The Influence of Hull Form On The Motions of High Speed Vessels in Head Seas

Ocean Engineering 30 (2003) 2091–2115
www.elsevier.com/locate/oceaneng
The influence of hull form on the motions of

high speed vessels in head seas
M.R. Davis ∗, D.S. Holloway
University of Tasmania, Box 252-65, Hobart, Australia 7001
Received 24 December 2002; accepted 15 January 2003
Abstract
Prediction of ship motions at high Froude number is carried out using a time domain strip
theory in which the unsteady hydrodynamic problem is treated in terms of the motion of fixed
strips of the water as hull sections pass through it. The Green function solution is described
and the integration of the ship motion carried out by an averaging method to ensure stability
of the solution. The method is validated by comparison with tank data for conventional slender
hulls suitable for catamarans, small water area twin hull (SWATH) forms and hulls suitable
for high-speed monohulls. Motion computations are then carried out for 14 designs with an
operating speed of 40 kts and a displacement of 1000 tonnes. The vessels are assumed not to
be fitted with motion control systems for the purposes of this comparative study. Motion
sickness incidence is predicted to rise to between 42 and 72% depending upon the hull design
in 3 m head seas of average period 7.5 s. MSI values reduce in smaller seas with a shorter
average period to be less than 15% in all cases in 1m seas with an average period of 5.5 s.
 2003 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Seakeeping; Wave response; Motion sickness; Hull form; High-speed
1. Introduction
The advent of high speed light weight ferries has introduced a higher range of
operating Froude numbers to transportation and associated with this has been an
increase in ship motions relative to wave height (Bonafoux et al., 2001; Bruzzone
et al., 2001). This comes about because the Froude number has entered the range
∗
Corresponding author. Tel.: +61-36226-2074; fax: +61-3-6226-7247.
E-mail address: M.R.Davis@utas.edu.au (M.R. Davis).
0029-8018/$ - see front matter  2003 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/S0029-8018(03)00045-3
2092 M.R. Davis, D.S. Holloway / Ocean Engineering 30 (2003) 2091–2115
Nomenclature
Ai,j influence matrix coefficient
B beam
B33 ship heave damping
CS sectional force coefficient
c source complex coordinate
D damping force per unit length
F3, F5 global force (heave, pitch)
U
Fr Froude number
√gL
g acceleration due to gravity
Hw wave height
I5 pitch moment of inertia
L vessel length
LCB centre of buoyancy
LCF centre of flotation
M ship hull mass
n̂, nz unit normal vector and z component
ns number of sections
p pressure
Q panel method source strength
Ri velocity boundary condition vector element
t,> ⌬t time, time step size
v, u, v local velocity vector and x, y components
U> ship forward speed
V (V) a velocity vector (magnitude)
Wi,j = u⫺iv complex velocity
x, y, z 3D coordinates in forward, port and upward directions relative to
ship centre of mass
z complex coordinate x + iy
a hull slope at collocation point
b source panel slope
f flow potential function
r density
we, w0 angular frequency (encounter, wave)
w∗ dimensionless frequency = w√L / g
x3, x5 heave, pitch
M.R. Davis, D.S. Holloway / Ocean Engineering 30 (2003) 2091–2115 2093
above 0.4, where the heave motion begins to show a resonant response with values
of the heave RAO significantly in excess of unity. Whilst the introduction of ride
controls has somewhat reduced the severity of motions in some cases, there has been
considerable interest in the underlying effect of hull form on the ship motions. Many
designs adopted by the industry have been simplified with relatively hard chines so
as to make construction less complex. However, some designs have much more
rounded hull sections in the bilge area. Also the form of the keel from bow to stern
varies between designs, some having maximum draught at the stern with others hav-
ing a reduced draught at the stern. In the bow area some keel lines rise sharply to
the stem whilst others rise over a longer distance. In addition, SWATH or semi-
SWATH hull forms have been adopted in order to reduce the magnitude of motions
particularly in the forward parts of the vessel. This has not been without its problems,
as a softer bow end response can also make the vessel more prone to deck diving.
This has also encouraged the introduction of centre bows where reserve buoyancy
in the forward sections has been incorporated well above the waterline to provide
protection against deck diving in following seas.
Given the variety of slender hull designs used for high-speed vessels, the extent
to which overall design influences motion response is not clear. The objective of
this paper is to investigate the extent to which hull design can influence the sea-
keeping response. In order to make such a comparison a computational method that
is valid at high Froude numbers is required. Holloway and Davis (1998, 2001, 2002)
have developed a time domain method based on a strip solution in a fixed spatial
frame of reference which is valid at high Froude number. Validations of this method
are presented in the present paper for a variety of hull forms where tank test data
are available. The method is then applied to a broader set of hull forms to include
some hypothetical designs and designs which are representative of typical hull forms
in service. However, none of the designs corresponds exactly to any particular full-
scale vessel. Therefore the validations are limited to tank test models which generally
had a length between 1.6 and 5 m. The focus of this paper is the head sea sea-
keeping response and no attempt is made to evaluate the efficiency of the designs
considered with respect to resistance. The comparative study is based on a 1000
tonne displacement vessel operating at 40 kts.
2. Computational method: time domain strip theory
The computation of ship motion in waves is usually carried out in a reference

