Ocean Engineering 237 (2021) 109491

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Ocean Engineering
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/oceaneng

Effect of uniform incoming flow on vehicle’s hydrodynamics under the same

relative velocity✩
Xianwu Lin a ,∗, Shichao Wang a , Bing Zhu b
a
School of Aerospace Engineering, Xiamen University, 361102, China
b
School of Energy and Power Engineering, University of Shanghai for Science and Technology, 200093, China

ARTICLE INFO ABSTRACT

Keywords: At present, the effect of a uniform stream on the hydrodynamic force or moment under the same relative
Principle of relative motion velocity has been studied mostly in inviscid flow and the results are not consistent. To build the relative
Vorticity dynamics motion principle in viscous flow, the relationship of flow fields between the non-stream circumstance and
Hydrodynamics
stream circumstance is constructed and the flow field of the steam circumstance is decomposed into the
corresponding rest far-field flow and the stream field. Then, hydrodynamic force and moment formulas that are
linearly dependent on the distribution of flow field and valid in both viscous and inviscid flow are proposed.
Subsequently, the hydrodynamics in the stream circumstances is decomposed according to the flow field
decomposition and the uniform stream’s effect is clarified. The correctness of the acquired hydrodynamics
transformation formulas is verified by comparing numerical results in both inviscid and viscous flow. At last,
the validity of the existing relative motion principle is confirmed or analyzed.

1. Introduction
Many underwater vehicles like submarines, remotely operated un-
derwater vehicles (ROV) or bionic underwater vehicles move with low
velocities comparable with that of the ocean current. In these cases, the
effect of the ocean current on the hydrodynamics of the underwater
vehicle is not negligible and should be reasonably accounted for. With
the advance of computational fluid dynamics (CFD) and the experi-
mental technology, the calculation or measurement of hydrodynamics
acted on these underwater vehicles are possible and more and more
experimental results (Du et al., 2016; Wang et al., 2020) and numer-
ical examples (Huang et al., 2019) have been reported recently. To
study the dynamics of an underwater vehicle, one needs to calculate
or measure its hydrodynamics under different motion velocities and
different current velocities. If the effect of the ocean stream on the
underwater vehicles’ hydrodynamics can be clarified, half of the work
can be saved. This problem also exists in the study of rigs or offshore
structures (Faltinsen, 1993) in which the internal waves have severe ef-
fects on the safety of these devices and many research interest has been
recently focused on studying their hydrodynamics under ocean internal
waves (Lü et al., 2016; Ding et al., 2020). This study is also necessary
to covert the body move circumstance to body rest circumstance so that
the device scale can be reduced in water tunnel experiments (Renilson,
2018) and the complex dynamic mesh technique can be avoided in CFD
simulations (Patterson et al., 1987).
The classical relative motion principle is one of the well-known
results that account for the effect of the incoming flow. It had already
been taken as a principle in the era of D’Alembert (Calero, 2018)
that the drag in the body move and body rest circumstances are the
same under the same relative velocity as long as the stream is uniform
and constant. D’Alembert himself further illustrated that this relative
motion principle for drag is also valid when the stream is uniform
and unsteady. With the development of offshore structure equipment,
Morison proposed a semi-empirical formula to estimate the hydrody-
namic force acting on a long cylinder (Morison et al., 1950), which is
used to approximate the shape of the rig’s tension legs. This formula
shows that the hydrodynamic force between the two circumstances
under the same relative motion velocity is different, at least in the
inviscid flow field. In 1967, Batchelor proposed a brief discussion on
the hydrodynamic force in accelerating fluid and concluded that an
additional force that is proportional to the fluid density, the volume
of the body and the acceleration of the fluid would be acted on the
body (Batchelor, 1967)(p409). This conclusion can be regarded as a
kind of relative motion principle and is also adopted by Sarpkaya
(1976) in experimentally studying the Morison formula. In 1983, Lewis
et al. studied the motion model of an ROV moving in the current (Lewis

✩ This work is supported in part by the National Natural Science Foundation of China under Grant No. 61733017 and 91852117.
∗ Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: linxianw@xmu.edu.cn (X. Lin), 474928933@qq.com (S. Wang), zbing@usst.edu.cn (B. Zhu).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.oceaneng.2021.109491
Received 8 February 2021; Received in revised form 27 May 2021; Accepted 11 July 2021
Available online 2 August 2021
0029-8018/© 2021 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
X. Lin et al.
et al., 1984). The result shows that the inviscid hydrodynamics acted
on the ROV are different under the same relative motion velocity
when the velocity of the stream is uniform and unsteady. In 2000
Thomasson, the third author of Ref. Lewis et al. (1984), extended
the motion model to the case that the stream is non-uniform and
unsteady (Thomasson, 2000). Woolsey and Thomasson (Woolsey, 2011;
Thomasson and Woolsey, 2013) later revised and further extended this
motion model to the case that the stream is rotational. Obviously, the
Thomasson and Woolsey models are also applicable in the uniform
stream circumstance. Consequently, the difference of hydrodynamics
between different stream velocities under the same relative velocity
or principle of relative motion can be concluded basing on the study
of Thomasson or Woolsey. In the study of surface ship dynamics, the
hydrodynamic force acted on a stationary structure, known as exiting
force, is often divided into the Froude–Krilov force and diffraction
force (Newman, 2018). This result is also applied to underwater struc-
tures (Faltinsen, 1993) and even moving underwater vehicles (Fossen,
1994). When the wavelength is much longer than the vehicle’s size, the
Froude–Krilov depends on some variation of the stream velocity. The
diffraction force is the hydrodynamic force acting on the solid when
moving in non-stream fluid with the same relative velocity. This result
can be reasonably regarded as a form of relative motion principle as
the long ocean wave can be approximated with a uniform and unsteady
stream. The comparison of these relative motion principles show that
these conclusions basing on D’Alembert, Batchelor, Lewis, Thomasson,
or the Froude–Krilov force decomposition are all different.
The review above shows that the principle of relative motion is
not clear to many researchers at present. Even for inviscid flow, the
exact form of this principle is not consistent. For viscous flow, the
relative motion principle is often limited to the case that the stream
is uniform and steady (Fossen, 1994, 2002; Lewandowski, 2004). This
phenomenon is due to the difficulty of expressing the hydrodynamics
without the pressure distribution of the flow field, which is incon-
venient to be compared directly between the stream and non-stream
flow fields. In Lamb (1945), this kind of pressure independent hydro-
dynamics formulas were proposed based on the energy conservation
theorem, which indicated that the increase of the total kinetic energy
in the flow field is equal to the work acted by the solid on the fluid.
This skill was also adopted by Thomasson and Woolsey to study the
motion model of a solid moving in the non-uniform and unsteady
stream as mentioned above. This kind of energy conservation is not
valid in viscous flow as the viscosity may convert some kinetic energy
into thermal energy. The method basing on momentum conservation
is an alternative and is applicable even in viscous flow. However, it
is rejected by the earlier scholars as they and many later scholars
considered that the total momentum in an infinitely large flow field
surrounding the solid is indeterminate (Lamb, 1945; Batchelor, 1967;
Wu et al., 2015). This difficulty is removed with the appearance of
far-field pressure approximation technology (Wu, 1978, 1981, 2014),
pressure removal technology (Noca et al., 1999; Wu et al., 2006) and
projection technology (Quartapelle and Napolitano, 1983; Protas et al.,
2000) among others. However, this advance is not adopted to study
the relative motion principle at present. The purpose of this research
is to develop new hydrodynamics formulas basing on some of these
techniques and built the relative motion principle that is valid in both
viscous and inviscid incompressible flow.
The remaining part of this paper is organized as follows. Section 2
built the relationship between the flow field of the stream circumstance
and the non-stream circumstance. Section 3 proposes hydrodynamics
formulas that are linearly dependent on the relationship of the two
flow fields and the transformation method of the hydrodynamics is
built. Section 4 verifies the new derived relative motion principle with
analytical and numerical examples and the rationality of the existing
relative motion principle is discussed. Section 5 concludes the paper
with some remarks.
2
Ocean Engineering 237 (2021) 109491
Fig. 1. The relationships of position vectors, surfaces and regions in a non-stream field.
2. Flow fields transformation method
As discussed in the introduction, hydrodynamics can be evaluated
by formulas independent of the pressure distribution. Consequently,
a key step to build the relative motion principle is to clarify the ve-
locity distribution between the stream and non-stream circumstances.
This section solves this problem by comparing the models of fluid
motion in the non-stream and stream circumstances by introducing two
intermediate flow fields.
2.1. Description of the frames and variables
To describe the motion of the body and the fluid, an inertial frame
𝑂𝑥𝑦𝑧 is built and the base vector of the three axis 𝑂𝑥, 𝑂𝑦, 𝑂𝑧 is denoted
by 𝐢, 𝐣, 𝐤 respectively. For a rigid body, its motion can be determined
by the velocity of a point fixed on it and the angular velocity. Here
the more general case of a deformable but constant volume body is
considered. The region occupied by the body is denoted by 𝑅𝑏 and its
surface is denoted by 𝑆𝑏 . In this case, a particle 𝑃 on the body can be
denoted by the position vector 𝐫𝑃 pointing from 𝑂 to 𝑃 . If 𝑃 lies on the
solid surface, then the position vector is denoted by 𝐫𝑏 . The motion of
a body is solely dependent on the motion of its surface, i.e., 𝐯(𝐫𝑏 , 𝑡) =
𝐟(𝐫𝑏 , 𝑡). As the velocity on the body is different for different 𝑃 , a special
particle 𝐷 on the body is selected and its velocity 𝐯𝐷 (𝑡) = 𝐯(𝐫𝐷 , 𝑡) is
defined as the characteristic velocity of the body. For a solid, 𝐯𝐷 can
be regarded as the translational velocity of the solid and the surface
velocity 𝐯(𝐫𝑏 , 𝑡) = 𝐯𝐷 + 𝝎 × 𝐫𝑏 where 𝝎𝑏 is the angular velocity of the
solid. For the non-stream circumstance, the stream velocity is zero and
the relative motion velocity of the body 𝐯𝑟 (𝐫𝐷 ) is equal to 𝐯𝐷 .
A surface 𝑆𝑒 enclosing the body and some part of the fluid is
drawn in the flow field with the minimum distance between 𝑆𝑏 and 𝑆𝑒
approaching infinity and the position vector of a point on 𝑆𝑒 is denoted
by 𝐫∞ . The fluid surface adjacent to the body surface 𝑆𝑏 is denoted
by 𝑆𝑖 . Though the volume enclosed by 𝑆𝑏 and 𝑆𝑖 is zero, they are not
overlapped. For two adjacent points lie on 𝑆𝑏 and 𝑆𝑖 respectively, their
velocities are the same in viscous flow due to the non-slip boundary
condition but are different in inviscid flow due to the slip boundary
condition. The region between 𝑆𝑏 and 𝑆𝑒 is denoted by 𝑅𝑓 , the region
enclosed by 𝑆𝑖 is denoted by 𝑅′𝑏 , the region enclosed by 𝑆𝑖 and 𝑆𝑒 is
denoted by 𝑅′𝑓 . The position vector of a point in 𝑅𝑓 is denoted by 𝐫.
The velocity distribution in the flow field is denoted by 𝐯. Its curl, the
vorticity of the flow field is denoted by 𝝎. The flow field of the non-
stream circumstance viewed in the inertial frame 𝑂𝑥𝑦𝑧 is denoted by
, including the distribution of 𝐯 and 𝝎. The relationships of variables,
position vectors, surfaces and regions described above are illustrated in
Fig. 1.
For the convenience of description, a translational frame 𝐷𝑥𝑑 𝑦𝑑 𝑧𝑑
is built with the origin 𝐷 fixed on the body and the three axis
𝐷𝑥𝑑 , 𝐷𝑦𝑑 , 𝐷𝑧𝑑 parallel to 𝑂𝑥, 𝑂𝑦, 𝑂𝑧 respectively. As 𝐷 may move with
time-variant velocity, 𝐷𝑥𝑑 𝑦𝑑 𝑧𝑑 is often a non-inertial frame and a
subscript 𝑑 is added to the notation of the vectors when they are viewed
in this frame. For examples 𝐫 → 𝐫𝑑 , 𝐯 → 𝐯𝑑 , 𝐫∞ → 𝐫∞,𝑑 etc. The flow field
of the non-stream circumstance viewed in the 𝐷𝑥𝑑 𝑦𝑑 𝑧𝑑 is denoted by
X. Lin et al. Ocean Engineering 237 (2021) 109491

