Estimation of Hydrodynamic Forces and Motion of Ships With Steady Forward Speed

International Shipbuilding Progress 62 (2015) 113–138 113
DOI 10.3233/ISP-150118
IOS Press
Estimation of hydrodynamic forces and motion of ships

with steady forward speed
Amitava Guha ∗ and Jeffrey Falzarano

Marine Dynamics Laboratory, Department of Civil Engineering, Texas A&M University, College Station,
TX, USA
Received 18 February 2014

Revised 8 May 2015
Accepted 2 July 2015
The growing number of large ships demands predicting their optimum performance with respect to
travel time, fuel efficiency and the safety of cargo and personnel in specified shipping routes. This can
be achieved using efficient and easy to use numerical tools capable of predicting hydrodynamic loads
on floating vessels with steady forward speed and solving their motion response in various wave con-
ditions. A three-dimensional potential theory based code using the Green function method is developed
with consideration of forward speed effects. The generalized coordinate system is used to allow motion
response calculations with respect to any desired body coordinate system and a common quadrilateral
meshing format. The formulation and calculation of added mass and damping coefficients at zero and
infinite frequency in forward speed case has been also provided.
A number of structures including simple geometries and full ship hull forms have been analyzed and
validated against published theoretical, numerical and experimental results. The comparison results are
found to be in excellent agreement. The theoretical formulation, numerical implementation and result
comparisons are presented here.
Keywords: Forward speed, potential theory, 3D panel method, Green function
Nomenclature
U ship forward speed

β wave heading
A wave amplitude
k wave number
ωI incident wave frequency
ωe encounter wave frequency
* Corresponding author: Amitava Guha, Marine Dynamics Laboratory, Department of Civil
Engineering, Texas A&M University, College Station, TX 77843-3136, USA. Tel.: +1 979 739 9555;
E-mail: tava.amitava@email.tamu.edu.
0020-868X/15/$35.00 © 2015 – IOS Press and the authors. All rights reserved
114 A. Guha and J. Falzarano / Estimation of hydrodynamic forces and motion of ships
φI incident wave potential

φs steady translation potential
φD diffraction wave potential
φj radiation potential due to unit motion in j th direction
ηj j th vessel motion amplitude
g acceleration due to gravity
mj gradient of the forward speed potential
G Green function
Aj k added mass coefficient
Bj k radiation damping coefficient
Mj k vessel mass matrix
Cj k hydrostatic stiffness coefficient
FI Froude Krylov force
FD diffraction force
n unit normal pointing outward from the hull surface
P hydrodynamic pressure on hull
σ source strength
Sj surface area of j th panel
1. Introduction
Potential theory methods have been in development for applications in aerody-

