Are you sure?
This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
10006
no. 6
copy of paper to be presented 0' the Annuaf Meefing, New York, N. Y., November 1213, ! 970.
hip Motions and Sea Loads
Nils Salvesen,' Associate Member, E. O. Tuck,2 Associate Member, and Faltinsen,3 Visitor
A new strip theory is presented for predicting heave, pitch, sway, roll, and yaw motions as well as waveinduced vertical and horizontal shear forces, bending moments, and torsional moments for a ship advancing at constant speed with arbitrary heading in regular waves. A computer program based on this theory and with accurate dosefit 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 swayroll motions in beam waves. Although comparisons are not yet available for the swayrollyaw 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.
r,
1. Introduction
Preface
THE ULTIMATE criterion for the hull design of a ship should be the performance of the ship in a realistic seaway. Prediction of the ship motions and the dynamic sea loads is such a complex problem, however, that the naval architect has been forced to use the ship's effective power performance in calm water and the ship's maximum bending moment in the static "oneovertwenty" wave as his main design criteria. Until very recently ship motions and waveinduced loads were barely considered in the design procedure.
The design of highspeed drycargo ships and huge tankers has made us more aware of the importance of reducing the ship motions and of mini
1 Naval Architect, Naval Ship Research and Development Center, Washington, D. C.
2 Reader, Department of Mathematics, University of Adelaide, Adelaide, South Australia.
a Applied Mathematician, Det norske Veritas, Oslo, Norway.
For presentation at the Annual Meeting, New York, N. Y., November 1213, 1970, of THE SOCIETy OF NAVAr. ARCHITECTS AND MARINE ENGINEERS.
mizing the waveinduced loads. Considering the importance of the seaworthiness problem, it is very encouraging indeed to note the tremendous advancement in this field over the past two decades.
The wellknown paper of St. Denis and Pierson (1953) 4 on the application of the principle of superposition to the shipmotion problem started a new era in this field by hypothesizing that the responses of a ship to irregular waves can be considered as the summation of the responses to regular waves of all frequencies. Today the validity of the application of the superposition to ship motion and sea loads is generally accepted in our field, and in particular for the vertical motions and loads this validity "may be considered as proven, beyond the fondest hopes of earlier investigators" (Ogilvie, 1964). Assuming that the principle of superposition is also valid for the horizontal responses, the complex problem of predicting ship motions and sea loads in a seaway can be reduced to the two problems: (i) the prediction of the ship motions and loads in regular
• References arc listed in alphabetical order atthe end.
In the paper itself they are identified by author's name and year of publication.
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 conditions which a ship may encounter in its life span (Abrahamsen, 1907). However, a major difficulty in seaworthiness analysis has been to make accurate 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 waveinduced 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 too] 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 accuracy.
Historical Background
Since the St. Denis and Pierson paper, there have been spectacular developments in both experimental and theoretical methods for predicting ship responses in regular waves. Large experimental facilities for testing models in oblique waves were in full operation in 1956 at the Netherlands 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 Research Institute in Mitaka, Tokyo." Furthermore, most of the tanks originally designed for resistance and propulsion tests have been equipped with wavemakers so that they can be for head and followingwave experiments. shipmotion and waveload tests have
conducted in these facilities, but perhaps the significant and comprehensive tests are the
.. " •• ;..""' experiments conducted at NSMB in
a,5'=·_U5CU on sixteen different Series GO hull
'J...~ .. J a smaller seakeeping laboratory was comof Tokyo.
forms. The motions, the power increase, and the waveinduced 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 hullform effect on seakeeping characteristics. Unfortunately, for hull forms not closely related to the Series 60 forms there exist no similar systematic experimental data. In fact for the nonSeries 60 forms most of the published data have been only for heave and pitch motions in head seas.
Since shipmotion and seaload 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 further emphasized the importance of the development of theoretical and numerical methods for predicting the regular wave responses. The strip theory for heave and pitch motions in head waves of KorvinKroukovsky and Jacobs (1957) was the first motion theory suitable for numerical computations which had adequate accuracy for engineering applications. This theory was later extended by Jacobs (1958) to include the waveinduced vertical shear forces and bending moments for a ship in regular head waves.
It is now apparent that the theory of KorvinKroukovsky and Jacobs did not receive the recognition it deserved. Purists felt that the theory was not derived in a rational mathematical manner but rather by use of "physical intuition." Today, however, after more sophisticated motion theories have been derived and more accurate experimental data are available, it is becoming clear that this original strip theory is one of the most significant contributions in the field of seakeeping. It has been demonstrated in numerous publications over the past ten years that the theory predicts 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 KorvinKroukovsky 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 headseas motions for a highspeed destroyer hull which agree quite well with experiments. In particular, by the use of closefit methods, very significant improvements have been made in the computation of the sectional addedmass and damping coefficients, and Smith and Salvesen (1970) have demonstrated that the headseas motions can be predicted quite accurately even for highspeed hulls with large bulbous bows
whe shot to € the
'.:.': ....... _':
evel
itha1 excr
E met ··.stri
·'·.am
fori eqll rels (19 the hax SO! (1£ Ne the fyi tio of riv tel tic
(1'
fa: fo: th th th
h( c( rr ti' Cf
(J
p
h a
Ship Motions and Sea Loads
and the ach hull r waves . These the hullzs, Unilated to
systemhe nonita have in head
Lents are it is not Lents for paper of sized the :ical and
regular .ave and .roukovn thv+y rich' ~d ications. s (1958)
ar forces lar head
KorvinLe recog~ theory al man.uition, " I motion Irate exing clear he most keeping. publicaDry pre.1 as the tts with rn s· 's
eory has xample, noclified
1 (1967) rhspeed
I experiit methIe been
I addedith and ae head~urately us bows
such closefit methods are applied. It also be noted that attempts have been made extend the original headseas strip theory to case of heave and pitch in oblique seas; howthese extended obliqueseas theories are not
•. that accurate since the diffraction effect in the exciting force has not been treated properly.
Even though the agreement between experiments and the KorvinKroukovsky and Jacobs strip theory has usually been quite satisfactory, a major objection to this theory has been that the forwardspeed terms in the coefficients of the equations of motion do not satisfy the symmetry relationship proved by Timman 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 Soding (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 forwardspeed terms satisfying the Timman and Newman symmetry relationships, and, interestingly enough, the equations of motion for heave and pitch in head waves derived in the present work have the same speed terms as those given in these three recent publications.
It should be mentioned that Ogilvie and Tuck (1969) have derived a completely new strip theory for head seas by using slenderbody theory. Unfortunately, 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 waveinduced loads, there exist few computational methods. Tasai (1967) has derived a strip theory for the swayyawroll motions, but this theory is only applicable for the case of zero forward speed. Grim and Schenzle (1969), on the other hand, have considered forwardspeed effects in their strip theory, which does include the swayyawroll motions as well as the horizontal loads. However, the forwardspeed terms in their equations of motion do not satisfy the Timman and Newman (1962) symmetry relationships and their theory lacks many of the forwardspeed terms included in the theory presented herein. Furthermore, comparisons between experiments 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 waveinduced vertical and horizontal shear
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 hydrodynamic coefficients is presented in the Appendices . The derived equations of motion consist of two sets of linear coupled differential equations with frequency and speeddependent coefficients. One set of equations is for the heavepitch motions and the other is set for the swayyawroll motions. The equations for the waveinduced loads are expressed in terms of the resulting motions and the derived hydrodynamic coefficients.
A computer program based on this theory has been developed jointly by the Naval Ship Research and Development Center, Washington, D. C. and Det norske Veritas, Oslo, Norway. The shipmotion part of the program was originally written by Werner Frank at the NSRDC. Frank (1967) also developed the closefit sourcedistribution technique used in the program for computing the twodimensional addedmass and damping coefficients. The program was later improved and extended at Det norske Veritas to include the waveinduced loads. All the numerical results presented here have been computed by this program on the Univac 1108 at Det norske Veritas, A documentation of the program including a users manual and a program listing will soon be available as an NSRDC Report.
Comparisons between computed values and experimental data are also presented. The agreement is very satisfactory for the heave and pitch motions and the vertical loads in oblique and following waves as well as in head waves. Good agreement between theory and experiments is also obtained for the coupled swayroll motions in beam waves, while owing to lack of experimental data it has not been possible to make comparisons for the swayrollyaw motions in oblique waves. Nevertheless, the good agreement shown for the horizontal shear forces, bending moments, and torsionalmoments in oblique waves suggests that the theory may also predict the horizontal motions quite well.
2. Ship Motions
The equations of motion are presented in this section for a ship advancing at constant mean forward 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 KorvinKroukovsky and Jacobs (1957). Comparisons between computed and experimental motion values are also shown.
Ship Motions and Sea Loads
3
'h t
I~ 172/
J7bt~ 7
:;::, _ 174 ;r x 171
I ' I
\ I
,~
'11 = surge '13 = heave '1s "" pitch
'12 "" sway '14 = roll lJG = yaw
Fig. 1 Sign convention for translatory and angular displacements
General Formulation of Equations of Motion
It is assumed that the oscillatory motions are linear and harmonic. Let (x,y,z) be a righthanded 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. Let the translatory displacements in the x, y, and z directions with respect to the origin be 11, 12, and 13, respectively, so that 1)1 is the surge, 12 is the sway, and 713 is the heave displacement. Furthermore, let the angular displacement of the rotational motion about the x, y, and z axes be 1'10 15, and 16, respectively, so that 1,1 is the roll, 715 is the pitch, and 71n is the yaw angle. The coordinate system and the translatory and angular displacements are shown in Fig. 1.
Under the assumptions that the responses are linear and harmonic, the six linear coupled differential equations of motion can be written, using subscript notation, in the following abbreviated form:
the complex amplitudes of the exciting force and moment, with the force and moment given by the real part of Fji",t.8 Fl, F2, and Fa refer to the amplitudes of the surge, sway, and heave exciting forces, while F4, F5, and Fa are the amplitudes of the roll, pitch, and yaw exciting moments; w is the frequency of encounter and is the same as the frequency of the response. The dots stand for time derivatives so that ilk and #k are velocity and acceleration terms.
If it is assumed that the ship has lateral symmetry (symmetric about the x, z plane) and that the center of gravity is located at (0, 0, z,), then the generalized mass matrix is given by
111 ° ° ° u« 0
0 M 0 Mz. 0 0
,j\ljk = 0 0 u 0 0 0 (2)
0 Mz. 0 [4 0 146
Mz. 0 (J 0 15 0
0 0 0 146 0 16 cc
6
2:: I (Afjk + A jk)#k + B Jki7k + Cik1k 1
k~1
= Fjei"'t; j = 1 ... 6 (1) where Mjk are the components of the generalized mass matrix for the ship, AjR and Bjk are the addedmass and damping coefficients." Clk are the hydrostatic restoring coefficients/ and Jii are
e Note that A jk (for j ~ k) are the addedmass crosscoupling coefficients for the kth mode coupled into the jth mode ?f rnotion, so that for example AS5 is the addedmass
coefficlent for pitch coupled into heave. .
,? Here Cjk are defined as the hydrostatic restoring coeffictents and hence. independent of frequency, while the .: . auueurnass coefficients Ajk are so defined that they include hydrodynamic forces proportional to the other authors prefer to include certain terms in the Cik'S which are included in the
where M is the mass of the ship, Ij is the moment of inertia in the jth mode, and Ijk is the product of inertia. Here the inertia terms are with respect to the coordinate system shown in Fig. 1. The only product of inertia which appears is 146, the rollyaw product, which vanishes if the ship has foreandaft symmetry and is small otherwise. The other non diagonal elements all vanish if the origin of the coordinate system coincides with the center of gravity of the ship; however, it is frequently more convenient to take the origin in the water plane, in which case s, is not equal to zero.
