Journal of

Marine Science
and Engineering

Article
Numerical Simulation of Seakeeping Performance on
the Preliminary Design of a Semi-Planing Craft
Yu-Hsien Lin * and Chia-Wei Lin
Department of Systems & Naval Mechatronic Engineering, National Cheng-Kung University,
Tainan City 70101, Taiwan
* Correspondence: vyhlin@mail.ncku.edu.tw




Received: 16 May 2019; Accepted: 24 June 2019; Published: 27 June 2019


Abstract: This study established a seakeeping program to evaluate the motion responses of a
high speed semi-planing craft and to develop a database for future route planning. A series 62
mono-hull was chosen for the test cases, comparing seakeeping performances with full-scale on-board
measurements. The statistical results were obtained using spectral analysis, which combines the
International Towing Tank Conference (ITTC) spectrum with the response amplitude operator (RAO)
responses of each wave heading for a given sailing speed. The speed polar diagram was made to
illustrate five degree-of-freedom (DOF) motion responses between sailing speeds and wave heading
angles in a particular sea state. Although the craft has different trim angles at high speeds (because
of dynamic lift) under various loading and draft conditions, this study only investigated the trim
angles of 0◦ (even keel), 1◦ by the stern, and 2◦ by the stern, to understand the difference between
their seakeeping performances. The results in this study provide a useful guideline for evaluating
operational regulations and safety for high speed semi-planing crafts in the future.

Keywords: semi-planing craft; seakeeping performance; trim angle; strip theory; potential flow
theory; sea trial

1. Introduction
Because of the increasing amount of attention being paid to maritime traffic safety, navigation
safety has become a major concern that must be addressed. Ships must not only display favorable
efficiency and offer optimal comfort that meets the requirements of owners but also demonstrate
excellent seakeeping performance and structural strength. Thus, modern ships must exhibit favorable
propulsion efficiency and navigational safety. Ships navigating the sea are subject to the effects of
marine environments, and the effects of these environments are even more pronounced in high-speed
crafts such as most yachts and military fast attack crafts. Yousefi et al. [1] indicated that high-speed
crafts may employ any of three motion modes for all Froude numbers (Fr = √V ). These modes are the
gL
displacement mode, transition mode, and planing mode. At moderate to high speeds, high-speed crafts
experience dynamic lift that causes changes in their hull trim angles, thus seriously compromising
their seakeeping performance.
When analyzing the seakeeping performance of a craft, most studies have referenced related
experimental research or performed numeral calculations. As technology and computer equipment
become increasingly advanced, people regularly perform numerical calculations to design modern
ships; several studies have adopted numerical methods to investigate ships’ seakeeping performance.
Generally, two primary methods are used to evaluate such responses, the two-dimensional strip theory
and three-dimensional panel method.
Korvin-Kroukovsky [2] used the two-dimensional strip theory to calculate the heaving and
pitching motion of slender vessels in regular waves. Jacobs [3] used the two-dimensional strip theory

J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2019, 7, 199; doi:10.3390/jmse7070199 www.mdpi.com/journal/jmse

J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2019, 7, 199 2 of 24

presented by Korvin-Kroukovsky [2] as the basis to calculate wave loads such as vertical shear and
vertical bending moments. Salvesen et al. [4] proposed the use of the potential theory to calculate
the motion responses of a vessel under regular wave conditions as well as the shear and bending
moments created by such waves. This method, also called the new strip theory, is an improved version
of the two-dimensional strip theory. In 1980, Kim et al. [5] used the diffraction theory to calculate
the hydrodynamic force and motion responses in oblique waves. In 1993, Fang [6] combined strip
theory in the time-domain to analyze the problem of nonlinear motion responses experienced by
vessels under large-amplitude wave conditions. Fang et al. [7] utilized two-dimensional strip theory to
solve hydrodynamic force-related problems and developed a set of mathematical models to predict
the influence of the bank effect on ship motion in waves. Because two-dimensional strip theory does
not consider the interaction and speed effects between strips, its prediction and analysis accuracy for
swaying and rolling motion is relatively poor. Accordingly, the three-dimensional panel method was
developed to resolve these problems.
Haskind [8,9] proposed the use of three-dimensional frequency-domain Green functions to
analyze ship motion. However, because of the technological limitations of computer hardware at
that time, no major developmental breakthroughs were made until after 1970. Chang [10] employed
the three-dimensional singularity distribution method to investigate the motion, wave-exciting force,
and moment of forward-moving vessels. Inglis [11] used three-dimensional pulsating sources to
calculate the velocity potentials of ship motion. Guevel and Bougis [12] adopted the three-dimensional
source distribution method to examine the diffraction and radiation situations of forward-moving
vessels under the constraint of various water depth limits. King et al. [13] utilized a three-dimensional
time domain approach to study ship motion; Lin and Yue [14] developed a three-dimensional
time-domain method to analyze large-amplitude ship motion. Additionally, Alexander and Josh [15]
combined three-dimensional potential theory and pulsating sources to calculate trimaran motion
and wave loads. Bingham and Korsmeyer [16] recommended the use of the three-dimensional panel
method to investigate the linear motion of forward-moving vessels in random incident waves.
A comparison of two-dimensional strip theory and the three-dimensional panel method revealed
that two-dimensional strip theory featured favorable computation speeds and accuracy. Thus, this study
used two-dimensional strip theory to calculate and analyze the seakeeping performance of high-speed
vessels. Fewer studies have employed two-dimensional strip theory to examine the seakeeping
performance of high-speed crafts than to examine the seakeeping performance of crafts in the
displacement mode. For example, Martin [17] developed a semi-empirical strip theory and used it to
calculate the fixed linear deadrise angles of semi-planing crafts moving at high speeds following seas
and head seas. Zarnick [18] used the nonlinear time-domain mathematical model of strip theory to
calculate the motion responses of planing crafts in regular waves. Keuning et al. [19] extended the
basic model introduced in [18] to enable the model to also measure ship motion at various deadrise
angles. They also used model test-based empirical formulas to extend the applicability of the model to
various sailing speeds. Similarly, Akers [20] extended the methods presented in [18] and proposed
the use of two-dimensional methods to calculate the added mass coefficients of vessels with various
hull pressure values and deadrise angles. Keuning et al. [21] explored the effect of the bow shape
of high-speed mono-hulls on their seakeeping performance and discovered that changing the shape
of the bows above and below the waterline considerably enhanced the seakeeping performance of
these mono-hulls. Sariöz and Sariöz [22] confirmed that strip theory could be used to predict the
seakeeping performance of high-speed crafts and verified the effect of hydrodynamic force on the
seakeeping performance of high-speed mono-hull crafts. Van Deyzen [23] developed a nonlinear
mathematical model based on two-dimensional strip theory to analyze the motion and acceleration
of a planing mono-hull ship (with a fixed deadrise angle) in head seas. De Jong [24] examined the
safety and operability of high-speed crafts in waves and established a numerical method to analyze
the seakeeping performance of such vessels.
J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2019, 7, 199 3 of 24

J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2019, 7, x FOR PEER REVIEW 3 of 25