namic and hydrodynamic problems for many decades. The mathematical derivation
of the results using the fundamental laws of fluid mechanics has attracted researchers
from around the world. Also the marine industries including navy, commercial ship
building and the offshore oil and gas industries are currently using different sea-
keeping computer programs based on these theories for the design and operation of
marine vehicles and structures.
The idea of representing irregular ocean waves as a superposition of many linear
sinusoidal waves was first proposed by St. Denis and Pierson [48]. This opened the
door for the development of both experimental and theoretical techniques to pre-
dict vessel response in random waves. Linear two-dimensional strip theories for sea-
keeping analysis were the most popular ones before the revolution in computing
technologies. The widespread availability of high computational power has allowed
the development of three-dimensional linear theories. Nonlinearities resulting from
high seas have also been considered and later incorporated in both strip theory and
three-dimensional panel methods.
The first strip theory for heave and pitch motions of ships in head seas was given by
Korvin-Kroukovsky and Jacobs [27]. This was then refined by Gerritsma and Beukel-
man [10]. However, the most popular strip theory method is the one by Salvesen et al.
[42] known as the STF method. In that work, the authors presented a complete linear
potential theory considering forward speed of the vessel initially without any strip
A. Guha and J. Falzarano / Estimation of hydrodynamic forces and motion of ships 115
theory assumptions and then they applied strip theory to obtain the final results. The
authors also mention that the theory presented is exact for the zero speed case within
the assumptions of linear potential theory which allows analysis of non-slender bod-
ies such as offshore platforms. The strip theory assumption restricts the use of these
methods to slender bodies and only for the high frequency range and for low Froude
numbers.
For higher sea states and Froude number greater than 0.4, the nonlinear effects
may become important. The nonlinear strip theory methods tries to capture these
through instantaneous wave elevation at every ship section [39].
One of the limitations of the strip theory method is that it is only valid for the high
encounter frequency range. Newman [36] developed a method and then Newman
and Sclavounos [38] modified the same to solve the seakeeping problem for different
frequency range using near and far field methods and then joined them both to give
a unified solution.
The era of the three-dimensional methods began when Hess and Smith [17] first in-
troduced flow calculation about arbitrary, non-lifting, three-dimensional bodies using
Rankine sources. Later, Hess and Wilcox [18] developed a computer program which
included the previous method along with an undisturbed free surface by introducing
a system of image sources. The Rankine source method have been used for solving
ship motions problems in both the frequency domain [34] and the time domain [35].
The main difference between the Rankine source method and the 3D Green function
method is that the Rankine sources do not satisfy the free surface boundary condi-
tion, and hence require panel discretization of the free surface around the floating
body. This significantly increases the total number of panels in the computation.
The use of Green functions to represent the source potential in solving wave loads
on floating offshore structures in the frequency domain was first introduced by Garri-
son [9]. This method became popular among many researchers and engineers as seen
in [1,3,20,37,40,49], who have worked extensively in developing efficient methods
to numerically evaluate the Green function. Efforts have been also made in devel-
oping a time-domain 3D Green function as well [2,31]. The strength of this method
is that the Green function satisfies the free surface boundary conditions, and hence
only the submerged part of the hull needs to be discretized. The lower number of
panels improves calculation speed. However, it should be noted that the evaluation
of the Green function is more time consuming compared to simple Rankine sources.
Even though the frequency domain potential theory and 3D panel method tech-
niques have been around for a couple of decades and have been studied by many
researchers, it is still a challenging task to implement them in a numerical code. Re-
cent developments includes the panel free method using NURBS surface and poten-
tial theory based code presented by Qiu and Peng [41]. Kjellberg et al. [26] attempts
to couple boundary element methods with a semi-Lagrangian free surface model to
incorporate all nonlinearities of potential flow methods. Kashiwagi and Wang [24]
shows a method to remove the moderate forward speed restriction in potential the-
ory codes. A number of codes based on time-domain potential theory has been also
developed of which the most recent is found in [15]. In order to focus this article in
frequency domain, a complete literature review of the time-domain methods is not
presented here.
It was found that some existing commercially available computer programs im-
pose constraints such as resolution or total number of frequencies for which analysis
can be performed or the number of bodies for which full QTF’s can be calculated
[14]. In order to overcome these difficulties an in-house program called MDLHy-
droD has been developed. McTaggart [32] gives a concise guideline on implement-
ing the 3D method and the work of Filkovic [7] provides a method for panel dis-
cretization. The derivation of forces and motions given by Salvesen et al. [42] using
potential flow is also valid for 3D methods as well and therefore used here to obtain
the final results. It is important to understand all the assumptions made in developing
these theories and intricacies involved in implementation of the code. Any further
development towards analysis of more complicated problems such as estimation of
parametric roll, optimization of hull, multi-body interaction or coupled hydrodynam-
ics with mooring and risers relies on accurate estimation of the linear assumptions.
The following sections give details of hydrodynamic problem formulation, numeri-
cal implementation and comparison of results.
2. Definition of the hydrodynamic problem
A ship moving with a steady forward speed U in deep water with regular waves
of wave amplitude A and incident frequency ωI traveling at an angle β is considered
(see Fig. 1). A generalized coordinate system is defined with an earth fixed global
Fig. 1. Definition sketch. (Colors are visible in the online version of the article; http://dx.doi.org/10.3233/
ISP-150118.)
Fig. 2. Generalized coordinate system. (Colors are visible in the online version of the article; http://dx.
doi.org/10.3233/ISP-150118.)
coordinate system, an inertial coordinate system translating with body and a body
fixed coordinate system (see Fig. 2). The translating reference frame allows us to
formulate the vessel response in six degree of freedom due to incident waves and
steady current of speed U in −x direction which is equivalent to forward speed with
respect to a fixed reference frame. A linear boundary value problem can be defined
under the small amplitude wave assumption to determine the velocity potential of
the flow field. A complex velocity potential can be defined under the assumption of
inviscid, incompressible and irrotational fluid as:

x , t) = −U x + φS (
( x)

6
x , β, ωI ) + φD (
+ φI ( x , β, ωI ) + x , U, ωe ) eiωe t ,
ηj φj (
j =1
(2.1)
where ωe denotes encounter frequency; φS represents the perturbation potential due

to steady translation; φI is the incident wave potential; φD is the diffracted wave
potential; φj and ηj are the radiation potential due to unit motion and vessel motion
amplitude respectively in the j th direction. The encounter frequency is expressed in
terms of the incident wave frequency as:
ωI2
ωe = ωI − U cos β. (2.2)
g
The perturbation potential φS is ignored due to the complexity of derivation and its
relatively insignificant effect at moderate ship speed. The remaining incident wave
potential φI , diffraction potential φD and radiation potential φj are determined by
solving the following boundary value problem:
The velocity potentials satisfy the Laplace equation in the fluid domain:
∇ 2 (φI , φD , φj ) = 0. (2.3)
The boundary conditions to be satisfied by the potential functions are:

(1) Free-surface boundary condition:
2
∂ ∂
iωe − U +g (φI , φD , φj ) = 0 on z = 0. (2.4)
∂x ∂z
(2) The bottom boundary condition
∂
(φI , φD , φj ) = 0 on z → −∞. (2.5)
∂z
(3) The Sommerfeld radiation condition: The waves generated by the oscillating
body must radiate outward from the body [33]

√ ∂
lim kr − ik (φ − φI ) = 0. (2.6)
kr→∞ ∂r
(4) The body surface boundary condition:
∂φj
= iωe nj + U mj on S (2.7)
∂n
and
∂φI ∂φD
+ = 0 on S, (2.8)
∂n ∂n
where n = (n1 , n2 , n3 ) is the unit normal pointing outward from the hull
surface and (n4 , n5 , n6 ) = r × n, r being the position vector of a point on the
surface.
The well-known m-terms (mj ) are the components of the generalized vector involv-
ing the gradient of the forward speed potential,
(m1 , m2 , m3 ) = (
n · ∇)∇,
(2.9)
(m4 , m5 , m6 ) = (
n · ∇)(r × ∇)
which are simplified to be
mj ≈ (0, 0, 0, 0, n3 , −n2 ). (2.10)
The linear incident wave potential satisfying the above boundary conditions is given
by:
igA −ikI (x cos β+y sin β) kz