For ships with lateral symmetry it also follows that the addedmass (or damping) coefficients are
Au 0 .'113 0 A15 0
o .422 a A21 0 AZ6
A31 0 Aa3 0 A35 0 o A4~ 0 .11,14 0 A46 AS1 a A53 0 .,..155 0
o .4a2 0 AS4 0 A6s
Furthermore, for a ship in the free surface the only nonzero linear hydrostatic restoring coefficients are
C33, C4ol, Coo, and Cao = c; (4)
If the generalized mass matrix (2), the addedmass and damping coefficients (3), and the restoring coefficients (4) are substituted in the equations of motions (1), it is seen that for a ship with lateral symmetry, the six coupled equations of motions (1) reduce to two sets of equations: one set of
8 It is understood that real part is to be taken in all ex
pressions involving c,o". .
Ship Motions and Sea Loads
ti
(3)
force en by ,0 the citing les of
w is IS the d for y" and
symthat then
(2)
mel:' .duct spect
The , the ) has wise. f the 1 the ; freI the era. [lows s are
(:3)
ani) ients
(4)
.nass iring 1S of teral .ions et of
11 ex
three coupled equations for surge, heave, and pitch and another set of three coupled equations for sway, roll, and yaw. Thus, for a ship with lateral symmetry, surge, heave, and pitch are not coupled with sway, roll, and yaw.
If one assumes that the ship has a long slender hull form in addition to lateral symmetry, then it can be shown (as seen in Appendix 1) that the hydrodynamic forces associated with the surge motion are much smaller than the forces associated with the five other modes of motion so that it is consistent within these assumptions not to include surge. Hence the three coupled equations of motion for surge, heave, and pitch reduce to two coupled equations for pitch and heave.
Heave and Pitch Motions
Under the assumption that the oscillatory motions are linear and harmonic, it follows from equations (1) through (4) that for a ship with lateral symmetry and a slender hull form the
coupled equations of motion for heave and pitch can be written in the form
(M + ib);ja + B3a~3 + C331]3 + A3;;j.
+ B35~5 + C351]5 = Fae;"') (5)
A53;j~ + BG3~3 + C531]3 + (15 + A&5)ii5
+ B55~fi + C"b1]5 = Fse;"') (6)
The relationships for the addedmass and damping coefficients, Ajk and Bjk> and the amplitude of the exciting force and moment, F. and Fs, are derived in Appendix 1. However, the main assumptions made in the derivation in Appendix 1 are significant in the application of the theory and therefore will be restated here. First of all it is assumed that all viscous effects can be disregarded. .Hence, the only damping considered is the damping due to the energy loss in creating freesurface waves. This assumption is justified because the viscous damping is very small for the vertical ship motions. Furthermore, in order to linearize the
Nomendature
(Additional nomenclature used in the Appendices are deflned only as they appear)
bik = twodimensional sectional damping coefficient bikA = b jk for aftermost section
0.,\* = sectional viscous damping in roll d = sectional draft
dl = element of arc along a cross section /; = sectional FroudeKriloff "force"
It = gravitational acceleration hj = sectional diffraction" force" hiA = hi for aftermost section
£~ = sectional mass moment of inertia about xaxis j,k = subscripts (j,k = 1, 2 ... 6)
k = wave number
1ft = sectional mass per unit length om = sectional mctacentric height
s = sectional area coefficient
t = time variable
X,y,Z = coordinate system as defined in Fig. 1 XA = xcoordinate of altermost cross section Zc = acoordinate of center of gravity
z = acoordinate of sectional center of gravity V' = displaced volume of ship
a = incident wave amplitude
[3 = angle between incident wave and ship heading ([3 = 180 deg for head seas); see Fig. 2
lij = displacements, (j = 1,2 ... 6 refer to surge, sway, heave, roll, pitch, and yaw respectively; see Fig. 1)
h = wave length
~ = variable of integration in xdirection p = mass density of water
of i = twodimensional velocity potential w = frequency of encounter
Wo = wave frequency
Ship Motions and Sea loads
5
Aik = addedmass coefficients (j,k = 1, 2 ... 6) Ajk" = speedindependent part of A;~.
.I IV I' = area of water plane
B = ship beam
Ejk = damping coefficients
I3j." = speedindependent part of E,k BH~ = viscous damping in roll
ejk = hydrostatic restoring coefficients C. = cross section at x
D) hydrodynamic force and moment due to body mo
tion
E] exciting Iorcc and moment un portion of hull
F, = exciting force and moment
FlO = Froude number
G M = rnetacen tric heigh t
Ij = moment of inertia ill jth mode I ik = product of inertia
Iw» = moment of inertia of water plane J( = damping coefficient
L = length between perpendiculars M = mass of ship
kIil· = generalized mass matrix for ship J11wl' = moment of water plane
NJ = twodimensional sectional generalized normal
components (j = 2, 3, 4)
R, = restoring force on portion of hull U = ship speed
V, = dynamic load components (see Fig. 9 for defin]tions)
/L = submerged sectional area
ajk = twodimensional sectional addedmass coefficient II ik'( = ILjk for aftermost section
b = sectional sh i p beam
potential problem, it is assumed that the waveresistance perturbation potential and all its derivatives are small enough to be ignored in the formulation of the motion problem." Physically .• is means that the freesurface waves created by the ship advancing at constant speed in calm water are assumed to have no effect on the motions. This appears to be a reasonable assumption for fine slender hull forms.
Finally, in order to reduce the threedimensional problem to a summation of twodimensional problems, it is necessary to assume that the frequency is (relatively) high. This means that the waves created by the ship's oscillations should have a wave length of the order of the ship beam rather than the ship length. This is a critical assumption since the maximum responses are in the fairly lowfrequency range (the longwave range); however, the pitch and heave motions in the lowfrequency range are dominated by the hydrostatic forces so that inaccuracies in the hydrodynamic coefficients in this range have a minor effect on the final results.
The addedmass and damping coefficients as derived in Appendix 1 are
A 33 = ! aaad~  ~ baa'l W
(14)
(7)
Here UJ3 and b33 are the twodimensional sectional addedmass and damping coefficients for heave. All the integrals are over the length of the ship and U is the forward speed of the ship. }hl and B330 refer to the speedindependent part of An and B33; XA is the xcoordinate of the aftermost crosssection of the ship; and CL33A and b33.1 are the addedmass and damping coefficients for the aftermost section.
The hydrostatic restoring coefficients, which are independent of frequency and forward speed, follow directly from hydrostatic considerations as
C33 = pg!bd~ = pgAwp (15)
Car. = Cr,;l =  pg!~bd~ =  pglvIwl' (16)
Co; = pg!Pbd~ = pgJ wp (17)
Here b is the sectional beam 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 lVI', 1l1lVP, and I wp are the area, moment, and moment of inertia of the water plane.
The amplitudes of the exciting force and moment as derived in Appendix 1 are
(9)
F;! = po: f (f.1 + h3)d~ + oo: ~ hl ~w
lt~ = pa ![t(fa + h3) + i~ h~}~
U /"1  pa ; X.1,t3·
~w
(10)
with the sectional FroudeKriloff "force" defined by
(a(X) = geikxco.fJ r Naeikys;n{Je""dl
s..
Bta =  !~b33d~  UA :1:P  UX,I{/nA (12) and the sectional diffraction "force" by
9 But it must be emphasized that this is on a prior assumption of the 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.
h:r(x) = woeikxco.{J f (iNa  N;
J c.
X sillfj)eikysin{Je""!fadl (21)
Here a is the wave amplitude, k is the wave number, fj is the heading angle (see Fig. 2 for definitions), dl is an element of arc along the cross section C, and Wo = vi gk is the wave frequency which is related to w, the frequency of enc0!lnter, by
wo = w + kUcosfj
Furthermore, h~A refers to Ita for the aftermost sec
6
Ship Motions and Sea Loads
( IS)
(19)
(20)
(22)
(14)
tion, N2 and N3 are the components in the y and z directions of the twodimensional outward unit normal vector in the yz plane, and tV3 is the velocity potential for the twodimensional problem of a cylinder with the same shape as the given crosssection, ex, oscillating in heave in the free surface.
Examination of the relationships for the coefficients in the equations of motion, equations (7) through (17), and the relationships for the exciting force and moment, (18) and (19), shows that the coefficients and the excitation can be obtained easily by simple numerical integration over the length of the ship if one knows the sectional twodimensional added mass a~3, damping b33, and velocity potential tVa. The computation of these twodimensional hydrodynamic quantities is the most difficult and timeconsuming part of computing the ship motions. It is necessary to determine these quantities for approximately twenty sections along the length of the ship and, since these quantities are frequency dependent, they have to be computed at each station for some 20 to 30 frequencies. Accurate estimates for these sectional quantities are absolutely necessary in order to obtain useful final results. A discussion is presented in Appendix 2 of available numerical methods for solving the twodimensional problem together with a comparison between computed and experimental values of the sectional added mass, d.amping, and exciting force.
In the hydrodynamic coefficients, (7) through (H), and in the exciting force and moment, (18) and (19), there are several end terms associated with the added mass, the damping, and the diffraction at the aftermost section, a3:JA, b;;;/\ and hoA. Such end terms are usually not included in strip theories. However, computations have shown that these end terms have a considerable effect on the motions of ships with wide transom sterns. One may question altogether the justification for applying strip theory to transomstern ships because of the sudden geometric change at the stern which apparently violates the assumption of smaU changes in the longitudinal direction. On the other hand, if it is recalled that at higher speeds the flow pattern at the transom has no sudden jump it seems reasonable to assume that the changes in the hydrodynamic quantities in the longitudinal direction can be considered small even at the transom so that the striptheory assumption can be restored. Strictly speaking, the only real justification for including such end terms in computing the motions for transomstern ships is that the computed results seem to agree better with experiments when these terms are included.
Comparison with other theories. At this point it is of interest to compare the equations of motion
:ctional
heave.
Je ship :3~O and '133 and t crossaddedermost
which speed, IOns as
(15) (16)
Un,
i
, is the ational length ~ area, ·plane. id 1110
( [~)
(19)
lefinecl
(20)
(21)
nurnIefiniection iich is
(22)
st sec
Fig. 2 Definition of incidentwave directions
presented here with the original strip theory for heave and pitch in head waves by KorvinKroukovsky and Jacobs (1957). The equations of motion (5) and (6) have the same form in both theories and the coefficients are also the same for the zerospeed case, while the excitation and the speed terms in the coefficients differ. In the notations and conventions of this paper, the hydrodynamic addedmass and damping coefficients given by KorvinKroukovsky and Jacobs may be written in the form
.b = fa33dt (2:3)
1333 = fbndt + Ua3a'! (24)
U U2
.·h =  f ta3:!d~  ~" 13330   aa{l (25)
w w2
B3• =  ftb:;:;dt + UA3l  UX,la33'[ .(26)
.11;3 =  fta33d~ (27)
1353 =  ftb:;3d~  UAa3°  UX.'la33il (28)
. J ,,1, = ft2n3:ldt + [;: B:1:;0 + U22 /b3°
w W
13.5 = ft2b'Jadt + UX.12a33A (30)
One should note that the end terms, aa3A, were not included in the final form of the coefficients given by KorvinKroukovsky and Jacobs (1957). They assumed that the added mass at the aftermost section a33'! was equal to zero. If a33A is assumed to be nonzero, then the end terms given in the foregoing follow directly from the work of KervinKroukovsky and Jacobs.
