefficients h a v e been ex-
Forj = 1,2,3,4andk = 5,6
p r e s s e d in e q u a t i o n s (117) t h r o u g h (123) in t e r m s
U 2 of t h e s p e e d - i n d e p e n d e n t surface i n t e g r a l (115)
U Tja0 + U t / 1
Tj~ = T f f + -7 ~ lja A (120) a n d line i n t e g r a l (116). T h e n e x t s t e p is t o sim-
~60 q0 0"
p l i f y f u r t h e r t h e z e r o - s p e e d t e r m s to a f o r m suit-
U U2 a b l e for a n u m e r i c a l e v a l u a t i o n . T h i s c a n b e s t b e
:vj~ = i)00 _ .~u r~0 + .~= t/' + -7., t/' (12:) o b t a i n e d b y a p p l y i n g t h e following " s t r i p - t h e o r y "
a p p r o x i m a t i o n s . If we c o n s i d e r t h a t t h e b e a m
Forj = k = 5, 6 a n d t h e d r a f t of t h e ship a r e m u c h s m a l l e r t h a n
her l e n g t h (i.e., t h e hull is long a n d slender), t h e n
U " U U~ it is c o n s i s t e n t w i t h t h e p r e v i o u s a s s u m p t i o n s t o
Ts.~ = T,~ -}- ~ Taa q- ,tco=-tS~a - cT' taaA (122)
set ds = d(dl, in t h e surface i n t e g r a l (115), so t h a t

U2 U U '~
T66 = T66 -}- ~ T2.~ -}- tw=-&0a -t- ~ &,A (123) r,~0= -.i~o f f : n/~Sd~ = fLad~ (125)

I n o b t a i n i n g e q u a t i o n s (122) a n d (123) t h e follow- w h e r e L lneans t h a t t h e i n t e g r a t i o n is o v e r t h e

ing s y m m e t r y r e l a t i o n s h i p for t h e z e r o - s p e e d co-
efficients
Tie = 7~fl (124)
has b e e n a p p l i e d . =s T h e p r o o f of this s y m m e t r y
r e l a t i o n s h i p is easily shown b y i n t r o d u c i n g t h e
hull c o n d i t i o n (101) in t h e e q u a t i o n for t h e zero-
s p e e d coefficients (115) a n d t h e n a p p l y i n g G r e e n ' s
t h e o r e m [see e q u a t i o n (143)].
I t s h o u l d b e e m p h a s i z e d t h a t in t h e d e r i v a t i o n
of s h i p - m o t i o n s t r i p t h e o r i e s it has b e e n c u s t o m a r y
to a p p l y t h e " s t r i p - t h e o r y " a s s u m p t i o n s in t h e
i n i t i a l f o r m u l a t i o n of t h e p r o b l e m , while in t h e
p r e s e n t d e r i v a t i o n no " s t r i p - t h e o r y " a s s u m p t i o n s
h a v e been m a d e to this p o i n t a p a r t f r o m t h e a
p r i o r i a s s u m p t i o n t h a t t h e g e o m e t r y of t h e hull is
such t h a t t h e r e is no c o u p l i n g b e t w e e n t h e s t e a d y
p e r t u r b a t i o n field a n d t h e u n s t e a d y field. 29 T h a t
is, t h e coefficients in t h e e q u a t i o n s of m o t i o n in-
e l u d i n g t h e f o r w a r d - s p e e d t e r m s are in p r i n c i p l e
v a l i d for q u i t e bluff bodies, e.g., spheres, a I n fact,
t h e r e s u l t s to this p o i n t a r e e x a c t w i t h i n l i n e a r
p o t e n t i a l t h e o r y for bluff b o d i e s a t zero f o r w a r d
2s Relationships for Ta6 and Tea have not been given
since they will not be needed in this work.
29 Note that in deriving the coefficients Tjk it has been
assumed that the velocity potentials 4,i are speed inde-
pendent; however, the speed U still appears in Cj0 because
of the free-surface condition (102). The eft are not made
speed independent until the high-frequency assumption
stated below equation (127) is introduced, which is (as
pointed out by Prof. T. F. Ogilvie in his discussion) equiva-
lent to the strip-theory assumption.
a0 This statement is only correct for ,;ubmerged bodies
(as pointed out by Dr. R. F. Beck in his discussion) since
in applying Stokes' theorem the integral around the water-
line is neglected by assuming the angle between the water-
line and the x-axis is small.
l e n g t h of t h e ship a n d ~ is t h e v a r i a b l e of i n t e g r a -
tion in t h e x - d i r e c t i o n . H e r e Ck is t h e o s c i l l a t o r y
p o t e n t i a l satisfying, in a d d i t i o n to t h e t h r e e - d i -
n l e n s i o n a l L a p l a c e e q u a t i o n , t h e hull c o n d i t i o n
(101), t h e free-surface c o n d i t i o n (102), a n d t h e
a p p r o p r i a t e i n f i n i t y c o n d i t i o n s . Since t h e hull is
a s s u m e d to be long a n d slender it follows t h a t in
t h e n e i g h b o r h o o d of t h e hull b / b x << b / b y or
b/Oz. I t also follows t h a t t h e c o m p o n e n t of t h e
hull n o r m a l in t h e x - d i r e c t i o n is m u c h s m a l l e r t h a n
t h e n o r m a l c o m p o n e n t s in t h e y- a n d z - d i r e c t i o n s
nt << n2 or na (126)
so t h a t we m a y r e p l a c e t h r e e of t h e c o m p o n e n t s of
the t h r e e - d i m e n s i o n a l g e n e r a l i z e d normal, n j ( j =
2, 3, 4), w i t h t h e t w o - d i m e n s i o n a l g e n e r a l i z e d nor-
m a l in t h e y-z plane, N j ( j = 2, 3, 4), a n d set
n~ = - - x N ~ a n d n0 = xN2 (127)
Ill o r d e r to r e d u c e t h e free-surface c o n d i t i o n (102),
it will be n e c e s s a r y t o a s s u m e t h a t t h e f r e q u e n c y
of e n c o u n t e r is high, co >2> U (O/bx), w h i c h r e q u i r e s
t h a t t h e w a v e l e n g t h is a p p r o x i m a t e l y of t h e s a m e
o r d e r as t h e ship b e a m . T h i s is a v e r y c r i t i c a l
a s s u m p t i o n a n d it m a k e s t h e t h e o r e t i c a l justifica-
tion for t h e s t r i p t h e o r y s o m e w h a t q u e s t i o n a b l e in
t h e l o w - f r e q u e n c y range. 32
al Newman (1970) has shown that ,vithin linear poten-
tial-flow theory there is no interaction between the steady
perturbation flow and the unsteady flow for a bluff body
in an infinite fluid.
a-" Note that in spite of this restriction the heave and
pitch motions are very accurately predicted by the derived
theory in the low-frequency range (the long-wave range)
since these motions are dominated by the hydrostatic re-
storing forces in this frequency range.

