Ship Technology Research

Schiffstechnik

ISSN: (Print) (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ystr20

Revisiting the influence of a ship’s draft on the

drift force due to diffraction effect

Shukui Liu

To cite this article: Shukui Liu (2020): Revisiting the influence of a ship’s draft on the drift force
due to diffraction effect, Ship Technology Research, DOI: 10.1080/09377255.2020.1780717

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/09377255.2020.1780717

Published online: 16 Jun 2020.

Submit your article to this journal

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=ystr20
SHIP TECHNOLOGY RESEARCH (SCHIFFSTECHNIK)
https://doi.org/10.1080/09377255.2020.1780717

TECHNICAL REPORT

Revisiting the influence of a ship’s draft on the drift force due to diffraction
effect
Shukui Liu
School of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering, Nanyang Technological University, Singapore, Singapore

ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

This study reviews alternative analytical methods accounting for the influence of ship’s finite Received 3 December 2019
draft on the drift force due to diffraction effect. In very short waves, the wave is completed Accepted 19 May 2020
reflected and no wave energy can be transmitted under the ship. As the wave becomes
KEYWORDS
longer, however, only part of the wave will be reflected and the remainder transmitted. The side drift force; reflection and
reflected waves will induce drift force due to its interaction with the ship between free transmission coefficient;
surface and draft. The former effect can be quantified by the reflection coefficient, while the oblique waves; finite draft;
latter can be account for by introducing the draft based exponential function (1 − e−2kd ). added resistance
When both effects are accounted for, a unified and theoretically more complete formulation
results. The performance of the method is demonstrated by comparative results for a vertical
plate of finite draft and a standard ship.

Introduction Kwon’s formula. Liu et al. (2016) adopted this draft

coefficient in their empirical formula. Yang et al.
When a potential flow theory method is used to predict
(2018) proposed an enhanced asymptotic formula
the wave drift force (an added wave resistance) on a
where the finite draft of a ship is accounted.
ship, there is in general an under-prediction in cases
The above raised waterline hull form effect has also
of relatively short waves. Various semi-empirical
been addressed by others in different form. Kuroda
methods were introduced and tested to improve the
et al. (2012) proposed to calculate the bluntness coeffi-
prediction in the short-wave region. Havelock (1940)
cient using the projected profile of the wetted waterline.
derived a formula to calculate the steady drift force act-
Yang et al. (2018) proposed a semi-empirical method
ing on a fixed cylinder with vertical sides in waves. Fujii
for the same subject.
and Takahashi (1975) proposed a semi-empirical for-
Nevertheless, all the above discussions are in the fra-
mula for the added resistance due to diffraction by
mework of potential flow theory. Any phenomenon
applying the reflection coefficient derived by Ursell
related to viscosity can only be empirically addressed
(1947) to Havelock’s formula. Faltinsen et al. (1980)
(Liu et al. 2015), though it may be of significant impor-
developed an asymptotic formula for the added resist-
tance (Riesner and el Moctar 2018).
ance on wall-sided hull forms in short waves. This
In spite of the many attempts in the past, the per-
work considered the wave reflection and forward
formance of the above semi-empirical methods is not
speed effects but not the partial reflection, thus, it is
always satisfactory, while the study subject is complex
valid only for short incoming waves from various
in its generality. In this paper, after critically reviewing
directions. Besides the partial reflection effect and the
several critical aspects of the existing semi-empirical
speed effect, Kwon (1981) examined and accounted
approaches, an improved and theoretically more cor-
for the limited ship’s draft effect considering the wave
rect method is proposed and numerically validated.
pressure’s exponential attenuation with depth (Smith
1883).
Following these pioneer works, more numerical and Review of relevant works
experimental studies were conducted. Takahashi
Havelock (1940) succeeded in deriving an expression
(1988) and Kuroda et al. (2008) further tuned the par-
for the longitudinal drift force on a fixed cylinder
tial reflection coefficient, which is nowadays widely
with vertical sides in head waves by assuming complete
adopted, for instance, as presented in the guidelines
reflection by the sides of the cylinder. The expression
for speed and power trials (ITTC 2014). Ogiwara
takes the following form:
et al. (1996) derived a formula by integrating the
pressure acting on the hull surface and accounted for 1
RAW,R = rg z2A BBF (1)
the finite draft effect. This result is in line with 2

CONTACT Shukui Liu skliu@ntu.edu.sg School of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering, Nanyang Technological University, 50 Nanyang Ave.,
Singapore 639798, Singapore
© University of Duisburg-Essen 2020
2 S. LIU

