See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/288002232

Fast approach to the estimation of the added resistance of ships in head waves

Article in Ocean Engineering · January 2016

DOI: 10.1016/j.oceaneng.2015.12.022

CITATIONS READS

75 4,580

2 authors:

Shukui Liu Apostolos Papanikolaou

Nanyang Technological University National Technical University of Athens
62 PUBLICATIONS 714 CITATIONS 438 PUBLICATIONS 4,454 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

POLLUTION PREVENTION AND CONTROL POP & C View project

STAB workshops and conferences View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Apostolos Papanikolaou on 12 June 2018.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Ocean Engineering 112 (2016) 211–225

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

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

Fast approach to the estimation of the added resistance of ships

in head waves
Shukui Liu, Apostolos Papanikolaou n
Ship Design Laboratory, National Technical University of Athens, Greece

art ic l e i nf o a b s t r a c t

Article history: In this paper we develop and explore various simple semi-empirical formulations for the fast, but
Received 19 August 2015 satisfactory estimation of the added resistance of ships in head waves. Relevant research work is in the
Accepted 10 December 2015 frame of recent IMO-MEPC.232(65) EEDI guidelines for the estimation of minimum powering of ships in
adverse weather conditions calling for suitable level 1 methods. We consider the effect of main char-
Keywords: acteristics of ship's hull form, with best fitting of available experimental data for different types of hull
Added resistance of ships forms. A proposed new semi-empirical formula is simplified to the extent that it can be readily calculated
Minimum powering in waves using as input merely the speed and main characteristics of the ship and of the wave environment.
IMO EEDI regulations Extensive validations of the proposed simplified formula for various ship hulls in both regular and
Semi-empirical formulas
irregular waves were carried out and compared to other comparable methods and more complicated
Level 1 methods
approaches to the determination of the added resistance in head waves.
Approximations in short and long waves
& 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction Beukelman, 1972; Salvesen, 1974; Pinkster, 1979; Faltinsen et al.,

The prediction of a ship's added resistance in seaways is
nowadays of high scientific and practical interest. This is not only
in view of the proper selection of ship's engine/propulsion system
in the frame of ship design, when accounting not only for ship's
calm water performance. It greatly affects also ship's performance
in terms of sustainable speed and safety, fuel consumption and
engine air emissions in realistic sea conditions. Last but not least, it
is a significant factor when determining ship's Energy Efficiency
Design Index (EEDI) and Energy Efficiency Operating Index (EEOI)
in the frame of the recently introduced IMO regulations regarding
the Green House Gas emissions of the maritime transport, which
became mandatory for all new ships built after January 1, 2013
(IMO, 2011, 2013).
Besides experimental methods and to some extent CFD simu-
lations, which are currently the most reliable means for the
accurate determination of the added resistance, at high cost or
computational effort respectively, this complex physical phe-
nomenon is typically treated within potential flow theory (and
very often based on slender body theory), by the so-called far field
method (Maruo, 1960; Newman, 1967; Naito et al., 1988; Kashi-
wagi, 1992; Liu et al., 2011) by use of the Kochin function concept,
or alternatively by the near field method (Gerritsma and
n
Corresponding author.
E-mail address: papa@deslab.ntua.gr (A. Papanikolaou).
1980; Papanikolaou and Zaraphonitis, 1987; Kim and Kim, 2011)
by pressure integration over the wetted hull surface. These
methods, however, usually overestimate the peak of the added
resistance and seriously underestimate the added resistance in
short waves.
The overestimation of the peak values of added resistance is
associated with the peak of ship motions in the region of heave
and pitch resonance. As the added resistance is proportional to the
square of the ship motion amplitudes, a slight overestimation in
the motion prediction typically leads to significant deviations in
the added resistance prediction. This insufficiency can be treated
by applying more advanced fundamental seakeeping models
(better accounting for the forward speed and/or nonlinear motion
effects) or including viscous flow corrections to potential theory
damping coefficients. The latter corrections are typically semi-
empirical corrections derived from fundamental cross-flow drag
coefficients (Papanikolaou et al., 2000).
In short waves, typical potential theory methods also fail, for a
variety of reasons, including the omission of viscous effects. As will
be elaborated in the following, semi-empirical corrections are
usually applied in resolving this issue. As shown in Fig. 1, by
applying the aforementioned corrections, the added resistance of
Series 60 model is well captured by the far field method, as
implemented at Ship Design Laboratory of National Technical
University of Athens (NTUA-SDL).

