THE SOCIETY OF NAVAL ARCHITECTS AND MARINE ENGINEERS _ 74 Trinity Place, New York, N. Y. 10006 “Advance copy of paper tobe pretnted othe Arr! Mactng, New York, N.Y, November 12-18, 1979, no. 6 ‘Ship Motions and Sea Loads By Nils Salvesen,! Associate Member, E. O. Tuck,? Associate Member, and Odd Faltinsen,? ‘A new strip theory is presented for predicting heave, pitch, sway, roll, ond yaw motions as well as wave-induced vertical ond horizontal shear forces, bending ‘moments, and torsional moments for @ ship advancing et constant speed with arbi trary heading in regular waves. A computer program based on this theory and with accurate close-At section representation has been developed. Comparisons between computed valves and experimental data show satisfactory agreement in ‘genercl, In porticslar, very good agreement is shown for the heave ond pitch motions and the vertical loads, Accurate results are also obtained for the coupled ‘sway-tell motions in beam waves. Although comparisons are not yet available for 5 the sway-roll-yaw motions in oblique waves, the satisfactory agreement shown for the horizontal loads in oblique waves suggests that the theory may olso predict the horizontal motions quite well. Introduction Preface Tue unrisiar® criterion for the ull design of a ship should be the performance of the ship in @ realistic seaway. Prediction of the ship motions ‘and the dynamic sea Toads is such a complex prob- lem, however, that the naval architect has been forced to use the ship’s effective power perfor- ‘mance in ealm water and the ship's maximum bend- ing moment in the static “one-over-twenty” wave as his main design eriteria, Until very recently ship motions and wave-indced loads were barely considered in the design procedure. ‘The design of high-speed dry-cargo ships and hhuge tankers has made us more aware of the im- portance of reducing the ship motions and of min Naval Architect, Naval Ship Research andl Develop- nent Center, Washington, D.C “Reader, Department of Mathematics, University of Adelaide, Adelaide, South Australia. wailed” Matienetican, Det norske Veritas, Odo, forway. or presentation at the Annual Meeting, New York N.Y» November 12-13, 1970, of Tax Socmsry oF Navat. Aneitirecrs AND Manse Eoueeuns. anizing the wave-indueed loads, Considering the importance of the seaworthiness problem, itis very encouraging indeed to note the tremendous ad- vvancement in this feld over the past two decades, ‘The well-known paper of St. Denis and Pierson (1953) on the application of the principle of superposition to the ship-motion problem started ‘a new era in this ficld by hypothesizing that the responses of a ship to irregular waves ean be cot fered as the summation of the responses to regu- Jar waves ofall frequencies. Today the validity of the application of the superposition to ship ‘motion and sea loads is generally accepted in oar field, and in particular for the vertical motions and Joads this validity ‘may be considered as proven, beyondl the fonclest hopes of earlier inves- tigators” (Ogilvie, 1964). Assuming that the principle of superposition is also valid for the horizontal responses, the complex problem of pre- dicting ship motions and sea loads ina seaway can be reduced to the two problems: ) the predic- tion of the ship motions and loads in regular T References ar listed in alphabetical order atthe end tn the papes ell thay are Mentifed by author's name nd sear of pieaionsinusoidal waves and (ji) the prediction of the statistical responses in irregular waves using the regular wave results. If the responses for a ship in regular waves are known, there are now available procedures which follow the method of St. Denis and Pierson for determining the statistical responses not only for a given sea state, but for a distribution of sea con~ ditions which a ship may encounter in its life span {Abrabamsen, 1967). However, a major difficulty in seaworthiness analysis has been to make ac- ‘curate predictions of motions and sea loads for a ship in regular waves. Therefore the objective of this paper is to present a practical numerical method with sufficient engineering accuracy for predicting the heave, pitch, sway, roll, and yaw motions as well as the wave-induced shear forces, ending moments, and torsional moments for @ ship advancing at constant speed at arbitrary heading in regular sinusoidal waves With the motion and load theory presented here and with the available statistical methods, it is felt that the naval architect will have a useful tool for determining the seaworthiness characteristics of a ship. If the designer knows the geometric description and the weight distribution and has adequate information about the sea environment, hhe can calculate the motions and the dynamic loads for a ship in a seaway with reasonable ac- curacy. Historical Boekground Since the St. Denis and Pierson peper, there hhave been spectacular developments in both ex- perimental and theoretical methods for predicting ship responses in regular waves. Large experi- mental facilities for testing models in ol ‘waves were in full operation in 1956 at the Nether- lands Ship Model Basin and a year later at the Davidson Laboratory, and during the next ten years such facilities were built at the Naval Ship Research and Development Center, the Admiralty Experimental Works in Haslar, England, and at the Ship Research Institute in Mitaka, ‘Tokyo.t Parthermore, most of the tanks originally designed for resistance and propulsion tests have been equipped with wavemakers so that they can be used for head- and folloving-wave experiments. ‘Numerous ship-motion ancl wave-load tests have ‘been conducted in these facilities, but perhaps the ‘most significant and comprehensive tests are the systematic experiments conducted at NSMB in Wageningen on sixteen different Series 60 hull nan aeeam sya ‘Ship Motions and Sea toads forms. ‘The motions, the power increase, and the wave-induced loads were measured for each hull in head, following, and oblique regular waves (Vossers, Swaan, Rijken, 1960 and 1961). ‘These data have been invaluable in the study of the bull- form effect on seakeeping characteristics, Un- fortunately, for hull forms not closely related to the Series 60 forms there exist no similar system- atic experimental data, In fact for the non- Series 60 forms most of the published data have been only for heave and pitch motions in