W.E. Smith. Computation of Pitch and Heave Motions For Arbitrary Ship Forms

Report Nr.
1A48.
LABORATORIUM VOOR
SCHEEPSBOUWKUNDE
TECHNISCHE HOGESCHOOL DELFT
CQMUPATION OF
1NJ RAVE .OTIONS
FOR ARBITRARY SRZPQRMS,
W.E. Smith.
August 1966.
comutaion o Pitch and Hegue
X4otjonu
AVahip Forme
W, 2. 8inth
Analytical mothod
motion
n bottdwav
are uaed to determine the pitch and heave
Sor ttsi'eo ship furao of the deatroyer tipe.
4 oomputtioal method Uein
for the ship
inutiplo qoe*'fioierit traneformation
Crosseeotional abapea is used.
fox' arbitx'aril ebeped ebip
oectionu are
ransformtion method
dieousaed1
f&'om OQiflputatiQn and experiment are compared.
The resulta
Ags'eement i
found
to depend oignifioantly on the accuracy of the Oroseasection transi

formation.
When the proper trauaSormation is uaed, the influence
of variation in bull shape on the motion can be accounted for.
4reement botween motion o
putation and experiment io excellent.
QmpUted longitudinal diatribution of dmpin, tdde4 maas and

exo4.tin forcee are disausoed,
* Physicist, David Taylor 4o2eL aoin, Washington

at 8bipbuilding Laboratort, Delit on research
D.c.,
inment,
1troductio
An analytical method for the Oomputatofl et' ship motions in
a seaway has lox been of mejor interest t both the ship designer
ufld oeakeeping researcher. The need for such a technique has been
g;et1y ceased by the appearance of many tmusui4 hull shapes such
as 10W resistance forms, bulbous bows, sonar dome, etC,. for which
an evaluation uf the effects of hUll shapes gfl tb motion obaraO

teDitice io Vital,
Fox' pitch and heave motions in head seas, th forrnu].attpn of
the problem is reasQnably complete and may be described as that of
obtaining the coefficients of an appropriate set of equations whtch
relate for a particular ship's eomctry the we.Ia surface amplitude
or some ther measurable wave property to the resulting motion of
a ship. The fundamental work oVoZ the past century has beo priH
manly that of: (1) determining the appropriate form of' the equa
tione of motions; (2) obtauing a valid rslatonehip between a
parttcular bull geometry and the coefficients of the equations
(socalled leithand side); and (3) relating tb5 free eurfae
con
tours or wave shape to the eaulting force on a specified hull form

(aoca1led nightband side).
(a
PV
)+ b
:PV)
+ CG
The motion equations are:
D- E
gO
- Gz
E'a005 ((4t +
M ((e)t +
The equations of motion oonsist of two coupled ine&r differntial equa'tione Containing cresa coupling ternis proportional to
lration, velocity and dispisoement. This representation, while

originally deeioped by orvin K oukuveky 11 using a strip theory
approach is, however, in no way related t strip theory and i
Oompletely general as ar as the notion representation is concerned,
Numbeta in brackets refer tQ the rQference
at the end of this paper,
In tactg the Qfl4 Qeptiorrn 1uhorent in such repxosrztation e

th080 (a) of i1.ruarity and (b) th.t f1 1ng ox'eete
wve ti
oup1in of other modoe of fllOt&Qfl
p.tc fld ieavo s emalZ an
can. b ne8,eute6, 'urther, they are eaily extended to inuida &3
&jc coupled ode of motiofl
shown by Cwnmtri8 (i. The vaUdty
of uah a zepreentt1.Qfl w @ebiehed expexinenta11y by Gezterna
Thie saine experiment aleo establiShed the tkQarr of euper
position, the eq4va1enoe oi reia' nd X.UdQtU Wave teting aria.
te Dequez:Q dependence of the equation of motion ooefljoieute,
The coeffiojent md excjt1 SQ'GO8 were fovaiulated 'via a
i: 3)
o-oi1ec str.p tbaoty rnethQd u8 developo4 by KorvLu Iz'oUkov1e 1

and extendea by Gerr.tam
permit8 tbs
4[561
ava1uatio of the ooeUiojenta and exciting forces n terms ot the
damping and added mase aaaociated with ptcu]z bui]. Lrm. Zt
2o oonta.ns veiootr dependent texe which wcount for moat of the

forward epeed effects in both the coetft.ceta and the ezotin fp'cs
Thia ha been experirnen1a1 4ernonetrted by Gerritarna
There remained only the problem of computing fora epecific eQ
metry a two dimensional damping and added masa for eacho the ship's
sections. This can be acomplshed by using the Ursell
two dt-
mensiona3. solutiob for a circular cylinder osciUatin at the ee

surface, and onformally mapping this solution for the irole into
a particular sectional sha9e.. ucb t mapping or transformation was
originally accomplished by Tassi
in which a three coefficient
ox' Lewis form transformation was.used. This work quite well for
many of the simpler ship forms whose shapes aro closely aproxmated
by the Lewia form family. It, however, gives poor resulte for
$eOt&ofla not properly fitted by the Lwi8 fors cofficients Al5o
it can be shown that if this method i used to determine the e4feote
of sectional shape variatone on the motions, the dUerenoe between
the computed values and those obtained experimentally is approximately
equal to the differences betn Lnveutigated.
sortez' t9 experimentally verified the Ursall solution for the

circular cylinder and extended the transformation Oxprioe to
include an arbitrarily large number of trasformatio ooeffioients1
He also shOWed experirnentaly th aocuracy Q! such a transform slutio.
for a number of tw dinienejonal ship-like aeotion, oz'ter did not,
however, provide a method for detex'mjntn the coefficients for a ivefl
eOtion,
Such a method hae now been developed which permits the
tzanotormation o
ahape.
the unit ciole into any simly
oonneted ectional
With this and the rnodiied foz'm of strip tbeQry
a method for e'va1uatng not, onLy the mQUOTIO bub
by Ge'ritsma
the influence
au develope4
of
hull
hape on the
otons
is available.
The. availability of such a prram immediately presento many

ossibilitiee.
At lOzlaat, we an do quiol and inexpensive expei
mente or a Qomputer.
the various termo o
Further, it is possible to look in datait at
the' equation of motion.
Thin BhQUld provide new
inaight into the physical mechanisms involved.
As additional iompuber
experiments are performed and the limitations of the pzogram ara evaluated, thie i
itself eboud provide additional information con
z.nin
the physics of ship motion,

t has loris been reCQniZed that when experimentally investigati
ship motions
the change o
one hull dimension is extremely difficult,
This is not so for a computer proram an individual design dimension

Oan be artifioial.ly varied on a computer and ita effects assessed,
addition, there is evidence that such a multi-coefficient or close lit

program is required for, even the simplest bull forma when computing
rerative motions, bending moments, bow immersiona, otO,

Chip Models Used for Calculation and Experiment
n order to evaluate the capabilities of auch a oomputati.or method
three hull forma were selecte4,
The forms chosen were;
(a) a conven-
tional frigate bull wnicb had been previously tested by the DeIft
$bpbuilding Laboratory; (b) a omiigr form wbob bad been tatd at

the Davidson Laboratory; and (o) a radoally shaped destroyer which
had been deened and tested at the Davidson Laboratory.

Each of the three forms are similar in total diapLacement and
orose-seotiona3. area.
(See Tabla l) The firt form selected,
(Figure 1) a Priesland class frigate, i
one Zar which the motion
characteristics have been extensively investigated by this laboratory.

The motione have been measured and compared st both f ta].l and model
scale (Gerritema and Cmtth E6] , ldoe Buesemaker and Cunimin

tI.] i)
further, the ooeUioients f the ouations of motion have been deter-
mined from
forced oscillation model
experiment and, similarly, the wave
ezoit&ug forces andrnornent
bave bees ieasu?ed (Smith
5\
. Thia
model, thereor, providea a standard for refer'ence which not only

deton6tratee the acctu,acy of the motion computations for a conven-
ttQnal &ulL
form but also provides a detailed standard for the various
tenis in the equations of totion. The second, (Figure 2) the DD 692
hull, for which the motion oharacterietios wore determined experimentally at the Davidon Laboratory.
(Breslin and Eng tij). This particular ship, like the friesland
class frigate, is a form for which the motion computation program is
je a Conventional destroyer
known to work well.,
comparison between the Davidson
Laboratory
experiment for this hull ana computed values would, 'therefore, in

effect be a comparison of motion. responses obtainable from experiments
in the two tanks. Th. third, (Pigure 3) a Daidson type A destroyer,

is a ship with a conventional afterbody, bi
with a etrongly bulged
forebody. The forebody sectional 8hapeS are of unconventional desigD
with a narrow water line but which
iderw with increasing daft,
Sectional shapes of this type are ones which the Lewis forai transfer-
matjon either fits badly or, a in the case of sections 14 through 20,
doee not ev-eu exist as a simply connected shape. This ship, therefore,
provide an excellent test of the program's n!ultiple'
coefficient
transforrnatio
capability. klo, a comparison between such a close fit
'computation and experimnt should provide an indication as to whether

a potential solution and niodified strip theory can properly represent
the hydrody-namica of a radically flared or bulbous section, or whether
such non linear effects as eddy ourrenta, flow separation, viscosity,

etc. are sufficiently large to significantly- affect the computatIon
accuracy. It could further indicate conc)ueiv.ly whether or not the

effect on the aiotion due to hull shape variation can be accounted for
using euch a theory. Accordingly, a 65t of close fit transformation
coefftojete were obtained for each of the ship forme and these in
turn were used in the computation of pitch and heave motion responses
for a range of wave length and ship speeds. The speeds coneideredwere
= .15, .5, .35, .45, and .55.

a range from L/)
The wave lerigtbe considered were for
= .3 'to L/) z 2.5,
or the Priel4d c1as
with
experimentally
otionreepone ad pbaee
obtained
he DD 692 alid Davideo
eult
friate computed results were Qompared
glea
type A were compared with experirnetal re
for three wave 1entha as extracted from the resiin and Eng
report
Lo3
Mtjon Teats (Friesland Cla8e

rJes].and class hl.411 form was tested by the Deift Shipbuilding
I4bQratQX'y at bQth model and full so1e, 8ie the results from th
The
model and full acale tests were virtuaLly idento1 as far e motion
responses are coflerz
cQrnpareon.
only the model, test resulte .are used fo
The model ws tested in regular lone created h5a WaVes
for pitch and heave motions. The model length was .lm and wa
operated.wjth a radiva of gyration of 2SLa or
AU. testing was done n regular lang created head aves with. a
peak to peek height of approximateJy L/I+0.. Wave lengthe were varied.
from
.5 to L/A 2.0. Te.etingwas done for a range of DQUdQ
numbers from
15 to
.53. Teat conditions are summarized in
abl.e
..
Table
Mod2 Test Condit1on
Sp e ed
F='
Wave length ratio
LA
Wave height ratio
.15, ,25, .35, .45,
.55.
.500, .53,625, ,714,.,$33, 1.000, 1.250,
1.670, 2.000
2a/L z 1/40
I4otion Teats (DD692 and Davidon Type 4
The motion test resulte as extracted from the Bree1n aztd Eng
zeport [l0
were performed in regular waves of .75e 1.0, and 1.25
times the model length over a range of Froude numbers from O to .60,
The wave height (double amplitude) used in these tests was 1/40 model
length.
A comparison of the pitch and heave iotion
made in
this
report
between the Davidson type A and the DD 692 shows a remarkable reduction in pitch for all Freude numbers above F
= .13.
CalCu1aton8
The calculatona are based on
form of the strip theory ori-
gnal1y developed by Korvin-Kroukv1cy tl

by Gerritama
[3
The ship
[61 ,
and modified
nd extended
Briefly, the procedure is as follows:
is divided up into a number of
ectio
and the
vidual sections are each repreaentQd by a set of (ar,
Depending on the eeVerty of
the
indie
) offset values.
sectional shape, an adequate represen-
tation is provided by 15 to 30 offset values eveniy spaced around the

periphery.
Transformation coefficients are computed using the (y, z) offset
values in a ittei'ative process
which is
permitted to converge until
the root mean square difference between the actual sections (offset
values) and the t'an8tormed shape is as small as desired.
The two dimensional added maass damping, and the
variation
of
added mass () ontudtnaUy ulong the ship are computed for each
of the sections by methods from
(A+)
A modified form of strip theory [ie tised
to
determine the
ooeUoienta of the equations of motton for the various frequencies

and speeds of advance.
()
Exciting rs are computed
(6)
The equations o. motion are solved and the oompie
o' each section using
response funotioris are Computed for the spoed
and
frequeno'
freque notes
The heave and pitch equations of motion asewning negligible coupling

between the QthO
(3Vz
OUZ WOde8 o
motion are;
(i)
eU
Zn terme of the torce and moment distributions along the eh
F and the moment ivi aree

e
(2)
Fxdx
whee:
heave dieplacement
pitch displacement
F
M
'
total vertical force on the ship
- total ptcb moment; Q the ohip
vertical force on a section

- longitudinal, ship 000xdinats
ra4iue of gyraUon in pitch
Dividing the ship into sctione nd employing a moditied form of

ntx'i theo WhOh inIuo fOJ?Ward peOd effeote, the eCtiqnal force
2pe
(z1,
.,
(3)
+ V9 m")]
in'
forward speed of the ship

- half width of water' line
- sectional added mass
sectional damping
- draft of a section
intantuneoue wave elevation
13
3(lek JYb
0.
kzb
dzb)
Foi' a particular cection nd considering onl' the hydzod.ynamj part

of the force, the vertical Component of the force per unit area on
the section surface S (y, z) is

= .Pcoe (n,z)
(4+)
F"I'P
or' dividing into parts in phase with the aceler41.ofl and with the
velocitr:
F''
F''
+ N''
(5)
ver'tical force per unit area on eetion

6 (y.z) strface of setion
rn''
added mass per unit surface area
0m''
- local r'ate of cbane of added mass in the xbdireotion
dXb
pressure on the seotion.l eur'aoe

N"
- damping pr unit surfaCe area.
lo
Thexefore the sectional damping and added maas become;
drn
fm1
de
(6)
fN''
de
(7)
IduL''1e
(8)
dx
earranirzg (3) and retan.ng ozi the 'iht only tezme xepxe6enting
wave forcea, the equationsof motion become;
+ b * oz - d - e
(A + pV
:coe
d,cb
dXb
.4.
= 21coo (w0t
From references [ithe coefficiente are

o
5t
(9)
u.
r,
I-
Lb b
JNxb dxb -2VaY
dm
dx
(Q)
Vb
('2
A = im Xb
jN'x
dx - 2VD - V
dx
C,OgI-VE
D
dXb
E =
Xb
fi
\f
dxb
-[
From reerence (6) the oxcting frces ufld momento aree

cos
21pg
2f)
f
J
LS
w jf
coo (kx) dzb
'
+ wV
(u)
(kxb) dxb
o1n (kxb) ds
,,
J
in
kz
e
ope (kx) do dx b
12
kz b
f SN''
ein (kxb)
ein
sin (hxb)
2p
t2
r(
J J
wV
dm
J Zn
Xb
dzb
008
ds
(ro
dm
da
(kxb) da dx
kZb
coa CIxb) dzb dxb
8m
cb) da dxb
[m''
fIN"
kz b
Xb e
b
1f
L$
sin
cou (kx,) dXb
ein
kz
JN
CO8
4W
fL8f,
#w
dxb
(f,,
4W
dxb
kzb
X
kzb
3%
cos (kx) da
sin (kxb) da dz
3%
a
2flw2
fL fb
3%
'T
i,
+ wV ff g1' Xb e
L8
C08 (ltxb) do
(U)
8ifl
do dxb
kz b
(kcb)
whore;
the cuzface of the section,.

s-is equal to
Transforat ion Coefficient s
For the tnoraflation OoeUicients a numerical method i used

to eXePte c set of coefficients which conforrnally mape the exterior
of the unit circle
into the eteio' of a given siMply connected
reio,
this p'orwn the boundary of the region muy be 4ve
n1yti.oa1ly, or by a die"cr'eet set of (y, z) points, i.e1 a table of
offset aluee (y, za).
li,
The mapping function is
(A
+ t ) (gos
(2)
i sin n7
where:
W
y + iz =
and
The notation, which is somewhat different from that used by Tasai,

'oter, etc. was selected to conform with the standard right-handed
coordinate system normally used to describe ahip mottons (Figure J4)
From euation l for a partioular set of offset values we haVes
N
(An cae
Ti 14
N
Plim-1
(_Ainnr+BcQenr)
i 1, 2, 3 ..
This system of equations (13), for equally spaced arguments, is

characterized by an intez:esting property, t is easily inverted with
respect to the ose icient A and B, This ts a ooneequene of the
property. 0' orthogonality, which trigonometric functions of discreet
argumenta posSe8 in the case o equally spaced poibte1ry1ov nJ
Inverting equation 13
I
+
cae flfl ..
am
Ti +
(14)
COU fl1j)
n =-1, O 1, 2
..,
Equation l permita the coefficients

afld
to be easily calculated
by an itterative n*merical process which can provide transformation
L5
coetftoiento which transforme a aiznp1.y or3neoted region with ary
reasonable preassigned accuracy (sectional fit).

