Available online at https://link.springer.

com/journal/42241
http://www.jhydrodynamics.com
Journal of Hydrodynamics, 2019
https://doi.org/10.1007/s42241-019-0062-9

Prediction of added resistance of a ship in waves at low speed *

Feng Diao1, Ji-kang Chen2, Wen-yang Duan2, Wei-xin Zhou1, Jing-pu Chen1, Jin-fang Wei1
1. China Ship Scientific Research Center, Wuxi 200011, China
2. College of Shipbuilding Engineering, Harbin Engineering University, Harbin 150001, China

(Received August 19, 2018, Revised April 17, 2019, Accepted May 5, 2019, Published online July 9, 2019)
©China Ship Scientific Research Center 2019

Abstract: This paper presents a solution of added resistance of a ship in waves at low speed according to the IMO minimum
propulsion power requirement by a hybrid Taylor Expansion Boundary Element Method (TEBEM). The flow domain is divided into
two parts where the inner domain is solved by first-order TEBEM with simple Green function and the outer domain is solved by zero
order TEBEM with transient free surface Green function. TEBEM is applied to three new designed commercial ships for numerical
prediction of motions and added resistance in waves. The numerical results are compared with those derived from seakeeping model
tests. It shows that the prediction of ship motions and added resistance in waves are in good agreement with experimental results. The
comparison also indicates that the accuracy of motion estimation is crucial for prediction of wave added resistance. In general,
TEBEM is of satisfactory accuracy and efficiency to predict added resistance in waves at low speed according to the IMO minimum
propulsion power requirement.

Key words: TEBEM, added resistance in waves, low speed, minimum propulsion power

Introduction According to the Interim Guidelines, the minimum

The Energy Efficiency Design Index (EEDI) was
made mandatory for new ships at MEPC 63 with the
adoption of resolution MEPC.212 (63)[1], which
requires a minimum energy efficiency level per
capacity mile (e.g. tone mile) for ships with different
types and sizes. One of the most effective ways to
reduce the value of EEDI for a ship is to lower the
installed power and the ship’s speed. In other words,
the enforcement of EEDI may lead to more and more
new designed ships to meet the EEDI requirements by
reducing the installed main engine power. However, a
too large reduction of the installed power will result in
unsafe situations as a ship might not be able to operate,
maintain position or manoeuvre in adverse weather
conditions and sea states. In view of this, IMO
formulated and adopted the 2013 Interim Guidelines
for determining minimum propulsion power to
maintain the manoeuvrability of ship (the Interim
Guidelines) to enhance the safety of the ships [2].
* Project supported by the National Natural Science
Foundation of China (Grant No. 51709064).
Biography: Feng Diao (1986-), Male, Ph. D. Candidate,
E-mail: diaofeng@702sh.com
Corresponding author: Ji-kang Chen,
E-mail: cjkhrb@sina.com
propulsion power assessment contains two different
levels: minimum power lines assessment and
simplified assessment. The simplified assessment
involves the calculation of hull resistance at lower
speeds (at least 4 knots) and adverse sea conditions
(Beaufort 7-Beaufort 8), including calm water
resistance, wind resistance and added resistance in
waves (wave added resistance), in which the ratio of
wave added resistance to total resistance is the largest.
Therefore, the prediction of wave added resistance at
lower speeds under adverse sea conditions is the key
to the minimum propulsion power assessment.
The study on added resistance of ships advancing
in waves started from 1940s. In the early 1970s, the
introduction of radiated energy approach promoted the
development of numerical prediction of added
resistance of a ship in waves. In the next stage, strip
theory and methods based on it became the most
popular approaches to predict ship motions and added
resistance in waves. Recently, many researchers
investigated seakeeping problems by applying strip
theory[3-6].
With the development of potential flow theories,
various 3D time/frequency domain boundary element
methods were successfully developed for prediction of
seakeeping performance of ships. As for frequency
domain methods, many investigations have been
conducted and obtained quite satisfactory results in
prediction of seakeeping problems [7-11]. An alternative
to the frequency domain approach is time domain
method, especially for large amplitude ship motion
problems. Kara et al. [12] developed a fully nonlinear
3D Rankine source method in time domain to
calculate wave added resistance; Joncqnez et al. [13]
applied the 3D time-domain high-order boundary
element method to calculate the second order forces
including the wave added resistance. Liu et al.[14] used
a well-established panel method and a new hybrid
time domain Rankine source Green function method
to predict the added resistance in waves; Kim and
Kim[15] applied 3D Ranking panel method in time
domain for prediction of added resistance in waves of
vessels; Malte and Ould[16] presented a nonlinear
time-domain Rankine source method to calculate the
wave-induced added resistance of ships, and the fully
nonlinear steady flow was computed.
As for traditional constant panel methods, the
solution accuracy of the tangential induced velocity at
the unsmooth corners of the floating bodies is fairly
low, which result in the large error in the analysis of
wave loads and the divergence of the time-simulation
process. Also, it’s difficult to deal with the singular
integration and solve the high-order derivatives at the
corners in high-order boundary element method. In
order to solve the difficulties aforementioned, Duan[17]
proposed the Taylor Expansion Boundary Element
Method(TEBEM) for solving 2D linear hydrodynamic
problems. It was found that the accuracy of velocity at
corner boundary was improved much by 1st order
TEBEM; Duan et al. [18-20] extended TEBEM to solve
the second order radiation and diffraction potential
problem in the time domain both for zero speed and
forward speed problems.
Fig. 1 The reference frame
Hydrodynamic problem of ship with forward
speed is solved by the three-dimensional potential
flow theory in this paper. The total velocity potential
can be divided into the basic velocity potential b
and unsteady velocity potential  . Basic velocity
potential involves the coming flow velocity potential
-Ux and double-body potential  . Unsteady
potential is made up of the incident potential and
disturbed potential, as shown in Eq. (1).
  -Ux     I  d (1)
The double-body potential and unsteady
disturbed potential are unknowns. Many references
have shown the boundary value problems (BVP) for
them, Here, we just show them directly.
For double-body potential, BVP is：
2  0 ,
  