Ship Motions and Sea Loads 273

 Under these assumptions the three-dimensional enables the added-mass and damping coefficients,
Laplace equation and the b o u n d a r y conditions to Ark and Bjk, to be expressed in terms of the sec-
be satisfied b y 0 for k = 2, 3, 4 reduce to the tional added mass and damping, ajk and b~k, inte-
two-dimensional Laplace equation and the condi- grated over the length of the ship. These final
tions for the two-dimensional problem of a cylin- relationships for the added-mass and damping
der with cross section C~ oscillating in the free coefficients are stated in the main text, equations
surface, so t h a t we m a y set at a given cross section (7) through (14) and equations (39) through (54).
k = ~ for k = 2, 3, 4 (128)
Exciting Force and Moment
where Ck is the potential for the sectional two-
dimensional problem. I t also follows from the T h e exciting force and m o m e n t as expressed in
hull condition (101) and equation (127) t h a t at a equation (107) are
given section
~b~ = --x~ and ~0 = x~b2 (129) = -p ffs - U ~) (I~)I Jl- d)D)dS ,
while qh << ~0 (k = 2, 3 . . . 6). j = 1, 2 . . . 6 (133)
Hence, we see t h a t for j = 2, 3, 4
I t will be most convenient here to separate the
tz = --pio~ F_ N~C/fll = o)"-az - - io2bz (130) exciting force into two parts: the incident wave
,J Cz part, F / , and the diffraction part, Fj D, so t h a t
where a z and bz are the sectional two-dimensional
Fj = F / + F~D (134)
added-mass and damping coefficients for sway,
heave, and roll (j = 2, 3, and 4). Similarly, the with
sectional sway-roll cross-coupling coefficient is

t~_~= --piw f N2~b~dl = w2ct24 -- iwb24 (131)

dC x
and
I t follows now t h a t the zero-speed added-mass and
damping coefficients, T~ = coL4~ -- iwB~ , can
be expressed in terms of the sectional two-dimen- FjD = --p f f ~zs(iw -- U ~)~bDds (136)
sional added-mass and damping coefficients, t~,
tz3, t44, and t~4.33 If we consider only ships with In accordance with classical linear gravity-wave
lateral s y m m e t r y we find t h a t the only nonzero theory, the potential for the incident wave satisfy-
coefficients are ing the free-surface condition (90) is
r~ = St~d~
i = ig~a e_ik (.... ~-ysin~)e~Z (137)
T~ = T ~ = $~h~d~ 0~0
T68 = f~2t22d~
where ~ is the wave amplitude, k is the wave num-
T33 = fh.~d~ ber, / is the heading angle (fl = 0 for following
(132) waves), and e0 = %/gk is the wave frequency
which is related to the frequency of encounter o2b y
Ts~ = f~t~d~
I"440 = ft,4d( oo = o~ + kUcosB (138)
1"27 = T,~ 0 = f t ~ d ~ Introducing the wave potential (137) in the ex-
T46 o ~ ]~640 = f~t24d~ pression for the incident wave p a r t of the exciting
force and m o m e n t (135) gives
where the integrations are over the length of the
ship. T h e numerical techniques available for
computing the sectional added mass and damping F/ = -pi ffs + Ukcosfl)lds (139)
(h2, h~, t44, and t24) are discussed in Appendix 2.
Finally, introducing equations (130), (131), and Equation (138) reduces this to
(132) into the expressions for Tie, (117) through
(123), and recalling t h a t 7"jk = coLdjk -- iwBk, F,I = _ f f s n~lds (140)

33 Similarly, t h e e n d t e r m s ti~a c a n be e x p r e s s e d in t e r m s
which is the well-known Froude-Kriloff force and
of 122, t3S, t44, a n d h4. moment, and can be c o m p u t e d easily. Now, re-

274 Ship Motions and Sea Loads

turning to the diffraction p a r t of the exciting force
F~ = -- p io)on#1 -- ~ ep? ds
and m o m e n t (136), application of the Stokes
theorem (113) gives
:~ ~w ~ 4~3'2ds + =- $jdl
.Jj= 5,6 .u~ JcA ~ n
(146)

- p U dcfa n#ndl (141) where the minus sign goes w i t h j = 5 and the plus
sign w i t h j = 6, and where Cj is given by equation
T h e hull condition (96) states that (] 37) and

5~ b ~v - (.imsin3 + re)k,#, (147)

.iO)n~ - -~n and iwm~ - bn bn
After introducing (137) and (147) in equation
After introducing these conditions in (141) we (146) and setting cls = dld~ we find t h a t
find t h a t
Fj = po~ L e-ik~~ f Q eiky~i"%~{gnj
FaD = --p .~ c ju ,4~~d s
"lO)
U
pU + o)0(ina -- n2sinB)~f T wo 7- [(ina -- n2sin3)
gO)
~o d i)n
For any two functions and satisfying the same X ~3,2]~=.~,6t dld~ + U
.-- o)o6-ik. . . . fl L eikysinfl6kz
Laplace equation, the free-surface condition (92), '~O) A

the radiation condition at infinity, and the " b o t - X (in3 -- n.,sin3)q~fdl (148)
t o m " condition, we find by using Green's second
identity, t h a t Use of the relationships resulting from the "strip
theory" assumption (127, 125, 129) and defining
the sectional Froude-Kriloff "force" by
ffs d" = f f s !'-* (143)

Since this relationship is also valid for the two- fj(x) = ge-i~ .... ~ J~. N~eikysin~ekZdl
dimensional case, it can be applied to both the
j = 2, 3,4 (149)
surface integral and the line integral in (].42) so
that aud the sectional diffraction "force" by

F?= - o f f , @ - u ~.',b,.o
) ~ - ds hi(x) = O)oe -ik .... ~ (_
tiC x
(iN3 -- N2sin#)

: Cf--dl (144) e~kY'~"~e~:~ dl;j = 2, 3, 4 (150)

"LO) A
enables the exciting force and moment to be writ-
Then use of the hull b o u n d a r y condition (89), i.e., ten in the final desired form
be. 5l
5n 5n
shows t h a t the diffraction p a r t of the exciting j=2,3,4 (151)
force and m o m e n t becomes
F~ = --p,~ ~(A + h~) + - - h, d~
FT=Pffs,@ ,,zY u\b,,_
) ~ n ds
-- *'
'tO)

- pc~=-XAhP
U
(152)
+ ~Pufc A 4~? ~n dl
CO)
(145)

Now b y equation (97), @,u = 0 and ~b~g = --~b2

while Q g = 0 f o r j = l, 2, 3, 4. Using these rela-
tionships in equation (145) and combining equa- + ulO) :,;,,hP 053)
tions (140) and (145), we find t h a t the total excit-
ing force and m o m e n t are while I'i<< Fk(k = 2,3 . . . 6). Here h/~ refers to