frame fixed in the moving ship this making possible solutions in the frequency
domain. Whilst the moving reference frame ideally requires forward speed terms in
the free surface boundary condition, when solutions are carried out for hull cross-
sections in isolation in order to define sectional added mass and damping terms, x
derivatives cannot be included. Thus such frequency domain solutions are valid only
at zero or low speed. At high speed, if the hull is slender, water particles will move
predominantly in planes perpendicular to the direction of travel of the hull. Thus
solutions of the Laplace equations in two dimensions will be valid and the generated
waves will be short compared to the ship length at frequencies near to the heave
and pitch resonance where maximum motions occur provided the Froude number is
not small. For these reasons solutions of the motion of thin strips of the water mass
set at right angles to the ship direction of travel can be carried out on a two dimen-
sional basis. Thus, to apply strip theory at high speeds the reference frame for sol-
utions is fixed in absolute space rather than moving with the average forward speed
∂2f ∂f
of the ship. In such solutions the free surface boundary condition ( 2 + g = 0)
∂t ∂y
can be exactly satisfied, the only two-dimensional approximation being the use of
the two dimensional Laplace equation as in all strip theories. This extends the range
of validity of the strip theory with regard to ship speed, which becomes unlimited
in terms of the hydrodynamic assumptions.
Solutions are therefore carried out for strips of water (as distinct from strips of
the hull) in an absolute reference frame and through which the ship passes. Interac-
tions between strips are not significant and each strip is initially undisturbed before
the bow penetrates it. Thereafter the impulsive response of the water is calculated
as the ship hull passes through. The flow for these water strips is transient, even if
the ship motion is periodic. Therefore a time domain Green function panel method
forms the basis for solving the motion of each cross section of arbitrary shape moving
relative to stationary strips of water as the hull passes through. Radiated and dif-
fracted waves are solved simultaneously and as the stern exits each strip that strip
is no longer required for the computations. The total number of strips remains con-
stant as a new strip is established in the computation at the bow and another is
discarded at the stern. Radiated waves do not extend infinitely in both lateral direc-
tions as in conventional frequency domain strip theory when periodic sectional coef-
ficients are evaluated, but rather expand laterally in time from the hull. This raises
the question of how adequate the conventional added mass and damping concept is,
particularly for bow sections where disturbances due to the ship are confined to a
region close to the hull. The fixed reference frame equations are considerably simpler
than those fixed on the vessel and obviate the need to approximate the linear free
surface boundary condition in a moving reference frame.
The two-dimensional boundary element method is applied here on the basis of a
Green function that automatically satisfies the free surface boundary condition. Such
a Green function source potential is given by Wehausen and Laitone (1960) as
f(z,t) ⫽
Q(t)
2p
ln(z⫺c(t))⫺
Q(t)
2p
ln(z⫺c(t))⫺
g t
p 0 冕冕冑
Q(t)
⬁
0
1
gk
e⫺ik(z⫺c(t))sin
冋冑册
gk(t⫺t) dk dt
where Q is the source strength, and c is the source location and c its complex conju-
∂f
gate. The complex velocity W = u⫺iv is obtained by integrating over all sources.
∂z
For a source of locally uniform but unsteady strength distributed over boundary
element j with endpoints c1 and c2 the contribution to the velocity at collocation

point i at z is given by
冉冉冊冉冊冊冪冕冋册
2
Q ⫺ib z⫺c1 z⫺c1 g t ib(t) ew erfw w2
Wi,j ⫽ e ln ⫺eibln ⫺i e Q(t)
冑i(z⫺c)
dt
2p z⫺c2 z⫺c2 p 0 w1
where b = arg(c2⫺c1) is the slope of the source element. If the sources are distributed
piecewise
>
uniformly over a finite number of elements the body boundary condition,
V·n̂ = ⵜf·n̂, can then be represented at a discrete number of points in matrix form as
[A]{Q} ⫽ {R}.
Here the unknown source strengths at the current time step ({Q}) are separated from
the historical source strengths appearing in the convolution integral of Wi,j by putting
Ai,j ⫽ ⫺Im 再冋冉冊冉冊册冎

eia ⫺ib z⫺c1
2p
e ln
z⫺c2
⫺eibln
z⫺c1
z⫺c2
and
冦冤冘冘冋册冥冧
n n ⫺1 2
冪
t
> g ew erfw w2
Ri ⫽ V·n̂⫺Im eia i C⌬teib(t)Qj(t)
冑i(z⫺c)
,
pj ⫽ 1k ⫽ 0 w1
t
where t = k⌬t, nt = , a = slope of the hull surface at point i, C is a trapezoidal
⌬t
i(t⫺t) ⫺ig
冪
1
integration coefficient ( = for k = 0 or 1 otherwise), w = , w =
2 2 z⫺c k
w(ck(t)), and the source
>
strength
> >
history is approximated by discrete values at time
intervals ⌬t. Here V = v hull⫺v wave represents the local hull element velocity in a
stationary reference frame relative to the wave particle motion in the absence of the
hull, thus both the radiated and diffracted waves are treated together. If the number
of source elements and collocation points is identical the source strengths may then
be determined as [A]⫺1{R}.
Once source strengths are known, pressures can be determined in a similar manner,
∂f ∂f
given p = ⫺r , by integrating over an element and summing for all source
∂t ∂t
elements. The contribution at point i from a single element j can be shown to be
∂fi,j
∂t
⫽ Re 再
e⫺ib
2p
eib
[(Ak ⫹ (z⫺ck)B)ln(e⫺ig(z⫺ck))]2k=1⫺ [(Ak ⫹ (z⫺ck)B)ln(z
2p
⫺ck)]2k=1 ⫹
冑冕
2ig
p
t
0
eib(t)Q(t) 冕冉w2
w1
2
ew erfw ⫹
w冑p
1
冊冎 dw dt
dck(t) dQ db
where Ak = Q ,B=⫺ + iQ . The result is independent of g provided that
dt dt dt
the path of integration of the logarithm terms crosses the positive real axis, and this
1
2 冉冊
1
can be guaranteed by adopting g = arg z⫺ (c1(t) + c2(t)) if z ⫽ (c1(t) + c2(t)), or
2
冉arg(c2⫺c1) +
p
2 冊
otherwise.
Validation of this computational method is described in Holloway and Davis
(2002) by comparison with the wave-maker problem (Roberts, 1987) and the transi-
ent response of a floating cylinder (Yeung, 1982, and Maskell and Ursell, 1970), as
well as with steady and periodic boundary element solutions.
To evaluate the motion of the ship the instantaneous forces on the hull are obtained
by integration over its surface, F3 = 冕bow