Figure 1. Coordinate system in calculating drift force due to diffraction effect.

where ρ is density of water, g the gravitational accelera- For a regular wave propagating from negative infinity
tion, ζA the incident wave amplitude, B the beam of a on x-axis (left side), it will be partially reflected and
ship and BF is the bluntness coefficient of a ship’s partially transmitted when it meets the barrier. Assum-
waterline: ing the amplitude of the incident, reflected and trans-

mitted waves are zA , zA1 and zA2 , respectively, then,
2 B/2 2 the reflection coefficient and transmission coefficient
BF = sin udl (2)
B 0 can be defined as:
where θ is the angle that the tangent to ship’s waterline R = zA1 /zA and T = zA2 /zA (6)
form makes with the centreline, as shown in Figure 1.
This formula is valid only for head waves.
Faltinsen et al. (1980) extended Havelock’s method From the energy conservation point of view,
to short oblique wave cases with the ship hull at low
speed. Due to the short-wave assumption, the complete R2 + T 2 = 1 (7)
reflection concept is adopted as the wave length is
Ursell found a solution to the reflection coefficient as:
assumed much smaller than the draft of a ship. The
longitudinal drift force, or added resistance, formula 
takes the following form: R = pI1 / p2 I12 + K12 (8)


RAW,R = F
e sinudl (3) where I1(kd) and K1(kd) are the modified Bessel Func-
C tions of the first and second kind, respectively and k is
the wave number.
where the normal average force per unit length on the
Fujii and Takahashi (1975) introduced this reflec-
waterline F
e is
tion coefficient R to correct their potential flow method
1 for predicting the added resistance:
F
e = rgz2A
2
  (4) 1
2v0 U RAW,R = rg z2A BBF R2 (1 + 2U/c)2 (9)
sin (u − a) −
2
[cosa − cosucos(u − a)] 2
g
where (1 + 2U/c)2 is a speed correction factor which is
and the integration is reduced to the non-shadowed not further discussed in the present study. Obviously,
area of the waterline, as shown in Figure 1. Here ω0 this is in line with the assumption that the drift force
is the circular frequency of the wave and U the ship due to diffraction effect is proportional to the square
speed. of wave amplitude, as it is commonly accepted in the
For head waves, the formula is reduced to: 2nd order potential flow wave theory. This method of
  Fujii and Takahashi has been further developed and

1 2v0 U
F e = rgzA sin u 1 +
2 2
(5) tuned by various researchers to make corrections to
2 g
their own numerical/semi-empirical methods, so it
It is noted that compared with Equation (1) a new resulted in different formulations, the most popular
speed factor (1 + 2v0 U/g) has been introduced. version of which seems to be that by Kuroda et al.
Ursell (1947) studied a two-dimensional fixed verti- (2008). It should be pointed out that this coefficient
cal barrier extending to depth d, as shown in Figure 2. was later introduced as ‘draft correction coefficient’

Figure 2. A regular wave propagating towards a fixed vertical barrier of draft d.
(see, Takahashi, 1988), implying that the finite draft
effect has been accounted for by this coefficient.
In fact, in longer waves, two phenomena need to be
treated in calculating the drift force due to diffraction
effect:
(1) wave is partial reflected;
(2) the reflected wave interacts with the body between
free-surface and the bottom of the body (as the
reflected wave attenuates with depth exponentially,
it is a function of e−kz .).
By introducing only the R2 correction, trivially Fujii
and Takahashi (1975) took into account the first
phenomenon but not the second. In other words, the
effect of the energy transmission below the ship draft
has not been accounted for.
Kwon (1981) thoroughly studied this problem.
While aware of Fujii & Takahashi’s work, he adopted
an alternative correction factor CS for the effect of
wave scattering:
CS = sa /2 (10)
where σa is the scattering coefficient of a general
obstacle in a simple harmonic wave, as derived by
Jones and Whitham (1957) using Fresnel–Kirchhoff
diffraction formula. For a vertical cylinder, σa = 2-
0.985(ka) −2/3, where k is the wave number and a is
the characteristic length of the body. Besides, Kwon
also examined the effect of finite draft by considering
the Smith effect of wave pressure attenuation with
depth and introduced the finite draft correction factor:
aT = 1 − e−2kd (11)
Doing so, Kwon approximated the drift force due to
the wave effect in between free-surface and ship’s draft
SHIP TECHNOLOGY RESEARCH 3
only. For zero speed in head waves, Kwon’s expression
takes the following form:
1
RAW,R = rg z2A (1 − e−2kd )CS BBF (12)
2
This expression accounts for both partial reflection
effect and finite draft effect, thus, it is scientifically
more complete. Regretfully, until today, only few
studies explored this concept. To the author’s knowl-
edge, Ogiwara et al. (1996) also presented a similar
concept in account of the finite draft effect on the
added resistance due to diffraction effect:
1
RAW,R = rg z2A (1 − e−2kd + 2vV/g)BBF (13)
2
For zero speed, the above expression reduces to the
same as Equation (12), except for not accounting for
the partial reflection effect denoted by CS.
Liu and Papanikolaou (2016) adopted the correction
of Kuroda et al. (2008) in their semi-approximate
approach to the added resistance of a ship. Later on,
Equation (11) was used for its simplicity, while the
reflection coefficient was dropped to form a simpler
expression without the use of Bessel functions so that
it can be processed by a pocket calculator (Liu et al.
2016). The resulted deviation in longer waves exci-
tation was empirically corrected by setting an empirical
zero value for the added resistance due to diffraction
effect at λ/LPP≥2.5 (Liu and Papanikolaou 2019):
⎧  
⎪ d d
⎨ −4p −
l 2.5L pp l/L ≤ 2.5 (14)
ad = 1 − e
⎪
⎩ PP
0 l/LPP . 2.5
Summarizing, the various semi-empirical methods
were following Fujii and Takahashi’s concept, which
accounts for only partly the effect of limited ship’s
4 S. LIU