Fig. 2. The translational frame in non-stream field (left) and the inertial frame in
stream field (right) at 𝑡 = 𝜏 moment.
Fig. 3. The flow fields of the non-stream (left) and stream (right) circumstances at
𝜏 + 𝛥𝜏 moment.
𝑑 . The translational frame 𝐷𝑥𝑑 𝑦𝑑 𝑧𝑑 and the vectors relative to it are
illustrated on the left side of Fig. 2.
For the stream circumstance, a subscript 𝑤 is added to the notation
of the vectors to distinguish them from the corresponding variables
in the non-stream circumstance. For examples 𝐫 → 𝐫𝑤 , 𝐯 → 𝐯𝑤 , 𝐫∞ →
𝐫∞,𝑤 etc. and the stream flow field is denoted by 𝑤 . The donation
of the inertial frame is also changed to 𝑂𝑤 𝑥𝑤 𝑦𝑤 𝑧𝑤 . The undisturbed
stream field is supposed to be uniform and its velocity referencing to
the inertial frame is denoted by 𝐯∞ (𝐫𝑤 , 𝑡) = 𝐯∞ (𝑡). The translational
velocity of the body is denoted by 𝐯𝐷,𝑤 (𝑡) and its difference between
𝐯∞ (𝑡) is defined as the relative motion velocity of the body, i.e. 𝐯𝑟,𝑤 (𝑡) =
𝐯𝐷,𝑤 (𝑡) − 𝐯∞ (𝑡). In the stream circumstance, the body is not necessarily
rest. Consequently, 𝐯𝐷,𝑤 (𝑡) is not necessarily zero and this is why 𝑂𝑤
is not coincident with 𝐷𝑤 . The inertial frame 𝑂𝑤 𝑥𝑤 𝑦𝑤 𝑧𝑤 and some
vectors relative to it are illustrated on the right of Fig. 2. The flow field
referenced to the translational coordinate in the stream circumstance
is denoted by 𝑑,𝑤 . 𝑑 and 𝑑,𝑤 are two intermediate fields that would
be used to compare  and 𝑤 .
To further illustrate the difference between a stream field and
the corresponding non-stream field under the same relative motion
velocity, the position, attitude, and velocity of the body are supposed to
be the same at moment 𝜏 as illustrated in Fig. 2. For the convenience
of comparison, 𝑆𝑒 is temporarily supposed to be rest relative to the
inertial coordinate and 𝐯𝐷,𝑤 is set to zero in stream circumstance. In
the non-stream circumstance, the body moves relative to the inertial
frame 𝑂𝑥𝑦𝑧 and 𝐫𝐷 changes with time. In the stream circumstance,
the body keeps position relative to the inertial frame 𝑂𝑤 𝑥𝑤 𝑦𝑤 𝑧𝑤 and
𝐫𝐷,𝑤 is constant. Consequently, for a point 𝑄 in the flow field with the
same and constant position vector relative to point 𝐷, its position vector
relative to the inertial frame is also constant in stream circumstance but
is time-variant in the non-stream circumstance. The discussion above
can be clearly illustrated by comparison between the flow field at
moment 𝜏 and 𝜏 + 𝛥𝜏, which is illustrated in Fig. 3.
the motion model of the flow fields in both stream and non-stream
circumstances. As the classical model of Navier–Stokes equation set in-
cludes pressure which is inconvenient for flow field and hydrodynamics
comparison, the velocity–vorticity based model is considered here.
The theory of vorticity dynamics (Wu, 2014) shows that the in-
compressible flow field can be described by continuity equation, the
definition of vorticity and the vorticity transportation equation. Consid-
ering the description of variables in the previous subsection, equations
of motion for the non-stream flow field are
{
∇ ⋅ 𝐯 = 0, ∇ × 𝐯 = 𝝎
𝜕𝝎 (1)
= −(𝐯 ⋅ ∇)𝝎 + (𝝎 ⋅ ∇)𝐯 + 𝜈𝑒 ∇2 𝝎
𝜕𝑡
where 𝜈𝑒 is the kinematic viscosity of the fluid. To solve these equa-
tions, the boundary condition and initial condition should be given.
Detail discussion on this topic can be referenced to Wu (1976), Pat-
terson et al. (1987). The result shows that an appropriate method for
determining the solution in a limited period 0 < 𝑡 < 𝑡1 is to prescribe
the initial velocity distribution and enforce boundary velocity on 𝑆𝑖
and 𝑆𝑒 . The velocity on 𝑆𝑖 can be determined by the non-slip and non-
penetration boundary condition according to the velocity distribution
on 𝑆𝑏 . The velocity on 𝑆𝑒 is approximately zero for the non-stream
circumstance and in numerical simulation it can be approximated by
𝐯(𝐫∞ , 𝑡) = 0. Consequently, the motion model with reference to inertial
frame for the non-stream circumstance is
⎧ ∇ ⋅ 𝐯 = 0, ∇ × 𝐯 = 𝝎
⎪ 𝜕𝝎
⎪ = −(𝐯 ⋅ ∇)𝝎 + (𝝎 ⋅ ∇)𝐯 + 𝜈𝑒 ∇2 𝝎
⎨ 𝜕𝑡 (2)
⎪ 𝐯(𝐫𝑖 , 𝑡) = 𝐟(𝐫𝑖 , 𝑡), 𝐯(𝐫∞ ) = 0
⎪ 𝐯(𝐫, 0) = 𝐠(𝐫)
⎩
If the velocity distribution on 𝑆𝑒 is changed to 𝐯𝑤 (𝐫∞,𝑤 ) = 𝐯∞ (𝑡), the
discussion above is also valid for stream circumstance. Considering the
description of variables in the previous subsection, the motion model
with reference to inertial frame for the non-stream circumstance is
⎧ ∇𝑤 ⋅ 𝐯𝑤 = 0, ∇𝑤 × 𝐯𝑤 = 𝝎𝑤
⎪ 𝜕𝝎𝑤
⎪ = −(𝐯𝑤 ⋅ ∇𝑤 )𝝎𝑤 + (𝝎𝑤 ⋅ ∇𝑤 )𝐯𝑤 + 𝜈𝑒 ∇2𝑤 𝝎𝑤
⎨ 𝜕𝑡 (3)
⎪ 𝐯𝑤 (𝐫𝑖,𝑤 , 𝑡) = 𝐟𝑤 (𝐫𝑖,𝑤 , 𝑡), 𝐯𝑤 (𝐫∞,𝑤 , 𝑡) = 𝐯∞ (𝑡)
⎪ 𝐯𝑤 (𝐫𝑤 , 0) = 𝐠𝑤 (𝐫𝑤 )
⎩
Where ∇𝑤 = 𝜕𝑥𝜕 𝐢𝑤 + 𝜕𝑦𝜕 𝐣𝑤 + 𝜕𝑧𝜕 𝐤𝑤 = ∇ is the Hamilton operator
𝑤 𝑤 𝑤
in the inertial frame and 𝐢𝑤 , 𝐣𝑤 , 𝐤𝑤 is the base vector of inertial frame
𝑂𝑤 𝑥𝑤 𝑦𝑤 𝑧𝑤 .
Now consider the motion model with reference to translational
frame 𝐷𝑥𝑑 𝑦𝑑 𝑧𝑑 for non-stream circumstance. According to the descrip-
𝑡
tion of variable in the previous subsection, 𝐫𝐷 = ∫0 𝐯𝐷 d𝜏, 𝐫𝑑 = 𝐫 − 𝐫𝐷
and 𝐯𝑑 (𝐫𝑑 ) = 𝐯(𝐫) − 𝐯𝐷 . As the axes of 𝑂𝑥𝑑 𝑦𝑑 𝑧𝑑 are parallel with
those of 𝐷𝑥𝑦𝑧 respectively, it is not difficult to show that ∇𝑑 = ∇,
𝜕 𝝎
∇𝑑 ⋅𝐯𝑑 = ∇⋅𝐯, ∇𝑑 ×𝐯𝑑 = ∇×𝐯 and 𝑑𝜕 𝑡𝑑 = 𝜕𝝎 +𝐯𝐷 ⋅∇𝝎. The last formula is
𝑑 𝜕𝑡
consistent with formula (6) in Ref. Ostieri et al. (2018) and evidences
its correctness. Substitute the formulas discussed above into the third
formula in Eq. (2), the motion model with reference to translational
frame 𝐷𝑥𝑑 𝑦𝑑 𝑧𝑑 for non-stream circumstance can be acquired as
⎧ ∇𝑑 ⋅ 𝐯𝑑 = 0, ∇𝑑 × 𝐯𝑑 = 𝝎𝑑
⎪ 𝜕𝑑 𝝎𝑑
⎪ = −(𝐯𝑑 ⋅ ∇𝑑 )𝝎𝑑 + (𝝎𝑑 ⋅ ∇𝑑 )𝐯𝑑 + 𝜈𝑒 ∇2𝑑 𝝎𝑑
⎨ 𝜕𝑑 𝑡 (4)
⎪ 𝐯𝑑 (𝐫𝑖,𝑑 ) = 𝐟(𝐫𝑖 , 𝑡) − 𝐯𝐷 (𝑡), 𝐯𝑑 (𝐫∞,𝑑 ) = −𝐯𝐷 (𝑡)
⎪ 𝐯𝑑 (𝐫𝑑 , 0) = 𝐠(𝐫) − 𝐯𝐷 (0)
⎩
Similarly, the flow field motion model with reference to the transla-
tional frame 𝐷𝑤 𝑥𝑑,𝑤 𝑦𝑑,𝑤 𝑧𝑑,𝑤 in stream circumstance is

