Professional Documents
Culture Documents
74-115
D. Tech. Sci., professor Gotman A.Sh., Novosibirsk State Academy of Water Transport, Shchetinkina st., 33,Novosibirsk,
630099, Russia
e-mail: Agotman@yandex.ru
ABSTRACT
A systematical study of Michells integral was carried out and an investigation into a discrepancy between the linear theory and
experiment was conducted. Special attention was given to the influence of viscosity on the interaction of the bow and stern
systems of ship waves.
An experiment with two struts provided information about the mechanism of influence of viscosity of a fluid on the ship wave
resistance. This experiment argued against a popular opinion that the humps and hollows are absent in an experimental curve
because of the action of the boundary layer, the wake, and the hull sheltering effect. Our calculations confirm the hypothesis that a
certain part of the bow waves energy is wasted on turbulence of a flow around the moving ship and does not participate in the
interaction with the stern system of waves.
The new form of Michells integral in which the monotone part is separated from the oscillatory part made it possible to
determine the previously unknown peculiarities of this integral. For the first time analytical and experimental methods suggested
the reason why the wave resistance at low and high speeds should be investigated separately.
The new comparative criterion of choosing a ship hull form with the least wave resistance was obtained from the modified form
of Michells integral and then verified for models described by different equations. This method provided optimum forms that
were well coordinated with the known forms.
The study of the influence of the ship hull surface curvature on wave resistance produced a graph combining all possible ship
hull forms. It was shown that the simplified hull shapes with cylindrical fore bodies have the largest possible value of wave
resistance and why the design of fore bulbs is an extremely tricky matter.
1. INTRODUCTION
It has been more than one hundred years since Michells
famous article about the wave resistance of thin ships was first
published in 1898.
Michells theory dealt with the problem of ship wave
resistance and had been worked out by linearizing the
boundary conditions on both the ships hull and the free
surface of the fluid. Many works have been devoted to the
study of Michells integral. (For example Birkhoff et al.
[1954], Birkhoff & Kotik [1954], Cuthberg [1964] Emerson
[1954; 1971], Guilloton [1946; 1951; 1952; 1962; 1965],
Doctors [1998], Havelock [1909; 1926; 1932; 1934a; 1934b;
1935; 1948; 1951], Hsiung & Wehausen [1969], Inui [1957;
1962; 1981], Keller & Ahlawalia [1976], Lunde [1951],
Michelsen [1966; 1967; 1972], Newman [1964; 1976],
74
Cw x 1000
Michell himself carried out the first test of the theory. As his
brother wrote, Michell had assembled a set of data, containing
known experimental measurements of the total resistance of
water to the movement of real ships. Unfortunately, he didnt
give examples of these data in his paper.
Wigley had carried out fundamental arithmetical and
empirical verifications of Michells integral at the end of the
1920s. For this purpose Wigley had developed a large series
of different analytical models with constant draft, a
length/beam ratio L/B = 10.67 and beam/draught ratio
B/T = 1.5. The dependence upon x and z was represented as a
product of a function of x with a function of z thereby
simplifying the calculation of Michell's integral. At the same
time Weinblum, having developed a series of analytical
models, carried out similar research. Having discovered a
good qualitative result of Michells integral the investigators
turned to a systematical study of the linear theory of ship wave
resistance and Michells integral in particular.
The ultimate goal of our investigation was to reveal the
cause of the discrepancy between Michells theory and the
experimental data at low Froude numbers. In addition, there
was a need for a theoretical method to design the ship hull with
the least wave resistance.
This paper contains six parts.
1. The first part includes a brief survey of some well known
and new results related to the linear theory and Michell
integral.
2. The second part describes a new form of Michells
integral in which the main monotone part is separated
from the oscillatory one, which is directly connected with
the interference of bow and stern wave systems of the
ship.
3. The third part presents the results of the calculation of
Michells integral, assessment of these results, and the
immediate deductions.
4. In the fourth part a new hypothesis of the turbulent action
of ship waves is presented. The hypothesis did arise from
the fact that ship waves create the turbulence of flow
around the moving ship, a certain amount of the bow wave
energy being wasted for this.
5. In the fifth part a practical way to shape the ship hull
forms with the least wave resistance, using new criterion
obtained on the basis of accounts from part 2, is described.
It is illustrated by clear examples (Appendixes B and C).
6. The sixth part contains an investigation of the influence
the hull surface curvature exerts on the wave resistance. It
is based upon the use of a mathematical model of the hull
with a developable surface and on the analysis of the
integrand of Michells integral.
Figures 1A 21A in Appendix A show the results of both
the calculations and the experimental curves of residual
resistance for 21 models of Wigley and Weinblum. There is a
measured curve, Michells curve, the main part of Michells
integral, and the curve of wave resistance taking into account
the viscous effect.
Finally, the explanation of the discrepancy between the
prediction of wave resistance based on linear theory and
experimental data has been obtained.
0,3
0,25
0,2
0,15
0,1
0,05
0
0,15 0,19 0,22 0,26 0,29 0,33 0,36
Fn
Experiment
Michell
Doubl. model
Doubl. Mod. + Lin. Integral
Doubl. Mod. + Lin. Int. +
Sources on the free surface
Figure 1. Comparison calculations of wave resistance of the
parabolic Wigley model (by H. Maruo & K. Suzuki [1977],
figure 3).
75
76
( x, y , z ) =
1
4
G
+
(G
)dy at
4 ko L
x
x
(1)
z = 0,
fx
nx =
1 + f x2
(5)
ko L 1 + f x2
P( ) =
(6)
f3
1
Q( ) = x 2 sin(kx)dx.
ko L 1 + f x
where
S is the ship hull surface,
L is the main waterline,
ko =
(4)
1 + f x2
(G n n )dS
2 f x
( x) =
J ( ) = f x ( x, z ) e pz sin(kx)dxdz ,
D
and
P ( ) =
4 g
{I
Q( ) =
( ) + J 2 ( ) +
f x3 ( x, o)
cos(kx)dx ,
1 + f x2
(7)
3
2 f x ( x, o)
2
L 1 + f x
2
sin(kx)dx .