The coefficient ogrwi is designed to handle any simply QQfl
nqcted shape, symmetrical or assyrnotrcul, with respect to the coordinate axis, Further, it can accomodate any shape capable of being
transformed with a pro-selected accuracy by flot more than 2% A5 and
56 B. even though the program can accomodate completely aesymetrical shapes, the sectional outlines usually encountered in ship-'
building are symmetrical with rspeot to both the y and z ax6i This,
of course, reters only to the portion of the hull below the mean freO
surface and for the y axis symmetry the upper two quandrants are oon
cidered to be mnirz'or images o the submoi'ged portion.
This symmetry
assumption insures that all f the

ooeffiients are zero and like
wise, the A coeUioients for even flare also zero. The resultant
transformation equations ares
00e
ha
N
ob
slur:
-1
2, 3
or in norma].ized form;
1'
sin
bo
2n+l
(2n+l)7
2n+l
(16)
(2n.]7
where
yw
haD
which may be treated au a Saule factor.

For symmetrical chapee represented by equationaQ.) vih.icb include
all of the sectiona considered in thio paper, th computation time and
the number of Coefficients required aro quite modest. For example,
Qn)..y five opfficient and
seconds of Computer t&e were required
L6
to obtatu a representaUon o1 the Davideon

The xeLative1y
radi?aal eotjon 19 o!'
pe
rnid3h&p
ene ahip
th
oeoUQ,
equired
tQZ'nI
ix
and 16 ooefficientc
A Parjetr of sectional chapee bave beefl mapped with tbie pX'ograw
includinj such extremes
keels, and
ectifl
o reotan1es, trian1es4 sections with b1ge
with anti-pitch fins,
In every
case an extewely
olose fit was obtained4
iBCUOGiOU
The cornptati.on method for the three ships was as 'o11ows;
Qr the ships ws z'epreeentod by 21 croes sections which1
practice in naval aDChitecture, wo'e even4

with the first Croes secti-on located at the
the 21st cross section at
the
spaoed a1on
as s the
the ship
aft perpendicLtltAr and
forward perpendiculz'.
cross ectioti was represented by a table
aah
Each of the
of 20 (y, z) offset v1uee.
i'or the Friesland appropriate offset values for each section were
obtained from a master table of offoet
provided
signers. The required values fr the DD 622
by the ship's de
and Davduon type A
were teicen from body plan diagrams provided in the Breslin, Eng
report [].oJ
The off set velues for each oros
secti.on were
selected
so that they were approximately evenly spaced around the periphery

of the half eectiou
the keel,
lying
between
the load water line,
o,
and
n/2.It should be emphasized that, while this is contrary
to the normal ship designers practice of using evenly spaced water

lines, the' eqtal spacing around the periphery is very
oecsary to
insure a proper Lit by the transformatton coefficients4

The offset values for the 21 sectiun
transformation coeaioient program,

an itterative fitting
pt000as
were used as input to the
For the ships considered here,
was allowed to continue for each
sectton,
until the sum of the square of the diUence between the 20 new or
transformed value
and the actual or original offset values was less
than 01 percent of the mean beam AjT. The transformed shapes sa

obtained were compared with the original oroe
oase, including the rather radic1 shapes of

Lorebody, the two were virtually identical.
sections and in every
the Davidson type A
The converence
criteria
17
of 1.0 percent Ar/Tx has been found to be 8uffiCient for all normal
computationa.
three
The normalized oefficiont values obtained for the
8h.ip8 are given in Tables
3, 4
and 5.
The 21 sets of transformation coefficients obtained for each

ship were then uced to
ca3culate the pitch and heave motion responses.
During the motion computattone intermediate values such as

sectional added,niass and damping, coefficients of the equation of
motion, exciting breen and moments wore obtained,
This, therefore,
permits a comparison and evaluation of these intermediate values an

well as th
motion oharacteristico.
The mtiona and intermediate
values were computed for a' number of wave lengths and ship speeds,
(1)
Friesland laai
The motion cowpareon between computation and experiment for
the Friealand was quite, good, with virtually perfect agreement for
In this case, the computer
all Conditions except Froude number .55.
values for the pitch amplitude are sliht1y higher than experiment.
It should also be noted that the experimental valuea shown fpr this
ship have also been compared with lull scale meaeureentB, Qerz'itsma,
mitb [6] where the agreement again wae almost perfect.
of the bull scale comparison paper a Lewis
In thecase
orzn (three coefficient)
The Lewis form compu.ter results showed small
tvaneforrnation was used.
differehcea at the bgher frequencies, even though for this ship the
Lewis form fit is a good one,
even better agreement.
methods are
The cose fit program bas produced
The differences between the two computation
insignificant
when conoidering the design aspects of
ship motions? but are in themselves interesting since they demonstrate

that a Close fit Computation is capable
differences in hull shape.
Also
of
accounting for
mall
it provides an exceELent check Qn
the correctnesS of programming and numerical analysis aspects ob the
clone fit program.
(a)
DD692
The comparison between computation and exper'iment for the
DD 692 in a ccnnpx'ison between close fit computer results and

Davidson laboratory experimental resulta extracted from the Breslin,
Eng report [io].
The motion amplitude comparison. generally gave
only a fair agreement, with the pitch motion amp1itdea agreeing

better than the heave,
The experimental values are generally higher
j.
than those from oomtation, with

at the lower frequencjs4
this
the largest
Also, it ehould be pointed out that
s only a limited comparison, since experimental dataj is
available for only three wave frequencies.

of a
differences occurng
s this ship is ehe
01a88 or type, for which both the Lewis form and cose fit
computations have always shown good agreement
with
experiments,
such a comparison of computation and experiment io, in effect1 a
Comparison btwoe motion responses obtainable fvom experiments in

the two tanks.
there i
apparently a rather irge difference b-
in the two tanke, especially in the heave

thought to be pf sufficient siuticance to
tween the e,cperiments
amplitudes, and is
wai'rant additional inveutigaton,
(3)
bavidson bpe A
The Dandson type A tesults are aleo a comparison between close
fit computation and DaVidson laboratory experiments,
The Davidson
experiments for this ship chow a remarkable reduction in pitch am-
plitudes at high speed when compared with
more conventional ehips,
t was felt that euch an unusual form would be an excellent example
for the investigation of the accuracy limitations inherent in the
0109e fit multiple transform computation method.

is the fact that a specific hane
Of
reater
ntoreet
n a hull design bas produced
such a large and clearly definable variation in the motion1
liere,
then, is an ideal situation for investigating the equation of motion

terms which ax's x'esponsibe for thts change abd their relationship
to the shape of the hull.
Vitb this objective in mind, the computed
valusa of all equation of motion terms

the Friesland were compared.
for th Davdso type
an4
A1&o, the distribution of added mases
damping and exciting forces along theae ships was investigated.

dhen. comparing the computed and measured motions for the Davidson
typeAthe
resulte are remarkably good. Of foremost interest is the
nearly perfect agreement between Davidson

pitch motions at all speeds.
tude as shown in
putation1
experiment end computed
The large reductions in pitch ampli-
the experiments are also clearly shown in the com
This in itself provides convincing proof as tQ the vali-
dity of the modified strip tbory for ,evefl radically shaped hull
19
forte,
heave motions do not show as good agreement

.25k In these instances the computed heave motion
The computed
for Fn .1.5 and
amplitude is overestimated near resonance,
is good for the
limited amount
The general agreement
f experimental data available;
however, a more detailed experiment over the entire frequency range

of comparison will be neceseary for a Completely conclusive ovalua'
tiofl.
The dynamic ceioients of the motion equations (a,b, d, e,

.,
B, D, E) are given in Figureo '3 arid 14..
Computed values only
are given for the Davidson type A and computed arid experimental
values for the Friesland,
esulta are given for Fn .15 and .45.
The forward speed effects normally associated with the static r'
storing coeffcient
(C, g), equation 10, haVe been included in
the added mass oQefficients (A,
d). This change in the static co-
efficients was made arbitrarily to facilitate comparioon with

experimental data,
The modified coefficients are:
= d + Yb
-
w
dx
+ Vb
(A)
=+Vb =3:gs
A + VE
--
lin' X2 dx + lIE
b
b
L
w
:fIw
The experimental coefficients for the Friesland are from forced
oscillation experiments
($mith
11).
As shown in the figures
testing was for a number Qf oscillator amplitudes and frequenoes,

The Friesland Computations and experiments show
ood agreement at
all speeds and frequencies and again demonstrate the ability of

modified strip theory to account for forward speed effects,
20
A Comparison between the Davidson type A and. Friesland ooeffl.
ciente shows romar1ably little difference
and darnpin
greatest
tere (a, b, A, ), with the
than ten percent
in thin added mass

difference lesa
When the cross coupling terms (e, o, g, D, E, G)
ae compared, hQWQVOV, the ettuatiofl io quite different, with the

damping croas coupling terms differing by as much as 4QQ percent,
This demonstrates the importance, in rnotion.computaton, of the

Cross coupling terms. Further, it indicates that differences in
the motions due to hull shape variatin are primarily a result of
Ohan$ee in the
longitudinal dynamic
change in the cross coupling terms.
Byflimetry and the resultant
As
demonstration of this
effect, thed and e terms in the notion computation for the

avidson typo A were set equal to mero. The motion computation
then demonstrates the large effects of oouping (Figure ),

Dho added mase, damping and wave ozoting orce distribution
alone the sbp are compared. The results are given in non dirnen
sional form.
damping is3
The sectional
V din'
or in non dimensonal form:
the non dimensional sectional added maas;
pV
Te sectional exottng
F' L
C
force ie
21
The
aflpi
4iribution foz the toxwArd 8OctQn of tho D
trpe 4 ia unuaua]. in that, evers wIzen 'oward eed eocta are

iO1Ued, ueVei'al Qf the sections exhibit viztujL, zero dmpng
a limite4 range oi teqenote
A1eo
Tha, then
nea1y zezo exciting forces
major reason for the extreme diffraflc
jics 0*' the two ehiV,
the
wne ectione 8h0W
would appear to be a
t* the 23otion caracter
apparently ofer8 aonidex'abXe
as a device for tuning a ehip and thuu optimizth
Thin factor in itself
promise
the motiune
Would seem to be of auffioient interest to
warrant future investigation.

The distribution of added mass fox the two ehipe is very simi
lar, with only significant differences scouring in the forward part
and at the higher frequencies,
tually identic&.fqr
tio4
urve
While the tota:J. added mass is vir-
both ships,
the alope of the added mass distribua
f or the Davidson type A is much greater
n the bow, thus
indicating lrer valaes for the speed correotion term

damping distrtbution for the 1)avLdson type A, however,
The
quito
different, with large modifications in the two dimensional ciampin

N' by the speed correction term:, Q p5iCU],a ia section 20, the
fQrwdP1O5t SQOtiQn;whioh shows a large damping at high
peod even
though the added mass and sectional area are zero, This is entirely
forward speed effect, The eQit
force dietributions behave simi
larly to the dasping term and clearly ahow the strong relationskip
between exoitn forces afld damping. As prevously mentioned, %vhi].o

the diatributiQn of added mass,, damping an4 excttin forces for the
two ships is quite different, the
total or integrated value for the
whole ship in each case is practioaUy the same. Thi also aCcoUflt
for the large differences in dynamic cross coupling coeficients.
To demonstrate th large effect of the orcos coupling term4 the
motions fo Fronde: number .l were computed with the d and e terms
zero, The resulting motion amplitude i shown In Figure ..
olusipn6
<1)
The ue of flodified atrp theo.j aUd a Viultiple coefficient

eformatton comput atio
for ptOh and heave motlQns ie
and extended b,y thi cornparieon
()
The
Using OlO$
nt1uence of V iatione in bull shape an b aQQQ1nted for
fi' t
flefox'mation methods
(3) The large variation

dynati eyrnmetr.y or foro and aft ciistr1.
bution of ex ting fores, moments added rnaa aria daflping ptoducable
br bull ebape variations atroflly in4iatee that
ouch
can
)e uoed to optimizo the iotiono

(it)
4 oboe fit program wbo1 can ocQunt ter the tore and aft
U'namio distributiQfl$ is rnanatQry when computing bending momento,
relative motion, etc1

() The dynamic creee QoupUng terms in the equatieno of motion
are of
Qunt iportanco Whe opt )izing the motions.
At efficient ogx4am which can generate conformal tranotormaton

Goetflotent tor an arbitrary simply connected shape is demonetrated,
(6>
Acknowledgement.
I wiab to acknowledge the continued encouragement and assistance

offered by Prof. Ir J. Gerritema and particularly to express my thanks
for the opportunity to study and work under his direction.
I am alao greatly indebted to the staff of the Deift Computer Labora

tory for their cheerful and continuous assistance in all phases of the
computation work. Of particular note is the extremely quick computation

service rendered. Without auch service this project would have been impossible.
The completion of this project was greatly aided by the enthusiastic

assistance of the Shipbuilding Laboratory Statt. I am further indebted
to Mr Ralph D. Cooper, of the Office of Naval Research, for continued
advice and assistance.
2k
.
i
B. V
KQIVi
'Pi.to1iin
KrOUQVe1q, W. B, Jacobs,
and
Transactions
eavj.ri
Motions of a ship in aegular Waves",
ociety of Naval Architects arid Marine
nirieers,
19,7.
2
W, E. Cwmins
Ship Motions", Symposium on

Ship Theory at Institut Fir Schiffbau der Univeraitat, 8inburg.
1962.
"The Impulse Response Fuz4ction arid
J. Gtea.
"Ship Motions in torigitudial Waves's, International
hipbuildin
progress, 1960.
J Gerritsma,
"Distribution of Damping and Added Mass Along the Length of
a Ship Modei', International Shipbuilding PrQres,
1963,
J. Gerritsma, W. Beukelman,
'Datribution of the flydodyuamio Foroes on a Heaving and Pitohng

Ship Model in Still Watez", Intern&tional 8hpbui1ding ?roreee
1964.
6
, Ga itoma, W. E. Smith,
"Full Scaie Destroyer Motion Measurement&', Laboratorium
oor
oheepsbouwkunde, Technisoba Uoshool DeIft, Eeport No. 142,
1966,
7
F. lJrseil,
"Ori th Ueaving Motion of
a Fluid',
a Circular Cylinder on the Surface 0t
uartorly Journal Mech. and Applied Math, Vol. I PT2,
1949.
8
Tosai,
"On the Daxnpng Force and Added NaOs of Ships aeaing arid Pitching",
Report of Eeearch tiOtlttzto for Applied Mechanics, Kyushu
9
Vnvereity, 1960.
W. E, Porter
"Preeere Detributiox,
Added Mass and Damping Coeftiit
1ree Surace", University ol

California, Zrietittt ot hirieOzin Hasearcti, $eri 82, 1960.
for Cylinders Oscillating in a
10
J,
. Bre1in, K. Ene,
"esist.nce
c
li
nd
eakeeping Performance of New ugh Speed DOstIQyO
Designa", Davidson Laboratory Report Jo. iQ8a, 1965v

J, Gerritsina, W, 3euce1man,
"Comparison of Calculated and Measured Heaving and Pitohin
Motions of a Series
7Q Ship Model
n ieiUar
ongitudinal
WaVe8', Laboratorium voor 8cbaepsbouwunde, Technische Hogesohool

12
Deli t, Report No,

J. Gerrtsma,,
139,
1966.
"Dietributior of Uydrcdynamic Forces Along the Length of
Model in Wave&', Laboratorium Your

aogeschool Dell t
13
SOheepsbouwnde
Technische
Repart No. lLtLe, 1966.
A. N. Krylov,
"Lectures o1 Approximate Qomputations'1

MJ. 19514.
34
M. D. Biedeoe, O. ussemaker, W. E. Cummins,
"Seakeeping Trials on Three Dutch Destroyers", Transactions

Society of
15
Naval Architecte and Marine
Engineers, 19GO.
W. L Smith,
"Equatn of Notion Coefficients for a
Pitobtn
and
eaving
Destroyer Model, Laboratorium voor Scheepsbouwkunde, Technische

Hogeschool Deift, Report No.
154,
1966.
Nomenclature.
abc deg
- CoeUiciente of the equations of motion for heave and pitch.
A. BC DEG
An
- Transformation coefficient.
-
Area of
waterplane.
- Normalized transformation coefficient.