2.2. Motion model of the flow fields ⎧ ∇𝑑,𝑤 ⋅ 𝐯𝑑,𝑤 = 0, ∇𝑑,𝑤 × 𝐯𝑑,𝑤 = 𝝎𝑑,𝑤
⎪ 𝜕𝑑,𝑤 𝝎𝑑,𝑤
⎪ = −(𝐯𝑑,𝑤 ⋅ ∇𝑑,𝑤 )𝝎𝑑,𝑤 + (𝝎𝑑,𝑤 ⋅ ∇𝑑,𝑤 )𝐯𝑑,𝑤 + 𝜈𝑒 ∇2𝑑,𝑤 𝝎𝑑,𝑤
It is often assumed that the flow field can be modeled by a set ⎨ 𝜕𝑑,𝑤 𝑡 (5)
⎪ 𝐯𝑑,𝑤 (𝐫𝑖,𝑑,𝑤 ) = 𝐟(𝐫𝑖,𝑤 , 𝑡) − 𝐯𝐷,𝑤 (𝑡), 𝐯𝑑,𝑤 (𝐫∞,𝑑,𝑤 ) = 𝐯∞ (𝑡) − 𝐯𝐷,𝑤 (𝑡)
of partial differential equations and corresponding boundary and ini- ⎪
tial conditions (Wu, 2014). This hypothesis can be used to clarify ⎩ 𝐯𝑑,𝑤 (𝐫𝑑,𝑤 , 0) = 𝐠𝑤 (𝐫𝑤 ) − 𝐯𝐷,𝑤 (0)

3
X. Lin et al. Ocean Engineering 237 (2021) 109491

2.3. Relationship between the stream and non-stream flow fields Laplace equation. When the normal velocity on the body surface and
the stream velocity is given, the Laplace equation is determined (Wu,
The purpose of this section is to build the relationship between  2014). Consequently, the discussion above for viscous flow can be
and 𝑤 . The skill adopt here is to introduce the intermediate flow field followed and the transformation rule (9) is still valid for inviscid flow.
𝑑 and 𝑑,𝑤 . As  and 𝑑 represent the same flow field viewed under At the same time, the relationship of initial velocity distribution is not
different reference frame, they can be transformed by required in the transformation condition, i.e., in Eq. (8).
⎧ 𝐫 =𝐫−𝐫
⎪ 𝑑 𝐷
3. Hydrodynamics transformation method
⎨ 𝐯𝑑 (𝐫𝑑 , 𝑡) = 𝐯(𝐫, 𝑡) − 𝐯𝐷 (𝑡) (6)
⎪ 𝝎𝑑 (𝐫𝑑 , 𝑡) = 𝝎(𝐫, 𝑡)
⎩ As discussed in the introduction, a variety of hydrodynamic force or
𝑡 moment formula that is independent of the pressure distribution and
where 𝐫𝐷 = ∫0 𝐯𝐷 d𝜏. Similarly, the transformation between 𝑤 and 𝑑,𝑤
is is applicable for viscous flow had been proposed since the late 1970s.
However, these formulas are complex for building the hydrodynamics
⎧ 𝐫 = 𝐫𝑤 − 𝐫𝐷,𝑤
⎪ 𝑑,𝑤 relationship basing on the decomposition of the flow field in Eq. (9). In
⎨ 𝐯𝑑,𝑤 (𝐫𝑑,𝑤 , 𝑡) = 𝐯𝑤 (𝐫𝑤 , 𝑡) − 𝐯𝐷,𝑤 (𝑡) (7) this section, new hydrodynamics formulas that are linearly dependent
⎪ 𝝎𝑑,𝑤 (𝐫𝑑,𝑤 , 𝑡) = 𝝎𝑤 (𝐫𝑤 , 𝑡)
⎩ on the decomposition of the flow fields are proposed to clarify the
𝑡 hydrodynamics transformation rules.
where 𝐫𝐷,𝑤 = ∫0 𝐯𝐷,𝑤 d𝜏. The comparison between  and 𝑤 is then
transformed to the comparison between 𝑑 and 𝑑,𝑤 . Let the boundary
3.1. Hydrodynamic force transformation method
and initial condition of the model (4) and (5) be the same respectively
or
Due to the slip boundary condition in inviscid flow, the velocity is
⎧ 𝐯 (𝐫 , 𝑡) = 𝐯(𝐫 , 𝑡) + 𝐯 (𝑡)
⎪ 𝑤 𝑖,𝑤 𝑖 ∞ not continuous on 𝑅𝑓 . To make sure that the flowing discussion is also
⎨ 𝐯𝐷 = 𝐯𝐷,𝑤 − 𝐯∞ (𝑡) (8) applicable in inviscid flow, the fluid in 𝑅′𝑓 instead of 𝑅𝑓 is considered.
⎪ 𝐯𝑤 (𝐫𝑤 , 0) = 𝐯(𝐫, 0) + 𝐯∞ (0) By applying the momentum balance theorem (Wu et al., 2006) on 𝑅′𝑓 ,
⎩
the hydrodynamic force 𝐅𝑤 acted on the body can be expressed as
one finds that the model (4) and (5) are the same except for the
symbol of the variables. The variables are marked with subscription 𝑑 D𝐯𝑤
𝐅𝑤 = − 𝜌 d𝑅 + 𝐓 ⋅ 𝐧d𝑆 (11)
in equation set (4) and are marked with subscription 𝑑, 𝑤 in equation ∫𝑅′ D𝑡 ∫𝑆𝑒 𝑤
𝑓
set (5). As different donation of the variables does not change the
where 𝐧 is the outwards normal of 𝑆𝑒 . The last term in Eq. (11)
solution of an equation set, one concludes that 𝐯𝑑 (𝐫𝑑 , 𝑡) = 𝐯𝑑,𝑤 (𝐫𝑑,𝑤 , 𝑡).
represents the total force acted on surface 𝑆𝑒 by the fluid outside of
This means that the velocity or vorticity referenced to the translational
𝑆𝑒 . For Newtonian fluid, it can be shown that 𝐓𝑤 ⋅ 𝐧 = −𝑝𝑤 𝐧 + 𝜇𝝎𝑤 ×
frame is the same in the stream and non-stream flow fields as long as
𝐧 + 2𝜇(𝐧 × ∇𝑤 ) × 𝐯𝑤 (Wu et al., 2015) by substituting the constitutive
condition (8) is fulfilled. Considering transformation (6) and (7) and
equations into 𝐓𝑤 . 𝜇 is the kinetics viscosity of the fluid and 𝑝𝑤 is the
condition (8), this conclusion can be rewritten as
static pressure. According to the Derivative Moment Transformation
⎧ 𝐫 =𝐫−𝐫 +𝐫 (DMT) formula (44),
⎪ 𝑤 𝐷 𝐷,𝑤
⎨ 𝐯𝑤 (𝐫𝑤 , 𝑡) = 𝐯(𝐫, 𝑡) + 𝐯∞ (𝑡) (9) 1
⎪ 𝝎𝑤 (𝐫𝑤 , 𝑡) = 𝝎(𝐫, 𝑡) − 𝑝𝑤 𝐧d𝑆 = 𝐫 × (𝐧 × ∇𝑝𝑤 )d𝑆 (12)
⎩ ∫𝑆𝑒 𝑁 − 1 ∫𝑆𝑒 𝑤
The results above show that the flow field of a body moving where 𝑁 is the dimension of the flow field. 𝑝𝑤 can now be eliminated
in uniform and unsteady steam can be acquired based on the by Noca’s method (Noca et al., 1999), i.e. replace ∇𝑝𝑤 with −𝜌D𝐯𝑤 ∕D𝑡+
flow field of a body moving in a non-stream flow field according 𝜇∇2 𝐯𝑤 according to the NS equation. Further considering that the
to Eq. (9) as long as condition (8) is fulfilled. The second condition in integral of (𝐧 × ∇) × 𝐯𝑤 on a closed surface is zero (Wu et al., 2015), the
(8) requires that the relative motion velocities in the two circumstances hydrodynamic force in Eq. (11) can be rewritten as follow after some
are the same. The first condition in (8) requires that the velocity algebra operation
distribution difference on the body surface is equal to 𝐯∞ (𝑡). For rigid D𝐯𝑤
bodies, this in fact requires that their angular velocities are the same. 𝐅𝑤 = − 𝜌 d𝑅 + 𝜇𝝎𝑤 × 𝐧d𝑆
∫𝑅′ D𝑡 ∫𝑆𝑒
The third condition in (8) requires that the initial velocity distribution 𝑓
(13)
difference in the flow field is equal to 𝐯∞ (𝑡). It should be emphasized 1 D𝐯
+ 𝐫 × [𝐧 × (−𝜌 𝑤 + 𝜇∇2 𝐯𝑤 )]d𝑆
that the position vector for 𝐫𝑤 is different from that of 𝐫 as clarified 𝑁 − 1 ∫𝑆𝑒 𝑤 D𝑡
in Eq. (9) or illustrated in Fig. 3 and the relative discussion. Thus, the According to Eq. (11), 𝐅𝑤 is independent of 𝐫𝑤 . Consequently, 𝐅𝑤
relationship of the velocity variation in the two circumstances is not should be independent on the starting point of the position vector 𝐫𝑤 .
𝜕𝐯𝑤 (𝐫𝑤 , 𝑡)∕𝜕𝑡 = 𝜕𝐯(𝐫, 𝑡)∕𝜕𝑡 + d𝐯∞ ∕d𝑡 but In fact, the starting point of the position vector would not affect the
D𝑤 𝐯𝑤 (𝐫𝑤 , 𝑡) D𝐯(𝐫, 𝑡) d𝐯∞ validity of the DMT formulas as discussed in Wu et al. (2015) which
= + (10)
D𝑡 D𝑡 d𝑡 is also emphasized in the appendix. For either of these two reasons, 𝐫𝑤
This conclusion would be further discussed and numerically confirmed. in Eq. (13) can be replaced by 𝐫 though they are different according
The comparison of the NS equation in different reference frames was to Eq. (9).
discussed by Batchelor (1967). The result shows that additional terms According to the flow field transformation formula (9) and (10), 𝐅
should be added to the NS equation to account for the motion of the can be decomposed into two terms, i.e. 𝐅𝑤 = 𝐅 + 𝐅∞ with
non-inertial frame. This results in the different forms of NS equation D𝐯
in the different frames, which is inconvenient for comparing the flow ⎧ 𝐅= − 𝜌 d𝑅 + 𝜇𝝎 × 𝐧d𝑆
⎪ ∫𝑅′ D𝑡 ∫𝑆𝑒
fields. This is another reason why the vorticity transport equation is ⎪ 𝑓

adopted here instead of the NS equation. ⎪ 1 D𝐯

⎨ + 𝐫 × [𝐧 × (−𝜌 + 𝜇∇2 𝐯)]d𝑆 (14)
For inviscid flow, 𝝎 = 0 and the vorticity transport equation is 𝑁 − 1 ∫𝑆𝑒 D𝑡
⎪
unnecessary for the fluid motion models. The left equations in the ⎪ D𝐯 𝜌 D𝐯∞
⎪ 𝐅∞ = − 𝜌 ∞ d𝑅 − 𝐫 × (𝐧 × )d𝑆
model is often called the kinematic part and can be converted into the ⎩ ∫𝑅′ D𝑡 𝑁 − 1 ∫𝑆𝑒 D𝑡
𝑓