(2)
[ P 2 ( ) + Q 2 ( )]
2 2
d
[ P ( ) I ( ) + Q( ) J ( )]} 3 ,
g
cos
Parabolic model
0,006
0,005
where
0,004
cos(kx)dS ,
Cw
0,47
0,43
Q( ) = ( x, y , z ) nx sin(kx) dy.
10
0
0,39
68
0,001
0,35
0,31
(3)
0,27
0,002
0,23
sin( kx) dS ,
2
4
0,19
J ( ) = ( x, y, z ) e
pz
0,003
0,15
I ( ) = ( x, y, z ) e
pz
Fn
Measur. Coef. Cw
Michell
Michell+lin. Int.
77
0,005
0,004
Cw
0,006
0,003
0,002
78
0,001
0,48
0,45
0,42
0,39
0,36
0,33
0,30
0,27
0,24
0,21
0,18
0,15
Fn
Michell
Exper. Max
Exper. Min.
0,84
0,76
0,68
0,60
0,52
0,44
0,36
0,28
0,20
0,0016
0,0014
0,0012
0,001
0,0008
0,0006
0,0004
0,0002
0
0,12
Cw
Fn
Measur. Cw
Michell
Cw
0,002
0,0015
0,001
0,0005
0,76
0,69
0,62
0,55
0,48
0,41
0,34
0,27
0
0,20
Fn
Measur. Cw
Michell
0,20
0,15
0,10
0,05
0,34
0,32
0,30
0,28
0,26
0,24
0,22
0,20
0,18
0,16
0,00
0,14
Rw
Fn strut
Rw of one
R=
4 g 2b 2
Re
sec3 d
f ( , ) e
'
p ( + z )
2 T
2 T
l 0l 0
2
2
ik ( x )
f x' ( x, z )
(7)
dxdzd d ,
79
where
p=
; k=
2 cos 2
2 cos
(8)
4 g 2
Rw =
l
2 T
2 T
b 2 Re
sec3 d
f x' ( x, z ) f' ( , ) e p ( + z )
l 0l 0
2
2
(9)
=
1
4 g
b 2 Re sec 3 d
1
x
( x, z ) f 1 ( , )e p ( + z )
12 0 12 0
[e
=
1
ik ( x )
8 g 2
2
1
+ e ik ( x ) + e ik ( x + L ) + e ik ( x + L ) dxdzd
Re sec 3 d e pz dz e p d
0
0
0
f (x, z ) f ( )e
1
x
ik ( x )
(cos kL + 1)dxd
12 12
80
wake change a field of speeds and pressure at the stern wavemaking point, resulting in a reduction of amplitudes of the aft
wave system.
But how does all this influence the interaction of the bow
and aft ship wave systems? For the viscosity of a liquid to
influence the interaction of waves it is necessary for the wave
amplitudes of the bow system to essentially decrease as they
pass along the ship hull. Our calculations have shown that the
kinematics coefficient of viscosity is too small and is
practically unable to significantly affect the amplitudes of
moving waves.
In the experiment with struts the boundary layer, wake, and
the sheltering effect of the ships hull are not present. The only
assumption is that the wave flow around the ship becomes very
turbulent because of viscosity. The hypothesis was made that
the ship waves create the turbulence of flow around the
moving ship, and that a certain part of the bow wave energy is
wasted.
The turbulent effect of waves is well known and was
described by Shuleikin [1958]. Dobroklonskii [1947] and
Shutilov [1941] have studied this phenomenon of ocean waves
and have estimated the turbulence coefficient. Apparently,
similar experimental and theoretical work should be done for
ship waves.
When it became apparent that the turbulence of a ships
waves is associated with the process of wave damping and
energy dissipation we discovered a great many existing
theoretical and experimental results which support this
hypothesis. For verification one can explore numerous papers
on this problem.
The complex structure of free surface shock waves (FSSW)
was studied by Miyata [1980], Mori [1979], Shin & Mori
[1989] and others. The following investigation was focused on
a study of turbulence near the free surface in different forms by
many authors including Madsen & Svendsen [1983], K.
Hanjalic & Launder [1972], Launder et al. [1975], Hung &
Buning [1985], Hunt & Graham [1978], Nakano [1988],
Schofield [1985], Tryggvason [1988], Visbal & Knight [1984],
Zhao & Zou [2001], and many others.
The structure of the bow waves has received considerable
attention in a review of Miyata and Inui [1984]. They
observed that the near-surface flow structure and wave pattern
depended strongly on the Froude number and the bow
configuration. They also demonstrated that the near-surface
flow had transformed into a turbulent flow downstream of the
wave crest. Their velocity measurement showed that this
transition involved a significant loss of energy. They wrote:
The wave system is not like that of Kelvins waves in
the near field of the ship model. Two remarkable waves
are originated from the forepart of the model, and their
crest lines are nearly parabolic or straight. The
appearance of the water surface is quite different in
front and behind the water crest line. Behind the wave
crest the water surface seems to be turbulent The
bow waves evidently show intense nonlinearity in a
wide range of advance speeds. Their appearance is very
similar to a turbulent bore or a hydraulic jump.
And again:
It is supposed that a kind of viscous effect plays a
certain role in the process of wave damping and energy
0. 35
0. 34
0. 32
0. 30
0. 29
0. 27
0. 26
0. 24
00
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
00
0. 16
Cw
Further
1.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0. 22
0. 21
There is no way to list all the necessary work but one can
find many more references in review articles by Peregrine &
Svendson [1978] and Banner & Peregrine [1993].
0. 19
0. 18
The turbulent character of the flow near the bow of ship was
shown in figures 2 and 3 by Inui [1981].
Our hypothesis about a turbulent character of the bow ship
waves is confirmed also by the experiments of Dong et al.
