Document File

Journal of Ship Research, Vol. 36, No. 4, Dec. 1992, pp.
360-377
Mean-Flow Measurements in the Boundary Layer and Wake and

Wave Field of a Series 60 Ce = 0.6 Ship Model--Part 1: Froude
Numbers 0,16 and 0,316
Y. Toda, 1 F. Stern, 1 and J. L o n g o 1
Part 1 of this two-part paper presents results from a towing-tank experiment conducted in order to
explicate the influence of wavemaking by a surface-piercing body on its boundary layer and wake and
provide detailed documentation of the complete flow field appropriate for validating computational methods. Mean-velocity and pressure field measurements were performed for Froude numbers 0.16 and
0.316 for a 3.048 m Series 60 Cs = 0.6 hull form at numerous stations from the bow to the stern and
into the near wake. For Froude number = 0.316, free-surface effects are very significant, whereas for
Froude number = 0.16, they are negligible, except near the bow, such that comparison of the results
enables the identification of the salient features of the wave-induced effects. Wave profiles and local
and global elevations were also measured. In addition, resistance tests were conducted. The experimental equipment and procedures are described and the results are discussed to point out the essential
differences between the flows at low and high Froude number. On the forebody, the differences are
primarily in the outer (inviscid) flow, except at the bow, whereas on the afterbody and in the near wake,
both the inner (viscous) and outer flows are altered. The results are discussed to assess the nature of
the interaction between wavemaking and the boundary layer and wake. Most of the interaction can be
explicated as a result of the wave elevations, wave-induced pressure gradients, and the displacement
effects of the boundary layer. Part 2 concerns scale effects on near-field wave patterns and comparisons
between the experimental results and inviscid theory.
Introduction
ALTHOUGHit is generally recognized that the wavemaking

of a surface-piercing body has a significant influence on its
boundary layer and wake, detailed experimental information quantifying this influence is very limited, especially for
practical hull forms. Interest in this problem and its converse, that is, the influence of boundary layer and wake on
wavemaking, initially was primarily with viscous effects on
wave resistance and propulsive performance due to lack of
Reynolds number (Re) similarity in model tests. More recently, also of interest are the wave-boundary layer and wake
interaction effects on the details of ship wakes and wave patterns due to the advent of satellite remote sensing.
The most extensive data available is for the unique, simple geometry of a foil-plate model (Stern et al. 1989). Meanvelocity profiles in the boundary layer and wave profiles were
measured for three wave-steepness conditions. For medium
and large steepness, the variations of the external-flow pressure gradients are shown to cause acceleration and deceleration phases of the streamwise velocity component and alternating direction of the crossflow, which result in large
oscillations of the displacement thickness and wall-shear
stress as compared to the zero-steepness condition. This work
is precursory to the present study. In a contemporary study
(Stern et al. 1991), extensions were made for the wake region. The trends are similar, however, interestingly, the near
and intermediate wake display a bias such that the wake is
considerably more responsive to favorable as compared to
1Visiting research scientist, associate professor of mechanical engineering, and graduate research assistant, respectively, Iowa Institute of
Hydraulic Research, The University of Iowa, Iowa City, Iowa.
Manuscript received at SNAMEheadquarters September 19, 1991; revised manuscript received March 11, 1992.
360
DECEMBER 1992
adverse pressure gradients, whereas the far wake exhibits

a periodic nature.
For practical hull forms, most experimental information
is for simple configurations such as deep-draft, thin struts
(Kinoshita et al. 1979, Doi 1986) and the Wigley hull (Shahshahan 1985). Mean-velocity profiles in the stern region and
wave profiles or patterns for several Froude numbers (Fr)
were reported. The situation is similar for more realistic
configurations, but the extent of the experiments is considerably reduced. Baba (1969) performed mean-velocity measurements at four stations--entrance, forebody and afterbody shoulders, and stern--around a tanker model at Fr =
0.22 in his important study of wave-breaking resistance. Kasahara (1983) performed mean-velocity measurements at four
stations near the stern and wave-profile and pattern-resistance measurements for two ship models at Fr = 0.26 with
regard to wake resistance (that is, momentum loss). Studies
of both kinds have been made at the University of Tokyo
(UT) with reference to free-surface shock waves (Kawamura
1980). Fry and Kim (1988) reported mean-velocity measurements at stations near the bow for three ship models for the
range 0.26 - Fr - 0.41 and compared the results with potential-flow calculations. In only one case, that is, the circulating-water channel experiments of Hotta and Hatano
(1983,1985) have turbulence measurements been made. Note
that all of the other experiments referenced were performed
in towing tanks. In addition to the conventional research
studies just discussed, also of relevance are two large-scale
research programs. The first is the experiments conducted
under the Cooperative Experimental Program (CEP) of the
Resistance and Flow Committee of the International Towing
Tank Conference (1987). Member institutions have reported
detailed global (resistance tests, wave pattern analysis, and
wake surveys) and local (surface-pressure and wall-shear
stress distributions and boundary-layer traverses) measurements for the Wigley and Series 60 CB ----0.6 hull forms. The
0022-4502/92/3604-0360500.61/0
JOURNAL OF SHIP RESEARCH
concern of the C E P is somewhat more with the global t h a n

the local m e a s u r e m e n t s such t h a t the boundary-layer traverses are limited to the stern region and, in the case of the
Series 60 CB = 0.6 ship model, low Ft. The second is the
e x p e r i m e n t s conducted very recently under the Advanced
D yna mic E x p e r i m e n t a t i o n and Analysis for S i g n a t u r e Reduction P r o g r a m (Hoekstra and Ligtelijn 1991). The goal of
this p r o g r a m was to obtain a massive macro-wake database
for a broad r a n g e of ship forms, which would be useful for
g a i n i n g insight into the remote sensing of wakes as well as
how they v a r y with Fr, trim, hull form, n u m b e r of propellers, propeller rotation, etc. The database includes m e a n velocities, Reynolds stresses, and wave elevations; however, the
emphasis is on the detection of global structures as opposed
to the fine details of the complex flow fields. A l t h o u g h Hoekstra and Ligtelijn (1991) provided a s u m m a r y of the m a i n
findings extracted from the data, it is apparent t h a t the data
is a rich source of f u rt h e r useful information.
In general, these previous studies indicate significant effects due to the presence of the free surface and a dependence on Fr; however, the extent of the m e a s u r e m e n t s is
limited such t h a t g en er a l conclusions cannot be reached and
they are not sufficiently detailed or documented to be useful
as test cases for computational methods. A l t h o u g h this
s t a t e m e n t was w r i t t e n prior to our knowledge of Hoekstra
and Ligtelijn (1991), it is still felt to be an accurate assessm e n t such t h a t it is apparent t h a t f u r th e r e x p e r i m e n t a l
studies are required both to explicate the influence of wavem a k i n g by a surface-piercing body on its boundary layer and
wake and provide detailed documentation of the complete
flow field appropriate for v a l i d a t i n g computational methods.
The present study was u n d e r t a k e n for these purposes as part
of a larger project concerning free-surface effects on ship
boundary layers and wakes. In addition to the e a r l ie r mentioned precursory and contemporary work, some other related studies u n d er this project will be referenced later.
P a r t 1 of this two-part paper presents results from meanvelocity and pressure field m e a s u r e m e n t s for a 3.048 m Series 60 CB = 0.6 ship model (Figs. 1 and 2) at n u m e r o u s
stations from the bow to the stern and into the n e a r wake.
The m e a s u r e m e n t s are for two Fr = 0.16 and 0.316. For F r
= 0.316, free-surface effects are very significant, w h e r e a s for
Fr = 0.16, they are negligible, except n e a r the bow, such
t h a t comparison of the results enables the identification of
the salient features of the wave-induced effects. Wave profiles and local and global elevations were also measured. In
addition, resistance tests were conducted. The principal dimensions of the model are given in Table I and the locations, extents, and conditions for the detailed m e a s u r e m e n t s
are s u m m a r i z e d in Fig. 3. The test conditions and results
are documented in sufficient detail to be useful as a test case
for v a l i d a t i n g computational methods. P a r t 2 (Longo et al.
Fig. 1
Series 60 CB - 0.6 ship model
1991) concerns scale effects on near-field wave p a t t e r n s and

comparisons between the e x p e r i m e n t a l results and inviscid
theory. Also, for convenience certain aspects of the P a r t 1
results are presented and f u r t h er discussed.
The Series 60 CB = 0.6 ship model was selected for the
ex p er i m en t s as a r e p r e s e n t a t i v e fine hull form and to comp l e m e n t the m a n y previous and ongoing studies with this
geometry [see Toda et al. (1990) for comments concerning
the history of the Series 60 geometry]. The m a n y experim en t s with the Series 60 hull form are far too n u m e r o u s to
revmw; however, of p a r t i c u l a r relevance is the fact t h a t it
is one of the four hull forms selected for the CEP and was
used previously by the first two authors to study propellerhull interaction (Toda et al. 1990).
In the following, an overview of the ex p er i m en t s is given.
Then the most i m p o r t a n t aspects of the results are presented
Nomenclature
A , , , A T = ship-model midship and tow-
ing-tank cross-sectional areas

B = ship-model beam
CB -- block coefficient
C,+ = midship coefficient
Cp = pressure coefficient [= 2(p
po) / pU z]
d = ship-model draft
Fr = Froude number (= U / G )
g = gravitational acceleration
H = t o t a l h e a d [ = (Cp + u 2 + v 2 +
W2)1/2]
DECEMBER 1992
j,k = unit vectors in directions of y

and z axes
L = length between perpendiculars
m = blockage coefficient (= A,n/Ar)
p = dynamic pressure
Px,p+ = axial and depthwise surfacepressure gradients
po = uniform-stream pressure
Re = Reynolds number (= UL/v)
U = carriage speed, uniform-stream
velocity
U , V , W = velocities in (x,y,z) directions
v-w - crossplane vector (= vj + wk)

x,y,z = global Cartesian coordinates
Greek
= boundary-layer thickness
kinematic viscosity
= wave elevation
~+,~,- axial and transverse wave
slopes
p = density
v
cox= axial vortieity
( = +w
Oy
361
and discussed to point out the essential features of the flow

for both low and high Fr. Next, an a s s e s s m e n t is made of
the n a t u r e of t h e interaction between the w a v e m a k i n g of the
hull and its b o u n d a r y l a y e r and wake. Lastly, some concluding r e m a r k s are made. The complete results and f u r t h e r
details of the e x p e r i m e n t a l e q u i p m e n t and procedures are
provided in Toda et al. (1991). In the p r e s e n t a t i o n of the results and the discussions to follow, a C a r t e s i a n coordinate
system is adopted in which the x-, y-, and z-axes are in the
direction of the uniform flow, s t a r b o a r d side of the hull, and
upward, respectively. The origin is a t the intersection of the
w a t e r p l a n e and the forward p e r p e n d i c u l a r of the hull. The
mean-velocity components in the directions of the coordinate
axes a r e denoted by (u,v,w) and the c a r r i a g e velocity by U.
Unless otherwise indicated, all v a r i a b l e s a r e nondimensionalized using the model length between p e r p e n d i c u l a r s L,
c a r r i a g e velocity U, and fluid density p.
7
1.0
......
- -
0.975
0.95
0.925
0.9
0.1
0.05
WITHOUT HUB
WITH HUB
SERIES 6 0 CB=O.6 BODY PLAN
_
Fig. 2
Series 60 Ca = 0.6 lines drawing: (a) profile plan (longitudinal section

through centerplane), (b) body plan (transverse sections)
Table 1
Parameter
Length, (m)
Beam, (m)
Draft, (m)
Depth, (m)
CB
Cm
m
Shaft center, m
Wetted-surface area, m 2
Displaced volume, m 3
Entrance angle, deg
Length/beam
Length/draft
Beam/draft
362
DECEMBER 1992
O v e r v i e w o f the e x p e r i m e n t s
The e x p e r i m e n t s were performed in the Iowa I n s t i t u t e of
H y d r a u l i c Research (IIHR) towing t a n k , which is 100 m long
and 3 m wide and deep. The lines of the Series 60 CB = 0.6
ship model used in the experiments are shown in Fig. 2. These
conform to the s t a n d a r d offsets; however, the model is
equipped with a stern tube and a propeller hub, a l t h o u g h all
of the p r e s e n t e x p e r i m e n t s are for the without-propeller condition. The details of the stern a r r a n g e m e n t are based on
the original methodical series (Todd 1963). The broken lines
in Fig. 2 show the original bare (without-hub) hull, which
was used, for example, in the CEP, whereas the solid lines
show the p r e s e n t modified (with-hub) hull. The principal dimensions of the model are given in Table 1 [the offsets are
provided in Toda et al. (1991)]. The m o d e l is 3.048 m long
and constructed of fiber-reinforced Plexiglass. In order to
s t i m u l a t e t u r b u l e n t flow, a row of cylindrical studs of 1.6
m m h e i g h t and 3.2 m m d i a m e t e r were fitted with 9.5 m m
spacing on the model at x = 0.05.
Instrumentation, calibration, and data-acquisition system