φI = e e . (2.11)
ωI
It has been shown in [42] that the radiation potential in the forward speed case can
be represented in terms of the zero speed potentials as:
φj = φj0 for j = 1, 2, 3, 4,
U 0
φ5 = φ50 + φ , (2.12)
iωe 3
U 0
φ6 = φ60 − φ .
iωe 2
Salvesen et al. [42] also shows by using Greens identity and a variant of Stokes theo-
rem that the whole boundary value problem in forward speed condition can be solved
by obtaining the zero speed condition results and modifying them appropriately. The
zero speed boundary value problem can be solved using the method introduced by
Garrison [9] based on a free surface Green function.
3. Numerical solution
3.1. Source distribution method
The complex potential on the submerged surface of the vessel is the key to solving
the hydrodynamic problem. It will be shown that once the potential is known, all the
hydrodynamic coefficients required to obtain the vessel response, i.e. added mass,
damping and excitation forces can be calculated.
To obtain a numerical solution, sources of unknown strengths are distributed on
the surface of the body. The velocity potential function can be written in terms of the
unknown source strengths as:

1
0
φ (x) = σ ( x , xs ) ds,
xs )G( (3.1)
4π S
where x denotes the point where the potential is being evaluated due to a source at xs
on the body surface S. The superscript on φ 0 denotes the potential for the zero speed
case. σ (
xs ) denotes the source strength which is unknown and needs to be calculated
by solving the boundary value problem. The function G( x , xs ) is a Green function
which satisfies the Laplace equation, the free surface, radiation and bottom boundary
conditions. The derivation of the potential using the Green function can be found in
[9]. However, for numerical implementation, the Green function developed by Telste
and Noblesse [49] is used.
The unknown source strengths are calculated using the radiation and diffraction
body boundary conditions separately by substituting Eq. (3.1) into Eqs (2.7) and
(2.8). The resulting integral equation is:

1 1 ∂G
− σi + σ (
xs ) x , xs ) ds = vni ,
( (3.2)
2 4π S ∂n
where
vn = iωe nj (radiation potential)

∂φI0
=− (diffraction potential). (3.3)
∂n
Quadrilateral panels are used to discretize the submerged hull surface. The surface
integral may be written as the sum of the integrals over N panels (excluding the ith
panel) of area Sj . As an approximation, the source strength σ (
xs ) may be taken as
constant over each panel. The resulting discretized equation is:
1
N
1
− σi + αij σj = vni (i = 1, . . . , N ), (3.4)
2 2
j =1
where

1 ∂G
αij = x , xs ) ds.
( (3.5)
2π Sj ∂n
The potential φ 0 at the center of each panel can be calculated using Eq. (3.1) as:

N
φi0 = βij σj , (3.6)
j =1
where

1
βij = x , xs ) ds.
G( (3.7)
4π Sj
The evaluation of matrix α in Eq. (3.5) and β in Eq. (3.7) requires integration of the
Green function and its derivatives over the panel surface. Katz and Plotkin [25] give
an analytical expression for integrating the singular but frequency independent part
of the Green function, Sj ( 1r ) ds and Hess and Smith [17] gives analytical expression
for integrating the derivatives of the frequency independent part of the Green func-
∂ 1
tion Sj ∂n ( r ) ds. The same analytical expressions can also be used to calculate the
∂ 1
image source portion of the Green function Sj ( r1 ) ds and Sj ∂n ( r ) ds.

The integration of the frequency dependent term Sj G̃0 ( x , xs ) ds and its derivative
∂ G̃0
Sj ∂n (x , xs ) ds can be obtained in multiple ways. A Gauss quadrature method may
be applied for higher accuracy. However, these terms are regular throughout the fluid
domain and oscillate approximately with the wave length [9]. In practice,the panel
size is generally small compared to the wave length and hence G̃0 ( x , xs ) can be
considered constant over the panel surface Sj . Hence, a convenient approximation
to the integral is to evaluate the integrand at the centroid of the panel and multiply it
by Sj .
The collection of equations required for calculation of panel properties such as the
normal vector, panel area and finally evaluation of the α and β matrices are given in
[11,13] in further detail.
3.2. Hydrodynamic coefficients
Once the velocity potential is obtained at each panel, the hydrodynamic coeffi-
cients can be easily solved by calculating the pressure on the hull and integrating
the pressure on the hull surface. The pressure on the hull can be found using the
Bernoulli’s equation:
1 ∂ 1
P = ρU 2 − ρ − ρ|∇|2 − ρgz (3.8)
2 ∂t 2
and the hydrostatic and hydrodynamic force can be calculated by:

FHj = − P nj ds, j = 1, 2, . . . , 6. (3.9)
S
The zero speed hydrodynamic coefficients are given by:

ρ
A0j k = − Im(φk )nj ds, (3.10)
ωe S

Bj0k = −ρ Re(φk )nj ds (3.11)
S
with speed correction terms given as:
U 0 U 0 U2 0
A15 = A015 − B , A26 = A026 + B , A55 = A055 + A ,
ωe2 13 ωe2 22 ωe2 33
U2 0
B15 = B15
0 + U A0 , B26 = B26
0 − U A0 , B55 = B55
0 + B ,
13 22
ωe2 33
U 0 U 0 U2 0
A51 = A051 + B , A62 = A062 − B , A66 = A066 + A ,
ωe2 31 ωe2 22 ωe2 22
U2 0
B51 = B51
0 − U A0 , B62 = B62
0 + U A0 , B66 = B66
0 + B ,
31 22
ωe2 22
U 0 U 0
A35 = A035 − B , A46 = A046 + B ,
ωe2 33 ωe2 24
B35 = B35
0 + U A0 ,
33 B46 = B46
0 − U A0 ,
24
U 0 U 0
A53 = A053 + B , A64 = A064 − B ,
ωe2 33 ωe2 24
B53 = B53
0 − U A0 ,
33 B64 = B64
0 + U A0 .
24
(3.12)
The incident wave excitation force also known as the Froude Krylov force is given
by:

FI = iωI ρ φI nj ds (3.13)
S
and the diffraction wave excitation force is

FD = ρ (iωe nj − U mj )φD ds
S

∂φI
= −ρ φj0 ds for j = 1, 2, 3, 4
S ∂n

∂φI ρU ∂φI
= −ρ φj0 ds + φ30 ds for j = 5
S ∂n iωe S ∂n

∂φI ρU ∂φI
= −ρ φj0 ds − φ20 ds for j = 6. (3.14)
S ∂n iωe S ∂n
The calculated added mass, damping and wave excitation forces are used to solve
the equation of motion to get the vessel response

6
2
−ωe (Mj k + Aj k ) + iωe Bj k + Cj k ηk = FjI + FjD , j = 1, 2, . . . , 6,
k=1
(3.15)
where Mj k is the mass matrix, Cj k is the hydrostatic stiffness matrix and ηk the
vessel response in kth mode of motion.
3.3. Added mass and damping at zero and infinite frequency
The added mass and damping coefficients for the frequency limits ω = 0 and
ω → ∞ are important for calculating impulse response functions for time-domain
analysis. The frequency domain approach described in previous section presents nu-
merical limitations for high frequency oscillations based on panel size and requires
modification in the potential theory formulation.
The time dependent velocity potential is represented as:

= Real φeiωe t . (3.16)
In the above equation, for zero and infinite frequency φ is replaced by:
φ = iωe φ . (3.17)
The body boundary condition for radiation potential becomes:
∂φj
= iωe nj ,
∂n
∂φj
iωe = iωe nj , (3.18)
∂n
∂φj
= nj .
∂n
The solution of φ is obtained using the source distribution method. The governing
equation for φ is:
2 φj = 0.
∇ (3.19)
The free surface boundary condition is given by:
∂ 2 ∂
+g = 0 at z = 0,
∂t 2 ∂z
∂φ
−ωe2 φ + g = 0, (3.20)
∂z
∂φ
−ωe2 φ + g = 0.
∂z
At low frequency limit ωe = 0, the free surface appears as a rigid boundary. This
gives the free surface boundary condition as:
∂φ
= 0 at z = 0 for ωe = 0. (3.21)
∂z
At the high frequency limit ωe → ∞, the free surface boundary condition becomes:
φ = 0 at z = 0 and ωe → ∞. (3.22)
The Green function that satisfies the above governing equations are given by:
1 1
x , xs ) =
G( + for ωe = 0, (3.23)
r r
1 1
x , xs ) = −
G( for ωe → ∞. (3.24)
r r
The boundary condition for zero and infinite frequency are real numbers and the
Green function is also a real number. This gives us a real φk . Hence,

Im φk = 0. (3.25)
Substituting φk in zero speed added mass (Eq. (3.10)) and damping (Eq. (3.11))
equation and using, we get:

ρ
A0j k =− Im iωe φk nj ds = −ρ Re φk nj ds,

ωe S S

(3.26)
Bj0k = −ρ Re iωe φk nj ds = 0.
S
0
We found that for zero speed (U = 0), added mass coefficients are non-zero and
damping coefficients are zero. For the forward speed case we use the added mass
and damping modifications as explained in previous section. The terms that will get
affected due to forward speed are listed below:
For both ω = 0 and ω = ∞:
B15 = U A013 , B35 = U A033 , B26 = −U A022 , B46 = −U A024 ,

B51 = −U A031 , B53 = −U A033 , B62 = U A022 , B64 = U A024 .
(3.27)
For ω → ∞, the forward speed modification part becomes zero and hence:
A55 = A055 , A66 = A066 ,