In comparing the coefficients presented here, (7) through (14), with those derived by KervinKroukovsky and Jacobs, (23) through (30), the coefficients will be consideredfirst without the end terms. Then the two sets of coefficients are the same except for A.3, A55, and Bo5. In the theory of KorvinKroukovsky and Jacobs, both the co
Ship Motions and Sea Loads
7
 WITHOUT SPEED EFFECT
 WITH SPEED EFFECT
• EXPERIMENTS SMITH(i967}
FREQUENCY DF ENCOUNTER,wG
Fig. 3 Addedmass crosscoupling coefficient, A5" for Friesland at Fn = 0.45
efficients AS3 and B5f' are speed independent (disregarding end terms), while their coefficient 11;,. has an additional speed term, UB3:p/w2. Numerical computations indicate that the speed term in the addedmass crosscoupling coefficient, A 5:1, which is included in this theory but not in KervinKroukovsky and Jacobs, has a considerable effect on the computed motions, while the difference in the speed terms associated with the coefficients A55 and Bo5 seems to have less numerical significance.
The speed effect 011 .l.;:f as presented in this theory is believed to be correct for two reasons: (i) Timman and Newman {l9(2) have proved, for a slender ship with pointed ends (an't = bal = 0), that lb and A5:f must have the same forward speed terms but opposite sign. The coefficients given here satisfy this symmetry requirement. (ii) Experiments by W. E. Smith (l9Ci7) presented in Fig. 3 show that Ai':l has a fairly strong speed
dependence. The points in the figure represent his experimental results for the Friesland destroyer hull at F" = 0.45 and the two curves show calculated values. The broken line is the computed coefficient, A 53, without speed effects, whereas the solid line includes the speed term UB33o/w2 [see equation (11)]. Furthermore, it is interesting to note that the experiments by Smith (1967) for the coefficient Bo5 indicate that it is also speed dependent and comparisons seem to support the speed terms presented here in equation (14).
Consideration of the end terms in the coefficients presented here, equations (7) through (14), and in the coefficients by KorvinKroukovsky and Jacobs, (23) through (30), shows that KervinKroukovsky and Jacobs only have the end terms associated with the added mass, aa/I, and none of the end terms associated with the clamping, bn·4, 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 KorvinKroukovsky and Jacobs for head waves, it is necessary to rework some of the expressions. Considering only head waves ({3 = 180 deg) the sectional diffraction "force" (21) becomes
(31)
8
KorvinKroukovsky and Jacobs made an empirical assumption in their work that the exponential part of the integrand, e'", could be replaced by e kds where d is the sectional draft and s is the sectional 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 (/:m and damping b33 as
Use of the same assumption when computing sectional FroudeKriloff "force," (2ll), results in
where b is the sectional beam. If these two relations, (:52) and (33), are substituted in the equations for the exciting force ancl hioment, (18) and (19), it follows that the exciting force can be written in the simplified form
Ship Motions and Sea Loads
oresent stroyer rw calnputed eas the J)2 [see ting to for the .ed deirt the
coeffi
h (14), kyand :orvln. terms ione of g, b33•4,
.e and
g, (18) oukr
I. ,arT ,J
19 only "action
(31)
nnpirinential zed by he seem and rential j mass
(;h_ I
19 secin
D relaequa;';) and ~ writ
CI! f e,kEekdS (pgb  Wo(waa:;  ibd} d~
 a:: ~ e'k:<.<ekdswu(W(/.33A  ib3l) (:H)
~w 
the exciting moment in the form
 a:: f eik~ekds {Hpgb  WU(W(!;13  ib33) 1
 ~ Wo(W(1;;;;  iba3)}d~
'lw 
ib'l) (35)
dix 1] and the exciting force and moment [equation (146)] have been derived without use of any striptheory approximations. The striptheory approximations have been introduced in this work only in order to simplify the numerical computations; therefore, the forwardspeed terms and the end terms derived here are in no way restricted by the striptheory approximations.
Comparison with experiments. A few comparisons between computed and experimental values for heave and pitch motions will be presented here in order to demonstrate the generally satisfactory agreement. Figure 4 shows the heave and pitch amplitudes and phases for the Mariner hull form in head waves at Froude number 0.20.10 The points in the figure represent experimental results by Salvesen and Smith (1970) while the solid line is computed by the present theory and the broken line by the theory of KervinKroukovsky and Jacobs (1957). For the heave and pitch phases the difference between the two theories is so small that only the curve for the present theory is shown in the figure. Note that the pitch amplitude, 1]5, is scaled by the wave amplitude, a, and multiplied by half the ship length, Lj2, so that the pitch values, 1]5L/2a::, shown on the plot are nondimensional vertical bow displacements due to pitch. II It is seen in Fig. 4 that both theories agree quite well with the experiments and that for the pitch amplitudes the present theory seems to agree somewhat better with the experiments than the theory of KervinKroukovsky and Jacobs.
Figure 5 gives theoretical and experimental pitch and heave values for the Davidson A hull form in head waves at Froude number 0.45.12 The 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 obtained by using the Frank closefit method in computing the sectional added mass and damping for both theories. The endeffect terms as previously discussed were included in both theories. The experimental values shown in Fig. 5 were measured by Smith and Salvesen (1970) using a freerunning modeL The vertical motions were measured by sonic transducers in order to eliminate the mechanical damping which was present in the heave
10 Froude number of 0.20 corresponds to approximately 14 knots for the 528ft Mariner ship.
II Pitch is conventionally scaled by the maximum wave slope; however, it has been found in comparing theory and experiments and in comparing the relative importanee of pitch and heave that it is more convenient to 'Present the
pitch as "vertical bow displacement." .
12 Fronde number of 0.45 corresponds to approximately 35 knots for a 500ft ship.
Ship Motions and Sea Loads
9
Comparison of these relationships for the exciting force and moment for head waves with the work by KorvinKroukovsky and Jacobs shows that the three underlined terms in (:34) and (:35) are not included in their theory. Numerical investigations have shown that these three additional terms in the exciting force and moment have only a small effect on the computed motions.
It should be pointed out that for predictions in head waves it is much easier and faster computationally to use the exciting force and moment in the form (34) and (35) rather than in the more general form (18) and (19). However, numerical computations have shown that it is only accurate to replace the term ekz by ekds for sections with very regular shapes. For example, for bulbousbow sections, use of the exciting force and moment by KorvinKroukovsky and Jacobs and the exciting force and moment expressed in (;34) and (35) would give inaccurate results.
The original strip theory of KorvinKroukovsky and Jacobs has been modified and extended by several investigators [see, for example, Oerritsma and Beukelman (IO(i7) J. These modified theories all lack the additional speed terms included here and they did not satisy the TimrnanNewman (l9G2) symmetry relationship. However, during the last year Seeling (19(j!), Tasai ancl Takaki (l9fj9), and Borodai and Netsvetayev (l!)()U) independently presented new strip theories for heave and pitch motions. These theories are similar and, except for the endeffect terms, they all have the same forwardspeedeffect terms as those given in the present work. It should be emphasized, on the other hand, that in the derivatives of these theories the "striptheory" approximations 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
(A42  MZc)n2 + B12TJ2 + (A44 + 11)n4 + 1314TJ4
+ C4114 + (A ·16  14~)n6 + B46TJ6 = F4e;OJI (37) 1346 = J~b24d~  UA240
A62~2 + 136ZTJZ + (AM  14~)1i4 + B64TJ4
+ (A6G + h)1iG + B66TJG = F6e;wl (38)
staff. 13 It is seen in Fig. 5 that for this hull form both the heave and pitch amplitudes computed by the present theory agree slightly better with the experiments than does the theory of KervinKroukovsky and Jacobs.
Finally, in Fig. 6 the pitch amplitudes!' in oblique and following waves are shown for the Series 60 standard hull form with block coefficient 0.80 at Froude number 0.15. The curve represents computations by the present theory and the poin ts are results by Wahab (L 967). Satisfactory agreement between theory and experiments is seen for bow, quartering, and following waves while there is some discrepancy for beam waves.
Sway, Roll, ond Yow Motions
It follows from the general formulation of the equations of motion [equations (1) through (4) 1 that for a ship with lateral symmetry the coupled differential equations governing the sway, roll, and yaw motions can be written in the form
(fI2Z + M)~2 + B22TJ2 + (.!b  MZc)~4
+ B24TJ" + A2G~G + B26TJ6 = F2e;",1 (36)
1i'1}~ addedmass and damping coefficients, Ajk and Bjk, as derived in Appendix 1 using linear potentialflow theory, .cannot be used for the case of sway, yaw, and roll without including a correction for viscous damping. Comparison between theory and experiments shows that the rolldamping coefficient, 1344, is significantly affected by viscosity even in the absence of bilge keels, and the amplitude of the roll displacement Can be computed with reasonable accuracy in nearresonance condition only if the viscous roll damping is included [see Vugts (1968)]. Therefore the hydrodynamic coefficient given .in Appendix 1 will be used with an additional term, B44*, which represents quasilinear viscousdamping effects in roll 15 :
1~ Smith and Salvesen (1970) have shown that there is a noticeable difference between the heave amplitudes measured by freerunning models and by the heavestaff technique for hulls with very large bulbs.
14 The pitch amplitude is scaled in Fig. 6 in the conveuticnal way by the maximum wave slope.
16 Methods for computing the roll viscous damping term B4~* and its effect on the roll displacement are discussed in more detail at the end of this section.
B22 = fb22d~ + UanA (40)
U
.1124 = .11'12 = fa21d~   b2/ (41)
w2
1324 = B42 = fb24d~ + Ua24A (42)
A 26 = f~a22d~ + ~ B220  ~ xAbnA
w w
1341 = Jb44d~ + Ua4/1 + 1344* (46)
A16 = J~a24d~ + ~ 13240  ~ x.1bz/
w w
1361 = f~b24dl; + U"bo + UXAaZ4A (52)
U2 U
.1166 = fea22d~ + 2 A 220  "2 X.12b2{1
W W
BM = Jeb~:d~ + U; Bdl + UX,12aZ2A
w
(44)
(47)
Here the integrations are over t~e length of the ship, a22 and bZ2 are the twodimensional sectional added mass and damping in sway, a14 and bH are the sectional added mass and damping in roll, and
10
Ship Motions and Sea Loads
(39)
(40)
(41)
(42)
A (43)
122•1
(44)
(45)
(,I{{)
( A
(47)
(48)
(49)
(50)
(51)
(52)
(54)
of the .ctional b44 are )11, and
G'2.1 and b2.1 are the twodimensional addedmass and damping coefficients due to cross coupling between sway and roll. In Appendix 2, numerical methods for computing the sectional addedmass and damping coefficients are described and comparisons between computed and experimental values for these twodimensional sectional quantities are made. After the sectional coefficients are determined all the hydrodynamic coefficients in the equation of motion can be obtained by straightforward integration over the length of the ship. It should be recalled that Ajko and Bjko refer to the speedindependent part of the coefficients and that XA., ajk A, and b jk A refer to values at the aftennost section.
For heave and pitch motions there were four hydrostatic restoring coefficients, equations (15) through (17), while for sway, yaw, and roll there is only the one restoring coefficient:
the cross section, Cx, and then over the length of the ship if the sectional twodimensional velocity potentials for sway and roll, ifi2 and 1/;,1, are known. Methods for computing these twodimensional potentials are discussed in Appendix 2.
The work of Grim and Schenzle (1969) is the only previously published work known to the authors on the equations of motion for sway, roll,
~5 .,
 PRESEHT THEORY
 KK AHD J THEORY
A. EXPERIMENT SAL VESEHI1970)
l.O
Gil = pgVGM'
(55)
2.5
~
N
<,
..J~
'"
",' 2.0
~
0:
.,
'"
e
t 1.5
e
w'
>
c
w
:x:
1.0 0.5
where \7 is the displaced volume of the ship and GM is the metacentric height.
