Casco Redondo

SNAME Transactions, Vol. 92, 1984, pp.
125-150
The High-Speed Displacement Ship Systematic Series Hull

Forms--Seakeeping Characteristics
Jan J. Blok, 1 Visitor, and Wim Beukelman~ 2 Visitor
In the operation and design of high-speed ships, a greater emphasis is placed on good seakeeping
performance because it is found that large motions and high accelerations can significantly degrade
the operational capabilities. The need for better hull forms and the increased interest in seakeeping
performance call for more and better data to be available at the design stage to obtain a right balance between seakeeping and other, often conflicting, requirements. In this paper the genesis of
a systematic series of model experiments is given, illustrated with results. Attention is focused on
the general thoughts underlying the series, the selection of the characteristic section shape, the selection of the basic hull shape, the choice of the parameters to be varied in the series, and the parameters to be fixed from the outset. The choice of the parent hull form and the seakeeping aspects
associated with this choice are discussed, and the amalgamation of the data in the form of design
charts is shown.
1 Senior project manager, Ocean Engineering Division, Maritime

Research Institute, Wageningen, The Netherlands.
2 Scientific coordinator, Ship Hydrodynamics Laboratory, Delft
University of Technology, Delft, The Netherlands.
Presented at the Annual Meeting, New York, N. Y., November 7-10,

1984, of THE SOCIETY OF NAVAL ARCHITECTS AND MARINE ENGINEERS.
125
Introduction
RECENT YEARShave seen an increased interest in seakceping
for naval ships. This has occurred in part because of operators
having become aware of significant and quantifiable differences between ships designed for the same task, and in part
because researchers have been able to come up with tools to
predict ship motions, accelerations and extreme effects and
have put together the framework required to estimate the
overall performance and its degradation as a result of environmental severity in statistical terms.
In the naval architectural field an inherent assumption is
often intuitively made when sufficient data are lacking, that
is, "small changes have small consecluence~" This may be true
in many fields of engineering; however, it can prove utterly
false in fluid dynamics. The first rule the hydrodynamicist has
to learn is that small changes to flow boundary geometry can
dramatically alter the flow field [1,2]. a Ship designers live up
to this rule in the design of the underwater hull form inasmuch
as they squabble over the lines in a degree unparallelled in any
other field of the design.
Seakeeping has long held the stigma of being hard to improve
upon and subject to statements like "ships do move anyway.
Yet now that the tools, experimental as well as computational,
have attained a state of maturity equaling those of other naval
architectural fields, it is possible to investigate the seakeeping
aspects of a ship at the design stage.
The increased interest in seakeeping for naval ships stems
from the full-scale observations, backed up by research findings,
that ship's behavior in seakeeping can indeed be improved upon
if one is willing to look into it, to handle the elusive tradeoff
between uneven and conflicting requirements, and is ultimately
willing to pay the price and accept the penalty.
The importance of seakeeping to a naval ship is of a diversifted nature. For the ship type we are concerned with in this
p a p e r - - t h e fast frigate--seakeeping pervades the operability
of almost any system and subsystem of the ship, [8-7].
Ship motions lead to extreme effects like slamming under the
bow or green water on deck and attending high loads that can
cause damage to the hull and the equipment topside. Excessive
a Numbers in brackets designate References at end of paper.
motions also lead to substantial weather slowdown or necessitate

an unsolicited change of course. Likewise, the motions and
attending high accelerations degrade crew performance
through restricted movement, increased fatigue and ultimately
seasickness [8].
To take but one example, the operation of a helicopter, a
feature now to be found on ever smaller frigates and patrol
vessels. Ship motions roll and pitch can restrict its on-deck
movement; the ship heading relative to the prevailing wind and
sea greatly influences its takeoff and landing options in view
of the turbulence and exhaust fumes, while the vertical and
lateral motions and accelerations at the heli-pad further determine whether it can be recovered or not [9,10]. Although
catch-down devices can serve as an expedient to widen the
weather window, it is no substitute for a good stable platform.
Similar stories can be told about towed arrays and replenishment-at-sea operations, to mention but a few.
Besides the existing and well-proven concept of the displacement hull for a high-speed high-performance platform,
a great number of advanced vehicle concepts are under investigation, some of which are more or less actively pursued.
We may mention here the advanced displacement-type vessels
under which heading we find the "slender ship" concept-essentially a frigate hull of high length-displacement ratio
meant to significantly reduce the primary resistance hump. In
addition, hulls that hide the greater part of their displacement
at a greater depth underwater such as small-waterplane-area
single-hull and twin-hull ships (SWASH and SWATH) are
thought beneficial in reducing the wavemaking resistance and
the motions in a seaway. Semi-planing or fully planing concepts are investigated for ships of limited size and a narrow
speed range to reduce resistance. Hydrofoils of various designs
have proven their merits and have come into their own as vessels
with a high transport efficiency, although still restricted to fair
and mildly unfavorable weather. Finally, we may mention
air-cushion ships in which high speed and an attractive platform
size are combined at the expense of ride quality. All these
concepts, and a good deal more that have never left the drawing
beards, can operate at high speed and offer an operational advantage of some sort [11-16].
An intriguing question remains as to what limits the true
Nomenclature
aa ffi acceleration amplitude (single)
2~al/a ffi double significant acceleration
a19 acceleration at station 19
B = ship's breadth
bt ffi transom stern width
CA ffi incremental resistance coefficient
for model-ship correlation
Ca = block coefficient
Caa ffiblock coefficient aftbody
CB~ = block coefficient forebody
C~s = specific frictional resistance coefficient of ship according to ITTC57
CM = midship section coefficient
CG ffi center of gravity
Ct, -- horizontal prismatic coefficient
Ct,A = horizontal prismatic coefficient
aftbody
CpF -- horizontal prismatic coefficient
forebody
CaM = specific residuary resistance coefficient of model
--
126
CTS = specific residuary resistance coefficient of ship

Cve = vertical prismatic coefficient
CveA = vertical prismatic coefficient aftbody
CveF ffi vertical prismatic coefficient forebody
Cwp = waterplane coefficient
CWt,A = waterplane coefficient aftbody
C w e r = waterplane coefficient forebody
F, = Froude number = V / ~
Fnv = Froude number = V / ~
g = acceleration due to gravity
in = waterline entrance angle relative to
centerplane
k = wave number = 2r/~
L = ship's length
Let, ffi length between perpendiculars
LCB = longitudinal center of buoyancy
LCF = longitudinal center of flotation
= figure of merit according to Bales
rms ffi root-mean-square value of some
quantity
Systematic Series Hull Forms
= wave added resistance

= residuary resistance
RT = total resistance, calm water plus
waves
RTS = total resistance in calm water
sa ----relative motion amplitude (single)
s17 ffi relative motion at station 17
T = ship's draft
T1 = average wave period
V = speed
V, = ship speed in knots
z~ -- heave amplitude (single)
2~1/8 = double significant heave motion
A8 = wave added resistance
~'a = wave amplitude (single)
(wl/a = significant wave height
0o = pitch amplitude (single)
~ l / a = double significant pitch angle
-- wavelength
v = displacement volume
p = water mass density
r = trim angle
o~-- wave circular frequency
RAW
Rr
displacement ship can be pushed and how well she can do at

(very) high speed.
In the field of seakeeping these novel concepts have one thing
in common: They all perform well provided the sea does not
get too rough. The slender ship may exhibit more motions t h a n
the usual hulls in a high sea state; the semisubmerged SWASH
and SWATH rely heavily on their control flaps for good performance; planing hulls just do not perform in waves, while
hydrofoils whether they cut through the wave crests or contour
the waves have a limit on sea state above which they simply
cannot be operated or have to go down to the hull-borne mode.
Finally, air-cushion ships: Although tlhe ride comfort will be
dramatically reduced in waves, it is doubtful if the cushion can
be maintained at all in a severe sea state [11,12].
Studies on novel ship types that come into the picture for
naval applications have shown that the order of importance to
be attached to the various disciplines is seakeeping first, then
stability and control both in the vertical plane and in maneuvering, further propulsion hydrodynamics, and finally resistance. This sequence of importance is quite unlike the order
usually adhered to in displacement hull design, where perhaps
t h e order should also be reversed.
In the foregoing we have identified the need for seakeeping
data to be available as early as possible in the design stage of a
high-speed combatant in order to get the maximum out of it.
In addition, the oncoming novel hull concepts force us to face
the question, "How good can displacement hull forms perform
at high speed?" For both of these reasons a systematic series
of model experiments has been initiated to produce calm-water
resistance data and motion, acceleration, and added drag data
in waves for an extensive series of displacement hull forms.
The hull forms were to be applicable to 15-m (50 ft) patrol
craft and up to 150-m (500 ft) cruisers alike, and the speed range
sufficient to embrace the highest speeds envisaged for the novel
hull concepts, that is, Froude numbers of well over unity
(metric, dimensionless). It was further meant to design the hull
forms in a coherent fashion so that a true family of models
would emerge~ and to present the data in a form of design charts
amenable to quick estimation of salient characteristics. Various
apects of the series are discussed herein, mainly with a view to
seakeeping.
The choice of the parameters was an important point, which
to keep fixed and which to vary, and the resulting parameter
space is illustrated. Further, a tradeoff was to be made between
stillwater resistance and seakeeping in the selection of the
characteristic section shape and the characteristic hull shape.
Moreover, the reasoning and deliberations that led to the selection of the parent hull form are given. Experimental setup
and test program are subjects discussed in some detail and
typical results are given.
In addition to the model experiments, a series of computations was made with strip theory programs and correlated with
the measurements to determine to what extent existing analytical tools can predict the performance of ships in a speed
range hitherto not included. Finally, a prediction is shown for
a typical 85-m (280 ft) frigate on the basis of the series data.
Setting up the systematic series

In the design of the series a number of aspects had to be
considered in detail. Among these were the design criteria for
the series, its speed range, the appropriate parameters, and the
parent hull form selection. We will touch upon these in the
following.
Design c r i t e r i a
In setting up the Series it was important to adopt design criteria first. A systematic series hinges on the choice of the
characteristic hull shape--the parent hull--which can be selected only in the light of a set of design criteria. Furthermore,
for the scope of the series and its parameter selection and parameter space as .well as the subsequent test program details,
a set of design criteria would be an imperative departure point.
The criteria formulated for this hull-form series were:
good calm-water resistance properties, and
good seakeeping characteristics.
Concerning the first point, attention focused on resistance; for
the time being, propulsion was left out of the picture. The
second point, seakeeping, was elaborated to cover
low motion and acceleration levels,
low wave added resistance, and
small probability of incurring extreme effects like
slamming under the bow and shipping of water on
deck.
These criteria can all be narrowed down to one and the
same--low motion levels--because usually if the motions decrease, the accelerations and the wave added drag will also go
down. Extreme effects may not always follow suit, but can be
remedied easily by ensuring a sufficient draft forward and an
appreciable freeboard and flare on the forebody.
For the subject high-speed ships it was further considered that
the most critical motion and acceleration levels would occur
in head seas. Wave added resistance is also largest in that case.
It goes without saying that other wave headings may pose other
problems on the ship; for instance, rolling in beam seas and in
stern quartering seas. For the purpose of comparison of hull
forms, however, it was deemed sufficient to study the hulls only
in head seas. The restriction following from this design requirement has to be imposed on the series before the relevant
parameters are selected.
Speed range of interest

The two aims of the study, namely to generate data of use to
the designer and to investigate what the limits are of the displacement hull, necessitated a wide speed range for the series.
Patrol craft of small displacement encounter very high
Froude numbers, 4 which may easily get as high as Fn = 1.2,
while the intermediate range around En = 0.7 is Of interest' for
frigates of the usual size, L = 120 m (400 ft), when pushed up
to 45 knots. In addition, however, most navies express a great
interest in the cruising speed range of 15 to 25 knots for reasons
of peacetime fuel economy, for all ship types and sizes.
Consequently it was decided that for the present series tO be
of any great value and to meet the aims an extremely wide
speed range had to be adopted ranging from Fn = 0.1 to 1.2.
For the selection of the parent form a hull would have to be
selected that would be optimum preferably over the whole
speed range. If a tradeoff should be encountered, the speed
range of Fn = 0.7 to 1.0 would have the emphasis.
Parameters of interest
In the design of the systematic series a set of parameters had
to be identified that would have a bearing on stillwater resistance and seakeeping performance alike. A second and by no
means less essential requirement was that the parameters be of
practical significance to the ship designer. A third point lay
in the fact that we are dealing with ship forms rather than dimensional ships, so that the parametei"s to be selected had to be
nondimensional quantities. Bearing this in mind and keeping
4 In the text two Froude numbers are used, one based on the ship
length, the other based on the third root of the displacement. Because
of the use of the acceleration due to gravity and metric units, both
exoressions are dimensionless: Fn = V / ~
and Fnv
v / ~
127
Table 1
Cwp
were selected as listed in Table 1.