 U  n  on S H  ,
n

 0  on S F  ,
z
0  x2  y 2  z 2    (2)

In this paper, a hybrid TEBEM is firstly For unsteady disturbed potential, BVP is：
presented to obtain ship motions and added resistance  d  0 ,
2

in waves at low speed. Then numerical validation is   

2
d
conducted on three commercial ships. Finally, the

 
 t  U      d +g n  f (U , , d ,  I )  on S F  ,

numerical results are used to compare with
experimental data in the prediction of ship motions d 6
  j  
  n j   j m j   I  on S H  ,
and added resistance in waves. n j 1  t  n
far  field condition ,

1. Boundary value problem for ship with forward  d t  0  0, d t  0  0  initial conditions  (3)
speed n
Considering a ship moving at constant mean Where S H and S F represent the body surface and
forward speed with arbitrary heading in regular free surface respectively, g represents the gravity
sinusoidal waves, it is assumed that resulting acceleration,  represents the displacement of ship
oscillatory motions are linear and harmonic. Let(X,Y,Z)
motion, m j is shown as follows:
be a right-handed orthogonal coordinate system fixed
with respect to mean position of the ship, with Z  m1 , m2 , m3     n      U  ,
vertically upward through the center of gravity, X in
the direction of forward motion and origin in the plane
 m4 , m5 , m6     n    r     U  (4)
of the undisturbed free surface, as shown in Figure 1. For unsteady disturbed potential BVP, an integral
scheme free surface boundary condition (IFBC) is through the Eq. (7), on the control surface SC
used to update the velocity potential on the free involving the transient free surface Green function. To
surface. This integral scheme for time stepping of the derive Eq. (7), attention should be paid on the normal
free surface condition is more stable compared to the direction of the boundary surface which point into the
general differential method. The principle of IFBC outer domain.
can be referred in Duan et al. [18]. Finally, the IFBC of    1 1   1 1  d 
unsteady velocity potential can be expressed: 2d ( p, t )   d (q, t )      dsq 
t SC  nq  r r    r r   nq 
d ( p, t )  2 U     d d
0 1 t   G   d G  
t   d  U 2  G d  d   U  G  d   d (7)
   t    U       d d         
2
g 0 wl