Figure 3. The reflection coefficient R as a function of the incidental wave angle α and kd.

draft. Kwon’s approach is more complete, though the
diffraction/scattering coefficient he adopted is compu-
tationally less convenient.
Corrected drift force formula due to
diffraction effect
In view of the above works, the correct formulation to
the drift force due to diffraction effect should account
for both the reflection coefficient and the exponential
decay factor, both of which are functions of the draft
d. It takes the following form:
1
DAW,R = rg z2A BBF (a)R(a)2 (1 − e−2kd ) (15)
2 Figure 6 shows the side drift force on the KVLCC2
where DAW, R is the general drift force on a ship, R(α) is
the reflection coefficient, with its expression in head
wave given in Equation (8). For waves obliquely inci-
dent on a fixed vertical barrier, Evans and Morris
(1971) derived a generalized expression for the reflec-
tion coefficient, dependent on the incidental wave
angle α, as shown in Figure 3.
Figure 4 shows the drift force on a fixed vertical
plate of draft d at zero speed in regular waves, with
its crest parallel to the plate (θ=π/2, α= π), predicted
by various methods, while Figure 5 shows the drift
force in quartering waves (θ=π/2, α=3π/4), applying
the reflection coefficients provided by Evans and Mor-
ris (1971). It is observed that the results based on
Equation (15) match almost perfectly with the numeri-
cal results of Kuroda et al. (2008).
ship predicted by the proposal formula, together with
the empirical radiation part of the draft, in comparison

Figure 4. Drift force on a fixed vertical plate of draft d at zero speed, π/2 angle of incidence.