It will be obvious that if all of these are varied over only two
values, independently from the others, a prohibitively large
number of models would result, and it is even questionable if
all of them would be really independent of one another if one
wants to avoid odd shapes. Therefore, a number of parameters
have to be"fixed and only a limited number will come in for
variation.
LCB - LCF separation
Parametersto befixedandvaried
L/T
B/T
aneye on the design criteria, a number of main parameters
Main parameters
} -L/vl/3
CB
Cvp
LCB }
LCF
bt[B
iE
(transom width over ship's breadth)

(waterline entrance angle)
MODEL1
To reduce the number of models and to adhere to parameters

of direct interest to the designer, it was decided to take the L/B,
B/T, and CB coefficients as prime parameter to be varied in
the series and to fix all others as optimal as could be established
for the parent hull.
The choice of these three parameters is certainly justified
from the stillwater resistance and from the seakeeping point
of view. Along with the varia{ion of these parameters a.
number of other parameters vary as well; L/T, L~ V 1/a, Ce,
CM, Cwv, or Cve; so the choice is not too restrictive.
The prime parameters L/B and (::8 have a decided influence
on stillwater resistance as have the secondary variables L/V 1/a,
Cp, and CM. The prime variable B/T and the Secondary
variables L/T, Cwe, and Cve have a profound influence on
seakeeping.
So, it will be clear that the selection of only these three parameters, which will come in useful from the designer's angle,
is by no means a restriction from the hydrodynamic point of
view.
Subseries1
It follows as a logical consequence from the foregoing that
a limited number of parameters will have to be fixed from the
outset:
Cp
Cwe or Cvp
MODEL2
LCB
LCF
bt/B
iE
MODEL3
84
Fig. 1
128
20//
I
Body plans of models
It was felt that sufficient information was available to accurately

determine the optimum value of LCB and bt/B. See for instance Bailey [17], who presented results on the effect of systematic variation of LCB on calm-water resistance, indicating
a foremost limit on LCB of 6.2 percent of L abaft the midships.
As to the choice of LCB, a constant position of 5 percent abaft.
the midships was chosen as it was shown in the Maritime Research Institute Netherlands (MARIN) data set to be an optimum value for the majority of cases.
The optimum value of Ce could be estimated quite well from
the extensive data set on existing ships, while the same applied
to iE. The Ce values adopted for other systematic high-speed
hull form series were: Series 64 by Yeh [18], Ce = 0.63;
Lindgrenand Williams series [19], Ce = 0.68; and the National
Physical Laboratory (NPL) series by Bailey [17], Ce = 0.693.
For the high-speed hulls in the MARIN data set a clear correlation existed between CB and CM so that Ce was chosen at a
fixed value, Ct, = 0.63, for all block coefficients (see Fig. 8).
Little systematic Work has been done on seakeeping, certainly
not at Fn = 1, so less certainty existed as to the choice of LCF,
which was thought to have.a marked influence on seakeeping.
The decision was taken to devote a short subseries of three
models to determine the optimum value of LCF within certain
bounds, that is, between 6 and 9 percent aft of midships. For
this reason three models were designed having the same curve
of sectional areas, varying LCF, and of necessity also different
SystematicSeriesHullForms
MODEL 1
MODEL 2.
Cwe and Cve. The resulting body plans of these three models,
Fig. 1, show that for the same displacement and in fact on the
same curve of sectional areas a gradual transition was-m~de:
from a narrow-forebody/wide-aftbody shape (Model 1) to a
wide-forebody/narrow-aftbody shape (Model 3). In order to
keep to realistic models it was felt that for this great a shift in
LCF, it was not entirely possible to keep Cwe the same. We
would have liked to, but the waterplane width forward would
have been too much and the waterline entrance angle would
have become too large for Model 3. Therefore, of necessity,
Cwe was reduced from Model 1 to Model 3 and Cve likewise
went up for the same CB; see Fig. 2. As a consequence, the
results to be found from these models, perhaps not so much on
resistance, but all the more so on seakeeping, cannot be attributed to LCF only. Yet the differences in seakeeping between
the three models, if only attributed to narrow-wide and widenarrow configurations, are unmistaken.
This was perhaps one of those points in which "scientific
rigor" (whatever that may be), or the wish to vary only one
parameter at a time, which is elegant when dealing with systematic series, had to give way to the one and only rule that
pervades this whole series, "the hull forms have to be realistic
and practical."
When the results on these three models became available and
Fig,- 2 Comparison of
;u;t[oOrnmSby Salient
~
~
.
.
! ~ V ~ -----'''~
were collated with other data, it was found that still more improvements could be made. Therefore the models were cut
up amidships and the fore and aft bodies combined in a different way. This resulted in models with a wider waterplane
area for the same displacement. Three models thus obtained,
denoted Models 4, 5, and 6, were also tested. Figure 8 gives
"narrow"
"medium"
"wide"
MODEL 1
MODEL 4
=+6
MODEL 5
@=
+13
]
"wide"
"medium" ~ u m "
a~
om~~
I.- IJJ
LL~
<:
MODEL 2
-6
-0
MODEL 6
:+6
"wide"
122
rr"
<
Z
MODEL 3
=
-14
"NARROW"
= -7
"MEDIUM" FORE BODY

Fig. "3 Models tested
=-i
"WIDE"
129
I
I
0.5
CB
sis.////
0.4
~ 4 - - -i /-/ 4 - ~ -~ - ~ .t-"
z
//
//
...... ;~-,5
I
0.35-8"
.4 /
12/(J-
;~5
L/B
Fig. 4
Parameter space for entire test series
a quick-look impression of how the six models are related to one

another.
Parameter space of entire series
Because the total number of parameters to be. varied in the
true series amounted eventually to three, the parameter space
can easily be illustrated as shown in the "magic cube" of Fig.
4. In this fashion the total number of models would amount
to 27 and the model in the solid center would play the role of
parent hull form. The parent hull would feature:
L/B = 8
B/T = 4
CB = 0.4
The location of the parent hull and the width of the parameter
space were derived on the basis of the data files of MARIN, in
which all data of models tested at MARIN are stored. All
high-speed hulls in the data set were closely investigated and
plotted in diagrams like those shown in Figs. 5-8. These show
at a glance that the extent of the variation chosen for the series
is by no means extraordinary and that the particulars of the
parent hull are right in the middle of the data set.
It should be kept in mind that the data pertain to ships actually built; thus the variation in parameters would be quite
wide. L/B ranging from as low as 4 to a high as 12 should include anything from a short beamy patrol vessel to a slender
cruiser. The BIT ranges from 2.5 to 5.5; anything lower than
2.5 would face serious stability problems while 5.5 is so much
more than current coefficients that only patrol craft might
approach it. The range of block coefficients was chosen with
an eye to determining the limits of applicability of the highspeed surface ship, so it is somewhat lower than for current
surfaee combatants: CB = 0.35 to 0.50. For some time it had
been the idea to adopt a bottom figure for CB of 0.30, but it was
found that the characteristic hull shape could not be realistically
transformed so far down the CB scale without seriously distorting the section shapes or adopting hollow sections, or sections
with a hollow deadrise, for the greater part of the length.
Characteristic shape of parent hull
For the main particulars selected for the parent hull form a
characteristic shape had to be selected that would be optimum
from the aspect of calm-water resistance and seakeeping. The
body plans and test results of the models related to Figs. 5, 6,
and 7 were closely investigated and the characteristics of the
very best models compared. They all showed triangular Vshape sections forward and an almost flat ahbody.
Most of them were round bilge, some of them were hard130
chine forms. For the characteristic form of the series a rouno

bilge was adopted as it was felt that hard-chine forms, even
when optimum for the parent, might not be optimum for the
transformed shapes. Moreover, hard chines have their benefit
in the planing or semiplaning mode, which comes about only
at speeds Fn > 1.2--on the verge of the present series. In addition, the series was intended to be for true displacement hulls
with perhaps some dynamic lift from planing, but not more
than say 10 percent at the highest speed..
The characteristic shape first drawn up is shown as Model
2 in Fig. 1. The transom stern does not extend over the full
width of the beam, and the forward sections at least for the
forward quarter ship length are truly triangular. It should be
well understood that the characteristic shape--the parent
hull--emerged as the condensate of a great number of one-off
designs that were all extensively tested and modified to get the
maximum out of them and that have actually been built.
Experimental program
For the most part the research program on systematic hulls
is an experimental program, the experiments being done in
various basins and in still water and in waves. The general
approach and some interesting details follow.
Laboratories
The experiments were carried out in two basins: the calmwater resistance tests in the Deep Water Towing Tank measuring 250 by 10.5 by 5.5 m (820 by 35 by 18 ft) and the experiments in head waves in the High Speed Towing Tank
measuring 220 by 4 by 3.6 m (720 by 13 by 12 ft) in length,
width, and water depth, respectively. Both basins have a
manned towing carriage that can attain a speed high enough
to cover the speed range envisaged: Fn = 0.1 to 1.2. The
carriage on the Deep Water Towing Tank can do 9 m/s (30 ft/s)
and the one on the High Speed Basin as much as 15 m/s (50
ft/s).
The speeds at which seakeeping experiments were carried
out were Fn = 0.285, 0.570, 0.855, and 1.140, which for the 5-m
(16.4 ft) model correspond to 2, 4, 6, and 8 m/s (6.5, 13.1, 19.7,
26.2 ft/s). For an 85-m (280 ft) frigate this speed range corresponds to 16, 32, 48 and 64 knots. Later on in the program
an additional speed at 24 knots was added, both because of its
being a realistic frigate speed and because the heave and pitch
transfer functions appear to be strongly dependent on speed
in this range.
Models and equipment
Themodel size was typically 5 m (16.4 ft) in length (waterline) although eventually the L/B and B/T variations would
see slight differences in model dimensions in order to keep to
desired size and displacement measures. A typical displacement figure was around 0.2 m 3 (7 ft3).
The attachment system in both basins is virtually the same.
In the deepwater basin the model was connected to a resistance
dynamometer and to a fore-and-aft trim apparatus to keep it
on course while allowing sinkage and trim. In the high-speed
basin the model was secured to the towing carriage by means
of a universal joint that restricted the model in sway, yaw, and
surge motions. The joint itself was mounted to the bottom of
an air-lubricated cylinder that allowed up and down motion
of the model without friction. In this way the heave, pitch, and
roll of the model were not restricted. The attachment point
of the model to the universal joint was taken at the center of
gravity (CG).
Considerable debate goes on whether, for dynamic tests,.to
tow the model in the CG or in the extended propeller shaft.
Since neither of the two were known quantities in this series,
MODEL DATA
MODEL DATA
15
1.0
10
nnffIo
0.5
..j
."
J~ o uo~oeo
.i;,~;;:..". _. i-.
Fig. 5
15
10
Correlation of BIT to L I V
Fig. 7
I/3
MODEL DATA
10
15
Correlation of Cs to L I V 113
MODEL DATA
15
/J
10
I
oe"
#.
...~m
S
f'#
.. :.,"
. c~
0
5
10
15
0.4
03
0.4
Q5
0.6
CB
Fig. 6
Correlation of U B to L I V 1/3
Fig. 8
Correlation of CB to CM
131
Table 2
Designation
Length/breadth
Breadth/draft
Block coefficient:
total
forebody
aftbody
Midship section
coefficient
Waterplane coefficient:
total
forebody
aftbody
Horizontal prismatic
coefficient:
total
fore
aft
Vertical prismatic
coefficient:
total
fore
aft
Longitudinal center of
buoyancy in % L
Longitudinal center of
flotation in % L
Angle of waterline
entrance, deg
Breadth transom/breadth
Notation
Coefficients of the models
Model 2
LIB
B/T
8
4
8
4
CB
CBF
CBA
0.396
0.327
0.465
0.396
0.327
0.465
0.396
0.327
0.465
0.396
0.327
0.465
0.396
0.327
0.465
0.396
0.327
0.465
CM
0.633
0.633
0.633
0.633
0.633
0.633
Cwp
CWPF
CWPA
0.785
0.577
0.992
0.768
0.588
0.947
0.749
0.600
0.898
0.790
0.588
0.992
0.796
0.600
0.992
0.774
0.600
0.947
Cp
CpF
CpA
0.626
0.517
0.735
0.626
0.517
0.735
0.626
0.517
' 0.735
0.626
0.517
0.735
0.626
0.517
0.735
0.626
0.517
0.735
Cvp
CvpF
0.505
0.567
0.469
0.516
0.556
0.491
0.528
0.545
0.518
0.501
0.556
0.469
0.497
0.545
0.469
0.512
0.545
0.491
CVpA
8
4
8
4
Model 5
Model 6
8
4
8
4
LCB
-4.97
-5.12
-5.16
-5.02
-5.11
-5.22
LCF
-9.23
-8.11
-6.77
-9.01
-8.68
-7.77
iE
bt/B
6.5
0.89
9.5
0.74
11.0
0.59
9.5
0.89
11.0
0.89
11.0
0.74
a decision was taken to select one point which would be held