For a planing or semi-planing craft, dynamic pressure distribution on the high-speed hull during
Although the craft
forward motion is not free
supports toof
most trim
thein the present
weight simulation,
and, thus, it isportion
lifts a large still significant
of the hull to understand the
out of the water.
hydrodynamic performance and make an accurate estimation of the behavior
Although the craft is not free to trim in the present simulation, it is still significant to understand of the craft under
various operating conditions.
the hydrodynamic performance It isand
also known
make that one estimation
an accurate of the greatestof thechallenges
behavior of of evaluating
the craft underthe
performance
various operatingof a planing
conditions.or semi-planing
It is also known craft,
thatwhich
one ofisthedependent on the Froude
greatest challenges number,the
of evaluating is
obtaining accurate and practical results from hydrodynamic analysis. Based
performance of a planing or semi-planing craft, which is dependent on the Froude number, is obtaining on the assumption of
fixed draft
accurate andand trim results
practical angle, from
this hydrodynamic
study intends analysis.
to investigate
Based on thethedifferences
assumption inofseakeeping
fixed draft
performances of a series 62 mono-hull. During full-scale sea trials trim angle
and trim angle, this study intends to investigate the differences in seakeeping performances of measurements were not
a series
conducted. They were simply used to verify seakeeping estimation in the
62 mono-hull. During full-scale sea trials trim angle measurements were not conducted. They werenumerical simulation.
Anused
simply efficient and seakeeping
to verify accurate program,
estimationin this case
in the the stripsimulation.
numerical theory based on potential flow, for
predicting the motion responses of high-speed crafts plays
An efficient and accurate program, in this case the strip theory an important role in improvement
based on potentialof flow,
this
field due to the
for predicting theperformance and speed
motion responses requirement.
of high-speed craftsAlthough experimental
plays an important role tests are the most
in improvement of
reliable way
this field duetotomodel ship hydrodynamics,
the performance and speedthese techniques
requirement. are veryexperimental
Although costly and the measured
tests data
are the most
are achievable
reliable way toonlymodel forship
a limited number of these
hydrodynamics, cases.techniques
Applying are computational
very costly and fluidthe dynamics
measured (CFD)
data
methods to seakeeping
are achievable only forperformances
a limited number of high-speed
of cases. crafts has become
Applying popular in
computational recent
fluid years [25,26],
dynamics (CFD)
but most are
methods not open sources
to seakeeping or haveofdifficulties
performances high-speedwith programming
crafts capabilities.
has become popular Sinceyears
in recent there[25,26],
have
been numerous studies modeling tests on Series 62 [27,28], it can be thought
but most are not open sources or have difficulties with programming capabilities. Since there of as an access point of
ahave
database
been for verifying
numerous seakeeping
studies modeling characteristics. Meanwhile,
tests on Series 62 [27,28],the itplaning
can be problems
thought of ofas
high-speed
an access
crafts based on potential flow have been well processed by numerous researchers
point of a database for verifying seakeeping characteristics. Meanwhile, the planing problems for several decades of
[29–33]. Therefore,
high-speed it would
crafts based onbe suitable flow
potential for high-speed
have beencrafts
well to establishby
processed a full databaseresearchers
numerous of seakeeping for
performances
several decades by[29–33].
utilizing this program
Therefore, in the
it would be preliminary study.
suitable for high-speed crafts to establish a full database
of seakeeping performances by utilizing this program in the preliminary study.
2. Mathematical Model
2. Mathematical Model
2.1. Coordinate Systems
2.1. Coordinate Systems
This study used two sets of coordinate systems (Figure 1), the O–XYZ or earth-fixed coordinate
systemThis
and study used two
the o–xyz sets of coordinate
or body-fixed systems
coordinate (Figure
system. 1), the O–XYZ or motion
In frequency-domain earth-fixed coordinate
equations, O–
system
XYZ is aand the o–xyz
coordinate or body-fixed
system coordinate
fixed in space, whereas system.
o–xyz isInfixed
frequency-domain
to the vessel that motion
passesequations,
through
O–XYZ
the is a coordinate
waterline surface of system fixed in space,
the cross-section of thewhereas
center ofo–xyz is fixed
gravity to the vessel
and moves with the that passes
hull. through
Concerning
the waterline surface of the cross-section of the center of gravity and moves with the hull.
the directions of the different axes, those toward the bow are positive on the OX and ox axes, those Concerning the
directions
toward theofport
the side
different
(from axes, those toward
a bird’s-eye view)the bow
are are positive
positive on theon OYthe
andOXoyand ox and
axes, axes,those
thosetoward
toward
the port side (from a bird’s-eye view) are positive on the OY and oy axes, and those
the top of the hull (from a side view) are positive on the OZ and oz axes. Additionally, the hull of toward the top of
the
the hull
vessel (from
was a side to
assumed view) are positive
be moving on the
forward OZ the
along andOXoz axis
axes.(positive
Additionally,
motion)the at
hull of theof
a speed vessel
U. was
assumed to be moving forward along the OX axis (positive motion) at a speed of U.

Figure 1. Schematic of the hull coordinate systems.

Figure 1. Schematic of the hull coordinate systems.
2.2. Basic Assumptions and Boundary Conditions
2.2. Basic
ThisAssumptions and Boundary
study assumed Conditions
that the vessel sailed at a constant velocity U in deep water with regular
wavesThisand thatassumed
study the fluids in the
that the vessel
surrounding
sailed atflow field were
a constant idealUnon-viscous,
velocity incompressible,
in deep water with regular
and non-rotating.
waves and that the Surface
fluids intension was not considered,
the surrounding and the
flow field were hull
ideal was assumed
non-viscous, to have reached
incompressible, anda
steady state after
non-rotating. experiencing
Surface tension was a small-amplitude incident
not considered, and wave.
the hull wasIfassumed
the incident wave
to have was a,aincident
reached steady
state after experiencing a small-amplitude incident wave. If the incident wave was a, incident wave
angle was μ, and incident wave frequency was ω_0, then the incident wave height h was expressed
as follows:
J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2019, 7, 199 4 of 24

wave angle was µ, and incident wave frequency was ω_0, then the incident wave height h was
expressed as follows:
h = a·ei(ν0 xcosµ+ν0 ysinµ−ω0 t) . (1)

where encounter frequency ωe can be expressed as follows:

 
ωe = ω0 − Uν0 cosµ. (2)

The incident velocity potential ΦI and number of wave cycles υ0 are expressed as follows:

−iga υ0 z i(υ0 xcosµ+υ0 sinµ)e−iω0 t

ΦI e−iω0 t = e e (3)
ω0

ω0 2
υ0 = . (4)
g
where a is the amplitude of the incident wave and g is gravitational acceleration.
According to the Haskind linear theory [5], if the incident wave amplitude and motion response
created by such a wave are weak, then the unsteady-state synthesized velocity potential Φ(x,y,z) can
be expressed as follows:

Φ(x, y, z) = ΦI (x, y, z) + ΦD (x, y, z) + ΦR (x, y, z)

(5)
= ΦI (x, y, z) + ΦD (x, y, z) + 6i=1 ζi ∅ j (x, y, z).
P

where ΦI is the incident velocity potential, ΦD is the diffraction velocity potential, ΦR is the radiation
potential created by the motion of various degrees of freedom, ζi is the motion displacement of each
degree of freedom, and i = 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6 are the surging, swaying, heaving, rolling, pitching,
and yawing motion, respectively. Surging, swaying, and heaving motion are the translation amount
along the x, y, and z axes, respectively, whereas rolling, pitching, and yawing motion are the rotation
amount along the x, y, and z axes, respectively.
The synthesized velocity potential Φ must meet the boundary conditions including the Laplace’s
equation, linear free surface conditions, radiation conditions, deep water bottom conditions,
and kinematical boundary conditions on the hull surface. Therefore, when a hull is in harmonic motion
and moves at a constant speed U along still water, its added mass and damping coefficient can be
expressed as follows:

ρ ∂ (i)
Z Z " ! #
φ (x, y, z, t) u( j) ds,
00
Mij = dx Im iω + U (6)
ω L c(x) ∂x R

∂ (i)
Z Z " ! #
00
Nij = ρ dx Re iω + U φR (x, y, z, t) . (7)
L c(x) ∂x
where i, j = 1, 2, . . . , 6.

2.3. Hydrodynamic Estimation

This study calculated hydrodynamic force using the Kelvin–Havelock singularity method and
treated a Green function using the Hess and Smith algorithm. Since Green functions derived from
free surface boundary conditions are too complicated to solve, this study assumed reasonably high
encounter frequency and low hull speeds to simplify the free surface conditions, and a pulsating Green
function was used to obtain the solutions [34,35]. Thus, this Green function can be described as follows:
 q 

1
 (x−x0 )2 +( y−y0 )2 1
R ∞ k ( y + y0 )
e


G(P; P0 ) =  log − cosk ( x − x ) dk

2π π k−v 0
q
 2 2 0 
 (8)
 (x−x0 ) +( y+ y0 ) 
−iev( y+ y0 ) cosv(x − x0 ).
J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2019, 7, 199 5 of 24

By considering the pulsating Green function, this study obtained the velocity potential Φ,
which was subsequently substituted into Bernoulli’s equation to obtain the hull surface pressure:

∂Φ(x, y, z) 1 1
P(x, y, z) = −ρ − ρ∇Φ(x, y, z) · ∇Φ(x, y, z) + ρU2 − ρgz. (9)
∂t 2 2
This study took the surface integral function along the hull to obtain the wave-exciting force,
which is presented as follows: x
Fi (x, y, z) = − P(x, y, z)·ni ds. (10)
s

2.4. Motion Equations

The wave-exciting force, added mass, and damping coefficients were substituted into the motion
equations as follows:

6 h
X   i
−ω2 Mij + Aij − iωBij + Cij ξ j = Fi i = 1, 2, ll, (11)
j=1

where Mij is the mass matrix of the hull, Aij is the added mass matrix, Cij is the restoring matrix, ξ j is
the displacement corresponding to each degree of freedom, and Fi is the wave-exciting force.
Because the vessel is assumed to be a slender body, the surging motion was minimal and could
be excluded from the calculations. Additionally, because the hull shape was symmetrical along the
centerline, the horizontal and vertical motion planes did not have coupled motion relationships.
The coupled motion relationships of the hull body were only observed for the coupled equations
of vertical motion (i.e., heaving and pitching) and those of horizontal motion (i.e., swaying, rolling,
and yawing). The coupled equations are listed as follows:
# ξ3

−ω2 (M0 + A33 ) + C33 − iωB33 −ω2 A35 + C35 − iωB35
"
a
 
· ξ5

ω2 A53 + C53 − iωB53 2
−ω (I55 + A55 ) + C55 − iωB55 a

 (e) 
 F3  (12)
=  a(e) 
 
 M5 
a
   
 −ω2 (M0 + A22 ) − iω22 −ω2 A24 − OGM0 − iωB24 −ω2 A26 − iωB26 
   
 −ω2 A − OGM − iωB −ω2 (I44 + A44 ) + C44 − iωB44 −ω2 A46 − iωB46 
 42 0 45 
−ω2 A62 − iωB62 −ω2 A64 − iω64 −ω2 (I
 
66 + A66 ) − iωB66
 ξ   F2(e) 
 
(13)
 a2   a 
  (e) 
· ξa4  =  M4 

 ξ6   a(e) 
a  M6 
a

where M0 is the hull mass, I44 is the moment of inertia along the X axis, I55 is the moment of inertia
along the Y axis, and I66 is the moment of inertia along the Z axis.

2.5. Wave Spectrum and Significant Ship Motion Values

This study used the three-dimensional energy wave spectrum of short-crested waves introduced
by the International Towing Tank Conference (ITTC) and combined it with various RAOs to simulate 6
DOF motion responses of ships under different sea states, and to calculate the significant ship motion
J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2019, 7, 199 6 of 24

values. The ITTC energy wave spectrum comprised two major control factors: significant wave height
(H1/3 ) and average period (T). Formulas for the energy wave spectrum are as follows:
 
2
172.75H1/3  −691  2
 
S ωi , µ j = exp 4  × cos2 µ j (14)
 
4 5  π
T ωi T ωi
4


s
∞ Z π/2 
γ 2 
Z 
(γ)1/3 = 2 S ωi , µ j dµdω (15)
0 −π/2 a
s
. Z ∞ Z π/2  γ 2  
γ =2 ω2i S ωi , µ j dµdω (16)
1/3
0 −π/2 a
s
 ..  Z ∞ Z π/2  γ 2  
γ =2 ω4i S ωi , µ j dµdω (17)
1/3
0 −π/2 a

where H1/3 is the significant wave height, T is the average period, µ j is the wave heading angle of the
jth wave component with a range of − π2 < µ j < π2 , (γ)1/3 is the significant ship motion displacement
.  .. 
value, γ is the significant ship motion speed value, γ is the significant ship motion acceleration
1/3 1/3
γ
value, a is the RAO of each motion (i.e., swaying, heaving, rolling, pitching, and yawing), a is the wave
 
amplitude, and S ωi , µ j is the energy wave spectrum.

3. Data Analysis
Prior to conducting numerical simulation, this study used the specifications of the series 62 craft
for reference. Next, 3D computer-aided design (CAD) was performed using the commercial software
Rhinoceros 3D, and the ship hull was cut into equally spaced strips. This study then set the draft as well
as hull posture, and determined the strip nodes as well as coordinates. The node coordinates, hydrostatic
performance, and speed of each hull strip underwater were made into input files, and sea states with
significant wave heights (H1/3 ) and the average period (T) were calculated. Subsequently, a ship motion
simulation program was installed and calculations were performed. After completing the calculations,
the results were presented in graphic form to illustrate the RAOs of the hull motion responses. Additionally,
the speed polar diagrams of the semi-planing craft with five degrees of freedom under specific sea states
were displayed, revealing the seakeeping performance of the craft.

3.1. Ship Specifications

The ship analyzed in this study was based on the series 62 craft. Table 1 and Figure 2 present
its specifications. The drafts and trim angles of the hulls in their initial condition were set for all
simulation conditions before the nodes were distributed to calculate the seakeeping performance.

Table 1. Specifications of the series 62 craft.

Hull Dimensions Size

Hull length (L) (m) 34
Hull width (B) (m) 7.6
Draft (T) (m) 1.7
Displacement volume ∇ (m3 ) 171
Block coefficient (CB ) 0.461
Prismatic coefficient (CP ) 0.685
Transverse metacentric height (GMT ) (m) 1.723
Longitudinal metacentric height (GML ) (m) 59.3
Longitudinal center of gravity (LCG) (m) 13.1
3.1. Ship Specifications
The ship analyzed in this study was based on the series 62 craft. Table 1 and Figure 2 present its
specifications. The drafts and trim angles of the hulls in their initial condition were set for all
simulation conditions
J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2019, 7, 199before the nodes were distributed to calculate the seakeeping performance.
7 of 24

Figure 2. Complete schematic diagram of the series 62 craft.

Figure 2. Complete schematic diagram of the series 62 craft.
3.2. Full-Scale Experiments
This study performed full-scale experimentsofofthethe
Table 1. Specifications series
series 62 craft at 7, 14, and 33 knots and
62 craft.
measured the heaving, rolling, and pitching motion every 30 degrees at wave heading angles ranging
Hull sea).
from 0 (head sea) to 180 degrees (following dimensions
The measured data were Size
compared with the simulation
data. Since the significant wave heightHull(Hlength
1/3 ) ranged
(L) (m)from 1.2 to 1.4 m,34the average cycle (T) ranged
from 4.2 to 4.3 s, and the sea state ranged from 2 to 3 during the three experiments, a significant wave
Hull width (B) (m) 7.6
height, average period, and sea state of 1.3 m, 4.2 s, and 3 were selected. The results generated were
compared with the simulation data in terms Draftof(T) (m)
the heaving, rolling, and1.7 pitching motion responses for
each wave angle. Displacement volume ∇ (𝑚 ) 171
The full-scale sea trials were measured at Zuoying
Block coefficient (𝐶 harbor
) for four0.461
days in 2003. Each sea trial for
an individual heading angle under a specific sailing speed was three minutes. The statistical approach
Prismatic coefficient (𝐶 ) 0.685
used for significant motion, which is the average value of the highest one-third of all measured results,
was based on the zero-up Transverse metacentric
crossing method. height (𝐺𝑀
The statistical ) (m) 1.723
convergence of measured data was achieved
using Rayleigh distribution within a 95% confidence interval.
Comparisons for the three different motion responses are detailed as follows:

3.2.1. Low Sailing Speed (U = 7 knots, H1/3 = 1.3 m, and T = 4.2 s):
Figure 3a shows a comparison of results from the simulation and the on-board measurement
(in terms of heaving motion) for all wave heading angles at a low sailing speed, where the simulation
results were sufficiently consistent with the experimental results. In terms of the rolling motion
(Figure 3b), the simulation results were consistent with the experimental results, except for wave
heading angles of 90◦ –150◦ , for which the rolling motion was overestimated. Regarding pitching
motion (Figure 3c), the simulation results were sufficiently consistent with the experimental results,
except for the wave heading angles of 0◦ –90◦ , for which the pitching motion was overestimated.

3.2.2. Medium Sailing Speed (U = 14 Knots, H1/3 = 1.3 m, T = 4.2 s):

Figure 4a presents a comparison of results from the simulation and on-board measurement (in terms
of heaving motion) for all wave heading angles at medium sailing speed, for which the simulation
results were sufficiently consistent with the experimental results. In terms of rolling motion (Figure 4b),
the simulation results were consistent with the experimental results, except for the wave angles of
90◦ –150◦ , for which the rolling motion was overestimated. Regarding pitching motion (Figure 4c),
the simulation results were all slight overestimations compared with the experimental results.