Figure 5. Drift force on a fixed vertical plate of draft d at zero speed, π/4 angle of incidence.
with the experimental results (Shigunov et al. 2018). It
is observed here that the diffraction effect constitutes
the majority of the side drift force only in short
waves. In longer waves the ship starts to move and
the ‘fixed body’ assumptions is not valid any more.
Then, the time average diffraction force are only one
component of the total drift force, which should be
approximated as:
DAW = DAW,M + DAW,R
where DAW is the drift force in regular waves and DAW,
M the motion induce the part. The complete empirical
expression of the side drift force will be elaborated in
detail in another work (Liu and Papanikolaou 2020)
Figure 6. Side drift force of the KVLCC2 ship in beam waves at zero speed.
SHIP TECHNOLOGY RESEARCH 5
Conclusion
This paper critically reviews alternative analytical
methods accounting for the influence of ship’s draft
on the drift force due to diffraction effect. In very
short waves, the wave is completed reflected and no
wave energy can be transmitted under the ship. As
the wave becomes longer, however, only part of the
wave will be reflected and the remainder transmitted.
The reflected waves will induce drift force due to its
(16) interaction with the ship between free surface and
draft. The former effect can be quantified by the reflec-
tion coefficient, while the latter can be accounted for by
introducing the draft based exponential function
(1 − e−2kd ). When both effects are accounted for, a
unified and theoretically correct formulation results.
6 S. LIU
The performance of the method is herein demon-
strated by satisfactory comparative results for a vertical
plate of finite draft and the KVLCC2 ship.
When applied to a ship or similar structures, the
proposed method should be considered as semi-
empirical, as it neglects the detailed 3D shape of the
hull form, but only accounts for the ship’s waterline
profile and draft.
Acknowledgements
The author is indebted to Prof. A. Papanikolaou for his valu-
able discussions on the subject.
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).
Notes on contributor
Shukui Liu completed his PhD on ship seakeeping perform-
ance simulation at the National Technical University of
Athens in 2011 and currently is lecturing at Nanyang Tech-
nological University, Singapore. His scientific interests cover
the fields of ship hydrodynamics, dynamics, green ship
design, and speed and emission performance analysis.
References
Evans DV, Morris CAN. 1971. The effect of a fixed vertical
barrier on obliquely incident surface waves in deep
water. IMA J Appl Math. 9(2):198–204.
Faltinsen OM, Minsaas KJ, Liapis N, Skjørdal SO. 1980.
Prediction of resistance and propulsion of a ship in a sea-
way. Proc. 13th Symposium on Naval Hydrodynamics,
Tokyo. p. 505–529.
Fujii H, Takahashi T. 1975. Experimental study on the resist-
ance increase of a ship in regular oblique waves.
Proceeding of 14th ITTC. p. 351–360.
Havelock TH. 1940. The pressure of water waves upon a
fixed obstacle. P Roy Soc London, Series A, Math Phy
Sci. 175(963):409–421.
International Towing Tank Conference. 2014.
Recommended procedures and guidelines, speed and
power trials, Part 2 analysis of speed/power trial data.
7.5-04-01-01.2, Effective Date 2014, Revision 1.1
Jones DS, Whitham GB. 1957. An approximate treatment of
high-frequency scattering. Math Proc Cambridge Philos
Soc. 53(3):691–701.
Kuroda M, Tsujimoto M, Fujiwara T. 2008. Investigation on
components of added resistance in short waves. J Jpn Soc
Nav Archit Ocean Eng. 8:171–176.
Kuroda M, Tsujimoto M, Sasaki N, Omote M, Nojima N,
Kaga M. 2012. Development of STEP for the reduction
of added resistance in waves. Proceedings of the 22nd
International Offshore and Polar Engineering
Conference, Rhodes, Greece.
Kwon YJ. 1981. The effect of weather, particularly short sea
waves, on ship speed performance [PhD thesis].
Department of Naval Architecture and Shipbuilding,
University of Newcastle upon Tyne.
Liu S, Papanikolaou A. 2016. Fast approach to the estimation
of the added resistance in head waves. Ocean Eng.
112:211–225.
Liu S, Papanikolaou A. 2019. Approximation of the added
resistance of ships with small draft or in ballast condition
by empirical formula. Proc I Mech Eng, Part M-J Eng Mar
Environ. 233(1):27–40.
Liu S, Papanikolaou A. 2020. Prediction of the Side Drift
Force of Full Ships Advancing in Waves at Low Speeds.
J Mar Sci Eng. 8(5):377. doi:10.3390/jmse8050377.
Liu S, Papanikolaou A, Zaraphonitis G. 2015. Practical
approach to the added resistance of a ship in short
waves. Proceedings of the 25th International Offshore
and Polar Engineering Conference, KONA-USA, Vol. 3,
p. 11–18.
Liu S, Shang B, Papanikolaou A, Bolbot V. 2016. Improved
formula for estimating the added resistance of ships in
engineering applications. J Mar Sci Appl. 15(4):442–451.
Ogiwara S, Yamashita S, Mifune M. 1996. On resistance
increase in waves of short wavelength. J Kansai Soc Nav
Arch. 225:37–45.
Riesner M, el Moctar O. 2018. A time domain boundary
element method for wave added resistance of ships taking
into account viscous effects. Ocean Eng. 162:290–303.
Shigunov V, el Moctar O, Papanikolaou A, Potthoff R, Liu S.
2018. International benchmark study on numerical simu-
lation methods for the prediction of maneuverability of
ships in waves. Ocean Eng. 165:365–385.
Smith WE. 1883. Hogging and sagging strains in a seaway as
influenced by wave structure. Trans Instit Nav Arch.
24:135–141.
Takahashi T. 1988. A practical prediction method for added
resistance of a ship in waves and the direction of its appli-
cation to hull form design. Trans. West Jap. Soc. Nav.
Architects. 75:75–95.
Ursell F. 1947. The effect of a fixed vertical barrier on surface
waves in deep water. Proc Camb Philos Soc. 42:374–382.
Yang KK, Kim Y, Jung YW. 2018. Enhancement of asympto-
tic formula for added resistance of ships in short waves.
Ocean Eng. 148:211–222.