11th International Conference on Fast Sea Transportation
FAST 2011, Honolulu, Hawaii, USA, September 2011
Hydrodynamic Forces on High-Speed Ships in Forced Vertical Motions
Hui Sun1, Odd M. Faltinsen1, 2
1
Centre for Ships and Ocean Structures, Norwegian University of Science and Technology, Trondheim, Noway
2
Department of Marine Technology, Norwegian University of Science and Technology, Trondheim, Norway
ABSTRACT
A numerical method based on 2D+t theory was developed
to study the unsteady hydrodynamic problem of a semi-
displacement ship at high forward speeds. The ship was
forced to oscillate in heave as it was advancing at a high
speed. In the 2D+t theory, the original three-dimensional
(3D) problem was simplified as fully nonlinear two-
dimensional (2D) time-dependent problems in cross planes.
A boundary element method was used to solve the 2D
problems, in which a flow-separation model was applied to
simulate the non-viscous flow separation from the round
bilge. The sectional hydrodynamic vertical forces were
calculated by pressure integration. Thereafter, the evaluated
sectional added mass and damping coefficients were
compared with published experimental and numerical
results. The local steady flow and unsteady flow were
solved as a whole, so the interactions between them were
automatically included. The present calculations yielded
better agreement with the experiments than the earlier
numerical results by a 2.5D theory, especially for the lower
frequencies. The three-dimensional effects neglected in the
2D+t theory at the bow and the stern could be the reasons
for the discrepancies at those positions between the present
results and the experiments.
KEY WORDS
2D+t theory; high-speed ships; flow separation; forced
Oscillations
1.0 INTRODUCTION
The hydrodynamics of high-speed vessels are increasingly
concerned when fast ships are more widely utilized. For
normal displacement ships, the conventional strip theory
(see Salvesen et al. 1970) can give satisfactory results.
However, its validity can be questioned for the semi-
displacement vessels (0.4-0.5<Fn<1.0-1.2) and the planing
vessels (Fn >1.0-1.2). (Those ranges for Froude number are
given e.g. in Faltinsen 2005). A reason is the fact that the
nonlinearities become more significant for higher-speed
ships. Thus, some nonlinear models were developed for
ships at higher speeds. For example, Zarnick (1978), Fujino
& Chiu (1983) incorporate nonlinear effects in predicting
the dynamic responses of high-speed ships in waves.
Further, the effect of forward speed are not sufficiently
considered in the conventional strip theory, neither in those
improved nonlinear models, because the forward speed in
the free-surface conditions is not considered in those
methods. In addition, the gravity effect on the water flow is
© 2011 American Society of Naval Engineers
often simply accounted for by including hydrostatic
restoring forces in those approaches.
A 2D+t method combined with BEM (Boundary Element
Method) is proven to be efficient in solving the strongly
nonlinear hydrodynamic problems for high-speed vessels.
Nonlinearities in the free-surface conditions and gravity
effects can be easily included and it often demands less time
than fully 3D computations. Many examples of the 2D+t
theory are illustrated in Faltinsen (2005). Fontaine and
Tulin(1998) gave a good review of the evolution and
application of nonlinear 2D+t theory. Faltinsen & Zhao
(1991) proposed a 2.5D theory, a different version of the
2D+t theory, where the steady flow could be nonlinear;
interactions between the nonlinear steady flow and the
linear unsteady flow were considered through some
interaction terms. Later, Zhao et al. (1997) employed 2D+t