fdx and F5 = 冕 bow
xfdx, where f =
冕
stern stern
∂f
⫺r nzdl, f is the potential function describing the flow field, nz is the vertical
section ∂t
component of the unit normal and l is an element of the wetted perimeter. The overall
rigid vessel equations of motion are then (taking an origin at the centre of mass)
[F3,wave ⫹ F3(x3,x5)] ⫽ Mẍ3
[F5,wave ⫹ F5(x3,x5)] ⫽ I5ẍ5
where all components of the hydrodynamic surface force are now on the left hand
side of these equations. The mass and inertia terms on the right hand side of these
equations are those of the ship alone and do not include any added mass or damping
terms. This formulation differs from conventional strip theory, but is a strip theory
in the sense that the three-dimensional problem is represented as a set of simpler
two-dimensional problems. The time step for solutions ⌬t is chosen in terms of the
⌬x
strip width ⌬x by U = . At each time step a new strip is added at the bow and
⌬t
the stern strip is discarded.
Assuming the ship to be rigid, the instantaneous acceleration of the hull is then
used to compute the ship motion by numerical integration through time. The hydro-
dynamic force on each panel of the hull surface was found from the boundary element
solution at each time instant, this involving the time history of ship and water motion
over prior time steps in terms of the convolution integrals. In this solution method
the hydrodynamic forces acting on the hull contain significant contributions that are
acceleration related. In effect there are implicit unknown acceleration terms on the
right hand side of the equation for the hull acceleration which can be associated
with an effective added mass of water. This can lead to instability of the integration
as in explicit forward difference integrations or in differential equation formulations
known as ‘stiff’. As the added mass is generally similar in magnitude to the displaced
mass, these effects are not small. In order to overcome this problem integration
is carried out using a weighted average of the hull acceleration obtained from the
hydrodynamic forces with the acceleration extrapolated over the previous time steps
as described in Holloway and Davis (2001) and Holloway (1998). Although neither
acceleration on its own leads to stable and accurate motion integration, the two have
errors of opposite sign and if combined in the right proportions lead to a stable and
accurate solution. The acceptable range of proportions of the two acceleration values
in the averaged result was shown to be between a fraction of 0.2 to 0.4 for the
hydrodynamically derived acceleration. It was found that errors due to the integration
stabilization with a hydrodynamic fraction of 0.2 were found to be much less than
1%. This was significantly less than the errors due to the use of 40 sections along
the hull length and 14 panels around each section which gave errors in the motion
solution approaching 3%.
Damping effects mainly influence the peak magnitudes of the response amplitude
operators, which are quite sensitive to various sources of damping. In addition to
radiated wave effects as predicted by strip theory, damping is also caused by vertical
forces associated with the Kutta condition at the transom (Nakos and Sclavounos,
1991, 1994; Cole, 1988; Faltinsen, 1993; Ulstein and Faltinsen, 1996), dissipative
forces due to skin friction and formation of separated wakes and surface wave break-
ing. In addition there may be energy extracted through three-dimensional hydrodyn-
amic wave effects and nonlinear effects, including interaction with the steady wave
system. To account for the various frictional dissipative effects a transverse (i.e.
1
vertical) damping force is introduced here on each section. This is D = C5rUvB,
2
where Cs is a force coefficient for the section, D is the vertical damping force per
unit length, B is the sectional beam, U the forward speed of the ship and v is the
vertical velocity of the section relative to the local water surface. Values of the
coefficient Cs were determined by matching the magnitude of the computed peak
response amplitude operator to that observed in tank or other physical tests. The
values required for Cs vary somewhat according to the particular hull under test, but
are generally modest and below a value of 0.15.
3. Hull forms and experimental validation of method
The hull forms selected for this comparative study fall into two groups. The first
group comprises forms where model tank test data is available. The second group
comprises designs produced for the purpose of making comparative performance
studies, some of which are relatively conventional, others being more innovative.
The hull forms considered also comprise eight relatively conventional high-speed
slender hulls suitable for catamaran vessels, three semi-SWATH hulls for suitable
catamaran vessels with reduced water-plane area and fully submerged bow sections,
a trihull and two slender hulls with a larger beam to draught ratio suitable for mono-
hull vessels. For reference purposes in this paper the hull forms have been numbered
as shown in Table 1. This table also shows the length of each hull form corresponding
to a displacement of 1000 tonnes and the corresponding Froude number if operated
at 40 kts. This displacement and speed have been selected as common to all the
2098
Table 1
Parameters of hull forms used in the 40 kt, 1000 tonne comparative design study
Hull Type Length L Froude L/B B/T Block Coefficient of Prismatic Vertical LCB (% of LCF (% of
(m) No. Fr coefficient fineness Cwp coefficient prismatic length from length from
Cb Cp coefficient midship) midship)
Cvp
Catamarans
1 NPL4b 59.0 0.86 9.0 2.00 0.40 0.76 0.69 0.52 ⫺6.4 ⫺8.3
2 NPL5b 67.5 0.80 11.0 2.00 0.40 0.76 0.69 0.52 ⫺6.4 ⫺8.3
3 NPL6b 75.8 0.76 13.1 2.00 0.40 0.76 0.69 0.52 ⫺6.4 ⫺8.3
4 DUT372 67.7 0.80 12.5 1.60 0.40 0.75 0.65 0.54 ⫺3.0 ⫺8.2
5 S64 65.5 0.81 12.4 1.65 0.45 0.77 0.55 0.58 ⫺6.4 ⫺4.6
6 CATa 89.3 0.70 24.3 1.21 0.50 0.91 0.59 0.55 ⫺3.4 ⫺4.3
7 CATb 71.5 0.78 17.7 1.38 0.59 0.84 0.74 0.70 ⫺11.0 ⫺6.8
8 CATc 53.9 0.90 8.8 2.83 0.70 0.79 0.77 0.89 ⫺12.6 ⫺9.1
SWATHs
9 SW1 70.8 0.78 16.1 1.51 0.55 0.38 0.75 1.44 ⫺10.9 ⫺14.6
10 SW2 70.8 0.78 14.3 2.07 0.60 0.59 0.75 1.00 ⫺10.9 ⫺11.1
11 SW3 84.9 0.71 28.2 0.92 0.60 0.76 0.70 0.78 ⫺2.5 ⫺12.5
Trihull
12 TRIa 96.9 0.67 8.0 5.35 0.38 0.72 0.80 0.53 ⫺11.8 ⫺11.5
Monohulls
13 S60 86.5 0.71 8.0 4.01 0.40 0.84 0.59 0.47 ⫺5.4 ⫺6.3
M.R. Davis, D.S. Holloway / Ocean Engineering 30 (2003) 2091–2115
14 MONa 118.4 0.60 11.9 4.51 0.39 0.66 0.60 0.59 ⫺9.6 ⫺15.5
Fig. 1. Body plans of conventional catamaran hulls.
Fig. 2. Body plans of SWATH hulls.
designs as the basis of making a meaningful comparison of response. As can be seen