3.2.3. High Sailing Speed (U = 33 Knots, H1/3 = 1.3 m, T = 4.2 s):

Figure 5a presents the comparison of results for the simulation and on-board measurement
(in terms of heaving motion) for all wave angles at high sailing speed. The simulation results were
sufficiently consistent with the experimental results, except for wave angles of 0◦ –60◦ , and the heaving
motion was underestimated. In terms of rolling motion (Figure 5b), the simulation results were
consistent with the experimental results, except for the wave angles of 0◦ –30◦ for which the rolling
motion was underestimated. Regarding pitching motion (Figure 5c), the simulation results were
sufficiently consistent with the experimental results.
J. Mar. J.Sci.
Mar.Eng.
Sci.2019, 7, x FOR
Eng. 2019, 7, 199PEER REVIEW 8 of824of 25

(a)

(b)

(c)

Figure 3. Comparison of results for the simulation and on-board measurement in terms of (a) heaving,
Figure(b)3.rolling, and (c) of
Comparison pitching
resultsmotion
for theatsimulation
low sailing and
speed.
on-board measurement in terms of (a) heaving,
(b) rolling, and (c) pitching motion at low sailing speed.
Table 2 presents a comparison between the simulation results and the on-board measurements for
heaving, rolling, and pitching motion at different sailing speeds in sea state 3. The results indicated
3.2.2. Medium Sailing Speed (U = 14 Knots, H1/3 = 1.3 m, 𝑇 = 4.2 s):
that at low and medium sailing speeds, the estimated motion values at some wave heading angles
were slight
Figure overestimations
4a presents compared
a comparison with the
of results experimental
from results;
the simulation andmoreover,
on-boardat measurement
a high sailing (in
terms of heaving motion) for all wave heading angles at medium sailing speed, forwith
speed, the estimated heaving and rolling motions were slightly underestimated compared the the
which
experimental results. The differences between the sea trials and simulation data
simulation results were sufficiently consistent with the experimental results. In terms of rolling were mainly caused
by southwesterly surges (long waves) in the local summer season. Although there existed some
motion (Figure 4b), the simulation results were consistent with the experimental results, except for
discrepancies due to prediction limitation in the low-frequency region, it was demonstrated that the
the wave angles of 90°–150°, for which the rolling motion was overestimated. Regarding pitching
simulation results agreed reasonably with the on-board measurements.
motion (Figure 4c), the simulation results were all slight overestimations compared with the
experimental results.
 J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2019, 7, 199 9 of 24
J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2019, 7, x FOR PEER REVIEW 9 of 25

(a)

(b)

(c)

Figure 4. Comparison of results for the simulation and the on-board measurement in terms of
Figure 4. Comparison of results for the simulation and the on-board measurement in terms of (a)
(a) heaving, (b) rolling, and (c) pitching motion at medium sailing speed.
heaving, (b) rolling, and (c) pitching motion at medium sailing speed.
Table 2. Mean deviations of the simulation data (in terms of heaving, rolling, and pitching motion) for
3.2.3. High Sailing
all wave Speed
heading (U = 33 Knots, H1/3 = 1.3 m, 𝑇 = 4.2 s):
angles.

Figure 5a presents
Knots the comparison
Motion of results for ◦the simulation
0◦ ~60 60◦ ~120and
◦ on-board
120◦ ~180measurement
◦ (in
terms of heaving motion) for all wave angles at
Heave (m)
high sailing −0.07
−0.15
speed. The simulation
−0.03
results were
sufficiently consistent
7 with the experimental results, except for wave angles of 0°–60°, and the
Roll (◦ ) −0.78 3.1 3.37
heaving motion was underestimated. In terms of rolling motion (Figure 5b), the simulation results
Pitch (◦ ) results, except
were consistent with the experimental 1.43 for the wave 1.32 angles of 0°–30°
1.53 for which the
Heave Regarding
rolling motion was underestimated. (m) −0.11
pitching motion0.02 0.08
(Figure 5c), the simulation results
14
were sufficiently consistent with Roll
the experimental
(◦ ) results.
−1.31 2.34 2.93
Pitch (◦ ) 1.82 1.49 1.48
Heave (m) −0.34 0.02 −0.05
33 Roll (◦ ) −3.37 −1.95 −2.21
Pitch (◦ ) 0.46 0.46 −0.34
 J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2019, 7, 199 10 of 24
J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2019, 7, x FOR PEER REVIEW 10 of 25

(a)

(b)

(c)

Figure 5. Comparison of results for the simulation and on-board measurement in terms of (a) heaving,
Figure 5. Comparison of results for the simulation and on-board measurement in terms of (a) heaving,
(b) rolling, and (c) pitching motion at high sailing speed.
(b) rolling, and (c) pitching motion at high sailing speed.
4. Results and Discussion
Table 2 presents a comparison between the simulation results and the on-board measurements
4.1.heaving,
for Sailing Speed Comparisons
rolling, and pitching motion at different sailing speeds in sea state 3. The results
indicated
To explore the effectsmedium
that at low and of various sailing
sailingspeeds,
speedsthe estimated
on the swaying, motion values
heaving, at some
rolling, wave
pitching, heading
and yawing
angles were slight overestimations compared with
◦ the experimental
◦ results; moreover,
motion, this study investigated the trim angle of 0 (even keel), 1 by the stern, and 2 by the stern ◦ at a highfor
sailing speed, the estimated ◦heaving
◦ and rolling
◦ motions were slightly underestimated
wave heading angles (i.e., 0 , 90 , and 180 ) and compared the results with those obtained using the compared
with the numbers
Froude experimental
(Fr =results. The0.98,
0.32, 0.65, differences between
1.31, 1.64, the For
and 1.97). sea atrials and or
planing simulation datacraft,
semi-planing were dynamic
mainly
caused by southwesterly surges (long waves) in the local summer season. Although
pressure distribution on the high-speed hull during forward motion supported most of the weight and, there existed
some
thus,discrepancies due to prediction
lifted a large portion of the hull limitation
out of the in the low-frequency
water. According to the region, it wasofdemonstrated
definition Marshall [36],
that the simulation results agreed reasonably with the on-board measurements.
the semi-planing mode was within the range of 0.5 < F < 0.85. Therefore, there was only one case of the
r
semi-planing mode, Fr = 0.65, in this study. Both semi-planing and planing modes in this study were
Table 2. Mean deviations of the simulation data (in terms of heaving, rolling, and pitching motion)
assumed to generate an amount of dynamic pressure with their weight supported by buoyancy. As a
for all wave heading angles.
result of our theory’s limitation, an asymptotic method was proposed to solve the problem of motions of
semi-planing
Knots crafts in different
Motionmodes. Since the lines of the hulls𝟔𝟎°~𝟏𝟐𝟎°
𝟎°~𝟔𝟎° were symmetric based on the their
𝟏𝟐𝟎°~𝟏𝟖𝟎°
Heave (m) -0.15 -0.07 -0.03
7
Roll (∘) -0.78 3.1 3.37
 using the Froude numbers (Fr = 0.32, 0.65, 0.98, 1.31, 1.64, and 1.97). For a planing or semi-planing
craft, dynamic pressure distribution on the high-speed hull during forward motion supported most
of the weight and, thus, lifted a large portion of the hull out of the water. According to the definition
of Marshall [36], the semi-planing mode was within the range of 0.5 < Fr < 0.85. Therefore, there was
only one case of the semi-planing mode, Fr = 0.65, in this study. Both semi-planing and planing modes
J. Mar.
inSci.
thisEng. 2019,
study 7, 199
were assumed to generate an amount of dynamic pressure with their weight supported11 of 24
by buoyancy. As a result of our theory’s limitation, an asymptotic method was proposed to solve the
problem of motions of semi-planing crafts in different modes. Since the lines of the hulls ◦were
centerlines,
symmetric nobased
swaying,on therolling, or yawingnomotion
their centerlines, was
swaying, used or
rolling, foryawing
wave motion
headingwas
angles
used of and 180◦ ,
for0wave
and heading
only a wave angle ◦
angles of 0° of
and90180°,
wasand
used
onlyto ainvestigate
wave anglethe relationship
of 90° with
was used to sailing speed.
investigate the relationship
with sailing speed.
4.1.1. Swaying Motion
4.1.1. Swaying Motion
Figure 6a–c indicates that at the trim angles of 0◦ , 1◦ by the stern, and 2◦ by the stern,
stronger Figure
swaying 6a–c indicates
motion wasthat at the trim
produced angleswaves
at beam of 0°, 1°
asby
thethe stern, number
Froude and 2° byincreased;
the stern, stronger
moreover, the
swaying motion gradually subsided when a relative wave length of λ/L was greater than 1. Thethe
swaying motion was produced at beam waves as the Froude number increased; moreover, swaying
swaying
motion motion
increased forgradually subsided
larger sailing when
speeds a relative
(i.e., wavenumber
the Froude length ofincreased).
λ/L was greater than 1. The
For medium and large
swaying motion increased for larger sailing speeds (i.e., the Froude number increased). For medium
Froude numbers and a wave heading angle of 90◦ , rolling motion increased when the trim angle
and large Froude numbers and a wave heading angle of 90°, rolling motion increased when the trim
increased, suggesting that, for beam waves at medium and high sailing speeds, the swaying motion
angle increased, suggesting that, for beam waves at medium and high sailing speeds, the swaying
increased
motionfor larger trim
increased angles.
for larger trim angles.