theory to prismatic planing vessels at very high speed.
Following Zhao et al.’s (1997) work, we extended the 2D+t
theory to be applied to the steady and unsteady problems of
prismatic planing vessels with effects of gravity in Sun &
Faltinsen (2007a, 2007b) and to the steady motion of a
semi-displacement ship in Sun & Faltinsen (2010). In the
present work, the 2D+t theory is generalized to the unsteady
problem for the semi-displacement ship with round bilges.
The difficulties for the present problem are mainly related to
the hull shape. First, the geometry of the hull is more
complicated. One must have smooth lines of the hull and the
normal vectors must vary smoothly along the ship length.
This aspect has been discussed in Sun & Faltinsen (2010).
Secondly, the flow separation from the round bilge induces
complicated water flow, which demands careful numerical
treatments to control the flow separation in the simulations.
More numerical efforts are needed for the present unsteady
problem than for the steady problem. The calculated
sectional added mass and damping coefficients are
compared with Keuning’s (1988) experiments and Faltinsen
& Zhao’s (1991) calculations.
When we solve the steady problem, the present theory is
equivalent to the 2.5D theory in Faltinsen & Zhao (1991).
However, for the unsteady problems, the present method is
different from their 2.5D theory in two aspects. First, the
steady and unsteady flows were separately solved in
Faltinsen & Zhao (1991) while in the present method the
steady and unsteady flows are simulated as a whole.
Secondly, the unsteady flow is assumed linear and solved in
the frequency domain in their method. However, in the
present approach, the nonlinear free-surface conditions are
225
satisfied in the time-domain simulations, so the nonlinear
effects in both the steady flow and the unsteady flow are
taken into account. We can see that our results manifest
better agreement with experiments especially for lower
frequencies, at which interactions between the steady flow
and the unsteady flow is stronger.
A boundary element method described in Sun & Faltinsen
(2006, 2007a) was used to solve the 2D water flow in the
2D+t theory. The thin jet running along the body surface
and the separated jet were cut away to avoid numerical
difficulties. A flow separation model developed in Sun &
Faltinsen (2006) was applied to simulate the non-viscous
flow separation from the round bilge.
Some difference between the calculations and experiments
can be seen near the stern and the bow. At those positions,
there are 3D effects neglected in the 2D+t theory, which can
be the reason for the discrepancies.
The 2D+t theory has been used to solve the seakeeping
problem of prismatic planing vessels in Sun & Faltinsen
(2011) where we introduced the effects of incident waves.
Similarly, the present method can be developed to study the
wave induced motions of the semi-displacement ships.
2.0 2D+t THEORY
A ship is advancing forward at speed U as shown in Fig.1.
Two coordinate systems are introduced, i.e. an Earth-fixed
coordinate system xyz and a hull-fixed coordinate system
XYZ. The xy plane is in the calm water surface and the z-
axis is pointing upwards. The ship is moving along the
negative x-direction. The origin of XYZ is fixed at the
centre of gravity (COG) of the ship. The X-axis is pointing
to the stern and the Y-axis is towards the starboard. The
pitch angle θ is defined positive when the bow is going up.
The position of the COG in the Earth-fixed coordinate
system is denoted as (xg, 0, zg). Initially, xg = 0 at t = 0. The
hull-fixed coordinates can be related to the Earth-fixed
coordinates by
 X  ( x  xg ) cos   ( z  z g ) sin 