It follows from the results in Appendix 1 that the amplitude of the sway exciting force is
1'2 = ap JU2 + h2)d~ + ap ~ hl
'IV)
(5Ci)
that the amplitude of the roll exciting moment is PI = ap JUI + h1)d~ + ao '! 11..(1 1w
(57)
and that the amplitude of the ya\\" exciting moment is
(5X)
~s
• •
HEAVE
•
~5
90 135
where the sectional FroudeKriloff "forces" are )] = ge  ikxco.(l r Nje'ky.ill{Jckzdl; j = 2, l (5H) Jc
and the sectional diffraction "forces" are
II} = woeik;cn,{J r (iN~  N2sin(3)ei/,ysinfjekoifijdl;
J c,
j = 2, 4 (riO) Thus, the exciting forces and moments can be obtained by simple numerical integrations first over
Fig. 4 Heave and pitch amplitudes and phases forb:,.
Mariner in head waves at F" = 0.20 P'
1~0
270 ..._ __ .....J.... " __ _L __ ~
0.4
0.6
0.6 LI>.
1.0
Ship Motions and Sea Loads
1 1
~.5 ,..,
 PR.SENT TH.ORY
•  KI( AND) THEORY /11.. EXPERIMEHTS SMITH(1970)
e ~ ..J
1.5
LO
O.S
2.0
1.5
\
\
\
\ \ \
\ \ \ \._...t
1.0
0.5
• 45
90 8
•
.us •
•
180
21$ 0.4
0,8 L/A
I.D
0 .•
Heave and pitch amplitudes and phases for Davidson A in head waves at Fo = 0.45
and yaw for a ship with forward speed. A detailed comparison between the equations derived 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 relationship stated by T imman and Newman (1 \)62) while the coefficients used by Grim and Schenzle lack several of the forwardspeed terms included here and do not satisfy this symmetry relationship.
As was stated, the roll motions in the nearresonance condition are strongly affected by viscow, damping. This can be seen in Fig. 7, where theoretical and experimental roll amplitudes for a roundbilge rectangular cylinder in beam waves are shown. The points in the figure are experimental values from Vugts (1968a). The broken line is the computed roll amplitude using linear potentialflow 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 by potential theory is not shown in the figure, but it is several times larger than the maximum measured amplitude . The viscous roll damping has been computed by equations derived by Kato (1958) for skin friction and by Tanaka (1960) for eddymaking resistance. Use of these results of Kato and Tanaka permits the viscous rolldamping effects which are nonlinear with respect to the roll velocity, lj{, to be introduced in the equations of motion as the quasilinear term
(61)
I.Z
where K depends on the frequency, the viscosity, the bilgekeel dimensions, and the hull geometry . Here lj'I""" is the maximum roll velocity and must be estimated before the motions are computed. If the difference between the estimated and the computed lj!""x is too large, a new value for ?j.]",,,, must be estimated and the motions are then recomputed .
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. 8, 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 rollresonance condition.
Ship Motions and Sea Loads
l. A des derived rted here it should Lations of
relation 62) while nzle lack tded here nship,
.he neard by vis 7, where Ides for a
m waves 'e experie broken ng linear iping but .olid line including naximum thee is 'al tunes nplitude, puted by II friction esistance. 1 permits are non~4, to be he quasi
(61)
ziscosi ty, eometry. md must uted. If the comI.!",,,, must 1 recom
tar .:ly forms in a sample sults and isfactory equation .en made ii (1965) ; at zero between . is quite
. s due to esonance
...Unfortunately, it is not possible to make a de.. t~iled comparison between experiments and theory fCihthe sway, yaw, and roll motions in oblique Wl1ves. For those few experiments where these imotions have been measured, adequate informa<lion about the weight distribution needed for com.j:lUtirtg the responses is not available in most of the icases. Therefore it is difficult to make general statements with respect to the accuracy of sway,
jaw, and roll motions in oblique seas as computed by this theory. On the other hand, the satisfactory agreement between experiments and theory shown in Section 3 herein for the horizontal wave. induced loads may be taken as an indication that the computed motions should bc reasonable.
3. SeaLoads
Relationships are presented in this section for the dynamic shear forces and torsional and bending moments for a ship advancing at constant mean speed at arbitrary heading in regular sinusoidal waves. Comparisons between computed and experimental waveinduced loads are made.
Dynamic LOCld Equations
Let the shear and compression force at a cross section of the ship be
(62)
Vfi as the vertical bending moment since it is the moment due to the vertical forces. Similarly Ve, which is the moment about the vertical axis, is referred to as the horizontal bending moment since it is due to the horizontal forces.
where Vl is the compression, L6 V2 is the horizontal shear force, and Va is the vertical shear force. Similarly, let the bending and torsional moment at a section be
M = V4i + Vd + Vck (63)
where V4 is the torsional moment, Vs is the vertical bending moment, and Vfj is the horizontal bending moment. 11 The sign convention used for the dynamic waveload components is shown in Fig. 9. Note that IT. is actually the bending moment about the horizontal axis but it has become customary among naval architects to refer to
Fig. 6 Pitch amplitudes for Series 60, Cn = 0.80 inh. bow, beam, quartering and following waves at Fn = II'" 0.15
• IS Under the assumptions applied in deriving the equatl?nS of motion, the compression force VI is small (of higher order) and hence will not be considered further .
17 Th.e torsional and the bending moments are expressed he~e. w.lth respect to a local coordinate system with the ongm m the given cross section but otherwise oriented as the coordinate system shown in 'Fig. 1.
 THEORY
• EXPERIM.ENT, WAHAB(l961)
• • eoW • .B:ll<l°
1 __
0,6 •
OA
O,Z
QUARTERING • .B:SI)·
•
FOLLOWI~G • .B=lOO
WAVE FREQUENCY, WDVfJ&
Ship Motions Clnd Sea Loads
13
10.0°
 WAVE AND VISCOUS
DAMPING
 ONLY WAVE
DAMPING
• EXPERIMENTS,
7.50 VUGTS(1968)
;;:
w
cc
'"
w
0
~
~
w' 5.00
0
::>
!::
..J
n,
::E
...
..J
..J
0
'"
2.50 2.5
5.0
7.5
FREQUENCY,wlN SEC1
Fig. 7 Theoretical and experimental roll amplitudes for rectangular cylinder in beam waves
The dynamic shear force at a cross section is the difference between the inertia force and the sum of external forces acting on the portion of the hull forward of the section in question. If the external force is separated into the static restoring force Rj, the exciting force Ej, and the hydrodynamic force due to the body motion Dj, we find that
Vj = Ij  R,  E,  D, (64)
if j , is the inertia force. Similarly, the torsional and bending moments are equal to the difference between the moment due to the inertia force and the moment due to the sum of the external forces, so that equation (64) applies to the torsional and bending moments (j = 4, 5, 6) as well as the shear forces (j = 2, 3).
The inertia force is the mass times the acceleration. If the inertia force is expressed in terms of the sectional inertia force (the sectional mass times the sectional acceleration), we find that
12 = fm(02 + ~06  Z04) d~ (65)
10 = fm(0:1  ~0;,) d~ «()fi)
If a similar procedure is followed for the momentofinertia terms, we find that
14 = fl ix04  mz(02 + ~06) }d!; (67)
1.0r,
THEORY
• EXPERIMENTS (TAS!>.I, 1965)
1.0
2.0
1.5 PERIOD IN SECONDS
Fig. 8 Sway amplitude for Series 60, CJ] = 0.70 in beam waves at zero speed
15 =  fm(!;  X)(03  ~5)d~ Is = fmC!;  X)(02 + ~06  Z04)d~
(68) (69)
wa AI tic th po
10.0
Here m. is the sectional mass per unit length of the ship, z is the vertical position of center of gravity of the sectional mass, and ix is the sectional mass moment of inertia about the xaxis. The integration is over the length of the ship forward of the cross section being considered.
The hydrostatic restoring forces and moments are given by
Ra =  pg Jb(713  ~1]5)d~ (70)
R, = g1]4 J(paom  mz)d~ (71)
R5 = pgfb(~  X)(713  ~1]5)d~ (72)
with R.z = 0 and Ro = 0. Here b is the sectional beam, a is the submerged sectional area, and om is the distance between the water plane and the sectiona! metacenter.
The exciting force and moment over the portion of the ship forward of the cross section x can be obtained directly from equations (151), (152), and (153) in Appendix 1 by replacing the moment arm ~ with (~  x). It follows from this that the exciting force and moment components are
L
D
Eo pc< f[ (~  x)(h + hz:
+ ~ Ita }~ei"'l (7 ±)
14
Ship Motions and Sea Loads
iY IMENTS .1965)
2.0
o in beam
(68) ~ ) th of the f gravity nal mass : integrard of the
moments
(70) (71) (72)
sectional and om is 1 the sec
e portion x can be 152) id nent ann rt the ex
pet. f[ (~  x)(h + h2)
+ ~ h2Jd~Ci"'l (75)
1W
sectional FroudeKriloff "force" is given by = geikECOS!l r Njcjkysin!lekzdl; j = 2, 3, 4 (76) Jq
and the sectional diffraction "force" is given by
hj = woe ikEcos!l r (iN3  N2sin(3)e;kysin!lek"l/lidl; JeE
j = 2, 3, 4· (77)
The hydrodynamic force and moment due to the body motion on the portion of the ship forward of a given cross section have been derived in Appendix 3 and can be written in terms of the sectional added mass and damping (ajk and bjk) and the velocity and acceleration (1]] and #,) in component form as
D2 =  f {adn2 + ~~6) + b22(1]2 + t1]6)
+ a241]4 + b241]4 + ~ b22n6  Ua221]6}d~  [ Ua22 (1]2 + ~1]6)  ~ b22(~2 + ~#6) + U: (a22#6 + b221]6) + U(a241]4  ~ b24#4)J
ca w E=x
o, =  f {aa3(na  ~7j5) + b33(1]3  ~1],,)
 ~ b33n& + Ua3a1]5}d~  [ Ua33 (1] a  ~1].)
U b (.. t .. ) U2 ( .. + b ')J
 ;; 33 't)a  ;;'t)&  2 ([33't)5 33't).
W W E=x
D4 =  f {aH7j'1 + (bH + b44*)1]'1
+ a24(7j2 + ~#6) + b24(1]2 + ~1]6) + ~ b24~G
W
VI = compression force V2 = horizontal shear force
Vs = vertical shear force
V4 = torsional moment Vs = vertical bending moment
Va = horizontal bending moment
Fig. 9 Sign convention for dynamic waveload components
Do = f (~  x) {an(7ja  ~7j5) + ba3(1]3  tiJ5) }d~ + f {Ua33(1]3  X1]5)  ~ b33(#3  x#.)
_ U2 (a33#5 + b331]5)}d~ (81)
w2
DB =  f (~  x) {a22(7j2 + ~~6) + b22(1]2 + ~1]6) + a24ij4 + b24~.j }d~  f {Ua22(1]2 + X1]6)
U b (.. + .. ) + U2 ( .. + b .)
 "2 22 112 X't)6 ; a22't)6 22't)6
w w
(78)
with D; negligible. The coefficient b44* in equation (80) is the viscous sectional rolldamping coefficient and is computed in the same way as the damping coefficient, B44*, given by equation (61).
This completes the relationships for the dynamic 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 forwardspeed terms in the excitation and in the hydrodynamic force and moment due to the body motion. These differences in the forwardspeed terms are quite similar to the differences between the present theory and the theory of KorvinKroukovsky and Jacobs (1957) for the equations of motions as was discussed in Section 2. Computations have shown 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 n 2: 0.25).
(79)
(80)
Ship Motions and Sea loads
15
_J CD
'"
e,
.,..!t.