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.oceaneng.2015.12.022
0029-8018/& 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
212 S. Liu, A. Papanikolaou / Ocean Engineering 112 (2016) 211–225
Nomenclature
∇ volume of displaced water
α intensity of the spectra. Default value ¼ 0.0081
αT draft correction coefficient
αWL flare angle at the waterline in the bow region, as
defined in Fig. 4
γ spectral peak enhancement factor, default value ¼ 3.3
Δ mass of displacement
θ slope of waterline segment, as defined in Fig. 5.
ζα incident wave amplitude
λ wave length
π ratio of a circle's circumference to its diameter
ρ density of water
σ relative measure of the width of the peak
ω circular wave frequency
ωn3 natural frequency of heave motion
ωn5 natural frequency of pitch motion
ωp spectral peak frequency
A33 coefficient of added mass (heave)
A55 coefficient of added inertia (pitch)
B breadth of ship
Bf bluntness coefficient
C33 restoring force coefficient
Recent IMO regulations (MPEC 65/22) regarding the calculation
of the Energy Efficiency Design Index (EEDI) call for simplified
approaches to the prediction of added resistance and powering in
(head) waves, namely the so-called level 1 methods, which should
be able to roughly estimate the added resistance in regular waves
by use of simple computation tool, such as a modern pocket cal-
culator (to the extent possible). This essentially calls for the
approximation of the added resistance by some semi-empirical
formula. The aforementioned methods, despite various con-
troversial issues, are anyway too complicated (usually require an
extensive input of the motion and velocity potential distribution)
thus not suitable for this purpose. In this respect, the problem
needs to be revisited.
Noting the continuous increase of ship sizes (in view of the
economy of scale), the region of relative wave length to ship length
λ/L of practical interest is being nowadays shifted to lower values.
This makes the accurate prediction of the added resistance in short
waves more and more important than in the past. On the basis of
Havelock (1940) original theory and introducing two corrective
factors, one for the forward speed and one for ship's draft, Fujii
and Takahashi (1975) proposed a semi-empirical formula for the
added resistance due to diffraction as the limiting value of the
added resistance in short waves. Herein it is tacitly assumed that
in short waves ship's motions are insignificant; thus, their effect on
the added resistance can be neglected. This concept was also fol-
lowed by Takahashi (1988) and Tsujimoto et al. (2008) by fine-
tuning of the two corrective coefficients based on available
experimental data. In parallel to these works, Faltinsen et al.
(1980) proposed an asymptotic formula for the added resistance of
wall-sided hull forms in short waves as a by-product of their ‘near
field’ method for the calculation of the 2nd order wave induced
forces and moments, namely by integrating the pressure over the
hull surface using an approximate velocity potential near the bow.
It was pointed out by Fujii [discussion to Faltinsen et al. (1980)]
that for full type ships (tankers and bulk carriers) the results based
on this formula agree well with experimental data. Despite that for
fine hull ships there are still considerably large differences to
experimental data, the introduction of the base flow based on
C55 restoring moment coefficient
CB block coefficient
E angle of waterline's entrance, as defined in Fig. 8.
Fn Froude number
g gravitational acceleration
HS significant wave height
I1 Modified Bessel function of the first kind of order 1
I55 mass moment of inertia about the y-axis
ke encountered wave number
K1 Modified Bessel function of the second kind of order 1
kyy longitudinal mass radius of gyration
LE length of waterline entrance, as defined in Fig. 8.
L length of ship
LPP length of ship between perpendiculars
rAW nondimensional added resistance coefficient
RAW total added resistance in regular waves
RAW mean value of added resistance in irregular seas
RAWR added resistance in regular waves due to diffraction
effect (reflection effect)
RAWM added resistance in regular waves due to motion effect
S(ω) wave spectral density
T draft of ship
TP period corresponding to spectral peak period
slender body theory into the new formula is a significant
improvement. Another important issue, when dealing with short
wave, of semi-empirical added resistance formulas, is their validity
for wave headings different from bow waves. As pointed out by
Sakamoto and Baba (1986), for a ship symmetric about amidships
and advancing in beam seas, the added resistance predicted by
Faltinsen et al. theory does not go to zero (while predicted values
differ significantly from known measurements), because the
advance speed makes the wave field asymmetrical with respect to
midship. On the other hand, all methods which are based on the
original concept of Havelock's formula, but correcting for the for-
ward speed effect, trivially yield zero results, as they are essen-
tially zero speed approaches.
As confirmed more recently by focused experimental studies
(for instance, Kim et al., 2014; Valanto and Hong, 2015) and
laborious CFD calculations (Ley et al., 2014), viscous effects, which
cannot be captured by potential flow theory, play a significant role
in the prediction of added resistance in short waves, especially
when approaching the limiting values. It should be however noted,
that in very short waves, both CFD and potential-flow methods are
pushed to their limits, due the very dense grids/small size panels
needed to capture correctly the flow changes. Additionally, in tank
tests, the accurate measurement of the added resistance in short
waves is a big challenge due to the very small measured values,
breaking wave/spray phenomena etc. Hence it is imperative, when
developing short wave added residence formulas of practical sig-
nificance, to use reliable experimental data to fine-tune the
properly introduced semi-empirical corrective coefficients. Fol-
lowing this concept, Liu et al. (2015) proposed a practical approach
to the added resistance problem on the basis of a newly devel-
oped, semi-empirical short wave formula, in which several char-
acteristic hull form parameters are considered, namely ship's block
coefficient, waterline's flare angle, local draft, next to Froude
number, in an attempt to capture satisfactorily the added resis-
tance of modern ships of various types in short waves of any
direction.
In the long waves region, admittedly the added resistance is
mainly due to ship motions and their radiation effect. Besides the
 S. Liu, A. Papanikolaou / Ocean Engineering 112 (2016) 211–225 213