(a)

J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2019, 7, x FOR PEER REVIEW 12 of 25

(b)

(c)

Figure
Figure 6. 6.RAO
RAOcomparison
comparison of ofswaying
swayingmotion
motion forfor
various Froude
various numbers
Froude at μ =at
numbers 90° = 90◦ corresponding
µ corresponding
to to trim
trim (a)ττ =
anglesofof(a)
angles = 0°, (b)ττ= =
0◦ ,(b) ◦ , and
1°,1and (c) (c)
τ=τ 2°,=respectively.
2◦ , respectively.

4.1.2. Heaving
4.1.2. Heaving MotionMotion
Figure 7a–i reveals that for wave heading angles of 0° and 90°, changing the sailing speed
Figure 7a–i
exhibited reveals
a minimal thaton
effect forthe
wave heading
heaving angles
motion. of 0◦ and
By contrast, at90
◦ , changing the sailing speed exhibited
a wave heading angle of 180° and a
a minimal effectlength
relative wave on the heaving
of λ/L ≃ 2 or motion. By contrast,
λ/L > 2, increasing at a wave
the Froude numberheading angle
increased of 180◦ motion
the heaving and a relative
wave length of λ/L ' 2 or λ/L > 2, increasing the Froude number increased the heaving
for all trim angles (0°, 1° by the stern, and 2° by the stern). This signified that when encountering motion for all
trim angles
head sea, the◦ ◦
(0 ,larger
1 byheaving
the stern, andwas
motion ◦
2 by the stern). by
accompanied This signified
increased thatspeed.
sailing whenForencountering
wave heading head sea,
theangles
largerofheaving
0°, 90°, and 180°, was
motion and all Froude numbers,
accompanied changes insailing
by increased trim angle hadFor
speed. a minimal effect on angles
wave heading
heaving motion, demonstrating the weak effect of trim angle on heaving motion.
 Figure 6. RAO comparison of swaying motion for various Froude numbers at μ = 90° corresponding
to trim angles of (a) τ = 0°, (b) τ = 1°, and (c) τ = 2°, respectively.

4.1.2. Heaving Motion

Figure 7a–i reveals that for wave heading angles of 0° and 90°, changing the sailing speed
exhibited
J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2019, 7,a 199
minimal effect on the heaving motion. By contrast, at a wave heading angle of 180° and a 12 of 24
relative wave length of λ/L ≃ 2 or λ/L > 2, increasing the Froude number increased the heaving motion
for all trim angles (0°, 1° by the stern, and 2° by the stern). This signified that when encountering
◦ ◦ head sea, the larger heaving motion was accompanied by increased sailing speed. For wave heading
◦ , and
of 0 , 90 , angles
and 180 all Froude numbers, changes in trim angle had a minimal effect on
of 0°, 90°, and 180°, and all Froude numbers, changes in trim angle had a minimal effect on
heaving
motion, demonstrating the weak effect
heaving motion, demonstrating of trim
the weak angle
effect onangle
of trim heaving motion.
on heaving motion.

J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2019, 7, x FOR PEER REVIEW 13 of 25

(a) (b)

(c) (d)

(e) (f)

(g) (h)

(i)
Figure 7. RAO comparison of the heaving motion for various Froude numbers and the trim angles of
Figure 7. RAO comparison of the heaving motion for various Froude numbers and the trim angles of
(a) τ = 0°, (b) τ = 1°, or (c) τ = 2° when μ = 0°; (d) τ = 0°, (e) τ = 1°, and (f) τ = 2° when μ = 90°; and (g) τ
(a) τ = 0◦ , =(b) τ = 1◦ , or (c) τ = 2◦ when µ = 0◦ ; (d) τ = 0◦ , (e) τ = 1◦ , and (f) τ = 2◦ when µ = 90◦ ; and (g)
0°, (h) τ = 1°, and (i) τ = 2° when μ = 180°.
τ = 0◦ , (h) τ = 1◦ , and (i) τ = 2◦ when µ = 180◦ .
4.1.3. Rolling Motion
Figure 8a–c demonstrates that for a wave heading angle of 90° and relative wave length of λ/L =
1, a low sailing speed increased the rolling motion for all trim angles. This suggested that, in beam
waves, rolling motion decreased as sailing speed increased. For a wave heading angle of 90° and all
Froude numbers, the decrease in the trim angle was accompanied with a small rolling motion. This
J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2019, 7, 199 13 of 24

4.1.3. Rolling Motion

Figure 8a–c demonstrates that for a wave heading angle of 90◦ and relative wave length of λ/L = 1,
a low sailing speed increased the rolling motion for all trim angles. This suggested that, in beam waves,
J.rolling
Mar. Sci.motion decreased
Eng. 2019, as sailing
7, x FOR PEER REVIEW speed increased. For a wave heading angle of 90◦ and all Froude 14 of 25
numbers, the decrease in the trim angle was accompanied with a small rolling motion. This indicated
indicated
that in beam thatwaves
in beam an waves anin
increase increase
the triminangle
the trim angle decreased
decreased the rollingthe rollingfor
motion motion for all
all sailing sailing
speeds.
speeds.

(a)

(b)

(c)
Figure
Figure 8.
8. RAO
RAO comparison
comparison of of rolling
rolling motion
motion for
for various μ=
various Froude numbers at µ 90◦ corresponding
= 90° corresponding to
to
trim angles (a) τ = 0 , (b) τ = 1 , and (c) τ = 2 , respectively.
trim angles of (a) τ = ◦
0°, (b) τ = 1°,◦and (c) τ = 2°, ◦
respectively.

4.1.4. Pitching
4.1.4. Pitching Motion
Motion
Figure 9a–i
Figure 9a–i displays
displays the
the pitching
pitching motion
motion for
for various
various trim
trim angles
angles corresponding
corresponding toto given
given wave
wave
heading angles. For a wave heading angle of 0◦ , changing the sailing speed exhibited a minimal effect
heading angles. For a wave heading angle of 0°, changing the sailing speed exhibited a minimal effect
◦
on pitching
on pitching motion.
motion. By By contrast,
contrast, at
at aa wave
wave heading
heading angle
angle of
of9090° and
andaarelative
relativewave
wavelength λ/𝐿'≃1
lengthofofλ/L
1oror λ/𝐿>>1,1,an
λ/L anincrease
increaseinin
thethe
Froude
Froude number
numberdecreased the pitching
decreased motion.
the pitching At a At
motion. wave heading
a wave angle
heading
angle of 180° for λ/𝐿 ≃ 2, an increase in the Froude number was accompanied by an increase in
pitching motion for all trim angles. This indicated that when encountering head sea, pitching motion
rose when the sailing speed increased and that the ship was in the resonance frequency region.
For the wave heading angles of 0°, 90°, and 180°, and all Froude numbers, changes in trim angle
only had a marginal effect on pitching motion, illustrating the small effect of trim angle on pitching
J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2019, 7, 199 14 of 24

of 180◦ for λ/L ' 2, an increase in the Froude number was accompanied by an increase in pitching
motion for all trim angles. This indicated that when encountering head sea, pitching motion rose when
the sailingJ.speed increased and that the ship was in the resonance frequency region. 15 of 25
Mar. Sci. Eng. 2019, 7, x FOR PEER REVIEW

(a) (b)

(c) (d)

(e) (f)

(g) (h)

(i)

Figure 9. RAO comparison of pitching motion for various Froude numbers and trim angles of (a)
τ = 0◦ , (b) τ = 1◦ , or (c) τ = 2◦ when µ = 0◦ ; (d) τ = 0◦ , (e) τ = 1◦ , and (f) τ = 2◦ when µ = 90◦ ; and (g)
τ = 0◦ , (h) τ = 1◦ , and (i) τ = 2◦ when µ = 180◦ .
 J. Mar.
J. Mar. Sci.
Sci. Eng.
Eng. 7, x7,FOR
2019,
2019, 199 PEER REVIEW 16 15
of of
2524

Figure 9. RAO comparison of pitching motion for various Froude numbers and trim angles of (a) τ =
For the wave heading angles of 0◦, 90◦, and 180◦, and all Froude numbers, changes in trim angle only
0°, (b) τ = 1°, or (c) τ = 2° when μ = 0°; (d) τ = 0°, (e) τ = 1°, and (f) τ = 2° when μ = 90°; and (g) τ = 0°,
had a marginal effect on pitching motion, illustrating the small effect of trim angle on pitching motion.
(h) τ = 1°, and (i) τ = 2° when μ = 180°.