Y  y
 Z  ( x  x ) sin   ( z  z ) cos 
 g g
Z time-dependent 2D problems in Earth-fixed vertical planes
U Y z y
θ
X0
x coordinates and the following boundary conditions.
X
Fig. 1. Coordinate systems.
The ship can be moving steadily forward or forced to
oscillate in heave or pitch motions. The heave and pitch
motions are given as η3= -η3a sin(ωt) and η5 = -η5a sin(ωt)
(t>=0) respectively, where ω is the frequency of oscillations
226
and η3a and η5a are the amplitudes of oscillations in heave
and in pitch, respectively. Although the results to be
presented only involve heave motion, this theory is
developed for both heave and pitch. The heave is positive
when it is upward and the pitch is positive when the bow is
going up. The instantaneous trim angle is θ(t) = τ + η5(t)
where τ is the trim angle of the hull in the steady motion.
A velocity potential φ(x,y,z,t) is introduced to describe the
water flow around the vessel. The velocity potential satisfies
the three-dimensional Laplace equation. Fully nonlinear
free-surface conditions and exact body boundary conditions
are satisfied in three dimensions as follows

 nX X  nZ Z on the hull surface (2)
n
 1 2
  x   y2   z2   g  0 on z   ( x, y, t ) (3)
t 2
Dx  Dy  Dz 
 ,  ,  on z   ( x, y, t ) (4)
Dt x Dt y Dt z
where n = (nX, nY, nZ) = (nx, ny, nz) is the normal vector on
the hull surface expressed respectively in the hull-fixed
coordinate system and the Earth-fixed coordinate system, g
is the acceleration of gravity and the free surface is
expressed by z   ( x, y, t ) . The dot above X and Z means the
first time derivative. At a given x-y-z position, the
corresponding X- and Z- coordinates are changing with
time. From equation (1), one has
X   x g cos   zg sin   Z (5)
Z   x g sin   z g cos   X  (6)
where the time derivatives can be expressed as x g = –U,
z g  3 and   5 .
A slenderness ratio is now introduced as ε = d/L, where d is
the draft and L is the length of the hull. By using slender
body assumption, one has ∂/∂x~O(ε), ∂/∂y~O(1), ∂/∂z~O(1).
(1) Further, ∂/∂X ~O(ε) , ∂/∂Y~O(1), ∂/∂Z ~O(1) and it is
assumed that the pitch angle is small. The Froude number is
assumed as O(1). Neglecting the terms of the order of O(ε2)
in the governing equation and the boundary conditions
given in equations (2)-(4), one can reduce the 3D problem to
as the ship is penetrating the planes from the right to the left.
We call those planes as cross planes. The velocity potential
 ( y, z, t ) satisfies the 2D Laplace equation in the yz

 nX X  nZ Z on the hull surface (7)
N
 1 2
  y  z2   g  0 on z   ( x, y , t ) (8)
t 2
Dy  Dz 
 ,  on z   ( x, y , t ) (9)
Dt y Dt z
© 2011 American Society of Naval Engineers
 
where N =( ny, nz ) is the projection of the normal vector to
the vertical 2D plane.
When the ship is advancing steadily or with oscillations in
heave and/or pitch, the flow field is symmetric about the x-z
plane in 3D and symmetric about the z-axis in the cross
plane. As shown in Fig.2, only one half domain is
considered. Thus, at y = 0, there is a symmetry line
boundary. Zero normal velocity condition is fulfilled on this
boundary. In addition, the rigid bottom boundary condition
and the far-field conditions will be satisfied.
z Ship section
y
Ω Truncation
Symmetry line boundary
Bottom
Fig. 2. The fluid domain in a 2D vertical plane.
For a steady problem, one has X  U cos  and Z  U sin 
from equations (5) and (6), so the body boundary condition
can be written as

 nX U cos   nZ U sin   Unx (10)
N
where nx is the x-component of the normal vector to the
ship surface expressed in the Earth-fixed coordinate system.
This body boundary condition agrees with the one presented
in Faltinsen & Zhao (1991). If we focus our attention at a
cross plane in front of the advancing ship, then as the ship is
penetrating the plane, we can see in the plane a scenario of a
2D body moving vertically on the free surface. Both the
vertical speed and the shape of the body are varying in the
plane. For a prismatic planing hull, i.e. a hull with constant
cross-section and straight keel, we can see in the cross plane
the water entry of a wedge (Zhao et al.’s 1997, Sun &
Faltinsen 2007a).
In the unsteady problem, the body boundary condition can
be written as

 nX  U cos   3 sin   Z5 
N (11)
 nZ  U sin   3 cos   X 5 
At each time step, the sectional vertical force at a given
cross plane is obtained by integrating the pressure properly
on the section surface. From Bernoulli’s equation, one can
write the pressure as
© 2011 American Society of Naval Engineers
 1 2
p  pa         gz (12)
t 2
where pa is the atmospheric pressure and ρ is the water
density. The ∂φ/∂t is calculated by
  d  
   VP  (13)
t  dt  P
where dφ/dt is evaluated by tracking a point P on the section