0
(5)   G 

t
t t   d   G d  d dsq ( p  SC )
 g   t    d d   f  ,  I , d   t    d 0  n
SC 
 nq 
z
q
0 0
In the inner domain, the unsteady disturbed
potential d ( p, t ) is solved through the Eq. (8) by
Where, f  ,  I , d  expresses as follows:
involving the simple Green function on the inner
f  ,  I , d   2   I  U   x   2 I
2
domain surface which include body surface S H ,
 2     d   I   control surface SC and the free surface between the
 2 
 U      d   I  
z  t  body surface and control surface S F .
  d   I     1   1   
 U   x   xx  2 ( p, t )    (q, t )

   dsq  0 (8)
nq  r   r  nq 
x S H  S F  SC 

  d   I  Combining Eq. (7) and Eq. (8), the unsteady

 U   x    xy  (6) disturbed velocity potential can be solved.
y
Once both the double-body potential and
  d   I 
   y   xy  unsteady disturbed potential are solved, integrating the
x pressure on the wetted surface of the ship can get the
  d   I  wave loads. Wave force involves the incident,
   y   yy  disturbed wave force and recovery force. The
y disturbed wave force is computed under the static
 I 2
water plane,
U 2 1
x   
Fd       d +  -U   d  nds (9)
In this paper, a matching approach is applied to sH  t 
construct the boundary integral equation for the
While the incident and recovery force are
far-field radiation condition to achieve different wave
evaluated under the transient free surface. The
length and different wave direction disturbed waves
dynamic pressure under the static water plane is as
spread to infinity. Firstly, a wall-sided arbitrary
follows:
control surface SC is introduced, which divides the  
fluid domain outside the ship into an inner domain PI    ( I  U I )
t x
( Din ) and an outer domain ( Dout ) as shown in Figure e g Ugk cos  (10)
1. The inner domain is enclosed by the wetted body   (  ) (t )ekz
 
surface S H , the free surface S F , and the control
  g (t )e kz

surface SC . The free surface S F intersects the body The static pressure is
surface and is truncated by the control surface SC at PS    gz (11)
the water line CWL . The outer domain is the rest of In order to satisfy the requirement of exponential
the fluid field enclosed by SC , an imaginary far field decay of pressure with the increasing of water depth,
the Wheeler method is applied to evaluating the
surface S FAR and the remaining free surface pressure upon the static water plane:
intersected by SC and S FAR . PIS    gz   g  t  e 
k z   t  
 z   t  (12)
In the outer domain, the unsteady disturbed
The incident wave force and recovery force can
potential d ( p, t ) which satisfied the linearized
be represented as follows:
Neumann-Kelvin free surface condition is solved
     1
FIS(1) =-  PIS nds (13) 2      dsq
SH (t ) x x S H  S F  SC
nq r
Hence it is named as weakly diffraction nonlinear (15)
  1  
model. Because only the incident and recovery wave
loads are computed under the transient wave surface.

x   
r n
S H  S F  SC  
dsq

Based on the Newton’s second theorem, the ship    1

acceleration can be solved. Then integrating the 2   
y y S H  S F  SC nq
  dsq
r
acceleration about time by the 4th order Runge-Kutta (16)
method get the ship velocity and displacement.   1  
Once the velocity potential and ship motion have    
y S H  S F  SC  r  n
dsq
been solved, the wave loads and added resistance of
ship can be obtained by the pressure integration on the By substituting Eq. (14) into the Eq. (8), Eq. (15)
body surface at each time step, which can refer to Kim and Eq. (16), the new boundary integral equation can
[15]
et al. . be obtained for TEBEM.