[1997]. They wrote
Fn
Mi chel l
N=10, L=50 by Si mpson
N=10, L=100 by Si mpson
N=20, L=100 by Si mpson
81
Rw =
3. A NEW EXPONENTIAL FORM OF MICHELLS
INTEGRAL
4 g 2
p ( z + )
2 z ( x)
0 L
2 z( x)
0 L
Rw =
2 z ( x)
0 L
2 z( x)
0 L
ik ( x )
f x ( x, z )
d
d d dzdx
.
cos3
gz
gL
Tz
= 2
=
2
2
cos cos L T
1
T z
z
= po ,
T
Fn 2 cos 2 L T
gx
gL
x
=
=
kx = 2
.
2
L
cos 2 cos
2
1
x
x
= ko
,
L
2 Fn 2 cos L
2
2
pz =
where po =
(14)
T
1
1
.
, ko =
Fn 2 cos2 L
2 Fn 2 cos
(15)
In the further
d
0 [ I + J ] cos3 ,
2
(11)
Rw =
d
4 pg 2 B
2
2
T Re 0 J 1 (k , p ) J 2 (k , p )
2
2
cos 3
(16)
where
where
L
2
I ( )
=
J ( ) L
z( x)
cos(kx)
f x ( x, z ) e pz
dzdx,
sin(kx)
p=
g
2
cos
, k=
g
2
cos
J 1 ( x, k , p ) =
(12)
where
is the mass density of the liquid,
g is the acceleration of the force of gravity,
is the velocity of the ship,
L is the hull length,
z(x) is the equation of the zero buttock,
y = f(x,z) is the equation of the hull surface,
B is the beam,
T is the draft, and
is the angle between the direction of the moving ship and that
of a propagating wave, and
p and k equals
(13)
82
(10)
Re
p ( z + )
f x ( x, z ) f ( , )
d
cos[k ( x )]d d dzdx
.
cos3
4 g 2
f ( , ) e
Rw =
4 g 2
J 2 ( x, k , p ) =
1 z( x)
f x ( x, z ) e
1 0
1 z( x)
pz +ikx
f ( , ) e
dz dx ,
(17)
p ik
d d .
1 0
J 1 ( x, k , p ) = J 3 ( x, p ) e ikx dx ,
1
1
(18)
J 2 ( x, k , p ) = J 3 ( x, p ) e ikx dx ,
1
where
J 3 ( x, p ) =
z( x)
f x ( x, z ) e
pz
dz .
(19)
3 =
n =0
4 =
J 4 ( p) f 2' ( x)eikx dx
1
= J 4 ( p ) J 5 (k ),
n =0
(1) n
J 6 (k ) =
I1 =
I2 = 2
(n)
(1) e g (1) e
(ik ) n +1
ik
(24)
J 42 ( p) F1 ( k )
d
,
cos3
m 1
n =0
(ik ) n +1
m 1
g ( n ) ( 1)
n =0
(ik ) n +1
( 1) n
n =0
(n)
m1
( ik )
m 1
g ( n ) ( 1)
n =0
( ik )
( 1) n
(1)n
g (n) (1)
= ig(1)k 1 + g' (1)k 2
(ik )n+1
(1)
,
n +1
(29)
m 1
d
.
cos3
2 = ( 1) n
(n)
(1) e ik g ( n ) (1) eik
n g
( 1)
.
n =0
(ik ) n +1
(1)
g ( n ) (1) e ik
.
(ik ) n+1
2
2
F1 ( k ) = k 2 [Gbo
+ k 2 Gb21 + Gso
+ k 2 Gs21 ] ,
g ( x) e ikx dx =
1 = ( 1) n
(1) n
(28)
ik
(n)
g ( n ) (1) e ik
(ik ) n +1
where
(23)
g ( x) eikx dx =
(1) n
(26)
(n)
g ( n ) (1) eik
,
(ik ) n +1
e 2ik + e 2ik
e 2ik e 2ik
, sin 2k =
2
2i
g ( n ) (1) eik
(ik ) n+1
(22)
n =0
n=0
cos 2k =
m 1
(21)
(1) n
(1) n
m 1
n =0
(20)
J 4 ( p ) = f1 ( z ) e pz dz ,
J 5 (k ) =
m 1
J1 ( k , p ) =
m 1
(25)
,
n +1
(30)
m1
n=0
(1)n
g(n) (1)
=ig(1)k 1 + g' (1)k 2
(ik )n+1
(31)
83
( 1)
n =0
g ( n ) ( 1)
(ik )
n +1
m 1
( 1)
n=0
2
2
J 5 (k ) J 6 (k ) = k 2 [Gbo
+ k 2Gb21 + Gso
+ k 2Gs21 ]
g ( n ) ( 1)
( ik )
n +1
(32)
g ( n ) (1)
n=0
(ik ) n +1
( 1) n
= k 2 Gb1 ik 1 Gbo ,
m 1
g ( n ) (1)
n=0
( ik ) n +1
m 1
g ( n ) ( 1)
( 1) n
( 1) n
n=0
(ik ) n +1
m 1
g ( n ) ( 1)
n =0
( ik ) n +1
( 1) n
= k 2 Gb1 + ik 1 Gbo ,
(33)
= k 2 G s1 ik 1 G so ,
This product gives the formulas (27), (28), and (29), which
are the new form of Michells integral.
In the obtained expression the oscillatory part is separated
from the nonoscillatory part, and furthermore, the bow
contribution is separated from that of the stern. The interaction
of the bow and stern systems is determined by the sum of the
second and third members of formula (36).
Such representation of the integral is convenient for the
investigation of the linear theory of wave resistance and of
interaction of the bow and stern wave systems.
If the ships drought is a variable quantity, the formula of
wave resistance has the form
= k 2 G s1 + ik 1 G so ,
Rw =
where
4 g 2 B 2 2
( ) T (Q1 + Q2 ) ,
2 2
g(x,z) = fx(x,z)
(34)
n=0
m 1
n=0
m 1
n=0
m 1
n=0
( 1) n
g ( n ) (1) ik
e =[ k 2 Gb1 ik 1 Gbo ] eik ,
(ik ) n +1
( 1) n
g ( n ) (1)
e ik =[ k 2 Gb1 + ik 1 Gbo ] e ik ,
( ik ) n +1
( 1) n
g ( n ) ( 1) ik
e =[ k 2 Gs1 ik 1 Gso ] e ik ,
(ik ) n +1
( 1) n
z( x)
g ( x, z ) e pz dz =
g z( n ) ( x, z ( x))e pz ( x ) g z( n ) ( x, o)
( 1)
,
n=0
( p) n +1
(39)
J 1 ( k , p ) = ( x, p ) e ikx dx ,
(40)
1
1
J 2 ( k , p ) = ( x, p ) e ikx dx ,
1
(35)
g ( n ) ( 1) ik
e =[ k 2 Gs1 + ik 1 Gso ] e ik .