~
~ >
ui u
~ 4
'" <C
w :r
'" _J
<C U i=
'" w
>
\ \ \ \
\ A ~/
fJ EXPERIMENT THEORY
1700 .,
1300 At.
6
3
WAVE FREQUENCY, Wo%
Fig. 10 Vertical shearforce amplitudes at midship for Series 60, en = 0.80 in head and bow waves at Fn = 0.15
Soding (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 bending moment as well as torsional moments for a ship advancing at arbitrary heading in regular waves. Their theory lacks several of the speed terms included here and, unfortunately, since they give detailed comparisons between their theory and experiments only for the zeroforwardspeed case, little is known about the accuracy of their speed tenus.
Comparison with Experiments
Vossers et al. (1961) have conducted a very systematic complete set of waveload experiments. They measured both the vertical and horizontal waveinduced loads for several SeriesGO hull forms in head, following, and oblique waves. Unfortunately the experiments were performed at only 6 different wave lengths and these are not really enough for a comparison between theory experiments. More detailed tests were rerun Wahab (1£67) using the standard Series60 with Cll = 0.80. These tests were con:,,::~~.~.~.~ at several wave lengths and most of the
test conditions were run at least twice. We believe that the experiments by Wahab are the best available for a comparative study of the waveinduced loads.
Vertical loads. A comparison between computed and experimental vertical shearforce amplitudes for the SeriesGO hull form (Cn = 0.80) in head and bow waves at Froude number 0.15 is shown in Fig. 10. It should be noted that head waves with f3 = 180 deg cannot be run conveniently at the seakeeping tank in Wageningen, so that the. headwave experiments were conducted by Wahab with f3 = 170 deg. The numerical headwave computations are also for f3 = 170 deg. Furthermore, one should note that the maximum waveinduced vertical shear forces occur close to the forward and aft quarter lengths while, in order to reduce expenses, the model Wahab used in the experiments was equipped with gages for measuring 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 bendingmoment amplitudes in head, quartering, and following waves are compared. (Note that (3 is 10 deg for following waves.) Considering the difficulties involved in making accurate 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.
Wahab (1967) also presented a comparison between theory and his verticalload experiments. The computed values were obtained by an extension of the theory of KorvinKroukovsky and Jacobs (1957) to include oblique waves. Wahab's comparisons show less satisfactory results than shown here. 13
Horizontal loads. Comparisons between theory and experiments for the waveinduced horizontal shear forces, bending moments, and torsional moments are shown in Figs. 12, 13, and 14 respectively. 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 Wahab 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 waveinduced horizontal loads for a ship with forward speed exist.
•
18 Sec Faltinsen (1970) for a more detailed comparison between the present theory and the Series50, eN = 0.80 waveload experiments by Wahab.
Ship Motions and Sea Loads
: believe st availinduced
Imputed plitudes in head 5 shown i waves entlyat hat the Wahab idwava ~urther 1 wave
to the »der to
in the measur.n only. nt with r rar
I
iere'v.,e
. head, npared. } Coning acand the theory, theory izing.
son beiments.
exten~y and 'ahab's 5 than
theory izontal rsional respec 60 r
rumber these
at the r quite theory aging, etween l hori·xist.
parison = 0.80
has been recognized for some time that, for motions and loads, strip theories usually reasonable results. However, little has known about the use of strip theory in pre
", .. ~,, of the horizontal motions and loads. It
been believed that swayyawroll motions are nonlinear and that viscous effects are apso that a linear strip theory would be for determining these motions or loads. of lack of experimental results it has not
possible here to show that the theory can
the swayyawroll motions with sufficient , nevertheless, the good agreement for the horizontal shear forces, bending moments, and torsional moments suggests that the theory has strong potential for determining the horizontal loads and perhaps also the horizontal motions. The wave loads are computed from the motions so the good agreement between
theory and experiments for the loads is a strong indication that the computed motions may be quite accurate.
Comparison between the present theory and experiments has also been made for the horizontal wave loads of a containership model at zero speed. In the experiments conducted by Hattendorff and Alte (1968) the wave loads were measured at both the midship and twenty percent of the length aft of midship. Figure 15 shows some samples from these comparisons and the correlation between theory and experiments appears very satisfactory for this Case.
Finally, in Fig. 16 the computed torsional moment is plotted as a function of longitudinal position along the hull length for a containership in bow waves. This figure shows that the maximum computed waveinduced torsional moment may not occur at midship but at a considerable distance aft of midship. It should be recalled that the maximum vertical and horizontal bending moments are very close to midship for most ship forms. This difference is emphasized here because 1110st available experimental data for the torsional moments have been measured at the midship section and thus may incorrectly be used in design as an estimate for the maximum torsional moment.
4. Concluding Remarks
It appears that the computational method presented here can be a valuable design tool for predicting ship motions and sea loads. Similar computational schemes for predicting the heave and pitch motions and the vertical loads have already proven to be of great value to the U. S. Navy and to Det norske Veritas in hull and structural design
1S
..
\
\
\
10 \
\ A.
\
\ P EXPERIMENT THEORY
170· •
130· A
20
p eXPERIMEN T THEORY
10· •
so· ...
15
4t"A"'\
... \
... \
\
\
\
\
\
\
... \ \
10
III
•
WAVE' FREQUENCY, Wo vog
Fi~. 11 V':rtkal bendingmomeuc amplitudes at midship for Series 60, Ci . = 0.80 10 head, bow, quartering, and following waves at Fn = 0.15
Ship Motions and Sea Loads
17
lliEORY .EXPERIMENT, WAHAB(1967)
'"
i5
:I: ....,
:;i 6
}z o N
a:
o J:
QUARTERING, fJ=SOo
WAVE FREQUENCY, wov'i/g
Fig. 12 Horizontal shearforce amplitudes at midship for Series 60, Cn = 0.80 in bow and quartering waves
of ships. The computer program based on this theory has been applied in conceptdesign studies of very large tankers at Det norske Veritas. For such large hulls the waveinduced loads are essential criteria in the evaluation of the structural feasibility. Furthermore, the present cornputational method has been shown to be very useful in estimating the torsional moment and horizontal shear forces for open hull forms such as those of containerships.
The usefulness of this computational method is not restricted to the design of singlehull ships. Presently NSRDC and Det norske Veritas are extending the method to the case of catamarans, trimarans, and drilling platforms. The computer program now being completed for predicting motions and sea loads for catamarans will be of invaluable help in a planned feasilibility study of the use of catamarans in the U. S. Navy.
The potential of the present theory is quite evident; however, in order to utilize it more fully, further research is necessary. There is a particular need for a more extensive evaluation of the accuracy and the range of applicability of the swayroIlyaw and the horizontalload computations. For the horizontal responses, satisfactory
20
THEORY. EXPERIMENT, WAHAS(1967) (I e
sow, P~130° II
15
.,
2 3
WAVE FREQUENCY, wov'lfi:
Fig. 13 Horizontal bendingmoment amplitudes at midship for Series 60, Cn = 0.80 in bow and quartering waves at Fn = 0.15
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 encouraging, hut the following research is required to confirm more precisely the accuracy of this theory:
1. Investigation of the justification for assuming in the derivations that the derivatives of the steady perturbation potential, CP., can be considered small. Even though the demonstrated agreement between theory and experiments seems to indicate that the steady perturbation potential cps and its derivatives have only a small effect on the ship motions and the wave loads, this assumption does not appear consistent with the basic assumption of slenderbody theory.
2. Experimental evaluation of the various coefficients in the swayrollyaw equations of motion. (Such experiments have recently been conducted
Ship Motions and Sea Loads
~67)
\
CD
1
\ CD
:udes at artedng
lent is for one 0.80 at ~ry ensquired of this
assumof the e constrated , seems tential 'ect on ssumpisic as
lUS colotion. iucted
 THEORY _EXPERIMENT, WAHA8(1967)
100
75
50
25
25
 loa I=======================:::::::j
QUARTERING, ,8'30°
75
so
25
WAVE FREQUEHCY, kin JIl/g""
Fig. 14 Torsionalmoment amplitudes at midship for Series 60, Co = 0.80 in bow, beam, and quartering waves at Fn = 0.15
at the Technische Hogeschool of Delft, but the final results are not yet available.)
3. A carefully conducted swayrollyaw motion experiment with investigation of possible nonlinearities in the responses. Significant nonlinearities can be expected for highspeed hulls in quartering waves.
4. A more general experimental evaluation of the horizontal wave loads. Preliminary experiments indicate that these responses are nonlinear for hull forms with low block coefficients.
5. Investigation of the effects of rudder action on the waveinduced motions and loads.
However, it should be stressed that, even without this additional research, the present computational method should be of great assistance to the naval architect in determining the seaworthiness characteristics of new ship designs.
 THEORY .EXPERIMENT, HATTENDORFF(1968)
AT MIDSHIP
90
120
150
180
HEADING ANGLE. ,BIN DEGREES
Fig. 15 Horizontal shearforce and bendingmoment amplitudes versus heading angle for a containership at
zero speed (L/70. = 0.80)
LONGITUDINAL DIRECTION, ,/L
Fig. 16 Computed torsionalmoment amplitude for containership in bow waves (fi = 120 deg) with Lj'A = 2.0 and at Fn = 0.20
References
E. Abrahamsen, "Recent Developments in the Practical Philosophy of Ship Structural Design," SNAME Spring Meeting, 1967.
I. K. Borodai and Y. A. Netsvetayev, "Ship Motions in Ocean Waves" (in Russian), Sudostorenie, Leningrad, 1969.
O. Faltinsen, "A study of the twodimensional addedmass and damping coefficients by the Frank closefit method," Det norske Veritas, Oslo, Norway, Report No. 691OS, 1969a.
O. Faltinsen, "A comparison of Frank closefit method with some other methods used to find twodimensional hydro dynamical forces and moments for bodies which are oscillating harmonically in an ideal fluid," Det norske Veritas, Oslo, Norway, Report No. 6943S, 1969b.
O. Faltinsen, "Comparison between theory and
Ship Motions and Sea Loads
19
experiments of waveinduced loads for Series 60 hull with C» = 0.80," Det norske Veritas, Oslo, Norway, Report No. 7027S, 1970.
W. Frank, "Oscillation of Cylinders In or Below the Free Surface of Deep Fluids," NSRDC, Washington, D. C., Report 2375, 1967.
W. Frank and N. Salvesen, "The Frank CloseFit ShipMotion Computer Program," NSRDC, Washington, D. C., Report 3289, 1970.
J. Gerritsma and W. Benkelman, "Analysis of the modified strip theory for the calculation of ship motions and wave bending moments," International Shipbuilding Progress, Vol. 14, No. 15G, ]967.
O. Grim and P. Schenzle, "Berechnung der Torsionsbelastung eines Schiffes un Seegang," Institut fur Schiffbau der Universitat Hamburg, Bericht Nr 236 amd Nr 237, 1969.
H. G. Hattendorff and R. Alte, "Seegangs versuche mit dem Modell eines Containerschiffes in regelmassigen Wellen," Forsducngszentrum. des Deutschen Schiffbaus, Hamburg, Bericht Nr 3, 19G8.
W. R. Jacobs, "The Analytical Calculation of Ship Bending Moments in Regular Waves," Journal of Ship Research, Vol. 2, No.1, 1958.
H. Kato, "On the frictional resistance to the roll of ships" (in Japanese), Journal of Zosen [(iokai, Vol. 102, 1958.
B. V. KorvinKroukovsky and W. R. Jacobs, "Pitching and Heaving Motions of a Ship in Regular Waves," TRANS. SNAME, Vol. 65, 1957.
J. N. Newman, "The SecondOrder TimeAverage 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 Symposium on Naval Hydrodynamics, Bergen, Norway, 1964.
T. F. Ogilvie and E. O. Tuck, "A Rational StripTheory of Ship Motion: Part I," Department of Naval Architecture, The University of Michigan, Report No. 013, 1969.
W. R. Porter, "Pressure Distributions, AddedMass and Damping Coefficients for Cylinders Oscillating in a Free Surface," Institute of Engineering Research, University of California Report, 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 Theory and Experiment for Mariner
;JC'.}'«f.:%i=~:,D;:::estroyer with Modified Bow," NSRDC, D. C., Report 3337, 1970.