2. Taylor expansion boundary element method 3. Numerical validations and discussion

In this paper, the three-dimensional TEBEM is For numerical validation, the TEBEM has been
applied to solve the two boundary value problems as applied to the prediction of motions and wave add
presented in Eq. (2) and Eq. (3) respectively. The resistance of three new designed commercial ships
TEBEM proposed was based on the framework of the under the minimum propulsion power requirement,
source and dipole mixed method. For namely VLCC, Aframax tanker (hereafter called
three-dimensional hydrodynamic problems, the Aframax) and Panamax bulk carrier (hereafter called
complete boundary surface was dispersed into small Panamax). The principal particulars of the three ships
quadrilateral or triangular elements and the average and corresponding input parameters for calculation are
values of the nodes were taken as the center in each listed in Table 1.
panel.
Table 1 Principal particulars and parameters
The corresponding dipole strength at the centroid Parameter VLCC Aframax Panamax
of the jth panel which is expressed as  j . Apparently Length Lpp(m) 323.6 245 231
be different with low order BEM, the diploes strength Breadth B(m) 60 44 38
in TEBEM can be expressed the following scheme at Draught T(m) 22.45 15 14.5
Longitudinal position of the
the centroid q0 of each element through the Taylor center of gravity LCG(m) 12.34 8.42 4.93
expansion and reserve the first order derivatives which (from #10 station)
Vertical position of the
presented as Eq. (10),  and  are the local center of gravity VCG(m) 17.34 12.52 11.92
coordinates of the source point in an element Q as (from baseline)
shown in Figure 2. Longitudinal inertial radius
0.25 Lpp 0.25 Lpp 0.25 Lpp
Kyy(m)
 (q)   (q0 )   (q0 )   (q0 ) (14) Velocity Vs(kn) 6.3 5.0 4.8

ζ 3.1 Model test description

η
z Q
x ξ
y P
Fig. 2 Local coordinate system on the discrete panel
In order to supple the integral equations for
TEBEM, the first order derivatives of potential at the
field point of Eq. (8) are determined along the two
mutually orthogonal tangential directions (denoted as
x and y respectively, as shown in Figure 2):
In order to validate the proposed method, the
results derived from added resistance test in regular
waves according to the Interim Guidelines are used to
make a comparison in the present paper.
The model tests of added resistance in regular
waves were carried out in the seakeeping basin of
China Ship Scientific Research Center (CSSRC) with
the dimensions of 69×47×4 m (length × width ×
water depth). The 3D wave-making system on both
sides can generate regular, irregular and short-crested
waves. For regular waves, the wave period ranges
from 0.5 to 5.0 seconds, the maximum regular wave
height is 0.5 m.
A steel bridge of 78 m in length spans over the
basin. There is a carriage under the bridge. The
carriage can move forward and backward along the 0.4
Heave
bridge with maximum speed of 4 m/s. The bridge can 0.3

rotate about its center, up to 45 degree, so the basin 0.2

can simulate any desired wave headings from 0~360 0.1

degree in the sea. The picture of CSSRC’s seakeeping

 /a
0.0

3
basin is shown in Fig.3. -0.1

-0.2

-0.3

-0.4
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
t/T

(a)
0.5
Pitch
0.4

0.3

0.2

0.1

 /ka
0.0

5
-0.1

-0.2

-0.3

Fig.3 Seakeeping basin of CSSRC -0.4

-0.5
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
The towing method was adopted in model test. A t/T