( ik ) n +1
84
( x, p ) =
m 1
(38)
IV
(37)
(36)
Q1 =
(41)
F1 (k , p) cos 3
d
,
cos3
(42)
(43)
r 1 (2r 2)
(1, p)k (2r 2) , if m = 2r.
(1) x
85
4)
5)
6)
7)
8)
9)
Model number
Length L, m
Beam B, m
Draught T, m
Parabolic
829
1805a
1805b
1846a
1846b
1970b
1970c
2038c
N43
2130a
4.8766
4.8766
4.8766
4.8766
4.8766
4.8766
4.8766
4.8766
4.8766
4.8766
4.8766
0.4572
0.4572
0.4572
0.4572
0.4572
0.4572
0.4572
0.4572
0.5334
0.4572
0.4572
0.3048
0.3048
0.3048
0.3048
0.3048
0.3048
0.3048
0.3048
0.1524
0.3048
0.3048
a2
a4
Volumetric coeff. Cv
0
0
0.444
-0.2000
0
0.427
-0.6000
0
0.391
-1.0000
0
0.355
0.6000
0
0.498
0.2000
0
0.462
0.4375
-0.4375
0.467
0.8125
-1.3125
0.467
-0.5000
0.400
2
2
2
2
8
= (1- )(1- )(1+0.2 ) + (1- ) (1-2)4
= (1-2)(1-2)(1+0.43752 0.53- 0.43754)
86
Model number
1093
1097
1098
1100
1110
1111
1112
1113
1114
1136
Wetted area S
1.585
2.385
2.390
2.50
2.45
2.425
2.421
2.491
2.444
2.614
Model number
f(1)
f(1)
f(1)
fIV(1)
fV(1)
fVI(1)
ao
Parabolic
829
1805a
1805b
1846a
-.20
-0.16
-0.08
0.00
-0.32
-.20
0.00
0.40
0.08
- 0.08
0
0.48
14.40
2.40
-1.44
0
0.48
1.44
2.40
-1.44
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
10o38
8o00
4o17
0o00
16o41
1846b
1970b
1970c
2038c
N43
-0.24
-0.20
-0.10
-0.10
-0.24
-0.40
0.15
1.35
0.30
-0.40
-0.48
3.15
10.65
1.20
-0.48
-0.48
13.65
42.13
1.20
-0.48
0
31.65
94.50
0
0
0
31.65
94.50
0
0
12o41
10o38
5o20
5o20
12o41
Model number
f(1)
f(1)
f(1)
fIV(1)
fV(1)
fVI(1)
fVII(1)
fVIII(1)
1093
1097
1098
1100
1110
1111
1112
1113
-0.160
-0.240
-0.14
-0.240
-0.240
-0.108
-0.200
-.0.241
-0.107
-.080
0.62
-0.080
-0.080
1.428
-0.200
0.311
1.600
2.400
5.100
2.400
2.400
11.616
0
5.952
8.000
12.000
18.000
12.000
12.000
46.640
0
27.440
19.20
28.80
34.80
28.80
28.80
105.12
0
64.44
19.20
28.60
28.80
28.80
28.80
105.12
0
64.44
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1114
1136
-0.137
-0.240
0.365
-0.080
2.191
2.400
-0.974
12.000
-55.60
28.80
-286.1
28.80
-691.5
0
-691.5
0
87
0,006
WB1093
WB1097
0,005
WB1098
WB1100
WB1110
0,004
Cw
WB1111
WB1112
0,003
WB1113
WB1114
WB1136
0,002
0,001
0,3312
0,3199
0,3086
0,2973
0,2860
0,2747
0,2634
0,2521
0,2409
0,2296
0,2183
0,2070
0,1957
0,1844
0,1731
0,1618
0,1505
Fn
Figure 9. Main values of the wave-resistance coefficients of the Weinblum models.
0,0035
WB1093
WB1097
0,003
WB1098
WB1100
0,0025
WB1110
WB1111
WB1112
Cw
0,002
WB1113
WB1114
0,0015
WB1136
0,001
0,0005
0,3312
0,3199
0,3086
0,2973
0,2860
0,2747
0,2634
0,2521
0,2409
0,2296
0,2183
0,2070
0,1957
0,1844
0,1731
0,1618
0,1505
Fn
Figure 10. Experimental values of the wave-resistance coefficients of the Weinblum models.
88
1,4
829*
1805A
1,2
1805B
1846A
1
1846B
1970B
0,8
Cw
1970C
2038C
N43
0,6
0,4
0,2
0,33
0,32
0,31
0,30
0,29
0,28
0,27
0,26
0,25
0,24
0,23
0,22
0,21
0,20
0,19
0,18
0,17
0,16
Fn
Figure 11. Main values of the wave-resistance coefficients of the Wigley models.
1,2
829*
1805A
1805B
1846A
1846B
1970B
0,6
1970C
2038C
N43
0,4
0,2
0,33
0,32
0,31
0,3
0,29
0,28
0,27
0,26
0,25
0,24
0,23
0,22
0,21
0,2
0,19
0,18
0,17
0
0,16
Cw
0,8
Fn
Figure 12. Experimental values of the wave-resistance coefficients of the Wigley models.
89
2 = exp(-0.001 Fn-5)
(44)
90
(45)
(46)
where t is the time after the moment of waves arising and is the
kinematical coefficient of viscosity.
If = 1.22.10-6, the height of the second wave practically
has no change because the exponential factor is close to unity,
(i.e. e0.0007 1). Even the height of the fourth wave will
change very insignificantly, some e0.0021 times. Hence, the
viscous properties of a fluid do not noticeably influence
progressive waves.