constant for all models. The CG was chosen at 60 percent of
the depth of the model, which worked out at 0.169 m (0.55 ft)
above the base for a 5-m-long (16.4 ft) model.
For the calm-water resistance tests a sand strip was used to
trip the boundary layer into turbulence.
The freeboard of the models was kept at 6 percent of the
length at the fore perpendicular with a gentle slope toward the
stern. The necessity to have some consistent measure of freeboard came from the point of view of irregular wave tests and
relative water motion. Data on freeboard, as for instance given
in [3] and [20], suggest that this measure is applicable to corvettes in the 80-m (260 ft) size range, but that longer ships could
do with less. The continued discussion on deck wetness on
existing ships, however, may indicate that a number of frigates
are in want in this respect and would serve better with a little
more freeboard forward [5,6]. Still, for the purpose of this
series the 6 percent was a realistic figure.
For the experiments in head seas the longitudinal weight
distribution had to be adjusted, for which a gyradius of 25
percent of the length was selected. Experiments on earlier
models had indicated that the gyradius is an important parameter, while strip-theory-based computations showed it to
have some influence. Nevertheless the scope of variation that
current design approaches would allow in longitudinal gyradius
is extri~mely limited and it is envisaged eventually to devote a
short subseries of experiments to this parameter by varying the
gyradius between 0.21 L and 0.27 L, probably on the parent
hull only.
As the series was focused on calm-water resistance and on
motions andresistance in head seas, no appendages of any kind
were fitted. In due course of this series work it is projected to
go into detail on trim wedges and on propulsion and pertaining
appendages such as struts, shaft bossings, rudders, and bilge
keels.
132
NSMB Model No.

Model 3
Model 4
Model 1
Regular-wave and irregular-wave experiments

The High Speed Towing Tank has a hydraulically operated
wave generator with a double flap which can be used to generate regular sinusoidal waves and irregular seaways conforming to a prescribed spectrum.
For the present test program a series of 11 regular waves was
used, spanning the wavelength to ship length range of 0.6 to 2.8.
Later on the short wave range was slightly extended to improve
the acceleration prediction on the high-frequency end of the
scale. The wave height was 2 percent of the ship length. A
series of waves at different heights was also tried to determine
the degree of linearity at high speed. For the whole series
shown in Fig. 4, irregular wave tests were also carried out. For
the subseries of models, regular waves were thought to suffice.
Calm-water experiments
The resistance tests in calm water in the Deep Water Towing
Tank were carried out for the whole speed range Fn = 0.1 to
1.2 with a large number of measurement points to determine
the humps and hollows of the resistance curve with sufficient
accuracy The wetted surface of all models of Subseries 1 was
very nearly the same.
Measurements
Concerning the measurements, he~/ge was measured at t h e
CG using a potentiometer fitted on the air-lubricated cylinder;
pitch was measured with a potentiometer on one of the axes of
the universal joint in the model; vertical acceleration was
measured at 5station 19 on the forebody by means of an accelerometer; and the vertical relati~ee motion between water surface and hull was measured at station 17 using a resistance-type
5 By European custom the transom stern has been denoted station
0 and the fore perpendicular station 20.
.Systematic Series Hull Forms
wave probe. Themodel resistance was recorded in a straingage cell in the universal joint so that the resistance force
measured remained horizontal at all times.
For the correction of the phase angles to the wave crest it was
necessary to have a measure of the wave; this was taken 3.5 m
(11.5 ft) ahead of the model. As the very high speed would
render ordinary wave probes useless because of the wave system
of the wires themselves, a servo-controlled wave follower device
was used that could cope with the very high velocities and accelerations.
Measurements were all recorded on fiber optics recorder strip
charts for quick-look inspection and on magnetic tape for
proper analysis.
Results on seakeeping behavior
From the wealth of data obtained from the experiments the

most salient results are shown in the paper. The results are
exclusively related to the forerunner series of models shown in
Fig. 3 that led to the choice of the parent hull in the solid centre
of the cube in Fig. 4; see also Table 2.
I n f l u e n c e of g e o m e t r y on heave
Figures 9-12 serve to illustrate the influence of model geometry on characteristic seakeeping transfer functions for one
.speed, Fn = 0.570. In Fig. 9 for heave the differences between
the models amount to.some 10 percent in the region of wavelength, which is of most interest to this kind of ship at such
speeds. It is not possible to attribute the differences to one
single cause, as many influence factors change.
The wave exciting force for heave is directly proportional
to the waterplane area, which was different for all six models.
The one with the largest waterplane area, Model 5 (Cwe =
0.796), would have the largest wave exciting force. The added
mass is to leading order proportional to beam squared, then to
B/T ratio, and finally to section shape. Model 5 would also
have the largest added mass, which would suppress the motions
in the high-frequency regime.
As to the damping, also proportional to beam squared, the
same can be said, and it may be expected that the model with
the largest Cwe (No. 5) would have the highest damping and
the lowest transfer function in the X/L = 1 region. The difference in spring rate is proportional to the waterplane area,
hence the Cwe, and in the long wave range the model with the
largest Cwe would have the lowest transfer function in heave.
The differences due to change in heave-pitch coupling can be
understood only through a direct computation, for instance with
strip theory. With the foregoing in mind the qualitative trend
of the data in Figs. 9-12 can be explained to a fair degree.
Model 5 has the largest Cwe and thus the greatest waterplane
area for the same displacement, resulting in very low heaving
for all speeds. Model 3 has the lowest Cwv and thus the
smallest waterplane area for the same displacement, resulting
in rather large heave motions for most speeds. Because the
block coefficient is kept constant, the heave motion exhibits the
same trend on the basis of (Cve) -1. The differences in heave
between the six models are largest around X/L = 1.2 for low
speed and around X/L = 2.4 for the highest speed, which
demonstrates that the greatest differences are to be' found
around the peak of the magnification factor Za/~a. The influence of Cvv on heave will be noted in Fig. 9; it is even more
pronounced for higher speeds where it is found that the models
with the lowest Cve (Models 1, 4, and 5) have the smallest
heave, whereas the other three with the highest Cve have the
greatest heave. Because of other effects such as LCB-LCF
separation, which greatly influences the heave-pitch coupling,
the heaving may not always be directly in line with the Cvv,
but a strong dependency certainly exists in this case. When we
relate Cve to hull shape we find that for this family of models
the great breadth of the transom stern, and as a direct result the
Width of the whole aftbody, is of direct influence on Cve, so that
we may qualitatively conclude that a wide aftbody results in
ahigh Cve, which in turn results in low heaving. This reasoning cannot be detached from the present family of models
in which the displacement and the block coefficient were kept
the same, and in which the CweF was not allowed to vary to the
same extent as Cwva because the waterline entrance angle had
to remain fine.
Influence of g e o m e t r y on pitch
When we take a look at the pitch functions of all six models,

shown in Fig. 14, we find a 10 percent difference mainly
around resonance (where it matters). Since pitching is the most
dominant motion in head seas, it may be better to take a look
at Figs. 13 to 16, where the pitch functions are shown for all six
models and for all four speeds. Where the differences at low
speed amount to some 10 percent, the differences at high speed
are by no means marginal, but amount to some 45 percent in
the )~/L range around 2.2. These figures show a striking trend.
If the models are again ranked on the basis of their Cve, it is
found (Fig. 16) that the model with the lowest Cve exhibits the
smallest pitch angle. As the Cvv increases, the pitch angle goes
up, almost proportionally. For the highest speed, Fn = 1.14,
this comes out beautifully; for the lower speed, the differences
are not so large but the same trend still exists. No such clear-cut
trend can be established on the basis of LCB or LCF or their
separation, so that the conclusion seems warranted that a low
Cve brings about a small pitch angle, regardless of the LCBLCF separation. One should, however, be careful about taking
this conclusion outside the present family of models.
Influence of g e o m e t r y on a c c e l e r a t i o n s
The vertical acceleration at station 19, shown in Fig. 11, is

for head seas essentially the result of combined heaving and
pitching, and likewise bears a linear relationship to the wave
amplitude. In order to adhere to the Froude scaling law and
to make the acceleration nondimensional in the transfer function, the acceleration has been divided by ~a/L, the ratio between wave amplitude and model length. Although in the
present case the accelerations were actually measured, they
might just as well have been calculated from heave and pitch
and their relative phase angles. When we compare this Fig.
11 to the pitch function in Fig. 14, we find the same trend on
the basis of model geometry. The model with lowest Cve
produces the lowest acceleration and, as the Cvp goes up, the
vertical acceleration at synchronous pitching goes up as well.
It shows, at least for this speed, that a number of models virtually coincide as to their acceleration levels, but for other speeds
this is not the case.
Relative motions
The relative motion between hull and water surface was

recorded only at station 17; this was done with wires flush with
thehull. Because of the problem of how to define exactly what
one is measuring in this way--spray; solid water jetted upward
and a sheet of water creeping upward all have their influence
on the electronic measurement--this measurement should be
regarded as indicative, certainly at the highest speed where
spray was very much in evidence. Much the same, the concept
of relative motion being the result of combined heaving,
pitching and incident waves becomes questionable; water
particles touching the stem at the waterline level will be flying
past station 17 a little higher up and may wet the deck at station
10. Concerning the shape of the transfer function there exists
a close correspondence between the pitch function and the
acceleration function.
133
Fn = 0 . 5 7 0
1.5
......
.....
-----.........
.....
MODEL
MODEL
MODEL
MODEL
MODEL
MODEL
1
2
3
4
5
6
Fn : 0 . 5 7 0
- ......
.....
-----........
----
MODEL
MODEL
MODEL
MODEL
MODEL
MODEL
1
2
3
4
5
6
/-,,
//'~,
1.0
0.5
25
X/L
Fig. 9
F'n :
~'/L
Fig. 11
Heave transfer functions
0.570
- - ......
.....
-----........
.....
MODEL
MODEL
MODEL
MODEL
MODEL
MODEL
1
2
3
4
5
6
Fn = 0 . 5 7 0
......
. . . .
-----.........
.....
MODEL
MODEL
MODEL
MODEL
MODEL
MODEL
1
2
3
4
5
6
ul
0
0
X/L
Fig. 10
134
Vertical acceleration transfer functions
0
)-/L
Relative motion transfer functions
Fig. 12
S y s t e m a t i c S e r i e s Hull F o r m s
Wave added resistance transfer functions
Fn= 0.285
----
MODEL
.....
~
.....
m---..........
..... ~
MODEL
MODEL
MODEL
MODEL
MODEL
2
3
4
.5
6
.....
. . . .
-----...........
.....
Fn = O. 8 5 5
MODEL
MODEL
MODEL
MODEL
MODEL.
MODEL
1
2 "
3
4
5
6
1.5
1.5
1.0
1.0
....
--___.______--_--_.
tO
C)
0.5
0.5
/,(J
0
0
2
X/L
X/L
Fig. 13
---......
Fn :, 0 . 5 7 0
Fig. 15
Pitch transfer functions
.....
.
.........
......
MODEL
MODEL
MODE L
MODEL
MODEL
MODEL
1
2
3
.....
.....
-----..........
.....
Fn = 1 . 1 4 0
4
5
6
1.5
MODEL
MODEL
MODE L
MODEL
MODEL
MODE L
1
2
3
4
5
6
1,
1.0
t~
(!)
(D
.///~,
/ zZl//"
O.
0 . ,~
)'/L
Fig. 14
2
X/L
Fig. 16