3D motion measuring system was installed at the (b)

center of gravity of model to keep the model and
Fig.4 Time history of heave and pitch of Aframax
carriage in the same speed. The model was towed in
calm water at first to get the resistance for different 1.0

velocities. Furthermore, the mean resistance was 0.9 TEBEM

EXP
measured in regular waves with a series of wave 0.8

length. The mean added resistance could be obtained 0.7

by subtracted the mean resistance in calm water from

0.6
 /a

0.5
the resistance in regular waves.
3

0.4

0.3

3.2 Heave and pitch motions 0.2

Figure 4 shows time history of heave and pitch 0.1

motions of Aframax calculated with  Lpp  1.0 and

0.0
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2.0 2.2 2.4 2.6
/Lpp
 a  4.0m . It is observed that the numerical stability (a)
of heave and pitch motions keep well in 10 wave 1.0

TEBEM
0.9
periods by the present method, which can be 0.8
EXP

concluded that the present method can transmit the 0.7

wave on the control surface effectively. 0.6

Figs. 5, 6 and 7 show the numerical results of

 /ka

0.5

heave and pitch of the three ships, where experimental

5

0.4

data are also plotted for comparison. In general, the 0.3

0.2
trend of the curves and numerical results of heave and 0.1
pitch motions agree well with experimental ones 0.0

except for the heave motion of Panamax. There exits 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2
/Lpp
1.4 1.6 1.8 2.0 2.2 2.4 2.6

small discrepancy between numerical results and (b)

experimental ones in the whole wave length.
Fig.5 Heave and pitch RAOs of VLCC (VS=6.3kn)
 1.0
Raw
0.9 TEBEM K aw  (17)
0.8
EXP 4  g a2 B 2 / Lpp
Where Raw denotes added resistance in regular waves,
0.7

 is the density of water, g is the gravity

0.6
 /a

0.5
3

0.4
acceleration,  a is the regular wave amplitude, Lpp is
0.3

0.2 the length between perpendiculars, B is the breadth of

0.1 ship.
0.0
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2.0 2.2 2.4 2.6
Figure 8 shows the time history of wave added
/Lpp
resistance of Aframax calculated with  Lpp  1.0 and
(a)
1.0  a  4.0m . Figs. 9, 10 and 11 show the numerical
TEBEM
0.9
EXP results of added resistance in regular waves of the
0.8

0.7
three ships, experimental data are also plotted for
0.6 comparison. It is observed that the numerical results
of wave added resistance are generally in good
 /ka

0.5

agreement with the experimental ones. For all of the

5

0.4

0.3
three cases, the comparisons show the discrepancies at
the high frequency domain (  Lpp  1.0 ). The
0.2

0.1

0.0
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2.0 2.2 2.4 2.6
discrepancies are caused by many factors. For one
/Lpp possible reason, the ignored nonlinear effect of
(b) motions of the present method may lead to the
discrepancies at high frequency domain. For the case
Fig.6 Heave and pitch RAOs of Aframax (VS =5.0kn) of Panamax, due to the discrepancy of heave motion
0.9
the discrepancy of wave added resistance becomes
0.8 TEBEM more obvious, which indicates that the accuracy of
EXP
0.7 motion prediction plays an important role in
0.6 prediction of wave added resistance.
1.5
0.5
Kaw
 /a

1.0
0.4
3

0.3 0.5

0.2 0.0

0.1
Kaw

-0.5

0.0
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2.0 2.2 -1.0

/Lpp
-1.5

(a) -2.0
1.0

0.9 TEBEM -2.5

EXP 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
0.8 t/T
0.7

0.6

Fig.8 Time history of wave added resistance of Aframax

 /ka

0.5
5

0.4
0.8
0.3
0.7
TEBEM
0.2 EXP
0.1 0.6

0.0
0.5
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2.0 2.2
/Lpp
Kaw

0.4

(b) 0.3

0.2
Fig.7 Heave and pitch RAOs of Panamax (VS =4.8kn)
0.1

0.0
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2.0 2.2
3.3 Added resistance in regular waves /Lpp