on best fitting of available experimental data for different types of

hull forms. The proposed formula has been simplified to the extent
using only the main ship particulars and fundamental wave
characteristics for the estimation of ship's added resistance,
allowing its application by simple computation (e.g., Microsoft
Excel). Extensive validations of the proposed simplified formula
were carried out for different types of ships and in comparison to
other simple methods and more complicated approaches to the
determination of the added resistance in waves, which are pre-
sented and discussed in the following.

2. A simplified formula on added resistance in short waves

In a recent study (Liu et al., 2015), working on the asymptotic

formula derived by Faltinsen et al. (1980), we proposed a new
practical formula for approximating the added resistance in short
Fig. 1. Added resistance of S60 model (CB ¼0.75, Fn ¼0.177) in head waves. STA2 waves. In head seas, it takes the following form:
(MARIN): ITTC (2012) recommended procedures and guidelines. Far Field Method Z
and Far Field Method corrected: Liu et al. (2011); Experiments: Strøm-Tejsen et al. F 1 ¼ F n sin θdℓ
C
(1973); NEW(NTUA-SDL Simpl.): present. rffiffiffi ! pffiffiffiffi

1 L 0:87 1 þ 4 Fn
F n  ρg ζ a αT secαWL sin 2 θ 1 þ 5
2
Fn ð1Þ
2 λ CB

where C is the non-shadowed part of the waterline. In this section,

we will concentrate on further simplifying this formula, by infer-
ence of typical designs data for various types of ships.