head seas, Since ship-motion and sea-load experiments are extremely expensive and time consuming, it is not usually feasible to perform these experiments for individual ship designs. Therefore the paper of St. Denis and Pierson has 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 Korvin-Kroukov- sky and Jacobs (1957) was the first motion theory suitable for numerieal computations which had adequate accuracy for engineering applications. This theory was later extended by Jacobs (1958) to include the wave-indueed vertical shear forces and bending moments for @ ship in regular head waves Tt is now apparent that the theory of Korvin- Kroukovsky and Jacobs did not receive the recog nition it deserved. Purists felt that the theory was not derived in a rational mathematieal man- ner but rather by use of “physical intuition.” Today, however, after more sophisticated motion theories have been derived and more accurate ex- perimental data are available, itis becoming clear that this original strip theory is one of the most significant contributions in the ficld of sealceeping. It has been demonstrated in numerous publica- tions over the past ten years that the theory pre- diets the heave and pitch motions as well as the vertical shear forces and bending moments with amazing accuracy for regular cruiser stern ships at moderate speeds in head waves. The Korvin-Kroukovsky and Jacobs theory has since been modified and extended. For example, W. B. Smith (1967) has shown that a modified strip theory by Gerritsma and Beukelman (1967) predicts the head-seas motions for a high-speed destroyer hull which agree quite well with experi- ments. In particular, by the use of elose-fit meth ods, very significant improvements have been ‘made in the computation of the sectional added- ‘mass and damping coefficients, and Smith and Salvesen (1970) have demonstrated that the head- seas motions ean be predicted quite accurately even for high-speed hulls with large bulbous bows whe shot to « the that exci sti for equ elk ag hav 38 ae Ne ‘the tel ticand the ack hull These the bull- ss. Une sated to system- he non- ta have in head tents are itis not sents for paper of sized the ‘eal and regular ave and oukov- they vich: ad ications. ss (1958) ar forces lar head Korvin- le recog: » theory cal sition." | motion trate ex- ing clear he most keeping. publica ory pre- Las the ats with mes ory has ‘ample, nodified 1 (1967) sfespeed, experi. it meth. re been added- ith and ae head- urately tus bows ‘when such close-fit methods are applied. It should also be noted that attempts have been made fo extend the original head-seas strip theory to the case of heave and pitch in oblique seas; how. ever, these extended oblique-seas theories are not that accurate since the diffraction effect in the exciting force has not been treated properly. vent though the agreement between experi- ments and the Korvin-Kroukovsky and Jacobs strip theory has usually been quite satisfactory, ‘4 major objection to this theory has been that the forward-speed terms in the coefficients of the equations of motion do not. satisfy the symmetry relationship proved by Timman and Newinan (1962). During the past year, however, new strip theories for heave and pitch motions in head waves have been derived independently in Germany by ‘Séding (1969), in Japan by Tasei and Takaki (1960), and in’ the Soviet Union by Borodai and Netsvetayey (1969). All of these new strip theories have identical forward-speed terms satis- fying the Timman and Newman symmetry rela- onships, and, interestingly enough, the equations ‘of motion for heave and pitch in head waves de~ rived in the present work have the same speed terms as those given in these three recent publica tions. Tt should be mentioned thet Ogilvie and Tack (1969) have derived a completely new strip theory for head seas by using slender-body theory. Un- fortunately, there are some integral terms in their theory which have not yet been evaluated; this their theory cannot be fully utilized or judged at ‘this time. For the sway, yaw, and roll motions and for the horizontal wave-induced Ioads, there exist few computational methods. Tasai (1967) bas de rived a strip theory for the sway-yav-roll mo- tions, but this theory is only applicable for the case of zero forward speed. Grim and Schenzle (1969), on the other hand, have considered for- ward-speed effects in their strip theory, which does include the sway-yaw-roll motions as well as the horizontal loads. However, the forward-speed terms in their equations of motion do not satisfy the Timman and Newman (1962) symmetry rela tionships and their theory lacks many of the for- ‘ward-speed terms included in the theory presented herein. Furthermore, comparisons between ex- periments and the theory of Grim and Schenzle ‘exist only for the case of zero forward speed. Present Theory ‘The theory presented herein can predict the heave, pitch, sway, roll, and yaw motions a3 well as the wave-induced vertical and horizontal shear forces, bending moments, and torsional moments for a ship advancing at constant speed in regular Only the final equations are stated in the main text while a detailed derivation of the hydrody- namic coefficients is presented in the Appendices. ‘The derived equations of motion consist of two sets of linear coupled differential equations with frequeniey- and speed-dependent coefficients. One set of equations is for the heave-pitch motions and the other is set for the sway-yaw-roll motions. ‘The equations for the wave-induced loads are ex- pressed in terms of the resulting motions and the derived hydrodynamic coefficients, ‘A computer program based on this theory has bbeen developed jointly by the Naval Ship Re- search and Development Center, Washington, D. C. and Det norske Veritas, Oslo, Norway. ‘The ship-motion part of the program was origi- nally written by Werner Frank at the NSRDC. Frank (1067) also developed the close-fit source- distribution technique used in the program for ‘computing the two-dimensional added-mass and damping coefficients. The program was later im- proved and extended at Det norske Veritas to in- clude the wave-induced 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 includ~ ing a users manual and a program listing will soon be available as an NSRDC Report. ‘Comparisons between computed values and ex- perimental data are also presented. ‘The agree- ‘ment is