- Area of cross-section.
b'
- Section damping coefficient.

- Midship beaw.
- Transformation coefficient.
block coefficient.
- Total vertical force on ship.
F'
- Vertical force on a section.
F"
- Vertical hydrody-namic force per unit area on section.
- Nave force ampittude on restrained ship.
\JgL
- Froude number.
- Acceleration due to gravity.
- Longitudinal moment of inertia of waterplane area with

respect to the
1b
axis.
- Real moment of inertia of ship.

2T1
k7
- Wave number,
- Radius of gyration in pitch.

Length over all.
- Length between
Ma
perpendiculars.
Total moient on Bhip.
Wave moSent amplitude on restrained ship.

- Total added masa for heave.
- Sectjoa1 added mass.

- Added maa per unit surface area
27
N'
- Sectional damping (without speed effect).
N"
- Damping per unit surface area.
- Pressure on eectjorial surface.
&(y,z)
- Section surface.
- statical moment of watorplana area.

t
- Time.
- Draft of ship.
- Draft of crosS-section.
- Speed of ship.
XbYbZb - Right-handed body axis system.

- Half width of waterline.
- Heave displacement.
-Heave amplitude.
Phase angle between the motions (forces, moments) and the waves.
- Instantaneous Wave elevation.

Wave amplitude.
Q
- Pitch angle.
- Pitch amplitude.
Transform plane angle.
Wave length.
Physical plane angle.
Density of water.
Displacement volume.
(*)
- Circular frequency.
- Circular frequency of encounter.
- Rate of change of added mass in the Xb direction.

b
- Local rate of change of added masa in the

b
- Dieplaoed weight.
direction
Table 1,
Model characteristice.
Trieel&rid
40
Scale ratio
Length
H.
3eam M
Draft (DWL)M.
Displacement KG
2.810
2935
.0975
44.55
Davidson A
Dfl692
67.09
1.741
1.741
.187
.i8
.0635
.0635
10.90
10.98
Block coefficient
.554
.524
.536
Midahip area coefficient
.815
.824
.778
Prienatic coefficient
.679
.636
.689
Waterplane area coefficient
.798
.762
.739
.O29AJ
.0345 kFZ'
.0280 FND
.259
.25
Longitudinal center of raac
Radius of gyration pitch
L
pp
.25
Table
3.
Friesland Claaa Transformation Coefficients

Normalized Form.
Coeff,
Section
0
+.
+.
0985
+. 11320
i.
2450
+. 13220
+. 11.480
+. i467s
+.213333
+.216503
-.027852
5,
10
a1
+.756566
+.4698115
+.320917
+.207701
+.20'7195
+. 11.20
t.207667 +.211572
a3
-.011692
+.052863'
+.075972
+.106067
+.061324
,.029689
+.00'+282
+.012338
-.020112
+. ii.-67s
i'.218439
-.025715
a5
+.001154
-.019783
...038869
-.018722
-.018272
-.018842
-.017610
+.013053 .029925
-.042457
+.017287
.022ZI87
+.000056
'.066257
+.035318
-.029765
a7
a9
p.003570
+.002268
-.000020
-.000261.
+.00061.3
-.000377 -.005396
+.008908 +.006029
-.004031 -.002304
r,(x)
a11
a13
a15
0755
-.011768 -.006230
+.000012 +.005580 p.007198 +.009417 .004646
...001163 -.003778 -.001389 +.000106 4.000776
+00
+.0
+.0
-.000325 +.0
a1
53
+.001235 -.000361
+.0
+ O
+.002923
+.001846
+.0
15
+. 13090
+. 11960
s.
+.11+9260
+.212799 +.202529
..024269 ...018025 -.009248 -.001207
-.017266 -.013083 -.007731 -.005303
+.000713 +.002804 +.00ii181. +.006ioi
-.002138 -.000938 -.000392 +.001176
-.000237 +.000293 +.0001+11 +.000798
+.102148
+.o12882
...001754
+.0329Lf6
-.076855 -.251106
+.031142
+.000396
+.006409
+.000692
+.o48723
+. 14580
+,
11.1+0
+. 13930
+.i8i8o
16
101+7
i8
17
+.
0860
+.
0623
19
+.
0335
+.002557
+.002305
+.003241
-.000659 -.000219 -.00011k -.000377 +.000?5Le +.000734
+.000835
+.003026
+.000436
+..005503
a13
a15
+0
+0
+0
+0
+0
+0
+.000622
+.00165o
+0
+0
.0
+. 00210
-.771895
+.072453 -.011656
.002496
a9
+.006L1-35
.0051i'+
20
..543066
+.009881
a7
+ O
+.067091
+.008321
+.009783
a5
+.216715
-.000439 -003263 -.00267?

+001182 +.001419 -.001406 -.000586
-.001411 -.000603 -.001456 -.001643
14
13
12
11
+.
-.001663
Section
Coeff.
1(x)
+. 13770
+.00691+3
+.003758
+.010588
+.001713
-.007105
+.012262
-.005027
-.00041.2 -.000376
+0
Table k,
DD 692
Transformation Coefficients
Normalized Fore.
Coeff.
Section.
+.
(X)
o6Zio
a1
a3
a5
a7
a9
+.503369
+.004956
.043o42
+.019135
o
a11
+.
i.
74
+. 0851
+.345471 + .276803
+.018417 +.O17416 +.013005
0732
+.417424
0802
+.
0887
+.223354
+. 005442
-.024534 -.014502 -.010177 -.005611

-.001778 +.003559 +0O1562 + .006139
o
o
o
o
o
+.
0913
7
+.
0926
+.
0935
+.
0935
s.175243
(z)
a1
a3
a5
a7
a9
a11
-r+.
Q9'L.
0876
14
13
12
f.
- . 004492
-.020053
.028284
+,010788
+ .004691
+.002839
+.001 459
+.000873
o
o
18
19
20
.011570
15
+.
+.163304 +.145807
..027961 -.015651 -.003523 +.o11781 +. 025146
+.002512 +.001560 i..001432 + .002266 +.002546
+.003814 +.005334 +.005635 +.009073 +.009086
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
+.
+.177750
0420
+.
-.092987 -.227172 e.409429 -.628993

4.033940 .040215 +.037197
.019362
- .000376 ...002547 -.00I702 -.026939
+ 011585
o
o
+..
+.o1o463
+.170747
-.036155 -.032io8
- .003672
-.000034 +.00ioSi +.001151
0139
0545
0935
+.177393
o
o
0747 i. 0654
+.1161+46 +.o68515 -.000753
0822
+.
+.188119
Sect ion
11
10
0283
+.004367
00
4..
+.0255L18
+.010061
-.012814
0
o
o
0
Table 5. DAVIDSON TYPE A TRANSFORMaTION CaErncIENs
NORMJtLIZED FORM.
Seo tion
Q
T(x) 0.0548
+0.066100
+0.075400 +0.081800 to.o800 0.087800 0.o89koo +0.091 0o 0.092400 +0.092700 +0.092700
a1
+0.634763
a3
+0.008824 +0.008272 +0.016456 +0.033001
a5
-0.018587 -0.032341 -0.029574 -0.028604
a7
-0.014569
+0.000787
0.006433
+0.538712 +0.475447
+0.405580
+0.004568
O
o.a76o4k +0.227559 +0.204095 +0.196954 p0.191+498 +0.193795

+0.040889 +0.049993 +0.061934 0.048229 *0.030584 0.016564 .po.00472t
-0.029224 .-0.031944 -0.031540 -0.016625 -0.006254 -0.003277 -0.002115
+0.337851
0.009562 +0.012645
O
0.008042 -0.001761 -0.002119 -0.004268 -6.004379
-0.004427
Section
11
!,(z)
a1
a3
a5
a7
a9
a11
a13
a15
a17
12
+0.091300 0.085900
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
+0.056000 +0.043500 0.031500 +0.021100 +0.012000 +0.000100

0.182833 0.159812 *0.129027 +0.087717 +0.044207 -0.008312 -.0.069047 -0.156982 -0.321085
0
-0.000003 -0.013634 -0.037071 -0.063870 -0.092086 -.0.115450 -0.133027 -0.153040 -0.167336 +0.849541
-0.002151 -0.006390 -0.023765 -0.038991 -0.053038 0. 062931 -0.065924 -0.077415 -0.079463
0
-0.002419 -0.004420 -0.015333 -0.024243 -0.029453 -0.039177 -0.044839 -0.051034 -0.053505
0
O
o
o
-.0.016327 -0.017523 0.029847 -0.035147 -0.036673 ...0. 03 6656
o
o
o
O
-0.007892 -0.011381 -0.021379 -0.021+859 -0.027850 -O.O2859
o
o
o
o
o
-0.011643 -.0.01861+0 -0.021567 -0.023534 -0.02291+4
O
o
o
o
O
-0.008125 -0.012810 -0.014849 -.0.016615 -0.01 122
o
o
o
o
o
-o.006k3 -0.011540 -0.014018 -0.016084 -O.0i87
o
+0.077500 +0.066600
-o.008i34
a19
a21
a23
a23
a27
a29
O
O
a31
10
-0.010711 -0.011900
-0.008382 -0.009449
-0.008175 -0.008663
-0.007344 -0.007466
-0.001+600 -0.005942
.0.009529
-0.004671 -0.005488
-0.004484 -0.00483?
jo
4t
FRIESLAND CLASS FRIGATE
DD-692 DESTROYER
FIGURE 1
FIGURE 2
Zo
V - ship speed
C
wave celerity
X X0
4
Xb
wave -
t.o.v.
heave -
pitch -
z=z
cos (et+Ez
G= Ocos(jet+0)
We
w + jLV
DAVIDSON TYPE A DESTROYER

Figure 4.
FIGURE 3
toy. xy z
acos(Wet}
Definition of wave and motions
5=0
Fn=.15
Fn-.15
HEAVE
1.5
HEAVE
fist.
Ii
S
1.5
/
1.0
1.0
N
0.5
0.5
P ITCH
PITCH
1.0
1.0
t....
O.5
cD
HEAVE PHASE
90
90
PITCH PHASE
J.
w
HEAVE PHASE
w'
-90
PITCH
-180
o0
-180
o
-360
-270
MODEL EXPERIMENT FRIESLAND CLASS
MOSEL EXPERIMENT DAVIDSON TYPE A
- CALCULATION FRIESLAND CLASS

CALCULATION DAVIDSON TYPE A
CAL9LATION DAVIDSON TYPE A COEFE O
0.5
1.0
-360
1.5
MODEL EOPERD4ENT DX - 692

CALCULATION FRIESLAOD CLASS
\\
2.0
MODEL EXPERFIENT FRIESLAND CLASS
CALCULATION DEARZ
2.5
LI
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
LI______
/A
/A
COMPARISON 0F CALCULATION AND MODEL EXPERIMENT Fn
FIGURE 5
.15
2.5
Fn .25
I
Fn.25
I'
I
HEAVE
HEAVE
1.5
1.5
I
g
,I
1.0
N:
0.5
0.5
o
PITCH
PITCH
1.0
1.0
0.5
HEAVE PHASE
HEAVE PHASE
PITCH PHASE
PITCH PHASE
WI
-90
O
W
-90
o
O
-180
-180
-270
-270
o
\\,
O MODE EXPERIMENT FRIESLAND CLASS
-360
MODEL EXPERIMENT DAVIDSO TYPE A
CALCULATION FRIESLANDCLASS
-360
MODEL EXPERIMENT 00-692
0.5
1.0
\\
- CALCUlATION FRIESLAND CLASS

CALCULATION DO-692
1.5
2.0
2.5
LI
/A
0.5
1.0
1.5
LI
/A
COMPARISON OF CALCULATION AND MODEL EXPERIMENT Fn .25
FIOLE N
2.0
2.5
Fn.35
Fn.35
i'
I
I
I
HEAVE
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
--I
1.5
HEAVE
1.5
'
a
1.0
0.5
0.5
e'
-o
PITCH
1.0
PI IC H
I
1.0
0.5
0.5
------
HEAVE PHASE
HEAVE PHASE
go
90
II
J
PITCH PHASE
PITCH PHASE
-%
*
s
-180
-270
"S_
'
O
s
__\S\
s
s
-360
-90
-180
-270
s
O MOOEL EOPERRIENT FRIESLAND CLASS
RODEL EXPERIMENT FRIESLAND CLASS
-360
).EIDEL-EXPERIMENT DAVIDSON TYPE A
MEL EXPERIMENT DO-692

- CALCULATION FRIESLANDCLASS
0.5
1.0
CALCULATION OD- 692
1.5
2.0
2.5
I-
0.5
1.0
1.5
LI
LI
/A
/A
COMPARISON OF CALCULATION AND MODEL EXPERIMENT Fn= .35
FIGURE 7
2.0
2.5
Fn=.45
Fn=.45
I
I
HEAVE
1.5
'
I.
'
1.5
1.0
HEAVE
08
1o
NJ
0.5
0.5
P ITCH
PITCH
1.0
t
0.5
0.5
HEAVE PHASE
HEAVE PHASE
90
90
to
PITCH PHAE
-90
PITCH PHASE
o
w
N5
-1 80
-180
-270
-360
-yo
MODEL EXPERIMENT DAVIDSON TYPE A
-270
-360
o MODEL EXPERIMENT FRIESLAND CLASS

MODEL EXPERIMENT DO-692
- fl
0.5
1.0
CALCULATION DD-682
1:5
2.0
2.5
0.5
1.0
LI
/A
C0MPAR0N OF CALCULATION AND MODEL EXPERIMENT Fn= :65
FlOUSE 8
1.5
2.0
2.5
Fn=.55
Fn= .55
i'
HEAVE/\
HEAVE
\co
1.5
i'
n'
o'
0.5
0.5
PITCH
PITCH
00
1.0
1.0
f
0.5
a)
0.5
HEAVE PHASE
HEAVE PHASE
90
90
-90
-90
-180
-180
-270
-270
-360
NUDEL EXPER DIENT DAVIDSON TYPE A
O MODEL EOPER9IEIUT FRIESLNIO ClASS
-360
CALCULATION DO-692
0.5
1.0
MODEL EXPEROIENT DO-692
PIT CHES
PITCH FAS
15
2.0
2.5
LI
0.5
1.0
LI
A
/A
COMPARISON OF CALCULATION AND MODEL EXPERIMENT Fn.55

FIGURE 9
1.5
2.0
2.5
CALCULATION DAVIDSON 1YPE A
Fn..15
CALCULATION FRIESLAND CLASS
En-45
wri7j =1.685
=1.685
2.0
5.0
5.0
10
2.5
2.5
__,
wV7 =2.528
2.0
5.0
5.0
1.0
25
2.5
I'
;1
WoI.t1/g
2.0
5.0
5.0
1.0
2.5
2.5
3.370
w7 =0.213
2.0
5.0
5.0
10
25
2.5
\
\
I
2.0
5.0
5.0
1.0
2.5
2.5
wV't
5.055
wVt
=5.898
wVT
2.0
5.0
1.0
25
=5.899
5.0
N.
1111111
5
SECTiON
10
15
2.5
lo
20
15
20
SECTION
ADDED MASS AND DAMPING DISTRIBUTION Fn=.15 AND Fn=.5