A one-component force t r a n s d u c e r (0.9 N full scale) was
used with the d y n a m o m e t e r to perform the resistance tests.
The global wave elevations were m e a s u r e d using a digitalinterface technique recently developed a t IIHR for m a k i n g
high-resolution, low-noise, capacitance-wire wave-elevation
m e a s u r e m e n t s (Houser et al. 1989). Three capacitance-wire
probes and digital interfaces were used to perform the measurements. A b e a m fitted with a slide was affixed perpend i c u l a r to the t o w i n g - t a n k wall. Three calibration devices
(one-dimensional vertical traverses) were mounted to the slide
at 30 cm i n t e r v a l s with each supporting a probe. W i t h t h i s
a r r a n g e m e n t , the probes could be positioned at any desired
m e a s u r e m e n t point between the t o w i n g - t a n k wall and the
ship model and could be c a l i b r a t e d at each point. The local
wave elevations were m e a s u r e d using a Shinozuka 15 cm
AC servo-mechanism wave probe. A n automated traverse was
used to position the probe. The probe could be moved in three
directions of a C a r t e s i a n coordinate system. The crossplane
positioning (y-z planes) was driven by two stepper motors
which were controlled by a microcomputer on the carriage.
The axial (x-direction) positioning was achieved by m a n u a l l y moving the y - z t r a v e r s e system along 1.5 m rails. F o r
large distance axial positioning, the r e l a t i v e position of t h e
t r a v e r s e and ship model were adjusted on the trailer. A fivehole pitot probe (modified N P L type) was used to m e a s u r e
the direction and m a g n i t u d e of the velocity in the flow field
a r o u n d the hull. The same a u t o m a t e d t r a v e r s e was used for
positioning the probe. A static-pressure probe (the static
pressure side of a conventional pitot probe) was used to measure the uniform s t r e a m pressure. This also enables t h e
Principal dimensions of the Series 60 CB = 0.6 ship model
Model
Model
Full-scale
3.048
0.406
0.163
0.244
0.60
0.977
0.0072
0.098
1.579
0.121
7
7.50
18.75
2.50
1.829
0.244
0.098
0.146
0.60
0.977
0.00226
0.059
0.569
0.026
7
7.50
18.75
2.50
121.920
16.256
6.502
9.758
0.60
0.977
"3~933
2526.400
7744.000
7
7.50
18.75
2.50
m e a s u r e m e n t of the hydrodynamic pressure and e l i m i n a t e s

the effects on the m e a s u r e m e n t s of small deviations of the
t o w i n g - t a n k rails. It was located a t x = 0.1 or x = - 0 . 3 (dep e n d i n g on the ship-model position), y = - 0 . 4 (that is, opposite side of the m e a s u r e m e n t region), and z = - 0 . 0 1 . This
position was selected so t h a t the probe was in u n d i s t u r b e d
flow and its w a k e and w a v e m a k i n g did not disturb the flow
in t h e m e a s u r e m e n t region. The leads from the five-hole pitot probe were connected by vinyl t u b i n g to one side of five
V a l i d y n e differential pressure t r a n s d u c e r s with -+0.3 psi
d i a p h r a g m s . The tube from the static-pressure probe was
connected by vinyl t u b i n g to a branch. Five pressure tubes
were divided at the branch and connected to the other side
of the transducers. All of the tubings between the sensor holes
and the d i a p h r a g m were filled with water.
The force t r a n s d u c e r was calibrated with deadweights and
two pulleys. The capacitance-wire wave-elevation measurem e n t system was c a l i b r a t e d before and after m e a s u r e m e n t
of each wave pattern. The calibration was accomplished by
m a n u a l l y moving the probes up and down (that is, c h a n g i n g
the i m m e r s i o n of the probe) with the one-dimensional vertical traverses. The servo-mechanism wave probe was calib r a t e d by a d j u s t i n g its r e l a t i v e position with respect to the
w a t e r surface using the a u t o m a t e d traverse. This was done
each day before and after the m e a s u r e m e n t s were performed. The differential pressure t r a n s d u c e r s were calib r a t e d using two w a t e r tanks. One was moved up and down
by the a u t o m a t e d traverse while the other was at a fixed
elevation, t h a t is, the pressure was m e a s u r e d by w a t e r head.
The c a l i b r a t i o n was carried out before and after the meas u r e m e n t s at a p a r t i c u l a r station. In all t h r e e of the l a t t e r
cases, the calibration results were linear and repeatable (Toda
et al. 1991). The five-hole pitot probe was c a l i b r a t e d in the
IIHR 1.07 m octagonal, open-throat test section, closed-circuit wind tunnel. The d a t a were analyzed using a method
s i m i l a r to F u j i t a (1979), which is described in detail in Toda
et al. (1991) along with p r e s e n t a t i o n of the calibration coefficients. A computer p r o g r a m was used for d a t a analysis in
which values of the calibration coefficients at desired points
are obtained by L a g r a n g e interpolation.
The data-acquisition system was an IBM PC-XT compatible microcomputer on the carriage with an 8-channel dataacquisition board. An RS-232C communication port (the serial port) was used to t r a n s m i t signals to the controllers of
the stepper motors. For the steady m e a s u r e m e n t s (resistance tests, local wave elevations, and mean-flow field), the
force, wave elevation, or pressure sensed was converted to a
voltage and t h e n filtered by a low-pass filter (including a
u n i t gain amplifier) and sampled t h r o u g h the A-D converter
and a v e r a g e d over the m e a s u r e m e n t period. A s a m p l i n g frequency of 50 Hz was used. For the u n s t e a d y m e a s u r e m e n t s
(global wave elevations), the wave elevation was converted
to a voltage and then sampled t h r o u g h the A-D converter.
A s a m p l i n g frequency of 100 Hz was used.
Experimental procedures and uncertainty
Three types of m e a s u r e m e n t s were made: resistance, wave
profiles and elevations, and mean-velocity and pressure fields.
All m e a s u r e m e n t s are for the full-load and without-propeller or -rudder condition. First, resistance tests and wave profile m e a s u r e m e n t s were made. Based on these, the conditions for the subsequent detailed measurements were selected.
The resistance tests were carried out following s t a n d a r d
t o w i n g - t a n k procedures. The tests were for the model-free
condition (that is, the model was free to sink and trim). The
force t r a n s d u c e r was calibrated before and after the measurements. Force m e a s u r e m e n t s were made for about 10 sec
after the carriage attained steady speed. Measurements were
performed for the r a n g e 0.1 -< F r -< 0.36. The wave profiles
DECEMBER 1992
were recorded for the model-fixed condition (that is, the model
was fixed at the design draft). This was done phototgraphicatly using both 35 m m and video cameras. For the detailed
m e a s u r e m e n t s , two F r were selected, 0.16 and 0.316. The F r
= 0.316 value was chosen since for this condition free-surface effects are very significant and t h e r e is a p l a t e a u in the
resistance curves which implies stable conditions for the
m e a s u r e m e n t s . In addition, it was decided to perform a parallel set of m e a s u r e m e n t s , in the same towing t a n k under
e s s e n t i a l l y identical conditions, for F r = 0.16 since for this
condition free-surface effects are negligible, except n e a r the
bow, such t h a t comparisons with the F r = 0.316 measurem e n t s would enable the identification of the s a l i e n t features
of the wave-induced effects. Also, comparisons could be made
with the without-propeller condition m e a s u r e m e n t s of Toda
et al. (1990) which were also for F r = 0.16. All the meas u r e m e n t s were made for the model-fixed condition. For the
global wave-elevation m e a s u r e m e n t s , the capacitance-wire
system was positioned at about 55 m from the south end of
the t a n k such t h a t the c a r r i a g e h a d a t t a i n e d a steady speed
for about 25 m prior to reaching the location of the probes.
The s a m p l i n g period was i n i t i a t e d by the carriage contacting a switch t h a t was mounted such t h a t when contacted the
probes were 1.12 m u p s t r e a m of the bow of the ship model.
W i t h this method, the time could be converted to a lengthwise distance from the bow of the ship model, thereby, ena b l i n g the t r a n s f o r m a t i o n of the u n s t e a d y wave-elevation
m e a s u r e m e n t s into a steady wave p a t t e r n for coordinates
moving with the ship model. A t i m e i n t e r v a l of 8 sec was
used for the measurements (800 d a t a points per channel were
obtained). M e a s u r e m e n t s were made for y positions of every
5 cm (18 longitudinal cuts) and, in this case, for four F r =
0.16, 0.25, 0.3, and 0.316. The closest m e a s u r e m e n t point to
the ship model was y = 23 cm (2.7 cm from the m a x i m u m
beam). For the local wave-elevation m e a s u r e m e n t s , two
m e a s u r e m e n t s were made per c a r r i a g e run. A delay time of
5 sec was used after the carriage a t t a i n e d a steady speed and
before the first m e a s u r e m e n t was performed. Subsequently,
d a t a was t a k e n for a 5 sec period and then the probe position
was changed by the a u t o m a t e d traverse. A second 5 sec meas u r e m e n t period was i n i t i a t e d after a 3.5 sec delay time.
M e a s u r e m e n t s were made at 19 axial stations with 8 to 20
d a t a points t a k e n over the range 0 -< y -< 30 cm and, in this
case, for only one F r = 0.316. For the mean-velocity and
pressure field m e a s u r e m e n t s , two and t h r e e m e a s u r e m e n t s
were made per c a r r i a g e r u n for F r = 0.316 and 0.16, respectively. The procedure was s i m i l a r to t h a t for the local
wave-elevation m e a s u r e m e n t s , except a 4.5 sec delay t i m e
was used between the first and second or second and t h i r d
m e a s u r e m e n t s . In m a n y cases, the probe was given a preset
angle (around 5 deg) so t h a t m e a s u r e m e n t s could be performed close to the hull. The flow angles were corrected based
on measurements in uniform flow. Measurements were made
for ten axial stations for both F r = 0.16 and 0.316. Meas u r e m e n t s at about 2 0 0 - 3 5 0 points were m a d e at each station. The measurement locations, extents, and conditions are
s u m m a r i z e d in Fig. 3. A total n u m b e r of about 4000 c a r r i a g e
runs were made in performing the complete set of experiments.
For the resistance tests, the accuracy is e s t i m a t e d to be
w i t h i n -+7 10 -4 N. The error is a t t r i b u t e d to friction in
the dynamometer. This corresponds to an error of 5 percent
at low F r (~0.1) and 0.5 percent at high F r (~0.3). For the
wave-profile m e a s u r e m e n t s , the accuracy is e s t i m a t e d to be
w i t h i n ---2 mm. The error is a t t r i b u t e d to the thickness of
the lines m a r k e d on the hull for t a k i n g the readings, t a k i n g
the r e a d i n g s from photographs, and the angle between the
hull surface and the camera. N e a r the bow, the error is
somewhat l a r g e r due to the presence of a t h i n l a y e r of w a t e r
363
Wave Pattern
(Fr = 0.316}
Crest Line
. . . . T,,~,,,~h = ~,~
Measurement Stations for
0.6
Measurement Stations for
0.5
0.4
Y
0.3
0.2
O.1
0
-0.]
O.l
WT (C)
10
10
RexlO-s 2.04 2D4
RexlO-6 4.02 4.02
0.2
9.8
2.03
4,01
0.5
0.4
9.2
1.99
3.93
Fig. 3
8.4
1.95
3.85
Results
In the following, the most i m p o r t a n t aspects of the results
[see Toda et al. (1991) for the resistance-test results etc.] are
presented and discussed to point out the essential features
of the flow for both high and low Fr. A l t h o u g h not discussed
in the Introduction, in comparison to the s i t u a t i o n for high
Fr, a considerable a m o u n t of e x p e r i m e n t a l information is
a v a i l a b l e for the mean-flow for b a r e ship hulls e i t h e r for
double bodies or at low Fr. Most of the e x p e r i m e n t s a r e for
m e r c h a n t ships, fairly s i m i l a r to the Series 60 CB = 0.6, b u t
with l a r g e r block coefficients (CB ~ 0.8) and p e r t a i n to the
afterbody flow (that is, the flow over the stern and in the
n e a r wake) with p a r t i c u l a r reference to the propeller inflow.
However, some limited studies have also been done for the
forebody flow (that is, the flow over the bow and midbody),
in this case, with p a r t i c u l a r reference to bulbous bows and
bilge keels. Several i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s have been given to the
vortical flow p a t t e r n s (and a t t e n d a n t complicated velocity
contours) associated with the forebody and afterbody flows
for these hull forms. This is exemplified by the r a n g e of terminology used to describe them, for example, bilge vortices,
longitudinal vorticity, and three-dimensional separation. For
a recent review for the afterbody flow, see P a t e l (1988). No
reviews are a v a i l a b l e for the forebody flow. Generally, it is
believed that, in this case, viscous effects are r e l a t i v e l y unDECEMBER 1992
0.7
0.8
0.9
1.0
26.5
3,09
6.11
I0
2.04
4,02
14.9
2.33
4.61
I.!
1.2
19.6
10
Fr
2.63 2.04 0.16
5 . 1 9 4.02 0.316
Measurement locations
which a d h e r e d to the hull surface and a p p e a r e d t r a n s p a r e n t