very satisfactory for the heave and pitch ‘motions and the vertical loads in oblique and fol- lowing waves as well as in head waves. Good agreement between theory and experiments is also obtained forthe coupled sway-roll motions in beam ‘waves, while owing to Tack of experimental data it hhas not been possible to make comparisons for the sway-roll-yaw motions in oblique waves. Never theless, the good agreement shown for the hori- zontal shear forces, bending moments, and tor- sional moments in oblique waves suggests that the theory may also predict the horizontal motions quite well 2. Ship Motions ‘The equations of motion are presented in this section for « ship advancing at constant mean for ward speed with arbitrary heading in regular sinusoidal waves. The equations for pitch and heave motions in head waves are compared with the original strip theory of Korvin-Kroukovsky and Jacobs (1957). Comparisons between com: puted and experimental motion values are also shown. ‘Ship Motions and Sea Locds 3surge = heave fay m= roll Fig. 1 Sign convention for translatory and angular dis- placements General Formulation of Equations of Motion Te is assumed that the ossillatory motions are finesr and harmonic. Let (ia) bee right- handed coordinate system fied with respect to fhe mea Position of the ship with 5 vertically up- treed through the center of gravity of the ship, = In the direction of forward motion, and the origin inthe plane of the undisturbed free suriace. Let the teansiatory displacements in the 2, 9, and 2 directions with respect to the origin be m, m, and tp, respectively, so that 7 is the surge, mis the ‘Bray, and m is the heave displacement. Further fore, let the angular displacement of the rota: ‘tional motion about the x, y, and # axes be mu ms, ‘and qe, respectively, so that nis the roll, m is the pitch and mis the yaw angle, The coordinate Fyater and the translatory and angular displace ments are shown ia Fig. 1 Tindder the assumptions that the responses are finear and harmonic, the six Tnear coupled dif ferential equations of motion can. be. writte, ting subseript notation, in the following abbrevi- ated form: 6. 2, la + Andie + Baote + Crete] = Fe; f21...6 O) where My are the components of the generalized ‘mass matrix for the ship, Aj and By are the added-mass and damping coeflicients,* Cx are the hydrostatic restoring coefficients,’ and HF, are © Note that ye (for jk) are the added-mass eross- conpling coefieients for the Bth mode coupled into the jth ‘ade of motion, so that for example Ay is the added-ninss ‘eeficeat for pteh coupled into heave. Here Cy are defined a the hy drestati restoring coei- cients and henesindepencent of frequency, while the ‘adided-mas coeMeients Ay are so defined that they include al the ovellatory hydrodynamic forces proportional to the Acceleration. Same other ethos prefer to include certain dromami erm the Co's woh are nluded i the Ship Motions and Sea Loads the complex amplitudes of the exciting force ‘and moment, with the force and moment given by the real part of Fe? Fi, Fe, and Farefer to the amplitudes of the surge, sway, and heave exciting forces, while Fy, Fs, and Ms are the amplitudes of ‘the roll, piteh, and yaw exeiting moments; is the frequency of encounter and is the same as the frequency of the response. The dots stand for time derivatives so that #, and ij are velocity and acceleration terms. Tf it is assumed that the ship bas lateral sy metry (symmetric about the x, « planc) and that the center of gravity is located at (0, 0, 52), then the generalized mass matrix is given by M0 0 0 My 0 0 M 0 -M, 0 0 M,-[0 0 4 0 0 0] ® 0-0 th 0 has f the athe + fre 1 the ows @) only ‘ents @ ass oring wot teral 2 of Nex 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 symimetry, surge, leave, 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 hy- drodynamic forces associated with the surge mo- tion are much smaller than the forces associated with the five other modes of motion so that it is, consistent within these assumptions not to inelude surge. Hence the three coupled equations of mo- tion for surge, heave, and pitch reduce to two coupled equations for pitch and heave. Heave and Pitch Motions Under the assumption that the oscillatory mo- tions are finear 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 piteh can be written in the form OL + Asdin + Basin + Cam + Assis + Bais + Cums = Fe (6) Bats + Cum + (Is + Assis ot Buse + Coons Asie Fe) ‘The relationships for the added-mass and damping. coefficients, Ae and By, and the amplitude of the exciting force and moment, F; and J, are derived in Appendix 1, However, the main assumptions made in the derivation in Appendix 1 are signifi- cant 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 free-surface waves. ‘This assumption is justified because the viscous damping is very small for the vertical ship mo- tions, Purthermore, in order to linearize the Nomenclature: (Additional nomencatixe ved Inthe Appendices ore defaed only os they appect! ded. nase cosficients iA = speedeindependent part of x lp ® area of water plane 'B = ship beam, daniping eooticionts je = speed-independent part of By, ae = viscous damping in 20k, Gu = hydrostatic restoring cofficients 1,2...6) wydrodynamie force and moment de to body mo By = exciting force ane! moment on portion of hull F, = excitins free and moment rove number = metacontrie height smomont of inertia ja jh mode product of ‘moment of inertia of water plan dlaraping codfcient length between perpendiculars mats of hip sseneralized ass matsix for ship My = moment of water plane 1X, = two-dimensional. sectional generalized! normal components (j = 2,3, 4) catering force on portion of bull ship speed Géynamic load components (see Fig, @ for dein tions) submerged ectional area ‘weo-dimensional setional added-mnasscoeficient sip! = ap for aftermost section ‘b= sectional hip Beant tsro-dimensional sectional damping coefficient oa get = by for aftermost section bu = sectional viseous damping in rll ‘d = sectional draft dw clement of are along a cross section ify = sectional Froude-Krilot “force” t fs for altermost section sectional riass moment of inertia about s-axis subseripts Gk 1,2... 