4.1.5. Yawing Motion

4.1.5. Yawing Motion
Figure 10a–c shows the yawing motion for a wave heading angle of 90◦ at τ = 0◦ , 1◦ and 2◦ ,
Figure 10a–c shows the yawing motion for a wave heading angle of 90° at τ = 0°, 1°and 2°,
respectively. The results revealed that for all trim angles, an increase in the Froude number decreased
respectively. The results revealed that for all trim angles, an increase in the Froude number decreased
the yawing motion, indicating that in beam waves yawing motion decreased as sailing speed increased.
the yawing motion, indicating that in beam waves yawing motion decreased as sailing speed
For a wave heading angle of 90◦ and all Froude numbers, the variation of trim angle had an effect
increased. For a wave heading angle of 90° and all Froude numbers, the variation of trim angle had
on the yawing motion. This signified that in beam waves increased the trim angle, which increased
an effect on the yawing motion. This signified that in beam waves increased the trim angle, which
yawing motion for all sailing speeds.
increased yawing motion for all sailing speeds.
(a)

(b)

(c)

Figure
Figure 10.10.
RAO RAO comparison
comparison ofof yawing
yawing motion
motion forfor various
various Froude
Froude numbersatatμ µ= =
numbers 90°
◦ with respect to
90with respect to
(a) τ = 0 ◦ , (b) τ = 1◦ , and (c) τ
(a) τ = 0°, (b) τ = 1°, and (c) τ = 2°. = 2◦ .

4.2. Sea State Comparisons

4.2. Sea State Comparisons
Subsequently, this study examined swaying, heaving, rolling, pitching, and yawing motion under
Subsequently, this study examined swaying, heaving, rolling, pitching, and yawing motion
various sea states. The analyzed results indicated that changes in the initial trim angle had little effect
under various sea states. The analyzed results indicated that changes in the initial trim angle had
J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2019, 7, 199 16 of 24
J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2019, 7, x FOR PEER REVIEW 17 of 25

onlittle
seakeeping
effect onperformance. Therefore, an
seakeeping performance. even keel
Therefore, an was
eventhe
keelselected
was theangle forangle
selected displaying each DOF
for displaying
each DOF
motion motion response.
response.
TheThe resultingmotion
resulting motionresponses
responses were
were compared
compared for fordifferent
differentsea
seastates
states(1–5), where
(1–5), where thethe
Froude
Froude
numbers
numbers used
used were0–19.2
were 0–19.2(equivalent
(equivalentto to0–36
0–36 knots).
knots). The
The significant
significantwave
waveheight
height(𝐻(H/ 1/3
) and average
) and average
period
period (T)(𝑇for
) for thevarious
the varioussea
seastates
states are
are presented
presented inin Table
Table3.3.Subsequently,
Subsequently,the thespeed
speedpolar
polardiagrams
diagrams
of various motion responses were compared, and the swaying, heaving, rolling, pitching,
of various motion responses were compared, and the swaying, heaving, rolling, pitching, and yawing and yawing
motion
motion under
under thethefive
fivesea
seastates
stateswere
wereobtained
obtained for
for all
all trim
trim angles.
angles.

Table3.3.Significant
Table Significantwave
wave height
height and
and average
averageperiod
periodfor
forthe
thefive
fivesea
seastates.
states.

Sea State
Sea state 1 2
1 3
2 3 4
4 55
Significant wave height (𝐻 / ) 0.5 0.8 1.6 2.4 2.4 3.2
Significant wave height (H1/3 ) 0.5 0.8 1.6 3.2
Average periodAverage
(T) period (𝑇4) 4 4 54 5 6 6 88

4.2.1.
4.2.1. SwayingMotion
Swaying Motion
Figure 11a–e displays the speed polar diagrams of the swaying motion by combining sailing
Figure 11a–e displays the speed polar diagrams of the swaying motion by combining sailing
speeds with wave heading angles under different sea states (1–5). The results demonstrated that
speeds with wave heading angles under different sea states (1–5). The results demonstrated that when
when the sea state worsened, the swaying motion increased substantially for wave heading angles
the sea state worsened, the swaying motion increased substantially for wave heading angles between
between 30° and 90°; moreover, the strongest swaying motion was observed between the wave
30◦ and 90◦ ; moreover, the strongest swaying motion was observed between the wave heading angles
heading angles of 45° and 90°. This suggested that for all sailing speeds, when the wave heading
45◦ andranged
of angles 90◦ . This suggested that for all sailing speeds, when the wave heading angles ranged from
from quartering to beam waves, the swaying motion increased as the sea state
quartering
worsened.to beam waves, the swaying motion increased as the sea state worsened.

(a) (b)

(c) (d)

Figure 11. Cont.

J. Mar.
J. Mar. Sci.
Sci. Eng.
Eng. 2019, 7, x199
2019, 7, FOR PEER REVIEW 17of
18 of 25
24
J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2019, 7, x FOR PEER REVIEW 18 of

(e) (e)
Figure 11.
11. Speed
Speed polar diagrams
Figure of
diagrams 11.swaying motion
Speed polar in combination
diagrams of swayingwith motionsailing speeds andwith
in combination wave sailing speeds and wave
heading angles under sea states
heading angles
of (a) 1, (b)under
2, (c) sea states
3, (d) of (a)
4, and respectively.
(e)1,5,(b) 2, (c) 3, (d) 4, and (e) 5, respectively.
respectively.

4.2.2. Heaving
4.2.2. Heaving Motion
Motion 4.2.2. Heaving Motion
Figure 12a–e
Figure 12a–e displays the
displays the speed
Figure polar
speed12a–e diagrams
polardisplays
diagrams of
the of the
the heaving
speed polar
heaving motion
motionofby
diagrams thecombining
by heaving motion
combining sailing
sailingby combining saili
speeds with
speeds with wave
wave heading
heading angles
speeds
angles under
with wave
under different
headingsea
different states
angles
sea (1–5).
under
states The results
different
(1–5). The results revealed
sea states that
(1–5).that
revealed when
Thewhen the
resultsthe
revealed that when t
sea state worsened, the sea
heavingstate worsened,
motion grew the heaving
substantially motion
for grew
wave substantially
heading for
angles wave
between heading
90 ◦ and
angles between 90° a
sea state worsened, the heaving motion grew substantially for wave heading angles between 90° and
180 ◦ . This signified that for
180°.
allThis signified
sailing speeds,that for
when all sailing
wave speeds,
heading when
angles wave
ranged heading
from angles
beam to ranged
head from beam to he
180°. This signified that for all sailing speeds, when wave heading angles ranged from beam to head
seas, heaving
seas, heaving motion seas,
motion increased heaving
increased as as the motion
the sea
sea state increased
state worsened.
worsened. as the sea state worsened.
The figures indicate that when smallthe Froudeheaving
numbermotion was small the heavingatmotion was stronge
The figures indicate that when the Froudenumber
The figures indicate that when the Froude numberwas was smallthe the heaving motion was
was strongest
strongest
a wave heading angle at◦ a wave
of 90of. When heading
the Froude angle of
number 90°. When
was large the Froude number was large or in the middle range, t
at a wave heading angle 90°. When the Froude number wasorlarge
in theormiddle
in therange,
middle therange,
strongest
the
heaving motion was strongest
produced at heaving
the wave motion
heading was produced
angles of 135at
◦ the
and wave
180 ◦ . heading
These angles
results of 135°
suggested and 180°. These resu
strongest heaving motion was produced at the wave heading angles of 135° and 180°. These results
that at lowthat
sailing speeds,suggested
heaving that
motionat low sailing
wasmotion
stronglyspeeds, heaving
affected motion
by affected
beam waves was strongly
and that affected
at medium by beam waves and th
suggested at low sailing speeds, heaving was strongly by beam waves and that
at medium and high sailing speeds, heaving motion was strongly affected by bow and head seas.
and
at high sailing
medium speeds,
and high heaving
sailing motion
speeds, wasmotion
heaving strongly affected
was stronglyby bow and by
affected head bowseas.
and head seas.