".''_'I..LU.Lil. "Computation of Pitch and Heav
ing Motions for Arbitrary Ship Forms," International Shipbuilding Progress, Vol. 14, No. 155, 1967.
W. E. Smith and N. Salvesen, "Comparison of ShipMotion Theory and Experiment for Destroyer with Large Bulb," Journal oj Ship Research, Vol. 14, No.1, 1970.
H. Soding, "Eine Modifikation der Streifenmethode," Schiflstechnik Bd. 16, Heft SO, 1969.
N. Tanaka, "A Study on the Bilge Keels, Part 4, On the eddymaking resistance to the rolling of a ship hull," Japan Society oj Naval Architects, Vol. 109, 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," Research 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 calculation 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 Damping Coefficients of Symmetric Ships," Journal oj Ship Research, Vol. 5, No.4, 1962.
G. Vossers, W. A. Swaan, and H. Rijken, "Experiments with Series 60 Models in Waves," TRANS. SNAME, Vol. 68, 1960.
G. Vossers, W. A. Swaan, and H. Rijken, "Vertical and Lateral Bending Moment Measurements on Series 60 Models," I nlerna iional Shipbuilding Progress, Vol. 8, No. 83, 1961.
J. II. 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 Scheepsbouwkunde, Technische Hogeschool Delft, Report No. 194, 1968b.
R. Wahab, "Amidships Forces and Moments on a en = 0.80 Series 60 Model in Waves from Various Directions," Netherlands Ship Research Center TNO Report No. 100S, 1967.
Appendix 1
Hydrodynamic Coefficients and Exciting Force and Moment
In this appendix the addedmass and damping coefficients in the equations of 111otio11 and the wave exciting force and moment are derived.
Ship Motions and Sec Lood«
." InterNo. 155,
arisen of for De"ihip Re
Streifen, 1969. els, Part e rolling rchitects,
:i Added .eport of chanics,
3.S," Recs, Vol.
d roIling 'national [967 calb~.dres" (in
of Ships,
Coupled .:: Jour
en, "ExWaves,"
n, "Verrements building
1 Beam erTNO
:fficients lers in a )cheeps.Re t
rents on .m Vari.esearch
lamping and the red.
a ship advancing at constant mean
speed with arbitrary heading in regular waves. It is assumed that the resulting motions are linear and harmonic, Let a righthanded orthogonal coordinate
fixed with respect to the mean position of with z vertically upward throuzh the gravity of the ship, x in the direction of motion and the origin in the plane of the free surface. Suppose that the ship ,,,,Wl""",'" as a rigid body in six degrees of freedom amplitudes t, (j = 1,2 ... 6). Here) = I, 4, 5, and 6 refer to surge, sway, heave, roll, and yaw, respectively.
If viscous effects are disregarded the fluid mocan be assumed to be irrotational, so that the problem can be formulated in terms of potentialflow t~eory. We know that the total velocity potential <I>(x,y,z; t) must satisfy, in addition to the Laplace equation, the following "exact" 19 boundary conditions:
DF Dt
o
(83)
frame. It is understood that real part is to be taken in expressions involving eiwt•
In order to linearize the boundary conditions (83) and (84) it will be assumed that the geometry of the hull is such that the steady perturbation potential f/Js and its derivatives are small, and furt?er that by considering only small oscillatory motions the potential tPT and its derivatives can a!so be assumed to be small. Under these assump~Ions .the problem can be linearized by disregardmg higherorder terms in both f/Js and tP7' as well as terms involving cross products between tPs and ¢T' One should note that these assumptions do not appear consistent with the basic assumption of slenderbody theory which states that the derivatives in the transverse direction are larger t~an the ~ongitudinal derivatives. The assumptions applied here lead to equations of motion in a form which can be quite easily solved numeri~ally :vl~ile the. use of slenderbody theory results 111 a Similar strip theory but with some additional integral terms which have not yet been evaluated [see Ogilvie and Tuck, (1969)]. Preliminary numerical investigations seem to indicate that these integral terms will have a very small effect on the computed motions. Considering that our main objective here is to derive a motion and load theory with sufficient accuracy and in a form suitable for routine numerical computations it seems justified in this derivation to assume' that the derivatives of perturbation potentials can be considered small.
Furthermore, in linearizing the problem it will be conveni~nt to linearly decompose the amplitude of the timedependent part of the potential
on the hull surface where the hull is defined by F(x',y_',z') = ~ with (x',y',z') a coordinate system fixed 111 the ship, and
Dp D (0<1> 1 \ )
}Jt = p 15t bt + 2 '17<1'12 + gz = 0 (84)
on the u,nknown fr~e surface given by z = Z(x,y;t), plus s~ltable ra~!at!on conditions at infinity. 20 Here g IS the gravitational acceleration and p is the mass density of the fluid.
Separating the velocity potential cf?(x,y,z;t) into t",:,o p~rts, one the timeindependent steady contribution due to t~e forward motion of the ship a~d the o~h~r the timedependent part associated With the incident wave system and the unsteady body motion, we get
q'(X,)',z;t) = [ Ux + ¢s(x,y,z) 1
+ ¢7·(x,y,z)ei",t (85)
Here  Ux + ¢s is the steady contribution with U th: forward speed of the ship, ¢7' is the complex amplitude of the unsteady potential, and U) is the frequency of encounter in the moving reference
t" I~llt!lis work, "exact" in quotation marks refers to ex
ac W1t lin the potentialflow theory. .
.. Here the substantial derivative is given by IJ_ = .Q_
+ \7<1>'\7. Dt 01
f>
¢T = tPl + ¢/) + I: rj¢j (86)
j=l
where tPl is the incident wave potential, tPD is the diffraction potential, and f/Jj is the contribution to the velocity potential from the )th mode of motion.
Including ?nly linear terms and applying Taylor expansions about the meanhull position in the hull condition (83) and about the undisturbed free surface, z = 0 in the freesurface condition (~4), it can b~ shown that the individual potentials must satisfy the following linear boundary conditions:
~. The steady perturbation potential, tP8 must satisfy the body condition
a
on [ Ux + ¢sl = 0 on the hull at mean position
(87)
and the freesurface condition
Ship Motions and Sea Loads
21
U2 02cpS + g OCPS = 0 on z = 0 (Sg)
Ox~ zQ
b. The incident wave potential, cp) and the diffraction potential, CPo must satisfy
Ocp, + OCPo on on
() on the hull at mean position
(R9)
and
0011 Z = () (90)
c. The oscillatory potential components, cPj (j = 1, 2 ... 6), must satisfy
OCPj .
on = Iwn) + Um, on the hull at mean position
(91 )
and
(. 0)2 0
1,w  U ox cPj + g oz cP j = U on s = ()
where the generalized normal, n]1 is defined by
(nl,nZ,tla) = nand (n.l,n;"ns) = r X n (9;3) with n the outward unit normal vector and r the position vector with respect to the origin of the coordinate system and where tnj = 0 for j = ],2, 3,4 while
The hull condition (91) can be further simplified by dividing the oscillatory potential into two parts
U
cPj = cp/ +: cP/ (95)
!w
where cpo will be shown to be speed independent.
This results in the two hull conditions
ocpl. orp/,
~ = twnjHnd ; = lWnj (96)
un un
Now since both cpl and cP/' must satisfy the Laplace equation, the same freesurface condition, (92) and the same infinity conditions, 2 1 it follows from the hull conditions (96) and the relationships (94) that <:PI' = () for j = 1,2, :3, ib and that
<:PrY = CP30 while Q)6U =  cPzo (97)
21 For the case of finite depth also the same buttom con
dition. '
Thus, we see that the oscillatory potential components can be expressed in terms of the speedindependent part of the potential, cpl. as
C(
Ii
H
<:Pi = <:pl for j = I, 2, 3, 4 C9S)
u <:p:, = ¢,,o + : cPao tw
H tl
(99)
(lOU)
a
g
where ¢l (j tions
1. 2 ... (j) must satisfy the condi
\\
ocPl On
iwnj on the mean hull position (101)
J
and
(
() on z = 0
(102)
(02)
In addition to these linear boundary conditions the potentials <:Ps, cPl' <:PD, and <:PJ must each satisfy the Laplace equation in the fluid domain and the appropriate conditions at infinity.
This completes the formulation of the linear conditions on the potentials. The next step is to obtain the hydrodynamic forces and moments acting on the hull. By Bernoulli's equation the pressure in the fluid is
If the pressure is expanded in a Taylor series about the undisturbed position of the hull and the pres" sure expression is then linearized by including only terms to first order in <Ps and <:P7', it follows (ignoring the steady pressure terms) that the linearized timedependent pressure on the hull is
/) =  p(iw  U ~'"C) cPTCiw(
 pg(r:~ + flY  r 5X )eiw' ( IU+)
where within the accuracy of the linearization the pressure call be conveniently evaluated at the undisturbed position of the hull. The last term ill equation (104) gives the ordinary buoyancy rcstoring force and moment which shall be ignored ill this appendix. 22 Integration of the pressure (HH) (ignoring the buoyancy term) over the hull surface yields the hydrodynamic force and moment amplitudes:
~z .The buoy.ancy: effect is ~!lduded in the hydrosta tic rcstortng coefficient 111 the main text of the paper.
Ship Motions and Sea Loads
cumpeed
(09)
( lOO)
:ondi
(101 )
(102)
litious .atis" id ti.;
linear ) is to ments )!1 the
(1m)
about ~ presg only :ignor.arized
([l.I • \
01\ the he unzrm 111 cy reired in ~ (104) .urface 0111cnt
·atic rc
n, = p IE n{iw  U :''l}h,dS,
j = 1, 2 ... 6 (105)
Here the integration is over the mean position of the hull surface S, and HI, H2, H~ are the force components in the x, y, z directions while lh Hs. H6 are the moments about the x, y, z axes. By applying equation (86) the force and moment can be divided into two parts as
(106)
Hj = Fj + Gj where F, is the exciting force and moment:
r, = p IIsnj(iw V !)(rPI + rPn)ds (107)
and G, is the force and moment due to the six degrees of body motion:
U ~) t SkrPkds
ux k=l
G
= I: re, (108)
kcl
terms of the oscillatory potential rPl: (k = 1, 2 .. , 6) integrated over the hull surface. The relationship for the coefficients will now be reduced to integrals over the length of the ship of the sectional twodimensional added mass and damping.
First we shall need a variant of Stokes' theorem.
A wellknown form of Stokes' theorem (MilneThomson, § 2.50) is
I Is (n X \7) X qds = i. 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 function and dl is the direction element of arc C. Applying (112) to the portion of the hull surface S forward of cross sections Cx, the closed curve C will consist of Cx plus the waterline forward of the sections. N ow by letting q = rP Vi (for the case j = 1,2,3) and q = rPUi X r (for the casej = 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:
V r nj¢dl J c,
(113)
Here Tjk denotes the hydrodynamic force and moment in the jth direction per nnit oscillatory displacement in the kth mode:
r ; =  p Ii nj(iw  U :X)r.f>kdS (109) After separating Tjk into real and imaginary parts as
where ¢ is a differentiable scalar function. Here the line integral along the waterline has been ignored by assuming that the angle between the waterline and the xaxis is small.