8) wave number seetional mass per wnit length sectional metacenttie height = sectional area coetiient ne variable ‘coordinate system as defied in Fig, 1 coordinate of aftermost cross eection Povordinate of center of gravity P-oordiate of sectional center of gravity displaced volume of ship incident wave amplitude angle between incldent wave and ship heading (@ 180 deg for head sexs); see Fig. 2 ay = displacements, = 1,2... Srefertosurge, sway, ‘eave, roll, piteh, and yaw respectively; see Fig. 1) wave length variable of integration in x-direction sass density of water ‘oro-dimentional velocity potential frequency of enconnter wave Irequency wunge Ship Motions and Sea Loads 5potential problem, it is assumed that the wave- resistance perturbation potential and all its de- tivatives are small enough to be ignored in the formulation of the motion problem? Physically “ip means that the free-surface waves created by the ship advancing at constant speed in calm water are assumed to have no effect on the mo- tious, This appears to be a reasonable assump tion for fine slender hull forms. Finally, in order to reduce the three-dimensionst problem to a summation of two-dimensional prob- lems, it is nevessary to assume that the frequency is (felatively) 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 tan the ship length. This sa critical assumption sinee the maximum responses are in the fairly low-frequency range (the long-wave range); how ever, the piteh and heave motions in the low-fre- quency range are dominated by the hydrostatic forces s0 that inaccuracies in the hycrodys coeficients in this range have a minor effect ot the final results. ‘The added-mass and damping coefficients as derived in Appendix 1 are Ay = Sante — 4 it a) Bu = Sondt + Van" dy = ~ Stand ~ Be cabas® ~ Sb bude + Usa! = vaseat — Etat 0 Ag = ~ Seed + Yat + ester (ny Ba = —Stbadt — UAx? — Uxsan‘ (12) As = S Bande + stat + Fas! (18) Bu = f Platt + + Usyttat + Flat (14) Here ug: and by are the two-dimensional sectional added-mass and damping coefficients for heave. All the integrals are over the length of the ship and U is the forward speed of the ship. ds? and Ba? refer to the speed-independent part of is and Buri, Xa is the s-coordinate of the aftermost eross- section of the ship; and agy* and Dye are the added- mass and damping coefiicients for the aftermost section, ‘The hydrostatic restoring coefficients, which are independent of frequency and forward speed, follow directly from hydrostatic considerations as pede «sy = —peMwe (16) palwe an 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. Awe, Myp, and Iyp are the area, moment, and moment of inertia of the water plane, ‘The amplitudes of the exciting force and mo- ment as derived in Appendix 1 are Fem pa fa tte + ea Lint (18) ~on {| [ke +my+e nf = pa Bras (9) with the sectional Froude-Kriloff "force" defined by fay = gerteome [ Nacinwecgy — (0 (a) = germ fa 0) and the seetional diffraction "foree” by Inge) = aye Hoo (iN: — No X sinpje™*imeh Yad! (21) Here a is the wave amplitude, & is the wave num- ber, f is the heading angle (see Fig, 2 for defini- ti tions), dl isan clement of are along the eross section i} Cy and w» = -V/gh is the wave frequency which is related to w, the frequency of encounter, by tm = a + bUcoss a gust be emphasize’ that this is on, a. por as sunptiom of the present theory. For example the alysis oF"Opivie and Fuck (060) clades some contributor theteved tobe sina) srg fom interaction between the | Steady and unsteady flow fields 2) Furthermore, his refers to Is for the aftermost sec q ‘ Ship Motions ond Sea Loads9 ictional heave, he ship ‘af and 4a and teross- added. ermost whieh speed, (15) (16) qn vis the ational ength > area, plane. d mo: as) co) lefined (20) 22) st see. tion, Vs and 2; are the components in the y and s directions of the two-dimensional outward unit normal vector in the y-s plane, and ys is the veloc- ity potential for the two-dimensional problem of acylinder with the same shape as the given eross- section, Cz, oscillating in heave in the free surface. Examination of the relationships for the coeffi cients in the equations of motion, equations (7) trough (17), and the relationships Tor 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 twwo- dimensional added mass azs, damping és, and velocity potential ys, The computation of these two-dimensional hydrodynamic quantities is the most difficult and time-consuming part of com- puting the ship motions, It is necessary to deter- mine 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 80 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 two-dimensional problem together with a comparison between computed and experimental values of the sectional added mass, damping, and exciting force. In the hydrodynamic coefficients, (7) through (14), and in the exciting force and moment, (18) and (19), there are several end terms associated with the added mass, the damping, and the diffrac- tion at the aftermost section, ass, bust, andl hy’ Such end terms are usually sot included in strip theories. However, computations have shown that these ond terms have a considerable effect ton the motions of ships with wide transom sterns One may question altogether the justification for applying strip theory to transom-stern ships be cause of the sudden geometrie change at the stern which apparently violates the assumption of small changes in the longitudinal direetion. On the other hand, if it is recalled that at higher speeds the flow pattern at the transom has no sudden jump it seoms 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 strip-theory as- sumption can be restored. Strictly speaking, the only real justification for ineluding such end terms computing the motions for transom-stern 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 B60 BEAM. ‘QUARTERING’ Be: — “PN oe Fig.2 Defini presented here with the original strip theory for heave and pitch in head waves by Korvin-Krow. kovsky and Jacobs (1957), The equations of motion (6) and (6) have the same form in both theories and the coefficients are also the same for the 2ero-speed case, while the excitation and the speed terms in the coefficients differ. In the nota- tions and conventions of this paper, the hydrody- amie added-mass and damping coeficients given, by Korvin-Kroukovsky and Jacobs may be writ- ten in the form sla = Suslt @) Bux = Soatlt + Vos ey =f twodt ~ Yay — Fags (25) By = — Sthdé + Usa! ~ Usyan (26) Aes = ~ Stas @ Ba= ia = UAs? = Uryan* (28) uo = setae + Eat +E tae en) Ba = SPbudt + Ustast 0) One should note that the end terms, az, were