in the photographs. For t h e global wave-elevation m e a s u r e ments, the noise and drift of the digital interface are small;
however, some error exists due to the probe and calibration
device. The former is r e l a t e d to the effects of surface tension
etc. and the l a t t e r to u n c e r t a i n t y in the i m m e r s i o n setting.
Based on the r e p e a t a b i l i t y of both the calibration and meas u r e m e n t results, the e x p e r i m e n t a l error is e s t i m a t e d to be
w i t h i n -+0.5 m m in wave elevation. F o r the local wave-elevation m e a s u r e m e n t s , the accuracy is e s t i m a t e d to be w i t h i n
-+0.5 m m in wave elevation, except in regions in which the
wave p a t t e r n was unsteady, where the error is s o m e w h a t
larger. For the mean-velocity m e a s u r e m e n t s , the accuracy
is e s t i m a t e d to be w i t h i n 2.5 percent for the m a g n i t u d e and
1.5 deg for the direction. The accuracy of the pressure coefficient is e s t i m a t e d to be w i t h i n -+0.05. A p p r o x i m a t e l y h a l f
of the error is a t t r i b u t e d to the p r e s s u r e - m e a s u r e m e n t system and interpolation procedures and the other h a l f to the
wind-tunnel calibration.
364
0,5 X 0.6
important. Below, we shall simply point out these features

with the p r i m a r y e m p h a s i s on t h e i r modification due to the
effects of w a v e m a k i n g .
Wave profiles and elevations
The wave profile ~ a t the hull for F r = 0.316 is shown in
Fig. 4, including comparison with one of the results from the
CEP, t h a t is, UT. Also shown are low F r wave profiles from
UT and Toda et al. (1990), a l t h o u g h present m e a s u r e m e n t s
were not performed. Note t h a t in Fig. 4 two scales have been
provided for ~: on the left, ~ is normalized by the velocity
head U2/2g; and on the right, ~ is normalized in the u s u a l
m a n n e r by L. A comparison of the wave profiles for low and
h i g h F r clearly displays the fact t h a t , in the former cases,
free-surface effects are negligible, except near the bow where,
interestingly, the m a x i m u m 2~g/U 2 values are, in fact, larger.
Also, the p r e s e n t and UT results show close a g r e e m e n t in
s p i t e of the differences in model size and F r for the h i g h e r
value. The overall wave-profile results of the CEP also showed
indifference to model size for the fixed condition, a l t h o u g h
for the free condition, the expected scale effects were somew h a t a p p a r e n t n e a r the stern.
It is concluded that, a l t h o u g h t h e r e are F r differences between the p r e s e n t conditions for the detailed m e a s u r e m e n t s
and those of UT, t h a t is, F r = 0.316 versus 0.32 and F r =
0.16 versus 0.18 and t h e r e are differences in the model sizes,
t h e y are insufficient to cause significant differences in the
wave profile and thus the gross features of the flow field.
F u r t h e r m o r e , the differences between the F r = 0.316 and 0.3
wave profiles are r e l a t i v e l y small (Toda et al. 1991). These
facts were e s t a b l i s h e d to support the l a t e r use of UT surfacep r e s s u r e m e a s u r e m e n t s for F r = 0.18 and 0.3 as an aid in
q u a l i t a t i v e l y explicating the present detailed results. However, it should be recognized t h a t the intention here is not
to imply t h a t such differences in Re and F r are insufficient
to cause significant differences in detailed features of the
flow field, for example, in P a r t 2, it will be shown t h a t such
differences in Re do, in fact, cause differences in near-field
wave patterns.
Next, the detailed wave-elevation results are considered.
F i g u r e 5 shows the wave-elevation contours for F r = 0.316
and 0.16 and provides an overview of the results. F o r F r =
0.316, the contours were constructed using both the local and
global wave-elevation data. For F r = 0.316, the contours reveal complex wave patterns consisting of both transverse and
diverging wave systems. In the local region (close to the hull),
0.4
--[3:~
Toda s t o . ,
^
""v""
0.3
o.~
o
-o.1
-0.2
-0.3
-0.4
(1988)
(Fr=0
160,
4.0-m
mode,
fixed)
UT ( F r = 0 . 1 8 0 ,
0.2
4.0-m
model,
fixed)
..e.:J~
.
.o
FP
Fn =0.316 Fn=0.16
0.02 ~ 0.0050
IOWA ( F r = 0 . 3 1 6 ,
3.04.8-m
model,
fixed)
UT ( F r = 0 . 3 2 0 ,
4.O-m
model,
fixed)
...~.
u'
0.01 I 0.0025
o . ,.J_f
AP
o ~;1o
~;
-0.OO25
-0.01
0
0.1
0.2
0.,.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1.0
-0.02 -J-O.O050
Fig. 4
0.6-
......
.............
+ Wave
0 Wave
Wave
Wave profiles
C o n t o u r i n t e r v a l - 0.00164-
0.6-
Fr : 0.~,16
Tank wall
Wave a b s o r b e r
0 4 - - -
+ Gradient
0 Gradient
Gradient
::....
0.2-
0.0
0.0
...... ~ / / / - ? ~ i - ? , ~ _ _ <
_/---_-_~,..~.~.
~ ~ . : ' - - ? h : ~ . - - ~ ~ ~ ~~ . - '~ ~ -~ - -, c . i,
/..~-".~-~"
;.o
;.2
;.,
~.~
d.~
,.o
,2
o.o
-0.2
0.2
"'.. ~ 2 ~ ' _
~.,
0.6-
+ Wave
0 Wave
......
.............
0 4 - - -
0.0320
Tank wall
0 . 4 - - -
0.2-
-0.2
Contour interval-
..'..:'//7/;/"
": .;
......
.............
.-JF'~f.. ~
,~.6
.J
o'.~
"_
~:.^~:~
,.o
'
1.2
Contour interval = 0.0016
0.6-
Fr = O . 1 6 0
Wave
Tank wall
Wove a b s o r b e r
--
--
......
.............
Contour interval = 0.0320
+ Gradient
O Gradient
Gradient
Tank wall
0 . 4 - - >,
0.2-
0.0
-0.2
d.o
;.2
;.,
d.o
dB ~
~.0
1~.2
Fig. 5 Wave-elevationcontours
the bow- and stern-wave systems are seen to i n i t i a t e with

crests and the shoulder systems with troughs, which conforms to the usual pattern described for this type of hull form.
The close-up views shown in Figs. 4 and 5 of P a r t 2 of the
former two wave systems display t h e i r detailed characteristics. In the global region (that is, a w a y from the hull), the
bow-, shoulder-, and stern-wave systems i n t e r a c t in a complex m a n n e r c r e a t i n g the overall wave pattern. For F r =
0.16, the wave elevations are very small and the wave pattern is nondistinct, except for the effects of the bow wave.
A x i a l ~x and t r a n s v e r s e ~y wave-slope contours are provided in Fig. 6 for F r = 0.316, which are indicative of the
axial and t r a n s v e r s e wave-induced pressure gradients, respectively, in the vicinity of the free surface. Regions of positive and negative wave slopes correspond to regions of adverse and favorable pressure gradients, respectively. ~ and
~ were obtained t h r o u g h n u m e r i c a l differentiation of the
wave-elevation d a t a and will be discussed l a t e r with r e g a r d
to the results for the mean-velocity and pressure fields. Note
DECEMBER 1992
o.o - 0 . 2
o.o
c;.2
~6
~.,
0.8
;o
~.2
Fig. 6 Wave-slopecontours
t h a t the wave-slope and -elevation contours have s i m i l a r

patterns, except for the expected phase shift.
The t r a n s v e r s e and longitudinal wave-elevation profiles
for F r = 0.316 from which the contours were constructed for
this F r are provided and discussed in detail in P a r t 2. The
t r a n s v e r s e profiles include both the local and global data.
The d a t a overlap and close a g r e e m e n t can be observed between the two m e a s u r e m e n t systems. The profiles intim a t e l y display the complexity of the wave field, especially
in the bow and stern regions. Also shown are results for F r
= 0.16, which, here again, clearly exhibit t h a t wave effects
are negligible for F r = 0.16 in comparison to F r = 0.316.
The t r a n s v e r s e wave-elevation profiles m a i n l y display the
detailed characteristics of the local-region wave system. The
longitudinal wave-elevation profiles m a i n l y display the detailed characteristics of the global-region wave system, however, in this case, the i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of the wave p a t t e r n is
more difficult due, as a l r e a d y noted, to the complex interactions between the bow-, shoulder-, and stern-wave systems.
365
=0
x=0.6
o Wave Elevation (LocalMeasurement)

Wave Elevation (GlobalMeasurement)
Fn=0.16
o Wave Elevation LocalMeaSurement)

A Wave Elevation GlobalMeasurement)
Fn=0.516
Fn=O.16
H
Oi
-Z
~Z
0025'
25t"1
.I
'z,
,o ~ ,.,
i
,I ~
0 J~s~5 . . . . .
09 0925
/o
0025 o ~ ~ . .
z 0 . . . . . .
/h::o
o9~
oo50
0050
V-W
0
'
-Z
'
'
'
'
8O
,,~ j
;---
?:
o2o
V'W
1025
V-W
M-W
o ,
"
. . . . . .
0025:~i!ii!i~
-:::::.
0025
::i
0.050.
0050 t
o~
o~
'
-Z
~m'
'o~6
......
-...
P
2,oo~oo,ooooo~ao,~oQ
090
I . . . . .
~6
~(9 ~ 0.9~ 097
095
H
I a I al
/)~Lo~
o.o5o~:2
0050-
*Z
. . . .
Fn=0.316
'"
^,
=.,
o,,_z
,^
0,5
I ~ / 0 2 5
t ~
-002
0025-
lo
04
00501
0.050-
0025 0050 0075 0.100 0.125

0
Y
Fig. 7(a)
0025 0050 0075 0.100 0]25

Y
0 k
'[10 . . . . . . . . . .
2
x=02
o Wave Elevaban (LocalMeasurement)

A Wave Elevation (GlobalMeasurement)
Fn = 0.16
-Z
Fn = 0.516
i
i
I
0
_lO2e'~. 5
10012
I I i I I I [ I I
5 0 . 0 5 0 0 0 7 5 0 1 0 0 0.125
Y
095
Fig. 7
i i i i I I I i I I
0 0 2 5 0 . 0 5 0 0.075 0 1 0 0 0 1 2 5
Y
~-5
Fig. 7(c)
099
099
0025
Total-head and axial-velocity contours, crossplane vectors, and

pressure and axial-vorticity contours
, , , / ,=o,oo~,,~%o ;
-z o
95
098
~oo 0..
L~"
/~090
~..
,,
095
Mean-velocity and pressure fields
0.95
0.025
0.050
o9~5
11025
-z o I ' '
.. . . . . .
/
-z i ' ' /o'
0025]1 ~ /~--
,ooo,oO, , ~o=o ~
P
,"
' " o^0'o2.....