2.1. Approximation of draft coefficient αΤ

In short waves, Ursell (1947) derived a theoretical solution for

waves reflecting from a vertical wall having the depth T from free
surface. Fujii and Takahashi (1975) adopted this method in their
model for the prediction of added resistance in short wave,
attempting to tackle the finite draft issue. In the present study, the
draft coefficient is defined as:
π 2 2
I 1 ðk e T Þ
αT ¼ ð2Þ
π 2 I 2 ðk T Þ þ K 2 ðk T Þ
1 e 1 e

It has been revealed by previous studies (Kuroda et al., 2008)

Fig. 2. Added resistance of S175 containership in head seas, Fn¼ 0.2.
aforementioned far field and near-field methods, which may be
considered ‘exact’ in the sense of a second-order potential theory,
Maruo (1976) proposed a method in which the laborious theore-
tical calculation by use of the far field Kochin-function is simpli-
fied, assuming that the frequency of encounter is not small. Jinkine
and Ferdinande (1974) worked on a simplified semi-empirical
formula to predict the added resistance of fast cargo ships inde-
pendently of the wave to ship length ratio. This formula captures
well the added resistance for the investigated ship types in the
long wave region; however, for short waves its performance is less
satisfactory, as shown in Fig. 2. Further-tuning the parameters in
Jinkine and Ferdinande's formula and including an additional
corrective formula in short waves, MARIN (ITTC, 2012) deduced
that the corrective αT draft coefficient in the above equation is
close to 1.0 for up to λ/L ¼0.6 and specific speeds. We conduct in
the following a brief practical analysis, while simplifying the cal-
culation of αΤ by removing its dependence on the Bessel functions.
For the region of interest λ/L ¼0.1–0.5, in head seas, the draft at
the bow is taken approximately equal to the draft of the ship T.
According to Table 1 (Papanikolaou, 2014), L/T of various ship
types varies from 15 to 25 (as also shown by the typical ship data
in Table 2). Fig. 3 shows the draft coefficient value at a moderate
Table 1
Typical ratios of main dimensions of ships of various types (Papanikolaou, 2014).
Ship type Ratios of main dimensions
L/B B/T

and proposed recently its STAwave formulas (STA1 and STA2),

Fast seagoing cargo ships 6.5–7.1 2.2–2.6
which are supported by an extensive database of added resistance Slow seagoing cargo ships 6.3–7.2 2,1–2.3
measurements by MARIN (Grin, 2012). The applicability of MAR- Coastal cargo ships 4.5–5.5 2.5–2.7
IN's method is limited to moderate to high speeds, and in some Transoceanic liners (old) 8.2–9.0 2.8–3.2
Transoceanic cruise ships 6.3–7.0 2.8–3.4
cases, as shown in Fig. 2 for the S175 standard ship, the quality of
Small short sea passenger ships 5.8–6.5 3.3–3.9
the prediction is not satisfactory over the entire range of wave Ferries 5.9–6.2 3.7–4.0
lengths. Fishing vessels 5.1–6.1 2.3–2.6
In this paper, considering the effect of the various character- Tugboats 3.8–4.5 2.4–2.6
istics of ship's hull form on the calculation of the added resistance Bulk carriers, (): recent designs ( o 5.9) 5.9–6.5 2.5–2.7 ( 43.0)
Tankers, (): recent designs ( o 6.0) 6.0–6.5 2.4–2.8 ( 43.0)
of ships in waves, the authors derived a new simple (level 1 type) Fast seagoing reefers 6.7–7.2 2.8–3.0
formula for the added resistance of ship in waves, which is based
214 S. Liu, A. Papanikolaou / Ocean Engineering 112 (2016) 211–225

Table 2
Main particulars and bluntness coefficients of ships.