the lengths range from 53.9 m for a conventional catamaran with a relatively low
length to beam ratio through to 118.4 m for a slender monohull, the Froude number
range thus extending from 0.6 to 0.9. This means that all designs fall into the high
Froude number category where significant resonance in the heaving and pitching
motions are to be expected. The body plans of the conventional catamarans are
Fig. 3. Body plans of trihull and monohulls.

shown in Fig. 1, of the SWATH hulls in Fig. 2 and of the trihull and monohulls in
Fig. 3.
The specific hull forms considered are as follows:
Hulls 1–3 These are the NPL high speed round bilge hulls described by Bailey
(1976) and tank tested in head seas using 1.6 and 2.1 m mono-hull
and catamaran models by Wellicome et al. (1995). They are geo-
metrically similar in section but have varying length to beam ratio.
Thus the body plans (Fig. 1) are identical as also are the other hull
parameters shown in Table 1. These hulls have a relatively straight
stem not far from vertical, followed by a fine entry leading to rounded
bilge mid ship sections with appreciable deadrise. The hull then tap-
ers somewhat and the keel rises to the relatively small transom stern.
Hull 4 This is the Delft University of Technology hull 375 which was tested
by van’t Veer (1998) using a 3.0 m long catamaran model. This has
a relatively rapid increase of draught near the bow leading to well-
rounded mid-ship sections. The draught reduces substantially towards
the stern whilst retaining the well-rounded form, and there is virtually
no immersed transom at the stern.
Hull 5 This is the Series 64 hull which has been tested by Wellicome et al.
(1999). The sectional draught increases relatively quickly aft of the
bow and is followed by rounded bilge mid-ship sections with small
deadrise. The hull tapers and draught reduces towards the relatively
small transom stern.
Hull 6 This is a hypothetical design with small beam to draught ratio. The
keel is nearly flat in the forward half of the hull which has a large
deadrise angle. Towards the stern the keel rises to a relatively deep,
flat-bottomed transom.
Hulls 7 and 8 These hulls have hard chines in the sections over the whole length.
Hull 7 has a more rounded form towards the keel in the forward
sections. The keel of hull 7 rises toward a flat-bottomed transom
stern. Hull 8 is somewhat similar, but is nearly flat bottomed aft of
the mid-ships section and is less rounded near the keel forward of
the mid-ship section. Hull 8 has been tested in the form of a small
manned model of 6m overall length (Cook et al., 1999).
Hulls 9 and 10 These are 2.5 m long reduced water-plane SWATH models that
have been tested by the authors. They have been designed to have
geometrically similar water-plane plans and the same displacement
and overall length but with differing reductions of water-plane area.
The beam is reduced over the full length of the hull which is well
rounded apart from the introduction of a flat bottomed transom pre-
ceded by a chine extending for 30% of the length forward of the
transom. The reduction of water-plane area is reflected most obvi-
ously in the vertical prismatic coefficients (see Table 1) which are
the largest for these two hull forms.
Hull 11 This is a hypothetical SWATH design in which the water-plane reduction