FIGURE 1G
SECTION
10
15
20
Fn.I5
Fn.45
uiVi7 =1.685
wV7 =1.685
1.0
1.0
0.5
0.5
wrt
wV7i =2.528
=2.528
1.0
1.0
0.5
0.5
wVt7 =3.370
wV't7 =3,370
1.0
1.0
0.5
0.5
I
L
wv'7=L.213
= 4.213
1.0
1.0
0.5
0.5
WVT
wv =5.055
=5.055
1.0
1.0
0.5
0.5
WVT? =5.898
w'ft? =5.898
1.0
1.0
0.5
0.5
10
15
20
10
SECTION -
SEC liON
EXCITING FORCE DISTRIBUTION Fn= .15 AND Fn=45

FIOUR( II
15
20
Fn
Fn.45
.15
HEAVE
HEAVE
0.75
0.75
t
0.50
-;: 0.50
IL.
SQ
0.25
0.25
\
I
PITCH
PITCH
0.75
0.75
o"
0.50
0.50
"S
0.25
0.25
HEAVE PHASE
HEAVE PHASE
120
120
60
60
o0
?oo O
w -60
-60
-120
-120
-180
-180
-240
60
1-60
PITCH PHASE
o
w
120
-180
-240
00
S'
PITCH PHASE
-120
-160
O
-240
CALCULATION FRIESLAND.CLASS
CALCULATION DAVIDSON tYPE A
CALCULATION DAViDSON TYPE A
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
0.5
1.0
LI
/A
VA
TOTAL EXCITING FORCES CALCULATION AND EXPERIMENT Fn.15 AND Fn.45

FIGURE 12
1.5
2.0
F0.45
Fnrr0.15
Fries and cL..
. cotcu atedct.e.fit
1+
+ pv
4
S
2
WEV
bL
V
0.45
= 0.15
A
A
5
o
b
V
i.
-y
o
EQUATION OF MOTION COEFFICIENTS o AND b

FIGURE 13
0.45
0.15
Friosta d ctosi
ed dois fit
e caLcuL
-.
rniciii
exp.: a
L'Jo
pL.=0O
rad.
nn
---+
0.0
flavids 1% type A
caLcuL ed ctoea fit
i.
____
S'
S'
.___-
o
o
wVLi
WEV
F_
0.45
F0.15
0.6
0.5
VI2
VI2
0.1.
0h
0.3
0.3
0.2
OE2
A
e
e
01
0.1
/.
wV
Eg
EQUATION OF MOTION COEFFICIENTS A AND B

FIGURE 11.
F0.45
F = 0.15
Friastc nd class
0.3
OE3
calculated ctcse fut
rn----. rnlrul *d I RwIcfsrm

o expa'npL.=0.O1 rod
f02
o ...
00?.
t.
1104,.
flnvucaru type A
1/4
--.+ calcul atad cl
L/4
se fut
0.1
al
"s_:--
-.0.1
I ii
0.1
02
0.2
03
0.3
0.15
= 0.45
O
02
0.2
VL
a L.
u
04
114
s-- -
-- -.---- ------.--- --a----
a.
0.6
le.
//
118
A
1.0
1.0
1.2
1.2
wEg
VE
VE
Eg
(A)
EOUATION OF MOTION COEFFICIENTS d AND e

FIGURE 15
_-
F.,
F., = 0.45
0.15
OD
t
D
o
D
L,'
/
/
-3
t
-L
ii,
tII_.
i
-5
David
pi
on typ A
catc o ed c o e fi
4
WEV
Eg
F
a,.
0.15
F.,
04
0,45
'i
0.3
f
E
VL
03
VL:
02
02
0.1
0.1
1-
:i\0A,I/
o.
s
-0.1
02
-0.1
-02
3
wVL
Eg
9
4-
EQUATION OF MOTION COEFFICIENTS D AND E

FIGURE 16
REPORT No.90 S
(S 2/89)
ALLEEN VOOR
REPROD UKIIE
April 1967
NEDERLANDS SCHEEPSSTUDI ECENTRUM TNO

NETHERLANDS SHIP RESEARCH CENTRE ThO
SHIPBUILDING DEPARTMENT
LEEGHWATERSTRAAT 5, DELFT
*
COMPUTATION OF PITCH ANDHEAVE MOTIONS
FOR ARBITRARY SHIP FORMS
(DE BEREKENING VAN STAMP- EN DOMPBEWEGINGEN VOOR WILLEKEURIGE
SCHEEPSVORMEN)
W. E. SMITH
ALLEEN VOOR
RE PROD UKTIE
Issued by the Council
REPORT No. 90 S
April 1967
(S 2/89)
NEDERLANDS SCHEEPSSTUDIECENTRUM TNO

NETHERLANDS SHIP RESEARCH CENTRE TNO
SHIPBUILDING DEPARTMENT
LEEGI-IWATERSTRAAT 5, DELFT
*
COMPUTATION OF PITCH AND HEAVE MOTIONS
FOR ARBITRARY SHIP FORMS
(DE BEREKENING VAN STAMP- EN DOMPBEWEGINGEN VOOR WILLEKEURIGE
SCHEEPSVORMEN)
by
W. E. SMITH
Issued by the Council
Netherlands Ship Research Centre TNO, 1967
VOORWOORD
PREFACE
Het belang, datgehecht moet worden aan onderzoek op het
It is hardly possible to over-estimate the importance of the

research on ship motions in seaway, keeping in mind the ioss
of speed, thesafety of the cargo and the comfort ofpassengers
and crew.
gebied van de bewegingen van het schip in zeegang kan

nauwelijks overschat worden, als:men denkt aan het met deze
scheepsbewegingen verband houdende mogelijke sneiheids-
verlies, de veiligheid van de lading en het ongemak voor

passagiers en bemanning.
Tot voor kort konden voor het oplossen van de bewegigs-
vergelijkingen voor dompen enstampen de constanten van

d gekoppelde lineaire bewegingsvergelijkingen slechts bepaald worden aan de hand van in langsscheepse golven uitgevoerde modelproeven, waarna een voorspelling van het
gedrag in zeegang kon volgen.
Verschillende auteurs hebben zich bezig gehouden met de
theoretische berthening van de scheepsbewegingen met
Before some time the only way to get a solution of the

coupled linear differential motion equations for heave and
pitch was the determination ofthe coefficients of these equations by measuring the exciting forces on a model during
forced oscillation tests and on a restrained model in waves.
Subsequently the behaviourof theship in longitudinal waves
could be predicted.
Several authors have been occupied with the theoretical
calculation of ship motions based on potential theory for
two-dimensional shiplike sections or simplified ship forms.
methoden, die gebaseerd waren op de potentiaaltheorie voor

twee-dimensionale vormen, gelijkend op een scheepsdorsnede of voor vereenvoudigde scheepsvormen. Nu het verband van de coflcinten en de uitwendige krachten in de
termen van demping en toegevoegde massa is vastgelegd,
blijft alleen bet vraagstuk over orn een twee-dimensionale
demping en een toegevoegde massa voor elke scheepsdorsnede te berekenen.
H ieris door het transformeren vaneen cirkelvormige doorsnedenaar een scheepsvorm incombinatie met de gemodificeerde striptheorie, een methode ontwikkcld, die niet allen
de bewegingen geeft, maar ook de invloed kan laten zicn van
de scheepsvorm op de bewegingen.
Since the evaluation of the coefficients and exciting forces in
Deiiitkomsten van dberekeningen zijn vergeleken met
werecompared, but also thecoefficientsof the motion equations separate The coefficients computed and those determined from model experiments differ sometimes slightly, but
for the motions the results are good in keeping with ech
other
-
de resultaten van uitgebreidemodelproeven. Voor dit onderzoek werden drie typen jagers bezien, waarvan toch reeds
zeer veci modelexperimentele en ware-grootte-informatie
beschikbaar was. Hierbij werden niet alleen de bewegingen
zeif vergeleken, maar ook de cofficinten van de bewegingsvergelijkingen afzonderiijk. De cofficinten zoals berekend
en zoals verkregen uit modelproeven, geven sorntijds verschulen te zien, maar voorde bewegingen zelf is deovereenstemming goed.
De ontwikkelde methode opent de mogelijkheid orn de
invloed van een wijziging in de scheepsvorm op de scheepsbewegingen te voorspellen. De berekening kan door middel
van een computeruitgevoerd worden en is in principetoepasbaar voor elk type schip.
HET NEDERLANDS 5CHEEPSSTUDIECENTRUM TNO
terms of damping and added mass is completed, there

remains only the problem of computing a two-dimensional
damping and added mass for each of the ship's sections.
Here, by transformingthe unit circle into a sectional ship-
shape, in combination with the modified striptheory, a

method became available foi' evaluating both the motions
and the influence of the shape of the hull on the motions.
The results of the computations are verified with theoutcome of extensive model experiments. For this investigation
three types of destroyers have been examined, of which a
great amount of information was available already, both
motiiitselves
The method developed here gives the opportunity to

predict the influence of a change in the shipform. The
computation can be carried out by using a empoter and
can be applied to 'all types of ships.
THE NETHERLANDS SHIP RESEARCH CENTRE TNO
CONTENTS
page
2
3
Summary
Introduction
Ship models used for calculation and experiment
Motion tests
3.1 Friesland class
3.2 DD 692 and Davidson Type A

4
5
Calculations
Transformation coefficients
Discussion
7
7
9
10
10
10
- ;-1 012
13
6.1
Friesland class
15
6.2
6.3
DD692
Davidson Type A
21
6.4 Comparison of the results

Conclusions
Acknowledgement
References
21
21
26
30
30
LIST OF SYMBOLS
jCoefficients of the equations of motion for heave and pitch

Transformation coefficient
Area of waterplane
Normalized transformation coefficient
-
a0
Area of cross-section
Section' damping coefficient
Midship beam
Transformation coefficient
Block-coefficient
Total vertical' force on ship
Vertical force on a section
b'
BM
B
CB
F
F'
F"
Vertical hydrodynamic force per unit area on section

Wave force 'amplitude on restrained 'ship
F0
Fn
g
Froude number
Acceleration due to gravity
Longitudinal moment of inertia of waterplane area with respect to
the Yb axis
Real moment of inertia of ship
k=
L00
M
M0
m
m'
N'
N"
P
S(y, z)
S,
t
T.
V
xb,Yb, Zb
Yw(X)
z
z0
C
C0
y
A
fi
w
we
dm'
dxb
Wave number
Radius of gyration in pitch
Length over all
Length between perpendiculars
Total' moment on ship
Wave moment amplitude on restrained ship
Total' added mass for. heave.
Sectional added mass.
Added mass per unit;surface area
Sectional damping (-Without -speed effect.)
Damping per unit surface:area

Pressure-on'sectionalsrface
Section surface
Statical 'moment, of waterplane area
Time
Draft of ship
Draft of cross-section.
Speed of ship
Right-handed body axis system
Half width of waterline
Heave displacement
Heave amplitude
Phase angle between the motions (forces, moments) and the waves
Instantaneous wave elevation
Wave amplitude
Pitch angle
Pitch amplitude
Transform plane angle
Wave length
Physical plane angle
Density of water
Displacement volume
Circular frequency
Circular frequency of enconter
Rate ofchange of added mass-in the Xb direction
- Local rate of change of added mass in the-xb direction

Displaced weight
COMPUTATION OF PITCH AND HEAVE MOTIONS

FOR ARBITRARY SHIP FORMS *)
by
W. E. SMITH **)
Summary
Analyticalmethodsare used to determine thpitch:and heave motiOns in headwavesfor three ship forms of the destroyertype.
A'omputational method using a multiple coefficient transformation for the ship cross sectional shapes is used Transforma
tion methods for arbitrarily shaped ship sections are discussed The results from computation and expeiiment are compared
Agreement is found to depend significantly on the accuracy of the cross section transformation When the proper trans
formation is used, the influence of variation in hull shape on the motion can be accounted for.
Agreement between motion computation and experiment is excellent. Computed longitudinal distributions of damping,
added mass and exciting forces are discussed.
i Introduction
motions in a seaway has long been of major interest
to both the ship designer and seakeeping researcher.
The equations of motion consist of two coupled

linear differential equations containing cross coupling terms proportional to acceleration, velocity
and displacement. This representation, while ong-
shapes such as 'ow resistance forms, bulbous bows,
related to strip theory and is completely general as
An analytical method for the computation of ship
The need for stich a technique has been greatly inally developed by KORVIN KROUKOVSKY [1] using
increased.by-the-appearance-of-manyunusuth1ill _astrip-theory-approach-is, however, in no way
sonar domes, etc., for which an evaluation of the
effects of hull shapes on the motion characteristics
is vital.
For pitch and heave motions in head seas, the

formulation of the problem is reasonably complete
and may be described: as that of obtaining the

coefficients of an appropriate set of equations which
relate for a particular ship's geometry the wave

surface amplitude or sonic other measurable wave
property to the resulting motion of a ship. The
far as the motion representation is concerned. In

fact, the only assumptions inherent in such a representation are those (a) of linearity and (b) that for
long crested head waves the couplingof other modes
of motion into pitch and heave is small and can be
neglected. Further, they are easily extended to

include all six coupled modes of motion as shown
by CuMMIN5 [2]. The validity of such a representation Was established experimentally by GERRITSMA
[3]. This same experiment also established the
fundamental work over the past century has been

primarily that of (a) determining, theappropriate
form of th equations of motions; (b) obtaining a
valid relationship between a particular hull geometry and the coefficients of the equations (so-
theory of superposition, the equivalence of regular
force on a specified hull form (so-called right-hand
the evaluation of the coefficients and exciting forces

in termsof the dampingand added mass associated
with a particular hull form. It alsocontains velocity
and random wave testing, and the frequency dependence of the equation of motion coefficients;
The coefficients and exciting forces were formulated via a so-called strip theory method as devel-
called left-hand side); and (c) relating the free oped !by K0RvIN KROUKOVSKY [1] and extended
surface contours or wave shape to the resulting :by GERRITSMA [4, 5, 6]. This formulation permits
side). The motion equations are:
Heaving:
dependent terms which account for most of the

forward speed effects in both the coefficients and
the exciting forces. This has been experimentally
(aV)+b+czdegO =
FaCoS(oetHp)
Pitching.:
demonstrated by GERRITSM [4, 5, 6, 11, 12].
= MaCOs(wet+8MC)
*) Publication no. 32 Delft Shipbuilding Laboratory.
* *) Physicist, David Taylor Model Basin, Washington, D.C.,
at Shipbuilding Laboratory, Delft on research assignment.
There remained only the problem of computing

for a specific geometry a two dimensional damping
and added mass for each of the ship's sections; This
can be accomplished by using the URSELL [7] two
dimensional Solution for a circular cylinder oscillting at the free surface, and conformally mapping
this solution for the circle into a particular sectional shape. Such a mapping or transformatin
was originally accomplished- by TASAs [8] in which
a three coefficient or Lewis form transformation

Was used. This works quite well for many of the
simpler ship forms whose shapes are closely approximated by the Lewis form family. It, however,
gives poor results for sections not properly fitted by
the -Lewis form coefficients. Also, it can be shown
that -if this method is used to determine the effects
of sectional shape variatiOns- on the motions, the
difference between the computed values and those
obtained experimentally is approximately equal to
the differences being investigated.
PORTER [9] experimentally verified the Ursell
solution for the circular cylinder and extended the
transformation expressions to include an arbitrarily
developed which permits the transformation of the
unit circle into -any simply connected sectional

shape. With this and the modified form of strip
theory, as developed by GER-RITSMA -[5, 6] a method
for evaluating not only -the motions but the influence of hull -shape on the mot-ions, is available.
The availability of such a program immediately
presents many possibilities. At long last, we can do
quick and inexpensive experiments on- a -computer.
Further, it is possible to-look in detail at the various
terms of the equation of motion. This should provide- new insight into the physical- mechanisms in-
volved. As additional computer experiments are

performed and the limitations of the program- are
evaluated, this in itself shuld provide additional
infrmation concerning the physics -of ship motion.
It has long been recognized that when experi-
large number of transformation coefficients. He
mentally investigating ship motions, -the change of
also showed experimentally the accuracy -of such- a

transform solution for a number of two dimensional
ship-like sections. PORTER did not, however, provide a method for determining the coefficients for
a given section-. - Such a- method has- -now been
one hull dimension is extremely difficult. This is
Table I
not so for-a computer program, anindividual design

dimension can be artificially varied on -a computer
and-its effects assessed. In addi t-ion, t-hereis evidence
that such a multi-coefficient or close fit program is
Model characteristics
-
Scale ratio.
-Length L in m
.
Beam in-m
Dra ft--DWL) in ni
-Displacement in-kg,
Block coefficient
Midship -area coefficient
Prismatic coefficient
Waterplane area coefficient
Longitudinal center of mass aft or forward L1,5/2 in m
Radius of gyration pitch
DD 692
Friesland
40
1.741
0.2935.
-0.0975
--
67.09
2.8 lO
-
Davidson- A
0.187
00635
44.55
0.554
0.815
0.679
0.798
0.0293 aft
- -l090
0.524 -
1.741
- 0.185
0.0635-
10.98........
0:824
0.636
.0.762
0.0345 aft
0.25 L,
0.259 LDV
0.536-
0.778
-0.689
0.739
0.0280 fwd
0.25 L,
lo
tL
4'
i'V
Fig
Friesland class frigate
--
Fig. 2
DD 692 destroyer
required for even the simplest hull forms when

computing relative motions, bending moments,
bow immersions, etc.
Ship models used for calculation and

experiment
In order to evaluate the capabilities of such a
2
tally at the Davidson Laboratory (BREsLIN and

ENG [10]). This particular ship, like the Friesland
class frigate, is a form for which the motion cornputation program is known to work well. A com.
parison between the Davidson Laboratory experiment for this hull and computed values would,
therefore, in effect be a comparison of motion

responses obtainable from experiments in the two
computation mthod three hull forms wereselected.