(3.28)
B55 = B55
0 , B66 = B66
0 .
The added mass and damping coefficients A55 , B55 , A66 , B66 cannot be obtained
for ω = 0 for the forward speed case. This however does not affect calculation of
impulse response function by a large amount if the first non-zero frequency is chosen
very close to zero i.e. ω = 0.01. Figure 3 shows the heave added mass (A33 ) of a
floating hemisphere at zero forward speed (a) and at Fn = 0.16 (b) for both zero and
infinite frequency (infinite frequency value shown at the end point of the extended
tail). The zero speed case has been validated against an industry standard computer
program [29]. The validity of the forward speed case can be noticed easily at zero
frequency as the curve is continuous and at infinite frequency the value is same as
the zero speed infinite frequency value as expected.
The above mentioned numerical scheme is implemented in the code MDLHydroD
written in FORTRAN programming language. All recent advancements in the po-
Fig. 3. Added mass (A33 ) of a floating hemisphere at zero forward speed (a) and at forward speed with
Fn = 0.16 (b) showing results for zero and infinite frequency (extended tail). (Colors are visible in the
online version of the article; http://dx.doi.org/10.3233/ISP-150118.)
tential theory field has been studied thoroughly during the development of the code.
Keeping in mind the ease of use, the panel definition is obtained through commercial
software [4] as a Geometric Data File format. This allows creating vessel geometry
and studying its response about any point of origin on the hull easier and also encour-
age automated hull generation that can be used for hull form optimization purposes.
Not requiring free surface discretization removes possible user error in deciding the
size of the free surface domain and panelization errors near the hull waterline which
may result in erroneous results. Using only the hull surface below mean waterline
without surface discretization makes MDLHydroD robust, computationally efficient
and useful for both manual and automatically generated hulls. However, this required
using linearized free surface boundary condition which is a compromise as compared
to Rankine source based codes with free surface panels. It must be recalled that the
free surface non-linearities becomes significant beyond Froude number Fn = 0.4
and at high seas [6].
4. Results and comparison
The developed computer program MDLHydroD has been validated for a number
of structures including simple geometries such as a floating hemisphere, box barge,
spheroid and Wigley hulls as well as multiple ship forms and offshore platforms. The
experimental and numerical results of Kashiwagi et al. [23] on a modified Wigley
hull are compared for zero speed surge, heave and pitch motion responses.
The modified Wigley hull is represented mathematically as:
4
η = 1 − ζ 2 1 − ξ 2 1 + a2 ξ 2 + a4 ξ 4 + ζ 2 1 − ζ 8 1 − ξ 2 , (4.1)
where ξ = x/(L/2), η = y/(B/2) and ζ = z/T , with L, B and T the length, breadth
and draft, respectively. a2 and a4 are bluntness coefficient and taken as a2 = 0.6 and
a4 = 1.0 in the experimental model. The hull shape is relatively blunt and close
to general ship forms. The discretized panel model and principal particulars of the
hull are shown in Fig. 4 and Table 1. The experiments were conducted with model
allowed to perform only surge, heave and pitch motion. Figures 5, 6 and 7 shows
the motion amplitude and phase comparisons for the head sea condition which is in
excellent agreement with experimental results and coincides with the 3D-HOBEM
results. Further validations including hemisphere, cylinder, box barge, spar platform,
TLP and Ro-Ro ship for zero forward speed case can be found in [11,13].
Another modified Wigley hull with the same mathematical hull surface description
as Eq. (4.1) with, a2 = 0.2, a4 = 0, L = 2.0 m, B = 0.3 m, and T = 0.125 m is
studied by [16] for ships with forward speed. The experiments √ were performed on
this model by Wakabayashi [50] for Froude number Fn = U/ gL = 0.2 in the
head sea condition.
Fig. 4. Panel model of modified Wigley I. (Colors are visible in the online version of the article; http://dx.
doi.org/10.3233/ISP-150118.)
Table 1
Principal particulars of modified Wigley hull I
Principal particulars
Length (L) 2.5 m
Breadth (B) 0.5 m
Draft (T ) 0.175 m
Displacement () 0.13877 m3
Radius of gyration (Kyy /L) 0.236
Center of gravity (OG) 0.031 m
Fig. 5. Surge motion amplitude (a) and phase (b) of the modified Wigley I model in head waves at zero for-
ward speed. (Colors are visible in the online version of the article; http://dx.doi.org/10.3233/ISP-150118.)
The comparison of wave exciting force amplitude and phase on the slender Wigley
hull (Fig. 8, Table 2) at forward speed corresponding to F n = 0.2 are shown in
Figs 9, 10 and 11. It can be seen that the presented numerical code is in good agree-
ment with both experimental and Rankin method based results. The discrepancy be-
tween experimental results and the numerical code found near short wavelengths are
Fig. 6. Heave motion amplitude (a) and phase (b) of the modified Wigley I model in head waves at
zero forward speed. (Colors are visible in the online version of the article; http://dx.doi.org/10.3233/
ISP-150118.)
Fig. 7. Pitch motion amplitude (a) and phase (b) of the modified Wigley I in head sea at zero forward
speed. (Colors are visible in the online version of the article; http://dx.doi.org/10.3233/ISP-150118.)
Fig. 8. Panel model of modified Wigley II. (Colors are visible in the online version of the article; http://
dx.doi.org/10.3233/ISP-150118.)
expected as the panel size is relatively larger when short wavelengths are considered.
The ideal panel size of the largest panel should be 1/8th of the wave length of inter-
Table 2
Principal particulars of modified Wigley hull II
Length (L) 2.0 m
Breadth (B) 0.3 m
Draft (T ) 0.125 m
Displacement () 0.04197 m3
Radius of gyration (Kyy /L) 0.236
Center of gravity (OG) 0.0 m
Fig. 9. Surge excitation force amplitude (a) and phase (b) of the modified Wigley II in head wave with
forward speed corresponding to Fn = 0.2.
Fig. 10. Heave excitation force amplitude (a) and phase (b) of the modified Wigley II in head wave with
est [5]. It can be concluded from these results that the developed code can accurately
predict the wave exciting forces on the hull with forward speed.
The model test results of Wigley hull III performed by Journée [22] were also com-
pared with the developed code along with other published work by Seo et al. [43].
The heave and pitch motion comparison for the Wigley hull III is shown in Fig. 12.
A full form tanker KVLCC2 is also analyzed at forward speed corresponding to
F n = 0.142. The panel model of the KVLCC2 is shown in Fig. 13 and the principal
Fig. 11. Pitch excitation force amplitude (a) and phase (b) of the modified Wigley II in head waves at
Fig. 12. Heave (a) and pitch (b) motion amplitude of Wigley hull III in head wave at Fn = 0.2. (Colors
are visible in the online version of the article; http://dx.doi.org/10.3233/ISP-150118.)
Fig. 13. Panel model of KVLCC2. (Colors are visible in the online version of the article; http://dx.doi.org/
10.3233/ISP-150118.)
particulars are given in Table 3. The results were compared with experimental results
of Lee et al. [30] and numerical results of Seo et al. [43] as shown in Fig. 14.
The forward speed case has been further validated against experimental result pub-
lished in [8,21] and the numerical predictions of Hsiung and Huang [19] for the con-
tainer ship S175. The vessel’s panel model is shown in Fig. 15 and the principal
particulars are listed in Table 4.
Table 3
Principal particulars of KVLCC2
Length (L) 320 m
Breadth (B) 58 m
Draft (T ) 20.8 m
Displacement () 312,622 m3
LCG 11.1 m
GM 5.71 m
Fig. 14. Heave (a) and pitch (b) motions of KVLCC2 in head wave at forward speed Fn = 0.142.
Fig. 15. Panel model of the S175 container ship. (Colors are visible in the online version of the article;
http://dx.doi.org/10.3233/ISP-150118.)
Table 4
Principal particulars of S175
Length between perpendiculars (L) 175 m
Breadth (B) 25.4 m
Height (H ) 15.4 m
Design draught (T ) 9.5 m
Displacement () 24,856 t
Vertical center of gravity (from baseline) (Zg ) 9.5 m
Roll radius of gyration (kxx ) 8.33 m
Pitch radius of gyration (kyy ) 42 m
Yaw radius of gyration (kzz ) 35.4 m
Fig. 16. Heave (a) and pitch (b) response of ITTC container ship S175 in head wave at Fn = 0.25. (Colors
are visible in the online version of the article; http://dx.doi.org/10.3233/ISP-150118.)
Fig. 17. Heave (a) and pitch (b) response of ITTC container ship S175 in head wave at Fn = 0.275.
(Colors are visible in the online version of the article; http://dx.doi.org/10.3233/ISP-150118.)
In head sea condition the heave and pitch motion amplitudes are compared for
two forward speed cases with Fn = 0.25 and Fn = 0.275 shown in Figs 16 and 17,
respectively. Motion of the vessel in oblique sea with wave heading β = 150 deg is
presented in Fig. 18.
Finally, the KRISCO Container Ship (KCS) was analyzed and compared with the
experiments performed by Simonsen et al. [44]. The panel model of KCS is shown
in Fig. 19 and the principal particulars are given in Table 5. Three forward speed
cases with Fn = 0.26, 0.33 and 0.40 were tested. The experimental results were
also compared with a Rankine source based code named AIGER [28] along with
MDLHydroD. The vertical motions for the three Froude numbers are presented in
Figs 20, 21 and 22, respectively.
The comparison between the experimental and other presented numerical meth-
ods are found to agree reasonably well with the developed frequency domain pro-
gram MDLHydroD. The author further extended the program for calculating second-
order mean drift forces and added resistance of ships which is presented in [12,46].
An effort in developing time-domain response prediction tool using impulse response
Fig. 18. Heave (a) and pitch (b) response of ITTC container ship S175 in oblique wave (β = 150 deg) at
Fn = 0.275. (Colors are visible in the online version of the article; http://dx.doi.org/10.3233/ISP-150118.)
Fig. 19. Panel model of the KRISCO Container Ship. (Colors are visible in the online version of the
article; http://dx.doi.org/10.3233/ISP-150118.)
Table 5
Principal particulars of KCS
Length between perpendiculars (Lpp) 230 m
Length at waterline (Lwl) 232.5 m
Breadth (Bwl) 32.2 m
Depth (D) 19 m
Draft (T ) 10.8 m
Displacement () 52,030 m3
CB 0.651
CM 0.985
LCB (%), fwd+ −1.48
GM 0.6
kxx /B 0.4
kzz /L 0.25
function that is based on MDLHydroD is also made. The details of this time-domain
tool named SIMDYN is presented in [45,47].
Fig. 20. Heave (a) and pitch (b) response of KCS in head sea at Fn = 0.26.
5. Conclusions
A new numerical tool capable of calculating hydrodynamic force coefficients for