is concentrated towards the bow but with a smaller vertical prismatic coef-
ficient than hulls 9 and 10. The sections are relatively well rounded forward
of the mid-ship position and the keel rises to a flat bottomed, rounded bilge
section at the transom.
Hull 12 This is a trihull with relatively small outrigger hulls and a relatively large
beam/draught ratio for the main central hull. The outriggers are located well
aft relative to the main hull, extending forward from the transom plane by
60% of the main hull length. The main hull is of rounded bilge form with
a substantial deadrise angle which extends to the transom stern.
Hull 13 This is the series 60 hull which was tested by Blok and Beukelman (1984)
using a 5 m long model. It has rounded bilge section with a substantial
deadrise angle and a transition to a relatively shallow flat-bottomed transom.
Hull 14 This is a hypothetical design which has a very long entry in the water-plane
following a relatively small submerged bow. The sections are well rounded
and develop into a rounded bilge, flat-bottomed section at the transom,
which is not deeply immersed.
Fig. 4 shows an example of the comparison between the computed pitch and heave
Fig. 4. Validation of computed response amplitude and phase operators for hull 2. (NPL hull 5b, length
1.6 m, speed 3.17 m/s, Fr = 0.8, tank tests of Wellicome et al., 1995). (a) Heave magnitude; (b) Pitch
magnitude; (c) Heave phase; (d) Pitch phase.
with the tank test data and also with the results of a boundary element strip theory
based on the method of Salvesen et al. (1970) and strictly only valid for low Froude
numbers. The tank data of Wellicome et al. (1995) is that for a mono-hull model
test and the mono-hull program BESTSEA was used in the computations for this
case. We can see that there is generally close agreement between the high Froude
number time domain strip theory and the tank model data in respect of magnitude
and phase of both heave and pitch. There is some small irregularity in the measured
pitch data near to the maximum values and a value of the coefficient Cs = 0.065 has
been selected so as to match the peak computed heave to the tank data. It is parti-
cularly noted that the time domain method gives a much better prediction of the
pitch response than conventional strip theory. Bearing in mind that the frictional
effects associated with heaving motion of the hull sections will depend on the details
of the hull form it is considered that adjustment of the damping parameter Cs to
match the response maximum measured for that hull is an acceptable procedure. It
should be noted that the value of Cs is not large and that its effect is only to alter
the precise magnitude of the predicted response maximum to a moderate degree,
typically by about 15% at most. Other sections of the response amplitude operator
magnitude curves are not as sensitive as the maximum and the phase is only slightly
affected by the value selected for the damping parameter Cs. In effect only a rela-
tively small amount of damping is inserted into the computation so as to bring the
computed peak exactly into agreement with the measured peak response. As it is
intended here to determine motions at different locations on board the different
designs it is of particular importance that both phase and amplitude of heave and
pitch are correctly predicted as is shown to be the case in Fig. 4. Lastly, the Froude
number at which this evaluation has been made is 0.8, which is identical to the
Froude number of the 1000 tonne, 40 kt scaled hull. Similar comparisons were made
for hull 1 and 3 (both for the test Froude number of 0.8) and similar good agreement
between computed and tank test data was found. Hull 1 when scaled operates at a
slightly higher Froude number (0.86) and hull 3 at a slightly lower Froude number
(0.76), but these differences are relatively small and the validations should be quite
appropriate for the present purposes.
Validations of the computational method for three other conventional high speed
catamaran hull forms are shown in Fig. 5. In these cases the tests were carried out
using free running self propelled catamaran two-hulled models, and so the compu-
tations have been carried out using the program BEAMSEA which incorporates pro-
vision for the solution of multi-hull cases. The models are larger than the NPL models
which were the subject of Fig. 4. They extend from 3 m overall waterline length
for the DELFT 372 hull (Fig. 5a) to 4.5 m for the S64 model tested by Wellicome
et al. (1999) at the HASLAR model basin (Fig. 5b) and 6.8 m for the Educat manned
test model (Cook et al., 1999). Once again we see that the validations show that the
time domain method gives a good prediction of the heaving and pitching responses.
Damping coefficients of 0.024 and 0.085 were found to match the test data for the
Delft 375 and S64 data, respectively. The smaller value for the Delft 375 seems
most likely to be due to its relatively well-rounded hull form with less tendency to
form local separations during heaving motions of the hull sections. The Froude num-
Fig. 5. Validation of computed response amplitude operators for catamaran hulls.