4
X. Lin et al. Ocean Engineering 237 (2021) 109491

As ∇2 𝐯∞ = ∇(∇ ⋅ 𝐯∞ ) − ∇ × (∇ × 𝐯∞ ) = 0, the term 𝜇∇2 𝐯∞ does not According to the flow field transformation formula (9) and (10), 𝐌𝑤
appear in 𝐅∞ . By applying the DMT formula (45), the region integral can be decomposed into two terms, i.e., 𝐌𝑤 = 𝐌 + 𝐌∞ with
in 𝐅∞ can be further decomposed.
⎧ D𝐯 𝜌 D𝐯
D𝐯 𝜌 D𝐯∞ ⎪ 𝐌=− 𝜌𝐫1 × d𝑅 + 𝑟2 𝐧 × d𝑆
𝜌 ∞ d𝑅 = ∫𝑅′ D𝑡 2 ∫𝑆𝑒 1 D𝑡
∫𝑅′
𝐫 × (∇ × )d𝑅 ⎪ 𝑓
D𝑡 𝑁 − 1 ∫𝑅′ D𝑡 ⎪
𝑓 𝑓
(15) 𝜇
D𝐯∞ ⎪ + 𝑟2 𝐧 × (∇ × 𝝎)d𝑆 + 𝜇 𝐫 × (𝝎 × 𝐧)d𝑆
−
𝜌
𝐫 × (𝐧 × )d𝑆 ⎪ 2 ∫𝑆𝑒 1 ∫𝑆𝑒 1
𝑁 − 1 ∫𝑆𝑖 ∪𝑆𝑒 D𝑡 ⎨ (22)
⎪ +2𝜇 𝐫1 × [(𝐧 × ∇) × 𝐯𝑤 ]d𝑆
where 𝐧 is the outwards normal of 𝑅′𝑓
surface, i.e., 𝐧 is positive on 𝑆𝑖 ⎪ ∫𝑆𝑒
when pointing to the body. Noting that 𝐯∞ is uniform, the first term on ⎪
⎪ D𝐯∞ 𝜌 D𝐯∞
𝐌∞ = − 𝜌𝐫1 × d𝑅 + 𝑟2 𝐧 × d𝑆
the right hand of Eq. (15) is zero and 𝐅∞ can be simplified as ⎪ ∫𝑅′ D𝑡 2 ∫𝑆𝑒 1 D𝑡
⎩ 𝑓
𝜌 D𝐯∞
𝐅∞ = 𝐫 × (𝐧 × )d𝑆 (16) By applying DMT formula (47), the region integral in 𝐌∞ can be
𝑁 − 1 ∫𝑆𝑖 D𝑡
rewritten as
By applying the DMT formula (44) and the Gauss theorem, 𝐅∞ can be
D𝐯∞ 𝜌 D𝐯∞ 𝜌 D𝐯∞
rewritten as 𝜌𝐫1 × d𝑅 = − 𝑟2 ∇ × d𝑅 + 𝑟2 𝐧 × d𝑆
D𝐯∞ d𝐯
∫𝑅′ D𝑡 2 ∫𝑅′ 1 D𝑡 2 ∫𝑆𝑖 ∪𝑆𝑒 1 D𝑡
d 𝑓 𝑓
𝐅∞ = 𝜌 d𝑅 = 𝜌 𝐯 d𝑅 = 𝜌𝑉 ∞ (17)
∫𝑅′ D𝑡 d𝑡 ∫𝑅′ ∞ d𝑡 (23)
𝑏 𝑏

where 𝑉 is the volume of 𝑅′𝑏 , it is also the volume of the body. At last, As 𝐯∞ is uniform on 𝑅′𝑓 ∪𝑅′𝑏 , the first term on the right hand of Eq. (23)
one gets is zero. Consequently 𝐌∞ can be simplified as
d𝐯∞
𝐅𝑤 = 𝐅 + 𝜌𝑉 (18) 𝜌 D𝐯∞ D𝐯∞ d𝐯
d𝑡 𝐌∞ = − 𝑟2 𝐧 × d𝑆 = 𝜌 𝐫 × d𝑅 = 𝜌𝑉 𝐫𝑉 × ∞
2 ∫𝑆𝑖 1 D𝑡 ∫𝑅′ 1 D𝑡 d𝑡
The derivation process of Eq. (13) shows that it is also applicable 𝑏

for the non-stream circumstance. This means that 𝐅 in (14) is exactly
the hydrodynamic force when the body moves with the same relative
velocity in the non-stream circumstance. Consequently, Eq. (18) is the
transformation formula for the hydrodynamic force between stream
circumstance and non-stream circumstance provided that condition (8)
is fulfilled. Transformation (18) is applicable for both viscous and
inviscid flow according to its derivation process.
3.2. Hydrodynamic moment transformation method
The hydrodynamic moment transformation method can be derived
in a similar way. By applying the momentum moment balance theo-
rem (Wu et al., 2015) on the region 𝑅′𝑓 , one gets
D𝐯𝑤
𝐌𝑤 = − 𝜌𝐫1,𝑤 × d𝑅 + 𝐫 × (𝐓𝑤 ⋅ 𝐧)d𝑆
∫𝑅′ D𝑡 ∫𝑆𝑒 1,𝑤
𝑓
where 𝐫1,𝑤 is the position vector of a fluid particle referencing to the
reference point 𝑂1,𝑤 of the hydrodynamic moment. For convenience,
𝑂1,𝑤 is enforced to keep constant position vector reference to point
𝐷 or fixed on a rigid body. This is also the treatment in defining the
hydrodynamic moment in flight dynamics or studying the mechanics
of a submarine. In this case 𝐫1,𝑤 = 𝐫𝐷𝑤 ,𝑂1,𝑤 + 𝐫𝑑,𝑤 where constant
𝐫𝐷𝑤 ,𝑂1,𝑤 is the position vector pointing from 𝑂1,𝑤 to 𝐷𝑤 . Then, 𝐫1,𝑤
are the same in the steam and non-stream circumstances according
to Eq. (9) and the relevant discussion. For this reason, the difference
between 𝐫1 and 𝐫1,𝑤 is not distinguished in the following discussion. As
𝐓𝑤 ⋅ 𝐧 = −𝑝𝑤 𝐧 + 𝜇𝝎𝑤 × 𝐧 + 2𝜇(𝐧 × ∇) × 𝐯𝑤 , the last term on the right hand
of Eq. (19) can be decomposed into
𝐫1 × (𝐓𝑤 ⋅ 𝐧)d𝑆 = 𝜇 𝐫1 × (𝝎𝑤 × 𝐧)d𝑆
∫𝑆𝑒 ∫𝑆𝑒
+2𝜇 𝐫1 × [(𝐧 × ∇) × 𝐯𝑤 ]d𝑆 − 𝐫1 × 𝐧𝑝𝑤 d𝑆
∫𝑆𝑒 ∫𝑆𝑒
By applying the DMT formula (46) on the last term on the right side
of Eq. (20), the integrand can be transformed into a function of ∇𝑝𝑤 .
Eliminate the pressure term with NS equation, 𝐌𝑤 can be rewritten as
(24)
where 𝐫𝑉 is the position vector pointing from 𝑂1 to the volume center
of the body. The second equal sign is due to the DMT formula (47), the
third equal sign is due to the uniform distribution of d𝐯∞ ∕d𝑡 and the
definition of position vector 𝐫𝑉 .
The derivation process of 𝐌𝑤 in Eq. (21) shows that it is also appli-
cable for the stream circumstance. This means that the 𝐌 in Eq. (22)
is exactly the hydrodynamic moment when the body moves with the
same relative velocity in the non-stream circumstance. Consequently,
the hydrodynamic moment transformation method between the stream
circumstance and the non-stream circumstance is
d𝐯
𝐌𝑤 = 𝐌 + 𝜌𝑉 𝐫𝑉 × ∞ (25)
d𝑡
(19) This transformation formula is valid in both viscous and inviscid flow
according to its derivation process.
The transformation formula (18) and (25) show that, the hydro-
dynamics of a body moving with the same relative velocity do not
necessarily keep the same between the stream and non-stream circum-
stance. In the circumstance that the stream velocity is uniform and
time-invariant, the hydrodynamics are the same and this result is well
known as the ‘principle of relative motion’. If the stream velocity is
time-variant, the hydrodynamic force and moment between the two
circumstances are different and can be transformed by formula (18)
and (25) respectively.
4. Verifications and observations
To verify the correctness of the derivation results above, flow field
transformation formulas (10) and hydrodynamics transformation for-
(20)
mulas (18) and (25) are compared with theoretical or numerical results
in both inviscid and viscous flow. Then, the rationality of existing
results on the relative motion principle is discussed.
4.1. Comparison with theoretical and numerical result in inviscid flow

According to the discussion of Anderson (2014), the inviscid flow

D𝐯𝑤 𝜌 D𝐯𝑤
𝐌𝑤 = − 𝜌𝐫1 × d𝑅 + 𝑟2 𝐧 × d𝑆 field includes the steady cyclic flow field in the two-dimensional flow.
∫𝑅′ D𝑡 2 ∫𝑆𝑒 1 D𝑡
𝑓 However, for inviscid fluid, the flow field will keep acyclic according to
𝜇 the theorem of Kelvin if the flow is acyclic initially in two-dimensional
+ 𝑟2 𝐧 × (∇ × 𝝎𝑤 )d𝑆 + 𝜇 𝐫 × (𝝎𝑤 × 𝐧)d𝑆 (21)
2 ∫𝑆𝑒 1 ∫𝑆𝑒 1 flow. We consider only this acyclic inviscid flow field here as the cyclic
inviscid flow field in fact considered the effect of the fluid viscosity
+2𝜇 𝐫1 × [(𝐧 × ∇) × 𝐯𝑤 ]d𝑆 during the transient or unsteady process before the steady state.
∫𝑆𝑒