not, included in the final form of the coefficients given by Korvin-Kroukovsky and Jacobs (1957). ‘They assuimed that the added mass at the aftermost sec tion ayy! was equal to zero, If as is assumed to be nonzero, then the end terms given in the fore going follow directly from the work of Korvin- Kroukovsky and Jacobs, ‘in comparing the coefficients presented here, (7) through (14), with those derived by. Korvin- Kroukovsky and Jecobs, (23) through (80), the cocficients will be considered first without the end terms. Then the two sets of coefficfents are the same except for Ass, ss, and Bss. In the theory. of Korvin-Kroukovsky and Jacobs, both the co- Ship Motions ond Sea Loads 7{A000 RASS'EDEFFICENT. A970 imyoursreeo erect yin seceD EFFECT (e ExPeRuenrsSaTHI967 Frequency oF excounteRwntTy Hig. 3. Added-msss cross-coupling cocfcient, Au, for Taesland ace = 0.48 ficients dis and By are speed indepencient (dis- regarding end terms), while their coefficient ls, has an additional speed term, UBy8/u*, Numeri- cal computations indicate that the speed term in the added-mass cross-coupling coefficient, As, which is included in this theory but not in Korvis: Kroukovsky and Jacobs, has a considerable effect con the computed motions, while the difference in the speed terms associated with the coefiicients Azz and By seems to have less numerical signifi- ‘The speed effect on Isr as preseated in this theory is believed to be correct for two reasons: @) Timman and Newman (1962) have proved, for slender ship with pointed ends (asi" = ba" = 0), that dy and Ass must have the same forward speed terms but opposite sign, The coefficients given here satisfy this symmetry requirement. Gi) Experiments by W. B. Smith (1967) presented in Fig. 8 show that lw has a fairly strong speed dependence, The points in the figure represent his experimental results for the Friesland destroyer hull at Fy = 0.45 and the two curves show eal- culated values, The broken line is the computed cocflicient, Arg, without speed effects, wherens the solid fine includes the speed term UBsi/o* [see cquation (11)} Furthermore, itis interesting to note that the experiments by Smith (1967) for the coefficient Bs, indicate that it is also speed de~ pendent and comparisons seem to support the speed terms presented here in equation (14) Conisideration of the end terms in the coeffi- cients presented here, equations (7) through (14), ‘and in the coefficients by Korvin-Kroukovsky and Jacobs, (23) through (80), shows that Korvin- Kroukovsky and Jacobs only have the end terms associated with the added mass, ays, and none of the end terms associated with the damping, but, which are included in this theory. In order to compare the exciting force and moment derived here for arbitrary heading, (18) and (19), and those derived by Korvin-Kroukov- sky and Jacobs for head waves, it is necessary to rework some of the expressions, Considering only inead waves (2 = 180 deg) the sectional diffraction “force” (21) becomes is = ise f Naot @1) Korvin-Kroukoysky and Jacobs made an empiri- cal assumption in their work that the exponential part of the integrand, ¢*, could be replaced by 7 where d is the sectional draft and s is the sec- tional area coefficient (area divided by beam and draft). If this assumption is used, the exponential term can be expressed in terns of the added mass vag, and damping bs: as es 2 faite M® [Neal Le gig Me latig — ibe) pe Use of the same assumption when computing sec- tional Froude-Kriloff “force,” @0), results in soot fal et where b is the sectional beam. If these two rela- tions, (82) and (83), are substituted in the equa- tions for the exciting force and moment, (18) and ((9), it follows that the exciting force can be writ- ten in the simplified form 8 Ship Motions and Sea Loadsresent stroyer ny cal- puted eas the vw? [see ting to for the ved de- wt the cocfi- h(i), ky and terms tone of ve and B (18) uke sary wo igonly vation G1) spit netitial ed by hae see- mand rential T mass &, ag see (33) o rela ‘equa- 3) and awrit. se Maan — bast) (84) and the exciting moment in the form Pow me fetter felogd ~ enna ~ ib] — Eonar ~ ited a ta g alte Mrg ass" — tbat) (35) ‘Comparison of these relationships for the exciting force and moment for head waves with the work by Korvin-Kroukovsky 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 hhead waves itis much easier and faster compute. tionally to use the exciting force and moment in the form (84) and (35) rather than in the more general form (18) and (19). However, numerical computations have shown that itis only accurate to replace the term e by e~" for sections with very regular shapes. For example, for bulbous- bow sections, use of the exciting force and moment by Korvin-Kroukovsky and Jacobs and tie exci ing force and moment expressed in (34) and (35) would give inaccurate results ‘The original strip theory of Korvin-Kroukov- sky and Jacobs has been modified and extended by several investigators [see, for example, Ger~ ritsma and Beukelman (1967)1. These modified theories all lack the additional speed terms in: cluded here and they did not satisy the Timman- Newman (1962) symmetry relationship, How ever, during the last year Siding (1969), Tasai and Takaki (1960), and Borodai and Netsvetayev (1969) independently presented new strip theories for heave and pitch motions. These theories are similar and, except for the end-effect terms, they all have the same forward-speed-effect terms as those given in the present work, It should be ‘emphasized, on the other hand, that in the deriva- tives ofthese theories the “strip-theory” approxi- mations were applied in the initial formulation of the problem, while in the present derivation the hydrodynamic coefficients in the equations of motion [equations (117) through (123) in Appen= dix 1) end the exciting force and moment (equa- tion (146)] have been derived without use of any strip-theory approximations, ‘The strip-theory ‘approximations have been introdticed in this work only in order to simplify the numerical computa tions; therefore, the forward-speed terms and the nd terms derived here are in no way restricted by the strip-theory approximations. Comparison with experiments. A few com parisons between computed and experimental values for heave and pitch motions will be pre- sented here in order to demonstrate the generally satisfactory agreement. Figure 4 shows the heave and pitch amplitudes and phases for the Mariner hill form in head waves at Froude num- ber 0.20." The points in the figure represent ex- perimental results by Salvesen and Smith (1970) while the solid line is computed by the present theory and the broken ine by the theory of Korvin~ Kroukovsky 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, is scaled by the wave amplitude, a, and multiplied by half the ship length, 1/2, so that the pitch values, mL/2q, shown on the plot are nondimensional vertical bow displacements due to pitch.”” It is seen in Fig. 4 that both theories agree quite well with the « periments and that for the pitch amplitudes the present theory seems to agree somewhat better with the experiments than the theory of Korvia- Kroukovsky 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."