(a) (b)
(a) (b)
Figure 12. Cont.
J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2019, 7, 199 18 of 24
J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2019, 7, x FOR PEER REVIEW 19 of 25

(c) (d)

(e)
Figure 12. Speed
Speed polar
polar diagrams
diagrams ofof heaving
heaving motion
motion in combination
combination with sailing speeds and wave
heading angles under sea states of (a) 1, (b) 2, (c) 3, (d) 4, and (e) 5, respectively.
respectively.

4.2.3. Rolling
4.2.3. Rolling Motion
Motion
Figure 13a–e
Figure 13a–e displays
displays thethe speed
speed polar
polar diagrams
diagrams of of rolling
rolling motion
motion in in combination
combination with with sailing
sailing
speeds and wave heading angles under different sea states (1–5). The results
speeds and wave heading angles under different sea states (1–5). The results suggest that whensuggest that when the the
sea
state worsened, rolling motion increased noticeably for wave heading angles between 45◦ and 135◦ ,
sea state worsened, rolling motion increased noticeably for wave heading angles between 45° and
and that
135°, andthe
thatstrongest rolling
the strongest motion
rolling was observed
motion for wave
was observed heading
for wave angles
heading between
angles 90◦ and
between 90°135
◦
and.
This
135°.indicated that for
This indicated allfor
that sailing speeds,
all sailing whenwhen
speeds, wavewave
heading angles
heading ranged
angles from from
ranged beambeam
to bowto seas,
bow
rolling
seas, motion
rolling increased
motion as theas
increased sea
thestate
sea worsened.
state worsened.
For all
For allFroude
Froudenumbers,
numbers,a discernible
a discernible resonance
resonanceof rolling motion
of rolling was generated
motion at the at
was generated wave
theangles
wave
of 90 ◦ and 135◦ . Additionally, at a wave heading angle of 135◦ , increasing the Froude number caused
angles of 90° and 135°. Additionally, at a wave heading angle of 135°, increasing the Froude number
the significant
caused resonance
the significant of rollingof
resonance motion.
rollingThis signified
motion. Thisthat for all that
signified sailing
forspeeds, rolling
all sailing motion
speeds, was
rolling
strongly affected by beam and bow seas.
motion was strongly affected by beam and bow seas.
J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2019, 7, 199 19 of 24
J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2019, 7, x FOR PEER REVIEW 20 of 25

(a) (b)

(c) (d)

(e)
Figure 13. Speed
Speed polar
polar diagrams
diagrams of of rolling
rolling motion
motion in in combination
combination with
with sailing
sailing speeds
speeds and
and wave
heading angles under sea states of (a) 1, (b) 2, (c) 3, (d) 4, and (e) 5, respectively.
respectively.

4.2.4. Pitching
4.2.4. Pitching Motion
Motion
Figure 14a–e
Figure 14a–e displays
displays the
the speed
speed polar
polar diagrams
diagrams ofof pitching
pitching motion
motion for
for different
different wave
wave heading
heading
angles and
angles and sailing
sailing speeds
speeds under
under sea
sea states
states (1–5). The diagrams
(1–5). The diagrams indicate
indicate that
that when
when the
the sea
sea state
state
worsened, the value of pitching motion enhanced substantially for wave heading angles
worsened, the value of pitching motion enhanced substantially for wave heading angles between 0° between 0◦
and 90 ◦ 0◦ and
and 90°,, and
and that
thatthe
thestrongest
strongestpitching
pitchingmotion
motionwas
wasobserved forfor
observed wave heading
wave angles
heading between
angles between 0°
and 45°. This suggests that pitching motion increased as the sea state worsened, when the craft moved
at moderate speeds in following or quartering seas.
 J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2019, 7, x FOR PEER REVIEW 21 of 25

The figure demonstrates that when the Froude number was small, the pitching motion was
J. Mar. Sci. Eng.strong
relatively 2019, 7,at
199 20 of 24
a wave heading angle of 180°. When the Froude number was in the middle range,
pitching motion was relatively strong at a wave heading angle of 0°. When the Froude number was
large, pitching motion was relatively strong at a wave angle of 180°. These results indicated that at
45◦ . This suggests that pitching motion increased as the sea state worsened, when the craft moved at
low and high sailing speeds, pitching motion was strongly affected by head sea and that at medium
moderate speeds in following or quartering seas.
sailing speeds, pitching motion was strongly affected by following sea.

(a) (b)

(c) (d)

(e)
Figure
Figure 14.14. Speed
Speed polar
polar diagrams
diagrams of pitching
of pitching motion
motion at various
at various sailing
sailing speedsspeeds for different
for different wave
wave heading
heading
angles angles
under under(a)
sea state sea1,state
(b) 2,(a)(c)1,3,(b) 2, 4,
(d) (c)and
3, (d)
(e)4,5,and (e) 5, respectively.
respectively.

4.2.5.
TheYawing
figure Motion
demonstrates that when the Froude number was small, the pitching motion was
relatively strong at a wave heading angle of 180◦ . When the Froude number was in the middle range,
pitching motion was relatively strong at a wave heading angle of 0◦ . When the Froude number was
large, pitching motion was relatively strong at a wave angle of 180◦ . These results indicated that at low
J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2019, 7, 199 21 of 24

and high sailing speeds, pitching motion was strongly affected by head sea and that at medium sailing
J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2019, 7, x FOR PEER REVIEW 22 of 25
speeds, pitching motion was strongly affected by following sea.
Figure 15a–e displays the speed polar diagrams of yawing motion for different wave heading
4.2.5. Yawing Motion
angles at various sailing speeds under sea states (1–5). The diagrams indicated that when the sea state
Figure 15a–e
worsened, displays
yawing motionthestrengthened
speed polarconsiderably
diagrams offoryawing motion
wave angles for different
between 45° andwave heading
90°. This
suggests
angles that for
at various all sailing
sailing speedsspeeds, when
under seathe wave
states heading
(1–5). Theangle rangedindicated
diagrams from quartering to beam
that when the sea
waves, yawing motion increased as the sea state worsened.
state worsened, yawing motion strengthened considerably for wave angles between 45 and 90◦ . ◦
For all Froude numbers, the resonance of yawing motion was evidently produced at a wave
This suggests that for all sailing speeds, when the wave heading angle ranged from quartering to beam
heading angle of 45°, and the yawing motion increased when the Froude number increased. This
waves, yawing motion increased as the sea state worsened.
indicated that for all sailing speeds, yawing motion was strongly affected by quartering seas.

(a) (b)

(c) (d)

(e)
Figure
Figure 15. Speed
15. Speed polar
polar diagramsofofyawing
diagrams yawing motion
motion at atvarious
varioussailing
sailingspeeds for for
speeds different heading
different heading
angles when sea state was (a) 1, (b) 2, (c) 3, (d) 4, and (e) 5, respectively.
angles when sea state was (a) 1, (b) 2, (c) 3, (d) 4, and (e) 5, respectively.
J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2019, 7, 199 22 of 24

For all Froude numbers, the resonance of yawing motion was evidently produced at a wave heading
angle of 45◦ , and the yawing motion increased when the Froude number increased. This indicated that
for all sailing speeds, yawing motion was strongly affected by quartering seas.

5. Conclusions
This study established a seakeeping program combining two-dimensional strip theory with the
two-dimensional Green function based on the potential theory to solve boundary values and motion
responses of a semi-planing craft. The simulation results can be used to help examine the seakeeping
performance of high-speed crafts and to create a database for further route planning. By comparing the
calculation results with those measured from on-board measurements, the reliability of the calculation
results was confirmed. The findings are as follows:

(1) The swaying motion was strongly affected by beam waves at low sailing speeds and by quartering
waves and increases in trim angle at medium and high speeds. The swaying motion was strongly
affected by increases in sailing speed and worsening of the sea state.
(2) The heaving motion was strongly affected by beam waves at low sailing speeds and by bow and
head waves at medium and high speeds. The heaving motion was not affected by the trim angle
for any sea state but was strongly affected by increases in sailing speed and worsening of the
sea state.
(3) In beam waves, the rolling motion decreased as the sailing speed and trim angle increased.
The rolling motion was strongly affected by worsening of the sea state, particularly in beam waves.
(4) The pitching motion was evidently influenced by head seas at low or high sailing speeds, and by
worsening of the sea state at medium sailing speed or in following seas. The pitching motion was
relatively unaffected by trim angles for all sea states.
(5) In beam waves the yawing motion decreased as the sailing speed increased, and increased
when the trim increased. When the wave heading angle ranged from quartering to beam waves,
the yawing motion was considerably dominated by worsening of the sea state.