5
X. Lin et al. Ocean Engineering 237 (2021) 109491

( )
𝜕𝐯 d𝑈 (𝑡) 𝑅2 [(𝑥 − 𝑥𝐷 )2 − (𝑧 − 𝑧𝐷 )2 ] 𝜕𝑣𝑥 d𝑥𝐷 𝜕𝑣 d𝑧
=− ∞ 𝐢+ + 𝑥 𝐷 𝐢
𝜕𝑡 d𝑡 2
[(𝑥 − 𝑥𝐷 ) + (𝑧 − 𝑧𝐷 ) ]2 2 𝜕𝑥𝐷 d𝑡 𝜕𝑧𝐷 d𝑡
( )
d𝑈∞ (𝑡) 2𝑅2 (𝑥 − 𝑥𝐷 )(𝑧 − 𝑧𝐷 ) 𝜕𝑣𝑧 d𝑥𝐷 𝜕𝑣𝑧 d𝑧𝐷
− 𝐤+ + 𝐤
2
d𝑡 [(𝑥 − 𝑥𝐷 ) + (𝑧 − 𝑧𝐷 ) ]2 2 𝜕𝑥𝐷 d𝑡 𝜕𝑧𝐷 d𝑡
( ) ( )
𝜕𝐯 d𝑈∞ (𝑡) 𝜕𝑣𝑥 𝜕𝑣 𝜕𝑣𝑧 𝜕𝑣
= 𝑤 − 𝐢− 𝑣𝐷,𝑥 + 𝑥 𝑣𝐷,𝑧 𝐢 − 𝑣𝐷,𝑥 + 𝑧 𝑣𝐷,𝑧 𝐤
𝜕𝑡 d𝑡 𝜕𝑥 𝜕𝑧 𝜕𝑥 𝜕𝑧
𝜕𝐯𝑤 d𝑈∞ (𝑡) 𝜕𝐯𝑤 d𝑈∞ (𝑡)
= − 𝐯𝐷 ⋅ ∇𝐯 − 𝐢= + 𝐯∞ ⋅ ∇𝐯 − 𝐢
𝜕𝑡 d𝑡 𝜕𝑡 d𝑡
(30)
𝜕𝐯𝑤 𝜕𝐯 d𝐯∞ (𝑡)
Fig. 4. Illustration of the cylinder induced flow field in stream circumstances (left) The result above clearly shows that ≠
𝜕𝑡
+ 𝜕𝑡 d𝑡
.
This difference,
and non-stream circumstance (right). according to the calculation process above, is due to the fact that
the position 𝐫𝐷 is time variant as 𝐷 is moving in the non-stream
circumstance. Considering that 𝐯𝑤 ⋅ ∇𝐯𝑤 = (𝐯 + 𝐯∞ ) ⋅ ∇(𝐯 + 𝐯∞ ) =
4.1.1. Verification of the flow field transformation formula 𝐯 ⋅ ∇𝐯 + 𝐯∞ ⋅ ∇𝐯, the fluid particle acceleration of the two fields are
We first check the flow field transformation formula (9). The invis-
cid flow field can be numerically calculated basing on the panel method ⎧ D𝐯𝑤 𝜕𝐯𝑤 𝜕𝐯𝑤
which distributes sources on the surface of the moving body. This ⎪ D𝑡 = 𝜕𝑡 + 𝐯𝑤 ⋅ ∇𝐯𝑤 = 𝜕𝑡 + 𝐯 ⋅ ∇𝐯 + 𝐯∞ ⋅ ∇𝐯
⎨ (31)
method had already been well documented by Hess and Smith (1967) ⎪ D𝐯 = 𝜕𝐯 + 𝐯 ⋅ ∇𝐯 = 𝜕𝐯𝑤 − d𝐯∞ (𝑡) + 𝐯∞ ⋅ ∇𝐯 + 𝐯 ⋅ ∇𝐯
and can also be found in more recent Ref. Cebeci et al. (2004). This ⎩ D𝑡 𝜕𝑡 𝜕𝑡 d𝑡
method clearly shows that the inviscid flow field between the stream D𝐯𝑤 D𝐯 d𝐯∞ (𝑡)
respectively. They obviously fulfill D𝑡
= D𝑡
+ d𝑡
and verifies the
and non-stream circumstance fulfills the transformation formula (9).
correctness of Eq. (10).
Consequently, we need only to further check the correctness of Eq. (10)
or D𝑤 𝐯∕D𝑡 = D𝐯∕D𝑡 + D𝐯∞ ∕D𝑡. To clearly show this relationship, the
4.1.2. Verification of the hydrodynamic force transformation formula
two-dimensional flow field induced by a circle is studied analytically
To compute the unsteady hydrodynamic force in inviscid flow, the
instead of numerically.
following pressure independent hydrodynamic force formula provided
As shown in Fig. 4., the velocity distribution of the flow field is (Katz
by Newman (2018)(p141) is considered.
and Plotkin, 2001)
( ) d 𝜕𝜙 𝜌
⎧ 𝐅 = −𝜌 𝜙𝐧d𝑆 + 𝜌 ∇𝜙d𝑆 − ∇𝜙 ⋅ ∇𝜙𝐧d𝑆 (32)
𝑅2 d𝑡 ∫𝑆𝑖 ∫𝑆𝑖 𝜕𝑛 2 ∫𝑆𝑖
⎪ 𝑣𝑟𝑤 (𝑟𝑤 , 𝜃𝑤 , 𝑡) = 𝑈∞ (𝑡) cos 𝜃𝑤 1 − 2
⎪ 𝑟𝑤
⎨ ( ) (26) By applying DMT formula (44), this formula can be rewritten as
⎪ 𝑅2
𝑣 (𝑟
⎪ 𝜃𝑤 𝑤 𝑤 , 𝜃 , 𝑡) = −𝑈 ∞ (𝑡) sin 𝜃𝑤 1 + 𝜌 d 𝜌
⎩ 𝑟2𝑤 𝐅=− 𝐫 × (𝐯 × 𝐧)d𝑆 + 𝜌 𝐯𝐯 ⋅ 𝐧d𝑆 − 𝐯 ⋅ 𝐯𝐧d𝑆
𝑁 − 1 d𝑡 ∫𝑆𝑖 ∫𝑆𝑖 2 ∫𝑆𝑖
where 𝑈∞ is the velocity of the stream, 𝜃𝑤 is the angular between 𝐫𝑤
(33)
and 𝑂𝑥, 𝐯𝑟𝑤 is the velocity component in the 𝐫𝑤 direction and 𝑣𝜃𝑤
is the velocity component in the 𝜽𝑤 direction, 𝑅 is the radius of the This formula is velocity vector-based and is more convenient for pro-
cylinder cross-section as shown in Fig. 4. Eq. (26) can be rewritten as gram debugging as the velocity distribution of the flow field is more
𝐯𝑤 = 𝑣𝑥𝑤 𝐢𝑤 + 𝑣𝑧𝑤 𝐤𝑤 with intuitional.
For an ellipsoid with semi-major axis 𝑎 = 0.5 and semi-minor axis
⎧ 𝑅2 (𝑥2𝑤 − 𝑧2𝑤 )
⎪ 𝑣𝑥 (𝑥𝑤 , 𝑦𝑤 , 𝑡) = 𝑈∞ (𝑡) − 𝑈∞ (𝑡) 𝑏 = 0.1, the non-stream flow field is numerically calculated based on
⎪ 𝑤
(𝑥2𝑤 + 𝑧2𝑤 )2 the panel method (Hess and Smith, 1967) and the hydrodynamic force
⎨ (27)
2 𝐅 in Eq. (33) is evaluated. The result shows that the last two terms
⎪ 𝑣 (𝑥 , 𝑦 , 𝑡) = −𝑈 (𝑡) 2𝑅 𝑥𝑤 𝑧𝑤
⎪ 𝑧𝑤 𝑤 𝑤 ∞
(𝑥2𝑤 + 𝑧2𝑤 )2 do not contribute to the value of 𝐅 when the ellipsoid moves either
⎩ steady or unsteady. As the starting point of 𝐫 is arbitrary according to
Though this stream circumstance flow field is acquired under the the characteristic of the DMT formulas (Wu et al., 2015), it is fixed
hypothesis that the stream is steady, it is also applicable if the in- on the ellipsoid center 𝐷 during calculation. In this case, 𝐫 is time-
coming flow is time variant. This is because the Laplace equation is independent for a fixed point on 𝑆𝑖 and is convenient for evaluating
valid in both time-dependent and time-independent inviscid flow fields. the integral 𝐈1 = 𝜌 ∫𝑆 𝐫 × (𝐯 × 𝐧)d𝑆∕(𝑁 − 1). The result shows that 𝐈1 is
𝑖
According to transformation rule (9), the velocity distribution in the exactly the impulse of the flow field, i.e.
corresponding non-stream flow field is 𝐯(𝐫𝑑 , 𝑡) = 𝐯𝑤 (𝐫𝑤 , 𝑡) − 𝐯∞ or
𝑡
𝐯(𝐫 − 𝐫𝐷 ) = 𝐯𝑤 (𝐫𝑤 ) − 𝐯∞ where 𝐫𝐷 = ∫0 𝐯𝐷 d𝑡 and 𝐯𝐷 = −𝑈∞ (𝑡)𝐢 is the 𝐈1 = 𝐌𝐹 𝑣 ⋅ 𝐯𝐷 + 𝐌𝐹 𝑤 ⋅ 𝝎𝑏 (34)
velocity of the cylinder cross-section center. Consequently where 𝐌𝐹 𝑣 and 𝐌𝐹 𝑤 are the added mass tensor representing the effect
⎧ of the translational and angular acceleration on the hydrodynamic
𝑅2 [(𝑥 − 𝑥𝐷 )2 − (𝑧 − 𝑧𝐷 )2 ]
⎪ 𝑣𝑥 (𝑥, 𝑦, 𝑡) = −𝑈∞ (𝑡) force. The corresponding matrix for these tensors are
⎪ [(𝑥 − 𝑥𝐷 )2 + (𝑧 − 𝑧𝐷 )2 ]2 [ ] [ ]
⎨ 2
(28) 𝑚11 0 0
⎪ 𝑣 (𝑥, 𝑦, 𝑡) = −𝑈 (𝑡) 2𝑅 (𝑥 − 𝑥𝐷 )(𝑧 − 𝑧𝐷 ) 𝐌𝐹 𝑣 = , 𝐌𝐹 𝑤 = (35)
⎪ 𝑧 ∞ 0 𝑚11 0
⎩ [(𝑥 − 𝑥𝐷 )2 + (𝑧 − 𝑧𝐷 )2 ]2
for ellipsoids. Theoretical study shows that 𝑚11 = 𝜌𝜋𝑏2 , 𝑚22 = 𝜌𝜋𝑎2 (New-
where 𝑣𝑥 , 𝑣𝑧 is the two components of vector 𝐯.
man, 2018)(p152). The numerical study shows that the relative error of
Now the 𝜕𝐯𝑤 ∕𝜕𝑡 and 𝜕𝐯∕𝜕𝑡 can be calculated analytically as 𝑚11 and 𝑚22 based on formulas (33) and (34) are both less than 0.001%
when the panel on the ellipsoid surface is 640. All these studies evidence
𝜕𝐯𝑤 d𝑈∞ (𝑡) d𝑈∞ (𝑡) 𝑅2 (𝑥2𝑤 − 𝑧2𝑤 ) d𝑈∞ (𝑡) 2𝑅2 𝑥𝑤 𝑧𝑤
= 𝐢𝑤 − 𝐢𝑤 − 𝐤 the correctness and accuracy of the program.
𝜕𝑡 d𝑡 d𝑡 2 2
(𝑥𝑤 + 𝑧𝑤 ) 2 d𝑡 (𝑥2𝑤 + 𝑧2𝑤 )2 𝑤
Now, the hydrodynamic forces in the stream circumstance and non-
(29) stream circumstances are calculated under the same relative velocity