135
Relative motion seems to be related to acceleration, judging

by the shape of the functions. Indeed, both drave on the absolute vertical bow motion, composed of heave and pitch with
their proper phasing. Where for accelerations the frequency-squared term is then introduced, the relative motion
sees the addition of the undisturbed incident wave with its phase
angle. So in view of their different composition it is all the
more interesting to find the shapes so in correspondence.
Because both accelerations and relative motions draw on the
absolutevertical bow motion, there exists a tendency for the
model that comes out best on accelerations to also produce low
relative motions. Although there is not a one-to-one correspondence, the figures seem to substantiate this to some degree.
Although relative motions derive their importance from the
indication they can give of deck wetness and shipping green
water on deck, it should be mentioned that for the present
high-speed hull forms green water can indeed be related to
them, but deck wetness resulting from spray is not easily related
to the relative motion. It should also be pointed out that the
abovewater bow flare forms were really effective in throwing
the masses of water to the side. The sole exception was Model
5, which had a wet foredeck, unlike the others. This model was
eventually to become the parent hull form, but not until the bow
flare was modified--not much, but just enough--to keep the
deck dry in high waves. As shown in Fig. 10, Model 5 already
had a good (low) relative motion transfer function, but because
of the curvature of the forebody flare it produced a good deal
of spray on the deck, which was later rectified.
stillwater resistance figures are more important to reckon with.

Conversely, the wave added resistance at high speed is more
difficult to extract from a model test and its measurement accuracy is lower than for the lower speeds. Nevertheless, Fig.
12 tells us that there exists a difference of some 20 percent between the various underwater hull forms, which would grow
to 40 percent for the highest speed.
Effect of speed on pitching
A series of illustrations, Figs. 13-16, was included to show the
effect of speed on pitching, which is the most dominant motion
in head seas. One can see that as the speed goes up the pitch
transfer function develops a rise around k//L = 2.0, and for even
higher speeds drops substantially in that wavelength range.
The Doppler shift of the wave exciting moment relative to the
pitch response function (viewed as a mass-spring oscillator) has
much to do with this. The pitch transfer functions shown in
the Figs. 13-16 have all been made nondimensional on the basis
of wave slope, as is usual for an angular motion. An even more
telling way to make it nondimensional is through dividing the
pitch angle by ~a/L. If one does so, the transfer function assumes the illustrative peaked form that is better in line with
observations, because it shows the occurrence of synchronous
pitching better than on the basis of wave slope; see Fig. 18. This
figure shows that for an increase in speed the pitch angle goes
down dramatically, which is indeed what is observed in the
experiment, and can directly be explained by the Doppler
shift.
Added resistance in waves

Effect of speed on other seakeeping quantities
Figure 12 illustrates the resistance increase of the six hull
The effect of speed on the other seakeeping quantities is
shapes. It should be borne in mind that as the speed goes up, shown in Figs. 17, 19, and 20 for Model 5 only. It is interesting
the stillwater resistance increases with the square of the speed. to note that for heave at the lowest speed, the peak of the reThe wave added resistance shows some speed effect but this can sponse function (heave as a mass-spring oscillator) very nearly
hardly be expressed as a power function. So, at high speed the coincides with the zero point of the wave exciting force. As the
added resistance becomes comparatively small relative to the .speed increases, heaving increases too for long waves, in parstillwater resistance so that, first, it is difficult to extract the ticular in the range between the two lowest speeds. For this
added resistance from the measurement, while second, if it is reason an extra speed was added between the two in subsequent
that difficult to extract it, it cannot be important after all. The experiments. The same great change between the lower two
emphasis then falls upon the added resistance in the low and speeds is found in the acceleration, Fig. 19, where the peaks of
intermediate wave range exemplified by Fig. 12. The transfer the acceleration curves for the higher speeds are virtually on
function shown has been made nondimensional in the usual the same level. The wave added resistance in Fig. 20 exhibits
way.
a speed effect roughly proportional to the radical of the speed,
When we compare the shape of these functions to the transfer and the Doppler shift as much in line with pitch as with the
functions of accelerations and relative motions, we observe a accelerations.
very close correspondence. This makes sense because most
mathematical models in this field split up the resistance into a
Some typical results on calm-water resistance
motion part, closely related, to pitch and heave and the phase
angle between these two, and a diffraction part, which is assoSome typical results of the resistance tests are shown in Fig.
ciated with the relative motion. It may be expected that the 37 for the Hull 5 (which was to become the parent hull). It
motion part is also related to the accelerations because both shows the residuary resistance coefficient plotted on a basis of
draw on the same basic ingredients. The influence of hull Froude number, the latter based on the third root of the disshape is less obvious. We have found that Models 1, 4, and 5 placement. One can see that the design speed of the series Fn
stand out as the best because of their low Cve value and their = 0.7 to 1.0 (Fnv = 2.0 to 3.0) coincides with the second hollow
low motion level. This clear-cut trend is not so evident when of the residuary resistance curve.
we look at Fig. 12. Still, Model 3 with the highest Cve produces
In the attending sinkage and trim diagram, Fig. 38, it is
the highest added resistance and Model 4 with a low Cve pro- clearly visible that at first in the intermediate speed range the
duces the lowest added resistance at most speeds.
CG sinks in, associated with an increase in trim and likewise an
Only a true mathematical treatment like a strip theory pro- increase in resistance, which works out to be the first hump
gram may shed some light upon this matter, in particular when around Fnv = 1.8. In the design speed range the stern is lifted,
it takes the diffraction part into account through inclusion of resulting in a rise in CG and a trim angle around 1.5 deg. The
the relative motion. In general, it could be concluded that at resistance in this region benefits from this and exhibits a hollow,
comparatively low speed there is little to choose between the the second one.
six models, while as the speed goes up the differences increase.
This is partly due to the differences in the abovewater hull
Ship motioncalculations
shape. Another factor that must not be overlooked is that at
the highest speed the wave added resistance constitutes only
Calculations of the motions and resistance increase in waves
a very small part of the total resistance. Consequently, the are based on the well-known strip theory. In this way a two136
MODEL
- - - -
Fn =,0.285
.......
F'n = O. 5 7 0
......
Fn = 0 . 5 7 0
. . . .
Fn = 0 . 8 5 5
MODEL
, Fn = 0.855
Fn = 1.1 4 0
= 0.285
------Fn
= 1.140
1.5
1.0
\\\\
f0
,/'//!,,
0.5
.,
/
0
0.5
Fig. 17
1.5
1.0
Influence of speed on heave transfer functions for

Model 5
----Fn
MODEL
......
0.5
Fig. 19
1.0
Influence of speed on acceleration transfer functions for

Model 5
Fn = 0.285
= 0.285
i
Fn = 0.570
......
Fn = 0.855
. . . .
Fn=
1.5
MODEL
......
Fn = 0.570
.....
Fn = 0 . 8 5 5
------Fn
1.140
= 1.140
300
200
- - .
/$I-.,, '\
/'-~ \
\
/
\,\\ ',,
r0
100
!! A
/7/ Y
\
X
\
0
0
0
0.5
1.0
1.5
0.5
1.0
1.5
L,/-c-5:
Fig. 18
Influence of speed on pitc.h'transfer functions for

Model 5
Fig. 20
Influence of speed on wave added resistance transfer functions for Model 5
137
dimensional multipole approximation of the linear potential

is used to determine the hydrodynamic mass and damping for
a ship's section, based on Ursell's analytical solution for an oscillating circular cylinder on the surface of a heavy fluid [21].
With the aid of conformal transformation it is possible to
transfer this solution of a circular cylinder to arbitrary ship
sections. Such a transformation may be achieved by the general formula
used for the transformation of the ship section to the unit circle.
The results are also presented in Figs. 21-28.
Figures 29 and 30 show the results of computations and form
the counterpart of Figs. 14 and 16.
For the same irregular seas as used for the experiments, calculations have been performed to determine the dimensionless
values of the significant motions, accelerations and added resistance. Some of these results are shown in Figs. 33 to :36, again
for Model 5 but for Fn = 0.570 only, including results based on
w = a { ~ + n=0
"~" a2n+a~-(2n+ 1)}
(1) Versions i and 2 and the close-fit transformation.
It is generally stated that the following assumptions restrict
where ~ represents a point on the unit circle and w represents application of the strip theory:
the corresponding point on the ship section (w and ~ are com1. The ship form should be slender with gradual change
plex coordinates).
of this form in the longitudinal direction.
For n = 1 the so-called Lewis transformation is obtained
2. The frequency of motion should not be too low or too
which in general provides sufficient accuracy for most ship
high.
sections. This Lewis transformation determines the ship section
:3. The forward speed of the ship should be low.
by the breadth-draft ratio and the sectional area coefficient.
In the past, special experiments have been performed to
A procedure of this transformation for shiplike cross-sections gather more information about the aforementioned limits.
has been presented by Tasai [22] and Grim [2:3]. A more ac- With respect to the first assumption, reference is made to [24],
curate description of the ship section may be obtained by the in which investigations are described related to the ship's
"close-fit" transformation, for which case in equation (1), n > slenderness. The surprising result was that even for L / B = 4
1.
the calculated responses in head waves show good agreement
After determination of the hydrodynamic coefficients for with the measured model experiments.
each section the values for the whole ship are found by inteIn the present work, very high forward ship speeds are congration over the ship's length according to the method presented sidered in order to investigate also the limits mentioned in the
in [24,25].
third assumption. It may be concluded that even for the
For different frequencies or wavelengths and the speeds highest speed, Fn = 1.140, the agreement between experiment
considered, the response functions have been calculated for the and calculation is satisfactory as far as the heaving and pitching
vertical motions, accelerations, and added resistance in waves. motions and the vertical accelerations are concerned.
These response functions have been determined for two versions
Up to Fn = 0.570, this agreement is also reasonable for the
related to the speed influence as mentioned in [24] and [25]:
relative motions and added resistance in waves. Above this
Version 1, sometimes called the ordinary strip method speed, there is a considerable lack of agreement with respect
(OSM), leads to a set of motion equations which lack some of to these phenomena. This might be due to the significant inthe symmetry relations in the mass coupling coefficients and fluence of the ship's own wave profile and dynamic swell-up,
some additional terms in other hydrodynamic coefficients. For which is appreciable at these speeds. The influence of these
this version 1 the speed influence is taken into account only for phenomena has not been taken into account for the calculations,
the derivative of the sectional added mass with respect to the as yet further investigations in this respect are required.
ship length. In such a way, only terms are introduced with
Another conclusion which may be derived from the comparison between experiments and calculations is that for this
din'
V-ship form, hardly any improvement can be achieved with a
dx
close-fit transformation of the ship section. Moreover, it has
Version 2 also takes into account the speed influence re- been shown that the speed influence according to Version 2
lated to the derivative of the damping coefficient with respect yields less reliable results especially for the highest speeds in
to the ship length, and so terms are introduced with
spite of the presence of the required symmetry relations in the
hydrodynamic coupling coefficients.
dm'
dN'
V ~ and V d---xC h o i c e of p a r e n t h u l l f o r m
In this way the mentioned symmetry relations are present in
the hydrodynamic coupling coefficients and so the presentation
In choosing the parent hull form, the work on Subseries 1,
of the hydrodynamic coefficients agrees with [26].
incorporating LCF variation and C w v variation, was brought
The added resistance in waves has been calculated according to a conclusion and the work on the true series as shown in Fig.
to the method of Gerritsma and Beukelman as developed in 4 could start in earnest. The most important aspects of this
[27}. Their method is based on the relation between the ra- choice are related in the following.
diated damping energy as calculated by the strip method and
the added resistance in waves accounting for the relative motion Calm-water resistance aspects
of the ship with respect to the water surface.
The resistance measured in calm water was split up into a
The response functions of the motions, accelerations and frictional resistance part, calculated according to the ITTC-57
added "resistance in waves have been calculated for the two extrapolation method, and a residuary part. Because all six
mentioned versions by the computer program "TRIAL" of the models had virtually the same wetted surface--their disShip Hydromechanics Laboratory of the Delft University of placement was the same--the comparison of the six models
Technology. As an example, the calculated values of the ver- could just as well be done on the basis of residuary resistance.
tical absolute motions, accelerations and added resistance in The values thus obtained were normalized on the basis of the
waves are shown in Figs. 21-28 for Model 5 at two speeds: Fn residuary resistance of Model 2, which was arbitrarily set at 100
= 0.570 and Fn = 1.140.
percent. The percentages are given in Table :3. It is shown
These response functions have also been calculated by a Delft that Model 5--the parent to be--is not the best model on recomputer program based on a close-fit transformation with n sistance. No. 6 would do better at high speed. But model No.
= 9 in equation (1); this means that nine coefficients have been 5 holds an attractive position:
138
MODEL
---. . . .
.....
Fn = 0 . 5 7 0
VERSION 1
"VERSION 2
C L O S E FIT
MARIN EXR
MODEL.
VERSION
------
VERSION
.....
CLOSE
MARIN
Fn = 0 . 5 7 0
1.5
75
1.0
5C
ll}
FIT
EXR
0.5
25
1.5
Correlation of measurement to computation for heave transfer