ships with moderate forward speed in the frequency domain is developed. The effect
of forward speed is included using the encounter frequency. The simplified m-terms
in the radiation boundary conditions are applied. The zero speed infinite depth Green
function is used in the source distribution in a quadrilateral panel discretization. An-

alytical expressions are used for integration of the frequency independent portion of
the Green function and frequency dependent part is considered constant over a panel.
The notable strengths of the developed computer program can be summarized as:
• Only underwater hull surface is required for calculation, eliminating the require-
ment of free surface discretization. This makes the program suitable for use in
hull optimization where an automatically generated panel needs to be analyzed.
• A generalized coordinate system used rather than common assumption of origin
at the waterline or at the center of gravity. This allows analysis of floating and
submerged bodies using the same code.
• The frequency independent part of the Green function has been evaluated ana-
lytically which enhance the runtime performance of the code.
• Effect of forward speed is included in the hydrodynamic force calculations.
• Added mass and damping coefficients can be calculated for zero and infinite
frequencies with forward speed considerations. This is important for frequency
to time-domain conversion using impulse response functions.
• A common Geometric Data File (GDF) format is used for panel definition
which makes the input files preparation for new vessels much easier and faster.
• The run time of the developed code in a personal computer was found to be in
order of a few seconds for a single frequency calculation of a large ship hull
(2000 panels).
A number of validation studies were performed of which a selected few are pre-
sented here. The results were found to be in good agreement with experimental and
other numerical results. The program has been used in further development of ad-
vanced hydrodynamic studies including non-linear time-domain response prediction
and second-order force calculations.
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank Dr. F. Noblesse and Dr. K.A. McTaggart for their
guidance during development of this project. This work has been funded by the Of-
fice of Naval Research (ONR) – ONR Grant N00014-13-1-0756. The authors thank
Dr. Robert Brizzolara for facilitating the funding for this work.
References
[1] M. Ba and M. Guilbaud, A fast method of evaluation for the translating and pulsating Green’s
function, Ship Technology Research (Schiffstechnik) 42(2) (1995), 68–80.
[2] R.F. Beck and S. Liapis, Transient motions of floating bodies at zero forward speed, Journal of Ship
Research 31(3) (1987), 164–176.
[3] H.B. Bingham, Computing the Green function for linear wave–body interaction, in: 13th Interna-
tional Workshop on Water Waves and Floating Bodies, 1998, pp. 5–8.
[4] P. Cook, B. Kill and J. Hambly, Rhinoceros modeling tools for designers, Training manual level 1,
Robert McNeel & Associates, Seattle, WA, USA, 2013.
[5] O. Faltinsen, Sea Loads on Ships and Offshore Structures, Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge, UK,
1993.
[6] O.M. Faltinsen, Hydrodynamics of High-Speed Marine Vehicles, Cambridge Univ. Press, 2005.
[7] D. Filkovic, Theory and implementation of structured 3D panel method, Master thesis, University
of Zagreb, Croatia, 2008.
[8] N. Fonseca and C.G. Soares, Experimental investigation of the nonlinear effects on the vertical
motions and loads of a containership in regular waves, Journal of Ship Research 48(2) (2004), 118–
147.
[9] C.J. Garrison, Hydrodynamic loading of large offshore structures: Three-dimensional source dis-
tribution methods, in: Numerical Methods in Offshore Engineering, R. Zienkiewicz Lewis and
K.O. Stagg, eds, John Wiley & Sons, Chichester, UK, 1978, pp. 87–139.
[10] J. Gerritsma and W. Beukelman, Analysis of the Modified Strip Theory for the Calculation of Ship
Motions and Wave Bending Moments, TNO, 1967.
[11] A. Guha, Development of a computer program for three dimensional frequency domain analysis of
zero speed first order wave body interaction, Master thesis, Texas A&M University, College Station,
TX, 2012.
[12] A. Guha and J. Falzarano, The effect of hull emergence angle on the near field formulation of added
resistance, Ocean Engineering 105(1) (2015), 10–24.
[13] A. Guha and J.M. Falzarano, Development of a computer program for three dimensional analysis
of zero speed first order wave body interaction in frequency domain, in: Proceedings of the ASME
2013 32nd International Conference on Ocean, Offshore and Arctic Engineering, Nantes, France,
2013, pp. 1–9.
[14] A. Guha, A. Somayajula and J.M. Falzarano, Analysis of causeway ferry dynamics for safe oper-
ation of improved navy lighterage system, in: Proceedings of the 13th International Ship Stability
Workshop 2012, Brest, 2013, pp. 1–8.
[15] G. He and M. Kashiwagi, Time-domain analysis of steady ship–wave problem using higher-order
BEM, International Journal of Offshore and Polar Engineering 24(1) (2014), 1–10.
[16] G. He, An iterative Rankine boundary element method for wave diffraction of a ship with forward
speed, Journal of Hydrodynamics, Ser. B 26(5) (2014), 818–826.
[17] J.L. Hess and A.M. Smith, Calculation of non-lifting potential flow about arbitrary three-
dimensional bodies, Journal of Ship Research 8(3) (1964), 22–44.
[18] J.L. Hess and D.C. Wilcox, Progress in the solution of the problem of a three-dimensional body os-