in the plane and VP is the velocity of the point.
3.0 NUMERICAL IMPLEMENTATION
In the computations, the time-dependent 2D problem
described in the last section is solved in a series of cross
planes intersecting the hull surface. The procedure of doing
the calculations and the numerical methods will be
explained as follows.
3.1 Calculation procedures
The numerical simulation can be done in the following
steps:
1) Select a number of equally spaced cross planes in
the Earth-fixed coordinate system, such as in Fig. 3
where the number of planes is 20;
2) Initialize the calculations in each plane;
3) Solve the boundary integral equation in each plane
by using the 2D BEM;
4) Advance the hull forward and update the hull
surface and the free surface;
5) Treat the thin jet and the flow separation;
6) Save the results at each plane;
7) Step forward to the next time step;
8) If the ship advances forward for a distance equal to
the interval of the cross planes, then we stops the
calculations at the last plane behind the ship and
introduce a new plane in front of the ship and
initialize the calculation in the new plane. Go to
step 3);
9) Stop the calculation when the simulation lasts for a
long enough time.
At t = 0, the hull is travelling at a constant speed with a
given trim angle and a given sinkage. The initial free-
surface positions and the velocity potential on the free
surface are taken from the calculations of the steady
problem. The free surface is updated at each time step by
integrating the free-surface conditions in equations (8) and
(9). The calculated sectional forces at the cross planes are
used to approximate the sectional force distribution along
the ship (Fig. 3), which is denoted as F32D(x). At the bow,
the sectional force is assumed to change linearly from the
frontmost hull-water intersection position xbow to the plane
20. The vertical force at a given hull-fixed X-position can be
obtained by interpolation.
227
 the field point P in the fluid domain Ω. By letting the field
U
point P approach S, an integral equation can be obtained.
Now we assume that at a certain time instant the φ on the
free surface and the ∂φ/∂n on the body surface are known.
Solving the integral equation, one can obtain the velocity
potential φ on the body surface and the normal velocity
∂φ/∂n on the free surface. The free-surface elevation and the
velocity potential on the free surface for the next time
instant can be updated by integrating the free-surface
21 20 … 6 … 2 1
F32D
conditions with respect to time.
Linear In the BEM, the thin jet along the body surface is cut off.
approximation
When the water flow separates along the round bilge in the
cross plane, a flow separation model described in detail in
Obtained by
section 3.3 is applied in the BEM solver. The separated
the BEM water represents a jet flow along the sides of the section that
x
will turn over to hit the water surface underneath. To
xbow x20 … x6 … x2 x1 circumvent the simulation of the water-water impact and
thus induced vorticties, we cut away the separated thin jet
before it falls onto the underlying water surface.
Fig. 3. Numerical strategies of the 2D+t calculations.
3.3 Non-viscous flow separation model
When a new plane is introduced, we need to specify the Non-viscous flow separation can happen from the round
initial conditions in this plane. Mackie (1962)’s solution of bilge of the hull. As the jet is running fast around the bilge
the water entry of a sharp wedge is employed here to give with large curvature, the speed of the running jet can be so
the initial conditions of the elevation and velocity potential high that the pressure on the jet-hull interface relative to the
of the free surface as follows. A small distance of the atmospheric pressure outside the jet becomes negative.
section has submerged into the water. This treatment When the area with pressure lower than atmospheric
follows Maruo & Song (1994). pressure is large enough, the air can easily ventilate the jet-
 1  hull interface and make the jet leave the body surface, which
1 1
z (y)  ln(1  2 )  2 y tan ( )  2  (14) means the flow separation occurs. This nonlinear
 y y  phenomenon needs special treatments.
 1 y  ( z   )2 The flow separation model proposed in Sun & Faltinsen
2 0 y  ( z   ) 2
 ( y)  ln d (15)
(2006) is applied here. In that paper, the model was
where y  y / s , z  z / s ,    /(Vs ) , s is the submergence employed to simulate the water impact of a circular
cylinder. At each time step, the pressure on a section surface
of the wedge, V is the water entry speed of the wedge,
needs to be determined. Then the size of the section surface
   / 2   is half the apex angle of the thin wedge and where the pressure is lower than pa is checked. If the size is
 is the deadrise angle. For the present hull shape, V is larger than a specified value, we then change this part of
approximated by V=U tan45º=U. Since this approximation water-body interface as free surface, say, the segment AB in
only affects the initial conditions, the final results will not Fig. 4. The boundary AB is then updated to its new position
be apparently influenced by the approximation of V. A1B1 by using the free-surface conditions (8) and (9), and
3.2 2D boundary element method A1 is attached to the body surface. The velocities of the
points on AB follow from a local analytical solution around
The 2D boundary value problem expressed by the Laplace the separation position, rather than their velocities on the
equation and the boundary conditions in Eqs. (7)-(9) is body surface. We then connect A1B1 with the updated free
solved by a boundary element method (BEM) described in surface B1C1 to form the new free surface A1B1C1. The
Sun & Faltinsen (2006, 2007a). Straight line elements are point A1 is the separation position, i.e. the new water-hull
used to discretize the closed boundary S, which consists of intersection, which locates near the point where the
the body surface, the free surface, the truncation boundary, calculated pressure on the section changes from positive to
the bottom surface and the symmetry line surface (Fig. 2.). negative. Thus the flow separation is forced to occur
Variables change linearly on each element. Green’s second numerically.
identity gives
In the unsteady problem studied in this paper, the oscillatory
 G  P, Q   Q  vertical velocity of the ship section adds to complexity in
2 P   Q  G  P, Q   dsQ (16) the flow separation especially for the higher frequency
S 
nQ nQ  cases. The separated flow may reattach to the hull surface.
where the Green function G(P,Q) = log r(P,Q) and r(P,Q) is This is simply treated by ignoring the thin air cavity
the distance from a source point Q on the fluid boundary to enclosed and setting a new water-body intersection.