The forms chosen were: (a) a conventional frigate
hull which had been previously tested by the Delft
Shipbuilding Laboratry; (h) a similar form which
tanks. The third (figure 3), a Dvidson Type A
had been tested at the Davidson Laboratory; and

(c) a radically shaped destroyer which had been
designed and tested at the Davidson Laboatory.
Each of the three forms are similar in total displacement and cross-sectional area (see Table I).
a narrow water line but which widens with increasing draft. Sectional shapes of this type are
The first frm selected (figure 1)., a Friesland class

frigate, is one for which the motion characteristics
This ship, therefore, provides an excellent test of

the program's multiple coefficient transformation
dstroyer, is a Ship with a conventional afterbody,

hut with a strongly bulged forebody. The forbody
sectional shapes are of unconventional design with
ones which the Lewis form transformation either

fits badly or, as in the case of sections 14 through
20, does not even exist as a simply connected shape.
have been extensively investigated by the Delft capability. Also, a comparison between such a close
Shipbuilding Laboratory.
fit computation and experiment should provide an
The motions have been measured and com- indication as to whether a potential solutin and
pared at both full and model scale (GERRITSMA and modified strip theor.ycanproperlyrepresent the.
S[6JBLEDSOE, BUSSEMAKER and CUMMINS hydrodynamics of a radically flared or bulbous
[14]).. Further, the coefficients of the equations of
motion have been determined from forced oscillation model experiments and, similarly, the wave
exciting forces and moments have been measured
(SMITH [15]). This model, therefore, provides a
standard for reference which not only dmonstrates
the accuracy of the motion computations for a con-
ventional hull form but also provides a detailed

standard for the various terms in the equations of
motion. The second (figure 2), the DD 692 class,
is a onventional destroyer hull for which the motion characteristics were determined experimen-
sectitin, or whether such non linear effects as eddy

currents, flow separation, viscosity, etc. are sufficiently large to significantly affect the computation
accuracy. It could further indicate conclusively

whether or not the effect on the motion due to hull
shape variation can be accounted for using such a
theory. Accordingly, a set of close fit transformation coefficients were obtained for each of the ship
forms and these in turn were used in the computa-
tion of pitch and heave mOtion responses for a

range of wave lengths and ship speeds. The speeds
considered were in a Froude number range from
V - ship speed.
C
wave ceterity
lo
X X0
6
Xb
wave -
ac0s(ouit)
t.o.v. .x
y0 z0
toy. Xyz ..XoO
Fig. 3 Davidson Type A destroyer
heave -
z= z oes (u e t+ Cz)
pitch -
8= Gacos(wet4Ce)
W5 W + jLV
Fig. 4. Definition of wave and motions
'o
Fn = 0.15 to Fn = 0.55. The wave lengths con-
SKY [1] and modified and extended by GERRITSMA
sidered were for a range from L/A = 0.3 to

L/A = 2.5.
[5, 6]. Briefly, the procedure is as follows:
The definition of the wave and ship motions

concerned is given in figure 4.
For the Friesland class frigate computed results
were compared with experimentally obtained motion responses and phase angles The DD 692 and
DavidsonType A were.compared with.experimental
results for three wave lengths as extracted from the
BRESLIN and ENG report [l0]..
3
3.1
Motion tests
The ship is divided up into a number of sections and the individual. sections are each represented by a set of (y, z) offset values. Depending on
the severity of the setional shape, an adequate

representation is provided by 15 to 30 offset values
evenly spaced around the periphery.
Transformation coefficients are computed
using the (y, z) offset values in an iterative process
which is permitted to converge until the root mean
square differencebetween the actual sections (offset
values) and the transformed shape is as small as
Friesland class
desired.
The Friesland class hull form was tested by the

Delft. Shipbuilding Laboratory at both model and
The two dimensional added mass, damping,

and the variatin of added mass (dm/dx) lngitu-
full scale. Since the results from the model and full
scale tests were virtually identical as far as motion
responses are concerned, only the model test results
are used for comparison. The model was tested in
regular longcrested head waves for pitch and heave
dinally along the ship are computed for each of the

sections by methods from [7, 9].
A modified form f strip theory [5] is used
to determine the coefficients of the equations of

motion for the various frequencies and speeds of
motions The model length was 2.81 m and was

operated with a radius f gyration of 0.25 L or
advance.
Exciting forces are computed for each sectkn
using [6].
0.259
All testing. was done in regular long crested head
The equations of motion are solved and the

complex
frequency response functions are comwaves with a peak to peak height 2a =L/40..
puted
for
the speeds and frequencies desired..
Wave lengths were varied from L/,l = 0.5 to
The heave and pitch equations of motion asL/) = 2.0. Testing wasdonefor a rangeofFroude
numbers from Fn = 0.15 to Fn
0.55. Test con- suming. negligible coupling between the other four
modes of motion are
ditions are summarized in Table II.
Heaving: eV2 = F
3.2 DD 692 and Davidson Type A
(eq. 1)
Pitching: Vkyy2 = M
The motion test results as extracted from the
BRESLIN and ENG report [10] were performed in In terms of the force and moment distributions
regular waves of LR = 0.75, 1.0, and 1.25 over along the ship force F and the moment M are:
a range of Froude numbers from Fn = O to 0.60.
Heaving: F = f F'dxb
The wave height (double amplitude) used in these
(eq. 2)
tests was again 2a L/40.
Pitching: M = -/ F'xbdxb
A comparison of the pitch and heave motions
made in this report between the Davidson Type A where:
and the DD 692 shows a remarkable reduction in z - heave displacement
pitch for all Froude numbers above Fn = 0.15 for O - pitch displacement
the first mentioned type (see figures 5 through 9). F - total vertical force on the ship
M - total pitch moment on the ship
4 Calculations
F' - vertical force on a section
The calculations are based on a form of the strip xb - longitudinal ship coordinate
- radius of gyration in pitch.
theory originally developed by KORvIN KRouKovTable II Model test conditions
Speed
Wave length ratio

Wave height ratio
= 0.15, 0.25, 0.35, 0.45, 0.55

Fn
L2,,,/ = 0.500, 0.555, 0.625, 0.714, 0.833, 1.000, 1.250, 1.670, 2.000
= 1/40
11
Dividing the 'ship into sections and emplbyi'ig, a

modified form of strip theory which. includes forward' speed effects, the sectional force is the sum
of three parts: the hydrostatic force, the damping
force and the inertia force.
F' = _29g.yw(zb_xbOb_.*) +
S(y, z). - surfac.e 'sectiOn

m"
- added mass per 'unit surface area
P'
N"
- pressure' on the sectinal surface.

- damping. per unit surface area..
Therefore the sectional damping and added mass

become.:
N'
N'(2bxbb+ VOb_*)
[m'(xO+ VO*')]
(eq. 3).
in which:
(eq. 6)
[m" ds
'
(eq. 7)'
Substituting eq.. (2) and (3). in eq. (1), with the
V - forward speed of the ship'

Yw half width of water line
m' - sectional added mass
N' sectional. damping'
T - draft of a section
- instantaneous wave elevation
and * = (l
= / N" ds
k
YW
application of eq. (5). through (7) and. retaining on

the right only terms representing wave forces, the
equations of motion become -.
Heaving:
'(a+V)2bczdeO--gO =
= Facos(oet+rFc)
J yb,eb dzb)
--T
The expression. for

lowing form:
' may be wtitten in the fl-
B + GO'D2
= MaCOS(0)et+ CM).
where T* is determined from:

k
- E Gz =
From references [1., 5] the coefficients are
= -.1
- lg (1
eq. 8)
Pitching:
(A
- )WT
b r=/N'
f .Y ekzb dZb)
Here T*' can be considered asthe distance under

the wave surface of the point of application of the
pressure frces, which are caused, by the wave.
For a particular sectiOn and' considering only
the hycirodynamic part of the force, the vertical
db
m'
dx - f dm'
- dx
Ld
c=gA
d
e
component of the force per unit area on the section

surface S(y, z) is:
= f m'x6 dx
= f N'xdxb-2 Va .VldmXbdXb
L
g -. gS'Vb'
(eq. 9)
A = frn'xb2dxb
B'=f N'xb2dxb-2 VD- v,[-
Ldxb
xb2dx6
C=,?gIVE
D .=
/ m'xb dxb
E =f N'xb'dxb
F" = Pcos(,,z)
(eq. 4).
or dividing, intO parts in phase with the acce1ratin and with the .velocity:
F"
m"zb+N"zb,
where:
F"
dxb
'G=gS
in which.:'
1dm
dxb,
dxb
ds
(eq. 10)
(eq.. 5)
- vertical force per unit area on' section
and:
Ub
- local rate of change of added mass in

the Xb directibn.
12
The representation of the terms of the coefficients
dm"
is somewhat different from the usual one. The
LS dxb
reason is the addition of the forward speed effect to

+w2
the added mass coefficients. This facilitates the

comparison with experimental data, as explained
further in section 6.4, page 21.
From reference 6 abut written in a different way,
the exciting forces and moments are.:
05
2gf vw cos (kXb) dxb +
_2w2 f /.ybebcos(kxb)dzbdxb +
dm"
eb sinkxb) dsdxb +
+w VLSCIXb
ff
=(jj2 f f m' e kzbcos (kxb) ds dx
a f f N" e kZb sin (kxb) th.dx6

Ls
Fa
[frn" xe k5jfl (kxb) dsdx +
(eq. 11)
w /[N" Xb e kzbcos (kxb) clsdxb

where:
S - is the surface of the section.

k - is equal to w2/g.
5
Transfrmation coefficients
For the transformation coefficients a numerical

method is used to generate a set of coefficients
which conformally maps the exterior of the unit
> I intO the exterior of a given simply
circle
connected region. For this program the boundary
of the region may be given analytically, or by a
f (y, z) points, i.e. a table of offset
discreet set
values (yj,
= 2g f v
sin
Xb ICb coS(kxb) dsdxb +
si
(kxt,) dxb +
_2w2 [f y ekzb sin (kxb)dz6dxb +

ezbcOS (kxb) dsdxb +
wV 11dm"
dxb
Ls
w2 f
f m" e'b Sin (cxs) ds dx
LS
+w // N" e kzb cos (kxb) dsdxb
The mapping function is:

N
Ma
- 2g
cos
-I
Jw Xb cos (kxb) dxb +
+ 2w2 !!T
n= i
xbe .Zb.eos(kxb)dzb dxb +
Vffm,xbebsin(kxb) dsd
C=
(AiB) (cos ny - i sin ny)
(eq. 12)
where:
W =.y+iz = re
and:
0)2 f / rn" Xb ebcos (kxb) ds dxb +
f f N"x eb sin (kxb)'ds.db
The notation, which is somewhat different from

that used by TASAI, PORTER, etc. was selected to
Ma.
conform with the standard right-handd coordi-
sin EM
- 2g f Jw Xb sin (kxb) dxb +
+2w2 f f ybxbebsin(kxb) dbdxb +
nate system normally sed to describe ship motiOns

(figure 4).
From equation (12) for a particular set of offset
values we have.:
13
or in normalized form:
n=I
N
Zj =
n=i
(A cos fl/i + Basin nyc)
=cosyj +
A_1
eq. 13)
(A sin ny + Bcos nyi)
n'=O
a2fl+lcos(2n+l)yi
'(eq. 16)
Zi
= siflyi -
a,-4-j sin (2n+1)y

n=
This system of equations (13), for equally spaced

arguments, is characterized by ari interesting property, it is easily inverted with respect to the coeffi
where:
A_i =
i+
a27
cients A,, and B. This is a consequence of the
=0
property of orthogonality, which trigonometric
which may be treated as a scale factor.
functions of discreet arguments possess in the case

of equally spaced points (KRYLOV [13]).
Inverting equation (13):

A
-- jI
B,, =
--
(ytcos Ny - Z sin nyi)

(eq. 14.)
(yjSihi nyj zjcos nyi)
n= 1,O,i,2...I-2
Eqiiatin (14) permits the coefficients A and B
to be easily calculated by an iterative numerical
process which can provide transformation coeffi
cients which transforms a simply connected region
with any reasonable preassigned accuracy (sectional fit).
For symmetrical shapes represented by equations

(15) which include all of the sections considered in
this paper, the computation time and the number
of coefficients required are quite modest. For example, only five coefficients and 25 seconds of computer time were required to obtain a representation
of the Davidson Type A midship section. The relatively radical section 19 of the same ship form (see
figire_3)requiredsix-minutes-and46-coefficients.
A variety of sectional shapes have been mapped
with this program, including such extremes as rec
tangles, triangles, sections with bilge keels, and sections with anti-pitch finsi In evry case an extremely close fit was obtained.
6
The coefficient program is designed to handle

any simply connected shape, symmetrical or asymetrical, with respect to the coordinate axis. Further, it can accommodate any shape capable of
being transformed with a pre-selected accuracy by
not more than 256 A and 256 B,,. Even though the
Discussion
The computation method for the three ships was

as follbws: Each of the 'ships was represented by 21
cross-sections which, as. is the practice in naval

architecture, were evenly spaced along the ship
with the first cross-section ldcated at the aft perprogram can accommodate completely asymetrical pendicular and the 21st cross-sectin at the forshapes, the sectional outlines usually encountered ward perpendicular. Each of the cross-sections was
in ship-building are symmetrical with respect to represented by a table f 20 (y, z) offset values. For
both they and z axis This, of course, refers only the Friesland appropriate offset values for each
to the portion of the hull below the mean free section were obtained from a master table of offsets
surface and for they axis symmetry the upper two provided by the ship's designers. The required
quadrants are considered to be mirror images of values fr the DD 692 and Davidson' Type A were
the submerged portion. This symmetry assumption taken from body plan diagrams provided in the
insures that all of the B coefficients are zero and
likewise, the A coefficients for even n are also zero.
The resultant transformation equations are:

N.
= E A21 cos (2n + 1) y

n
z=
nI
A2+1sin (2n + l)y)
i=l',2,.3...I
BRESLIN, ENG report [10] The'offset values for each
cross-section were selected so that they were approximately evenly spaced around the periphery
of the half section lying between the load water
line, = 0, and the keel, = i/2. It should be

emphasized that, while this is contrary to the
normal ship designers practice of using evenly
spaced water lines, the equal spacing around the
periphery is very necessary to insure a proper fit
by the transformation coefficients.
14
the two were virtually identical. The convergence

criteria of 1.0 percent AX/TX has been found to be
sufficient for all normal computations. The normalized coefficient values obtained for the three
The offset values for the 21 sections were used

as input to the transformation coefficient program.
For the ships considered here,. an iterative fitting
process was allowed to continue for each section
until the sum of the square of the difference between the 20 new or transformed values and the
actual or original offset values was less than 0.01
percent of th mean beam A/T. The transformed
ships are given jn Tables III, IV and V.