The RAO of added resistance in regular waves

can be expressed as follows: Fig.9 Wave added resistance RAO of VLCC
 0.8 
Raw
0.7
TEBEM Rwave  2 S   d  (19)
0.6
EXP
0
 a2
0.5 Where  a represents wave amplitude.
Table 3 shows the comparison results of added
Kaw

0.4

0.3 resistance in adverse sea condition ( TP =10, 11 and

0.2
12s) of the three ships. The corresponding velocities
0.1
of three ships are listed in Table1.It can be found that
0.0
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2.0 2.2
there exit differences between the numerical results of
/Lpp added resistance in adverse sea condition derived from
TEBEM and experimental ones. The absolute value of
Fig.10 Wave added resistance RAO of Aframax relative error ranges from 2.12% to 14.54%, which
1.0
indicates that present method is of good accuracy for
0.9 TEBEM prediction of wave added resistance in the early stage
0.8
EXP
of ship design.
0.7

0.6 Table 3 Added resistance in adverse sea condition

Ship Rwave/kN TP=10s TP=11s TP=12s
Kaw

0.5

0.4
TEBEM 827.63 816.21 808.89
VLCC
0.3
EXP 897.86 860.83 827.18
0.2
TEBEM 571.96 566.75 564.98
Aframax
0.1
EXP 529.51 513.78 498.48
0.0
TEBEM 458.23 454.77 451.56
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2.0 2.2 Panamax
/Lpp EXP 428.55 409.60 394.23

Fig.11 Wave added resistance RAO of Panamax

Conclusion
3.4 Added resistance in adverse sea condition As it is important to predict wave added
According to the Interim Guidelines [2], the resistance at lower speeds and adverse sea conditions
adverse condition as shown in Table 2 should be in the Interim Guidelines of minimum propulsion
applied to ships defined as the threshold value of ship power formulated by IMO, a 3D time domain method
size and JONSWAP sea spectrum with the peak named TEBEM is proposed to solve this engineering
parameter of 3.3 is to be considered. problem. TEBEM is applied to three new designed
commercial ships for numerical prediction of motions
Table 2 Adverse sea condition and added resistance in waves. Numerical results are
Significant wave height Peak wave period compared with experimental data. From the
Ship length/m
hs/m TP/s comparison, conclusions can be drawn as follows: for
Lpp< 200 4.0 7.0 to 15.0 the prediction of heave and pitch motions, the
Parameters linearly interpolated depending numerical results of TEBEM are generally of good
200 ≤Lpp ≤ 250
on ship's length
agreement with experimental results, but in the case of
Lpp > 250 5.5 7.0 to 15.0 Panamax small discrepancy can be found for
The spectral density function of JONSWAP sea prediction of heave motion; for the prediction of
spectrum recommended by ITTC has the following added resistance in regular waves of three ships, good
form: agreements can be obtained from comparison between

 0.159Tp 1
2  numerical results and experimental ones, but the
 2 exp  2 2  comparison also show the discrepancies at the high
h  1948   (18)
S ( )  319.34 4 5  s
 3.3

Tp    T   4  frequency domain(  Lpp  1.0 ), one possible reason
 p 
is the ignored nonlinear effect of motions of the
Where  is determined by the value of wave
present method; in the case of Panamax, the
0.07 when   2 discrepancy of heave motion and wave added
 TP