228 © 2011 American Society of Naval Engineers

 Section
surface
B1
B
A1
Free
surface
A surface elevations around the ship sections from station 0 to
C C1
Initially calm free surface
Fig. 4. Non-viscous flow separation from the round bilge.
Fig. 5. The body plan of Keuning’s (1988) model.
4.0 Keuning’s model
Keuning[1]’s model test is studied in this paper. The body
plan of the model is shown in Fig. 5. The main particulars
are given as follows. The length of the waterline is L = 2
meters. The breadth of the waterline is 0.25 m. The draft is
0.0624m. The displacement is 0.01248m3. The block
coefficient is 0.396. Two advancing speeds, corresponding
to two Froude numbers Fn = U/(gL)1/2= 0.57 and 1.14, were
used in the model tests. Here the case with Fn = 1.14 is
studied. The model was divided into seven segments of
equal length of 0.285 meters. On each segment the dynamic
vertical force was measured. When the model was running
steadily on the calm water, its trim angle and sinkage were
set by referring to the experimental data from some other
model tests. The trim angle is τ =1.62 degrees. The value of
sinkage was not directly given in Keuning (1988). However,
from the figure of measured wave profile along the model in
the report, the sinkage is digitized as z0=-0.004m. In doing
so, the center of rotation in trim is assumed to locate in the
midship and at the waterline. The negative value means that
the model is moved downwards. In the forced oscillation
tests, the model was forced to oscillate in heave from the
mean position with the given trim and sinkage. The
amplitude of the heave motion was η3a=0.01m. The various
oscillation frequencies were ω = 4, 5, 6, 7, 9, 11, 13, 15
rad/s. Keuning (1988) presented the sectional added mass
a33 and sectional damping coefficient b33 for the seven
segments. The in-phase component and the quadrature
component of the dynamic forces were measured. The in-
phase component and the measured restoring force
© 2011 American Society of Naval Engineers
coefficients in the static position with trim and sinkage were
used to calculate the added mass.
5.0 Numerical results
Before the ship is forced to oscillate, it is advancing at a
constant speed (Fn = 1.14) with constant trim angle τ =1.62º
and constant sinkage z0=-0.004m. Fig. 6 shows the free-
station 19. The pictures for station 0-8 are shown on the left
side, while the rest on the right side. We can see the flow
separation from the round bilge. The separated water
gradually comes down under the effect of gravity and
propagates away from the ship. More discussions on the
results for steady motions can be found in Sun & Faltinsen
(2010). The free-surface elevations shown in Fig. 6 together
with the velocity potential on the free surfaces will then
used as the initial conditions in the 20 cross planes in the
unsteady simulations.
Free surface
0.2 Hull surface
0.1
z (m)
0.0
-0.1
-0.3 -0.2 -0.1 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3
y (m)
Fig. 6. Free-surface profiles in steady planing.
In the calculations for the unsteady problem, 20 equally-
spaced cross planes are used at any time instant. As the ship
moves forward, new planes are continuously added and the
planes left behind the ship are discarded accordingly. Now
we introduce a hull-fixed X0-coordinate. It coincides with
the X-axis as shown in Fig. 1, but with origin at the aft-
perpendicular and it positive direction towards the bow.
Given a hull-fixed X0-position, one can interpolate the
sectional vertical force at this position. The time history of
the sectional vertical force at a given X0-position can be
expanded as a Fourier series