The 21 sets. of transformation coefficients ob-
shapes so obtained were compared with the original

cross-sections and in'every case, including the rather
tained for each ship were then used to calculate the

pitch and heave motion responses.
During the motion computations intermediate
values such as sectional added mass and damping,
radical shapes of the Davidson Type A forebody,
coefficients of the equation of motion, exciting
Table HI Friesland class transformation coefficients, normalized form

Sectin
0
Coeff.
+075500 +0.098500 0.113200 +0.124500 +0.132200 +0.37700 +0.142000 +0.144800 +0.146750 +0.l4675
0.756566 +0.469845 +0320917 +0.207701 +0.207195 +0.207667 +0.211572 +0.213333 +0:216503 +0.218431
-0.011692 +0.052863 0075972 +0.106067 +0.061324 +0.029689 +0.004282 -0.012338 --00201l2 -00257l
+0.001154 -0.019783 -0:038869 -0.066257 -0.042457 -0.029765 -0.022487' -0.018722 -00l8272 -01884'
+0.000056 +0.013053 +029925 +0.035318 +0.017287 +0.008908 +0.006029' +0.003570 +0.002268 -0M0002+0.000643 -0.000377 -OOO5396 -0.011768 -0M06230 -0.004031 -0.002504 -0.001663 -0.000439 -0.00326
+0.000012, +0.005580' +0.007198 +0.009417 +0.004646 +0.002923 +0.001846 +0.001182 +00O14l9 -0.00140
-0.001163 -O0O3'778 -0.001389 +0.000106 +0.000776 +0.001235 -0.000361 -0.001411 -0.000603 -0.00145
0
0
0
0
0
-0.000325 0
O
O
O
y(x)
a1
a3
a5
a,
a1
a11
a13
aj,
Table IV DD 692 transformation coefficients, normalized formSection

Coeff.
'0
91
+0.064000 0073200 O.080200i +0M85'lOO '0.088700 +0091300 +0.092600 +00935O0, +0:0935d

+0;503369 +0417424 +034547l +0.276803 +0.223354+0.188119 0.177393- +0.177750, +0.17524
+0.004956 +0018417 0.0l74l'6 +O:OJ30O5 +0.035442 -0.004492 -0:20053 -0.028284 -00361-5
y(x)
a,
a3
a7
0
0
0
a,
a,1
a,
-0.043042 -0.024534 -0.014502' -0010l77' -0:005611- -0.011570 '-'0:003672 -0000034 +th00108

+0.019135 -0.001778. +0.003559' +0.001562 +0.006130 +0.010788 +0.004691 +0.002839 +0:00145
'0
.8
Table V Davidson Type A transformation coefficients, normalized form

Sectio
Coeff.
Yw(X)
a1
a3
"1
+0.054800 +0.066100 +0:075400 +0.081800 +0.085300 +0087800 +0.089400 +0M91000 0.092400 +0.09270
0.634763 +0.-538712' +0:475447 +0.405580 +0.337851 +0.276044 '+0.227559+0.204095 +0.196954 +0.19449
+0.008824 +0.008272 +0:016456 +0.033001 +0.040889 +0:049993 +0.061934. +0.048229 +0.30584 +0.01656
-0.018587 -0.032341 -029574 -0.028604 -0.029224 -0.031944 -0.03l'540 -0.016625 -0.006254 -0.0032-7
a,
-0.014569 +0.000787 +0:006433' +0.004568 0.009562 +0.012645 +00O8042 -0.001.761 -0.002119 -0.00426
-a7
-r--0;004427'
'O
a11
a13
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
a1,
a1,
a1,
a,1
-0
a,,
0
0
0
0
a,7
0
0
0
a25
0
0
0
0
0
a,,
a31
a,
'
'0
15
forces and moments were obtained. This, therefore, permits a comparison and evaluation of these
intermediate values as well as the motio characteristics The motions and intermediate values were
computed for a number of wave lengths and ship
Froude number En = 0.55. In this case, the com

puter values for the pitch amplitude are slightly
higher than experiment. It should also be noted
that the experimental values shown for this ship
have also been compared with full scale measure-
speeds.
ments, GERRITSMA, SMITH [6] where the agreement
again was almost perfect. In the full scale corn6.1
pai4ison .a Lewis fOrm (three coefficient) transformation was used. The Lewis form computer results
showed small diffeences at the higher frequencies,
Friesland class
The motion comparion between computation and

experiment for the Friesland was quite good, with
virtually perfect agreement for all conditinsexcept
even though for this ship the Lewis form fit is a
Table I'll
Section
10
14
13
12
11
15
16
18
17
20
19
0.146750 + 0.145800 +0.144000 +0.139300 +0A309001 +0.! 19600 +0.104700 +0.086000 +0.062300 + 0.03 3500 0.002100
0.216715 +0.212799 + 0.202529 +0.181780 + 01 4926 +0.102148 +0.032946 - 0.076855 -0.251106 - 0.543066 0.771895
0.02 7852 -0.02 42 69 -0M 18025 -0.009248 -0:001207 +0.012882 +0.031142 + 0.048723 + 06 7091 0.072455 -0.011656
0.017610 -ft0l7266 -0.013083 -0.007731 - th005303 -0MO 1754 + 0.000396 +0.005114 + 00832 1 + 0.006943 +0;008758
0.000264 +0.000713 + 0.002804 + O004184 +0M06101 + 0.006435 + 0.006409 + 0.009881 + 0M09783 +0.010588 -0.007105
0.002677 - 0002 138 - 0.000938 - 0.000392 +0001 176 +000622 0.000692 0.002496 + 0MO2 557 0.001713 + 0.012262
0.000586. - 000237 + 0.000293 +0.000411 + 0M00798 +0t001650 0.002 305 + 0.003241 + 0M03026 +0.0055.03 0M05027
0M01643 - 0O0O659 =0.0002.1 9- - 0000i4 4 - 00037T O;000754 F00007 34: + 000083 + 000436 -0.000442 -0.000376
o
Table IV
Section
1!
10
12
14
13
16
15
18
1.7
19
20,
-.093500 +0.091400 +0.087600 +0.82200 +0.07470 +0M6540 0.054500 +0.42000 0:028300 +0.013900
-0.170747 +0.163304 +0.145807 + O. 116446 +0M685l5 -0:0007531 -0.092987 -0.227172 - 0:409429 .- 0.628993
-0.032108. -0:027961 -0.015651 -0.003523 +0Ml 1781 +0:025146i 0.033940 .+ 0.040215 +0:037197 -0.019362
-0.001.151 +0:002512 0.001560 +0.001432 +0:002266 +0:00254 -0.000376 -0.002547 -0:001702 -0.026939
0.000873 +0:003814 +0.005334 +0.005635 +0:0O9013 +0:0090861 +0.011585 +0.010463 +0:004567 +0.025548
o
o
o
0
o
0
o
0.
0
o
-0.012814
0
0
0
0
0
0
19
20
+0.010061
Table V
Section
10
13
12
11
14
15
16
17
18
O.0927O0 +0.091300 +O.085900 +0.077500 0.066600 +0056O0O +0.043500 +0.031500 +0M21 100 +0.012000 +0.000100
O..i93795 +0.182833 +0.159812, 0.129027 +0.087717 00442O7, -0.008312 -0.069047 ---O.l56982 -0.321085 0
0004721 -0000003 -0013634 -0037071 -0063870 -0'092O86l-011545O -0133027-0153040-0167356+0849541
-0.002115 -0.002151 -0.0063901 -0.023765 -0.038991 -005303 -0.062931 -0.065924 -0.077415 -0:079463
-0.004379 -0.002419 -0.0044201 -0M15333 -0.024243 -0:029453 -0.039177 -0.044839 -0.051034 -0M535O5
O
O
O
0
-0.016527 -O!017523 -0029847 -0.035147 -0:036673 -0.036656
O
O
O
-O.007892 -001 1381 -0:021379 -0.024859 -0.0278501 -0.028859
O
O
O
-O0l.1643 -0.018640 -0.0211567 -0.023534 -0.022944
O
O
O
O
O
-0i008125 -0.012810 -0.014049 -0.016615 -0.016122
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
-O0O6435l -OM11540 -0.014018 -016084 -0:016587
o
o
o
-0.008154 -0.010711 -0.0119001 -0:009329
o
o
o
0
O
0
0
0
.0
0
0
-0.008382 _O.0094491
o
0
o
0
0.
-0.008175 -O.008663i
-0.007344 -0.0074661
-0.004600 -0.005942
-0.004671 -0.0054881
-0.004484 -0.004837
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
o
.
16
Fn=.15
Fnc15
HEAVE
15
II
I
I'I)
HEAVE
15
%
%
7LI
I
i:o
1.0
N;
05
0.5
PITCH
PITCH
1.0
1t0
o:s
0,5
a)
a)
o
o,,III
HEAVE PHASE
HEAVE PHASE
90
go
PITCH PHASE
PITCH PHASE
L:
_O: O O
-180
-180
90
-
OS
-270
-270
-360
HOOD. EXPEISMONO FRIESLAND CLASS
-360
MODEL EXPERINT DAV!DSOM TYPE A
jIODEL EXPERDIT FRIESLAND CLASS

MODEXPERFIENT DD-5R2
CALCULATIOH FRIESLAND CLASS

CALCyLATION DAVIDSO1'TYPE A -COEYO
0.5
to
1:5
2.0
2.5
0.5
1:0
Fig. 5 Comparison of calculation and model experiment Fn = 0.15
15
2.0
2:5
1.7
Fn.25
s
I
HEAVE
1.5
Fn.25
ri
..
II
Ii
i
HEAVE
15
1.0
1L0
'J
N
0.5
0.5
PITCH
PITCH
1.0
1.0
0.5
HEAVE PHASE
HEAVE PHASE
90
o.
90
00
I
PITCH PHASE
PITCH PHASE
-90
O
'
-180
-270
-270
o
-360
O MODO. EXPERINDIT FRIESLAND CLASS
-360
A NDDELEXPERIMENTDAVIDSON TYPEA
ESPERDIOIT FRIESIAIID CLASS

- O MODEL
MODEL EXPERIMENT DO-NU!

CALCULATIONDO-592
0.5
i:o
1.5
2.0
2.5
0.5
1.0
L!
'A
Fig. 6
Comparison of calculation and model experiment Fri = 0.25
15
2.0
2.5
18
Fn.35'
Fn=.35
'I'
g t
HEAVEI
HEAVE
t5
1.5
1.0
1o'
0.5
05
PITCH
PITCH
HEAVE PHASE
HEAVE PHASE
to
90
90
j(N
'ii
.1'
PrrcH PAASE
PITCH PHASE'
-90
-180
-180
-270
-270
-360
MODEL EXPERIMENT FRIESLANOCLASS
IVIDEL EXPERIMENT DAVIOSI TYPE A
-360
- CALCULATION FRIESLAND' CLASS

'I'
i-
0.5
1.0
1.5
't
2.0'
MODEL EXPERIMENT FRIESlAND CLASS
MUIEL EXPERIMENT OD- 692

ciCuLATOM DD 992
'I
2.5
'to'
0.5
LI
/A
Fig. 7 comparison of calculation and' model' experiment Fn = 35
1.5
2.0
2.5
19
Fn.45
Fn=.45
HEAVE
I'
HEAVE
1.5
1.5
1.0
N
0.5
Zi.o
0.5
o
PITCH
PITCH.
1.0
1.0
0.5
HEAVE. PHASE
HEAVE PHASE
90
90
o
o
t
PITCH PHASE
'3
rn
-90
-180
-180
-270
-270
-360
O MODEL EXPERIMDNTFRIESLAND CLASS
-360
HODEUEXPERIMENTDAYIDSON TYPE A
CALCULATIOIFFRIE5LMID CLASS
0.5
o OOEL EXPERIMENTEll-EH
- CALCI.U.ATION FRIESLANDCLAOS
PITCH PHASE
-90
CALCULATIOUDD- 692
i,
1.0
1.5
I-20
2.5
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
LI
/A
Fig. 8
Comparison of calculation and model experiment Fn = 0.45
2.5
20
Fn=.55
Fn .55
HEAVEr\
HEAVE
i \
15
1.0
0.5
0.5
PITCH
PITCH
00
00
1.0
0.5
0.5
(D
(D
-a
HEAVE PHASE
HEAVEPHASE
90
90
PITCH PHASE
-9(
-180
-180
-270
-270
-360
O MODEL EXPERIMENT FRIESLAND CLASS

p
o NOOALEKPERI4IT 'FRILND
-360
FIEDEL EKPERO4ENT DAVISSN TYPE A
D NODEL.EXP0004ENT 00-092
'CALCULATION FRIESLAND CLASS
- CALCULATR)NFRIESI.ANDCLASS
CALCULATION0D-6fl
.CALCULATIONDAVIDSOU TYPE A
if
'I
0.5
10,
'I
15
2.0
25
I'
05
t0
Fig. 9' Comparison of calculation and model experiment Fn = 0.55
1.5
2.0
25
21
good one. The close fit program has produced even

better agreement. The diflrences between the two
computation methods are insignificant when con.sideririg the design aspects of ship motions, but are
in themselves interesting since they demonstrate

that a close fit computation is capable of accounting. for small differences in hull shape. Also, it
provides an excellent check on the correctness of
programming and numerical analysis aspects of the
close fit program.
6.2 DD 692
The comparison between computation and experiment for the DD 692 is a comparison between close
fit computer results and Davidson laboratory experimental results extracted from the BRESLIN, ENG
report [10]. The motion amplitude comparison

generally gave only a fair agreement, with the
pitch motioi amplitudes agreeing better than the
heave. Theexperimental values are generallyhigher
than those from computation, with the largest differences occurring at the lower frequencies. Also,
it should_be_pointed-out-that--thisis-only-alimited
comparison, since experimental: data is available
for only three wave fre4uencies. As this ship is one
of a class or type, for which both the Lewis form
and close fit computations have always shown good
agreement with experiments,, such a comparison of
computation and experiment is, in effect, a comparison between motion responses obtainable from
experiments in the two tanks. There is apparently
a rather large difference between the experiments
in the two tanks, especially in the heaveamplituds,
and is thought to be of sufficient significance to

warrant additional investigation.
6.3
Davidson Type A
The Davidson Type A results are also a comparison

between close fit computation and Davidson labo-
ratory experiments. The Davidson laboratory experiments for this ship show a remarkabl reduction in pitch amplitudes at high speed when compared with more conventional ships.
When comparing, the computed and measured
motions for the Davidson Type A,, the results are
remarkably good. Of foremost interest is the nearly
perfect agreement between Davidson experiment
motions do not show as good agreement for Fn =
0.15 and 0.25. in these instances the computed

heave motion 'amplitude is overestimated near re-
sonance The general agreement is good: for the

limited amount of 'experimental data available,
however, a more detailed experiment over the
entire frequency range of comparison will be necessary for a completely conclusive evaluatiOn.
6.4
Gomparison of the. results
It was felt that such an unusual form as the Davidson Type A would be an excellent example for the
investigation of the accuracy limitations' inherent
in the close fit multiple transform computation

method. Of greater interest is the'fact that a specific
change in a hull design has produced such a large
and clearly definable variation in the motion. Here,
then, is an ideal situation forinvestigating the.equation of motion terms which are responsible for this
change and: their relationship to the' shap of t'he
hull. With this objective in mind', the 'computed
values of all equation of motion terms for the

Davidon Type A andihe Friesland were compared. Also, the distribution of added mass, damping and exciting forces along these ships was investigated.
The dynamic coefficientsof the motion equations
(a, b, d,e,., B, D, E) are given in figures 10,. 11, 12
and 13. Computed values only are given for the

Davidson Type A and computed and experimental
values for the Friesland. Results are given for Fn =
0.15 and 0.45. The forward speed effects normally
associated with the static restoring coefficients (C,
g), equation (9), have been included in the added
mass coefficients (A, d). This change in the static
coefficients was made arbitrarily to 'facilitate cornpa1ison with experimental datai The modified coefficients are':
d
=d+-!-b.= fm'xbdxb+2
(92
L
g =g+Vb=gS
A=A+
C
=fm'xb2 dxb +
VE
= C+ VE = gIw
and computed pitch motions at ali speeds. The The experimental coefficients for the Friesland are
large reductions. in pitch amplitude as shown in the
experiments are also clearly shown in the computation. This in itself provides' convincing proof as to
the validity of the modified strip theory for even

radically shaped hull forms. The computed heave
from orced oscillation experiments. (SMITH [F5]).