A large body of research has exposed that the distinction
between movement in ideal and in a viscous liquid shows itself
as the factor depending on the kinematical coefficient of
viscosity.
Lamb [1947] gives a factor in which viscosity is taken into
consideration in the calculation of progressive waves
exp 2vg 2 t 4
(47)
exp(2
g2 L
) = exp(
2
).
Fn5 L3/ 2 g 1/ 2
(48)
2 gr
exp(
8 5 r
)
g3
2r
sin[
+ t ][1 + o(
4
g
o(
where =
1
r
)+
(49)
(50)
Then the factor taking viscosity into account has the form
2
exp(-) = exp(- 8g r ).
(51)
= 2 m 2t = 2v(
) 2 t = 2 (
2
Then exp(-) = exp(- 2g r ).
2 g 2 r 2 g 2 r
) =
. (52)
2 2
5
1 g St 2 x4
gt 2
e
cos(
=
)
2 x 32
4x 4
(53)
exp v / 2 / L 2 / g 2 / Fn 5
3
8 5 r 8 g 2 r
.
=
5
g3
k turb = exp(vturb / 2 / L 2 / g 2 / Fn 5
(55)
4r
) + o( g2 )].
gt 2
r
(54)
(56)
but does not enter in the main part because the bow waves
begin lose energy after their formation thereby creating flow
turbulence.
The coefficient for turbulent viscosity in our calculations
was determined by a trial and error method. In the process of
our calculation we had chosen the coefficient of turbulent
viscosity to obtain a good agreement with experimental curve
of wave resistance. This coefficient has changed in the
sufficiently tight limits for the different models.
It is known that the turbulent viscosity is a hundred
thousand or even a million times more than the molecular one.
I.A. Kibel, in a study by Fedjaevskii et al., provided us with a
real life description of turbulent viscosity when he wrote the
coefficient of turbulent viscosity of air equals the coefficient of
the usual molecular viscosity of syrup, and the associated
kinematical coefficient of turbulent viscosity of water (is equal
to) the kinematical coefficient of molecular viscosity of shoepolish. That is why it was not a great surprise when this
coefficient turned out to be about 0.08 0.16 rather than
1.22k 10-6.
It is important that the parameter of the Froude number
degree is equal to 5. This factor, from equation (55), is in
agreement with the Wigley factor of = exp(-A/Fn5) obtained
from testing many models [Wigley 1938]. It is even more
important that the turbulent factor kturb is entered only in the
oscillatory interaction part of Michells integral from equation
(28). For this purpose the new exponential form of the Michell
integral is used.
Our calculations were performed for many Wigley and
Weinblum models and were in a good agreement with
experimental data. In Appendix A the symbol NT in figures
1A 21A is the coefficient of turbulent viscosity turb. In order
to have a trustworthy method of calculating the ship wave
resistance it is necessary to obtain a coefficient of turbulent
viscosity for the real ship hulls.
To summarize, the purpose of our last research was to
determine if it is possible to include the correction factor that
accounts for the viscosity of moving ship waves when
calculating the wave resistance of the ship. The second aim
was to define the coefficient of turbulent viscosity by trial and
Oceanic Engineering International
91
1. y = b{(1 + a 1 x 2 + a 2 x 4 + a 3 x 6)
(1 0,564 z S 1 0, 436 z S 2)
0,5( x 2 + a 1 x 4 + a 2 x 6 + a 3 x 8)
( z S 3 0,564 z S 3+ S 1 0, 436 z S 3+ S 2)},
2. y = b{(1 + a 1 x 2 + a 2 x 4 + a 3 x 6)
(1 0,564 z S 1 0, 436 z S 2)
( x 2 + a 1 x 4 + a 2 x 6 + a 3 x 8)
( z S 3 0,564 z S 3+ S 1 0, 436 z S 3+ S 2)},
3. y = b{1 + a 1 x 2 + a 2 x 4 + a 3 x 6)
(1 z S 1)[1 0,5( z S 2 + z S 3) x 2 ]},
4. y = b[(1 x 2)
( x 2 + a1 x 4 + a 2 x 6 + a 3 x 8) z S 3)]
(1 0,564 z S 1 0, 436 z S 2),
5. y = b(1 + a 1 x 2 + a 1 x 4 + a 2 x 6 + a 3 x 8)
(1 0,564 z S 1 0, 436 z S 2),
6. y = b[(1 z S 1)(1 + a 1 x 2 + a 2 x 4 + a 3 x 6) +
4
( z S 2 z S 3)(1 x 2) },
6. THE COMPARATIVE CRITERION IN DECIDING ON
THE SHIP HULL FORM WITH THE LEAST WAVE
RESISTANCE
7. y = b{(1 + a 1 x 2 + a 2 x 4 + a 3 x 6
0,5( x 3 x 5)(1 z S 1)
0,5[( x 2 + a 1 x 4 + a 2 x 6 + a 3 x 8
K g = R g / D.
(57)
92
8.
draft T, and the relative length L/B were constant. In our case
all the models had length L = 4.5, B = 0.45, T = 0.18, and
block coefficient = 0.6. The choice of the hull form was
carried out for three ranges of relative speeds:
93
y = ( D1 z 3 + D 2 z 2 + D 3z + D 4xz + D 5 x 2z +
D 6x z 2 + D 7 x 2 + D 8x + D 9) /( D10 + D11z ) 2 ,
and aft are considered. In this case the integral G() vanishes
and the expression H() has the form
sin k 0 cos k 0 1
+ L2
+
+
2
k0
ko
k0
H ( ) = L1
(58)
on
t = t1 ,
y = n0 + n1 x + n2 x 2 ,
on
t = t2
L3 = a6F3
2
2
G ( ) + H ( )
(60)
d
cos
3
( L) e
p (T L )
T
1 e p0 L p 0 T
F1 =
p 0T
F2 =
1 e
p T
p 0T
(66)
{E i[ ( a 7 + 1) p 0 T ]
L
E i (a 7 p 0 T L)},
a
p T
0
where
a1 =
G ( ) = L1 S1 + L2 S 2 + L3 S 3 ,
(61)
H ( ) = L1Q1 + L2 Q 2 + L3 Q 3.