Ship Motions and Sea Loads 275

hi(x) evaluated at the aftermost section. With the
potential ~j- (j = 2, 3, 4) for the two-dimensional
problem known, the exciting force and m o m e n t
(151, 152, 153) can now be obtained b y
straightforward integration. Known nmnerical
solutions for the two-dimensional problem are dis-
cussed in Appendix 2.
Appendix 2
Two-Dimensional Sectional Added Mass,
Damping, and Excitation
T h e first step in computing the ship motions
and the sea loads is to determine the two-dimen-
sional added mass, damping, and excitation for
each of the ship sections. This is the most com-
plicated and time-consuming part of the computa-
tion. Since accurate estimates for these sectional
quantities are absolutely necessary in order to ob-
tain useful final results, a discussion is presented
in this appendix of available methods for solving
the two-dimensional problem together with a
comparison between theory and experiments.
More specifically, the h y d r o d y n a m i c coefficients
in the equations of motion, Ajk and ]3jk, are all
expressed in terms of two-dimensional sectional
added-mass and damping coefficients for sway
(a~.2, b~2), heave (aaa, b33), roll (a.44, b44), and coupled
sway-roll (a,~4, b24). Sinfilarly, the exciting forces
and moments, Fj, are expressed in terms of the
two-dimensional excitation : the sectional
Froude-Kriloff and diffraction "forces," fj and hi.
There are three methods commonly in use for
computing these two-dimensional sectional hydro-
dynamic quantities :
i. T h e Lewis-form method
ii. T h e Tasai-Porter close-fit mapping method
iii. T h e F r a n k close-fit source-distribution
method.
I n all three methods the viscous effects are ig-
nored and linear water-wave theory is applied.
T h e problem then consists of determining the
velocity potential for a cylinder oscillating in the
otherwise undisturbed free surface in the three
modes: sway, heave, and roll. H a v i n g deter-
mined the velocity potential, the added mass,
damping, and excitation can be obtained b y inte-
grating the pressures given b y the Bernoulli
equation. T h e essential difference between these
three methods is in the way the cylinder-wall con-
dition is satisfied. 3~
~4Faltinsen (1969b) has given a detailed numerical com-
parison of the three techniques.
276 Ship Motions and Sea Loads
In the first method, the geometrical shape of the
section is mathematically represented b y the
Lewis form '~5which has the same beam, draft, and
area as the given section, but not necessarily the
actual shape of the given section. This method is
fast and quite accurate for m a n y common ship-
section forms; however, it cannot be applied, for
example, to sections with large bulbs or to sections
with very small sectional area. For more details,
see F r a n k and Salvesen (1970). In the Tasai-
Porter close-fit m a p p i n g method the ship sections
are conformally m a p p e d into a circle by applying
a m a p p i n g function with as m a n y coefficients as
necessary in order to get the desired close-fit ac-
curacy [Tasai (1960) and Porter (1.960)]. Origi-
nally, there were some difficulties in determining
the m a p p i n g coefficients and it was in 1967 t h a t
the method was first applied successfully to com-
pute the motions for arbitrary hull forms [W. E.
Smith, (1967)]. In the last method, the Frank
close-fit source-distribution method [Frank,
(1967) ], the shape of the section is represented b y
a given number of offset points (about eight to
twelve points) with straight-line segments be-
tween the points. T h e velocity potential is ob-
tained b y distributing pulsating source singulari-
ties with constant strength over each of the
straight segments, a6 This method, in its original
form, broke down in the very-high-frequency
range at certain "irregular" frequencies. How-
ever, Faltinsen (1969a) has shown t h a t this diffi-
culty can be avoided b y applying a numerical
fairing technique.
Generally speaking, it can be stated t h a t both
close-fit methods apply with very satisfactory ac-
curacy to practically any section shape and seem
to be equally suited for ship-motion computa-
tions. One should note, on the other hand, t h a t
both close-fit methods require much more com-
puter time t h a n the Lewis-form method.
Turning now to the comparison between theory
and experiments, Fig. 17 shows the sectional
added nlass and damping for sway, heave, roll,
and coupled sway-roll, while Fig. 18 shows the
sectional sway-exciting force and roll-exciting
m o m e n t for b e a m seas. T h e theoretical values
have been computed b y the F r a n k close-fit
method '~7 and the experiments have been con-
3~The Lewis forms are named after Professor F. M.
Lewis, M.I.T., who first applied these forms in his ship-
vibration work (TRANS. SNAME 1929).
~s For a more detailed discussion of the application of
this method to ship-motion computations, see Frank and
Salvesen (1970).
3~Since the authors are most familiar with the Frank
method, this method has been used in all ttle numerical re-
sults presented in this paper.
 B = 0.40M.~
--THEORY
O O O EXPERIMENTS (VUGTS, 1968)

g
2.00
[ I
CROSS SECTION, B/D =2.0

~.
,a
1.50
of 1.50

/
1.00 0 On
c,. 1.00

g
0.50 0.50

O
O
0 ~= 0

,~- 2.00
\ 0.50

\ 9 o (
0 o

2'
/ -.<
o "- 1.00
K21 0.25
>=o o~ :32 '~o o
0 0

0.075 0.050
'~ 5/ 00.05
o 0.10) ROLL AMPL IN RAD o 0.I0 ROLL AMPL IN RAO

~
I
o 0.15J o 0.15 0 0 0 0
0.050 I o a
0.025
_t '~- , ~ . 8 8 88
O <
0.025
I"1 u g-g.R__
.< O ~ O CI Cl O O
I
0 SWAY INTO ROLL
0 ROLL INTO SWAY

c~ 0 -0.05

/
I I
0 SWAY INTO ROLL
ROLL INTO SWAY O~.~O O 'II'-IL--
~
O O
o

,,~ -0.I0
z
o_ -0.10 J
~:

o
-0.20

-0no
-<< / -0.15

-0.20
o
O 0

0.25 0.50 0.75 1.00 1.25 1.50 0.25 0.50 0.75 1.00 1.25 1.50
FREQUENCY, ~ B'xJ~2g FREQUENCY, ~ B",]'~g"

Fig. 17 Two-dimensional added-mass and damping coefficients for sway, heave, roll, and sway-roll

ducted at the Teehnische Hogschool in Delft b y damping, a large discrepancy between theory and
J. H. Vugts (1968b). All of the comparisons experiment is seen in the very-low-frequency
shown are for a cylinder with a rectangular cross range. This is most likely due to experimental
section with rounded bilges and b e a m - d r a f t ratio errors, as pointed out b y Vugts (1968b). How-
equal to two; in other words, the section shape is ever, the vertical motions in the very-low-fre-
quite similar to the midship section for a high- quency range (the long-wave range) :are dominated
block-coefficient ship. b y the hydrostatic forces so t h a t any error in the
I t is seen in Fig. 17 t h a t the agreement between added mass or damping in this frequency range
theory and experiment in general is v e r y satisfac- has practically no effect on the computed motions
tory. Noticeable discrepancy is found only in a or sea loads. Large discrepancies between theory
couple of places. For the heave added mass and and experiment are also seen for the roll added

Ship Motions and Sea Loads 277

mass and damping in the entire frequency range.
-- -p -U-- ~#,ds
Vugts states that, owing to the experimental al* f f s , n j, (~c ~
bx/ 6
.i = 1
errors, he feels t h a t " t h e measured roll added mass
(154)
is too small," and it is felt t h a t this m a y be a major
reason for this discrepancy. As far as the roll Here the asterisk refers to the portion of the hull
damping is concerned, the difference between forward of C~ and the generalized normal and the
theory and experiment is believed to be caused by m o m e n t are with respect to the section, C~.
viscous effects. For the case of roll added mass Application of the Stokes theorem (113) shows
and damping one also notes some nonlinearity that
with respect to roll amplitude. For the sway and
heave cases, such nonlinearity was not present. 2.50
I t is interesting to note in Fig. 17 t h a t the ex- I
THEORY
perimental values for added mass and damping O EXPERIMENTS
for coupled sway-roll clearly show a difference be- (VUGTS, 1968)
i
tween the case of "sway into roll" and the case of
2.00 ,
"roll into sway," while our linear potential theory
predicts t h a t the hydrodynamic coefficients should
be the same for these two cases; namely a24 = a42
a n d 1)24 = b42. However, in spite of this difference, #
the theory seems to predict the coupled coeffi- 1.50,
cients with sufficient accuracy.
In Fig. 18 a comparison between theory and .9
experiment is shown for the sectional sway-excit- ~_
ing force and roll-exciting m o m e n t for beam seas. ~ 1.00
I t is seen t h a t the agreement is extremely good.
I t should be pointed out t h a t Vugts (1968b) also
has conducted experiments for several other sec-
tion shapes and comparison with theory shows 050
agreement similar to w h a t is found for the cases
presented here. I t seems reasonable to conclude,
therefore, that, except for the roll damping coeffi-
cient which is noticeably influenced by viscous
0
effects, the linear potential-flow theory with ac-
curate section representation can be used in de- 2.50
termining the two-dimensional hydrodynamic co-
efficients which are needed in computing the ship
motions and sea loads.
2.00