Applying (113) in the relationship for the addedmass and damping coefficients (109). we have
 piw IL njrPkds
+ Up IIs mjrPkds 
(114)
Tjk = w2AJ!:  iwBjk (110)
the equation of motion can be written in the form
[;
L [w2(Mjk + A jk) + iwB jk
k=l
where CA refers to the afterrnost cross section of the ship. Now in view of equation (95) we may define the speedindependent part of Tjk as
Tjko =  piw I1: njrPkods (115)
and the speedindependent part of the line integral at any cross section C" as
tjk =  piw r njrPkods (116)
Jar
The addedmass and damping coefficients (114) can now be expressed interms, of the speedindependent terms (115) and(116) by applying the expressions for thepotential (9S) , (99), and (100). It follows that for j,k = 1, 2, 3, 4
Ship Motions and Sea Loads
23
where Atljk is the generalized mass matrix for the ship, Ajk and Bjk are the addedmass and damping coefficients. and Cjk are the hydrostatic restoring coefficients resulting from the buoyancy term in the pressure equation (104).
The problem left is to determine the addedmass and damping coefficients [given by the real and imaginary part of (109) 1 and the exciting force and moment (107). The coefficients will be derived first and then the exciting force and moment will be obtained.
Hydrodynamic Coefficients
The hydrodynamic coefficients in the equations of motion were expressed in equation (109) ill
where ljk'[ refers to the line integral (II [i) evaluated at the aftermost section.
For j = 5, () and k = I, 2, :~, ~
T., ... = T If  !!. T U + !!. t ,1 (118)
,. 10k • .Ik • ok
~(,) 1(')
For j = I, 2, ;3, + and k = fi, (\
For j = k = .5, G
U' U U2
1':,:, = 1' •. ;0 + C T () +;_ tr""l  =; 1;,:(1
'(,)2 ~:! 1(') w·
(122)
the end terms, tjk'[, in the coefficients (117) through (123) are not a result of applying "striptheory" approximations but rather stem from the line integral in the Stokes theorem (112).
The speeddependent coefficients have been expressed in equations (117) through (123) in terms of the speedindependent surface integral (115) and line integral (llo). The next step is to simplify further the zerospeed terms to a form suitable for a numerical evaluation. This can best be obtained by applying the following "striptheory" approximations. If we consider that the beam and the draft of the ship are much smaller than her length (i.e., the hull is long and slender), then it is consistent with the previous assumptions to set ds = d~dl in the surface integral (115). so that
Tjko =  piw r r nj1>"udlrU; = r t,ikd€ (125)
J .i; J L
where L means that the integration is over the length of the ship and € is the variable of integration in the xdirection. Here 1>,,0 is the oscillatory potential satisfying, in addition to the threedimensional Laplace equation, the hull condition (101), the freesurface condition (102), and the appropriate infinity conditions. Since the hull is assumed to be long and slender it follows that in the neighborhood of the hull %x « %y or %z. It also follows that the component of the hull normal in the xdirection is much smaller than the normal components in the y and zdirections
(J:2[i)
twotion der surf
whe dim hull
giVE
whi
wlu adc hea sec'
Itf dar be sio /.:1,
lat
CO(
7' T 0 + U2 T 0 + U t ,1 + U2 I .!
I'm = 66 ;; 22 : ·1i6 26£
w 1w w
( 122)
so that we may replace three of the components of the threedimensional generalized normal, n/j = 2, :3, 4), with the twodimensional generalized normal in the yz plane, N, (j = 2, a, 4), and set
n; = +x N« and 11r. = xI'v'~ (127)
In order to reduce the freesurface condition (102), it will be necessary to assume that the frequency of encounter is high, w » U C%x), which requires that the wave length is approximately of the same order as the ship beam. This is a very critical assumption and it makes the theoretical justification for the strip theory somewhat questionable in the lowfrequency range. 2[,
Under these assumptions the threedimensional Laplace equation and the boundary conditions to be satisfied by (M for k = 2, :3, 4 reduce to the
In obtaining equations (122) and (12:1) the following symmetry relationship [or the zerospeed coefficients
(124)
has been applied.>" The proof of this symmetry relati.onship is easily shown by introducing the hull condition (101) in the equati.on for the zerospeed coefficients (115) and then applying Green's theorem [see equation (143) I.
It should be emphasized that in the derivation of shipmotion strip theories it has been customary to apply the "striptheory" assumptions in the initial formulation of the problem, while in the present derivation no "striptheory" assumptions have been made to this point apart from the a priori assumption that the geometry of the hull is such that there is no coupling between the steady perturbation field and the unsteady field. That is, the coefficients in the equations of motion including the forwardspeed terms are in principle valid for quite bluff bodies, e.g., spheres. In fact, the results to this point are exact within linear potential theory for bluff bodies at zero forward specd.>' In particular it is important to note that
2~ Relationships for 1'.6 and 1'6:. have not beeu giveu since they will not be needed in this work.
2' Newman (1970) has shown that within linear potentialflow theory there is no interaction between the steady and unsteady flow field for a bluff body in an infinite fluid.
,I, Note that in spite or this restriction the heave and pitch motions are very accurately predictC'd by the derived theory in the lowfrequency range (the longwave range) since these motions are dominated by the hydrostntic restoring forces in this frequency range.
Ship Motions and Sea Loads
wI sh co (t2
(1
117) ripthe
ex.rrns
115) simmitt be iry' earn .han .hen S to that
125)
the gratory edition
the ,11 IS It in y or
the .han ions
120)
ts of
j =
nor
127) 02), ency nres
i .ame
tical ficaIe in
anal IS to . the
alld rived luge) ic re
twodimensional Laplace equation and the conditions for the twodimensional problem of a cylinder with cross section ex oscillating In the free surface, so that we may set at a given cross section
r./>kO = y,,1; for k = 2, ;3, 4 (128)
where if/k is the potential for the sectional twodimensional problem. It also follows from the hull condition (101) and equation (127) that at a given section
r./>r,U =  xy",! and <P60 = Xy,,2 (129)
while cf>11I « r./>ko (k = 2, ;:l . ,. G).
Hence, we see that for i = 2, ;~, 4,
tjJ = + pu» r Njif//il = W2(1)j  iwvjj (laO) JCr
where ajj and Vjj are the sectional twodimensional addedmass and damping coefficients for sway, heave, and roll (j = 2, 3, and 4). Similarly, the sectional swayroll crosscoupling coefficient is
t~~ =  piw r N2if/,ldl = W2(hl  iwb2'1 (131) Jc
It follows now that the zerospeed addedmass and damping coefficients, Tjko = w2_;j }kO  iwB1ko, can be expressed in terms of the sectional twodimensional addedmass and damping coefficients, in, {:I:I, /44, and t24•2r. If we consider only ships with lateral symmetry we find that the only nonzero coefficients are
1 '22" = Jt2zdf;
T2.o = 1 ~2fi = Jf;122d~ 1'6fio = Jetndf;
1'sl = Jta3df;
T:i} = T,,;o =  Jf;t:13df;
THO = Jt,14df;
1'21" = I'wO = fh,df; T~60 = 'l'I;,O = nt2.ld~
where the integrations are over the length of the ship. The numerical techniques available for computing the sectional added mass and damping (t22, tss, t44 and t24) are discussed in Appendix 2 .
Finally, introducing equations (130), (131), and (1 ;32) into the expressions for T/I.:' (117) through
~. Similarly, the end terms t,kA can be expressed in terms or to" hJ, tH, and t24,
(123), and recalling that Til.: = w2AjJ.:  iwBjk enables the addedmass and damping coefficients, Aj!.: and Bjb to be expressed in terms of the sectional added mass and damping, ajk and bj!.:, integrated over the length of the ship. These final relationships for the addedmass and damping coefficients are stated in the main text, equations (7) through (14) and equations (39) through (54).
Exciting Force and Moment
The exciting force and moment as expressed in equation (107) are
r, =  p II .. n{iw  U :x) (r./>/ + rf>D)ds,
j = 1, 2 .. , () (1:38)
It will be most convenient here to separate the exciting force into two parts: the incident wave part, P/, and the diffraction part, Fl, so that
(134)
with
and
F/ =  P I f'i 1Zj (iw  U o~}PDds (t;H'l)
In accordance with classical linear gravitywave theory, the potential for the incident wave satisfying the freesurface condition (90) is
rp I = t.g ex e  ik(xcos/t  ysintl) ekz Wo
(137)
where ex is the wave amplitude, k is the wave nU1I1 ber, f3 is the heading angle (f3 = () for following waves), and Wo = Vgk is the wave frequency which is related to the frequency of encounter w by
Wo = w + kUcosf]
(188)
Introducing the wave potential (137) in the expression for the incident wave part of the exciting force and moment (135) gives
F/ =  pi I Is nj(w + Ukcos(3)rf>rds (139) Equation (138) reduces this to
F/ = piwo IIs 1Zicf>lds (140)
which is the wellknown FroudeKriloff force and moment, and can be computed easily. Now, re
Ship Motions and Sea Loads
25
turning to the diffraction part of the exciting force and moment (136), application of the Stokes theorem (113) gives
FP =  p lis (iwnj  Umj)cpDds
 pU f nA,})dl (141) JCA
The hull condition (96) states that
. o¢l d s ocpF
lWnj = on an lWmj = on
After introducing these conditions in (141) we find that
Fl =  p lIs :n (<pl  ~ CPF)¢DdS
 p_U IOCPl CPDdl (142)
lw on
For any two functions cP and", satisfying the same Laplace equation, the freesurface condition (92), the radiation condition at infinity, and the "bottom" condition, we find by using Green's second identity, that
If cP ~ ds = If '" ocp ds (143)
s on .s on
Since this relationship is also valid for the twodimensional case, it can be applied to both the surface integral and the line integral in (142) so that
F/ =  p If (cp/  !I cpju)ocp/) ds
s u» 011
_ P/! f. cpil 0cf>_E dt (144.) u» J Cl . on
Theil use of the hull boundary condition (::9), i.e., 0cf>J) = _ OCPl
On On
shows that the diffraction part of the exciting force and moment becomes
F/ = p If (cp/,  ~ cpF)Ocf>J ds
S '/w on
+ p.U f. cf>l OCPl til (t45)
u» J Ct On
Now by equation (!)7) , cp/.; = ¢3U and cpsU = ,M1 while ¢/ = o for ) = 1,2,3, '1. Using these relationships in equation (145) and combining equations (140) and (145), we find that the total exciting force and moment are
Pj =  p lIs {iwonjcp,  ~t cf>l}dS
=F [p.U If OCPI cpa.zOds] + ~u f OCPl f/lldl
~w s on }=5,6 UJJ J CA on
(146)
where the minus sign goes with) = 5 and the plus sign withj = 6, and where cp] is given by equation (137) and
~~ = (in2sin,8 + n3)kcpI After introducing (137) and (147) in equation (146) and setting ds = dld~ we find that
(147)
r, = pa IL eik~co5(3 i.~ eikYSiD13ekz{gnj
+ WO(in3  n.2sin,8)¢l "f' Wo ~ I (ina  1t2sinfl) ~1.tJ
X f/l3'2oJj=5'6}dld~ + ~ woeik.<co513 f eikY5;n(3ekZ
1w JCA
X (in3  nzsin,8)f/lpdl (148)
Use of the relationships resulting from the "strip theory" assumption (127, 128, 129) and defining the sectional FroudeKriloff "force" by
j=2,3,4 (149)
and the sectional diffraction "force" by /lj(x) = woeikxco<(3 f (iNa  Nzsin,B)
Cr
X eikysinl3ekzth dl; i = 2, 3, 4 (150) enables the exciting force and moment to be written in the final desired form
r, = po: fL (jj + hj)d~ + pee ~ hl;
j=2,3,4 ([51)
F,  oa f [Hi:, + ha) + ~ h3JdE
J L jW
r; pee fL [Hh + hz) + ~ h2}E
U
+ pa'; x.1h2A (15:3) ~w
while F1« Fk (k = 2, :3 ... 6). Here h/ refers to
Ship Motions and Sea Loads
71)..;) ~ poten probl. (151, straig soluti cusse
TwoDam
Tl and sioru each plies tion qua: tain in t the con
11 in 1 exp adc «(12; sws
am twFn
COl ely
III ne T:
VI ot 11l
( [52)
11, d:
r
(146) = plus ation
(147)
ation
(148)
strip ining
)49)
150)
.vrit
151)
152)
s to
hi(x) evaluated at the aftermost section. With the potential v, (j = 2, 3, 4) for the twodimensional problem known, the exciting force and moment (L51, 152, 153) can now be obtained by straightforward integration. Known numerical solutions for the twodimensional problem are discussed in Appendix 2.