6
X. Lin et al.
Fig. 5. Comparison of hydrodynamic force between different circumstances and
verification of transformation formula (18). (For interpretation of the references to
color in this figure legend, the reader is referred to the web version of this article.)
and the result are plotted in Fig. 5. In the first scenario, the angular
velocity of the ellipsoid is set to zero with a constant attack angle
5◦ . In the non-stream circumstance, the translational velocity is 𝐯𝐷 =
[2 + sin(𝑡)] m∕s ⋅ 𝐢 and the hydrodynamic force 𝐹𝑥 parallel to 𝐯𝐷 is plot
on the left side of Fig. 5 with blue dots. In the stream circumstance,
the ellipsoid is resident in the stream and the hydrodynamic force 𝐹𝑥,𝑤
parallel to 𝐯∞ is plot on the left side of Fig. 5 with the blue line.
Their difference 𝛥𝐹𝑥 = 𝐹𝑥,𝑤 − 𝐹𝑥 is plot on the right side of Fig. 5
with blue stars. The theoretical result of 𝛥𝐹𝑥 according transformation
formula (18) is also plot on the right side of Fig. 5 with the red line.
It can be clearly seen that the numerical data of 𝛥𝐹𝑥 is coincident
with the theoretical result. In scenario two, an angular velocity of
𝝎𝑏 = 0.1 sin(𝑡)rad∕s ⋅ 𝐢 is added to the ellipsoid with zero initial attack
angle and the calculation process is repeated. 𝐹𝑥 and 𝐹𝑥,𝑤 are plotted on
the left side of Fig. 5 with red dots and a red line respectively. It is well
known that the angular velocity would not affect the hydrodynamic
force of an ellipsoid if the translational velocity is defined as the
velocity of its center. The difference of 𝐹𝑥 or 𝐹𝑥,𝑤 between the two
scenarios, as shown on the left of Fig. 5, is therefore due to the change
of attack angle. The difference of 𝛥𝐹𝑥 = 𝐹𝑥,𝑤 −𝐹𝑥 is also plot on the right
side of Fig. 5 with red circles. It can be clearly seen that the numerical
data of 𝛥𝐹𝑥 in this scenario is also coincident with the theoretical result.
This means that the difference of the hydrodynamic force between the
stream and non-stream circumstances is dependent on the acceleration
of the stream and is independent of the motion of the solid. This result
is consistent with the translation formula (18) and all the discussion
above verifies the correctness of this formula.
4.1.3. Verification of the hydrodynamic moment transformation formula
Similarly, the pressure independent hydrodynamic moment for-
mula can be acquired following Newman’s discussion (Newman, 2018)
(p141)
d 𝜌
𝐌=− 𝜙𝐫 × 𝐧d𝑆 − 𝐫 × 𝐧𝐯 ⋅ 𝐯d𝑆 + 𝐫 × 𝐯𝐯 ⋅ 𝐧d𝑆 (36)
d𝑡 ∫𝑆𝑖 2 ∫𝑆𝑖 ∫𝑆𝑖
Let 𝐫 = 𝐫𝑂1 + 𝐫1 where 𝐫𝑂1 is the position vector of 𝑂1 , the reference
point of the hydrodynamic moment and 𝐫1 is the position vector of
points in the flow field referencing to 𝑂1 . Noticing that 𝐫𝑂1 is space
independent, one gets
⎧ an angular velocity of 𝝎𝑏 = 0.1 sin(𝑡)rad∕s ⋅ 𝐢 is added to the ellipsoid
⎪ 𝐌 = 𝐫𝑂1 × 𝐅 + 𝐌𝑂1
⎪ d
⎪ 𝐌𝑂1 = −𝐯𝑂1 × 𝜙𝐧 − 𝜙𝐫 × 𝐧d𝑆
⎨ ∫𝑆𝑖 d𝑡 ∫𝑆𝑖 1 (37)
⎪ 𝜌
⎪ − 𝐫 × 𝐧𝐯 ⋅ 𝐯d𝑆 + 𝐫 × 𝐯𝐯 ⋅ 𝐧d𝑆
⎪ 2 ∫𝑆𝑖 1 ∫𝑆𝑖 1
⎩ This difference of hydrodynamic moment between different scenarios
where 𝐅 is the hydrodynamic force. 𝐌 is the hydrodynamic moment
referencing to point 𝑂 and 𝐌𝑂1 is the hydrodynamic moment refer-
encing to point 𝑂1 . During the calculation, 𝑂1 is fixed on the rigid
7
Ocean Engineering 237 (2021) 109491
body so that the acquired hydrodynamic moments are the same as those
adopted in flight dynamics or submarine mechanics. The formula above
is velocity potential based and the velocity vector-based form can be
obtained by applying the DMT formula (45) and (46)
1 d
𝐌𝑂 1 = − 𝑟2 𝐧 × 𝐯d𝑆 − 𝐯𝑂1 × 𝐫 × (𝐯 × 𝐧)𝐧
2 d𝑡 ∫𝑆𝑖 1 ∫𝑆𝑖 1
𝜌 (38)
− 𝐫 × 𝐧𝐯 ⋅ 𝐯d𝑆 + 𝐫 × 𝐯𝐯 ⋅ 𝐧d𝑆
2 ∫𝑆𝑖 1 ∫𝑆𝑖 1
The numerical study can also be carried out on the same ellipsoid
adopt to study the hydrodynamic force. Similarly, the correctness of
formula (38) is checked first. In the non-stream circumstance, numer-
ical study shows that the last two terms on the right hand of Eq. (38)
do not contribute to the value of 𝐌𝑂1 . The integral in the second
term on the right hand of Eq. (38) is exactly the impulse of the
flow field according to the numerical study of hydrodynamic force.
Consequently, the hydrodynamic moment formula provided by Lamb
(1945) is reprised, i.e.
d𝐋1
𝐌𝑂 1 = − − 𝐯𝑂1 × 𝐈1 , 𝐋1 = 𝑟2 𝐧 × 𝐯d𝑆 (39)
d𝑡 ∫𝑆𝑖 1
It should be noted that 𝐯𝑂1 is the velocity of the hydrodynamic moment
reference point. It is not necessary the translational velocity of the solid
𝐯𝐷 as shown by Lamb. Consequently, the Lamb formula is only a special
case of the hydrodynamic moment formula of (39). Theoretical study
shows that the impulse moment can be represented by
𝐋1 = 𝐌𝑀𝑣 ⋅ 𝐯𝐷 + 𝐌𝑀𝑤21 ⋅ 𝝎𝑏 (40)
and the corresponding matrix for tensor 𝐌𝐹 𝑤 and 𝐌𝐹 𝑤 are
[ ] [ ]
𝐌𝑀𝑣 = 0 0 , 𝐌𝑀𝑤21 = 𝑚66 (41)
with 𝑚66 = 𝜌𝜋(𝑎2 − 𝑏2 )2 ∕8 (Newman, 2018)(p152) for ellipsoids. The
numerical study shows that the relative error of 𝑚66 based on formulas
(38) and (40) is less than 0.2% when the panel on the ellipsoid surface
is 640. All these studies evidence the correctness and accuracy of the
program.
Similarly, the hydrodynamic moments in both circumstances are
calculated under the same relative velocity and are compared with the
transformation formula (25). The transformation formula (25) shows
that the difference of the hydrodynamic moment would be zero if the
reference point 𝑂1 is coincident with the volume center of the ellipsoid
𝐷 and the numerical result verifies this conclusion. To further verify the
transformation formula (25), the reference point 𝑂1 is fixed on the body
with coordinates (0,-1) in the body-fixed frame so that the difference of
hydrodynamic moment between the two circumstances would be non-
zero. In the first scenario, the angular velocity of the ellipsoid is set to
zero with a constant attack angle 5◦ . In the non-stream circumstance,
the translational velocity is 𝐯𝐷 = [2+sin(𝑡)] m∕s⋅𝐢 and the hydrodynamic
moment 𝑀𝑧 parallel to 𝑂𝑧 is plot on the left side of Fig. 6 with blue
dots. In the stream circumstance, the ellipsoid is resident in the stream
and the hydrodynamic moment 𝑀𝑧,𝑤 parallel to 𝑂𝑤 𝑧𝑤 is plot on the
left side of Fig. 6 with a blue line. Their difference 𝛥𝑀𝑧 = 𝑀𝑧,𝑤 − 𝑀𝑧
is plot on the right side of Fig. 6 with blue stars. The theoretical result
of 𝛥𝑀𝑧 according transformation formula (25) is also plot on the right
side of Fig. 6 with red line. It can be clearly seen that the numerical
data of 𝛥𝑀𝑧 is coincident with the theoretical result. In scenario two,
with zero initial attack angle and the calculation process is repeated.
𝑀𝑧 and 𝑀𝑧,𝑤 are plotted on the left side of Fig. 6 with red dots and
a red line respectively. The difference of angular velocity and attack
angle would both affect the hydrodynamic moment and result in its
difference between the two scenarios under the same circumstance.
are also clearly shown on the left side of Fig. 6 and the difference of
𝛥𝑀𝑧 = 𝑀𝑧,𝑤 − 𝑀𝑧 in scenario two is also plot on the right side of
Fig. 6 with red circles. It is clear that 𝛥𝑀𝑧 ’s numerical data in this
X. Lin et al. Ocean Engineering 237 (2021) 109491

Fig. 8. Comparison of drag and moment on NACA0015 airfoil versus it’s translational
Fig. 6. Comparison of the hydrodynamic moment between different circumstances and velocity.
verification of transformation formula (25). (For interpretation of the references to color
in this figure legend, the reader is referred to the web version of this article.)
Table 1
Comparison of drag with the experimental result under 𝑅𝑒 = 2.0 × 106 .
Attack angle Grid 1 Grid 2 Grid 3 Experiment
0◦ 0.00601 0.00612 0.00614 0.00620
6◦ 0.00851 0.00857 0.00860 0.00870
12◦ 0.01616 0.01624 0.01628 0.01640

Table 2
Comparison of lift with the experimental result under 𝑅𝑒 = 2.0 × 106 .
Attack angle Grid 1 Grid 2 Grid 3 Experiment
0◦ 0.0004 0.0002 0.0002 0.0000
6◦ 0.6127 0.6193 0.6195 0.6250
12◦ 1.1600 1.1890 1.1921 1.2180