f (t )  C0   [Csn sin( nt )  Ccn cos( n t )] (17)
n 1
where C0, Csn and Ccn (n=1,2,3…) are constants. The
sectional added mass coefficient a33 and the damping
coefficient b33 can be estimated from the amplitudes of the
first harmonic Cs1 and Cc1 as
 Cs1  c333 a 
a33  (18)
 23a
229
 Cc1
b33  (19)
3a
where c33 is the sectional restoring force coefficient, which
is defined in the same way as in the experiments. The ship
model is first settled in its static position with the given trim
and sinkage, then the sectional restoring force coefficient is
calculated by c33 = ρgswp, where swp is the breadth of the
waterline at the section.
The sectional hydrodynamic coefficients at 20 hull sections
with X0=0~1.9m are calculated. The coefficients at
X0=2.0m are simply approximated as zero. The numerical
results for the three different frequencies ω = 5, 11, 15 rad/s
are shown in Fig. 7 (added mass coefficients) and Fig. 8
(damping coefficients). The experimental results are the
average values on each segment in the model tests.
In general, the present numerical results agree well with the
experimental results for all frequencies studied here. If we
similar ship model. However, the results for ω = 9 was not
given in Faltinsen & Zhao (1991), so we could not compare
the results for this frequency.
It is noticed that the present numerical method encounters
numerical difficulties for very high frequencies, such as for
ω = 15 rad/s. Frequent detachment and reattachment of the
water flow along the hull occur at around station 7 and
station 8 and causes many jumps in the time series of the
sectional forces. Smaller time steps can be used to improve
the accuracy of the results and then reduce the occurrence
and amplitude of the jumps. Because those jumps occur
with very short time duration, the time integrations in
calculating Cs1 and Cc1 suppress the effects of the jumps.
Actually, the 2D+t theory is not suitable for very high
frequencies in principle because the incident wavelength
should be O(L) or larger.
100

look closely at the bow and the stern, we will see some rad/s
difference. At the stern, the added mass is underestimated at 50

lower frequencies and overestimated at the higher

frequencies by our numerical method. The predicted
a33 (kg/m)
0

damping coefficients at stern are higher than the

experimental values for all the frequencies. Due to the flow -50

separation from the transom stern, the pressure at the stern

should be atmospheric pressure. However, the 2D+t theory -100

predicts higher pressure on the stern, which will result in

hydrodynamic coefficients different from the experiments.
0,0 0,5 1,0 1,5 2,0
X0-distance from stern (m)
At the bow, the averaged added mass is negative on the first 40

two segments starting from the fore perpendicular. The rad/s

calculated negative added mass values are much lower. The
3D effect at the bow causes the water near the bow to run up 20

along the stem relative to the initial calm water level. This
a33 (kg/m)

change can affect the hydrodynamic forces near the bow.

Therefore, the difference in a33 near the bow can be caused 0

by the 3D effects.
The numerical results in Faltinsen & Zhao (1991) are also -20

presented in Fig. 7 and Fig. 8. The present numerical results 0,0 0,5 1,0 1,5 2,0
show obvious better agreement with experiments than their X0-distance from stern (m)
results for the lower frequency ω = 5 rad/s. The agreement 40
with experiments for ω = 11 rad/s and 15 rad/s looks rad/s
similar, although the a33 by Faltinsen & Zhao (1991) shows
a little better agreement for ω = 15 rad/s. Keuning (1988) 20

found through his analysis that the influence of the local

a33 (kg/m)

steady flow on the added mass is stronger for lower

frequencies. The improvements in the present results for the 0

lower frequency imply that the interaction between steady

and unsteady flow is better accounted for than those in -20
Faltinsen & Zhao (1991). They solved the steady and
unsteady flow separately and considered the interactions 0,0 0,5 1,0 1,5 2,0
X0-distance from stern (m)
through some interaction terms; however, the steady and
unsteady flow is solved as a whole in the present method.
The nonlinearities in the unsteady flow were neglected in Fig. 7. Sectional heave added mass coefficients. Solid lines:
their method, but it is not clear whether this effect is experiments by Keuning (1988); Lines with symbol: the
important. Nonlinear effects should be the largest around the present numerical results; Dashed lines: numerical results by
natural frequency when one considers the responses in Faltinsen & Zhao (1991).
regular waves. The natural frequency for heave is around ω
= 9 according to Blok & Beukelman (1984)’s results for a
230 © 2011 American Society of Naval Engineers
 rad/s
the unsteady flow and the local steady flow is better
300
accounted for in the present method for the lower frequency.
The present method can be further developed to predict the
200
vertical motions of high-speed vessel in head sea. Care must
b33 (kg/(sm))