Here the functions S1, S2, S3, Q1, Q2, and Q3 are trigonometric
functions from ko, and the functions L1, L2, L3 depend on
relative draft, po and the form of the hull. Here
p0 =
1
Fn cos
2
k0 =
1
.
2 Fn 2 cos
(62)
2x
,
L
2y
,
B
z
.
T
n 0 m 0 + ( m 1 n 1) ,
4 t 2 (m 2 n 2 )
t2
m 2 (m 1 n 1) ,
2
4 (m 2 n 2 )
2
a 2 = m0
m 2 (m 1 n 1) ,
2
4 (m 2 n 2 )
2
a3 =
n1 m 2 m 1 n 2 ,
a4 =
m2 n2
(67)
m 2 ( m 1 n 1) ,
m2 n2
a6 = m2 ,
n2 t2 .
a7 =
m2 n2
a5 =
94
F 3 = a7e
(65)
(59)
4 g 4 L B 2
R=
T
6 2 2
(64)
where
y = m0 + m1 x + m2 x 2 ,
sin k 0
lim
sin k o
ko
k o 0
sin k
lim
k o 0
= 1,
o
ko
sin k o
lim
k o 0
ko
+
+
cos k o 1 1
= ,
2
k o 2
(68)
1 e p
= 1.
lim
F
2 = lim
p 0
p 0
p
( m 1 n 1)
a7 ,
4 n2
m 2 (m 1 n 1 )
a2 = m0
a7 ,
4 n2
m 2 (m 1 n 1 )
a3 =
2( k o sin k o) 3
= .
3
4
ko
1 e p pe p 1
= ,
2
2
p
a1 = n 0 m 0 +
4 n 22
a7 ,
n1 m 2 m 1 n 2 ,
a7
a4 =
(70)
n2
lim
F 1 = lim
p 0
p 0
a5 =
m 2 ( m 1 n1)
n2
a7 ,
a6 = m2 ,
n2 .
a7 =
m2 n2
(69)
95
96
8. CONCLUDING REMARKS
The investigations of Michells integral showed the limits in
which this integral can be used for practical purposes. The
very important experiment with two struts gave the answer to
the question about the influence of viscosity of a fluid on the
ship wave resistance. This experiment argued against the
popular opinion that the humps and hollows are absent in an
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The author is sincerely grateful to Prof. John Wehausen for
his active discussion, fruitful criticism and also for scientific
literature, which he sent to Novosibirsk. Thank you also to
Prof. Neil Bose for his help with the preparation of the
manuscript.
REFERENCES
97
98
99
Michell, J.H.
1898
The wave resistance of a ship.
Philosophical Magazine.-Ser. 5, 45, 106-123.
Michelsen, F.G.
1966
Asymptotic approximations of
Michells integral for high and low speeds. Schiffstechnik,
13 (66), 33-38.
Michelsen, F.G. & Kim H.C. 1967 On the wave resistance of
a thin ship. Schiffstechnik, 14, 46-49.
Michelsen, F.G. 1972 The application of Gegenbauer
Polinomials to the Michell Integral. J. Ship Research, 16,
60-65.
Milne-Thomson, L.M. 1960 Theoretical Hydrodynamics.
London: Fourth edition.
Miyata, H., Inui T. & Kajitani H. 1980 Free surface shock
waves around ships and their effects on ship resistance. J.
Soc. Nav. Arch. of Japan, 14 (7) 1-9.
Miyata, H. 1980 Characteristics of nonlinear waves in the
near fields of ships and their effects on resistance. In Proc.
12th Symp. on Naval Hydrod.,Tokyo, 335-351.
Miyata, H., Suzuki, A. & Kajitani, H. 1981 Numerical
explanation of nonlinear nondispersive waves around a
bow. Third Intern. Conf. On Numeric. Ship Hydrod., Paris,
37-52.
Miyata, H. & Inui, T. 1984 Nonlinear ship waves. Advances
in Applied Mechanics, 24, 215-288.
Miyata, H. & Kanai, A. 1996 Numerical Analysis of the
Structure of Free-Surface Shock Waves about a Wedge
Model. J. Ship Research., 40, 278-287.
Mori, K. 1979 Prediction of viscous effects on wave
resistance of ship in framework of low speed wave
resistance theory. Memoirs of the Faculty of Engineering
Hiroshima Univ. Serial No 21, 7 (1), 9-19.
Mori, K. & Nishimoto, H. 1981 Prediction of flow fields
around ships by modified Rankine-source method. J. Soc.
Nav. Arch. of Japan, 150, 9-18.
Musker, A.J. 1989 Stability and accuracy of a non-linear
model for the wave resistance problem. Fifth Numerical
Conference on Ship Hydrodynamics.- Part 2., Hiroshima,
437-450.
Nakano, T. 1988 Direct interaction approximation of
turbulence in the wave packet representation. J. Phys.
Fluids, 31 (6), 1420-1438.
Newman, J.N. 1964 The asymptotic approximation of
Michells integral for high speed. J. Ship Res. 8, 10-14.
Newman, J.N. 1976 Linearized wave resistance theory. Int.
Seminar on Wave Resist., Tokyo, 31-43.
Newman, J.N. 1977 Marine hydrodynamics. England.
Noblesse, F. 1975 A Perturbation Analysis of the
Wavemaking of a Ship with an Interpretation of Guilloton
Method. J. Ship Research, 19, 140-148.
Noblesse, F. & Dagan, G. 1976 Nonlinear ship-wave theories
by continuous mapping. J. Fluid Mechanics., London, 75,
347-371.
Noblesse, F. 1976 A note on second-order, thin-ship theory
by centerplane source distributions. Intern Seminar on
Wave Resistance, Tokyo, 263-267.
100
RUSSIAN LITERATURE
.. (1935)
//
.- M., 1 N 4, 19 59.
, . 1963 . . . .
(Birkhoff, G. 1963 Hydrodynamics)
, .. 1995
. - : ,
1 2 320 c. ( Gotman, A.Sh. 1995 Determination of
the Wave Resistance and Optimization of Ship Hulls.