bers of the tank tests in these three cases (0.75, 0.65 and 0.66, respectively) are
somewhat smaller than those of the scaled hulls (0.8, 0.81 and 0.9). However, the
model Froude numbers generally lie in the range where high Froude number effects
would be clearly evident through a resonant maximum in the response amplitude
operators and for practical purposes of validation should be quite adequate.
Fig. 5c shows a comparison with sea trials data taken on a 6.8 m manned test
vehicle (Cook et al., 1999). A relatively very small damping coefficient (Cs =
0.011) was needed to match the test data in this case. Near zero values were also
needed to match data from tests on a 76 m vessel (Davis et al., 2003) and it appears
that this is associated with higher characterising Reynolds numbers and generally
lower relative frictional effects than in small tank test models. There is good agree-
ment between the predicted magnitude of the heave and pitch response amplitude
operators, but a noticeable discrepancy exists in the frequency of maximum response.
Similar discrepancies have been found when comparing computed responses with
those measured on a 76 m length vessel. It is thought that this is due to the fact that
encountered seas in trials at sea do not come from a single well controlled direction
as in a towing tank or model basin. The supposition that encountered waves all come
from a nominal direction (head seas in this case) is clearly not accurately valid and
is likely to influence the relationship between wave frequency, wave length and
encounter frequency. In effect, waves which are oblique to the bow direction will
be encountered at a lower frequency for a given wavelength than those directly on
the bow as assumed.
Validation of the computing method for SWATH and mono-hull type hull forms
is shown in Fig. 6 for the two SWATH models tested at 2.5 m length by the authors
and the S60 tested by Blok and Beukelman (1984). Values of the damping coefficient
of 0.0 and 0.026 were needed to match the test data for SWATH hulls 8 and 9,
respectively. This is probably due to the very well-rounded and submerged form of
hull 8 and the less well-rounded and submerged form of hull 9. Since the SWATH
form shows a strong resonance in the pitch response, as well as in the heave response
the damping coefficient has been adjusted in both cases so as to optimize the agree-
ment with both heave and pitch data. It can be seen that in general the agreement
is very good with regard to maximum values and variation with frequency. The
computations show a slightly higher heave and lower pitch than the tank data, but
the discrepancies are only about 2% at the maxima. There is very good agreement
with the frequency of maxima in these well-controlled model tests. For the S60 hull
form, which is more suitable to mono-hull vessels having a beam to draught ratio
of 4.01, a damping coefficient of 0.135 was found to give best agreement between
measured and computed results. This somewhat larger value appears to be related
to the larger beam to draught ratio.
4. Comparison of motions for different hull forms
The various hull forms have been scaled to the waterline lengths shown in Table
1 so that their displacements are all 1000 tonnes and the Froude number for a 40
Fig. 6. Validation of computed response amplitude operators for SWATHs and monohull.
kt speed determined in each case. Computation of the motion for each hull has then
been carried out for the appropriate Froude number. Where validations have been
possible as described in Section 3 the required Froude numbers are relatively close
to the validation Froude numbers and so the same damping coefficient Cs appropriate
to the particular hull form has been used in the computations as in the validation.
Where no validation is possible for the hypothetical designs a damping coefficient
has been selected which applied for the most similar validated case. That is as for
hull 5 in the cases of hulls 6 and 7, as for hull 10 in the case of hull 11 and as for
hull 13 in the case of hull 14.
Response amplitude operators similar to those shown in Fig. 4 to 6 were calculated
for each of the hull forms considered at the appropriate Froude number given in
Table 1. These were then multiplied by an appropriate sea spectrum for a range of
wave heights. The JONSWAP spectrum was selected as most high-speed ferries
operate in coastal waters. The average wave period was varied with the wave height
on the basis of the recommendations of Darbyshire and Draper (1963). For deep
water, long fetch conditions it was thus decided to use an average wave period of
7.5 s in a 3 m sea, reducing linearly to 5 s in a 0.5 m sea. The resultant range of
encounter spectra is illustrated in Fig. 7 from which we see that the modal encounter
frequency varies from 0.46 Hz (2.9 rad/s) in a 0.5 m sea to 0.25 Hz (1.6 rad/s) in
a 3.0 m sea. This variation is quite significant in the context of high-speed ferries
as it encompasses the encounter frequency of peak response in many cases. Under
some circumstances this can have the consequence of giving rise to more severe
motions in oblique seas of a given height and period. Where the peak in the encounter
spectrum for head seas is higher in frequency than the encounter frequency of peak
response, stronger motions can arise if the encounter spectrum of waves is moved
to lower frequency to than in head seas by oblique encounter. However, in the present
paper only head sea encounter will be considered as the basis for comparative evalu-
ation of the different hull forms.
The response amplitude operators are shown in Fig. 8 for the conventional cata-
maran hulls as a function of actual encounter frequency. We see that the NPL slender
hulls (1–3) and the Delft 375 hull (hull 4) have quite similar responses, although
the Delft 375 has a larger heave resonance. This might be attributed to its small
Fig. 7. Effect of significant wave height and average wave period on encountered wave spectrum. (a)
Wave height 0.5 m, average period 5 s. (b) Wave height 3.0 m, average period 7.5 s (m2s).
Fig. 8. Response of catamaran hulls as a function of actual encounter frequency.
transom immersion. As Table 1 shows the form coefficients for these four hulls are
very similar. The heave resonances are between 1.7 and 2.7 at about 1.7 rad/s and
the pitch about 1.35 at about 1.3–1.6 rad/s. The S64 hull (hull 5) also has generally
similar geometric coefficients, the block coefficient being somewhat larger and the
prismatic coefficient somewhat lower. However, the sections of the S64 are fuller
and less rounded and this seems to have broadened the heave maximum, which has
a peak of about 2.3 at 1.4 rad/s, and produced a less regular variation of pitch
response with frequency. The catamaran hull 6 has a much smaller beam to draught
ratio and larger length to beam ratio. These factors have significantly reduced the
heave maximum to about 1.05, although it is still located at about 1.9 rad/s. The
pitch response is also more moderate and smooth. Hulls 7 and 8 both have hard
chines in their sections and a more aft location of the LCB due to their flat bottom,
deep transom stern sections. Nevertheless, their response amplitude operators are
generally similar to those of hulls 1 to 4, although the very flat-bottomed hull 8 has
a rather larger heave response at about 2.0 and hull 7 with more rounded sections
has a smaller heave maximum at about 1.5.
The response amplitude operators of the SWATH designs (hulls 9–11, Fig. 9) all