functions
Fig. 23
0
Fig. 21
0.5
MODEL
5 .
1.0
__-....
Fn = 0 . 5 7 0
J
r
0.5
1,0
15
Correlation of measurement to computation for acceleration

transfer functions
MODEL
VERSION 1
VERSION 2
CLOSE
FIT
MARIN EXR
Fn = 0 . 5 7 0
VERSION 1
VERSION 2
C L O S E FIT
MARIN EXP
-----.....
o
1.5
1.0
1u
oY
0.5
,\
.J/
0
0
Fig. 22
0.5
1.5
Correlation of measurement to computation for pitch transfer

functions
Fig. 24
1.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
Correlation of measurement to computation for wave added "

resistance transfer functions
S y s t e m a t i c Series Hull F o r m s
139
.oo~, ~
Fn = 1.140
v~#s..o~ ~
.oo~. ~
CLOSE FIT
MARIN EXP
Fn = 1,140
VE#S',oN 2'
~-~
/b \
CLOSE FIT
MARIN EXP.
1.5
/
o/./
"
,.o
ii
/1
o P/ ~~!
\i
"
o
0
Fig. 25
0.5
1.0
1.5
Correlation of measurement to computation for heave transfer

functions
MODEL
Fn = 1,140
....
.....
o
0
Fig. 27
0.5
1.0
1.5
Correlation of measurement to computation for acceleration

transfer functions
VERSION 1
VERSION 2
CLOSE FIT
MARIN EXP.
MODEL
- -----.....
o
Fn = 1.140
VERSION 1
VERSION 2
CLOSE FIT
MARIN EXP.
1.5
f-,
I\
\
1.0
o? /
\
io~
ool
~n
~ - ~ ~ - - ~ ~.o Oo \
C
c
N~\ i
Q5
0
0
Fig. 26
140
/o
0.5
1.0
1.5
Correlation of measurement to computation for pitch transfer

functions
Fig. 28
0.5
1.0
1.5
Correlation of measurement to computation for wave added

resistance transfer functions
- ......
.....
-----........
. . . .
Fn = 0.570
MODEL
MODEL
MODEL
MODEL
MODEL
MODEL
1
2
3
4
5
6
Fn = 0.570
300
1.0
200
(D
._1
0.5
~Q
IN
100
1
2
3
4
5
6
"h\
/
/
0
El{2
)'/L
Computed
MODEl_
MODEl_
MODEl_
MODEl_
MODE[_
MODE[_
Fig; 29
------
.........
.....
1.5
tl
- ......
.....
pitch
transfer function
models
comparison
- ......
.....
-----...........
. . . .
1
2
3
4
5
6
F n = 1.140
MODEL
MODEL
MODEL
MODEL
MODEL
MODEL
for
Fig. 31
six
300
1.0
200
Irregular transfer functions based on regular-wave

tests
F n = 1.140
1.5
......
.....
-----.........
.....
MODEL. 1
MODEL. 2
MODEL 3
MODEL. 4
MODEL. 5
MODEL. 6
~:~:.~-~
/" /~.
tO
0
_J
/I/!/
0.5
.,{/:,y
IO0
Fig. 30
C
1
0
Computed
X/L
pitch transfer function

models
3
comparison
for six
0
Fig.
L/~2
32
Irregular transfer functions based on regular-wave

tests
141
7"
J/
MODEL
~f.
,r - /
Fn = 0.570
- . . . .
.....
.......
VERSION 1
VERSION 2
C L O S E FIT
MARIN EXR
MODEL
--VERSION
1
....
VERSION 2
.....
C L O S E FIT
.......
M A R I N EXR
Fn= 0.570
1.!
1.0
it,..A
~__.._~
iN
0.5
0
0
Fig. 33
Correlation of irregular transfer functions measured and

computed for heave
Fig. 35
MODEL
Fn = 0.570
~
. . . .
.....
.......

computed for accelerations
VERSION 1
VERSION 2
CLOSE FIT
MARIN EXR
MODEL
Fn = 0 . 5 7 0
- - -----.....
......
VERSION 1
VERSION 2
C L O S E FIT
MARIN EXR
300
200
|~,.n
-J
0'1
=O
IO0
S''/' /
ss"
~
0
0
Fig. 34
142
LI{
Correlation of irregulartransfer functions measured and

computed for pitch
Flg, 36

computed for wave added resistance
S y s t e m a t i c Series Hull F o r m s
\
L
MODEL 5
MODEL 5
0.08
RISE C.G
/
I
iI
/i
i
0.06
//
14
/'
/
,/
s
0.04
s
/
/s
/
/
0.02
/
/
i"
/
s
TRIM
ANGLE
/
ii !
.~s Si /
~s
0
0
FnV=
Fig. 37
2
Vs x 0.514447
FnV=
Residuary resistance coefficient for Model 5
It is one of the three best on resistance at high speeds.

It is very close to the best model at the design speed around
Fnv = 2.5.
So it is shown that a wide forebody combined with a mediumto-wide aftbody is good for residuary resistance.
Seakeeping aspects
In the foregoing a number of salient aspects in the field of
seakeeping have been mentioned. For the selection of the
parent hull it was necessary to obtain statistical data for irregular
seas. To this end the measured transfer functions were synthesized with a family of wave spectra of unit significant wave
height and a range of average periods. The result is a statistical
measure, like the double significant output quantity presented
in Figs. 31 and 32, representing a kind of transfer function for
irregular seas. Although the diagrams embody the two-parameter ISSC wave spectrum and will be subject to change if
a different spectral form is used, they nevertheless come in very
handy for the comparison of ships, for design. As both parameters of the sea state, height and period, can be introduced
independently of one another, it provides sufficient latitude to
be used in practice.
For the choice of the parent hull, use was made of these kinds
of diagrams as they are more straightforward than the transfer
functions, which exhibit crossover points, making an assessment
more cumbersome.
-Seakeeping f i g u r e of m e r i t
In the selection of the parent hull form, use has been made
of Bales' regression model for destroyer-type ships [28]. For
the purpose of comparing hull forms on their seakeeping merits,
he had devised a regression predictor model based on a great
2
Vs x 0 . 5 1 4 4 4 7
Sinkage and trim in calm water for Model 5
Fig. 38
number of hull shapes. In this model a great number of seakeeping parameters such as heave, pitch and acceleration are
amalgamated to arrive at one single figure of merit indicative
of the overall seakeeping performance of a hull.
The validation of this model is also shown in [28] and stems
from back-designing a hull shape which has seakeeping characteristics superior to any ship in the data set. This was accomplished with the predictor model that uses only the ship's
main particulars and associated quantities.
At first, the predictor model was tried on our Models 1, 2 and
3 which, as shownin Fig. 3, constitute the diag, onal, incorporating a shift in LCF. Earlier the work of Bales and Cummins
[29] had indicated a sizable improvement of heave and pitch
if the forebody CweF were to be increased. The improvement
found from the experiments was not as great as had been expected, perhaps because CweF had not been increased enough.
In the series, CWeFwas not taken any higher than 0.6 as it was
felt that this would result in an important calm-water resistance
increase of more than 10 percent at Froude numbers in excess
of 0.5. The restriction on Cwev is not made in current frigate
Table 3
Residuary resistance comparison, normalized on Model 2
Speed,
F.v
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
95.2
97.6
100.3
101.2
104.1
103.5
100
100
100
100
100
100
Model No.
3
4
100.0
91.0
93.8
93.2
89.9
89.8
120.8
96.0
99.2
99.5
100.0
101.1
96.2
91.6
89.4
94.9
98.0
98.0
120.6
88.4
91.1
90.9
88.7
90.4
143
/1
./.-"
Table 4
Tradeoff between calm-water resistance and seakeeping characteristics in head waves
Calm-Water Resistance
Model
NO. '
1
2
3
4
5
6
Seakeeping (~haracteristics
CFS + CA
103
CRM
103
CTS
X 103
RTS
(tonne)
1.428
1.428
1.428
1.428
1.428
1.428
1.168
1.651
1.553
1.593
1.511
1.470
3.046
3.079
2.981
3.021
2.939
2.898
88.39
88.44
83.87
88.75
86.85
84.44
1
2
3
4
5
6
+0.1
0
+5.2
-0.4
+1.8
+4.5
Z
(m)
rms
0.36
0.39
0.39
0.39
0.36
0.37
+7.7
0
0
+2.6
+7.7
+5.2
design, where figures of 0.7 do occur although for lower

speeds.
The seakeeping figures of merit as predicted by Bales' model
are shown in Fig. 3 as encircled numbers near the appropriate
body plan, a positive number signifying an improvement. The
numbers represent a percentage change relative to the central
model (No. 2) which was set arbitrarily to zero.
It is shown in the figure that Models 1, 2, and 3 were arranged
along a diagonal with apparently a weak influence on seakeeping. The predictor further suggested that a significant
improvement could be made if--for the same displacem e n t - b o t h the fore and aftbody were given a wider waterplane. This appeared a logical step because the draft and
freeboard remain the same and so do the slamming and green
water aspects. A wider waterplane overall suppresses heaving
and pitching. The forebody CwpFwas still not allowed to go
any higher than 0.6.
The suggestion cast by the figure-of-merit predictor was
taken up and the three models in the right-hand top corner of
Fig. 3 off the diagonal were also tested, denoted Models 4, 5 and
6. The results of the experiments appear to bear out the improvement projected by the prediction model, as the test results
and the discussion on the seakeeping aspects have shown.
Tradeoff between calm-water resistance and
seakeeping characteristics in head waves
Eventually the resistance properties of the six models had to
be traded off against their respective behavior in head waves.
This tradeoff, or the choice of the parent hull, was made in the
following way.
A dimensional numerical design point was selected having
the followitig particulars:
Length: 85 m (279 ft)
Speed: 48 knots
Fn = 0.855
Fnv = 2.49
Sea state 4 : ~ w l / 3 = 2.50 m (8.20 ft)
7~1 = 7.00 s
For this nominal .point the calm-water resistance, the wave
added resistance, and the total resistance were determined as
well as the seakeeping determinants: heave, pitch, relative
motion at station 17 and vertical acceleration at station 19.
The values are given in Table 4 for all six models, in the upper
figures. In order to weigh the different quantities and to select
the best model, the central model (No. 2) was arbitrarily set to
144
0
()
rms
0.66
0.66
0.73
0.61
0.59
0.63
+7.6
0
-10.6
+7.6
+10.6
+4.5
817
(m)
rms
1.66
1.77
1.94
1.56
1.69
1.63
+6.2
0"
-9.6
+11.9'
+4.5
+7.9
a19
(g)
rms
0.26
0.27
0.29
0.26
0.25
0.27
+3.7
0
-7.4
+3.7
+7.4
0
RT
RAW
(tonne)
(tonne)
6.77
6.84
7.77
6.77
7.11
7.50
96.15
95.28
91.64
95.52
93.96
91.94
+1.0
0
-13.6
+1.0
-3.9
-9.6
-i.0
0
+4.0
+0
+1.4
+3.6
0
0
-1
+6
+13
+6
100 percent and the change of the numerical values relative to