t ~'-J
!o~,!
i -~-~0~6 "0i'4 i , , , , , i J
0
0 0 2 5 0 . 0 5 0 0.075 0 1 0 0 0 1 2 5
Y
Fig. 7(b)
366
o,oo:oo,-:o.o,
DECEMBER 1992
0025
~o~........
0050
0075
Y
0100
0125
The total-head (H) and axial-velocity (u) contours, crossplane vectors (v-w), and pressure (p) and axial-vorticity (co=)
contours are shown in Fig. 7; and the total-head, velocity
(u,v,w), and pressure profiles are shown in Fig. 8. In most
cases, we simply refer to C~ as p below and in the figures.
Note that p is the dynamic (that is, piezometric) pressure.
The o~x contours were obtained by numerical differentiation
of the mean-velocity data and are not provided for the forebody since the present resolution was insufficient to accurately perform the numerical differentiation. Typical results
are provided at five stations, x = (0,0.2,0.6,0.9,1.1) and both
Fr = 0.16 and 0.316. The profiles are for some selected z
locations: at x = 0, z -- -(0.0075,0.0275,0.0475); and at all
other x stations, z = -(0.01,0.03,0.05).
Prior to discussing the results, it is useful to consider the
nature of the wave-induced pressure gradients, that is, the
wave-induced effects on the surface-pressure distribution and
the additional pressure gradients near the free surface associated with the wave pattern. As already discussed, Fig. 6
shows the axial ~x and transverse ~y wave-slope contours for
Fr = 0.316. Recall that regions of positive and negative wave
x:O.9
x=l.I
o Wave Elevation (Local Measurement)

A Wave Elevation (Global Measurement)
Fn= 0.16
o Wave Elevation (Local Measurement)

A Wave Elevation (Global Measurement)
Fn=0316
Fn=0.16
Fn=0316
-Z 0
A A
0
0 0 2 5 I ~ -08
Z
L_
09 099
i ,
_,
,:
H
ii~ 8( ~,
i i o I i~o o1~o i
08 09
099
16
0.025
0
u
o
. . . .
oooooT,Tooo;oo,= ' ~ ,,
o,
-Z
0 07C8 09 095
0708
09
0925
0 0 5 0 ~ 7
V-W
000ooo0oO~oo~o
,~
V-W
..:::::-:::::. . . . . . . .
5
~iii~i !:?~:::: :~
"
o.o25ti~:,',
;;!
0.050
oo501:~ i
Q~
o2
P
-Z
o%oo, '"'~'
-z 0it ' '/;o~'oo~'oo,;
oo ,
"- '- 1,A~~_~
oo o yo
251
.oo
o;o
0'
'
'
006
'
'
'=
' ~'
"
'~
P
ag~
I
L
L
L
,
005
Of 6 017
0,050
A
,
016 015 014 013
0.025
.oo,
o.
olo
F~
oo9
]-003 -001
'
'-
' ~'
'
"
'
'
'
,~oAooo'=o'
6'
,'
'~
10
3o
2
...........
0025 0050
0075
0.100 0.125
' ; .....
0025
0050
0o'75 .....
O100 0.125
y
.......
0025]
,o-Z
O,050F
zo
i
0
i
i
0025
i
i
0050
,
0075
~ ...... ('0x
ooo,ooooo,oo:oo,oo,oo=o , ~~x ,,
i
0100
,
0
i
0125
,
,
0025
,
,
0050
,
i
0075
I
QIO0
i
0125
Fig. 71d)
Fig. 7(e)
slope correspond to regions of adverse and favorable waveinduced pressure gradients, respectively, in the vicinity of
the free surface. Note that wave-slope contours are not provided for Fr = 0.16 since, as already pointed out, the elevations are very small, except near the bow, such that the
wave slopes are negligible. Unfortunately, the present program of experiments did not include surface-pressure measurements; however, as mentioned earlier, such measurements were made at similar Fr in the CEP, that is, at UT
for Fr = 0.18 and 0.3. Recall that the wave profiles from
these experiments showed fairly good agreement with those
corresponding to the present conditions; thus, it was concluded t h a t the gross features of the flow fields should also
be similar (see Fig. 4). The UT surface-pressure profiles and
contours and axial and vertical surface-pressure gradients
are shown for both Fr in Figs. 9 through 12, respectively.
Also included for comparison are inviscid-flow computational results for Fr = 0. Surprisingly, Fr = 0 experimental
data (double-model, wind-tunnel data) are unavailable for
the Series 60 CB = 0.6 ship model. The background for the
calculation method is described in Part 2. Note that the ordinate in Figs. 10 through 12 is z / d (where d is the draft)
which is referenced to the keel (z = -0.0533).
Considering the low Fr = 0.18 situation first: The data
and Fr = 0 calculations for the surface-pressure profiles are
quite similar; however, free-surface effects are evident in the

data, that is, there are significant differences between the
Fr = 0.18 wave profile and the Fr = 0 waterline pressure.
Similarly, for waterlines near the free surface, the data follow the trends of the wave profile, whereas the Fr = 0 calculations follow the trends of the waterline pressure. Overall, the profiles display the expected behavior, that is, high
pressure at the bow and stern, which decreases from the
waterline to the keel, and, in the midbody region, low pressure (negative values), with relatively small variation with
depth. The lowest pressure values are at the shoulders. The
pressure recovery at the stern is considerably less for the
data than that indicated by the inviscid calculations. The
pressure behavior just described is also displayed by the contours, that is, the contours show high pressure near the bow
and stern and low pressure for the midbody region and are
nearly vertical, except near the bow, bilge, and stern. In
general, the distortions from the vertical are related, no doubt,
to the rapid changes in hull geometry in these regions; however, in the bilge region, the distortions correspond to a broad
region of low pressure, which is related to the formation of
bow- and stern-bilge vortices, as will be discussed later. Interestingly, the pressure is fairly symmetric about the midbody. The differences are attributable to the asymmetry of
the bow and stern geometry and viscous effects. The ex-
DECEMBER 1992
367
X =0
-z=OOl
1.1
o
a
Exp.(Fn=0.316)
Exp.(Fn-0.160)
Splash Barebody (Fn=0.316)
. . . . . . Sp~shEdbody (Fn-0.316)
-z=O.03
-z: 0.05
Q9
O7
I.I
u
O9
0.7~
02
v
0
-02
w 0"2
a_~.
-0.2 t
4t;,
PO.2o = ,
- O , . 2 =~
oc;5o
o.,oo
&
'
o&o
Fig.
Fig. 8
060
0.0'50
o.,oo
8(a)
Total-head, velocity, and pressure profiles
x=0.2
-z = 0.01
I.I-
o
A
Exp. (Fn-0.316)
Exp. (Fn,.O.160)
Splash Barebody (Fn,.0.316)
. . . . . . SplashEdbody (Fn-0.316)
-z =0.03
-Z = 0.05
HO91
o.71
I.I-
U 091
0.7"
02"
I i
V O"
-0.21
0.2-
w ol
-021
pO'2 t
0050
0100
0050
Fig.
368
DECEMBER
1992
0300
0.0 0
0100
8(b)
JOURNAL
OF
SHIP
RESEARCH
E x p . ( F n - O . 3 1 B)
x =0.6 _ _
Exp. (Fn-0.160)
Splash Garebody
(Fn-0.316)
Splash Edbody
(Fn=0.316)
......
-z:O.03
-z=O.OI
-z:O.05
H II
!,
0.9
OY
I,I
I /
0.9
tt
07
o~,
vO'2t
wO21
_o.
o
II
-0.24I
0
0 50
0.100
I I
0050
0.100
i i
0.050
0.100
Fig. S(c)
x :0.9
Exp. (Fn=0.316)
Exp. (Fn=0.160)
Splash Barebody
Splash Et~ody
- ......
-z:O01
-z=O.03
H I01
0.6
02,
u I 1
(Fn=0.316)
(Fn-0.316)
-z:O05
#
t
'
'
0 O'50
: ........
'. . . . . . .
'
.......
'
-0.24
wO'2t
2t
~
'
~,-o-o-o-o=o-c
O,( ) 5 0
'
...........
0.100
'
'
'
0.100
'
0.0',50 ~
Y
0.100
'
Fig. 8(d)
DECEMBER
1992
JOURNAL
OF
SHIP
RESEARCH
369
I.I
Exp.
(Fn=0.316)
Exp.
(Fn=0.160)
Splash
Batebody
(Fn=0.316)
. . . . . .
Sp~sh
Edbody
(Fn=0.316)
-z =0.01
0.7 P
u
= ]. J
'
:.~;-["-
O.
0.7-
'
-z =0.03
,j
..................
-..~.t.,,
o':;'~'~
-z =0.05
~r
...........................
..........................
......
..-
++
"u
, , IA
v 02.L.I._4
,~
..
o . 2 ~ + : . + , o o o .+~~+ ~ . + . + . + _ ~
"i,,,~-~-~, .......................
ot
- ~
1
~
l ........ ..~_..__._.__.._..~
o_
. .. .. .. .. .. . -,. . . . . . .
. . . . .
!
- ' " ~ ~,
0050 Y
,'~,
0.100
0.050 y
,-i,
0.100
0.050 Y
0.100
Fig. 8(e)
0.40
0.30
UT
Wave
0.20
0.10
preeoure
data,
profile
Fr--0.300
z/d--O.
128
z / d - 0 . 3 7 6
z/d-O.S50
- -
CL
C)
0
-0.10
-0.20
-0.30
,
-0.40
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
o.g
1.0
X
0.40
Wave profile
0.30
0.20
.",,,\\
,,._..,/
,k~\"-~
0.10
~.)~
UT preaaure data, Fr=,O.lSO

--~/d-O.12e
z/d--O.378
/d-O.e2e
.....
--,/d-O,,O
/+,
0
-0.10
-0.20
-0.30
-0.40
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.+
0.5
0.6
0.7
calculations,
F'r--O
0.8
0.9
1.0
X
0.40
0.30
0.20
"
"
SPLASH
Water
line
- - - - -
z/d--0.128
....
-----
z/,,-o.3;,e
=/d.-Ole=6
~#
j"
0.10
~0 =
0
-0.10
-0.20
-0.30
-0.40
0.1
0.2
Fig. 9
370
DECEMBER 1992
0.3
0.4
0.5
X
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1.0
Surface-pressure profiles
- ........
..................
1.0.
+
0
Preasure
Pressure
Proelure
Contour interval
:iiiiittti: :;
0.6
0.02
"X
0.2-
0.0
d.,
d.6
d.6
0.0
7.o
d.2
0.0
d.,
d.6
0.B
1~.0
(a) Fr = 0.3
1.0.
0.20
0.4-
:'"'~'"'"
d.2
0,6-
"::;-"/iiii",.-.:t7(7.
0.0
Contour Interval
0.8-
" " ,"
0.2
+ dp/dx
.........
0 dp/dx
..................dp/dx
1.0-
i:,/,iti
,;"
0.4
(a) Fr = 0.3
l.O-
t::iiii-ii,, iii iliiii /
0,6-
0.6,
I,:. 7iiii-"i..,..
:",,,,",./
ii::i:ttl
-:0
0.4-
0.6-
0,4-
0.2-
0,0
0.0
d.2
d.,
d,6
d.6
;.o
','../.;:L-
i.:'-.".."
....
o.o
:. :. "-,
d.2
d.,
d.6
o.6-
!~
0.6.
,
0.4,
"::
_ . ./."ii
.//-
.
"
::: .
"
o.6.-~".7i
~ii:
",}
!i
o.e. ~.
'.'
"~N
~
~ : .,....,,,....~,
,,....,...,-,;.....,,,
.:
....... ,,;;:;; ;;:;:;:77i:

'
"..!...:.._~
.................. _...
d.2
d.,
0.6
o.o
""
" i
:
i ".......
t-'~,
o.o i
:: t,
~
:
'.
'.,
: : i il
-~
Fig. 10
~:::""
....
"",
o.o
1992
~i
;.o
ii
~ ~ IIi!,'::
.
:
! ;
':
~.J
il//
'
~ ::"
: :1
.:
:'" "J ~
,'
. .:~
..
.:,"-',:
:. 4": w-~
J\
,:.2
d.,
:.
~,~
.........
."~
"'-...':
d.~
x
(SPLASH)
Surface-pressure contours
p e r i m e n t a l and calculated axial and vertical surface-pressure gradients are also quite similar. Here again, free-surface effects are evident in the data n e a r the free surface. The
axial gradients indicate that Px is favorable for 0 ~< x ~< 0.4
and 0.55 ~< x ~< 0.7 (Fr = 0) and 0.65 (Fr = 0.18); and adverse for 0.4 ~< x ~< 0.55 and 0.7 (Fr = 0) and 0.65 (Fr =
0.18) ~< x <~ 1. Distortions are evident near the bilge and
n e a r the w a t e r p l a n e at the stern. The vertical gradients indicate t h a t p~ is slightly favorable (that is, -~0) for 0.3 ~< x
~< 0.75; and adverse for 0 ~< x ~< 0.3 and 0.75 <-- x ~< 1. The
contours are very distorted, especially for Fr = 0.18, which
also show scatter and islands of negative and positive pressure gradients, particularly in the midbody region. In conclusion, the surface-pressure distributions for F r = 0.18 and
0 are q u a l i t a t i v e l y and, to a large degree, q u a n t i t a t i v e l y
similar, which further supports the contention t h a t the prese n t low F r = 0.16 experimental data are representative of
the F r = 0 case. Note t h a t in K a j i t a n i (1987) it was shown
t h a t even closer similarity between measured and Fr = 0
calculated surface-pressure distributions can be achieved by
further decreasing the F r for the measurements, t h a t is, for
a 2.5 m model and F r = 0.13, the coincidence was very good;
and for a 6 m model and F r = 0.1, the coincidence was excellent. These are considered the l i m i t i n g low Fr values for
the respective model sizes in order to obtain accurate measurements.
Next, we consider the situation for high Fr = 0.3. The axial ~x wave-slope contours suggest t h a t the axial wave-induced pressure gradients are favorable for 0.2 ~< x <~ 0.4,
0.7 ~< x ~< 0.85, and 1.1 (local region) ~< x ~< 1.2 (local reDECEMBER
o.a
i I I
.
..,
~.t.
: ;
:.
.:t
i:
o.,. -::..
~,..'..-:
.. ....... i X
I,'.
: ',.."
.
,. :, ~
|'~.'.,?:i.........
.....
:: ::,' " / " "
~.'....
..,:
~.:: L \ I/
0.6
;.o
::
i..
. . . . . .
:':: . . .~ .
:
02 IW::-'::-':;
' . ."."
..........
. . ":
~i::
o.,
~::::
(c) Fr = 0.
;.o
(b) Fr = 0.18
I ~i
/.ti"
d.6
(b) Fr = 0.18
'
",4
0.2,
o.o
~.!~i~l~~lI~lL~llIif~;~ifi"./:i:iltiwi:ii ! \ "..ii "..
6.B-
(c) Fr = 0.
Fig. 11
(SPLASH)
Axial surface-pressure gradient contours
gion); and adverse for 0 ~< x ~< 0.2, 0.4 ~< x ~< 0.7, and 0.85
~< x ~< 1.1 (global region). However, these regions are difficult to define precisely since the contours are skewed at an
angle which is smaller t h a n t h a t for the diverging-wave system. The transverse ~y wave-slope contours suggest t h a t the
transverse wave-induced pressure gradients are favorable for
0 ~< x ~< 0.2, 0.4 (local region) ~< x ~< 0.8 (global region),
and 0.85 (local region) <~ x ~< 1.2; and adverse for 0.2 ~< x
~< 0.5 (global region) and 0.5 (local region) ~< x ~< 0.9 (global
region). The contours are even more skewed t h a n the axial
contours. Although the general features of the surface-pressure profiles and contours for high Fr are similar to those
for low F r [that is, high Cp (>0) near the bow and stern and
low Cp (<0) in the midbody region], there are pronounced
wave-induced effects at all depths, which were only hinted
at in the results for Fr = 0.18. In the bow region, the maxi m u m Cp value is somewhat smaller t h a n t h a t for low Fr,
but covers a considerably broader region, and high Cp values
persist to larger depths due to the effects of the bow wave.
Note t h a t the fact that the m a x i m u m Cp is larger for low
t h a n high Fr is consistent with the corresponding wave profiles (Fig. 4). In the midbody region, the low Cp values at the
shoulders are reduced and cover a broader area. Also, the
pressure rise between the shoulders is considerable in comparison to low Fr. These effects are apparently due to the
shoulder-wave system. In the stern region, interestingly, the
pressure recovery is reduced, that is, the zero point shifts
towards the stern and the pressure values on the hull are
reduced, although, as will be shown later, the pressure in
the near wake is actually larger for high as compared to low
JOURNAL
OF SHIP
RESEARCH
371
1.0-
+ dp/~Iz
Contour Interval - 0.0,5
.........
0 dp/lz
.................. dp/dz
0.8i
e.
0.8-
0.4. 7
0.2,
0.0
o.o
&2
&4.
~.8
~.e
,:o
;.e
&8
~.o
0.8
1.0
(a) Fr = 0.3
1.0"
0.8,
<.
0.6.
0.4.0,2.
0.0
o.o
&2
&,
x
(b) Fr = 0.18
1,0"1
0.8'
0.e"
0.4-.
0.2'
0.0
0.0
0.2
0.#,
0.8
X
(c) Fr = O.
(SPLASH)
Fig. 12 Vertical surface-pressure gradient contours
F r due to the effects of the stern wave. The pressure decreases (increases) from the w a t e r l i n e to the keel in regions
of high (low) pressure, as was the case for low Fr, however,
the v a r i a t i o n s are considerably l a r g e r and more dramatic.
The contours show no tendency of s y m m e t r y about the midbody. The axial g r a d i e n t s indicate t h a t Px is favorable for
0.075 ~< x ~< 0.4 and 0.65 ~< x .~ 0.8; and adverse for 0 ~<
x ~< 0.075, 0.4 ~< x ~< 0.65, and 0.8 ~< x ~< 1. The vertical
g r a d i e n t s indicate t h a t Pz is mostly favorable for 0.3 ~< x ~<
0.6, except n e a r the free surface where it is adverse; and
mostly adverse for 0 ~< x ~< 0.3 and 0.6 ~< x ~< 1, except
n e a r the free surface where t h e r e are some small regions
where it is favorable. A comparison of t h e r a n g e s of regions
of favorable and adverse Px and pz for low F r = 0.18 and high
F r = 0.3 indicates t h a t in the l a t t e r case the regions and
m a g n i t u d e s of favorable Px on the forebody and adverse and
favorable px on the midbody are all increased and the region
and m a g n i t u d e of adverse px on the afterbody is reduced,
w h e r e a s the regions and m a g n i t u d e s of adverse Pz on the
forebody and afterbody a r e increased and the v a r i a t i o n s in
the midbody region a p p e a r more well defined. Table 2 provides a s u m m a r y of the surface-pressure gradients, wave
slopes, and wave elevations at the m e a s u r e m e n t locations.
In view o f the above discussion, we now consider the present results, first for F r = 0.16, and t h e n for F r = 0.316, provided in Figs. 7 and 8. The discussion to follow proceeds from
the m e a s u r e m e n t s at the bow (x = 0), to those a t the stern
(x = 1), and finally the n e a r w a k e (1 -< x _< 1.2) and is based
on the complete results a t all ten stations and five z locations (Toda et al. 1991), although, as noted earlier, only typ372
DECEMBER 1992
ical results at five stations and t h r e e z locations are provided

in Figs. 7 and 8. F o r each m e a s u r e m e n t station, the overall
flow p a t t e r n is discussed first with reference to Fig. 7, followed by discussion of the detailed profiles with reference to
Fig. 8. Recall t h a t the hull geometry and m e a s u r e m e n t locations and extents are provided by Figs. 2 and 3, respectively. Also, shown in Fig. 3 for reference are the wave-syst e m crest and trough lines and b o u n d a r y - l a y e r thickness for
F r = 0.316.
For F r = 0.16, at the first m e a s u r e m e n t station, x = 0
[Figs. 7(a) and 8(a)], the flow is d o m i n a t e d by s t a g n a t i o n
effects associated with the close p r o x i m i t y of the bow and,
as is also the case for the other forebody stations, by disp l a c e m e n t effects associated with the increasing cross sections of the hull a t the bow and associated divergence of the
inviscid s t r e a m l i n e s , which leads to the development of a
t h i n b o u n d a r y l a y e r on the hull, except n e a r the keel where
t h e r e is a t h i c k e n i n g due to the flow convergence towards
the centerplane. Note t h a t the underwater portion of the bow
is j u s t d o w n s t r e a m of this station (see Fig. 2). H is, of course,
uniformly 1. u < 1 t h r o u g h o u t the extent of the m e a s u r e ments, with the lowest values n e a r the centerplane, and
g r a d u a l l y approaching 1 a w a y from the hull. N e a r the centerplane, the contours are nearly vertical, whereas away from
the centerplane the contours are displaced outwards near the
free surface such t h a t t h e y intersect the free surface a t an
angle of about 45 deg, which correlates with the fairly large
w a t e r l i n e angles n e a r the w a t e r p l a n e for the Series 60 CB
= 0.6 ship model, v - w display the o u t w a r d d i s p l a c e m e n t effects of the hull and, furthermore, suggest t h a t t h e r e is a
s t a g n a t i o n point at z ~ - 0 . 0 1 2 5 , t h a t is, the flow is generally outward, b u t divides a t this depth such t h a t it is curved
u p w a r d s for - z < 0.0125 and downwards for - z > 0.0125.
The l a r g e s t v - w are n e a r the free surface and keel. Note
t h a t u s u a l l y for F r = 0 the s t a g n a t i o n point is at z = 0. The
fact t h a t in the p r e s e n t case the s t a g n a t i o n point is at - z >
0 indicates free-surface effects. However, F r y and K i m (1988)
discuss the flow a t the bow of the Series 60 CB = 0.6 ship
model in t e r m s of a n a t t a c h m e n t line based on t h e i r s t r e a m wise plane vector m e a s u r e m e n t s as opposed to a s t a g n a t i o n
point as suggested by the present data. Although further more
detailed d a t a is required to resolve this issue, a stagnationpoint flow a t the bow of the Series 60 CB = 0.6 ship model
m a y be the r e s u l t of the bow-stem c u r v a t u r e (see Fig. 2). As
expected, the p contours a r e s i m i l a r to those for u, b u t with
reverse t r e n d in magnitude. The u profiles display the app e a r a n c e of l a m i n a r s t a g n a t i o n - p o i n t flow. The i n n e r p a r t of
the profiles a r e s i m i l a r in shape a t all depths, whereas t h e
outer p a r t indicate lower values n e a r the free surface t h a n
at g r e a t e r depths, v is positive a t all depths due, as a l r e a d y
mentioned, to the o u t w a r d d i s p l a c e m e n t effects of the hull.
A t z = -0.0075, the profile p e a k s s h a r p l y n e a r the centerp l a n e where the m a g n i t u d e is large. A t l a r g e r depths, the
profiles are rounded n e a r the centerplane and of reduced a n d
s i m i l a r m a g n i t u d e , w is u p w a r d n e a r the free surface a n d
downward a t l a r g e r depths due to the s t a g n a t i o n - p o i n t effects described earlier. The profiles are r e l a t i v e l y flat, b u t
with s o m e w h a t l a r g e r values n e a r the centerplane. The inner p a r t of the p profiles are sharply peaked and display quite
large values. The outer p a r t of the profiles g r a d u a l l y approach p = 0. The width of the i n n e r region decreases with
depth.
A t x = 0.1, the initiation of the hull b o u n d a r y l a y e r is
displayed. Both the H contours and u contours close to the
hull indicate t h a t the b o u n d a r y l a y e r is very thin and of
n e a r l y constant thickness, except n e a r the keel where it is
r e l a t i v e l y t h i c k e r due to the aforementioned convergence of
the flow towards the keel. The wavy c h a r a c t e r of the H contours is due, no doubt, to the effects of the turbulence stimJOURNAL OF SHIP RESEARCH
Table 2
Summary of surface-pressure gradients, wave slopes, wave elevations, and wave-induced velocity and
pressure differences
UTdata
~y
F r = .316
X=
F r = .18
Px
Pz
Fr=.3
Px
local
Pz
[l~lobal
~x
~x
Av
--
--
near
.1
.2
--
--
--
4!~ ~+
away
--
--
Ap
Aw
near
away
near
away
--
.6
:::::::::::::::::::::
.4
.6
:i:!:i@i:!:!:!:
OUt~l"
L::::::::::::::::::
:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:
-l-|-r...,,..,:,....,..i-
--
~::::::~
.8
4-
--
.9
4-
outer
~
OUte$
ilii: __
1
1.1
Inner
1.2
.-:
4-
--
inner
outer
--
--
outer
--
+ = adverse pressure gradient, positive w a v e slope and elevation, and increased velocity o r pressure difference
- = favorable pressure gradient, negative w a v e slope and elevation, and decreased velocity or pressure d i f f e r e n c e
ulators a t x = 0.05. A w a y from the hull, u < 1 due to the