Appendix 3 %

Shear Force and Bending Moment 1.50

In this appendix the part of the sectional shear uJ

force and bending and torsional m o m e n t s associ- {

=o
ated with the h y d r o d y n a m i c force and m o m e n t
due to the body motion is derived. .o~- 1.00

If we consider only the portion of the hull sur- Ud

face, S * , forward of a given cross section, C~, g

equation (108) shows t h a t the hydrodynamic
0.50
force and m o m e n t due to the six degrees of body
motion are

U.25 0.50 0.75 1.00 1.25

Fig. 18 Two-dimensional sway-exciting force and
roll-exciting moment FREQUENCY,(,aB~F~g

278 Ship Motions and Sea Loads

G~* = P ~ fk {--'ito nj*c~kds a2* ~--

"-[- 7 - f 2 -[- (~'6 - - 7- f6 t22 "-I- ~'4t24 (160)

+ U, m~~ds--ufc n~*4)edl} (155) '/,t,.0 '/,to //= x

Now setting ds = dld(, we have G3* = f3 - ~f5 + - - f~ t3ad~

, 'tto

+ v- f3- ~fs+:-f5 h3 (161)

$O) "/,to ~= x

and the m o m e n t amplitude components are

Here L* is the length of the hull forward of cross

section C~. If the "strip-theory" assumptions are
introduced, as in Appendix 1, it follows t h a t the -t- 7 f2 + (f6 - - =- ~ t24 + f4tt4 (162)
six components of the generalized three-dimen- $OJ "~oJ li = x

sional normal can be expressed in terms of the two-

dimensional general N~ in the form a~* = -- fL* (~ -- x)(r3 -- (f~)ta3d~
n~* = (0, N~, N3, N4,
+__ (163)
- (~ - x)N3, (~ - x)N.,) (157) '/,to *

and the velocity potential at a given section can

a6* L* {(( -- .V)(f2 + (fs)t~2 + (~ -- x)r4ht}d(
be expressed in terms of the two-dimensional
potential, /~ (k = 2, 3, 4), as

~ ~ O a n d ~ = ~ ; k = 2,3,4 '/A0 ,/,to ,

~ = --~b~ + U ~b~ (158) + uoUf 4 ~ . t j ( (164)

One m a y go one step further and express these

u force and moment components in terms of real
Sto variables. If we let
Use of equations (157) and (158) in equation (156) D~ = ReGj*e aot and ~j = Retie i'~t (165)
enables the force and m o m e n t amplitudes to be and use w~a~k .- iwbj~ = t~, the h y d r o d y n a m i c
expressed in terms of the sectional line integral force and m o m e n t due to the body motion are
those presently in the main text of the paper, equa-
t~ = --pico f c N~pkdl;j,k = 2, 3, 4 (159) tions (78) through (82), in terms of the velocity
and acceleration, ~}j and i}j, and the sectional
T h e force amplitude components are added-mass and damping coefficients, a~k and b~k.

Discussion
T. Francis Ogilvie, Member: This is a remarkable
paper for several reasons: (1) Its three authors
live on three far-apart continents. (2) T h e scope
of the undertaking is as broad as the geographical
base of the authors, including as it does a thorough
t r e a t m e n t of motions in five degrees of freedom,
as well as a careful study of structural loads. (:3)
T h e comparisons with experiments appear to have
been carried out objectively, and the results of the
comparisons are impressive.
One aspect of the analytical approach especially
applied to me, namely, the manner in which the
authors derive their formulas for transom-stern
effects and for the loads at arbitrary cross sections.
T h e argument given at the end of the subsection,
" H e a v e and Pitch Motions," is perhaps a bit glib:
On what basis is it claimed " t h a t at higher speeds
the flow pattern at the transom has no sudden
jmnps?" Consideration of the Bernoulli equation
suggests otherwise. However, the basic approach