Appendix 2
TwoDimensional Sectional Added Mass, Damping, and Excitation
The first step in computing the ship motions and the sea loads is to determine the twodimensional added mass, damping, and excitation for each of the ship sections. This is the most complicated and timeconsuming part of the computation. Since accurate estimates for these sectional quantities are absolutely necessary in order to obtain useful final results, a discussion is presented in this appendix of available methods for solving the twodimensional problem together with a comparison between theory and experiments.
More specifically, the hydrodynamic coefficients in the equations of motion, Aik and Bjk, are all expressed in terms of twodimensional sectional addedmass and damping coefficients for sway ((122, b22), heave (a3;1, bail), roll (a44' b.H), and coupled swayroll (a24' b24). Similarly, the exciting forces and moments, Fj, are expressed in terms of the twodimensional excitation: the sectional FroudeKriloff and diffraction "forces," I] and hj.
There are three methods commonly in use for computing these twodimensional sectional hydrodynamic quantities:
1. The Lewisform method
ii. The TasaiPorter closefit mapping method iii. The Frank closefit sourcedistribution
method.
In all three methods the viscous effects are iguored and linear waterwave theory is applied. The 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. Having determined the velocity potential, the added mass. clamping, and excitation can be obtained by integrating the pressures given by the Bernoulli equation. The essential difference between these three methods is in the way the cylinderwall condition is satisfied.t?
In the first method, the geometrical shape of the section is mathematically represented by the Lewis form'" which 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 many common shipsection 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 Frank and Salvesen (1970). In the TasaiPorter closefit mapping method the ship sections are conformally mapped into a circle by applying a mapping function with as many coefficients as necessary in order to get the desired closefit accuracy [Tasai (1960) and Porter (1960)]. Originally, there were some difficulties in determining the mapping coefficients and it was in 1967 that the method was first applied successfully te compute the motions for arbitrary hull forms IW. E. Smith, (1967)]. In the last method, the Frank closefit sourcedistribution method [Frank, (1967)], the shape of the section is represented by a given number of offset points (about eight to twelve points) with straightline segments between the points. The velocity potential is obtained by distributing pulsating source singularities with constant strength over each of the straight segments.P This method, in its original form, broke down in the veryhighfrequency range at certain "irregular" frequencies. However, Faltinsen (1969a) has shown that this difficulty can be avoided by applying a numerical fairing technique.
Generally speaking, it can be stated that both closefit methods apply with very satisfactory accuracy to practically any section shape and seem to be equally suited for shipmotion computations. One should note, on the other hand, that both closefit methods require much more computer time than the Lewisform method.
Turning now to the comparison between theory and experiments, Fig. 17 shows the sectional added mass and damping for sway, heave. roll, and coupled swayroll, while Fig. 18 shows the sectional swayexciting force and rollexciting moment for beam seas. The theoretical values have been computed by the Frank closefit method" and the experiments have been con
28 The Lewis forms are named after Professor F, M.
Lewis, M.LT., who first applied these forms in his shipvibration work (TRANS. SNAME 1954).
29 For a more detailed discussion of the application of this method to shipmotion computations, see Brank and
Salvesen (1970). .
ao Since the authors are most familiar with the Frank method, this method has been used in all the numerical results presented in this paper.
Ship Motions and Sea Loads
27
21 Faltinsen (1969b) has given a detailed numerical comparison of the three techniques.
THEORY
0000 EXPERIMENTS (VUGTS, 1968)
1.5
0
0 / ~
.....; Va \
0 \
0 i\,
,
?Q. 0 0 o 0
0
0 \
r, ('I 10 0
0
0° 08 00
0
5 ~ o O.OS}
~g~ o 0.10 ROLL AMPL IN RAD
00.15
o cr ~
o ( goo I.
DO o ~ 0 g 8 0 ¢ 0 okl ~ fl
5 u 0 C 0
0 DC 0
0
0 .. .. , .. _..
o SWAY lNTO ROLL If 00 000
o ROLL INTO SWAY
0 IJO
0 0 J
...;, ~ V
0 l.0
v; 2.0
~
'" 00
WOO
g~ 1.0 ... ::: w •
~
w
'"
M~ 0.07
a.
.... ~ ~ .
~. 0.05
~
'" o
w o o
"" ..J
..J a
'"
0,02
N OJ o
\
.
:~f ,,"0.1
"" '" o
w o
'" "" 0.2
:J
'" '" ,_
~ 0.3 0
0.50 0.75 l.00
FREQUENCY, ",JB729
us
0.25
CROSS SECTION, BID ~2_0
1.$0
OO_a_
I ... ~
00
K
If
J
I
, ..00.
00 ~o ,
c;I III
JI ~ ~
o 0
00.05 }
o 0.10 ROLL AMPL IN RAO
00.15 n" 01:10 ~ " 0 C 0
5 c~ ~ ~
c ia.aJ3 s
0 ,
0 o 0 r\ ci SWAY IN10 ROLL
• ROLL INTO SWAY
5
a ~ V
0\. :
o .}o o 0
5 t" o <l
0 0
00
0 ~
o
~ 1.00
...
'" '"
0: 0.50
~
'" ,_
""
~
~. ~
~ ~ 0.25
w .... > M "'" M W ...
:r
0,050
~
OJ o a. 0.0
}:
'"
z
;;: 0,1
'" ...
o ..J ..J
~ 0.1
,_
~
1.50
0,2 o
0,25
0,50 0,75 l.00
FREOUENCY. ",.JB729
1.25
Fig. 17 Twodimensional addedmass and damping coefficients for sway, heave, roll, and swayroll
ducted at the Technische Hogeschool in Delft by 1 H. Vugts (l968b). All of the comparisons shown are for a cylinder with a rectangular cross section with rounded bilges and beamdraft ratio equal to two; in other words, the section shape is quite similar to the midship section for a highblockcoefficient ship.
It is seen in Fig. 17 that the agreement between theory and experiment in general is very satisfactory. Noticeable discrepancy is found only in a couple of places. For the heave added mass and
damping, a large discrepancy between theory and experiment is seen in the verylowfrequency range. This is most likely due to experimental errors, as pointed out by Vugts (1968b). However, the vertical motions in the verylowfrequency range (the longwave range) are dominated by the hydrostatic forces so that any error in the added mass or damping in this frequency range has practically no effect on the computed motions or sea loads. Large discrepancies between theory and experiment are also seen for the roll added
Ship Motions and Sea Loads
1.50
Fi
mass Vugt error is toe rease dam; theo: viscc and with heav
It peril for c twe€ "rol prec be t and the cien
Il exp ing It i:
I has tiOI agr pre the ciei efft cur ter effi me
Sh
fOl at dt:
fa eq fo t11
1.50
yand iency rental Howvfrcaated n the range .tions leory idded
mass and damping in the entire frequency range, Vugts states that, owing to the experimental errors, he feels that" the measured roll added mass is too small," and it is felt that this may be a major reason for this discrepancy. As far as the roll damping is concerned, the difference between theory and experiment is believed to be caused by viscous effects. For the case of roll added mass and damping one also notes some nonlinearity with respect to roll amplitude, For the sway and heave cases, such nonlinearity was not present.
It is interesting to note in Fig. 17 that the experimental values for added mass and damping for coupled swayroll clearly show a difference between the case of "sway into roll" and the case of "roll into sway," while our linear potential theory predicts that the hydrodynamic coefficients should be the same for these two cases; namely a24 = a42 and b21 = b42• However, in spite of this difference, the theory seems to predict the coupled coefficients witb sufficient accuracy.
In Fig. 18 a comparison between theory and experiment is shown for the sectional swayexciting force and rollexciting moment for beam seas. It is seen that the agreement is extremely good.
It should be pointed out that Vugts (1968b) also has conducted experiments for several other section shapes and comparison with theory shows agreement similar to what is found for the cases presented here. It seems reasonable to conclude, therefore, that, except for the roll damping coefficient which is noticeably influenced by viscous effects, the linear potentialflow theory with accurate section representation can be used in determining the twodimensional hydrodynamic coefficients which are needed in computing the ship motions and sea loads.
Appendix 3
Shear Force and Bending Moment
In this appendix the part of the sectional shear force and bending and torsional moments associated with the hydrodynamic force and moment due to the body motion is derived,
If we consider only the portion of the hull surface, S*, forward of a given cross section, C"" equation (108) shows that the hydrodynamic force and moment due to the six degrees of body motion are
Fig. 18
Twodimensional swayexciting force and IL rollexciting moment ".
u :) ±: rfP/is
uX j=l
(154)
Here the asterisk refers to the portion of the hull forward of c,. and the generalized normal and the moment are with respect to the section, Ce.
Application of the Stokes theorem (113) shows that
2.00
to
'"
<,
'"
"
+ '"
",' un
u
'"
0
u..
'"
z
i=
U 1.00
x
w
>
<
~
0,50 2.50
~ \ I
 THEORY
o EXPERIMENTS
(VUGTS. 1968~
\
\
\
,
~

l:S '\
\
1\
.
~
• 2.50
2,00
~ ...
;:,. 1.50
1' z
'"
s
'" '" z
i= 1.00
9
w
' .J o
'"
0,50
o 0.25
0.50
0.75 FREQUENCy,,,,rang
1.00
1.25
Ship Motions and Sea Loads
29
Now setting ds = dld~, we have
G/ = p ± tk {iw r r n/cpkdld~
k=l Jr.*Jc
+ u r r mlPkdld~  U r nj*cp"dl} (156)
JL*JC, Jc.
Here L * is the length of the hull forward of cross section e". If the "striptheory" assumptions are introduced, as in Appendix 1, it follows that the six components of the generalized threedimensional normal can be expressed in terms of the twodimensional general N, in the form
n/ = (0, N2, N3, N4,
 (t  x)N:1, (~  x)Nz) (157)
and the velocity potential at a given section can be expressed in terms of the twodimensional potential, if;k (k = 2, 3, 4), as
CPl '"' 0 and cp" = if;,,; k = 2,3,4
(158)
Use of equations (157) and (158) in equation (156) enables the force and moment amplitudes to be expressed in terms of the sectional line integral
tj/o =  piw Ie Nj1/'kdl; j,k = 2,3,4 (159) The force amplitude components are
and the moment amplitude components are
G4* = IL* {(t2 + ~t6  Z tfi}24 + t4tH } d~
+ ~ [(t2 + ~tG  ~ t6)t24 + t4t44] (162)
tw 1w ~=X
G.* =  r (~ X)(t3  tt5)t33d~ ) 1.*
+ ~ (t3 + xt.  ~ to) f t33d~ (163)
~w u» )1.*
G6* = f I (t  X)(t2 + ~tO)t22 + (~  x)t4bld~ ) L"
+ ~ (t 2 + xt 6  ~ r 6) f tz2d€
u» tw )1.*
One may go one step further and express these force and moment components in terms of real variables. If we let
D, = ReG/eiw/ and Tlj = ReLiwl (165) and use W2(£jk  iwbjk = tjk, the hydrodynamic force and moment due to the body motion are those presently in the main text of the paper, equations (78) through (82), in terms of the velocity and acceleration, 1)j and iii> and the sectional addedmass and damping coefficients, ajk and bi".
Ship Motions and Sea Loads
This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
Use one of your book credits to continue reading from where you left off, or restart the preview.