The simulation results were within an acceptable range, verifying the reliability of the methods
introduced in this study for assessing the seakeeping performance of high-speed semi-planing craft in
comparison with full-scale on-board measurements. Although the crafts usually have different trim
angles at high speeds due to dynamic lift under various loading and draft conditions, this study only
investigated the trim angles of 0◦ (even keel), 1◦ by the stern, and 2◦ by the stern. No predictions
could be made for the trim angles at any sailing speed during the transition or planing modes.
Thus, when analyzing the seakeeping performance of high-speed crafts in the future, the trim angles
under various sailing speeds, loading and draft conditions should be considered to enable the prediction
of seakeeping performance and improve the accuracy of simulations. Such information can provide
designers with preliminary seakeeping performance information for high-speed crafts.

Author Contributions: Y.-H.L. is the principal researcher of this study, and C.-W.L. conducts the numerical
simulation and data analysis.
Funding: This research was funded by Ministry of Science and Technology (Taiwan), grant number MOST
107-2218-E-006-052 and MOST 107-2221-E-006-229.
Acknowledgments: The authors would like to express their thanks to the Ministry of Science and Technology for
a grant under Contract No. MOST 107-2218-E-006-052. The authors also thank Ming-Chun Fang for his advice on
this study.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References
1. Yousefi, R.; Shafaghat, R.; Shakeri, M. Hydrodynamic analysis techniques for high-speed planing hulls.
Appl. Ocean Res. 2013, 42, 105–113. [CrossRef]
J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2019, 7, 199 23 of 24

2. Korvin-Kroukovsky, B. Investigation of ship motions in regular waves. Trans. SNAME 1955, 63, 386–435.
3. Jacobs, W.R. The analytical calculation of ship bending moments in regular waves. J. Ship Res. 1958, 2, 20–29.
4. Salvesen, N.; Tuck, E.; Faltinsen, O. Ship motions and sea loads. Trans. SNAME 1970, 78, 250–287.
5. Kim, C.H.; Chou, F.S.; Tien, D. Motions and Hydrodynamic Loads of a Ship Advancing in Oblique Waves; Society
of Naval Architects and Marine Engineers: Jersey City, NJ, USA, 1980; pp. 225–256.
6. Fang, M.-C. Time simulation of water shipping for a ship advancing in large longitudinal waves. J. Ship Res.
1993, 37, 126–137.
7. Fang, M.; Chen, G.; Lee, Z. The Bank Effect on the Motion Behaviors of a Ship Advancing in Waves. J. Taiwan
Soc. Nav. Archit. Mar. Eng. 2013, 32, 47–54.
8. Haskind, M. The hydrodynamic theory of ship oscillations in rolling and pitching. Prikl. Mat. Mekh. 1946, 10, 33–66.
9. Haskind, M. The oscillation of a ship in still water. Izv. Akad. Nauk SSSR Otd. Tekh. Nauk 1946, 1, 23–34.
10. Chang, M.-S. Computations of three-dimensional ship motions with forward speed. In Proceedings of the
2nd International Conference on Numerical Ship Hydrodynamics, Berkeley, CA, USA, 19–21 September
1977; pp. 124–135.
11. Inglis, R. Calculation of velocity potential of a translating, pulsating source. Trans. RINA 1980, 123, 163–175.
12. Guevel, P.; Bougis, J. Ship-motions with forward speed in infinite depth. Int. Shipbuild. Prog. 1982, 29, 103–117.
[CrossRef]
13. King, B.; Beck, R.; Magee, A. Seakeeping calculations with forward speed using time domain analysis.
In Proceedings of the 17th Symposium on Naval Hydrodynamics, The Hague, The Netherlands, 28 August–2
September 1988.
14. Lin, W.-M.; Yue, D. Numerical solutions for large-amplitude ship motions in the time domain. In Proceedings
of the 18th Symposium on Naval Hydrodynamics, Ann Arbor, MI, USA, 19–24 August 1990.
15. Alexander, B.; Josh, H. Motions and Loads of a Trimaran Traveling in Regular Waves; FAST: London, UK, 2001.
16. Bingham, H.; Korsmeyer, F.; Newman, J.N.; Osborne, G.E. The simulation of ship motions. In Proceedings of
the Sixth International Conference on Numerical Ship Hydrodynamics; National Academies Press: Washington,
DC, USA, 1994; pp. 561–580.
17. Martin, M. Theoretical Prediction of Motions of High-Speed Planing Boats in Waves; David W. Taylor Naval Ship
Research and Development Center: Bethesda, MD, USA, 1976.
18. Zarnick, E.E. A Nonlinear Mathematical Model of Motions of a Planing Boat in Regular Waves; David W. Taylor
Naval Ship Research and Development Center: Bethesda, MD, USA, 1978.
19. Keuning, J.A.; Gerritsma, J.; van Terwisga, P. Resistance Tests of a Series Planing Hull Forms with 30 Degrees
Deadrise Angle, and a Calculation Model Based on This and Similar Systematic Series; Delft University of Technology:
Delft, The Netherlands, 1993.
20. Akers, R.H. Dynamic analysis of planing hulls in the vertical plane. In Proceedings of the Society of Naval
Architects and Marine Engineers, New England Section, Jersey City, NJ, USA, 1999.
21. Keuning, J.; Toxopeus, S.; Pinkster, J. The effect of bow shape on the seakeeping performance of a fast
monohull. In Proceedings of the FAST Conference, Southampton, UK, 4–6 September 2001.
22. Sariöz, K.; Sariöz, E. Practical seakeeping performance measures for high speed displacement vessels.
Nav. Eng. J. 2006, 118, 23–36. [CrossRef]
23. Van Deyzen, A. A nonlinear mathematical model of motions of a planning monohull in head seas. In
Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on High Performance Marine Vehicles (HIPER’08), Naples,
Italy, 18–19 September 2008.
24. De Jong, P. Seakeeping Behaviour of High Speed Ships: An Experimental and Numerical Study. Ph.D. Thesis,
Delft University of Technology, Delft, The Netherlands, 2011.
25. Mousaviraad, S.M.; Wang, Z.; Stern, F. URANS studies of hydrodynamic performance and slamming loads
on high-speed planing hulls in calm water and waves for deep and shallow conditions. Appl. Ocean. Res.
2015, 51, 222–240. [CrossRef]
26. De Luca, F.; Mancini, S.; Miranda, S.; Pensa, C. An extended verification and validation study of CFD
simulations for planing hulls. J. Ship Res. 2016, 60, 101–118. [CrossRef]
27. Blount, D.L.; Clement, E.P. Resistance tests of a systematic series of planing hull forms. SNAME Trans.
1963, 71, 491–579.
28. Hassan, G.; Su, Y.-M. Determining the hydrodynamic forces on a planing hull in steady motion. J. Mar. Sci.
Appl. 2008, 7, 147–156. [CrossRef]
J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2019, 7, 199 24 of 24

29. Liu, C.; Wang, C. Interference effect of catamaran planing hulls. J. Hydronaut. 1979, 13, 31–32. [CrossRef]
30. Lamb, H. Hydrodynamics; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 1932.
31. Maruo, H. Two dimensional theory of the hydroplane. In Proceedings of the 1st Japan National Congress on
Applied Mechanics, Science Council of Japan, Tokyo, Japan, 1952; pp. 409–415.
32. Cumberbatch, E. Two-dimensional planing at high Froude number. J. Fluid Mech. 1958, 4, 466–478. [CrossRef]
33. Frandoli, P.; Merola, L.; Pino, E.; Sebastiani, L. The role of seakeeping calculations at the preliminary design
stage. In Proceedings of the NAV 2000 Conference, Venice, Italy, 19–22 September 2000; pp. 951–959.
34. Fang, M.-C.; Chen, G.-R. On the nonlinear hydrodynamic forces for a ship advancing in waves. Ocean Eng.
2006, 33, 2119–2134. [CrossRef]
35. Fang, M.-C.; Chen, G.-R. The relative motion and wave elevation between two floating structures in waves.
In Proceedings of the Eleventh International Offshore and Polar Engineering Conference Stavanger, Stavanger,
Norway, 17–22 June 2001; pp. 361–368.
36. Marshall, R. All about Powerboats: Understanding Design and Performance; McGraw Hill Professional: New York,
NY, USA, 2002.

© 2019 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access
article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution
(CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).