show a relatively lower frequency for the peak heave at 1.2–1.5 rad/s as would be
Fig. 9. Response of SWATHs, trihull and monohulls as a function of actual encounter frequency.
expected. However, the benefit of this effect is offset by relatively large maximum
heave values of about 2.5. Whilst there is a small pitch response for hull 9, which
has the smallest coefficient of fineness at only 0.38, the other SWATH designs have
a relatively strong pitch response at about 1.7, although it occurs at a low frequency
of 1.0 rad/s approximately. We thus see that the primary advantage of the SWATH
hull forms is to reduce the frequency of maximum response, but this may be at the
expense of a larger magnitude of peak response.
Hull 12 (the trihull) and hulls 13 and 14 (the mono-hulls) all have much larger
beam to draught ratios and by virtue of their greater length operate at smaller Froude
numbers that the catamarans and SWATHs. The combination of these factors has
evidently eliminated the maxima in the pitch response and has reduced the maximum
heave response significantly as shown in Fig. 9. However, the frequency of the heave
maximum is not altered greatly compared to the catamaran designs.
Combining the sea spectra representation as in Fig. 7 with the various response
amplitude operators in Figs. 8 and 9 and the corresponding heave and pitch phase
responses for each hull, the rms vertical acceleration values at forward, LCG and
transom positions are shown in Fig. 10. The location of the forward position has in
each case been chosen to be forward of the LCG by 60% of the distance from LCG
to transom. This results in the forward most passenger position being between 25
and 40% of the overall length aft of the bow, hulls with a more aft LGG having
Fig. 10. RMS acceleration levels in a 3 m, 7.5 s JONSWAP headsea. (a) Conventional catamaran
designs. (b) SWATH, trihull and monohull designs (g/m).
their forward most passenger position further from the bow as might be expected.
The distance of the forward passenger position thus varied between 22 and 28% of
overall length from the LCG. The consequence of this relatively small variation of
position on acceleration level would not be great, but was considered to reflect a
tendency for designs with a further aft LCG to locate the forward passenger some-
what further from the bow due to the associated fineness of the bow sections.
Fig. 10a shows that for all the conventional catamarans in 3 m seas the most
severe motions are at the forward position and that with the exception of hull 4 (the
Delft 375 hull with almost no transom immersion) the smallest motions are at the
LCG position. Hulls 1 to 3 differ only in their length to beam ratio and operating
Froude number, and it is evident that increasing the length reduces the motion at
the LCG and transom but increases motion at the forward position. There is appreci-
able variation of the motions by a factor of 2.3 between the various designs, the
LCG acceleration being smallest for hull 6 (the deep draught long length design,
0.06 g/m) and largest for hull 4 (the Delft 375 design, 0.14 g/m). However at the
forward position there is much less variation by a factor of 1.5 between 0.125 for
hull 6 and 0.185 for hull 4.
Fig. 10b shows that for two of the SWATH designs (hulls 9 and 11) the stronger
motions occur at the aft transom position. In these two cases the LCF is significantly
aft of the LCG, and to a greater extent for hull 11 where LCG and LCF are separated
by 10% of the overall length. For hull 10 the LCF and LCG are virtually at the
same position and the motions at the forward position are stronger than at the LCG
or transom. These results suggest that to achieve a good balance of motions between
forward and aft motions, and in particular to eliminate the tendency for relatively
strong motions at the forward passenger position, the LCF should be aft of the LCG
by about 2 or 3% of the overall length. The trihull (hull 12) has the lowest LCG
acceleration of all the designs (0.04 g/m) and also has the LCG and LCF virtually
coincident so that motions at forward position are only slightly stronger than those
at the transom position. The mono-hulls (hulls 13 and 14) show strongest motions
at the forward position and have LCG accelerations (0.065 g/m) about equal to the
best of the conventional catamarans. It is clear that increasing the overall length
tends in general to give lowest motions at the LCG.
The motion sickness incidence has been evaluated using the method of O’Hanlon
and McCaulay (1973, 1974) and the results of Fig. 11 show how the MSI varies
with wave height. The results shown are the average MSI of those at forward, LCG
and aft positions. For the conventional catamarans (Fig. 10a) the MSI increases from
very small values in 0.5 m seas to between 53 and 72% in 3 m seas. Hull 6, the
deep draught, longer length design gives the lowest MSI as might be expected, the
highest average MSI being for hull 4 which gave the highest accelerations. All
designs give a generally similar increase of MSI with wave height, the overall form
of these curves clearly being due to the MSI lying necessarily between 0 and 100%.
Fig. 10b shows the variation of MSI for the other designs. The SWATH with the
lowest coefficient of fineness, reflecting its small water-plane area (hull 9), gave the
lowest MSI at the lower wave heights, but this rises rapidly as 3 m wave height is
approached and in larger seas this design will clearly lose any advantage. This would
Fig. 11. Variation of motion sickness incidence with wave height (average value over length of passenger
area on centre line). (a) Conventional catamaran designs. (b) SWATH, trihull and monohull designs.
seem to be due to the increase of wave period with wave height so that the modal
encounter frequency reduces towards the frequency of maximum response for this
hull in larger seas. The trihull gives the lowest average MSI in seas of 3 m and
above, whilst the two mono-hulls give only about 10% greater MSI than the trihull.
The other SWATHS give appreciably larger MSI in 3 m seas with values comparable
to the conventional catamarans, but in 1.5 m seas the SWATHS have MSI values
about 10% below the conventional catamarans.
Fig. 12. Variation of average MSI in a 3 m sea with Froude number of hull.
Fig. 12 shows how the MSI in 3 m seas varies with the Froude number and we
see that there is a general trend for larger Froude number, shorter length hulls to
give larger MSI values. However, clearly there is a considerable scatter of these
results indicating that other parameters play a significant role in the average motions.
Fig. 13 shows the variation of MSI with the vertical prismatic coefficient, a measure
of the water-plane area for given displacement and draught. We see that as the water-
plane area reduces for the majority of the designs so the MSI tends to increase in
the 3-m sea condition. Only the most extreme SWATH shows the benefit of reduced
water-plane area (i.e. larger vertical prismatic coefficient) clearly. This outcome
reflects the influence of reduced radiated wave damping in SWATH designs, which
tend to offset the benefits of reduced wave excitation forces on these hulls. Finally
Fig. 14 shows that the mono-hulls and trihull with larger beam to draught ratios give
generally smaller MSI values, but it might be considered that it is the length rather
than the beam to draught ratio that is significant in these cases.
Fig. 13. Variation of MSI in a 3 m sea with vertical prismatic coefficient.