aforementioned displacement effects of the hull. v - w are
o u t w a r d n e a r the free surface; however, at l a r g e r depths the
crossplane flow t u r n s downward and converges towards the
keel due to the r a p i d decrease of w a t e r p l a n e a r e a in the
depthwise direction in the vicinity of the bilge. The magnitude increases with depth with m a x i m u m values at the
bilge, which a p p e a r to indicate the formation of a bow-bilge
vortex, however, the p r e s e n t resolution is insufficient for a
complete documentation. S i m i l a r vortex formations were
previously observed for a full-form ship model in Oh (1977).
The p contours are similar and consistent to those for u. Note
the low p values in the vicinity of the bilge. The H profiles
indicate a very thin b o u n d a r y l a y e r developing under favorable pressure-gradient conditions. This is also true for the
u profiles, which also display the displacement effects n e a r
the free surface and possibly the effects of the bow-bilge vortex n e a r the bilge (that is, r e l a t i v e l y large values close to
the hull surface). The inner p a r t s of both the H and u profiles a r e very steep and a p p e a r turbulent, which indicates
t h a t the cylindrical studs fitted at x = 0.05 to s t i m u l a t e turb u l e n t flow were effective. At all but the l a r g e s t depth, v is
positive with quite large values n e a r the hull surface, here
again, due to displacement effects. A t the largest depth, the
i n n e r p a r t of the v profile is negative and steep, which is
a p p a r e n t l y r e l a t e d to the formation of the bow-bilge vortex,
and the outer p a r t is positive and flat. N e a r the free surface,
the w profile is r e l a t i v e l y flat with small negative values.
At l a r g e r depths, the i n n e r p a r t of the profile becomes more
n e g a t i v e with depth such t h a t at the largest depth large
downward flow is displayed near the hull surface, which, here
again, is apparently related to the formation of the bow-bilge
vortex. The p profiles show r e l a t i v e l y high values n e a r the
DECEMBER 1992
hull at the free surface, and decrease with depth. A t the

l a r g e s t depth, the pressure is negative in the vicinity of the
bow-bilge vortex.
A t x = 0.2 [Figs. 7(b) and 8(b)] and 0.4, the growth of the
b o u n d a r y l a y e r and continued convergence of the flow towards the keel are evident. The H contours and u contours
close to the hull display the thickening of the boundary layer,
which continues to be strongly effected by the flow convergence towards the keel, t h a t is, 5 is quite thick n e a r the keel,
thin n e a r the bilge, and somewhat t h i c k e r n e a r the fre e surface, especially at x = 0.4. A t x = 0.2, a w a y from the hull,
the u contours continue to show some displacement effects
near the free surface, with increasing values at larger depths.
Note the r a t h e r high values in the vicinity of the bilge. A t
x = 0.4, a w a y from the hull, u = 1, except for an island of
high velocity m i d w a y between the bilge and the waterplane.
At x = 0.2, v - w is mostly downwards with r a t h e r large values, which increase in magnitude towards the bilge. The bowbilge vortex appears to encompass a considerably larger area
and induces upward flow n e a r the centerplane. A t x = 0.4,
v - w has decreased such t h a t it is quite small, except at the
bilge where the r e m n a n t s of the bow-bilge vortex a p p e a r to
be evident. The p contours g e n e r a l l y display decreasing values from x = 0.2 to 0.4, except in the region of the bow-bilge
vortex where the m i n i m u m pressure increases. The lowest
values are close to the hull, especially in the region of the
bow-bilge vortex. The H and u profiles indicate the thickening of the b o u n d a r y layer, as described earlier. A t x = 0.2,
the u profiles show the influences of d i s p l a c e m e n t and some
wave effects and possibly the bow-bilge vortex n e a r the free
surface and bilge, respectively. A t x = 0.2, the v and w profiles display s i m i l a r characteristics as at x = 0.1, b u t with
increased m a g n i t u d e s n e a r the hull due to the large increase
373
in cross-sectional area. The p profiles are fairly uniform and

n e a r l y zero, except for the l a r g e r depths where t h e r e is a
r a t h e r broad region of negative pressure in the vicinity of
t h e bow-bilge vortex. A t x = 0.4, the v and w profiles display
the reduction of the crossplane flow. The p profiles show the
overall reduction of pressure, except n e a r the hull where the
values r e m a i n r e l a t i v e l y higher, which m a y be due, in part,
to interference between the probe and hull, t h a t is, some of
the d a t a very close to the hull, especially on the forebody
where the b o u n d a r y l a y e r is thin, m a y possibly include such
interference effects.
A t x = 0.6 [Figs. 7(c) and 8(c)], the b o u n d a r y l a y e r is uniformly quite thick. Note t h a t in Toda et al. (1990) it was
pointed out t h a t this station is ideal for i n i t i a t i n g stern-flow
calculations. The H and u contours display 8. v - w indicate
s m a l l u p w a r d values, especially n e a r the bilge, and the form a t i o n of a stern-bilge vortex. The p contours a r e negative
a n d fairly uniform. The lowest values are n e a r the bilge, cox
is mostly positive and confined to 8. The H and u profiles
a r e s i m i l a r at all depths and have the a p p e a r a n c e of a typical t u r b u l e n t flat-plate b o u n d a r y layer, v = 0, except within
8, where it displays negative values with increasing magnitude with depth, w ~ 0, except at the l a r g e s t two depths,
where it displays positive values close to and decreasing tow a r d s the hull, indicating the presence of the stern-bilge
vortex. The p profiles are s i m i l a r to those a t x = 0.4, but
with s o m e w h a t increased values.
A t x = 0.8 and 0.9 [Figs. 7(d) and 8(d)], the flow clearly
exhibits the well known features associated with this type
of hull form; t h a t is, the d i m i n i s h i n g cross sections of the
hull a t the stern and the associated convergence of the inviscid s t r e a m l i n e s lead to a rapid t h i c k e n i n g of the region
of viscous flow, except n e a r the keel where t h e r e is a thinning due to the flow divergence off the centerplane. The H
and u contours d i s p l a y the aforementioned features, including a pronounced bulge in 8 n e a r the region of m a x i m u m
hull concavity and reduction in 8 n e a r the centerplane, v - w
is directed u p w a r d s and towards the centerplane. The magnitude increases with x. The presence of the stern-bilge vortex is quite evident as is its increase in m a g n i t u d e and size
with x. The p contours display a n increase in pressure with
x. A t x = 0.8, p < 0, with the lowest values in the region of
the stern-bilge vortex and bilge. A t x = 0.9, p > 0, except
for islands of n e g a t i v e pressure in the region of the sternbilge vortex and bilge. The COxcontours show increased values, especially in the region of the stern-bilge vortex and
bilge. The H and u profiles display the detailed characteristics of the thick b o u n d a r y l a y e r in this region. A t x = 0.9,
the outer p a r t of the profiles n e a r the free surface display
regions of concavity. A t all b u t the l a r g e s t depth, v < 0 with
m i n i m u m values n e a r the hull surface. A t the l a r g e s t depth,
v increases n e a r the hull surface such t h a t v ~ 0, b u t rem a i n s negative in the outer region, w > 0 and its m a g n i t u d e
increases with x and z. p is fairly uniform and, respectively,
slightly negative and positive at x = 0.8 and 0.9.
A t x = 1, 1.1 [Figs. 7(e) and 8(e)], and 1.2, the flow displays
the m e r g i n g of the b o u n d a r y l a y e r into the wake and its init i a l evolution. The H and u contours display the change in
shape of the wake as it evolves, indicating a relatively slower
recovery n e a r the free surface and wake centerplane due, in
part, as will be shown next, to the n a t u r e of the crossplane
flow. v - w continues to show t h a t the flow is u p w a r d and towards the centerplane and additionally, decays fairly rapidly. The stern-bilge vortex evolves into a weak longitudinal
vortex, which reinforces the upward flow in the outer region
and induces downward flow n e a r the wake centerplane. The
p contours show the pressure recovery at x -- 1 and its subsequent r a p i d decay. Initially, the contours a r e aligned with
the hull, and then with the free surface. A t the l a t t e r two
374
DECEMBER 1992
stations, the pressure is clearly lower in the vicinity of t h e

l o n g i t u d i n a l vortex. COxis l a r g e s t n e a r the w a k e centerplane
and indicates t h a t the center of the longitudinal vortex moves
downward and a w a y from the wake centerplane as it evolves.
The H and u profiles are quite complicated and display the
detailed characteristics of the n e a r - w a k e flow. The v and w
profiles are also complex and show both the details of t h e
crossplane flow and the n a t u r e of the longitudinal vortex.
A t x = 1, p is positive and fairly large, b u t subsequently
recovers r a p i d l y in the wake.
Lastly, for F r = 0.16, e a r l i e r it was pointed out t h a t one
of the reasons for selecting the p r e s e n t conditions was to facilitate comparisons with the without-propeller condition
m e a s u r e m e n t s of Toda et al. (1990) for which the conditions
were similar. Such comparisons were, in fact, performed at
coincidental stations, t h a t is, x = 0.6, 0.8, 0.9, 1, and 1.1 and
showed excellent agreement, although not shown here, which
provides further verification of the present experimental setup
and procedures.
The modification for high F r = 0.316 due to w a v e m a k i n g
of the j u s t described low F r = 0.16 flow is now considered.
It should be recognized in m a k i n g the comparisons between
the F r = 0.316 and 0.16 results, t h a t the differences in local
Rex = xRe (where the Re values are provided in Fig. 3) are
fairly large, which m a y have an influence, especially n e a r
the bow in the region of transition. A t the first m e a s u r e m e n t
station, x = 0 [Figs. 7(a) and 8(a)], H is uniformly 1, as was
the case for F r = 0.16. The u values are significantly l a r g e r
n e a r the free surface such t h a t the contours are curved back
towards the centerplane, which a p p a r e n t l y results from the
fact that, as noted earlier, the m a x i m u m 2 ~ g / U 2 at the bow
is reduced for high Fr, thus, the m a g n i t u d e of the adverse
p r e s s u r e g r a d i e n t u p s t r e a m of the m a x i m u m 2 ~ / U 2 should
also be reduced, v - w indicate t h a t the s t a g n a t i o n point h a s
moved to a g r e a t e r depth z ~ -0.03125. For g r e a t e r depths,
the downward flow is reduced, whereas for s m a l l e r depths,
the u p w a r d flow is increased, t h a t is, in general, the bow
wave induces an u p w a r d flow at this station. The p contours
are s i m i l a r to those for u, b u t with reverse t r e n d in magnitude. N e a r the free surface, the u profiles have l a r g e r values t h a n F r = 0.16, b u t the differences reduce with depth
such t h a t at the l a r g e s t depth the two profiles coincide. The
v profiles are s i m i l a r for both Fr, which is consistent w i t h
the small ~y v a r i a t i o n s at this location. The w values are
l a r g e r for all depths, which correlates with ~x. The t r e n d s for
p are s i m i l a r to those j u s t described for u, b u t with reverse
t r e n d in m a g n i t u d e . The fact t h a t the u and w differences
can be correlated (display in-phase relationships) with ~ and
~x, respectively, and t h a t the v differences are related to ~y
will also be pointed out at the other m e a s u r e m e n t stations
and discussed f u r t h e r later.
A t x = 0.1, the H contours and u contours close to the hull
indicate t h a t 8 is s i m i l a r for both Fr. The H contours d i s p l a y
a wavy c h a r a c t e r due to the turbulence s t i m u l a t o r s at x =
0.05, s i m i l a r l y as was the case for F r = 0.16. A w a y from the
hull, t h e r e is a broad region where u < 1 due to the combined d i s p l a c e m e n t effects and pronounced effects of the bow
wave. v - w display s o m e w h a t l a r g e r downward flow n e a r the
hull and upward flow a w a y from the hull t h a n for low Fr,
especially n e a r the free surface. The bow-bilge vortex is simi l a r in m a g n i t u d e and e x t e n t as for F r = 0.16. Here again,
the p contours are s i m i l a r and consistent with those for u.
Note the broad region of high pressure associated with the
combined d i s p l a c e m e n t effects and those of the bow wave
and the absence of the low-pressure island in the vicinity of
the bow-bilge vortex core, a l t h o u g h the shape of the contours
n e a r the bilge a r e s i m i l a r to those for F r = 0.16. The H profiles are s i m i l a r for both Fr. N e a r the free surface, the u
profiles have s u b s t a n t i a l l y s m a l l e r values t h a n F r = 0.16,
which correlates with ~. The v profiles display somewhat