Ship type Lpp (m) B (m) T (m) CB L/∇1/3 L/B B/T Bf

tanker 1 320.00 60.00 20.50 0.818 4.67 5.33 2.93 0.466

tanker 2 320.00 58.00 20.80 0.808 4.72 5.52 2.79 0.410
tanker 3 316.00 60.00 19.20 0.798 4.77 5.27 3.13 0.396
tanker 4 225.00 36.00 12.50 0.842 5.11 6.25 2.88 0.437
tanker 5 217.00 32.26 12.50 0.839 5.18 6.73 2.58 0.411
tanker 6 239.00 44.00 13.00 0.835 4.93 5.43 3.38 0.481
bulk carrier 1 183.00 32.26 10.30 0.845 4.92 5.67 3.13 0.404
bulk carrier 2 182.00 32.26 12.00 0.841 4.67 5.64 2.69 0.388
bulk carrier 3 285.00 50.00 18.50 0.829 4.73 5.70 2.70 0.462
tanker 7 165.00 25.30 10.40 0.774 5.11 6.52 2.43 0.193
tanker 8 178.00 31.50 10.50 0.811 4.91 5.65 3.00 0.306
tanker 9 174.00 30.00 10.67 0.816 4.88 5.80 2.81 0.367
tanker 10 149.00 27.80 9.50 0.820 4.68 5.36 2.93 0.383
product carrier 1 100.00 16.80 6.30 0.797 4.91 5.95 2.67 0.170
product carrier 2 85.00 15.60 5.50 0.804 4.71 5.45 2.84 0.255
Fig. 4. Definition of the sectional flare angle αWL at ship's waterline.

Fig. 5. Definition of the slope θ of segment of ship's waterline.

Fig. 3. Draft coefficient αT of common merchant ships for various L/T.

speed in the region of λ/L ¼0.1–0.5 for L/T ¼15, 18, 21, and 24,
respectively. It is observed that until λ/L¼ 0.4 the draft coefficient
is very close to 1. At λ/L ¼0.5 the draft coefficient drops sig-
nificantly, which will be considered in the following jointly with
the long-wave formula, as will be discussed in Section 3.3.

2.2. Approximation of flare angle effect secαWL

The short waves asymptotic formula of Faltinsen et al. (1980)

Fig. 6. Bluntness coefficients Bf of typical merchant ships vs. block coefficient.
pertains for ships with vertical walls at the waterline, as assumed
in the method. This is quite rational for full type hull forms (e.g.
2.3. Simplification of bluntness coefficient Bf
tankers and bulk carriers); however, fine hull forms (e.g. of pas-
senger and containerships) seriously deviate from this assump-
Classically, the bluntness coefficient Bf is defined as:
tion. In order to better account for the effect of above-water hull
Z
form on added resistance, the flare angle in the bow region is Bf ¼ sin 2 θ sin θdℓ=B ð3Þ
introduced as an important ship parameter. Fig. 4 shows the C

definition of the sectional flare angle αWL. It is acknowledged that

there are some limitations regarding capturing the above water
shape of the bow with only the flare angle parameter, especially
for bow forms with extreme flares that make the introduction of a
knuckle above the waterline necessary. The flare angle corrective
factor is herein active mainly for fine hull forms with appreciable
flare angle at the waterline in the bow region. It will be further
discussed in the following section along with the presentation of
numerical tests.
where C is the non-shadowed part of the waterline and the slope
of the waterline segment is define in Fig. 5.
In order to determine an approximate value for the bluntness
coefficient Bf, on the basis of ship's main particulars, actual ship
data of various ship types were processed, as shown in Fig. 6. It has
been observed that Bf is firmly correlated to ship's block coefficient
CB. In addition, it has also been observed that there are fluctuations
in the Bf–CB curve, especially when CB is getting high. After careful
study, it was found that this fluctuation at the high block
 S. Liu, A. Papanikolaou / Ocean Engineering 112 (2016) 211–225 215