Model 2 was given by a percentage. The plus sign indicates
an improvement. These percentages are shown in the lower
batch of figures in Table 4.
On the basis of this table, Model 5 was selected to become the
parent hull. It had a good calm-water resistance figure (although Models 8 and 6 were better) and it had a good overall
resistance figure (still Nos. 3 and 6 were better). The advantage
Model 8 had over the No. 5 parent hull on the basis of resistance
is lost when we take a look at the pitching in waves, where
Model 3 is dramatically worse. The advantage Model 6 holds
over the parent hull No. 5 on the basis of overall resistance (2.2
percent) is, in our view, outweighed by the significantly better
seakeeping characteristics of heave, pitch and accelerations of
Model 5. The relative motion figure of No. 5 is somewhat in
want, but could easily be rectified by a small change to the
abovewater flare forward.
So, taking everything together, Model 5 is selected because
it is 6 to 20 percent better on pitching as compared to the next
models in line (Nos. 3 and 6) at the expense of a 2 percent
penalty on overall resistance in waves.
In the last column of Table 4 the seakeeping figure of merit
@ that Bales [28] computed for these models is given. This
figure not only led to the extension of this subseries to include
Models 4, 5 and 6, but it also pointed out the most prospective
parent hull. In addition to this, other nominal design points
were tried for a smaller and a bigger ship, in a different sea
state, but again hull form No. 5 came out as the best balance
between calm-water resistance and seakeeping aspects.
Continuation of the systematic series work
State of affairs
The experiments related in the paper cover a forerunner
series of six models that led to the selection of a parent hull.
With that the parameters-to-be-fixed were established and work
on the true series as mentioned earlier and elucidated.by its
parameter space in Fig. 4 could begin in earnest. This work
is in an advanced stage, with 15 of the 27 models having been
tested. While all this is in progress, a continuation is in the
offing in the sense of a subseries devoted to a variation of prismatic coefficients and a series on trim wedges, on longitudinal
radius of gyration, possibly on spray-rails, and more than likely
on propulsion, struts, shaft position and related topics.
Transformation program
The systematic series of hull forms as shown in Fig. 4 re-
quired a transformation procedure to obtain the lines of all the

References
models as logical derivatives of the parent hull form. The first
1 Tritton, D. J., Physical Fluid Dynamics, Van Nostrand Reim
step was to computerize the parent hull form itself with its local hold (U.K.), 1982.
details. The second step was the transformation routine itself.
2 Merk, H. J., "Fysische Stromingsleer," Lecture Notes, Delft
For LIB and BIT transformations the problem was quite easily University of Technology, The Netherlands, 1982.
3 Comstock, E. N. and Keane, R. G., Jr., "Seakeeping by Design,"
solved by stretching and widening the hull shape. For the
Naval Engineers Journal, April 1980.
block coefficient variation it wasfirst necessary to determine
4 Comstock, E. N., Bales, S. L., and Keane, R. G., Jr., "Seakeeping
how to go about it, either through a change in Cp or CM.
in Ship Operations," SNAME Spring Meeting/STAR Symposium,
An additional problem to be solved was the transformation
1980.
of the abovewater hull form. As the underwater hull form
5 Kehoe, J. W., "Destroyer Seakeeping: Ours and Theirs,"
changes in a consistent fashion, the angle of intercept between Proceedings, United States Naval Institute, Nov. 1973.
6 Kehoe, J. W., Brower, K. S., and Comstock, E. N., "Seakeeping,"
the sections and the waterplane changes. It was found that
shaping the abovewater hull in a systematic fashion had to be Proceedings, United States Naval Institute, Sept. 1983.
7 Olson, S. R., "An Evaluation of the Seakeeping Qualities of
done quite independently from the underwater hull form in Naval
Combatants," Naval Engineers Journal, Feb. 1978.
order to avoid hulls with a very wide forebody overhang or with
8 Mandel, P., "Seaway Performance Assessment for Marine
hardly any flare at all.
Vehicles," Sixth AIAA Conference on Marine Systems, American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Sept. 1981.
Eventually a transformation program resulted that c a n - 9 "Helicopter Operations from Small Ships," Combat Craft, July
within the boundaries set by the series parameters and its
1983.
characteristic hull shape--vary L/B, B/T, CB, Cp, CM, Cwe
10 "Certification of Helicopters for Use on Board Ship," Netherand Cve, so as to interpolate to any set of parameters within the lands Aerospace Laboratory, Europort Conference on Naval Concube matrix. "
struction and Equipment, Amsterdam, 1978.
11 Eames, M. C., "Advances in Naval Architecture for Future
N u m e r i c a l d a t a base
Surface Warships," Trans. RINA, 1980.
12 Mantle, P. J., "'Cushions and Foils," SNAME Spring Meeting,
The calm-water resistance data as well as the seakeeping data
Philadelphia, 1976.
obtained will be put into design charts in as condensed a form
13 "Status of Hydrodynamic Technology as Related to Model Tests
as possible.
of High-speed Marine Vehicles," High Speed Marine Vehicle Panel,
To make the maximum use of the data in obtairiing an opti16th International Towing Tank Conference, 1981.
14 Rader, H. P., "Wasserfahrzeuge ffir hohe Geschwindigkeiten,"
m u m hull for a given set of design requirements, the data set
Schiff und Hafen, Heft 3, 1981.
will also be computerized, so that with the use of a search and
15 Comstock, E. N., Bales, S. L., and Gentile, D. M., "Seakeeping
interpolation routine the required hull can be obtained along
Performance Comparison of Air Capable Ships," Naval Engineers
with its resistance and seakeeping characteristics with a mini- Journal, April 1982.
m u m of effort.
16 Silverleaf, A. and Cook, F. G. R., "A Comparison of Some
Features of High Speed Marine Craft," Trans. RINA, 1970.
17 Bailey, D., "The NPL High Speed Round Bilge Displacement
Hull Series,"Trans. RINA, 1976.
Concluding remarks
18 Yeh, H. Y. H., "Series 64 Resistance Experiments on High-speed
For the twofold purpose of obtaining design data on high- Displacement Forms,." Marine Technology, Vol. 2, No. 3, July
speed hull forms in the areas of both calm-water resistance and
1965.
19 Lindgrenl H. and Williams, A., "Systematic Tests with Small,
seakeeping and to investigate what the prospects are for displacement hulls in the extremely high-speed range, a systematic Fast Displacement Vessels, including a Study on the Influence of Spray
SNAME Diamond Jubilee International Meeting, 1968.
series of hull forms has been discussed. It was found that a hull Strips,"
20 lohnson, "The Changing Design Process," Naval Engineers
can be obtained that incorporates a sizable improvement in Journal, April 1980.
seakeeping at the expense of just a little extra resistance.
21 Ursell, F., "On the Virtual Mass and Damping of Floating
In the light of the currently growing belief, expressed in Bodies at Zero Speed Ahead," Proceedings, Symposium on the Behaviour of Ships in a Seaway, Wageningen, The Netherlands, 1957.
many a contemporary paper, that seakeeping does matter and
22 Tasai, F., "'On the Damping Force and Added Mass of Ships
does have an impact on ship operation, this information may
Heaving and Pitching," Reports of Research Institute for Applied
be of further assistance in assessing the inevitable tradeoff to Mechanics, Kyushu University, Japan, 1960.
be .made when more emphasis is to be laid upon seakeeping
23 Grim, O., "A Method for a More Precise Computation of
behavior.
Heavin~ and Pitching Motions, Both in Smooth Water and in Waves,"
Proceedings, Third Symposium on Naval Hydrodynamics, Scheveningen, The Netherlands, 1960.
24 Gerritsma, J., Beukelman, W., and Glansdorp, C. C., "The
Acknowledgment
Effect of Beam on the Hydrodynamic Characteristics of Ship Hulls,"
The work reported herein, covering the initial steps toward
Proceedings, Tenth Symposium on Naval Hydrodynamics, 1974.
25 Beukelman, W., Huijsmans, R. H. M., and Keuning, P. J.,
the full series of hull forms, has been funded by the Royal
"Calculation Methods of Hydrodynamic Coefficients of Ships in
Netherlands Navy and by the Maritime Research Institute
Shallow Water," Ship Hydromechanics Laboratory, Delft Hydraulics
Netherlands (NSMB Wageningen/Ede Laboratories). The
Laboratory, Maritime Research Institute, Report No. 571-A, 1983.
.considerable assistance of the Royal Netherlands Navy and of
26 Salvesen, N., Tuck, E. O., and Faltinsen, O. M., "Ship Motions
the David W. Taylor Naval Ship Research and Development
and Sea Loads," TRANSSNAME, Vol. 79, 1970.
Center (DTNSRDC), acting on behalf of the Office of Naval
27 Gerritsma, J. and Beukelman, W., "Analysis of the Resistance
Research, at this stage, and their both becoming a sponsor of Increase in Waves of a Fast Cargo Ship," International Shipbuilding
Progress, 1972.
the series proper, is gratefully acknowledged.
28 Bales, N. K., "Optimizing the Seakeeping Performance of
In particular, the assistance rendered by the late Nathan K. Destroyer-type
Hulls "Proceedings 13th Symposium on Naval HyBales of DTNSRDC during the initial stages of the project and
drodynamics, Japan, 1980.
the deliberations leading up to the choice of the parent hull is
29 Bales,N. K. and Cummins, W. E., "The Influence of Hull Form
most gratefully recalled.
on Seakeeping;" TnANS. SNAME, Vol. 78, 1970.
(Discussion follows overleaf)
145
/
Discussion
preliminary design of high-speed displacement-type hull forms.
Although today there is in the literature model series data It provides an important contribution to an aspect of the design
which cover the resistance qualities of high-speed hulls of the of ships which has not been covered by experiments.
The design criteria chosen have a significant influence on the
type described by the authors, little, if any, systematic seakeeping information exists for these forms and this paper is results. The design criteria adopted in this paper are good
therefore most welcome. The authors should be congratulated calm-water resistance and good seakeeping characteristics.
on their thorough approach in testing a subseries of models in The application of the criteria led the authors to limit the
variation of the forebody waterplane coefficient to be no greater
search of a parent from which the series as a whole derives.
The choice of a parent model is very important and not easy, than 0.6 to limit expected increases in calm-water resistance
and one could of course argue indefinitely over its selection. for higher Froude numbers (in excess of 0.50). Previous studies
The authors have rightly balanced resistance and seakeeping have shown that increase in the waterplane coefficient above
qualities, but in considering the head sea case alone perhaps too 0.6 can lead to improved seakeeping performance. Table 5
limiting a view has been taken. Looking at the afterbody with this discussion compares other proposed seakeeping design
sections of the chosen parent I am not convinced that its slight procedures.
Research sponsored by the Society is currently in progress
immersion at rest is to be preferred in beam or following sea
to
develop a preliminary seakeeping design procedure for
conditions and it will be interesting to hear the authors' views.
merchant
ships. The design criterion used is minimization of
Also from resistance considerations increased transom immersion ratio, allowing as it does a gentler slope in the buttock freight rate through minimum initial cost and high average
lines, can show to advantage and I am not surprised to see Model sustained sea speed. One aspect considered in this work is seNos. 3 and 6 superior to the parent. It is also possible that the lection of proportions and hull form for subcritical tuning.
very flat and relatively wide transom will encourage slamming Subcrffical tuning refers to the ratio of ship resonant response
at the stern so that a few tests in following seas Would have been period to wave encounter periods being less than 0.75. This
reduces wave excitation and pitch response. Critical tuning
instructive.
As to the experiments themselves, although it appears per- refers to equal ship and wave encounter periods and is a region
fectly justifiable to use a towed model in regular waves for the of maximum motion. Supercritical tuning refers to the ratio
purposes of choosing a parent, tests on the complete series of ship to encounter periods being greater than 1.2. Reduced
should preferably be done with p~opelled models. The in- motions are expected in this region and lower pitch than in the
clusion of propeller action gives more realistic conditions par- subcritical region is possible. These effects of tuning on reticularly if the model is allowed to surge and also for faster craft sponse are an example of the "Doppler Shift" referred to by the
such as these where running trim influences performance. authors.
The results shown in Fig. 18 of the paper can be interpreted
Propeller action modifies running trim from that obtained in
towed models and this effect should be fully represented in the in terms of tuning. In head seas the encounter period is
experiments. Evidence as to how model behavior in waves
Tw
TE =
differs in propelled or towed tests is given in reference [80] ,
[1 + (kL)I/zFn]
(additional references follow some discussions). Here significantly different acceleration levels are shown over a range of and the tuning factor for pitch is
encounter frequency. There are also differences in pitch and
To = To[1 + (kL)I/2F,]
heave at resonant frequencies. Although these data relate to
Te
Tw
a planing craft at Fnv = 3.0, I suspect they would be reflected.
where
at lower Froude numbers as well.
High-speed displacement ships of this kind experience severe
To = pitch resonant period
motions which have in extreme cases led to structural damage
Tw = wave period
of the hull, and, since this is an important design consideration,
T = period of encounter
I am surprised that no plans appear to have been made to obtain
The model heave and pitch periods are not given in the paper
pressure and slamming measurements at the bow. Also, bridge
structures are vulnerable wit h respect to loss of visibility from and it would be useful if the authors could provide these data.
flying spray which is generated from the breakup of solid water I have estimated that in model scale the pitch period ranges
shipped over the bow. A technique for monitoring and mea- from around 0.95 sec at zero speed to less than 0.80 sec at the
suring impact and wetness on a bridge front is given by Lloyd higher Froude numbers. Applying this result to Fig. 18, the
following results for tuning were obtained:
[81].
This paper is of great interest and I hope that the authors will
FROUDE NO.
TUNING
be encouraged to publish the results of the whole model series.
0.285
Subcritical, To/T~ < 0.75 for all x/L/)~
If they can also be persuaded to add seakeeping data for wave
0.570
Critical, To/TE > 0.75 for v/L/)k > 1.0
directions other than head seas, then their findings will be very
0.855
Critical for 0.70 < v/L/)k < 1.00
keenly awaited.
Supercritical v/L/~ > 1.00
1.140
Supercritical for x/L/k > 0.75
Additional references
D. Bailey, 6 Visitor
30 17th ITTC, G6teborg, Sept. 1984 (Report of the High-Speed