s m a l l e r values n e a r the hull and l a r g e r values a w a y from
the hull, which is consistent with ~y. The w profiles display
s o m e w h a t s m a l l e r values n e a r the hull and l a r g e r values
a w a y from the hull, which is consistent with the increased
p~ and correlates with ~x. The p profiles display considerably
l a r g e r values and only m i n i m a l effects of the bow-bilge vortex in comparison to F r = 0.16. These differences for the
velocity and pressure profiles reduce with depth.
A t x = 0.2 [Figs. 7(b) and 8(b)] and 0.4, the H contours
and u contours close to the hull seemingly indicate t h a t ~ is
slightly s m a l l e r for F r = 0.316. A t x = 0.2, the u contours
n e a r the free surface and a w a y from the hull continue to
show the combined displacement effects and effects of the
bow wave, however, the l a t t e r are reduced in comparison to
x = 0.1 since the bow-wave a m p l i t u d e is decreasing at this
station (see Fig. 4 in P a r t 2). Noteworthy is the m a n n e r in
which t h e contours are curved in the crest region, which is
a w a y from the hull n e a r y = 0.0875 at this station. A t x =
0.4, the u contours n e a r the free surface indicate l a r g e r values due to the effects of the forebody shoulder-wave trough.
v - w display increased magnitude, especially n e a r the free
surface and at x = 0.2. A t x = 0.2, the p contours exhibit
l a r g e r values and a broad region of high p due to the effects
of the bow wave, whereas at x = 0.4, the p contours exhibit
considerably lower values and are p a r a l l e l to the free surface a w a y from the hull due to the effects of the forebody
shoulder wave. The H profiles are n e a r l y the same for both
Fr, however, in some cases, slightly l a r g e r values are apparent, which would indicate a reduction in 3 and be consistent with the a l r e a d y noted increased region and magnitude of favorable Px on the forebody for high as compared
to low Fr. The u profiles display s m a l l e r values a t x = 0.2
due to the continued effects of the bow wave, and l a r g e r values at x = 0.4 due to the effects of the forebody shoulderwave trough, which both correlate with ~. Also, in both cases,
the differences reduce with depth. At x = 0.2, the v profiles
show s m a l l e r values for the i n n e r region and l a r g e r values
for the outer region, which is consistent with ~, although
the crossover point is closer to the hull t h a n the location of
m a x i m u m ~. A t x = 0.4, the differences for v are quite small,
which is consistent with the fact t h a t the t r a n s v e r s e variations of ~ are small such t h a t the m a g n i t u d e of ~y is relatively small. The w profiles, generally, display s m a l l e r values, which correlates with ~x. The p profiles show l a r g e r and
s m a l l e r values a t x = 0.2 and 0.4, respectively, t h a t is, the
t r e n d is in reverse of t h a t for u. In all three cases, the l a r g e s t
differences are n e a r the free surface and at x = 0.2.
A t x = 0.6 [Figs. 7(c) and 8(c)], the H contours and u contours close to the hull more clearly indicate t h a t ~ is slightly
s m a l l e r for F r = 0.316. In the outer region, the u contours
indicate lower values, v - w display s u b s t a n t i a l l y increased
u p w a r d flow and a l a r g e r and more well defined stern-bilge
vortex. These differences are due, no doubt, to the fact t h a t
this station is in the vicinity of the wave crest between the
shoulder-wave troughs. The p contours indicate h i g h e r values. The COxvalues are s i m i l a r to those for F r = 0.16 close
to the hull, b u t with somewhat l a r g e r values in the vicinity
of the stern-bilge vortex, whereas a w a y from the hull negative values are displayed. The H and u profiles clearly display the reduction in ~ and, in the outer region, the u values
are reduced, which correlates with ~. These differences decrease with depth. The v profiles are similar, which is consistent with the small t r a n s v e r s e v a r i a t i o n s of ~ (small ~y),
however, at the largest two depths the m a g n i t u d e is reduced. The w profiles display s u b s t a n t i a l l y l a r g e r values, especially close to the hull, which correlates with ~x. As alr e a d y noted with r e g a r d to the contours, the p values are
larger.
DECEMBER 1992
A t x = 0.8 and 0.9 [Figs. 7(d) and 8(d), the H contours

and u contours close to the hull indicate t h a t ~ continues to
show a reduction n e a r the free surface and keel, w h e r e a s the
bulge in 3 in the region of m a x i m u m hull concavity a p p e a r s
more pronounced. In the outer region, the u contours display
somewhat h i g h e r values, v - w display increased flow convergence towards the centerplane and a reduction and increase in upward flow at x = 0.8 and 0.9, respectively. The
p contours indicate lower values, especially n e a r the free
surface and at x = 0.9. The co~ contours are fairly s i m i l a r for
both Fr, b u t with somewhat reduced and increased values
n e a r the keel and bilge, respectively. The t r e n d s j u s t described are due to the effects of the afterbody shoulder-wave
trough and b e g i n n i n g of the stern-wave crest for x = 0.8 and
0.9, respectively. The H and u profiles continue to clearly
show l a r g e r values and the reduction in 3 n e a r the free surface and keel, whereas, in the m i d g i r t h region, the profiles
are very s i m i l a r to those for F r = 0.16. In the outer region,
the u values are slightly increased, which correlates with ~.
The v profiles indicate s m a l l e r values n e a r the free surface,
which is consistent with ~, b u t are s i m i l a r for both F r at all
other depths. The w profiles are s i m i l a r for both Fr, b u t with
slightly reduced and increased values for x = 0.8 and 0.9,
respectively, which correlates with ~x. The p profiles show
s m a l l e r values, especially n e a r the free surface and at x =
0.9.
Lastly, for F r = 0.316, at x = 1, 1.1 [Figs. 7(e) and 8(e),
and 1.2, the H contours very clearly indicate a reduction in
the depthwise e x t e n t of the w a k e n e a r the free surface,
whereas the wake n e a r the centerplane is not a p p a r e n t l y
altered. This is also true for the u contours, which, however,
also display the effects n e a r the free surface of the sternwave crest, t h a t is, a broad region of low velocity, especially
at x = 1.1, and shifting outward for x = 1.2. The overall
reduction in the thickness of the boundary l a y e r and w a k e
n e a r the free surface and keel is consistent with the e a r l i e r
noted increased oscillations ofpx in the midbody region and
decreased region and m a g n i t u d e of adverse px a t the stern
for high as compared to low Fr. v - w show l a r g e r u p w a r d and
downward flow at x = 1 and 1.2, respectively, and a stronger
longitudinal vortex. The center of the vortex a p p e a r s to shift
upwards and a w a y from the centerplane, as compared to F r
= 0.16. The p contours indicate h i g h e r values, especially at
x = 1.1 and 1.2; however, lower pressure values are observed
in the vicinity of the longitudinal-vortex core. The COxcontours display l a r g e r values, especially n e a r the free surface,
and the shift of the center of the longitudinal vortex. The
former is due, no doubt, to the l a r g e r w magnitudes. The H
profiles are s i m i l a r for the i n n e r p a r t of the profiles, whereas
the values are s u b s t a n t i a l l y increased for the outer part, especially for x = 1.1 and 1.2. A t x = 1, the u profiles display
reduced values for the i n n e r p a r t and increased values for
the outer part, except at the l a r g e s t depth where the t r e n d
is reversed. At x = 1.1, the values are lower for the entire
profile, especially for the outer part. At x = 1.2, the values
are increased for the inner p a r t of the profile and decreased
for the outer part, b u t at l a r g e r depths the differences are
not appreciable. The H and u differences j u s t described are
l a r g e s t n e a r the free surface and a p p e a r to correlate with
the ~ v a r i a t i o n s in this region. The v values a r e l a r g e r at x
= 1 and 1.1, whereas at x = 1.2 the values are reduced for
the inner region and increased for the outer region. In both
cases, the differences are largest, n e a r the free surface and
are consistent with ~y, although, in the l a t t e r case, the crossover point is closer to the hull t h a n the location of the maxi m u m ~. The w values are considerably l a r g e r a t x = 1,
whereas at x = 1.1 and 1.2 the t r e n d is reversed. In both
cases, the differences decrease with depth and correlate with
~x. Also, in general, the w profiles display the m o v e m e n t of
375
the longitudinal-vortex core. The p values are larger, especially at x = 1 for large depths and at x = 1.1. The differences at x = 1.2 are not appreciable near the centerplane,
but in the outer region p is increased.
Wave boundary layer and wake interaction
The foregoing discussion of the experimental results for

high and low Fr and comparisons with the inviscid-flow calculations discussed in Part 2 clearly indicates the pronounced wave-induced effects as well as the complexity of
the interaction between the wavemaking and boundary layer
and wake. In the following, the results are discussed further
to assess the nature of this interaction. The discussion is based
on the present experimental data and comparisons with the
calculations provided in Part 2 as well as on the results of
Tahara et al. (1990) and some other related and relevant
studies.
Very significant differences are observed between the high
and low Fr data due to wave-induced effects, in fact, in many
respects, the flow field is completely altered. Some of the
features of the flow at high Fr are modifications of those at
low Fr, whereas others are simply not present at low Fr. On
the forebody (0 -< x -< 0.4), the differences are due to the
bow-wave crest and forebody shoulder-wave trough, and are
largest near the free surface and decay with depth. Initially,
the former alters the stagnation effects at the bow and induces a broad region of reduced axial velocity and turns the
crossplane flow upwards and away from the hull and then
downwards and towards and away from the hull in the inner
and outer regions, respectively. Subsequently, the latter induces increased axial velocity and downward crossplane flow.
Although the boundary layer shows some thinning, the differences are relatively small and the bow-bilge vortex is apparently unaltered, both of which are surprising in consideration of the large differences in pressure gradients for high
and low Fr. Apparently, the boundary layer is sufficiently
thin such that it is relatively unresponsive to .the changes
in pressure gradients. However, this conclusion must be considered tentative due to the present Re differences between
high and low Fr, which may have an influence, especially
near the bow in the region of transition, and resolution of
the thin forebody boundary layer. Note that the present
finding that viscous effects are important at the bow is consistent with that of Part 2 that the bow-wave amplitude and
divergence angle are subject to Re scale effects.
On the afterbody (0.6 -< x - 1) and in the near wake (1
_ x _ 1.2), the differences are due to the shoulder-wave
system (that is, the crest between the shoulder-wave troughs
and the afterbody shoulder-wave trough) and the stern-wave
crest and, here again, are largest near the free surface and
decay with depth, but with more significant effects at larger
depths than was the case on the forebody. The crest and trough
wave effects on the axial velocity and crossplane flow in the
outer region are similar as described for the forebody. The
crossplane flow displays significantly increased magnitudes.
Very importantly, in this case, the differences within the
boundary layer are appreciable. The boundary layer and wake
thickness is reduced substantially, especially near the free
surface. The stern-bilge vortex on the hull and longitudinal
vortex in the wake are larger and altered in position. Interestingly, the pressure recovery on the hull at the stern is
reduced; however, the pressure is larger in the near wake
due to the effects of the stern-wave crest. In many cases, the
shape of the detailed velocity and pressure profiles are completely altered.
In most cases, the differences between the flows for high
and low Fr can be directly related to the wave elevations
and wave-induced pressure gradients. The differences for the
376
DECEMBER 1992
u and w velocity components were shown to be correlated