coefficient region are due to the variation of an additional major
ship design parameter, namely ship's length. This is reasonable, as
ships of different size are inherently tuned to different mission
profile and powering requirements, so that the hull forms are
designed accordingly. If we group ships of similar length, this
fluctuation disappears, as shown in Fig. 7 and Table 2. Examining
tankers 1–3, which have a length of about 320 m, it is observed
that the bluntness goes nicely with block coefficient. For tankers
4–6, it is observed that tanker 6 has a significantly larger Bf. This is
mainly due to the dramatically increased B, which ends at an
increased waterline entrance angle E, which will be defined in the
following.
For head wave cases, the Bf can be actually represented prop-
erly by the average of sin θ along the bow waterline. Here we
2
Fig. 9 shows the prediction of the added resistance coefficient for
the KVLCC2 tanker ship at the speed of Fn ¼0.142, while Fig. 10
shows the same for a bulk carrier ship at the speed of Fn ¼0.15. It is
observed that the results based on the two methods are very close,
as was also revealed in the bluntness coefficient approximation in
Fig. 6. In general, a good agreement with experimental data is
observed for these full type ships.
Fig. 11 shows the prediction for the S175 containership at the
speed of Fn ¼0.20. It is noticed that for this case, results based on

introduce an average entrance angle

 
E ¼ atan B=2LE ð4Þ

where LE is the length of entrance of the considered waterline, as

defined in Fig. 8.
To find an approximation for Bf in terms of CB and E, we first
observe that both 2.25sin2(E) and 2.75CBsin2(E) capture well the
change of bluntness coefficients, with slight difference in the low
block coefficient region. This will be verified in the following by
use of experimental data. The basic relationship of the bluntness
coefficient with the block coefficient of ships is shown in Fig. 6.
Under these assumptions for the bluntness coefficient, the sim-
plified formula takes the following form:
rffiffiffi ! pffiffiffiffi
 Fig. 9. Added resistance of KVLCC2 ship in head waves, Fn¼0.142.
1 L 0:87 1 þ 4 Fn
F 1 ¼ ρgBζ a 1 þ 5 f ðθ Þ
2
Fn ð5Þ
2 λ CB

where f(θ) is determined by one of the following two approximate

expressions:
(
2:75  C B  sin 2 E Method I
f ðθÞ  ð6Þ
2:25  sin 2 E Method II

In the following validation graphs, the results based on Method

I and II in Eq. (6) will be marked as RAW1 and RAW2 respectively.

Fig. 10. Added resistance of a bulk carrier in head waves, Fn ¼0.15.

Fig. 7. Variation of bluntness coefficient Bf of typical full type ships vs. block
coefficient.

Fig. 8. Definition of length LE and angle E of entrance of waterline. Fig. 11. Added resistance of S175 ship in head waves, Fn¼ 0.20.
216 S. Liu, A. Papanikolaou / Ocean Engineering 112 (2016) 211–225

both methods are below the experimental data at λ/L ¼0.5. Besides resistance in short waves, namely:
rffiffiffiffiffiffiffi ! pffiffiffiffi
the observed uncertainties in the measured data, which is evident 
2:25 L 0:87 1 þ 4 Fn
from the differences in measured values at practically the same RAWR ¼ ρgBζ 2a sin 2 E 1 þ5 pp Fn ð7Þ
2 λ CB
wave length, it is noted that when Eq. (1) was originally derived by
 
Faltinsen et al. (1980), it was limited to low and up to moderate where E ¼ atan B=2LE .
speeds, partly due to the assumed basic, steady flow to be con-
sistent with slender body theory assumptions and partly due to
the applied Taylor expansion in the procedure of deriving the 3. Added resistance in long waves
formula. Fig. 12 shows the prediction results for the WILS II con-
tainership for the speed of Fn ¼0.183. In this case, both numerical Four decades ago, Jinkine and Ferdinande (1974) proposed a
formula for the approximate calculation of added resistance in
results are comparably of the same quality. Fig. 13 shows the
regular head waves of any length, which takes the following form:
prediction for a modern cruise ship at the speed of Fn ¼0.223. In
RAWM ¼ 4ρg ζ a B2 =Lpp r AW
2
this study, more credit should be given to Method II, especially
considering the fact that during the derivation of the new formula, b 
r AW ¼ a1 a2 ω b exp 1  ωd
there were no experimental data available for cruise type ships for d
 2
reference and fine-tuning. kyy
As expected, for full type ships, both formulas give very close, a1 ¼ 900 a2 ¼ Fn1:5 expð  3:5FnÞ
Lpp
equally-good results; while for fine hull forms the results based on sffiffiffiffiffiffiffisffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
L 3 k
two formulas are quite different. For fine hull forms, Method I- ω ¼ pp yy Fn0:143 ω=1:17
g Lpp
based results are mostly below the Method II-based results,
exhibiting exactly the same behavior as in the approximation of 11:0 for ω o 1
b1 ¼
the bluntness coefficient. It appears that the Method-II based  8:5 elsewhere
results are closer to experimental data in more cases. Hence the 14:0 for ω o 1
d1 ¼ ð8Þ
expression of Method II is used for the calculation of added  14:0 elsewhere