cillating in the presence of a free surface, Technical report, MCDONNELL DOUGLAS, McDonnell
Douglas Corp, Long Beach, CA, USA, 1969.
[19] C. Hsiung and Z. Huang, The frequency-domain prediction of added resistance of ships in waves
using a near-field, 3-dimensional flow method, Final report, 1995.
[20] R. Inglis and W. Price, Motions of Ships in Shallow Water, Transactions of Royal Institution of Naval
Architects, 1980, pp. 269(i).
[21] ITTC Seakeeping Committee, Comparison of results obtained with compute programs to predict
ship motions in six-degrees-of-freedom and associated responses, in: Proceedings of the 15th ITTC,
Hague, 1978, pp. 79–92.
[22] J. Journee, Experiments and calculations on 4 Wigley hull forms in head waves, Technical report,
Delft University of Technology, Delft, The Netherlands, 1992.
[23] M. Kashiwagi, T. Ikeda and T. Sasakawa, Effects of forward speed of a ship on added resistance in
waves, International Journal of Offshore and Polar Engineering 20(3) (2010), 196–203.
[24] M. Kashiwagi and X. Wang, A new slender-ship theory valid for all oscillatory frequencies and for-
ward speeds, in: Proceedings of the ASME 2013 32nd International Conference on Ocean, Offshore
and Arctic Engineering, Nantes, France, 2013, pp. 1–8.
[25] J. Katz and A. Plotkin, Low-Speed Aerodynamics, Vol. 13, Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge, UK,
2001.
[26] M. Kjellberg, G. Contento and C.E. Janson, A fully nonlinear potential flow method for three-
dimensional body motions, in: NAV 2012 17th International Conference on Ships and Shipping
Research, Napoli, 2012, pp. 117–118.
[27] B.V. Korvin-Kroukovsky and W.R. Jacobs, Pitching and heaving motions of a ship in regular waves,
Transactions of the Society of Naval Architects and Marine Engineers, 1957, p. 43.
[28] D.C. Kring, Time-domain ship motions by a 3-D Rankine panel method, PhD dissertation, Mas-
sachusetts Institute of Technology, 1994.
[29] C.H. Lee, User manual, WAMIT, 2013.
[30] J.H. Lee, M.G. Seo, D.M. Park, K.K. Yang, K.H. Kim and Y. Kim, Study on the effects of hull form
on added resistance, in: Proceedings of the 12th International Symposium on Practical Design of
Ships and Other Floating Structures, 2013.
[31] S.J. Liapis, Time-domain analysis of ship motions, PhD thesis, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor,
1986.
[32] K.A. McTaggart, Three dimensional ship hydrodynamic coefficients using the zero forward speed
Green function, Technical report, Defence R&D Canada, Defence Research Development Canada,
Ottawa, 2002.
[33] C.C. Mei, Numerical methods in water-wave diffraction and radiation, Annual Review of Fluid Me-
chanics 10(1) (1978), 393–416.
[34] D. Nakos and P. Sclavounos, Ship motions by a three-dimensional Rankine panel method, in: 18th
Symposium of Naval Hydrodynamics, 1991.
[35] D.E. Nakos, D. Kring and P.D. Sclavounos, Rankine panel methods for transient free-surface flows,
in: 6th International Conference on Numerical Ship Hydrodynamics, University of Iowa, Iowa City,
IA, USA, National Academy Press, 1994, pp. 613–632.
[36] J.N. Newman, The theory of ship motions, in: Advances in Applied Mechanics, Vol. 18, 1978,
pp. 222–280.
[37] J.N. Newman, Double-precision evaluation of the oscillatory source potential, Journal of Ship Re-
search 28(3) (1984), 151–154.
[38] J.N. Newman and P. Sclavounos, The unified theory of ship motions, in: 13th Symposium on Naval
Hydrodynamics, Tokyo, 1980, p. 22.
[39] J. Petersen, Non-linear strip theories for ship response in waves, PhD thesis, Technical, University
of Denmark, 1992.
[40] B. Ponizy, F. Noblesse, M. Ba and M. Guilbaud, Numerical evaluation of free-surface Green func-
tions, Journal of Ship Research 38(3) (1994), 193–202.
[41] W. Qiu and H. Peng, Computation of forward-speed wave–body interactions in frequency domain,
International Journal of Offshore and Polar Engineering 17(2) (2007), 125–131.
[42] N. Salvesen, E.O. Tuck and O.M. Faltinsen, Ship motions and sea loads, Transactions of the Society
of Naval Architects and Marine Engineers 78 (1970), 250–287.
[43] M.G. Seo, K.K. Yang, D.M. Park and Y. Kim, Numerical analysis of added resistance on ships in
short waves, Ocean Engineering 87 (2014), 97–110.
[44] C.D. Simonsen, J.F. Otzen, S. Joncquez and F. Stern, EFD and CFD for KCS heaving and pitching
in regular head waves, Journal of Marine Science and Technology 18(4) (2013), 435–459.
[45] A. Somayajula and J. Falzarano, Large-amplitude time-domain simulation tool for marine and off-
shore motion prediction, Marine Systems & Ocean Technology 10(1) (2015), 1–17.
[46] A. Somayajula, A. Guha, J. Falzarano, H.-H. Chun and K.H. Jung, Added resistance and parametric
roll prediction as a design criteria for energy efficient ships, Ocean Systems Engineering 4(2) (2014),
117–136.
[47] A.S. Somayajula and J.M. Falzarano, Validation of Volterra series approach for modelling paramet-
ric rolling of ships, in: 34th International Conference on Ocean, Offshore and Arctic Engineering,
St. John’s, Newfoundland, Canada, 2015.
[48] M. St. Denis and W. Pierson, On the motions of ships in confused seas, in: Transactions of the
Society of Naval Architects and Marine Engineers, New York, 1953, p. 81.
[49] J.G. Telste and F. Noblesse, Numerical evaluation of the Green function of water-wave radiation and
diffraction, Journal of Ship Research 30(2) (1986), 69–84.
[50] T. Wakabayashi, Hydrodynamic study on added resistance by means of wave pattern analysis, Mas-
ter thesis, Osaka University, Japan, 2012.