Ship Motions and Sea Loads 279

 is very interesting, and one cannot argue with the
numerical consequences of the authors' assump-
tion l
We have reached a level of sophistication in the
prediction of ship motions where I think it is
appropriate to be more precise in our statements
than has been our habit. In particular, I think
that it is about time that we stopped calling
equations (1) the differential equations of motion.
T h e y are certainly not differential equations (not-
withstanding their appearance), and they are not
really equations of motion unless they are inter-
preted in the sense of equations (111). The latter
could correctly be called the ectuations of motion in
the frequency domain. The real equations of
motion (in the time domain) are not differential
equations at all; this was shown by Cummins in
1962, and I discussed Cummins' analysis
thoroughly in m y 1964 survey paper which is cited
by the present authors. Since equations (1) have
no meaning except when interpreted in the sense
of equations (111), why continue to use equations
(1) at all? T h e algebraic equations are simpler
to manipulate, and they have a rather direct
interpretation in all of the interesting ship-motions
problems, viz., sinusoidal motions, transient
motions, and stochastically-described motions.
I would be interested in seeing the evidence for
the authors' claim that the speed-dependent parts
of the coeffcients A55 and ]355have less significance
numerically than the speed-dependent parts of
A s~. This could be a crucial point in evaluating
the validity of the coefficients derived by Tuck
and me.
The discussion following the general formulas
for Tj, [ending with (124)] is, I think, somewhat
misleading. I t is certainly true that the authors
have not used any strip-theory results up to this
point, at least not explicitly. However, the way
in which the coefficients can be divided into speed-
independent and speed-dependent parts depends
in an essential way on the property of 0 that
it does not depend on speed. Following equation
(95), the authors say that this property will be
proven, but, in fact, this property is not demon-
strated in the paper except under the conditions
that a strip-theory approximation is valid. T h e
function 0 must generally satisfy equation (102),
and this condition introduces a speed dependence
--unless it is also assumed that frequency is high,
which is equivalent to the strip-theory assump-
tion.
Finally, it seems to me that perhaps the
authors are too concerned about the restrictive
nature of the high-frequency assumption which
they (and everyone else) must make in order to
justify a strip theory. Firstly, it is not necessary
280 Ship Motions and Sea Loads
for the wave length to be comparable with ship
beam. The frequency in question is the fre-
quency of encounter, and, in head seas, this fre-
quency will have the proper order of magnitude if
the waves have length which is short compared
with ship length and long compared with ship
beam. In non-head-seas cases, the inertial and
damping coefficients have relatively little im-
portance, and so it does not matter much what
assumptions are made about frequency. Sec-
ondly, one would expect a strip theory to be
valid even at zero speed if the body is slender
enough; this is true without regard to any assump-
tions about frequency. But the strip theory is
singular as frequency approaches zero; the added
mass in two dimensions becomes infinite. There-
fore, one might expect to obtain a better approxi-
mation by starting with an assumption of high
frequency. Then, if the frequency is allowed to
become smaller and smaller in the final force
formulas, the added-mass force, for example, be-
comes higher order in a well-defined manner; its
continued inclusion in the theory even at low fre-
quencies m a y be inconsistent (in the sense of
perturbation theory) but not incorrect.
B. V. Korvin-Kroukovsky, Member: The short
length of the discussion allowed by the rules of the
Society does not permit me to comment on m a n y
aspects of this comprehensive paper. It is neces-
sary, therefore, to single out an item on which
additional clarification m a y be useful. Such an
item appears to be the assumption of linearity on
which the paper is based. Linearity, in the ship
motion theory, means that all coefficients of the
differential equations of motion are assumed to be
constant, and are computed at the normal water-
line position. Ample data have been published
to indicate that this assumption is acceptable for
heaving and pitching of ships, and that it intro-
duces but little error in this case. I t appears,
however, t h a t in the case of the sway-roll-yaw
motions the assumption of linearity leads to un-
realistic results, and cannot be accepted. One of
the most important coefficients in this case is the
yawing moment due to the angle of yaw. This
coefficient is greatlY affected by the degree of the
bow submergence, caused b y heaving and pitching
of a ship in waves. At the times of bow emer-
gence, the coefficient takes a large negative value,
while at the times of bow submergence it takes
large positive value. Thus, there is a cyclic varia-
tion of the coefficient from large negative to large
positive values. K. S. M. Davidson (1948) 3s
38Kenneth S. M. Davidson, "A Note on Steering of
Ships in Following Seas," Proceedings of the Seventh Inter-
national Congress for Applied Afechanics, vol. 2, part 2,
London, 1948, pp. 554-568.
demonstrated how the bow submergence m a y lead
to broaching, i.e. to directional instability at the
vanishing frequency in the following sea. T h e
possibility of separate consideration of the heave-
pitch and of sway-roll-yaw sets of differential
equations is limited to the assumption of linearity.
I t is a m a t h e m a t i c a l abstraction, not realizable in
reality. Varying submergence of the bow in waves
introduces a strong coupling of pitching and yaw-
ing motions, and thereby leads to the coupling of
all six equations of motion. Furthermore, it is well
known t h a t a ship becomes directionally unstable
in head seas, and the need for corrective rudder
motions introduces the seventh equation. I t m a y
be added t h a t this paper appears to be limited to
h y d r o d y n a m i c effects, and does not include the
dynamic inertial effects, in particular the rolling
moment, generated b y pitching and yawing
angular velocities. T h e recognition of the cou-
pling among pitching, yawing, and rolling is in-
dicated b y the traditional design rule t h a t the ratio
of the rolling and pitching periods should not be a
whole number.
In Figs. 12 and 13, the authors demonstrated
the agreement between their computed lateral
shear force and bending m o m e n t with the ones
experimentally measured on ship models. I t
appears logical to expect t h a t m a x i m a of these
forces and m o m e n t s would occur at the m a x i m u m
of the wetted side area at the bow, i.e. at the
deepest bow submergence. T h e agreement of the
force and moment, c o m p u t e d on the basis of the
normal waterline, with a real case of deep bow
submergence gives little cause for rejoicing.
Rather, it is a signal t h a t something went wrong,
either in the theory or in the setup and interpreta-
tion of experiments.
J. Gerritsma, a9 Visitor: T h e authors compare
their formulation of the strip method for the cal-
culation of ship motions with the work of Korvin-
K r o u k o v s k y and Jacobs, and Figs. ~I and 5 indeed
show an i m p r o v e m e n t with respect to the earlier
results.
However, in D e t norske Veritas R e p o r t no.
70-27 S, 1970, a more extensive comparison of both
methods does not show clearly t h a t the present
method is superior. In this respect it is a serious
drawback t h a t the comparison of the results is
masked by the fact t h a t added mass and damping
were calculated b y different methods: Korvin-
K r o u k o v s k y and Jacobs used a simple Lewis trans-
formation to characterize the ship's cross sections,
whereas in the present calculation a close-fit pro-
a9 Professor ir., Shipbuilding Laboratory, Technical
University of Delft, Delft, The Netherlands.
Ship Motions and Sea Loads
eedure was used. T h e merits of the mass cross
coupling s y m m e t r y would have been more con-
vincing if this difference was not included. In-
clusion of the speed-dependent p a r t of the mass
cross coupling and the corresponding s y m m e t r y
was earlier introduced b y W. W. Semenof-Tjan
Tsansky, S. N. Blagowetsjenski, and A. N.
Golodilin in their 1969 treatise: "Motions of
Ships," Leningrad, 1969. The eltects of these
terms were analyzed by W. Beukelman in "Pitch
and H e a v e Characteristics of a Destroyer," I. S. P.,
August 1970. He shows t h a t although the ful-
fillment of the s y m m e t r y relationship of the mass
coupling terms is an advantage, the inclusion of the
speed-dependent part gives large errors in some
cases when compared with experimental results.
In particular, the conventional p i t c h / w a v e slope
values tend to infinity at low wave frequencies,
and erroneous pitch-wave phase relations result.
In addition, the heave amplitudes near and a t
resonance are overestimated. The Delft experi-
mental Asa values, as shown in Fig. "3 of the paper,
correlate satisfactorily with the calculated results.
However, such an agreement was not found in
other cases. Therefore a more detailed analysis of
the new method, including the comparison of
calculation and experiment for each of the con-
sidered h y d r o d y n a m i c terms, seems advisable.
Finally, as far as the Delft Shipbuilding Labora-
tory is concerned, I do not agree with the authors
when they say that the work b y K o r v i n - K r o u k o v -
sky and Jacobs did not receive the recognition it
deserved. A large p a r t of our experimental work
was carried out to check their method. In par-
ticular, the extremely i m p o r t a n t speed dependency
of the damping cross coupling, which was newly
introduced by them, proved to be correctly pre-
dicted by calculation.
Edward V. Lewis, Member: I t is gratifying to
find t h a t the t ( o r v i n - K r o u k o v s k y - J a c o b s ship's
theory for pitch and heave has again been found
after 13 years to be basically sound and to show
"amazing accuracy for regular cruiser-stern ships
at moderate speeds in head waves."
This i m p o r t a n t new paper has made a major
contribution by adding some significant refine-
lnents and particularly by extending the theory to
other modes of motion, to oblique waves, and to
horizontal shear and torsional moments.
Insofar as pitching and heaving are concerned,
the theory presented in this paper appears to be
more of a refinement of the K o r v i n - K r o u k o v s k y
theory, derived in a different way, than a "new
theory." In fact, the comparison of coefficients on
p. 256 indicates comparatively minor differences.
When the end coefficients are neglected, it is
281
noted on the following page t h a t there are small of A~rariner, Davidson A, and Series 60 models,
differences in coefficients A.~.~and B~5 which have and also for roll of a rectangular cylinder and
little effect on numerical calculations. However, sway of a Series 60 model. Of perhaps greater
the differences in A 5a "has a considerable effect significance is the excellent agreement found for
on the computed motions." I t is interesting to vertical and horizontal shear force and bending
note t h a t it appears to be the same identical term, moment, as well as for torsional moments, at
UBaa/co2, missing from the K o r v i n - K r o u k o v s k y various headings to waves. The availability of
A~a coefficient which appears in the Korvin- such complete computational tools for these wave-
K r o u k o v s k y A.~ coefficient. induced hull loads in regular waves opens the door
Actually, however, it is difficult to reconcile the for the calculation of their spectra in various sea
coefficients given on p. 256 with the original Kor- conditions and hence (as noted on p. 251) the loads
vin-Kroukovsky-Jaeobs paper, since there are no "for a distribution of sea conditions which a ship
U/od- terms in the latter and the forward-speed m a y encounter in its life span." We can expect
terms appear in coefficients Bas, Ca~, and Cv,, and t h a t this comprehensive work will therefore be
not in Aa.~or A.~.~. Perhaps some further explana- extensively used throughout the world.
tion can be given.
T h e paper certainly shows good agreement be- Robert F. Beck and Theodore A. Loukakls, Members:
tween theory and experiment for pitch and heave T h e ability of strip theory to predict the motions
and bending m o m e n t s of a vessel operating in head
seas has been recognized for some time. The
Ft. = 0.30 indications from the present excellent paper are
HEAVE PHASE ANGLE t h a t the extension to 5 degrees of freedom should
360 be equally as rewarding. I t is gratifying to see a
mathematical development for a theory which was
270 originally physically motivated. However, re-
garding the c o m m e n t in the paper t h a t the theory
180
is mathematically correct even for quite bluff
bodies, it should be noted t h a t in applying Stokes'
9O
theorem, the integral around the waterline is
0 i
jl
r ~ I r I I l F~. 0.30
.6 .8 1.0 1.2 1.4 L6 1.8
X/L