Novosibirsk, NSAWT Parts 1 and 2 320 p.).
, .. 1979
:
,
, 192 . (Gotman, A.Sh. 1979 Design of the
ship hull shapes with developable skin: Leningrad,
Sudostroenie 192 p.)
, .., , .. 1953
// . , XCI No 1,
31 33 (Dmitriev, QA.A., Bonchkovskaja, T.V. (1953) On
the turbulence in a wave// Docl. Acad. Sci. SSSR, XCI No
1, 31 33)
, .. 1947
// // .
, 58.() No 7, 1345 1348 (Dobroklonskii,
S.V. 1947Turbulent viscosity in the surface layer of sea//
Docl. Acad. Sci. SSSR, 58 No 7, 1345 1348)
, .. 1959
: . , (Kostjukov,
101
102
(Potetjunko,
E.N., Philimonova, L.D. On character of an attenuation of
the elevation of free surface produced by initial
perturbation.) Applied mathematics and mechanics//,
40 2, 362 366.
, .. 1961
// . ,
, 1 75 85. (Sizov, V.G. 1961 On
theory of the wave resistance of a ship on the calm water//
Izv. Acad. Sci. Dep. Techn. Sci., Mechanics and
Engineering, 1 75 85.).
, .. 1937 -
. !.
//.-(Sretenskii L.N. Theoretical research about
wave resistance. Part I. To Michells theory.// Trans.
CAGI) .- M., 319 3 14.
, . 1941
.( Sretenskii L.N. On waves on a surface of a
viscous fluid//Trans. CAGI) // , 541
, .. 1977 .(Sretenskii L.N. The theory of wave movements of a liquid:) .
2-, .- ., 816 .
, .., , .., , .. (1968)
.- . .
, .. 1963 . .- .:
680 .
, . 1956 : (Hermann
Shlichting Grenzschicht theorie: (1951)). . ., .
, .. 1958
- . ,-.,
(Shuleikin, V.V. Physics of the see: M. (1956))..
, .. 1941
. (Shutilov, K.V. Experience of
determination of the turbulent heat-conductance of sea
water in the nature conditions// Izv. Acad. Sci.) .
4 5 447 451.
Wigley 829
1,6
1,4
1 2
1,2
6 8
10
Cw
1
0,8
M easur. coef. Rw
M ichell
0,6
M ain part Cw
0,4
0,2
0,52
0,49
0,46
0,43
0,40
0,37
0,34
0,31
0,28
0,25
0,22
0,19
0,16
Fn
Figure 1A. Wave resistance coefficients of Wigley model 829.
Wigley 1805a
1,6
1,4
1 2
1,2
6 8 10
0,8
M easur. coef. Rw
0,6
M ichell
0,4
M ain part
With viscous effect
NT=.08
0,2
0,54
0,51
0,48
0,45
0,42
0,39
0,36
0,33
0,30
0,27
0,24
0,21
0,18
0,15
0
0,12
Cw
Fn
Figure 2A. Wave resistance coefficients of Wigley model 1805a.
103
4
6
1,2
8
10
Cw
1
0,8
M easur. coef. Rw
0,6
M ichell
0,4
M ain part
0,2
0,42
0,40
0,38
0,36
0,34
0,32
0,30
0,28
0,26
0,24
0,22
0,20
Fn
Figure 3A. Wave resistance coefficients of Wigley model 1805b.
Wigley 1846a
1,4
1,2
1
68
10
Cw
0,8
M easur. Coef. Rw
0,6
M ichell
0,4
M ain part
With viscous effect
NT=.08
0,2
0,33
0,32
0,31
0,30
0,29
0,28
0,27
0,26
0,25
0,24
0,23
0,22
0,21
0,20
Fn
Figure 4A. Wave resistance coefficients of Wigley model 1846a.
104
Wigley 1846B
1,6
1,4
1
1,2
68
10
Cw
1
0,8
M easur. coef. Rw
0,6
M ichell
0,4
M ain part Cw
0,2
0,52
0,49
0,46
0,43
0,40
0,37
0,34
0,31
0,28
0,25
0,22
0,19
0,16
Fn
Figure 5A. Wave resistance coefficients of Wigley model 1846b.
Wigley 1970b
1
0,9
2
4
0,8
8
10
0,7
0,5
M easur. coef. Rw
0,4
M ichell
0,3
M ain part Cw
0,2
0,1
0,33
0,32
0,31
0,3
0,29
0,28
0,27
0,26
0,25
0,24
0,23
0,22
0,21
0,2
0,19
0,18
0,17
0
0,16
Cw
0,6
Fn
Figure 6A. Wave resistance coefficients of Wigley model 1970b.
105
4 68
10
Cw
0,8
0,6
M easur. Coef. Rw
M ichell
0,4
M ain part
0,2
0,38
0,36
0,34
0,32
0,30
0,28
0,26
0,24
0,22
0,20
0,18
0,16
Fn
Figure 7A. Wave resistance coefficients of Wigley model 1970c.
Wigley N43
0,6
0,5
2
4
6
8
0,4
Cw
10
0,3
M easur. Cw
M ichell
0,2
M ain part
0,1
0,34
0,32
0,3
0,28
0,26
0,24
0,22
0,2
0,18
0,16
0,14
0,12
Fn
Figure 8A. Wave resistance coefficients of Wigley model N43.
106
1 2
4
10
Cw
0,2
0,15
Measur. coef. Rw
0,1
Michell
Main part Cw
0,05
0,32
0,30
0,28
0,26
0,24
0,22
0,20
0,18
0,16
Fn
Figure 9A. Wave resistance coefficients of Wigley model 2038.
Parabolic model
0,006
2
4
0,005
68
10
0,003
M easur. Coef. Cw
0,002
M ichell
M ain part
0,001
0,45
0,42
0,39
0,36
0,33
0,30
0,27
0,24
0,21
0,18
0
0,15
Cw
0,004
Fn
Figure 10A. Wave resistance coefficients of the parabolic Wigley model.