with ~ and ~x, respectively, and those for the v velocity component to be consistent with ~y. In some cases, the differences for u and w were shown to be consistent with the variations in Px and Pz, respectively. The H and p differences
usually were correlated with those for u. Table 2 also provides a summary of the wave-induced velocity and pressure
differences at the measurement locations. It should be recognized that the fact that u and w can be correlated with
and ~x, respectively, is consistent with the in-phase relationship between these quantities for a Stokes wave [see Fig. 5
of Stern et al. (1989)]. Of course, their behavior is also related to other quantities, for example, the behavior of u is
certainly related to ~x, however, the response is out-of phase
and more difficult to identify. Here again, this is consistent
with the fact that u and ~x for a Stokes wave are 90 deg outof phase. It should be mentioned that other factors undoubtedly have important influences, for example, wave-induced
separation, breaking waves, and unsteady effects, all of which
played a relatively small role in the present experiment.
As shown in Part 2, the data and the inviscid-flow calculations also indicate very significant differences. Most importantly, the inviscid solution lacks "real-fluid effects," that
is~ the viscous flow close to the hull and wake centerplane
is clearly not accurately resolved, and, in addition, the complex details of the wave field are not predicted. Also, the
bare-body results clearly overpredict the pressure recovery
at the stern and the stern-wave amplitudes. The displacement-body results show improvement with regard to both of
these shortcomings, but, in general, do not show overall improvement.
In conclusion, the wave boundary layer and wake interaction is most significant at the bow and on the afterbody
and in the wake. In these areas both the viscous and inviscid
flows are altered due to their interactions. In the latter case,
most of the interaction can be explicated as a result of the
wave elevations, wave-induced pressure gradients, and the
displacement effects of the boundary layer.
Concluding remarks
Detailed and extensive experimental information has been
presented for the first time for both high Fr = 0.316 and low
Fr -- 0.16 for the Series 60 CB = 0.6 ship model, which documents the flow fields for both Fr and the effects of wavemaking on the boundary layer and wake. The experimental
equipment and procedures have been described, and the results discussed to point out the essential differences between
the flows at high and low Fr. On the forebody, the differences are primarily in the outer (inviscid) flow, except at the
bow, whereas on the afterbody and in the near wake, both
the inner (viscous) and outer flows are altered. The results
are discussed to assess the nature of the interaction between
wavemaking and the boundary layer and wake. Most of the
interaction can be explicated as a result of the wave elevations, wave-induced pressure gradients, and the displacement effects of the boundary layer.
It should be recognized that one of the motives of the present study was to provide documentation of both the test conditions and results in sufficient detail to be useful as a test
case for validating computational methods. The data discussed here are available on magnetic tape on request from
the authors. A comparison of the present experimental results with the predictions of the method of Tahara et al. (1990)
is in progress and will be reported in the near future.
Finally, with regard to the direction of further work, experiments at yaw angle are of interest with regard to the
effects of lift and large and breaking waves and their interaction with the boundary layer and wake and are currently
i n p r o g r e s s a t I I H R . I n c o n j u n c t i o n , a c o o p e r a t i v e s t u d y is
in progress between Osaka University and IIHR concerning
p r o p e l l e r - h u l l i n t e r a c t i o n e x p e r i m e n t s a t y a w a n g l e . Also of
i n t e r e s t a r e e x p e r i m e n t s c o n c e r n i n g t h e s t r u c t u r e of t u r b u l e n c e n e a r a w a v y free s u r f a c e , u n s t e a d y effects, w a v e i n d u c e d s e p a r a t i o n , a n d t h e r e s o l u t i o n of t h e d e t a i l e d flow
v e r y close to t h e free surface, h o w e v e r , s u c h e x p e r i m e n t s are,
i n fact, q u i t e d i f f i c u l t i n a t o w i n g - t a n k e n v i r o n m e n t , espec i a l l y for s h i p - m o d e l g e o m e t r i e s .
Acknowledgments
T h i s r e s e a r c h w a s s p o n s o r e d b y t h e Office of N a v a l Research under Contract N00014-88-K-0113 under the admini s t r a t i o n of Dr. E. P. Rood w h o s e s u p p o r t a n d h e l p f u l t e c h nical discussions are greatly appreciated. Special thanks are
also g i v e n to P r o f e s s o r s S u z u k i a n d T a n a k a , O s a k a U n i v e r sity, for t h e i r k i n d l o a n of t h e s e r v o - m e c h a n i s m w a v e p r o b e .
T h e D e p a r t m e n t of M e c h a n i c a l E n g i n e e r i n g of T h e U n i v e r s i t y of I o w a p r o v i d e d a l a r g e p a r t of t h e f i n a n c i a l s u p p o r t
for t h e t h i r d a u t h o r . T h e s e c o n d a u t h o r g r a t e f u l l y a c k n o w l e d g e s t h e g r a c i o u s a n d g e n e r o u s h o s p i t a l i t y of P r o f e s s o r G.
F e d e r i c i , I1 D i r e t t o r e , a n d h i s c o l l e a g u e s of t h e D i p a r t i m e n t o
Di I n g e g n e r i a C i v i l e , U n i v e r s i t h D e g l i S t u d i Di F i r e n z e d u r i n g t h e t i m e o f h i s s a b b a t i c a l a n d t h e c o m p l e t i o n of t h i s paper.
References
BABA, E. 1969 A new component of viscous resistance of ships. J. Soc,
Naval Arch. Japan, 125, 23-34.
Dol, Y. 1986 On characteristics of stern waves considering viscous effect and nonlinearity of waves. Doctoral thesis, The University of Tokyo, Japan (in Japanese).
FRY, D. J. AND KIM, Y.-H. 1988 Bow flow field on surface ships. Proc.
17th ONR Syrup. on Naval Hydro., The Hague, 319-346.
FUJITA, T. 1979 On the flow measurement in high wake region at the
propeller plane. J. Soc. Naval Arch. Japan, 145, 1-7.
HOEKSTRA, M. AND LIGTELIJN, IR J. TH. 1991 Macro wake features of
a range of ships. MARIN Report 410461-1-PV, Maritime Research Institute Netherlands, Wagenningen, The Netherlands.
Hcrrrh, T. AND HATANO, S. 1983 Turbulence measurements in the wake
of a tanker model on and under the free surface. J. Soc. Naval Arch.
Japan, 154, 261-270.
HOTTA, T. AND HATANO, S. 1985 Turbulence measurements in the shipstern boundary layer of a tanker model. J. Soc. Naval Arch. Japan,
157, 60-69.
DECEMBER 1992
HOUSER, D., TODA, Y. AND STERN, F. 1989 High-resolution, low-noise,

capacitance-wire wave-height interface. Proc. IAHR Workshop on Instrumentation for Hydraulics Laboratories, Burlington, Canada, 155166.
ITTC. 1987 Report of the resistance and flow committee. Proc. 18th
Int. Towing Tank Conf., Kobe, Japan, 47-92.
KAJITANI, H. 1987 A wandering in some ship resistance components
and flow. Schiffstechnik, 34, 3, 101-131.
KASAHARA, Y. 1983 Experimental investigation on wake resistance
of a ship with wide beam and shallow draft. J. Kansai Soc. Naval Arch.
Japan, 190, 83-90.
KAWAMURA, N., KAJITANI, H., MIYATA, H., AND TSUCHIYA, Y. 1980
Experimental investigation on the resistance component due to free
surface shock waves on series ship models. J. Kansai Soc. Naval Arch.
Japan, 179, 45-55.
KINOSHITA, T., MARUO, H., NITOH, M., AND MATANO, T. 1979 Viscous
effect on waves of thin ship-ship resistance in viscous fluid with free
surface, part II. J. Soc. Naval Arch. Japan, 146, 9-17 (in Japanese).
LONGO, Z., STERN, F., AND TODA, Y. 1993 Mean-flow measurements
in the boundary layer and wake and wave field of a series 60 CB =
0.6 ship model--part 2: Scale effects on near-field wave patterns and
comparisons with inviscid theory, to appear in the March 1993 issue
of JOURNAL OF SHIP RESEARCH.
OH, C.-D. 1977 An experimental investigation of the velocity distribution around a full model ship. J. Kansai Soc. Naval Arch. Japan,
166, 43-51.
PATEL, V.C. 1988 Ship stern and wake flows: status of experiment
and theory. Proc. 17th ONR Syrup. on Naval Hydro., The Hague, The
Netherlands, 217-240.
SHAHSHAHAN, A. 1985 Effects of viscosity on wavemaking resistance
of a ship model. Ph.D. thesis, The University of Iowa, Iowa City, Iowa.
STERN, F., HWANG, W. S., AND JAW, S.Y. 1989 Effects of waves on
the boundary layer of a surface-piercing fiat plate: experiment and
theory. JOURNAL OF SHIP RESEARCH, 33, 1, 63-80.
STERN, F., CHOI, J. S., AND HWANG, W.S. 1991 Effects of waves on
the wake of a surface-piercing fiat plate: Experiment and theory. Iowa
Institute of Hydraulic Research, The University of Iowa, IIHR Report
No. 353.
TAHARA, Y., STERN, F., AND ROSEN, B. 1990 An interactive approach
for calculating ship boundary layers and wakes for nonzero Froude
numbers. Proc. 18th ONR Syrup. on Naval Hydro., Ann Arbor, Mich.,
699-719; also J. Computational Physics, 98, 1, January 1992, 33-53.
TODA, Y., STERN, F., TANAKA, I., AND PATEL, V.C. 1990 Mean-flow
measurements in the boundary layer and wake of a series 60 CB = 0.6
model ship with and without propeller. JOURNAL OF SHIP RESEARCH,
34, 4, 225--252.
TODA, Y., STERN, F., AND LONGO, J. 1991 Mean-flow measurements
in the boundary layer and wake and wave field of a series 60 CB =
0.6 ship model for Froude numbers 0.16 and 0.316. IIHR Report No.
352, Iowa Institute of Hydraulic Research, The University of Iowa,
Iowa City, Iowa.
TODD, F. H. 1963 Series 60 methodical experiments with models of
single-screw merchant ships. David Taylor Model Basin Report 1712,
Bethesda, Md.
377

Document File

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Document File

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Journal of Ship Research, Vol. 36, No. 4, Dec. 1992, pp.

Mean-Flow Measurements in the Boundary Layer and Wake and

ALTHOUGHit is generally recognized that the wavemaking

adverse pressure gradients, whereas the far wake exhibits

JOURNAL OF SHIP RESEARCH

concern of the C E P is somewhat more with the global t h a n

Series 60 CB - 0.6 ship model

1991) concerns scale effects on near-field wave p a t t e r n s and

A , , , A T = ship-model midship and tow-

ing-tank cross-sectional areas

j,k = unit vectors in directions of y

v-w - crossplane vector (= vj + wk)

cox= axial vortieity

JOURNAL OF SHIP RESEARCH

and discussed to point out the essential features of the flow

SERIES 6 0 CB=O.6 BODY PLAN

Series 60 Ca = 0.6 lines drawing: (a) profile plan (longitudinal section

Instrumentation, calibration, and data-acquisition system

Principal dimensions of the Series 60 CB = 0.6 ship model

JOURNAL OF SHIP RESEARCH

m e a s u r e m e n t of the hydrodynamic pressure and e l i m i n a t e s

JOURNAL OF SHIP RESEARCH

Measurement Stations for

Measurement Stations for

which a d h e r e d to the hull surface and a p p e a r e d t r a n s p a r e n t

important. Below, we shall simply point out these features

Contour interval = 0.0016

Contour interval = 0.0320

the bow- and stern-wave systems are seen to i n i t i a t e with

t h a t the wave-slope and -elevation contours have s i m i l a r

o Wave Elevation (LocalMeasurement)

o Wave Elevation LocalMeaSurement)

~(9 ~ 0.9~ 097

0025 0050 0075 0.100 0.125

0025 0050 0075 0.100 0]25

o Wave Elevaban (LocalMeasurement)

Total-head and axial-velocity contours, crossplane vectors, and

Mean-velocity and pressure fields

' " o^0'o2.....

o Wave Elevation (Local Measurement)

o Wave Elevation (Local Measurement)

016 015 014 013

quite similar; however, free-surface effects are evident in the

JOURNAL OF SHIP RESEARCH

Total-head, velocity, and pressure profiles

UT preaaure data, Fr=,O.lSO

JOURNAL OF SHIP RESEARCH

" " ,"

t::iiii-ii,, iii iliiii /

....... ,,;;:;; ;;:;:;:77i:

~.!~i~l~~lI~lL~llIif~;~ifi"./:i:iltiwi:ii ! \ "..ii "..

Axial surface-pressure gradient contours

Fig. 12 Vertical surface-pressure gradient contours

ical results at five stations and t h r e e z locations are provided

ulators a t x = 0.05. A w a y from the hull, u < 1 due to the

hull at the free surface, and decrease with depth. A t the

in cross-sectional area. The p profiles are fairly uniform and

stations, the pressure is clearly lower in the vicinity of t h e

which correlates with ~. The v profiles display somewhat

A t x = 0.8 and 0.9 [Figs. 7(d) and 8(d), the H contours

Wave boundary layer and wake interaction

The foregoing discussion of the experimental results for

u and w velocity components were shown to be correlated