* ‘The Davidson A is a destroyer form with a very large bulbous bow and a transom stem. An accurate account of the effects of the bulb is ob- tained by using the Frank close-fit method in com- puting the sectional added mass and damping for both theories. The end-effect terms as previously discussed were included in both theories. The ex perimental values shown in Fig. 5 were measured ‘by Smith and Salvesen (1970) using a free-running iiodel. ‘The vertical motions were messured by sonie transducers in order to eliminate the me- chanical damping which was present in the heave D Frode number of 0.20 correspouds to approximately 1 nots forthe G20 Mariner ship. pitch fo eonventioually sealed by the maximum wave Sloper, however, t has been four In comparing theory and Experiments ad in comparing the relative importance of SHES and eave that if more convenient to present the Ditch es “vertical bow displacement.” Sade number of 0.45 corresponds to approximately 36 knots for» 800-7 ship. : Ship Motions and Sea Loods 9stafi."” [tis 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 Korvin- Kroukovsky and Jacobs, Finally, in Fig. 6 the piteh 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 repre- sents computations by the present theory and the points are results by Wahab (1967). Satisfactory agreement between theory and experiments is seen for bow, quartering, and following waves while there is some discrepancy for beam waves, Sway, Roll, and Yow Motions It follows from the general formulation of the equations of motion [equations (1) through (4)] that for a ship with lateral symmetry the coupled differential equations governing the sway, roll, and ‘yaw motions can be written in the form (As + Mis + Bain + (dus — Main + Bain + Asie + Base = Fe (36) (Aa — Madlin+ Basie + (dat Dont Batis + Can + (4 — Lali + Basie = Fe (87) Aasie ++ Bevin + (ler — Fedbin ++ Bevie + Cle + dis + Basie = Fe (88) ‘The added-mass and damping coefficients, 4 ,,and Ba, 9s derived in Appendix 1 using linear poten- tial-flow 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 roll-damping co- eflicient, Bu, is significantly affected by viscosity ever in the absence of bilge keels, and the ampli- tude of the roll displacement can be computed with reasonable accuracy in near-resonance cox dition only if the viscous roll damping is ineluded [see Vugts (1968) |. Therefore the hydrodynamic coefficient given in Appendix 1 will be used with an additional term, Bu*, which represents quasi- linear viscous-damping effects in rol! T Siith and Salvesen (1970) have shove thst there isa noticeable diflerence between the heave amplitudes men ‘ured by free-running models and by the heave-stat toch: ‘nique for hulls with very lange bulb, rhe pith amplitude is sealed in Fg, 6 in the conven- ‘onal way by the masimum wave slope "Methods for computing te roll scous damping term ‘By and its effet on the rll displaccrtent are discussed nore detail st the end of this section. Aes = Soudt — Yin @9) Bu = foadt + Ua" (40) Au= An = Sood — Zins (61) Bu = Bey = Soult + Urs (42) Aw = Sent + 8 Bat — Usb (43) Bay = Seba — VAat + Vegas + Ut “) Aug = faut — 2 age 45) a= Soule + Vout + Bat (46) Aw = piuude + © Be — Y aabat in’ (47) By = feu ig — UAs? + Urgent + 2 but (48) Aa = finale ~ Ze —Yede* (49) Bor = Stbad + Uda! + Uxqan" (60) Jo = ffaeid — Bus = Siduilt + VAs? + Urgant (62) J But —~Yospbut G1) se Sena Bs = Ut +P eaasst (53) Ba = Sebuit + F Bot + Us, + cast (4) Here the integrations are over the leagth of the ship, an and by are the two-dimensional sectional added mass and damping in sway, ay aid by are the sectional added mass and damping in roll, and 10 Ship Motions end Soa Loads9) (40) (41) (42) 4 (a3) (aa) (as) “ (7) 4 (48) a) (60) G1) (2) * 62) * G4) of the sctional bus are oll, and day and by are the two-dimensional added-mass and damping coefficients de to cross coupling be- tween sway and roll. In Appenclix 2, numerical methods for computing the sectional added-mass and damping coefficients are described anid com- parisons between computed and experimental ‘values for these two-dimensional sectional quanti- ‘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 y° and B® refer to the speed-independent part of the coefficients and that sq, a4, and Dj! refer to values at the aftermost 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 Cu = pgVEIt 5) where ¥ is the displaced volume of the ship and GIF is the metacentric height. It follows from the results in Appendix 1 that the amplitude of the sway exciting force is y= ap f a+ hade + ap Z het (66) that the amplitude of the roll exciting moment is a0 fit bode + ap Zh 67) and that the amplitude of the yaw exciting: mo- ment is, fam on flat io + Zoafie sarLane 0) where the sectional Frowle-Krilofl “forces” are fy gett Pf ntontchalj 24 (69) ‘and the sectional diffraction “forces” are fy = weno (iN, — Nesingyeltntelty dl; F=24 (60) ‘Thus, the exciting forces and moments can be ob- tained by simple numerical integrations first over g. 4 Heave and pitch amplitudes and phases for Mafiser in Wend waves ace = 20? the cross section, C., and then over the length of the ship if the sectional two-dimensional velocity potentials for sway and roll, vz and ys, are known, ‘Methods for computing these two-dimensional 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, ae aan” ei i i . i ' g : “ i S| ae oy 1 1 r ‘Ship Motions and Sec Locels ueae, ye Tig. 5 Heave and pitch smplitades and phates for Davidson’ A in head waves at Fy = 0443, Ship Motions and Sea Loads and yaw for a ship with forward speed, A de- tailed 