Fig. 7. Illustration of the flow field in stream circumstance (left) and non-stream
circumstance (right).
scenario is also coincident with the theoretical result. This means that
the difference of hydrodynamic moment between the stream and non-
stream circumstance is dependent on the acceleration of the stream
and is independent of the motion of the solid. This result is consistent
with translation formula (25) and all the discussion above verifies the
correctness of this formula in inviscid flow.
4.2. Comparison with numerical result in viscous flow
To check the correctness of the transformation formulas (9), (18)
and (25), the viscous flow field and hydrodynamics of a NACA0015
airfoil are numerically calculated with the software Fluent. The chord
length of the airfoil is 1, the attack angle is 5◦ . The flow field is
calculated under the stream circumstance and the non-stream circum-
stance respectively with the same relative velocity. For the convenience
of description, a translational frame is built with the origin 𝐷 fixed
on the leading edge of the airfoil. The 𝐷𝑥𝑑 axis is parallel with the
relative velocity and is pointing to the trail of the airfoil. The 𝐷𝑧𝑑
axis is perpendicular to the 𝐷𝑥𝑑 axis and pointing upwards. The flow
field is calculated within a circle 𝑆𝑒 whose radius is 19 and the center
coordinates is 𝑃 (1.5, −0.1). The fluid is air with density 𝜌 = 1.225 kg∕m3
and the far-field boundary condition is set to ‘velocity inlet’ as shown
in Fig. 7.
The independence on the grid number is checked and verified first.
Three grids with total number 96800, 169830, 210000 respectively are
applied to numerically calculate the drag and lift of a NACA0012
airfoil moving with constant velocity 29.2 m∕s and Reynolds number
𝑅𝑒 = 2.0 × 106 . The SSTK-Omega turbulence model is adopted and the
residuals of the continuity and velocities are all less than 1.0 × 10−6
in absolute criteria when converged. The comparison of the result
with the experimental data of Ladson (1988) is listed in Tables 1 and
2. The tables show that the numerical result is coincident with the
experimental data and the different grid number does not affect the
numerical result significantly. Consequently, a grid with a total number
of 119,380 is adopted to study the unsteady state hydrodynamics. The
time step in the unsteady flow field simulation is 0.005 s and the max
iterations in one time step is 20.
For the stream circumstance, the velocity of the stream is in the 𝐷𝑥𝑑
direction with amplitude 𝑣∞ = 1 + 0.5 sin (2𝜋𝑡) m∕s and the body is rest.
The initial condition of the flow field is the steady flow field of the body
rest in the stream with 𝑣∞ = 1 m∕s. For the non-stream circumstance,
the velocity of the body is opposite to the 𝐷𝑥𝑑 direction with amplitude
𝑣𝐷 = −1 − 0.5 sin (2𝜋𝑡) m∕s and the initial condition of the flow field
is the steady flow field of the body moving with constant velocity
𝑣𝐷 = 1 m∕s. To avoid the difficulty of re-grid during calculation in the
non-stream circumstance, the moving reference frame (MRF) (Ansys,
2013) technology is adopted.
Numerical simulation results show that the two flow fields fulfill the
transformation formula (9) quite well. At time 𝑡 = 3 s, we transform the
non-stream velocity field by formula (9) and then compare it with the
stream field velocity. The difference is normalized by the stream speed
at that moment. The result shows that the maximum error is within
1.60% and 1.58% in the 𝐷𝑥𝑑 and 𝐷𝑧𝑑 direction respectively. The
average error in these two directions are 0.54% and 0.11% respectively.
The comparison of lift in the two circumstances shows that they
are almost the same. This is consistent with formula (18) as the lift
is perpendicular to the body translation velocity or stream velocity.
For the stream circumstance, the drag, the moment and the stream
speed are plotted in Fig. 8. It can be seen that the drag or moment
is not in phase with the stream speed. This is because the unsteady
hydrodynamics are dependent not only on the relative velocity but
also the relative acceleration. As the phase between the velocity and
acceleration is 90◦ , the drag or moment is not necessarily in phase with
velocity.
The drag difference between the two circumstances and the accel-
eration of the stream 𝑎∞ are plotted in Fig. 9. It can be seen from
Fig. 9 that the drag difference is in phase with 𝑎∞ = 𝜋 cos 2𝜋𝑡. What is
more, the numerical result 𝛥𝐹𝑥 = 𝐹𝑥,𝑤 − 𝐹𝑥 matches well with the 𝐷𝑥𝑑
component of the theoretical result 𝐅𝑤 − 𝐅 in formula (18). If the error

8
X. Lin et al.
Fig. 9. Comparison of drag difference on NACA0015 airfoil versus its translational
acceleration.
Fig. 10. Comparison of pitching moment difference on NACA0015 airfoil versus its
translational acceleration.
is normalized by the maximum value of the drag, the relative error is
within 0.22%. This consistency verifies the correctness of formula (18).
It can be seen from Eq. (25) that the moment difference is dependent
on the reference point of the moment. When the position vector 𝐫𝑉 is
almost parallel with the 𝐷𝑥𝑑 axis, the moment difference of the two
circumstances would be small. The numerical calculation results con-
firmed this conclusion. To further illustrate the correctness of formula
(25), the reference point of the moment is set on point 𝑂1 (0, 1). In this
case 𝐫𝑉 is vertical to 𝐷𝑥𝑑 or the relative velocity and the difference of
the hydrodynamic moment should be distinct. The moment difference
curve and the acceleration of the stream 𝑎∞ are plotted in Fig. 10. The
result shows that the moment’s difference is assuredly not small and is
in phase with 𝑎∞ = 𝜋 cos 2𝜋𝑡. What is more, the numerical result of the
hydrodynamic moment in 𝐷𝑧𝑑 direction 𝛥𝑀𝑧 = 𝑀𝑧,𝑤 −𝑀𝑧 matches well
with the theoretical result in formula (25). If the error is normalized
with the maximum value of 𝑀𝑧 , the relative error is within 0.40%. This
consistence verifies the correctness of the formula (25).
4.3. Observations
As introduced in the introduction, several theories concerning the
relative motion principle had been proposed by previous scholars. We
now compare their conclusion with this study.
The first conclusion for relative motion principle under unsteady
and uniform incoming flow is drawn by D’Alembert who proved that
the drags are still the same under the two circumstances. In the de-
velopment of the Zeta program (Patterson et al., 1987)(p8-14), it is
even supposed that the hydrodynamic force and moment are both same
when the stream is translating or rotating unsteady. This is obviously
in conflict with this study and the conclusions of other scholars. The
reason for this phenomenon is because the far-field pressure distribu-
tion is unknown to scholars of the D’Alembert era. A hypothesis that
the pressure at far field is zero is adopted by D’Alembert during his
derivation (Calero, 2018)(p29). This results in no contribution of the
9
Ocean Engineering 237 (2021) 109491
pressure on 𝑆𝑒 to the hydrodynamic force on the solid. This conflicts
with the modern study which shows that the pressure integral on 𝑆𝑒
is not necessarily zero in unsteady flow field (Wu, 2014)(p94). In
fact, the pressure integral on 𝑆𝑒 is still unknown to scholars even
in the Lamb era (Lamb, 1945)(p162) who missed the contribution of
velocity potential during its estimation. These facts also explain why
the principle of relative motion in an unsteady stream cannot be solved
in the early days.
The Morison formula shows that the hydrodynamic force act on a
unit length circular cylinder by the stream is (Morison et al., 1950)
𝜋𝐷2 𝜕𝑢 𝐷
𝐹 = 𝜌𝐶𝑀 + 𝜌𝐶𝐷 𝑢2 (42)
4 𝜕𝑡 2
where 𝑢 is the velocity of the uniform stream which is vertical to the
axis of the cylinder and 𝐷 is the diameter of the circular cylinder.
For inviscid flow 𝐶𝑀 is exactly 2 according to the study of ocean
engineering (Newman, 2018). The deviation of 𝐶𝑀 from 2 in some
Refs. Zan and Lin (2020) is due to the effect of viscosity. The first term
on the right hand of Eq. (42) represents the hydrodynamic force related
to the acceleration of the stream. The second term represents the
hydrodynamic force that is related to dynamic pressure. For irrotational
inviscid flow, only the first term exists. According to formula (18), the
hydrodynamic force acting on the cylinder can be decomposed into two
parts. The scalar form of the second part is 𝜌𝑉 d𝑢∕d𝑡 = 𝜋𝜌𝐷2 ∕4 ⋅ 𝜕𝑢∕𝜕𝑡 as
𝑣∞ = 𝑢 is uniform on 𝑅𝑏 ∪𝑅𝑓 . The first part on the right of formula (18)
is the hydrodynamic force acted on the circular cylinder when it moves
in the non-stream circumstance with the same relative velocity −𝑢. As
the added mass of a unit length circular cylinder moving perpendicular
to its axis is 𝜋𝜌𝐷2 ∕4 (Khoury, 2012)(p35), the second part on the right
hand of Eq. (18) is −𝜋𝜌𝐷2 ∕4𝜕(−𝑢)∕𝜕𝑡 according to the concept of added
mass. Consequently, the hydrodynamic force evaluated by formula (18)
is exactly the first term of the Morison formula with 𝐶𝑀 = 2. This
means that formula (18) is consistent with the Morison formula.
The relative motion principle drawn from the Morison formula is
only applicable to long cylinders. A more general form of relative mo-
tion principle that is the same as transformation formula (18) had been
proposed by Batchelor (1967)(p409). In the meantime, Batchelor also
showed that the difference of the fluid particle accelerations between
an inertial reference frame and a translational frame is d𝐯𝐷 ∕d𝑡. These
results can be regarded as evidence of the correctness of transformation
formulas (10) and (18) respectively. However, an acquiescent assump-
tion that the stream flow field observed on a translating frame is the
same as the non-stream flow field is adopted by Batchelor. This assump-
tion is exactly transformation rule (9) that had been rigidly proved in
this study. Batchelor’s study considered only the hydrodynamic force
due to the pressure difference between the two flow fields. In this study,
the effect of the viscous shearing stress is also considered and the result
is extended to hydrodynamic moment transformation, i.e., Eq. (25).
In Fossen (1994), the concept of Froude–Krilov force is generalized
to Froude–Krilov moment and their formulas are expressed by matrix
operation form
𝐅𝐹 𝐾 = 𝑚̄ 𝐯̇ ∞ , 𝐌𝑀𝐾 = 𝑚̃
̄ 𝐫𝑉 𝐯̇ ∞ (43)
where 𝑚̄ = 𝜌𝑉 represents the mass of the fluid required to fill the
volume occupied by the body. 𝐅𝐹 𝐾 , 𝐌𝐹 𝐾 and 𝐯∞ are the column matrix
of the hydrodynamic force 𝐅𝐹 𝐾 , the hydrodynamic moment 𝐌𝐹 𝐾 and
the stream velocity 𝐯∞ respectively when they are projected in the
body-fixed frame. 𝐫̃ 𝑉 is the antisymmetric matrix of 𝐫 𝑉 and 𝐫 𝑉 is the
column matrix of the position vector 𝐫𝑉 when it is projected in the
body-fixed frame. If the body is not rotating, 𝐯̇ ∞ is precisely the column
matrix of vector d𝐯∞ ∕d𝑡 when it is projected in the body-fixed frame.
Consequently, the Froude–Krilov force or moment introduce by Fossen
(1994) is exactly the last term of the transformation formula (18)
and (25). This in some way evidences the correctness of the study
in this paper. For the case that the body is rotating, the projection
of d𝐯∞ ∕d𝑡 in the body-fixed frame would be 𝐯̇ ∞ + 𝜔̃ 𝑏 𝐯̇ ∞ where 𝝎 ̃𝑏
X. Lin et al. Ocean Engineering 237 (2021) 109491