2.0 .02
.01
1.5

1.0

0.5
~r,......ah..,.~
HEi i , i i i +
.03
x .02
U .01
4
PITCH
1.5

1.0 .03

12D .02
0.5 .01
t._
Stations
.6 .8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1 . 6 1.8
X/L
...... K-K and J Theory
~ New Coefficients, MIT
oo- Experiment
Fig. 19 Theoretical and experimental heave, pitch, phase angles, and bending moments
for Series 60 hull, CB = 0.70

282 Ship Motions and Sea Loads

neglected by assunfing the angle between the
waterline and the x-axis is small. This assump-
tion precludes the use of bluff bodies which pierce
the free surface.
At M.I.T. we have incorporated the new
coefficients and exciting forces into our seakeeping
computer program for head seas. The seakceping
characteristics were then reeomputed for many
360
different types of vessels, including dry cargo ships,
tankers, containerships, and destroyers. In gen-
eral, the results show very little difference (less
than 5 percent) between using the new co-
efficients and those of Korvin-Kroukovsky.
The most significant differences for the exam-
ined case were found for the Series 6U, C~ = 0.70
and the Davidson A Destroyer. In Fig. 19 the
results for the two sets of coefficients for the
Series 60 are shown. The phase angles are ahnost

270
-- HEAVE PHASE ANGLE
identical, while the heave and pitch are increased
at resonance for the new coefficients. This in-
crease has led to an increase in the bending
moments at X/L = 1.25. The agreement with
experiments seems to be better with the old
180
coefficients.
In Fig. 20 the results for the Davidson A
90 Destroyer at Froude number = I).45 are shown.
ANGLE The new coefficients have increased the heave and
0 decreased the pitch at resonance. Agreement
with the experiments seems to be better with the
270 new coefficients in heave, but the pitch does not
I 1 i 1 show the marked resonance found in the experi-
.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 ments.
L/~ I t should be noted that the M.I.T. prograln cal-
culates the added mass and damping of the
sections by a two-parameter mapping technique.
2.0 E
Lewis forms are used for normal sections, and
M.1.T. bulb forms, developed by Demanche are
used for bulbous sections. The added mass and
1.5 damping of the M.I.T. bulb forms were compared
to the results of Frank's close-fit method with
good agreement. The advantages of the two-
1.0
parameter mapping are a much faster computa-
tion time and good behavior throughout the entire
frequency range.
0,5 ~< ~ I %----4 A comparison between the M.I.T. program and
Fig. 5 of the paper appears in Fig. 20. For the
extreme case of a destroyer with a bulbous fore-
PITCH body and a large transom the two methods give
1.5
quite comparable results. I t is expected t h a t the
two-parameter mapping techniques could be
1.0 ~ extended to calculate the added mass and dmnping
for sway and roll necessary for the five-degrees-of-
freedom computations presented in the present
0.5
paper.

0,5 1.0 1.5

I
2.0 J. H. Vugts, 4 Visitor: This paper contains too
L/X nmch to be discussed in a few words. Since it
Fr. No. = .45 precisely covers the field I have been studying for
several years too, I am sure I could talk to the
...... K-K and J Theory
~ N e w Coefficients, MIT authors for hours. Therefore i nmst select one
- Experiment point for this discussion, i.e., the hydrodynamic
& l&New Coefficients, coefficients. The wave-exciting forces would be
Close Fit (Fig. 5) another quite interesting thing to consider. But
Fig. 20 Theoretical and experimental heave, pitch, and
phase angles for Davidson Type A Destroyer 40 13. [. P. M., T i l e H a g u e , T h e N e t h e r l a n d s .