be taken in dealing with the flow separation and attentions

100
should be paid to the 3D effects at the bow and the stern
REFERENCES
0
Faltinsen, O.M. (2005). Hydrodynamics of High-Speed
0,0 0,5 1,0 1,5 2,0 Marine Vehicles. New York: Cambridge University
X0-distance from stern (m) Press.
Faltinsen, O.M., Zhao, R. (1991). "Numerical Prediction of
300 rad/s ship Motions at High Forward Speed." Phil. Trans. R.
Soc. Lond., Vol. 334, pp.241-252.
200 Fontaine, E., Tulin, M.P. (1998). “On the prediction of
b33 (kg/(sm))

nonlinear free-surface flows past slender hulls using

2D+t theory: the evolution of an idea.” RTO AVT
100
symposium on Fluid Dynamic Proflems of Vehicles
Operating near or in the Air-Sea Interface, Amsterdam,
0
The Netherlands, October, 1998.
Fujino, M., Chiu, F.C. (1983). “Vertical motions of high-
0,0 0,5 1,0 1,5 2,0
X0-distance from stern (m)
speed boats in head sea and wave loads.” J Soc Nav
Arch Japan 154:151-162
300 rad/s Keuning, J.A. (1988). Distributon of Added Mass and
Damping along the Length of a Ship Model Moving at
High Forward Speed, Delft University of Technology
200
Report No.817-P
b33 (kg/(sm))

Maruo, H., Song, W. (1994). "Nonlinear Analysis of Bow

100
0 Symposium on Naval Hydrodynamics, University of
0,0 0,5 1,0
X0-distance from stern (m)
Fig. 8. Sectional heave damping coefficients. Solid lines:
experiments by Keuning (1988); Lines with symbol: the
present numerical results; Dashed lines: numerical results by
Faltinsen & Zhao (1991).
6.0 CONCLUSIONS
A 2D+t theory was applied to simulate the forced oscillation
in heave of a semi-displacement ship at high forward speed.
The results for the steady motion were given as the initial
conditions for the solution of unsteady problem.
Hydrodynamic pressure was calculated and integrated to
calculate the sectional hydrodynamic forces. Therefore the
sectional added mass and damping coefficients obtained
form the sectional hydrodynamic forces are compared with
the experimental results for different oscillation frequencies.
Generally good agreement is obtained. Discrepancies are
noticed near the bow and the stern, which can be caused by
the three-dimensional effects neglected in the 2D+t theory.
Strongly nonlinear free-surface flow, such as the jet running
up along the hull and the flow separation from the round
bilge, were simulated in the present method. The
interactions between the nonlinear steady and unsteady flow
were taken into account automatically because they were
solved as a whole. By referring to an earlier work based on a
similar 2.5D method, we can see that the coupling between
Wave Breaking and Deck Wetness of a High-Speed Ship
by The Parabolic Approximation." Proc. 20th
California, Santa Barbara, California.
1,5 2,0 Salvesen, N., Tuck, E.O., Faltinsen, O.M. (1970). “Ship
Motions and sea loads.” Trans. SNAME 78: pp.250-287.
Sun, H., Faltinsen, O.M. (2006). “Water Impact of
Horizontal Circular Cylinders and Cylindrical Shells.”
Appl. Ocean Res. 28, 299-311.
Sun, H., Faltinsen, O.M. (2007a). "The Influence of Gravity
on the Performance of Planing Vessels in Calm Water."
J. Eng. Math., Vol. 58, pp.91-107.
Sun, H., Faltinsen, O.M. (2007b). "Hydrodynamic Forces on
a Planing Hull in Forced Heave or Pitch Motions in
Calm water." Proc. 22nd International Workshop on
Water Waves and floating Bodies, Plitvice, Croatia.
Sun H., Faltinsen O.M. (2010). “Numerical study of a semi-
displacement ship at high speed.” Proceedings of 29th
International Conference on Ocean, Offshore and Arctic
Engineering, Shanghai, China, 2010.
Sun, H., Faltinsen, O.M. (2011). “Dynamic motions of
planing vessels in head sea.” Journal of Marine Science
and Technology, DOI : 10.1007/s00773-011-0123-4.
Zarnick, E.E. (1978). A nonlinear mathematical model of
motions of planing boat in regular waves. David W.
Taylor Naval ship R&D Centre,USA,DTNSRDC-78/032
Zhao, R., Faltinsen, O.M., Haslum, H.A. (1997). “A
Simplified Nonlinear Analysis of a High-Speed Planing
Craft in Calm Water.” Proc. Fourth International
Conference on Fast Sea Transportation (FAST'97),
Sydney, Australia.

© 2011 American Society of Naval Engineers 231