107
1
1
10 12 14 16
Cw
6 8
0,8
18
10
0,6
0,4
Measur. coef. Rw
Michell
0,2
Main part Cw
With viscous effect
NT =.08
0,33
0,31
0,3
0,28
0,27
0,25
0,24
0,22
0,21
0,19
0,18
0,16
Fn
Figure 11A. Wave resistance coefficients of Wigley model 2130a (unsymmetrical).
Weinblum 1093
0,0012
0,001
1
Cw
0,0008
6 8
10
0,0006
M easur. coef. Rw
0,0004
M ichell
M ain part
0,0002
With viscous
effect NT=.08
0,3312
0,3199
0,3086
0,2973
0,2860
0,2747
0,2634
0,2521
0,2409
0,2296
0,2183
0,2070
0,1957
0,1844
0,1731
0,1618
0,1505
Fn
Figure 12A. Wave resistance coefficients of Weinblum model 1093.
108
Weinblum 1097
0,003
0,0025
1
6 8
10
Cw
0,002
0,0015
Measur. Coef. Rw
Michell
0,001
Main. Part
With viscous effect
NT =.08
0,0005
0,3274
0,3161
0,3048
0,2935
0,2823
0,2710
0,2597
0,2484
0,2371
0,2258
0,2145
0,2032
0,1919
0,1806
Fn
Figure. 13A. Wave resistance coefficients of Weinblum model 1097.
Weinblum 1098
0,0035
0,003
1
0,0025
6 8
10
Cw
0,002
Measur. Coef. Rw
0,0015
Michell
0,001
Main part
With viscous effect
NT =.08
0,0005
0,3312
0,3161
0,3011
0,2860
0,2710
0,2559
0,2409
0,2258
0,2107
0,1957
0,1806
0,1656
0,1505
Fn
Figure 14A. Wave resistance coefficients of Weinblum model 1098.
109
Weinblum 1100
0,0035
0,003
1
2
4
0,0025
8
10
Cw
0,002
0,0015
Measur. coef. Rw
Michell
0,001
Main part
0,0005
0,3199
0,3086
0,2973
0,2860
0,2747
0,2634
0,2521
0,2409
0,2296
0,2183
0,2070
0,1957
0,1844
0,1731
0,1618
0,1505
Fn
Figure 15A. Wave resistance coefficients of Weinblum model 1100.
Weinblum 1110
0,003
0,0025
4
6
8
10
Cw
0,002
0,0015
Measur. coef. Rw
Michell
0,001
Main part
0,0005
0,3199
0,3086
0,2973
0,2860
0,2747
0,2634
0,2521
0,2409
0,2296
0,2183
0,2070
0,1957
0,1844
0,1731
0,1618
0,1505
Fn
Figure 16A. Wave resistance coefficients of Weinblum model 1110.
110
Weinblum 1111
0,004
0,0035
2
4
6
8
0,003
10
Cw
0,0025
0,002
Measur. coef. Rw
0,0015
Michell
0,001
Main part Cw
With viscous effect
NT =.04
0,0005
0,3312
0,3161
0,3011
0,2860
0,2710
0,2559
0,2409
0,2258
0,2107
0,1957
0,1806
0,1656
0,1505
Fn
Figure 17A. Wave resistance coefficients of Weinblum model 1111.
6
8
0,002
10
Cw
0,0015
0,001
Measur. coef. Rw
0,0005
Michell
Main part
0,3312
0,3161
0,3011
0,2860
0,2710
0,2559
0,2409
0,2258
0,2107
0,1957
0,1806
0,1656
0,1505
Fn
Figure 18A. Wave resistance coefficients of Weinblum model 1112.
111
Weinblum 1113
0,006
0,005
1
0,004
Cw
8
10
0,003
Measur. coef. Rw
0,002
Michell
Main part
0,001
0,3312
0,3199
0,3086
0,2973
0,2860
0,2747
0,2634
Fn
0,2521
0,2409
0,2296
0,2183
0,2070
0,1957
0,1844
0,1731
0,1618
0,1505
Weinblum 1114
0,003
0,0025
6
8
10
Cw
0,002
0,0015
M easur. coef. Rw
M ichell
0,001
M ain part
0,0005
0,3199
0,3086
0,2973
0,2860
0,2747
0,2634
0,2521
0,2409
0,2296
0,2183
0,2070
0,1957
0,1844
0,1731
0,1618
0,1505
Fn
Figure 20A. Wave resistance coefficients of Weinblum model 1114.
112
Weinblum 1136
0,0035
0,003
0,0025
8
10
Cw
0,002
0,0015
M easur. coef. Rw
M ichell
0,001
M ain part
0,0005
0,3161
0,3011
0,2860
0,2710
0,2559
0,2409
0,2258
0,2107
0,1957
0,1806
0,1656
0,1505
Fn
Figure 21A. Wave resistance coefficients of Weinblum model 1136.
Explanation of figures 1A-21A
In these figures are shown
1) Measured coefficient of wave resistance ( Measur. Coef. Rw );
2) Michells curve (Michell);
3) Main part of the Michell integral (Main part);
4) Value of the Michell integral taking into account the influence of turbulent viscosity on the interaction of bow and stern wave
systems (with viscous effect. NT = .08 or some other value). Here NT is the half the coefficient of turbulent viscosity.
113
APPENDIX B: THE SHIP HULL SHAPES WITH LEAST WAVE RESISTANCE ON Fn = 0.27.
4
8
10
10
4
6
4
6
10
10
1
1
4
6
10
2
4
6
4
6
8
10
114
10
8
10
APPENDIX C: THE HULL SHAPES WITH THE LEAST WAVE RESISTANCE AT THE DIFFERENT FROUDE NUMBERS
6 8
10
10
Figure 1C. The ship hull with the least wave resistance
at Fn = 0.15.
1 2
6 8
6 8
Figure 2C. The ship hull with the least wave resistance
at Fn = 0.18.
6 8
10
10
Figure 3C. The ship hull with the least wave resistance
at Fn = 0.23.
Figure 4C. The ship hull with the least wave resistance
at Fn = 0.32.
115