Marine Vehicle Committee).
31 Lloyd,A. R. J. Mi, "Deck Wetness Experiments," 2Oth ATTC,
198;3.
Frank Sellars, Member

This paper considers the influence of seakeeping on the
6 NMI Ltd., Fehham, Middlesex, England.
146
These results indicate that the reduced pitch response at the

higher Froude numbers is due to supercritical tuning. Economic constraints prevent design for supercritical tuning for
merchant ships; however, it is a viable option for advanced
naval vessels. Constraints on the selection of waterplane
coefficients were mentioned earlier in this discussion. An increase in the waterplane coefficient tends toreduce the pitch
natural period and increases damping. For low-speed opera-
S y s t e m a t i c Series Hull Forms
Table 5
Proposed
Commercial Seakeeping
Design Procedure
Proportions
or Form.
Length
Beam
B/T
T
Cwp
CB
Comparisonof proposed seakeeping design procedures
Frigates
Schmitke and Murdey (1980) a
increase to reduce
wave excitation and
thus reduce motion
increase to increase
damping
reduce to reduce
pitch period
reduce to reduce
pitch period
choose on basis of
arrangement and powering
increase to reduce
pitch period
has negligible effect
on seakeeping
high (CwP)Ffor best

seakeeping
keep low for resistance
and seakeeping
.
choose on basis of
stability
...
Forebody shape V-sections for reduced periods

(Cvp) = C B / C w p
keep bow sections fine

near keel
.
Destroyers
Bales (1980), [28]
decrease T/L
.
.
...
decrease T/L to
improve
seakeeping
increase to improve
seakeeping
...
...
decrease (CvP)F
increase (CvP)a
a Schmitke, R. T. and Murdey, D. C., "Seakeeping and Resistance Trade Offs in Frigate Hull Design," 13th
ONR Symposium on Naval Hydrodynamics, Tokyo, Oct. 1980.
tion this imt)roves seakeeping by shifting responses into the

suberitical region. For high-speed vessels reduced pitch periods
may not b e beneficial. Higher-pitch periods help to extend
the region of supercritical tuning and improve seakeeping.
The authors note that the test results indicate that a low
verticalprismatic coefficient brings about a small pitch angle.
The vertical prismatic coefficient is the ratio of the block to
waterplane coefficients. The block coefficient: was held constant; therefore a low vertical prismatic coefficient corresponds
tO a high waterplane coefficient.
Comparison of model pitch transfer functions at the highest
speed, Fig. 16, shows a 45 percent reduction in maximum pitch
response as the prismatic coefficient is reduced 6 percent.
Referring to the previous discussion of tuning, this large reduction in pitch occurs in a region of critical tuning. The large
reductions in pitch are considered to be a result of increased
damping associated with increased waterplane coefficient. "
Gabor Karafiath, 7 Visitor
. [The views expressed herein are the opinions of the discusser and not
necessarily those of the Department of Defense or the Department of
the Navy.]
During recent years seakeeping considerations for naval ships
have received increased emphasis and have been incorporated
into the ship design cycle at an early stage. At the same time
energy considerations in terms of reduced powering requirements have also become increasingly important. It was shown
in reference [32] that good seakeeping and powering characteristics can be combined in one design and I am sure that the
information in this paper and results from the planned follow-on tests will aid designers to meet both the seakeeping and
powering goals simultaneously.
The paper selects a parent hull form for a new series and it
is important to compare resistance with that of other hull forms
of its type. Averaged residuary resistance to weight ratios for
other series of hull forms are presented in reference [88] and
the following table shows a comparison to the selected parent
hull No. 5.
7 David W. Taylor Naval Ship Research and Development Center,
Bethesda, Md.
RESISTANCE COMPARISON TO,OTHER SERIES DATA
RR/A
Hull model 5 (parent for prol~gsed series) 0.041
DTNSRDC Series 64
0.088
NPL Series L/B = 7.5
0.044
The above comparison is at the sarue nondimensional volume
Froude number Fnv = 2.49 and thesame length-to-displacement ratio L/AI/Z = 8.52 for all three hulls. The comparison
indicates that the smooth-water performance of Hull 5 is
comparable to that of the designs in the other two series.
The authors have concentrated on the seakeeping aspects and
have selected their parent hull form, No. 5, principally on its
low pitching characteristic and acceptable resistance in waves.
However, if some of the data in Table 4 are rearranged (see
Table 6 6f this discussion) in order of increasing resistance,
relative to that of Model 3, some other trends become evident.
The general trend is that excessive transom width, results in
poor resistance in calm water and in waves and that a wide
forebody is beneficial. The selection of Model 5 as parent was
based principally on the excellent pitching in wave characteristics as opposed to any resistance differences. Note that except
for the insignificant difference in the calm-water resistance of
Models 2, 4, and 1, the models with higher calm-water resistance tend to have higher resistance in waves. This similarity
in the ranking of the resistance in waves and the resistance in
calm water supports the validity of traditional naval architectural practice of basing ship resistance comparisons on calmwater data.
The authors state that "Because all six models had virtually
the same wetted surface--their displacement was the s a m e - the comparison of the six models could just as well be done on
the basis of residuary resistance." I have shown in Table 6 that
the wetted surface differs by as much as 5.0 percent for Models
8 and 5. The wetted surfaces that I have shown were derived
from the total ship resistance coefficient, CTS, and the total ship
resistance, RT:s, given in Table 4 of the paper. If one makes
a resistance comparison on residuary resistance as the authors
suggest, then one would assume that Model 5 is a significantly
better performer than Model 8 at a volume Froude number of
147
Table 6
Model
No.
Data of Table 4 normalized on Model 3 and in order of increasing resistance
Resistance
Ratio
Calm
Water
3
6
5
4
1
1.000
1..007
1.036
1.054
1.058
1.054
Resistance
Ratio
Waves
1.000
1.003
1.025
1.040.
1.040
1.049
Wetted
Surface
Ratio
1.000
1.035
1.050
1.021
1.044
1.044
1.0 because the residuary resistance is 4 percent lower as shown

in Table 3 of the paper. In fact a calculation of the total resistance based on actual wetted surface shows that the resistance
of Models 3 and 5 is virtually the same. At the 1.0 volume
Froude number, corresponding to 19.2 knots ship speed, the
total ship resistance of the Model 5 hull design is an insignificant.
two tenths of 1 percent greater than that of the Model 3 design.
The resistance at 19.2 knots, a typical cruise speed, will have
a great impact on the annual fuel cost and therefore I urge that
the wetted surface and residuary resistance versus speed curve
be published in order to facilitate future computation of resistance with these data. It would also be useful to provide the
section area curve.
The design community will certainly welcome the publicatiori of the data on the resistance and seakeeping characteristics
of the hull forms that are still to be tested. The emphasis has
been stated to be on seakeeping characteristics; however, I urge
the authors to place equal emphasis on the resistance aspects
of l:his series data.
Additional references
32 Lin, W. C. et al, "An Advanced Methodology for Preliminary
Hull Forna Development," presented at the American Societyof Naval
Architects, ASNE Day, 1984.
33 Van Oossanen, P., "Resistance Prediction of Small High Speed
Displacement Vessels," International Shipbuilding Progress, Sept.
1980.
W. A. Cleary, Jr., Member
[The views expressed herein are the opinions of the discusser and not
necessarily those of the Department of Transportation or the U.S. Coast
Guard.]
The authors are to be congratulated for offering a paper
which is relatively easy to follow on such a complex yet impertant subject. Seakeeping is perhaps the most important and
least understood subject of ship design today since ships are
expected to maintain a certain sea speed for operational or
economic purposes; courts are increasingly critical in responsibility for heavy weather damage; and the question of survivability of the entire ship in a seaway is matter of interest to
administrations deciding international standards.
International standards for commercial ships are largely those
in the International Convention on Load Lines (1966), establishing standards for intact reserve buoyancy; sheer; superstructure buoyancy in rolling action; bow height; clearance for
air pipes, ventilators, hatch coamings, etc.; strength of hull,
hatches, superstructure, etc.--all of which are affected by the
seakeeping ability of the ship. The International Maritime
Organization has recently authorized a long-term systematic
review of the convention with a,view to maintaining its applicability to present-day ships. Thus it is fortunate that the authors propose a system to investigate the seakeeping aspects of
a ship at the design stage.
My specific questions are submitted with full awareness that
the authors have used a series of ship.forms which are usually
148
Forebody
wide
wide
wide
medium
medium "
narrow
After
Body
Pitching
Ratio
narrow
medium
wide
medium
wide
wide
1.0
0.86
0.81
0.90
0.84
0.90
found in military ships and much less in commercial ships.