Fig. 14. Variation of MSI in a 3 m sea with beam/draught ratio (B/T).
5. Conclusions
It has been demonstrated that a time domain strip theory gives good prediction
of the motion of slender hulls in head seas. Provided that modest allowance for
frictional damping is made in computing the motions, there is good agreement
between computed and measured heave and pitch and the phase of these. These
validations include slender hulls of varying form, reduced water-plane area SWATH
hulls and hulls suitable for mono-hull designs by virtue of their larger beam to
draught ratio.
When applied to prediction of the motion of a 1000 tonne, 40 kt vessel it was found
that conventional slender hull catamarans did not differ greatly in their response to
head seas. In 3 m seas the motion sickness incidence (MSI) varied from 53 to 72%
depending on the hull form for conventional catamarans, the lowest value being
found for the deepest draught and longest of the designs. Reduced water-plane
SWATH catamaran designs gave average MSI values between 49 and 74% in 3-m
seas, although in smaller seas the design with the smallest water-plane area gave
significantly lower MSI values than all other designs considered. In seas of 3 m and
above it appears that mono-hull and trihull designs which have a greater overall
length will give lower MSI values, these being in the range from 42 to 52% for the
designs considered here. It was found that some of the SWATH designs did reduce
forward cabin motions below those at the transom provided the center of flotation
was aft of the center of gravity. However, for conventional designs forward area
motions were always larger irrespective of the relative locations of the centres of
floatation and gravity.
Acknowledgements
This work was carried out with the support of the Australian Maritime Engineering
Co-operative Research Centre, the University of Tasmania, the Australian Research
Council and the Australian Maritime College.
References
Bailey, D., 1976. The NPL high-speed round bilge displacement hull series. Maritime Technology Mono-
graph 4, Royal Institution of Naval Architects.
Blok, J.J., Beukelman, W., 1984. The high-speed displacement ship systematic series hull forms—seakeep-
ing characteristics. Transactions of the Society of Naval Architects and Marine Engineers 92, 125–150.
Bonafoux, J., Dudson, E., Sherwood, D., 2001. An evaluation of the effect of hull form choice on the
operability of fast ferries. In: FAST01 The Sixth International Conference on Fast Sea Transportation,
Southampton, England, Design Comparison and Assessment Section, 4–6 September 2001,
Bruzzone, D., Gualeni, P., Sebastiani, L., 2001. Different three dimensional formulations for evaluating
forward speed effects in seakeeping computations of high speed hulls. In: FAST01 The Sixth Inter-
national Conference on Fast Sea Transportation, Southampton, England, Seakeeping III Section, 4–6
September 2001,
Cole, S., 1988. A simple example from flat-ship theory. Journal of Fluid Mechanics 189, 301–310.
Cook, S., Couser, P., Klaka, K., 1999. Investigation into wave loads and catamarans. In: Conference on
Hydrodynamics of High Speed Craft, London, 24–25 November 1999, Royal Institition of Naval
Architects.
Darbyshire, M., Draper, L., 1963. Forecasting wind-generated sea waves. Engineering, 482–484.
Davis, M.R., Watson, N.L. and Holloway, D.S., 2003. Wave response of an 86 m high speed catamaran
with active T-foils and stern tabs. Transaction of the Royal Institution of Naval Architects, Paper 305.
Faltinsen, O.M., 1993. On seakeeping of conventional and high-speed vessels. Journal of Ship Research
37 (2), 87–101.
Holloway, D.S., Davis, M.R., 1998. Hydrodynamic sectional added mass and damping for a ship moving
with forward speed. In: 13th Australasian Fluid Mechanics Conference, pp. 259–262.
Holloway, D.S. and Davis, M.R., 2002. Green function solutions for the transient motion of water sections.
Journal of Ship Research 46 (2), 99–120.
Holloway, D.S. and Davis, M.R., 2001. Computation of ship motions by a high Froude number time
domain strip theory. University of Tasmania School of Engineering Research Report SERR 08/01.
Holloway, D.S., 1998. A high Froude number time domain strip theory applied to the seakeeping of semi-
SWATHs. PhD thesis, University of Tasmania.
Maskell, S.J., Ursell, F., 1970. The transient motion of a floating body. Journal of Fluid Mechanics 44
(2), 303–313.
Nakos, D., Sclavounos, P., 1991. Ship motions by a three-dimensional Rankine panel method. In: Eight-
eenth Symposium on Naval Hydrodynamics, pp. 177–193.
Nakos, D.E., Sclavounos, P.D., 1994. Kelvin wakes and wave resistance of cruiser and transom stern
ships. Journal of Ship Research 38 (1), 9–29.
O’Hanlon, J.F., McCauley, M.E., 1973. Motion sickness incidence as a function of frequency and acceler-
ation of vertical sinusoidal motion. Technical Report Memorandum 1973-1, Human Factors
Research Inc.
O’Hanlon, J.F., McCauley, M.E., 1974. Motion sickness incidence as a function of frequency and acceler-
ation of vertical sinusoidal motion. Aerospace Medicine, 356–369.
Roberts, A.J., 1987. Transient free-surface flows generated by a moving vertical plate. Quarterly Journal
of Mechanics and Applied Mathematics 40 (1), 129–158.
Salvesen, N., Tuck, E.O., Faltinsen, O.M., 1970. Ship motions and sea loads. Transactions of the Society
of Naval Architects and Marine Engineers 78, 250–287.
Ulstein, T., Faltinsen, O.M., 1996. Two-dimensional unsteady planing. Journal of Ship Research 40 (3),
200–210.
van’t Veer, A.P., 1998. Behaviour of catamarans in waves. Delft University of Technology, Doctoral
Thesis, September 1998.
Wehausen, J.V., Laitone, E.V., 1960. Surface waves. In: Flügge, S. (Ed.), Handbuch der Physik, Vol. 9.
Springer, pp. 445–814.
Wellicome, J.F., Temarel, P., Molland, A.F., Couser, P.R., 1995. Experimental measurements of the sea-
keeping characteristics of fast displacement catamarans in long crested head-seas. Ship Science Report
89, Department of Ship Science, University of Southampton.
Wellicome, J.F., Temarel, P., Molland, A.F., Cic, J., Taunton, D.J., 1999. Experimental measurements of
the seakeeping characteristics of fast displacement catamarans in oblique waves. Ship Science Report
111, Department of Ship Science, University of Southampton.
Yeung, R.W., 1982. The transient heaving motion of floating cylinders. Journal of Engineering Mathemat-
ics 16, 97–119.

The Influence of Hull Form On The Motions of High Speed Vessels in Head Seas

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

The Influence of Hull Form On The Motions of High Speed Vessels in Head Seas

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Ocean Engineering 30 (2003) 2091–2115