Ship Motions and Sea Loads 283

our formulations are too different to compare t h e m
easily within the scope of this contribution. For
this point and a n y further information I m u s t
refer to m y doctor's thesis 4~ in which m y results
were recently published.
T o s t a r t with, I m u s t emphasize t h a t the final
results for the h y d r o d y n a m i c coefficients of a ship,
expressed in equations (7)-(14) and (39)-(54), are
exact@ the same as m y results, although they were
obtained along somewhat different lines. I used a
strip-theory approach right from the initial
formulation of the problem. I so arrived at
expressions for the local h y d r o d y n a m i c coefficients
in a n y direction, including the effect of forward
speed. Integrating these expressions over the
length of a ship having a transom stern leads to
identical formulae, as already mentioned.
However, the authors state t h a t their speed
terms are in principle valid for quite bluff bodies,
because they have not used "strip-theory assump-
tions" so far. In m y opinion the difference be-
tween the approach of the authors and using these
assumptions in the initial fornmlation is rather
academic and does not really exist. T h e y accept
t h a t there is no interaction between the steady
and the unsteady flow field and they neglect the
line integral along the waterline forward of C~.
On the free surface this relates implicity to
slender bodies only. Therefore I think t h a t this
s t a t e m e n t is not true. As a m a t t e r of fact our
assmnptions are identical and both our results
are only valid in a strip-theory formulation,
neglecting a n y interaction between sections.
T h a t this appears to be justified for sway-roll-yaw
and for heave-pitch in the practical range of
frequencies is another matter.
In their concluding renmrks, point 2, the authors
refer to the experiments which I have performed
on the longitudinal distribution of the coefficients
for sway-roll-yaw at various forward speeds. Of
course they are aware of the fact t h a t such experi-
mental results are indispensable to check the
theoretical assumptions and derivations. There-
fore I would like to state very briefly what I con-
eluded from them.
1. A t U = 0 strip theory is sufficiently ac-
curate in the entire frequency range.
2. A t U 0 the strip theory results differ
from the experiments over the forward third of the
length. T h e calculations appear to be correct in
principle, but they are not complete. I believe
t h a t the m a j o r cause of the differences is the
variable position of the stagnation point forward.
Possibly also the steady perturbation potential
4~j. H. Vugts, "The Hydrodynalnic Forces and Ship
2~Iotions in Waves," doctor's thesis, Delft, October 1970.
284 Ship Motions and Sea Loads
, will contribute to this effect, or, in other words :
the wave pattern of the advancing ship m a y affect
the coefficients in the forward p a r t of the ship.
3. Viscous effects are of minor importance.
T h e y m a y influence the damping in rolling con-
siderably, but this can be accounted for b y adding
semi-empirical data to this coefficient.
Of course, the second point is the m o s t im-
p o r t a n t conclusion. I t should indicate the direc-
tion for further improvements. T h e measure-
ments of the h y d r o d y n a m i c coefficients can be
very helpful in this respect. A p a r t of the results
is given in m y thesis; the full results will be pub-
lished shortly.
The agreement of calculations of sway, roll, and
yaw motions with experiments still has to be
proved by suitable experiments. However, like
the authors, I expect t h a t a reasonable accuracy
with the method as given can be obtained. With
the proper use and interpretation a valuable com-
putational method for practical use has now be-
come available.
Winnifred R. Jacobs, 42 Visitor: T h e results of the
theory presented in this paper are certainly im-
pressive. I hope it will not be considered caviling
if I c o m m e n t on a very minor point.
F r o m the reconstruction of the Korvin-
K r o u k o v s k y and Jacobs hydrodynamic coefficients
given b y Salvesen et al. in their equations (23) to
(30), I see t h a t they have taken the speed- and
frequency-dependent terms out of our definitions
of the restoring coefficients, leaving the latter
purely hydrostatic as in their definitions (15), (16),
and (17), and have included these speed- and fre-
quency-dependent terms in our added-mass co-
efficients (hence the factor c02in the denominators).
This fully explains the t e r m
- j BU 3 3
in Aa~ (equation 25). However, their reconstruc-
tion of the K o r v i n - K r o u k o v s k y and Jacobs A as
coefficient is incorrect. Instead of the additional
terms given in their equation (29), viz.,
- - Baa + ~ A aa =
CO" 0" jf baad~+ ~7 aaad~
these should be
U
07 f baa~d~+ J aaad~
Since there is an appreciable difference between
42 Stevens Institute of Technology, Hoboken, New Jer-
sey.
 f baad~ and f baa(d~ ment of a suite of computer programs which make
up a comprehensive Marine Structures Motions
I wonder if the pitch amplitudes by the Korvin-
and Loads System. The system, which includes
Kroukovsky theory might not actually be closer
provision for part (a), the prediction of ship
to the theoretical values of Salvesen, Tuck, and
motions and loads in regular waves, to be in-
Faltinsen than is shown.
eluded as one of a range of modules supplying a
Peter A. Gale, Member: As a preliminary-design
data bank which the system calls upon, can handle
naval architect, I am acutely aware of the urgent both short-time-period and ship-life-tinm situa-
tions. Besides allowing for the irregularity of the
need for the capability of quickly and easily pre-
sea, ship heading, speed, and severity of the sea,
dicting the rolling motions in irregular seas of a
the system can be made to simulate the operation
wide variety of hull forms in the early stages of de-
of ships in their ocean enviromnent by causing
sign. I t appears t h a t the authors have brought
them to obey certain selected motion criteria and
us close to the possession of such a capability and
"Master's decisions." Such a system is a very
I congratulate them for their magnificent achieve-
necessary tool in the design and approval of
ment.
ship structures, and, as already indicated, a
Let us assume that, by correlation with carefully
module, or calculation method, for calculating
conducted model experiments the accuracy of the
ship motions and loads, such as t h a t given in the
sway, yaw, and roll motions in oblique seas as
present paper, forms a very important part of such
computed by the authors' theory is demonstrated
a system.
to be acceptable. Three tasks remain to be ac-
In developing a calculation method which
complished before the naval architect will possess
promises to be at least as accurate and in some
a valuable design tool. First, the authors' com-
important areas more accurate than previous
puter program must be extended to compute
methods, and which includes the calculation of
statistical responses in short-crested, irregular
responses not previously adequately dealt with,
seas. Second, techniques must be developed for
the authors have carried out a very useful and
quickly evaluating (to the necessary degree of
valuable piece of work. T h e capability to cal-
accuracy) the roll viscous damping term B.t4* for
culate motions and loads at arbitrary headings, and
any reasonable combination of hull geometry and
calculate responses in the horizontal plane, is
bilge keel size. Finally, information must be
particularly important when Iarge ships of about
developed to enable the naval architect to make
1000-ft length and greater are under considera-
valid predictions of the transverse radius of
tion.
gyration of a new ship design.
Within the framework of methods for estimating
I realize that the accomplishment of the third
design loads for marine structures, the value of
task mentioned above is not the responsibility of
the type of work desdribed in the paper cannot be
the hydrodynamicists. Would the authors please
too greatly emphasized; it is expensive and time-
give us their views as to the most expeditious way
consuming to obtain similar information by means
of accomplishing the second task mentioned
of model experiments, especially if a range of
above?
weight distributions or hull shapes needs to be
studied.
R. A. Goodman, '~a Visitor: In the preface, the au-
With regard to practical use of the authors'
thors summarize a procedure, now fairly widely
calculation method for designing ship structures,
accepted, which forms the basis for estimating ship
I have reservations about the authors' statement
motions and loads. This procedure, as they point
that, provided the geometric shape of the hull,
out, can be conveniently divided into two parts:
the weight distribution, and adequate information
(e) the prediction of ship motions and loads in
about the sea environment are available, then
regular waves, and (b) the prediction of motions
it is possible to calculate the motions and dynmnic
and loads statistics in irregular waves using the
loads with reasonable accuracy. I agree with this
regular-wave results.
as far as it goes, but I feel that attention should be
Lloyd's Register of Shipping has concentrated
paid to the relative severity of the sea. Such a
most of its recent research effort into ships' load-
statement may be true when referring to ships of
ing problems on the second part; their effort has
about 1000-ft length, but probably is not true for
been mainly directed at estimating design levels of
ships of about 600-ft length. In the case of a
load,,; which can be used in strength calculations.
1000-ft ship, given a fairly severe sea state, the
This course of action has resulted in the develop-
motions will be less than those of the smaller
ship, and therefore the superposition principle is
4a I.loyd's Register of Shipping, London, England. more likely to be valid for the larger ship than the