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 satisty the symmetry relation ship stated by Timman and Newnan (1962) while the coeficients used by Grim and Schenzle lack several of the forward-speed terms included here and do not satisfy this symmetry relationship. ‘As was stated, the roll motions in the near- resonance condition are strongly affected by vis- cous damping. This can be seen in Fig. 7, where theoretical and experimental roll amplitudes for a round-bilge rectangular cylinder in beam waves are shown, The points in the figure are experi- mental values from Vugts (1968). The broken line is the computed roll amplitude using linear potential-flow theory including wave damping but neglecting viscous effects, while the solid line represents the computed rol! amplitude including. both wave and viscous damping. ‘The maximum, roll amplitude computed by potential theory is root 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 eddy-mat is Use of these results of Kato and Tanaka permits the viscous roll-damping effects which are on- linear with respect to the roll velocity, ve, to be introduced in the equations of motion as the quesi- linear term Bu® = Kita (1) where K depends on the frequency, the viscosity, the bilge-keel dimensions, and the hull geometry. Here jiga is the maximum roll velocity and must be estimted before the motions are computed. It the difference between the estimated and the com- puted fina is t00 Farge, a new value for H,., must be estimated and the motions are then recom puted. Vugts (19682) has reported experimental sway and roll amplitudes for several eylinder forms in bear 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 (1963) for Series 60, Cy = 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 tthe coupling of roll into sway in the roll-resonance condition.L Ade s derived ated here it showld tations of relation- 62) while ale Tack ded here aship. the near- by vis 7, where des for a ve experi ¢ broken including thee is al tunes plitude puted by afriction ssistance. {permits fig, to be he quasi- (1) viscosity, cometry. ind must ated. If the com- ios MISE 1" Fecont- tal ay forms in a sample sults and isfactory equation ven made 3 (1965) sat zero between is quite s due to Unfortunately, it is not possible to make a de- tailed comparison between experiments and theory for the sway, yavr, and roll motions in oblique ‘waves. For those few experiments where these motions have been measured, adequate informa- tion about the weight distribution needed for com- puting the responses isnot available in most of the eases. Therefore it is diffcult to make general statements with respect to the accuracy of sway, ‘yaw, and roll motions in oblique seas as computed iy this theory. On the other hand, the satisfuc- tory 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 be reasonable. 3, Sea Loads Relationships are presented in this section for the dynamic shear forces and torsional and bend- ing moments for a ship advancing at constant mean speed at arbitrary heading in regular sinu- soidal waves, Comparisons between computed and experimental wave-induced loads are made. Dynamic Lood Equations Let the shear and compression force at a cross section of the ship be Vw Vat Vai + Vike (62) where Vi is the compression, Va is the horizontal shear foree, and V; is the vertical shear force Similarly, let the bending and torsional moment at a section be M = Wit Vi + Vee (63) where V1 is the (orsional moment, V5 is the verti- cal bending moment, and V, is the horizontal bending moment.” ‘The sign convention used for the dynamic wave-load components is shown in Fig. 9. Note that Vi is actually the bending moment about the horizontal axis but it has be come customary among naval architects to refer to Fig. 6. Pitch amplisides for Series 60, Co ~ 0.80 bow, beam, quactering aad following waves at Fe ir "© Under the assumptions applied in deriving the eas: tions of notion, te compression force Vs is small (0 bigher order) and hence wil not be considered further. ‘Tye torsional and We bending moments are expressed hhore with respect to. local coordinate system swith the frig In the given eross section, but otherwise oriented as the enordinade system shown Va as the vertical bending moment since itis the moment die to the vertical forees. Similarly Ve, ‘whieh is the moment about the vertical axis, isre- Terred (o as the horizontal bending moment since it is due to the horizontal forces. eonpers® FeLoures=b wave FREQUENCY, oY Ship Motions and Sea Loads 13wae rr ave vcoos n yh 1) eee it © pxpeewexts, { sae | q q sae b ROLL AMPLITUDE, MN CEDRERS Frequency. uns sec“ Fig.7 Theoretical and experimental roll amplitudes for ‘ectangular eylinder ia 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 bull forward of the section in question. If the external Torce is separated into the static restoring force R,, the exciting force E,, and the hydrodynamic force due to the body motion D,, we find that Vy = I; — Ry ~ Ey— Dy (64), if I, is the inertia force, Similarly, the torsional and bending moments are equal to'the difference between the moment due to the inertia fore 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, ‘The inertia force is the mass times the accelera- tion. If the inertia force is expressed in terms of tthe sectional inertia force (the sectional mass times the sectional acceleration), we find that Ie = Silin + bin — Bie) dE (65) Is = Smilin ~ Gis) dE (66) If a similar procedure is followed for the moment- of-inertia terms, we find that I, = Slieis — mili + biod| dé (67) ask sway, nye rents (Asal m8 10 is 30 PeRtoo m seconDs Fig. 8 Sway amplitude for Series 60, Cy = 0.70a beam Ef amet aves at zero speed — Sle ~ s)lin — Biddt (68) Jy = Swe — s)lin + tie ~ Biodde (69) Here mis the sectional mass per unit Iength of the ship, 2 is the vertical position of center of gravity of the sectional mass, and ig is the sectional mass moment of inertia about the x-axis, The integra- tion is over the length of the ship forward of the cross section being considered ‘The hydrostatic restoring forces and moments are given by Ram ~peSo(ns — emit (70) Ri= gn Slonam — mide 71) Re = easole — xNlme ~ Enid (72) with R, = O and Ry = 0. Here bis the sectional team, is the submerged sectional area, and om is the distance between the water plane and the see- tional 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 (158) in Appendix 1 by replacing the moment arm Ewith ( — x). It follows from this that the ex- citing force and moment components are ea Gy hoes + (Zn) bee ra 2nd Re -mm fle = 2h + i) Ua lagem Ea latem (4 jn in fae O 4 Ship Motions and Sea Leads By Th fe ant thy we AL tic th"969) Oia beam 6s) Bo) thof the f gravity nal mass integra. rd of the moments (70) am) sectional and om is the see portion scan be 152) ad nent arm vt the exe 473) eet (74) nom fleet + Zinfeet 05) ‘phe sectional Froude-Kriloff “force” is given by Pa fea 5) a= comprenion force Yo = torsional momest peace [ wetomnena; 72,84 09) PT AGRISSEIRAL Pf = See bende Tree ‘moment Vy = verti shear Ve-= hostuontal bending ‘and the sectional diffraction "force" is given by eee monet ig. 9. Sign convention for dynamic wave-load com- By exe oe f Gis — Nasing)e®™ey dl; ‘ponents ce 7= 23,4 (7) ‘Phe hydrodynamic foree and moment due top [ie — y)fantis — = the body motion on the portion of the skip for- 7" {= Sant ~ 6) + Babie — ONE wrard of & given cross section have been derived in / = Mpnentit Sandan bewrttenintermsoftheses- + {Ulin — 2) — J bale — #89 ‘tional added mass and damping (aq, and d,) and = the velocity and acceleration ( and 4) in com D ani ponent form a2 as = Fone + boda D Dw = {eee Hid) + belie + Bi) Dem — [OE ~loali + tid + bale + “+ oun + bs + 4 bao — Voninhdt eas + buat ~ f {Uoati +) = [ ventin + ei) — Zin + 6 — Yate + sid + 2 nin + bt) anf (62) with Dy netigible. The coefficient fin equa- et Tae Gd tee viacous sectional rolldamping co- Dam ~ f {rts ~ si) + bis ~ B50 on) ie espa n the same way a8 te F aap coueient Ba, given by equation (6), bis Usd at a [venti — ‘This completes the relationships for the dy- * amie) shen? free. and. bending. and. torsional Ue eo |. moments. Comtparison of the equations presented — Zain — ti — Fain + bid], 9) ert those of W. Jacobs (1058) for vertical f shear forces and bending moments in head waves ' iat Sits that the only fecense beteen the tO Do — fois + Cot bain sors ttn ear apend tern a theo Eeiee anu dn the hydrodynemie force and mo- +E ea + bid + Ueoss— Ltd} (7) oe u tatiana aotion, "These differences + ons + Bk) + bain + Bi) wi bade jn the forward-speed terms are quite similar to the diferences between the present theory ad ~ Unrshas - [Bentin + bi) the theory of Korvin-Kroukovsky and Jacobs {G57} for the equetions of motions as was di u ie Cre fa section 2. Computations have shown — L ttin-+ te) + Z lesn + bods) hat these diterenes in the speed temps have an . Eppreciable effect on the computed vertical shear (gy) foes and bending tment in the higher speed lees range (Fx > 0.25). +00 Se Ship Motions and Sea Loads 15(2, EXPERIMENT THEORY ee me nee ‘VERTICAL SHEAR FoRCE,v,10Zxp 8 wave emequENcr nT Fig, 10, Vertical shear force amplitudes at midship for Series 60, Cx ~ 0.80 in head and bow waves at, = 0.13 Séding (1969) has also derived the vertical shear forees and bending moments for a ship in hhead waves. His shear and moment equations are identical to those presented here for the case of hhead waves. However, Grim and Schenzle (1989) have derived the horizontal shear forces and bend: ing moment as well as torsional moments for 2 ship advancing at arbitrary heading in regular waves, ‘Their theory lacks several of the specd terms in: cluded here and, unfortunately, since they give detailed comparisons between their theory and experiments only for the zero-forward-speed case, little is known about the accuracy of their speed terms, Comparicon with Experiments Vossers et al. (1961) have conducted a very systematic complete set of wave-load experiments. ‘They measured both the vertical and horizontal waverinduced loads for several Series-€0 hull forms in head, following, and oblique waves. Un- fortunately the experiments were performed at only 6 different wave lengths and these are not really enough for a comparison between theory and experiments. More detailed tests were rerun by Wahab (1967) using the standard Series-60 hhull form with Cy = 0.80, ‘These tests were con- ducted at several wave Iengths and most of the Ship Motions and Sea Loads test conditions were run at least twice. We believe that the experiments by Wahab are the best avail able for a comparative study of the wave-induced Toads. Vertical loads. A comparison between computed ‘and experimental vertical shear-force amplitudes for the Series-60 hull form (Cx = 080) in head. and bow waves at Froude number 0.15 is shown in Fig. 10. Tt should be noted that head waves with p = 180 deg cannot be run conveniently at the seakeeping tank in Wageningen, so that the head-wave experiments were conducted by Wahab with 6 = 170 deg. The numerical head-wave computations are also for 6 = 170 deg. Further- more, one should note that the maximum wave- induced 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 measur~ ing the wave loads at the midship section only. Fig. 10 shows quite satisfactory agreement with small discrepancies in the higher frequency range Similar agreement is found in Fig. 11, where the vertical bending-moment amplitudes ia head, quartering, and following waves are compared (Note that 8 is 10 deg for following waves.) Con- sidering the difficulties involved in making ac ‘curate measurements for such experiments and the drastic assumptions made in deriving the theory, the agreement between experiments and theory seen in Figs. 10 and 11 is ttle short of amazing. Wahab (1967) also presented a comparison be- tween theory and his vertical-Joad experiments. ‘The computed values were obtained by an exten- sion of the theory of Korvin-Kroukovsky and Jacobs (1957) to include oblique waves. Wahab's ‘comparisons show less satisfactory results than shown here."* Horizontal loads. Comparisons between theory and experiments for the wave-induced horizontal shear forces, bending moments, end torsional moments are shown in Figs. 12, 18, and 14 respec- tively. The comparisons are for the Series 60 inal 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 l4show quite satisfactory agreement between the present theory ‘and experiments. This is extremely encouraging, especially since no other comparisons between computed and experimental wave-indueed hori- zontal loads for a ship with forward speed exist. "8 Gee Faltinsen (1970) for a more detailed comparison ‘hetean the present theory and the Series 60, Cy = 0.80 swavelead experinents by Walab,