Asshown in the figurestesting was done fora' number
of oscillator amplitudes and frequencies. The Friesland computations and experiments show reasonable good agreement at all speeds and frequencies
22
F,=D.l5
Friesondct 5
caLcu.etsd CL SI fit
rn(ri4nf.4 I e
e exp.: w*L
..$.
pv
01 m
f5
04,
Fnr 0.45
A
Devarsnn y
coIc%Lated c ose fit
4
''-._
-. --
.-
,.,
-.._--.._ - D.
- ....
--
.........
r 015
(g
WEV
r 045
O0;44
/
1.
/ '----'s' 's ',
li/*'
3
\o
I'
si
's
's
's
Fig. 10
W(V
WEV
Equation of motion coefficients a and b
23
F
:15
.o:45
Friesta d clos
catcut. ed cta e fut
rod.
_._:uirLl
fit
+4
'
2
.-.
-....
s.
,I
3
e
J8 s
o
0
WV
F0.15
Eg -
F0.O45
01
a'
0.3
---. 1--
OE2
s
u
u
01
0.1
$-
wVE
-E g
Fig. 11
Equation of motion coefficients A and B
24
F.. = 0.15
03
F..0.45
FriesL. rid cLos

caLcul tad cl . se fit
exp o p1=0' rad
pvl.
- + calcu atad c1se fit

.a1
,i
'
flnuid an typ A
ill
,'..I
';
------a
51
AA
A S
a2
0.
-o.
'
F= 0.45
F..0.15
O
'a
u
e
06
.4'-
as
DJ
-i:o
19
1.
5.
Fig. 12
Equation of motion coefficients d and i
25
F,0.45
O.15
---4---
/1
Do
DA
pvt
Fries
tJJJ1I'
cotcu
5
002.
-
--.-
-6
o
/.
Dovid.
catc
5
Eg --
Fn r 0.15
04
0.45
a'
't
03
t;
-I
Q2
'\
02
0.1
0.1
o.
o
A
o
-0.1
-0.1
-02
Eg
Fig. 13
5
WE
Equation of motion coefficients D and E
.7
26
and again demonstrate the ability of modified strip
theory to account for forward speed effects.
A comparison between the Davidson Type A and
Friesland coefficients shows remarkably little difference in the main added massanddamping.terms
(a, b, A, B), with the greatest difference less than
ten percent. When the cross coupling terms (d, e, g,
The distribution of added mass for the two ships
is very similar, with only significant differences

occurring in the forward part and at the higher
frequencies. While the total added mass is virtually
identical for both ships, the slope'of the added mass
distribtion curve for the Davidson Type A is much
greater in the bow, thus indicating larger values
D, E, G) are compared, however, the situation is

quite different, with the damping cross coupling
terms differing by as much as 400 percent. This
demonstrates the importance, in motion computation, of the cross coupling terms. Further, it indicates that differences in the motions de to hull
for the speed correction term dm/dx. The damping

distribution for the Davidson Type A, however, 'is
quite different, with large mod ifiations in the two
dimensional damping N' by the speed correctiOn
term. Of particular interest is section 20, the forward-most section, which' Shows a large damping
shape variation are primarily a result of changes in

the longitudinal dynamic symmtr,y and the resul-
at high speed even though the added mass and

sectional area are zero. This is entirely forward
speed effect. The exciting force distributions (see
figure 16') behave similarly to the damping term
and clearly show the strong relationship between
exciting forces and damping. As previously men-
tant change in the cross coupling terms. As a

demonstration of this effect, the d and e terms in
the motion computation for the Davidson Type A
were set equal to zero. The motion computation
then demonstrates the large effects of coupling as
illustrated in figure 5.
The added mass, damping and wave exciting
force distribution along the ship are compared in
figures 14, 15 and 16. The results are given in nondimensional form.
The sectional damping is:
b'=N'V dm'
dxb
The sectional damping in non-dimensional form:
b' 1/L3
g
The non-dimensional sectional added mass:

rn'
eV
The sectional exciting force is:
F'LP
C
The damping distribution for the, forward section
of the Davidson Type A is unusual in that, e'en

when forward speed effects are included', several of
the sectins exhibit virtually zero damping for a

limited range of frequencies. Also, the same sections
show nearly zero exciting forces. This, then, would
tioned, while thedistribution ofadded mass, damping and exciting forces for the two ships is quite
different, the total or integrated vale for the whole
ship in each case is practically the same. This also
accounts for the 'large differences in dynamic cross
coupling coefficients, which is demonstrated before,
in fig. 5, where for Fn = 0; 15 the resulting calculated motion amplitude can be compared with the
other experiments and calculations.
7
Conclusions
The use of modified strip theory and a multiple coefficient transformation computation for
pitch and heave motions is confirmed and extended
by this comparison.
The inflence of variations in hull 'shape can
be accounted for using close fit transformation

methods.
The large variation in dynamic symmetry or

fore and aft distribution of exciting forces, moments,
added mass and damping producable by hullshape.
variations strongly indicates that such variafions

can be used to optimize the motions
A close fit program which can account for the
fore and aft dynamic distributions is mandatory

when computing bending moments, relative motion, etc.
appear to be a major reason for the extreme dif- ('e) The dynamic cross' coupling terms in the
ference in the motion characteristics of the two equations of motion are of paramount importance
ships, and' apparently offers considerable promise when optimizing the motions.
as a device for tuning a ship and thus optimizing (f') An efficient program which can generate conthe motions. This factor in itself would seem to be formal 'transformation coefficients for an arbitrary
of sufficient interest to warrant future investigation. simply connected shape is demonstrated.
27
Fn-.15
')VE7 -1.605
Fn.4S
-------CALCULATION FRIESLAND CLASS
_//
wVt7i =1.085
2.0
5.0
5.0
1.0
25
25
2.0
5.0
5.0
1.0
2.5
25
__/'
-2.528
\
2.0
1.0
$1
EI .
50
5.0
2.5
2.5
wVi
6.2I3
2.0
50
1.0
25
2.5
III
2.0
5.0
5.0
1.0
.2.5
25
w -5.898
wvt71,=s.898
2.0
5.0
5.0
1.0
2.5
2.5
10
SEC1TON
3.370
15
20
5
SECTION
10
20
//
O
_=_=
5
SECTION
Fig. 14 Added mass and damping distribution Fn = 0.15 and Fn = 0.45
10
15
20
28
CALCULATION DAVEDSON TYPE A
CALCULATIONDAVIDSON TYITE A
Fn:i5
Fn=.45
CALCULATIONiFRIESLAND CLASS
w.ftTg =1.685
1.0
1.0
0.5
0.5
wrc? =2.528
1.0
1.0
0.5
0.5
wVTt72.52B
wVt7
wvE7 =3.370
1.0
1.0
0.5
OE5
w= .213
wvt7L.213
i:o
1.0
0.5
0.5
3.370
wvrE
wV7
=5.055
1.0
1.0
0.5
0.5
5.055
wV
wVt7 =589e
=5.098
1.0
1.0
0.5
0.5
5
SECTiON
Fig. 15
10
15
20
10
SECTION
Exciting force distribution Fn = 0.15 ad Fn = 0.45
15
20
29
Fn.45
Fn =15
HEAVE
HEAVE
075
0.75
0.50
O.5o
u-
0.25
0.25
PITCH
PITCH
0.75
0.75
OS"
'S
0.50
Od
0.50
0.25
0.25
HEAVE PHASE
HEAVE PHASE
120
120
60
60
00
fo
f
w
-120
-120
-1 BO
-180
-240
60
:\L\
I
PITCH PHASE
-60
---------
60
__s
00
PITCH PHASE
120
-120
-180
-240
\ \\
CALCULATION DAVWSON TYPE A
0.5
1.0
-260
MODEL EXPERIMENT FRIESlAND CLASS

1.5
2.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
L/x
Fig. 16 Total exciting forces calculation and experiment Fn = 0.15 and Fn = 0.45
2.0
30
8 Acknowledgement
GERRITSMA, J. and W. BEUKELMAN, Distribution of the
I wish to acknowledge the continued encouragement and assistance offered by Prof. Ir. J. .GERRITSMA and particularly to express my thanks for
the opportunity to study and work under his direc-
Research Centre TNO for Shipbuilding and Navigation; International 'Shipbuilding Progress, l964
GERRITSMA,J. and W. E. SMITH, Full Scale' Destroyer
tion.
Hydrodynamic Forces on a Heaving and Pitching

Ship Model in Still Water, Report no. 61 5 Neth.
Motion Measurements, Journal of Ship Research,

March 1967; Shipbuilding Laboratory of the Tech-
I am also greatly indebted to the staff of the
nological University at Delft, Report no. 142, March
Deift Computer Laboratory for theil- cheerful and

continuous asSistance in all phases of the computation work. Of particular note is the extremely quick
computation service rendered. Without such service thiS project would have been impossible.
The completion of this project wasgreatly aided
by the enthusiastic assistance of the Shipbuilding
URsELL, F., On 'the Having Motin of a Circular
Laboratory Staff. I am further indebted to Mr.
Damping Coefficients for Cylinders Oscillating in a

Free Surface, University of California Institute of
Engineering Research, Series 82, 1960.
l0 BRESLIN,J. P. and K. ENG; Resistance and Seakeeping
Performance of New High Speed Destroyer Designs,
Davidson Laboratory Report No. 1082, 1:965.
RALPH D. COOPER, of the Office of Naval Research,
for continued advice and assistance.
References
KORVIN KROUKOVSKY, B V. and W. R. JACOBS, Pitch-
ing and Heaving Motions of a Ship in Regular Waves,

Transactions Society of Naval Architects and Marine
Engineers, 1957.
CMMIN5, W. E., The Impulse Response Function and
Ship MotiOns, Symposium on Ship'Theory at Institut
fr Schiffbau der Universitt Hamburg, 1962.

GERRITSMA, J., Ship Motions in Longitudinal Wves,
Report no. 35 S Nth. Research Centre TNO for

Shipbuilding and Navigation; International Shipbuilding Progress, 1960.
GRRR!TSMA, J., Distribution of Damping arid Added
Mass along the Length of a Ship Model, Report no.
49 S Neth. Research Centre TNO for Shipbuilding

and Navigation; International Shipbuilding Progress,
1963.
1966.
Cylinder on the Surface of a Fluid, Quarteily Journal

Mech. and Applied Math. Vol. Ii PT2, 1949.
TA5AI, 'F., On the Damping. Force and' Added Mass of
Ships Having and Pitching, Report of Research

Institute for Applied Mechanics, Kyushu University,
1960.
PORTER, W. R., Pressure Distribution, Added Mass and
GERRITSMA, J'. and W. BEKELMAN, Comparison of Cal-
culatedand Measured Heavingand Pitching Motions

of a Series 60 GB' 0.70 Ship Model in Regular Longitudinal Waves, Shipbuilding Laboratoryof the Technological University at Delft, Rejort No. 139, 1966.
GERRITSMA,J., Distribution of Hydrodynamic Forces
along the Length of,a Ship Model in Waves, Shipbuilding Laboratory of the Techliological University
at Delft, Report No. 144, 1966.
KRYLOV,A. N., Lectures on Approximate Computations, M.L. 1954.
BLEDSOE, M. D., BUSSEMAKER,O. and' W. E. CUMMINS,
SeakeepingTrialson Three Dtch Destroyers, Transactions Society of Naval Architects and Marine Engineers, 1960.
SiTu, W. E., Equation of Motion Coefficients for a

Pitching and Heaving Destroyer Model, 'Report no.
98'S Neth. Ship Research Centre TNO (in print).
PUBLICATIONS OF THE NETHERLANDS SHIP RESEARCH CENTRE TNO

(FORMERLY THE NETHERLANDS RESEARCH CENTRE TNO FOR SHIPBUILDING AND NAVIGATION)
PRICE PER COPY DFL. IO.-
Reports
iS
The determination of the natural frequencies of ship
35
Practical possibilities of constructional applications

of aluminium alloys to ship construction. By prof. ir
H. E.Jaeger. March 1951.
Corrugation ofbottomshell plating in ships with all-
vibrations (Dutch) By profi ir H. Ejaeger. May

1950.
4S
welded or partially welded bottoms (Dutch) By
prof. ir H. E. Jaeger and ir H. A. Verbeek. Novem55
6S
ber 1951.
Standard-recommendations for measured mile and

endurance trials.ofsea-going ships (Dutch). By prof.
ir J. W. Bonebakker, dr ir W. J. Muller and ir E. J.
Diehi. February 1952.
Some tests on stayed and unstayed masts and a cornparisonofexperirnental results andcalculatedstresses
(Dutch). By ir A. Verduin and ir B. Burghgraef.
June 1952.
7 M Cylinder wear in marine diesel engines (Dutch). By
ir H. Visser. December 1952.
8 M Analysis and testing of lubriting oils (Dutch). By

irR.N.M.A. MalotauxandirJ. G. Smit.Juiy 1953.
9S
10S
Stability experiments on models ofDutch and French

standardized lifeboats. By prof. ir H E. Jaeger, prof.
ir J. W. Bonebakker and J. Pereboom, in collaboration with A. Audig. October 1952.
On collecting ship service performance data and
their analysis. By prof. irJ. W. Bonebakker. January

1953.
1 1 M The useofthree-phase current for auxiliary purposes

(Dutch). By irJ. C G. van Wijk. May 1953.
12 M Noise and noise abatement in marine engine rooms
28 M Influence ofpiston temperature on piston fouling and

piston-ring wear-in diesel engines usingresidual fuels.
By ir H. Visser. June 1959.