Ship Motions and Sea Loads 285

smaller ship. This m a t t e r has i m p o r t a n t conse-
two dimensions becomes infinite as the frequency
quences when long-term predictions of motions approaches zero. This s t a t e m e n t is correct for
and loads statistics are under consideration; in heave added mass but not for the sway and roll
these calculations the severe sea states are the most added-mass coefficients. This can be seen in Fig.
important. 17 of the paper. Ogilvie also states t h a t the strip
theory is singular at zero frequency because the
added mass becomes infinite. However, one
Authors' Closure should not consider the added mass alone but the
First of all, we would like to t h a n k all of the complete hydrodynamic force which does ap-
discussers for their valuable contributions to this proach zero as the frequency approaches zero for
paper. the zero-speed case. Hence, the strip theory is
Professor Ogilvie has raised an issue which has not singular at zero speed, although it should be
been discussed in detail on m a n y occasions, noted t h a t some of the speed terms in the co-
namely t h a t equations (1) are not the differential efficients do become singular as the frequency
equations of motion. However, we have chosen to approaches zero.
use this physically suggestive differential form Professor K o r v i n - K r o u k o v s k y claims t h a t "in
without qualification since it is now generally the case of the sway-roll-yaw motions the assump-
understood that these are not the equations of tion of linearity leads to unrealistic results and
motion in the time domain but t h a t instead they cannot be accepted." We feel that at the present
describe the frequency-domain characteristics of time there is not sufficient evidence for this claim.
the system. I t m a y be correct t h a t in extreme sea conditions
We would like to inform Professor Ogilvie t h a t with large bow motions the yawing m o m e n t could
the evidence for the s t a t e m e n t t h a t the speed be "affected by the degree of the bow submer-
terms in A~ and B~ seem to have less numerical gence" which m a y introduce a "coupling of pitch-
significance than the speed terms in A~a can be ing and yawing motions"; however, one should be
found in a numerical investigation by Salvesen. 44 reluctant to draw such conclusions before investi-
However, more recent unpublished research seems gating these effects thoroughly since some non-
to indicate t h a t for certain high-speed hulls the linearities which m a y be very a p p a r e n t in looking
speed terms in As5 and ]3~5 can have as large an at the physical situation (bow motion etc.) m a y
effect on the motions as the speed terms in Asa. have relatively small effects on integrated quanti-
We agree with Prof. Ogilvie t h a t the discussion ties such as net forces on the ship.
following equation (124) is somewhat misleading. Furthermore, Professor K o r v i n - K r o u k o v s k y
Therefore, in the final review of the paper, we claims that "it appears logical to expect t h a t the
have added a footnote which states t h a t "in deriv- m a x i m u m of the (horizontal shear) forces and
ing the coefficients Tjk it has been assumed t h a t (bending) m o m e n t s would occur at the m a x i m u m
the velocity potentials q~j0 are speed independent; of the wetted side area at the bow, i.e., at the
however, the speed U still appears in qb- because deepest bow submergence." This m a y appear
of the free-surface condition (102). T h e q~j0 are logical; however, we do not agree t h a t such an
not made speed-independent until the high-fre- intuitive argument gives sufficient evidence to
quency assumption stated below" equation (127) is state t h a t the good agreement between experiment
introduced." We hope t h a t this additional foot- and theory for the horizontal loads "is a signal
note will eliminate a n y misunderstandings result- t h a t something went wrong either in the theory or
ing from the s t a t e m e n t following equations (124) in the setup and interpretation of experiments."
in the text of the paper. We would also like to assure Professor Korvin-
Furthermore, Ogilvie claims t h a t "the added- K r o u k o v s k y t h a t all of the linear inertial effects are
mass and damping coefficients have relatively included in our theory while all nonlinear inertial
little importance in non-head-seas conditions." effects have been disregarded.
Our numerical investigations seem to show the Professor Gerritsma states t h a t the difference
contrary: t h a t changes in the added-mass and between K o r v i n - K r o u k o v s k y and Jacob's theory
damping coefficients m a y have considerable effect and ours m a y be due to the use of Lewis form
on the computed loads in non-head seas as well as transformation in the K o r v i n - K r o u k o v s k y theory
in head seas. and close-fit representation in our theory. How-
Professor Ogilvie states t h a t the added mass in ever, in all the computational work, accurate close-
fit representation has been applied in the Korvin-
K r o u k o v s k y theory for those sections where
44 Nils Salvesen, "The Effect of the Forward-Speed
Terms on the Vertical Ship Motions and Sea Loads," Lewis form representation is not sufficiently
Det norske Veritas, Oslo, Report No. 69-35-S (1969). accurate. We would like to point out t h a t nu-

286 Ship Motions and Sea Loads

merical investigations have shown that for the
Series 60 hulls and the Friesland destroyer hull,
for example, very good accuracy can be obtained
for pitch and heave motions without the use of the
close-fit method. However, for bulbous bow
sections Lewis-forln representation gives results
which are quite different from those obtained by
close-fit representation.
In their discussion both Professor Gerritsma
and Dr. Beck mention that in comparing experi-
ments and theory for pitch and heave in head seas
the present theory sometimes has less favorable
agreement than the Korvin-Kroukovsky theory.
We believe that great care should be used when
drawing final conclusions as to which theory is the
more accurate from such comparisons, since, .for
head seas the difference between the two is quite
small and probably within the inaccuracy range of
such experiments.
Professor Lewis states that as far as pitch and
heave in head seas are concerned, our theory is
more of a refinement of the Korvin-Kroukovsky
theory than a "new" one. We agree that our final
coefficients are only small refinements of Korvin-
Kroukovsky's. However, the theory by which
they were derived is certainly a "new one," and
this derivation is quite different from Korvin-
Kroukovsky's in particular. The subsidiary ques-
tion of whether these "refinements" to the co-
efficients have a significant effect is one on which
differences of opinion are legitimate; however, we
believe that there is strong evidence that the
differences are significant.
Furthermore, Professor Lewis points out that
it is difficult to reconcile the coefficients given on p.
256 with those of the original Korvin-Kroukovsky-
Jacobs paper. The reason for the apparent differ-
ence is; that we have included all the oscillatory
hydrodynamic forces proportional to the accelera-
tion in the added-mass coefficients, A~k, while
Korvin-Kroukovsky and Jacobs placed some of
these hydrodynamic terms in the hydrostatic re-
storing coefficients Cjk. I t should be noted that
since the motions are harmonic any such terms
present in the restoring coefficient, Cm can be
moved to the added-mass coefficient, A jk, if they
are multiplied by the factor --1/~0 e.
Both Dr. Beck and Dr. Vugts point out that our
statement that "the theory is mathematically
correct even for quite bluff bodies" is in error.
We agree with them and we would like to thank
them for pointing out this error. A footnote to
this effect has been added to the text of the paper.
Furthermore, we find it very interesting to note
that Dr. Vugts has derived a strip theory using
a different approach but resulting in exactly the
Ship Motions and Sea Loads
same coefficients for the pitch and heave equations
as well as for the sway-yaw-roll equations.
We would like to thank Miss Jacobs for finding
an error in one of the coefficients. This was a
misprint which has now been corrected and had no
effect oll any of the results t h a t were presented.
We appreciate hearing of Mr. Gale's interest
in applying our prediction method in his pre-
liminary design work. We agree with his state-
ment that in order to make our computational
technique a more valuable design tool additional
work is needed in three areas: irregular seas,
viscous damping in roll, and transverse radius of
gyration. Specifically, Mr. Gale asks our views
on the most expeditious way of obtaining a quick
and accurate method for estimating the roll
viscous-damping term, ~44". The viscous roll-
clamping moments is a highly nonlinear effect
which we have tried to simplify here by using a
quasi-linear term of the form
B44*j4 = K~}4m~xj4
This seems to be quite adequate for moderate wave
conditions. However, a more accurate repre-
sentation of this nonlinear viscous effect is needed
badly. In particular, we need an aecurate method
for predicting the irregular-sea responses for such a
nonlinear system. Simple linear superposition
should be used only for systems which can be
described quite accurately by a completely linear
set of equations. We expect that additional ex-
periments in regular and irregular waves will be
needed in order to obtain a method for predicting
this viscous-damping effect, although a re-exam-
ination of available experimental data m a y give
valuable inputs. Such work is presently being
considered at the N S R D C .
Dr. Goodman mentioned that when predicting
the horizontal responses our linear theory may
only be applicable in low and moderate sea states
for ships of about 600-ft length while for 1000-ft
ships the method may be valid for relatively
severe sea conditions. This statement seems to be
reasonable. Furthermore, we note from his dis-
cussion that Lloyd's Register of Shipping shares
our opinion that the missing link in the evaluation
of the performance of a ship in a seaway has been
the lack of a computational method for predicting
the ship's responses in regular waves. By realiz-
ing this need in 1968 Det norske Veritas and the
N S R D C started the cooperative effort which has
resulted in the theory and the computer program
presented in our paper.
Again we thank the discussers since their re-
marks have stimulated discussions of several im-
portant aspects of this paper.
287