frequency ,    . resistance indicates that the accuracy of motion
0.09 when   2 prediction plays an important role in prediction of
 TP
wave added resistance; for the consideration of
The added resistance in adverse sea condition engineering application, the comparison of added
Rwave is calculated as: resistance in adverse sea condition are conducted, it
` can be observed from the comparison that the present
method is of satisfactory accuracy for prediction of
wave added resistance in the early stage of ship
design.
Acknowledgements
This work was supported by the National Natural
Science Foundation of China (Grant No.51709064).
References
[1] IMO. MEPC.212 (63): Guidelines on the method of
calculation of the attained energy efficiency design index
(EEDI) for new ships [C]. The 74th Marine Environment
Protection Committee, London, England, 2012.
[2] IMO. MEPC.232 (65): Interim guidelines for determining
minimum propulsion power to maintain the
manoeuvrability of ship in adverse conditions [C]. The
74th Marine Environment Protection Committee, London,
England, 2013.
[3] Kihara H., Naito S., Sueyoshi M. On the practical
prediction of added resistance using nonlinear slender
body theory [C]. 4th Osaka Colloquium on Seakeeping
Performance of Ships, 2000: 115-129.
[4] Sueyoshi M., Naito S., Kihara H. Numerical analysis of
the influence of above-water bow form on added
resistance using nonlinear slender body theory [J]. Journal
of Ship Research, 2005, 49(3): 191-206.
[5] Arribas F. P. Some methods to obtain the added resistance
of a ship advancing in waves [J]. Ocean Engineering,
2007, 34(7): 946-955.
[6] Duan W. Y., Li C. Q. Estimation of added resistance for
large blunt ship in waves [J]. Journal of Marine Science
and Application, 2013, 12(1): 1-12.
[7] Choi Y. R., Hong S. Y., Choi H. S. An analysis of
second-order wave forces on floating bodies by using a
higher-order boundary element method [J]. Ocean
Engineering, 2001, 28(1): 117-138.
[8] Zakaria N. M. G. Prediction of added resistance of ships
by 3D Green function method and its comparison with
semi-3-D and 2-D approaches [J]. 2008, IE(I)Journal M R,
88: 16-25.
[9] Seo M. G., Park D. M., Yang K. K., et al. Comparative
study on computation of ship added resistance in waves[J].
Ocean Engineering, 2013, 73:1-15.
[10] SöDing H., Shigunov V. Added resistance of ships in
waves [J]. Ship Technology Research, 2015, 62(1):2-13.
[11] Hong L., Zhu R. C., Miao G. P. et al. An investigation into
added resistance of vessels advancing in waves [J]. Ocean
Engineering, 2016, 123: 238-248.
[12] Kara F., Tang C. Q., Vassalos D. Time domain three
dimensional fully nonlinear computations of steady
body-wave interaction problem [J]. Ocean Engineering,
2007, 34(5): 776-789.
[13] Joncquez S. A. G., Bingham H., Andersen P. Validation of
added resistance computations by a potential folw
boundary element method [C]. 27th Symposium on Naval
Hydrodynamics, Korea, 2008.
[14] Liu S. K., Papanikolaou A., Zaraphonitis G. Prediction of
added resistance of ships in waves [J]. Ocean Engineering,
2011, 38(4): 641-650.
[15] Kim K. H., Kim Y. Numerical study on added resistance
of ships by using a time-domain Rankine panel method [J].
Ocean Engineering, 2011, 38(13): 1357-1367.
[16] Malte R., Ould E. M. A time domain boundary element
method for wave added resistance of ships taking into
account viscous effects [J]. Ocean Engineering, 2018, 162:
290-303.
[17] Duan W. Y. Taylor Expansion Boundary Element Method
for floating body hydrodynamics [C]. The 27th
International Workshop on Water Waves and Floating
Bodies, Copenhagen, Denmark, 2012.
[18] Duan W. Y., Chen J. K., Zhao B. B. Second-order Taylor
Expansion Boundary Element Method for the
second-order wave diffraction problem [J]. Engineering
Analysis with Boundary Elements, 2015, 58: 12-26.
[19] Chen J. K., Duan W. Y., Zhao B. B. et al. Time domain
hybrid TEBEM for 3D hydrodynamics of ship with large
flare at forward speed [C]. The 32nd international
workshop on water wave and floating bodies, Dalian,
China, 2017.
[20] Chen J. K., Wang L. J., Duan W. Y. Side Wall Effects on
the Hydrodynamics of a Floating Body by Image Green
Function Based on TEBEM [J]. Journal of Marine Science
and Application, 2018, 17(3): 353-361.