is the antisymmetric matrix of 𝝎𝑏 and 𝝎𝑏 is the column matrix the Declaration of competing interest
body angular velocity vector 𝝎𝑏 when it is projected in the body-fixed
frame. This means that the Froude–Krilov force or moment introduced The authors declare that they have no known competing finan-
in Fossen (1994) is inconsistent with the transformation formula (18) or cial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to
(25). As Ref. Fossen (1994) does not clarify whether the body frame is influence the work reported in this paper.
rotating or not, we regard the transformation formula (18) and (25) in
inviscid flow as generalizations of the Froude–Krilov force or moment Appendix
decomposition methods introduced in Fossen (1994).
In the study of Thomasson (2000), the motion model of a solid The following Derivative Moment Transformation (DMT) formula
moving in the nonuniform and unsteady stream had been proposed by had been quoted in the paper. The detailed proof of these formulas can
Thomasson. By moving all the terms that are dependent on the density be found in Ref. Wu et al. (2015)(p421–422). For a closed surface 𝑆,
of the fluid to the right hand of the equations, the hydrodynamic let 𝐧 be its outwards normal, 𝑁 be the dimension of the flow field, 𝜙
force or moment formula acted on the solid can be acquired. As these is a continuous scalar field, 𝐫 is the position vector of the flow field
formulas are applicable in both stream and non-stream circumstance, referencing to an arbitrary point, then
the relative motion principle can be clarified. The result shows that the 1
− 𝜙𝐧d𝑆 = 𝐫 × (𝐧 × ∇𝜙)d𝑆, 𝑁 = 2, 3 (44)
hydrodynamic force difference between non-stream circumstance and ∫𝑆 𝑁 − 1 ∫𝑆
stream circumstance is also 𝜌𝑉 𝐯̇ ∞ while the hydrodynamic moments Let 𝑅 be a region of the flow field enclosed by 𝑆 and 𝐟 be a continuous
are the same when the relative velocities are equal and the stream is vector field, then
uniform. This result conflicts with the transformation rule (18) drawn
1
in this study. For the case that the solid body is a sphere, its hydro- 𝐟d𝑅 = 𝐫 × (∇ × 𝐟)d𝑅
∫𝑅 𝑁 − 1 ∫𝑅
dynamic force should be independent of the sphere’s angular velocity. (45)
Consequently, the difference of the hydrodynamic forces between the 1
+ 𝐫 × (𝐟 × 𝐧)d𝑆, 𝑁 = 2, 3
𝑁 − 1 ∫𝑆
two circumstances would not be affected by the angular velocity of the 1
solid. Thomasson’s result is obviously in conflict with this phenomenon 𝐫 × 𝐧𝜙d𝑆 = 𝑥2 𝐧 × (∇𝜙)d𝑆, 𝑁 = 2, 3 (46)
∫𝑆 2 ∫𝑆
and is not acceptable. The transformation formula (18) is consistent
with this phenomenon and is more reasonable. Noting that the ref- 2 𝐫 × 𝐟d𝑅 = − 𝑟2 ∇ × 𝐟d𝑅 + 𝑟2 𝐧 × 𝐟d𝑆, 𝑁 = 2, 3 (47)
∫𝑅 ∫𝑅 ∫𝑆
erence point of hydrodynamic moment is supposed to be coincident
with the volume center of the body in Thomasson’s study, one gets References
𝐫𝑉 = 0 in formula (25). This means that the transformation formula (25)
is consistent with Thomasson’s result and the hydrodynamic moment Anderson, J.D., 2014. In: Hill, M. (Ed.), Fundamentals of Aerodynamics, fifth ed. p.
266.
transformation method based on Thomasson’s study is only a special
Ansys, I., 2013. Ansys fluent theory guide. pp. 17–25, Canonsburg, PA 15317.
case of the transformation formula (25) when the stream is uniform. Batchelor, C.K., 1967. An Introduction To Fluid Dynamics. Cambridge University Press,
The motion model of a solid moving in uniform and unsteady stream p. 409.
had also been proposed by (Lewis et al., 1984), and the principle of Calero, J.S. (Ed.), 2018. Jean Le Rond D’Alembert: A New Theory of the Resistance of
Fluids. Springer, p. 71, 29.
relative motion can be acquired based on this model similarly. The
Cebeci, T., Platzer, M., hen, H., Chang, K.C., Shao, J.P., 2004. Analysis of Low-Speed
result shows that the hydrodynamic force difference in the two circum- Unsteady Airfoil Flows. Springer, Berlin, pp. 31–38.
stances is 𝑚̄ 𝐯̇ ∞ + 𝑚̄ 𝜔̃ 𝑏 𝐯∞ and are consistent with this study. However, Ding, W., Ai, C.F., Jin, S., Lin, J.B., 2020. Numerical investigation of an internal solitary
the hydrodynamic moment difference between the two circumstances wave interaction with horizontal cylinders. Ocean Eng 208, 107430.
Du, H., Wei, G., Gu, M., Wang, X., Xu, J., 2016. Experimental investigation of the load
is 𝑚̃
̄ 𝐫𝑉 𝐯̇ ∞ + 𝑚̃ ̃ 𝑏 𝐯∞ − 𝝎
̄ 𝐫𝑉 𝝎 ̃ 𝑏 𝝀𝑀𝑣 𝐯̇ ∞ and is different from our result by
exerted by nonstationary internal solitary waves on a submerged slender body over
−𝝎̃ 𝑏 𝝀𝑀𝑣 𝐯̇ ∞ where 𝝀𝑀𝑣 is the 3 × 3 added mass matrix representing the a slope. Appl. Ocean Res 59, 216–223.
effect of the translational acceleration on the hydrodynamic moment. Faltinsen, O., 1993. Sea Loads on Ships and Offshore Structures. Cambridge University
Press, p. 74, 58.
Fossen, T.I., 1994. Guidance and control of ocean vehicles, England. p. 59, 85.
5. Conclusions
Fossen, T.I., 2002. Marine Control Systems. Norway. p. 138.
Hess, J.L., Smith, A., 1967. Calculation of potential flow about arbitrary bodies. Prog.
For a body moving in the incompressible flow, the effect of uniform Aero. Sci. 8, 1–138.
stream velocity on the flow field and the body hydrodynamics are Huang, M., Zhang, N., Zhu, A., 2019. Hydrodynamic loads and motion features of a
submarine with interaction of internal solitary waves. J. Ship Mech 023 (005),
studied under the hypothesis that the relative velocities of the body
531–540, (in Chinese).
are the same. The result shows that the velocity and vorticity field can Katz, J., Plotkin, A., 2001. Low Speed Aerodynamics. Cambridge University Press, p.
be transformed by formula (9), i.e., the vorticity fields are the same and 63.
the velocity field of the non-stream circumstance equals to the stream Khoury, G.A. (Ed.), 2012. Airship Technology. Cambridge University Press, p. 35.
Ladson, C.L., 1988. Effects of Independent Variation of Mach and Reynolds Numbers
circumstance adding the stream velocity. The hydrodynamic forces can
on the Low-Speed Aerodynamic Characteristics of the NACA 0012 Airfoil Section.
be transformed by formula (18) and the hydrodynamic moments can be NASA-TM-4074, p. 6.
transformed by formula (25). The hydrodynamics are the same in the Lamb, H., 1945. Hydrodynamicsp, fifth ed. Cambridge University Press, p. 162,
two circumstances if the stream velocity is time independent which is 160-201.
Lewandowski, E.M., 2004. The dynamics of marine craft: Maneuvering and seakeeping.
well known as ‘the principle of relative motion’. These transformation
pp. 36–69, Washington DC.
formulas are applicable in the inviscid flow as well. Lewis, D.J.G., Lipscombe, J.M., Thomasson, P.G., 1984. The simulation of remotely
operated underwater vehicles. In: Proceedings of ROV84. The Marine Technology
CRediT authorship contribution statement Society, San Diego, pp. 245–251.
Lü, H., Xie, J., Xu, J., Chen, Z., Liu, T., Cai, S., 2016. Force and torque exerted by
internal solitary waves in background parabolic current on cylindrical tendon leg
Xianwu Lin: Conceptualization, Methodology, Software, Valida- by numerical simulation. Ocean Eng. 114, 250–258.
tion, Formal analysis, Investigation, Data curation, Writing – original Morison, J.R., Johnson, J.W., Schaaf, S.A., 1950. The force exerted by surface waves
draft, Writing – review & editing, Visualization, Funding acquisition. on piles. J. Petroleum Tech 2 (05), 149–154.
Newman, J.N., 2018. Marine Hydrodynamics. The MIT press, p. 44, 141, 152, 156-159.
Shichao Wang: Software, Data curation, Visualization, Writing – re- Noca, F., Shiels, D., Jeon, D., 1999. A comparison of methods for evaluating time-
view & editing. Bing Zhu: Software, Funding acquisition, Writing – dependent fluid dynamic forces on bodies, using only velocity fields and their
review & editing. derivatives. J. Fluids Stru. 13 (5), 551–578.

10
X. Lin et al.
Ostieri, M., Mele, B., Tognaccini, R., 2018. Linear and nonlinear decomposition of
aerodynamic force acting on an oscillating plate. AIAA J. 56 (2), 594–608.
Patterson, M., Wu, J., Wang, C., 1987. ZETA a Manual for a Computer Code that Uses
a Zonal Procedure for Evaluating Turbulent and Laminar Flows. Georiga Institute
of Technology, pp. 8–14.
Protas, B., Styczek, A., Nowakowski, A., 2000. An effective approach to computation
of forces in viscous incompressible flows. J. Comput. Phys. 159 (2), 231–245.
Quartapelle, L., Napolitano, M., 1983. Force and moment in incompressible flows. AIAA
J. 21 (6), 911–913.
Renilson, M., 2018. Submarine Hydrodynamics. Springer, p. 138.
Sarpkaya, T., 1976. Vortex Shedding and Resistance in Harmonic Flow About Smooth
and Rough Circular Cylinders At High Reynolds Numbers, Vol. 93940. Naval
Postgraduate School Monterey, California, p. 30.
Thomasson, P.G., 2000. Equations of motion of a vehicle in a moving fluid. J. Aircr
37 (4), 630–639.
Thomasson, P.G., Woolsey, C.A., 2013. Vehicle motion in currents. IEEE J. Ocean. Eng
38 (2), 226–242.
11
Ocean Engineering 237 (2021) 109491
Wang, S., Wei, G., Du, H., Wu, J.L., Wang, X.L., 2020. Experimental investigation of
the wave-flow structure of an oblique internal solitary wave and its force exerted
on a slender body. Ocean Eng 201, 107057.
Woolsey, C., 2011. Vehicle Dynamics in Currents. Virgina Center for Autonomous
Systems, pp. 1–22.
Wu, J.C., 1976. Numerical boundary conditions for viscous flow problems. AIAA J. 14
(8), 1042–1049.
Wu, J.C., 1978. A Theory for Aerodynamic Forces and Moments. Georgia Institute of
Technology, Atlanta, pp. 1–46.
Wu, J.C., 1981. Theory for aerodynamic force and moment in viscous flows. AIAA J.
19 (4), 432–441.
Wu, J.C., 2014. Elements of Vorticity Aerodynamics. Springer, Berlin, p. 38, 81, 94.
Wu, J.Z., Ma, H.Y., Zhou, M.D., 2006. Vorticity and Vortex Dynamics. Springer, p. 26.
Wu, J.Z., Ma, H.Y., Zhou, M.D., 2015. Vortical Flows. Springer, Berlin, pp. 283–320,
421-422.
Zan, X., Lin, Z., 2020. On the applicability of morison equation to force estimation
induced by internal solitary wave on circular cylinder. Ocean Eng 198, 106966.