Referring to Fig. 4, most commercial ships would be a smaller
cube with CB between 0.5 and 0.9, LIB between 4 and 8, and
B/T less than 2.5. Yet it would appear that the system espoused
by the authors could just as easily be used for commercial ships,
albeit with different responses. Would the authors comment
on the use of such a'system for commercial ships?
The statement that freeboard was set at 6 percent length
taken at the fore perpendicular is also of interest. Has this a n y
relation to above-water percentage of intact reserve
buoyancy?
The continuation of the systematic series (at the end of the
paper) does not show any attempt to estimate seakeeping in
other than head seas. Yet it would seem as important for military ships as it is for commercial ships.
Finally, referring to the continuation effort, the authors note
that shaping of the above-water hull form had. to be done independently from the underwater hull. In the authors' opinion,
would slower commercial vessels have the same difficulty, or
would the fact that only 20 to 30 percent of a commercial hull
is above the waterline (intact reserve buoyancy) coupled with
the slower speed reduce the importance of this modification?
Allan T. Maris, Member
I congratulate the authors of this paper for their excellent

presentation of seakeeping data. It provides valuable guidance
to the naval architect who wishes to consider seakeeping performance in addition to resistance and propulsion performance
when selecting hull form characteristics
Giannotti. & Associates and the State of Alaska recognized
this situation in recent ferry design work performed for the
Southwestern Alaska ferry service where open-water environmental conditions can be severe and ridership is greatly
affected by ferry seakeeping characteristics.
To meet these needs we prepared design-oriented seakeeping analyses for a tight range of hull form characteristics
similar to those presented in this paper and discovered similarly
that small changes in hull form can significantly affect vessel
seakeeping performance. We prepared a similar table of figures of merit, selected an appropriate hull form and satisfac-'
torily confirmed the predicted seakeeping performance
through model tests performed at The Netherlands Maritime
Research Institute.
From this background I offer the following observations to
naval architects wishing to pursue this same design effort in the
commercial field:
1. Consider using site specific wave data where possible for
seakeeping analyses and model testing.
2. Consider selecting motion sickness indices in evaluating
hull seakeeping characteristics. Apply the indices at a range
of locations on the hull and use the results to aid in determining
the best location of dining and other public spaces.
3. Even small increases in vessel length can have a signifi-
Systematic Series Hull Forms,
cant effect on improving vessel seakeeping as well as resistance

characteristics.
4. A reasonable amount of pre-model test seakeeping analytical work can greatly enhance the economics of model
testing.
Authors' Closure
The discussions have brought forth a number of significant
points which require further amplification. We will respond
to each discussion separately.
We appreciate the comment of Mr. Bailey drawing our attention to the implications that the limited scope of experiments
may have had. We have limited ourselves to head seas, because
it was reasoned that this would constitute the most demanding
case. For the vertical motions and 'accelerations and associated
extreme effects like slamming on the bow and shipment of
water over the bow, this is indeed the most: critical wave
heading for the present ship type. Yet different wave headings
may pose different problems like rolling in beam seas, steering--i[ not broaching--in stern seas. Each of these could give
rise to an independent investigation and would constitute a
daunting subject to pursue. One has to restrict oneself.
As to the slight transom stern immersion at rest, it gave us the
best tradeoff between resistance and seakeeping although
viewed from other angles of interest an improvement may still
be possible. We do not think it will do much to rolling in beam
seas; the width of the transom stern would, but not the immersion. However, broaching of a hull with a wide and full
-stern with little, if any, submerged lateral skeg area i~ likely to
be more of a problem than on ships having a narrow stern and
more in the way of skeg. In considering the transom stern we
have to bear in mind that on a true design one would in most
,instances apply a stern wedge to improve the calm-water resistance. No such wedges were tried in the present study although they are high on the list of priorities for future work.
We would disagree with the discusser about tile risk of stern
slamming on such a wide and flat transom stern. It has been
observed in other experiments that on a frigate-type ship lying
hove-to in a rough sea, in particular when lying stern to the seas;
slamming under the stern does indeed occur. This is a rather
uncommon thing in the operational profile of a frigate, and it
has also been observed that just a few knots of forward speed
reduces dramatically the relative motions at the stern and the
associated encounter frequency, and slamming ceases to
occur.
We would agree with the discusser on the necessity to include

experiments on propelled models. The province of propulsion
has a good deal of priority, yet for the selection of the parent
hull it was reasoned that for the present subseries of models the
wake field would not be all that much different so as to completely contradict the selection of the parent hull.
Considering the subject of slamming pressures, these did not
constitute a criterion in the selection of the parent hull form.
Slamming on a high-speed hull form can be substantial, but it
was thought that all models of the subseries had a large deadrise
angle in the forebody and the pressures would for the most part
be associated with the rate of change of added mass and would
not vary greatly from model (o model. However, the vertical
accelerations attendant upon slamming may be dramatic.
Deck wetness, in addition, was not a selection criterion for
the parent hull--first, because in general ships of this kind that
have a low level of vertical absolute motions will also exhibit.
comparatively small relative motions, and second, because deck
wetness can easily be rectified through the height of freeboard
and the form of the bow flare. In actual fact the parent model
to be--No. 5--turned out to be the wettest of all. Upon scrutinizing the lines it was found that a very small change to the
bow flare above the waterline, from slightly convex to just a

little hollow, made a world of difference and made the model
dry.
Mr. Sellars draws attention to the most critical point of the
tradeoff in waterplane coefficient Cwe from the viewpoints
of resistance and seakeeping. A large Cwe is beneficial to the
seakeeping aspects while a small Cwe is associated with low
calm-water resistance. Had it not been for this effect there
would not have been a tradeof[. It will be clear that anychoice
on the parent, combining the best properties in both resistance
and seakeeping, involves some degree of arbitrariness.
The discusser further raisedthe point of subcritical and supercritical tuning, which from the point of view of system dynamics is an interesting proposition. Yet we believe that the
variation of Cwe in the present subseries is as large as one is ever
likely to encounter between design alternatives, and the attendant change in natural periods of heave and pitch was only
marginal. The models with a wide waterplane had the edge
over those with a small waterplane area, in our opinion not
because of de-tuning of the natui-al periods, but due.to a dramatic change in damping in the vertical plane.
The discusser's guess of the pitch period was rather accurate.
The parent hull form had a pitch period of 0.99 sec at zero
speed.
Mr. Karafiath rightly stresses the importance of seakeeping
considerations at an early stage in the design. We are also
pleased to see his comparison of residuary resistance dal~a to
other series, which sho.ws that we are on the right track with the
present series. The table he reproduced in the discussion and
normalized on Model No. 3 is essentially based on our Table 4.
It is clear from the original that as the calm-water resistarice
goes up the wave added resistance (in the selected sea static) goes
. dov#n. The table shows at a glance that the latter constitutes
about 8 percent of the former, so the ranking of the models on
the basis of the total resistance in waves very nearly follows the
ranking of the models on the basis of calm-water resistance..
Here again it may be well to reiterate that Model 5 was not
the best in any field, but in our judgment the best compromise,
for the rather high speed range that was projected from the
outset as being the basis of the tradeoff.
Mr. Karafiath requests more data on resistance aspects. We
intend to publish a companion paper on resistance that will
supplement the present paper. Since the latter deals with
seakeeping aspects the amount of stillwater data is of necessity
limited.
Mr. Cleary underscores the importance of the seakeeping
aspects from both the damage as well as the survival point of
view. The approach taken in the present systematic series is
by no means limited to the ship type. It can, and has been,
applied to other ships as well. If his interest lies in commercial
ships with higher block coefficients it may be useful to consult
the paper by Vossers, Swaan and Rijken entitled: "Experiments
with Series 60 Models in Waves" that was presented to the
SNAME Annual Meeting in 1960 (Vol. 68, TRANSACTIONS).
Although the basic hull form lacks some features of modern,
ships; like the transom stern, the paper contains a wealth of data
on the basis of systematic series of experiments along the same
lines as the present series. As to the choice of the freeboard
height of 6 percent, this figure was arrived'at on basis of some
diagrams contained in contemporary literature that relate
freeboard forward to ship length; see reference [3] of our paper.
Considering the influence of bow form on deck wetness for
slower commercial ships, we have observed that larger changes
are required to substantially reduce the deck-wetness problem
on a slow ship than on the frigate-type hull under investigation.
This should be attributed to the lower encountered frequencies
in pitching. If the bow dips into the water and becomes sub-
149
merged, both types of ships have "green seas" on the foredeck.

Before that stage is reached, both types suffer from the water
that is thrown up into the air. Because of the high accelerations
of the fast running frigate, the water adjacent to the hull gains
more momentum. Small changes to the bow flare form have
more effect for a frigate than for a cargo ship.
Mr. Marls stresses the importance of seakeeping considerations in the design. This is particularly important in those
areas of the work where the environment is most hostile to
150
seafarers. We can only wholeheartedly agree with him that

analytical work along with model experiments should be used
not only to lay out a design but to refine it as well. There is still
a good deal to be gained in this field.
Finally, the authors wish to express their thanks to all of the
discussers. Their comments have provided us the opportunity
to clarify several points, adding additional information and
showing us in what area the main interest lies. In addition, they
have broadly substantiated the conclusions of the paper.

Casco Redondo

Uploaded by

Document Information

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

Casco Redondo

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

SNAME Transactions, Vol. 92, 1984, pp.

The High-Speed Displacement Ship Systematic Series Hull

1 Senior project manager, Ocean Engineering Division, Maritime

Presented at the Annual Meeting, New York, N. Y., November 7-10,

motions also lead to substantial weather slowdown or necessitate

CTS = specific residuary resistance coefficient of ship

= wave added resistance

displacement ship can be pushed and how well she can do at

Setting up the systematic series

Speed range of interest

Systematic Series Hull Forms

were selected as listed in Table 1.

LCB - LCF separation

aneye on the design criteria, a number of main parameters

(transom width over ship's breadth)

To reduce the number of models and to adhere to parameters

It was felt that sufficient information was available to accurately

"MEDIUM" FORE BODY

Parameter space for entire test series

a quick-look impression of how the six models are related to one

chine forms. For the characteristic form of the series a rouno

Systematic Series Hull Forms

Coefficients of the models

a decision was taken to select one point which would be held

NSMB Model No.

Regular-wave and irregular-wave experiments

.Systematic Series Hull Forms

From the wealth of data obtained from the experiments the

When we take a look at the pitch functions of all six models,

The vertical acceleration at station 19, shown in Fig. 11, is

The relative motion between hull and water surface was

Systematic Series Hull Forms

Heave transfer functions

Vertical acceleration transfer functions

Relative motion transfer functions

Wave added resistance transfer functions

Pitch transfer functions

Pitch transfer functions

Pitch transfer functions

Pitch transfer functions

Relative motion seems to be related to acceleration, judging

stillwater resistance figures are more important to reckon with.

Added resistance in waves

Systematic Series Hull Forms

Influence of speed on heave transfer functions for

Influence of speed on acceleration transfer functions for

Influence of speed on pitc.h'transfer functions for

Influence of speed on wave added resistance transfer functions for Model 5

Systematic Series Hull Forms

dimensional multipole approximation of the linear potential

Systematic Series Hull Forms

Correlation of measurement to computation for heave transfer

Correlation of measurement to computation for acceleration

Correlation of measurement to computation for pitch transfer

Correlation of measurement to computation for wave added "

Correlation of measurement to computation for heave transfer

Correlation of measurement to computation for acceleration

Correlation of measurement to computation for pitch transfer

Correlation of measurement to computation for wave added

Systematic Series Hull Forms

Irregular transfer functions based on regular-wave

pitch transfer function

Irregular transfer functions based on regular-wave

Correlation of irregular transfer functions measured and