Estimation of Hydrodynamic Forces and Motion of Ships With Steady Forward Speed

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

Estimation of Hydrodynamic Forces and Motion of Ships With Steady Forward Speed

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

International Shipbuilding Progress 62 (2015) 113–138 113

Estimation of hydrodynamic forces and motion of ships

Amitava Guha ∗ and Jeffrey Falzarano

Received 18 February 2014

U ship forward speed

φI incident wave potential

Potential theory methods have been in development for applications in aerody-

2. Definition of the hydrodynamic problem

where ωe denotes encounter frequency; φS represents the perturbation potential due

The boundary conditions to be satisfied by the potential functions are:

(2) The bottom boundary condition

(4) The body surface boundary condition:

which are simplified to be

mj ≈ (0, 0, 0, 0, n3 , −n2 ). (2.10)

igA −ikI (x cos β+y sin β) kz

3.1. Source distribution method

vn = iωe nj (radiation potential)

3.2. Hydrodynamic coefficients

and the hydrostatic and hydrodynamic force can be calculated by:

The zero speed hydrodynamic coefficients are given by:

with speed correction terms given as:

and the diffraction wave excitation force is

3.3. Added mass and damping at zero and infinite frequency

The body boundary condition for radiation potential becomes:

The free surface boundary condition is given by:

B15 = U A013 , B35 = U A033 , B26 = −U A022 , B46 = −U A024 ,

A55 = A055 , A66 = A066 ,

4. Results and comparison

A new numerical tool capable of calculating hydrodynamic force coefficients for

function is used in the source distribution in a quadrilateral panel discretization. An-

You might also like