29 M The influence of hysteresis on the value of the modulus of rigidity of steel. By ir A. Hoppeand ir A.M.
Hens. December 1959.
30 S
An experimental analysis of shipmotions in Iongitudinal regular waves. By ir J. Gerritsma. December 1958.
31 M Model tests concerning damping coefficient and the

increase in the moment of inertia due to entrained
water of ship's propellers. By N.J. Visser. April

1960.
32 5
The effect of a keel on the rolling characteristics of

a ship. By ir J. Gerritsma. July 1959.
33 M The application of new physical methods in the

examination of lubricating oils (Continuation of
34S
35 S
36 S
report 17 M). By ir R. N. M. A. Malotaux and dr F.

van Zeggeren. April 1960.
Acousticalprinciples in ship.design. By irJ. H. Janssen. October 1959.
Shipmotions in longitudinal waves. By irJ. Gerritsma. February 1960.
Experimental determination of bending moments for
three models of different fullness in regular waves.
By ir J. Ch. de Does. April 1960.
37 M Propeller excited vibratory forces in the shaft of a

single screW tanker. By dr ir J. D. van Manen and
ir R. Wereldsma. June 1960.
38 S Beamknees and other bracketed connections. By
piof. ir H. E.Jaeger and ir J.J. W. Nibbering.
January 1961.
(Dutch)._By_-Techniscl-Physische-Dienst-T:N;O--39M Cirikhft coupled free torsional-axial vibrations of
T.H.". April 1953.
a ship's propulsion system. By ir D. van Dort and
13 M Investigation of cylinder wear in diesel engines by
N. J. Visser. September 1963.
meansof laboratory machines (Dutch). By ir H. Vis- 40 S On the longitudinal reduction factor for the added
ser. December 1954.
mass of vibrating ships with rectangular cross-sec14 M The purification of heavy fuel oil for diesel engines
tion. By ir W. P. A.Joosen and drJ. A. Sparenberg.
(Dutch). By A. Bremer. August 1953.
April 1961.
15 S
Investigation of the stress distribution in corrugated
41 S Stresses in flat propeller blade models determined by
bulkheads with vertical troughs. By prof. ir H. E.
the moir-method. By ir F. K. Ligtenberg. May 1962.
Jaeger, ir B. Burghgraef and I. van der Ham. Sep42 S Application of modern digital computers in navaltember 1954.
architecture. By ir H.J. Zunderdorp. June 1962.
16 M Analysis and testing of lubricating oils II (Dutch). 43 C Raft trials and ships' trials with some underwater
-
By ir R. N. M. A. Malotaux and drs J. B. Zabel.
paint systems. By drs P. de Wolf and A. M. van
March 1956.
17 M The application of new physical methods in the

examination of lubricating oils. By ir R. N. M. A.
Malotaux and dr F. van Zeggeren. March 1957.
18 M Considerations on the application of three phase
current on board ships for auxiliary purposes especially with regard to fault protection, with a survey
of winch drives recently applied on board of these
ships and their influence on the generating capacity
(Dutch). By irJ. C. G. van Wijk. February 1957.
19 M Crankcase explosions (Dutch). By ir J. H. Mink20 S
21 S
22 S
horst. April 1957.

An analysis of the application of aluminium alloys
in ships' structures. Suggestions about the riveting

between steel and aluminium alloy ships' structures.
By prof. ir H. E. Jaeger. January 1955.
On stress calculationsin helicoidal shellsand propeller blades. By dr ir J. W. Cohen. July 1955.
mass and added mass moment of inertia of a shipmodel. By ir J. Gerritsma. October 1957.
26 M Noise measurements and noise reduction in ships.
By ir G. J. van Os and B. van Steenbrugge. July.
1957.
27 S
Initial metacentricheight of small seagoing ships and

the inaccuracy and unreliability of calculated curves
of righting levers. By prof. ir J. W. Bonebakker.

December 1957.
Some acoustical properties of ships with respect to
noise control. PartII. By irJ. H.Janssen. August 1962.

An investigation into the influence of the method of
application on the behaviour of anti-corrosive paint
systems in seawater. By A. M. van Londen. August
Results of-an inquiry into the condition of ships' hulls
in relation to fouling and corrosion. By ir H. C.

48 C
Ekama, A. M. van Londen and drs P. de Wolf. December 1962.
Investigations into the use of the wheel-abrator for

removing rust and millscale from shipbuilding steel
(Dutch). Interim report. By ir J. Remmelts and
50 S
Experimental determination of damping, added
noise control. Part I. By ir J. H.Janssen. August
1962.
47 C
December 1955.
Second series of stability experiments on models of
lifeboats. By ir B. Burghgraef. September 1956.
1957.
25 S
46 C
49 S
24 M Outside corrosion of and siagformation on tubes in

oil-fired boilers (Dutch). By dr W. j. Taat. April
Londen. July 1962.

Some acoustical properties of ships with respect to
1962.
45 S
Some flotes on the calculation of pitching and
heaving in longitudinal waves. By ir J. Gerritsma.

23 S
44 5
L. D. B. van den Burg December 1962.

Distribution of damping and added mass along the
length of a shipmodel. By -prof. ir J. Gerritsma and
W. Beukelman. Mrch 1963.
The- influence of-a bulbous bow on the motions and
the propulsion in longitudinal waves By prof. ir
J. Gerritsma and W. Beukelman. April 1963.

51 M Stressmeasurements on a propeller blade-of a 42,000
ton tanker-onfull scale. By irR. Wereldsma.January
-
1964.
52 C
Comparative investigations on the surface preparation of shipbuilding steel by using wheel-abrators and
53 S
54 C
the application of shop-coats. By ir H. C.Ekama,

A. M. van Londen and ir J. Remmelts. July 1963.
Thebraking of large-vessels. By prof. ir H. E. Jaeger.

August 1963.
A study of ship bottom paints in particular pertaining
to the behaviour and action of anti-fouling paints.

By A. M. van Londen. September 1963
55 S
56 C
76 S
ships by dicretizing the vibration system. By J. de

Vries April 1964.
78 M Stern tube vibration measurements of a cargo ship

with special afterbody. By dr ir R. Wereldsma. De-
economy for large sea-going ships propelled by con-
79 C
By ir C. B. Vreugdenhil. August 1964.
80 C
57 M Determination of the dynamic properties and propeller excited vibrations of a special ship stern arrangement. By ir R. Wcreldsma. March 1964.
58 S Numerical calculation of vertical hull vibrations of
59 M Controllable pitch propellers, their suitability and
60 S
61 S
ventional, directly-coupled engines By ir C. Kapsenberg. June 1964.

Natural frequencies of free vertical ship vibrations.
The distribution of the hydrodynamic forces on a

heaving and pitching shipmodel in still water. By
prof. irJ. Gerritsma and W. Beukelman. September
1964.
The mode of action of anti-fouling paints: Interaction between anti-fouling paints and sea water. By
A. M. van Londen. October 1964.
63 M Corrosion in exhaust driven turbochargers on marine
diesel engines using heavy fuels. By prof. R. W.
Stuart Mitchell and V. A. Ogale March l965
64 C Barnacle fouling on aged anti-fouling paints; a survey of pertinent literature and some recent observations. By drs P. de Wolf. November 1964.
65 S The lateral damping and added mass of a horizontally oscillating shipmodel. By G. van Leeuwen. December 1964.
66 S Investigations into the strength of ships' derricks.
Part I. By ir F. X. P. Soejadi. February 1965.
62 C
67 S
Heat-transfer in cargotanks of a 50,000 DWT tanker.

By D. J. van der Heeden and ir L. L. Mulder. March
1965.
68 M Guide to the application of Method for calculation

of cylinder liner temperatures in diesel engines. By
dr ir H. W. van Tijen. February 1965.
69 M Stress measurements on a propeller model for a
42,000 DWT tanker. By ir R. Wereldsma. March
1965.
70 M Experiments on vibrating propeller models. By ir

71 S
72 S
73 S
74 S
75 S
Research on bulbous bow ships. Part L.B. The behavjour ofa fast cargo liner with a conventionaland with
Fatigue of ship structures. By ir J. J. W. Nibbering.

September 1963.
The possibilities of exposure of anti-fouling paints in
Curaao, Dutch Lesser Antilles. By drs P. de Wolf
and Mrs M. Meuter-Schriel. November 1963.
R. Wereldsma. March 1965.

Researchonbulbousbowships; Part ILA. Still water
performance of a 24,000 DWT bulkcarrier with a
large bulbous bow. By prof. dr ir W. P. A. van Lammeren and ir J. J. Muntjewerf. May 1965.
Researchon bulbousbow ships. Part 11.B. Behaviour
of a 24,000 DWT bulkcarrier with a large bulbous
bow in a seaway. By prof. dr ir W. P. A. van Lammeren and ir F. V. A. Pangalila. June 1965.
Stress and strain distribution in a vertically corrugated bulkhead. By prof. ir H. E. Jaeger and ir
P. A. van Katwijk. June 1965.
Research on bulbous bow ships. Part l.A. Still water
investigationsintobulbous bow forms for a.fast cargo
liner. By prof. dr ir W. P. A. van Lammeren and

ir R. Wahab. October 1965.
Hull vibrations of the cargo-passenger motor ship
"Oranje Nassau". By ir W. van Horssen. August
a bulbous bow in a seaway. By ir R. Wahab. December 1965.
77 M Comparative shipboard measurements of surface
temperatures and surface corrosion in air cooled and

watercooled turbine outlet casings ofexhaust driven
marine diesel engine turbochargers. By prof. R. W.
Stuart Mitchell and V. A. Ogale. December 1965.
cember 1965.
81 5
82 S
83 5
84 5
85 S
The pre-treatment of ship plates: A comparative
investigation on some pie-treatment methods in use

in thcshipbuilding industry. By A. M. van Londen,
ing. December 1965.
The pre-treatment of ship plates : A practical inves-
tigation into the influence of different working

procedures in over-coating zinc rich epoxy-resin
based pre-construction primers. By A. M. van Londen, ing. and W. Mulder. December 1965.
The performance of U-tanks asa passive anti-rolling
device. By ir. C. Stigter. February 1966.
Low-cycle fatigue of steel structures. By ir J. J. W.
Nibbering and J. van Lint. April 1966.
Roll damping by free surface tanks. By ir J. J. van
den Bosch and irJ. H. Vugts. April 1966.
Behaviour of a ship in a seaway. By prof. irJ. Gerritsma. May 1966.
Brittle fracture of full scale structures damaged by
fatigue. By ir J. J. W. Nibbering, j. van Lint and
R. T. van Leeuwen. May 1966.

86 M Theoretical evaluation of heat transfer in dry cargo
ship's tanks using thermal oil as a heat transfer medium. By D. J. van der Heeden. December 1966.
87 S Model experiments on sound transmission from engineroom to accommodation iii motorships. By ir.
J. H. Janssen. December 1966.
88 S Pitch and heave with fixed and controlled bow fins.
By irJ. H. Vugts. December 1966.
89 5 Estimation of the natural frequencies of a ship's
double bottom by means of a sandwich theory. By
ir S Hylarides. April 1967.
Computation of pitch and heave motions for arbit90 S
rary ship forms. By W. E. Smith. April 1967.
91 M Corrosiorn in exhaust driven turbochargers on
marine diesel engines using heavy fuels. By prof.
R. W. Stuart Michell, ir. A. J. M. S. van Montfoort
and ir. V. A. Ogale, March 1967.
92 M Residual fuel treatment on board ship. Part II.

Comparative cylinder wear measurements on a laboratory diesel engine using filtered- or centrifuged
residual fuel. Bij Ir. A. de Mooy, ir. M. Verwoest and
93 C
94 C
drs G. G. van der Meulen. March 1967.

Cost relations of the treatments of ships hulls and
the fuel consumption of ships. By mrs. des. H. J.
Lageveen-van Kuijk. March 1967.
Optimum conditions for blast cleaning of steel plate.

By ir J. Remrnelts April 1967.
95 M Residual fuel treatment on board ship. Part I.
The effect of centrifuging, filtering and homogenizing on the unsolubles in residual fuel. By ir M.
Verwoest and F. J. Colon. April 1967.
1965.
Communications
1 M Report on the use of heavy fuel oil in the tanker
"Auricula" of the Anglo-Saxon Petroleum Company
(Dutch). August 1950.
2S
3S
4S
5S
6S
Ship speeds over the measured mile (Dutch). By

ir W. H. C. E. Rsingh. February 1951.
On voyag logs of sea-going ships and their analysis

(Dutch). By prof. irJ. W. Bonebakker and irJ. Gerritsma. November 1952.
Analysis of model experiments, trial and service performance data of a single-screw tanker. By prof. ir
J. W. Bonebakker. October 1954.
Determination of the dimensions of panels subjected
to water pressure only or to a combination of water
pressure and edge compression (Dutch). By prof. ir
H. E. Jaeger. November 1954.
Approximative calculation of the effect of free sur-
faces on transverse stability (Dutch). By ir L. P.
Review of the investigations into the prevention of

corrosion and fouling of ships' hulls (Dutch). By
ir H. C. Ekama. October 1962.
10 S/M Condensed report of a design study for a 53,000
DWT-class nuclear powered tanker. By the Dutch
International Team (D.I.T.), directed by ir A. M.
Fabery de Jonge. October 1963.
9C
11 C
Investigations intothe use of some shipbottom paints,
12 C
The pre-treatment of ship plates: The treatment of

welded joints prior to painting (Dutch). By A. M.
van Londen, ing. and W. Mulder. December 1965.
Corrosion, ship bottom paints (Dutch). By ir H. C.
1964.
13 C
14 5
Herfst. April 1956.

7S
8S
On the calculation of stresses in a stayed mast. By

ir B. BurghgraeL August 1956.
Simply supported rectangular plates subjected to.the
based on scarcely saponifiable vehicles (Dutch).

By A. M. van Londen and des P. de Wolf. October
Ekama. April 1966.
Human reaction to shipboard vibration, a study of

existing literature.(Dutch). By irW. ten Cate. August
1966.
15 M Refrigerated containerized transport (Dutch). By

irJ. A. Knobbout. April 1967.
combined action of a uniformly distributed lateral

load and compressive forces in the middle plane.
By ir B. Burghgraef. February 19511.
engineering department
shipbuilding dep artment
C = corrosion and antifouling department

W.E. Smith. Computation of Pitch and Heave Motions For Arbitrary Ship Forms

Caricato da

Informazioni sul documento

Titolo originale

Copyright

Formati disponibili

Condividi questo documento

Condividi o incorpora il documento

Opzioni di condivisione

Hai trovato utile questo documento?

Questo contenuto è inappropriato?

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

W.E. Smith. Computation of Pitch and Heave Motions For Arbitrary Ship Forms

Caricato da

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Report Nr.

1NJ RAVE .OTIONS

FOR ARBITRARY SRZPQRMS,

comutaion o Pitch and Hegue

are uaed to determine the pitch and heave

Sor ttsi'eo ship furao of the deatroyer tipe.

4 oomputtioal method Uein

for the ship

inutiplo qoe*'fioierit traneformation

Crosseeotional abapea is used.

fox' arbitx'aril ebeped ebip

f&'om OQiflputatiQn and experiment are compared.

to depend oignifioantly on the accuracy of the Oroseasection transi

When the proper trauaSormation is uaed, the influence

of variation in bull shape on the motion can be accounted for.

4reement botween motion o

putation and experiment io excellent.

QmpUted longitudinal diatribution of dmpin, tdde4 maas and

* Physicist, David Taylor 4o2eL aoin, Washington

an evaluation uf the effects of hUll shapes gfl tb motion obaraO

(socalled leithand side); and (3) relating tb5 free eurfae

tours or wave shape to the eaulting force on a specified hull form

The motion equations are:

lration, velocity and dispisoement. This representation, while

Numbeta in brackets refer tQ the rQference

at the end of this paper,

In tactg the Qfl4 Qeptiorrn 1uhorent in such repxosrztation e

o-oi1ec str.p tbaoty rnethQd u8 developo4 by KorvLu Iz'oUkov1e 1

2o oonta.ns veiootr dependent texe which wcount for moat of the

mensiona3. solutiob for a circular cylinder osciUatin at the ee

sortez' t9 experimentally verified the Ursall solution for the

Such a method hae now been developed which permits the

the unit ciole into any simly

With this and the rnodiied foz'm of strip tbeQry

a method for e'va1uatng not, onLy the mQUOTIO bub

The. availability of such a prram immediately presento many

At lOzlaat, we an do quiol and inexpensive expei

the various termo o

Further, it is possible to look in datait at

the' equation of motion.

Thin BhQUld provide new

inaight into the physical mechanisms involved.

itself eboud provide additional information con

the physics of ship motion,

one hull dimension is extremely difficult,

This is not so for a computer proram an individual design dimension

addition, there is evidence that such a multi-coefficient or close lit

rerative motions, bending moments, bow immersiona, otO,

three hull forma were selecte4,

The forms chosen were;

$bpbuilding Laboratory; (b) a omiigr form wbob bad been tatd at

had been deened and tested at the Davidson Laboratory.

(See Tabla l) The firt form selected,

(Figure 1) a Priesland class frigate, i

one Zar which the motion

characteristics have been extensively investigated by this laboratory.

scale (Gerritema and Cmtth E6] , ldoe Buesemaker and Cunimin

forced oscillation model

experiment and, similarly, the wave

ezoit&ug forces andrnornent

bave bees ieasu?ed (Smith

model, thereor, providea a standard for refer'ence which not only

form but also provides a detailed standard for the various