This formula was derived based on the experimental data of

fast cargo ships with fine hull form. However, as also commented in
the original paper, the formula does not perform well in short
waves. In recent time, MARIN developed the STA2 method fol-
lowing the work of Jinkine and Ferdinande and utilizing sea-
keeping model test results from more than 200 ships of various
types, even though passenger ships appear overrepresented in the
sample of analyzed data (Grin, 2012). In STA2, besides the fine-
tuning of the various factors, a correction for short wave is also
introduced and the formula takes the form as shown in Eq. (9)
(ITTC, 2012):
RAW ¼ RAWR þ RAWM
2 !0:769 3
1 U
RAWR ¼ ρgBζ a αT 40:692 pffiffiffiffiffiffi 5
2 6:95
þ 1:81C B
2 Tg
b1  
RAWM ¼ 4ρg ζ a B2 =Lpp a1 a2 ω b1 exp 1  ω d1
2
d1
Fig. 12. Added resistance of WILS II containership in head waves, Fn¼ 0.183. π2 2
I 1 ð1:5kT Þ
αT ¼
π
2 I 2 ð1:5kT Þ þK 2 ð1:5kT Þ
1 1

a1 ¼ 60:3C B 1:34 a2 ¼ Fn1:5 expð  3:5FnÞ

sffiffiffiffiffiffiffisffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
Lpp 3 kyy 0:143
ω¼ Fn ω=1:17
g Lpp
11:0 for ω o 1
b1 ¼
 8:5 elsewhere
8
< 14:0 for ω o 1
   2:66
d1 ¼ Lpp ð9Þ
: 566 B elsewhere

Fig. 13. Added resistance of a cruise ship in head waves, CB ¼0.654, Fn ¼0.223.
where RAW is the total added resistance, RAWR is the added resis-
tance due to wave reflection and RAWM due to motion effect.
Applying these two formulas to the prediction of added resis-
tance of ships, typical results are obtained, as already shown in
Fig. 2. It is observed that Jinkine and Ferdinande's original formula
gives a decent prediction of the added resistance in longer waves.
The STA2 formula captures decently the added resistance in short
waves, except for the increasing gradient towards the very short
waves; however, its performance in the transition region (from
short to long waves) is problematic for fine hull forms. In addition,
 S. Liu, A. Papanikolaou / Ocean Engineering 112 (2016) 211–225 217

it does not yield reliable peak value in the region of heave/pitch frequency.
resonance. In view of the identified shortcomings of the above two 8 pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiqffiffiffiffiffi
>
> Lpp =g
3 kyy
Lpp Fn
0:143
methods, the following studies were conducted. >
< ω for Fn o Fn ðto be determinedÞ
1:17
ω ¼ pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiq ffiffiffiffiffi ð12Þ
>
> 3 kyy
> Lpp =g Lpp Fn
0:143
: ω for Fn Z Fn 
3.1. Extension of speed range 1:17

Due to the lack of experimental data, Jinkine and Ferdinande's

formula was tuned to the speed range of Froude number Fn ¼ 0.12–
0.30, whereas the STA2 formula considered the range of Fn ¼ 0.10–
0.30. Apparently, the speed correction factor a2 in both formulas
approaches zero when Fn goes to zero; therefore the formulas will
result in zero added resistance for zero speed cases, which is
obviously wrong. The added resistance at zero speed is commonly
known as drift force in ocean engineering and is simply the lim-
iting value of added resistance as the speed approaches to zero.
This is an indication that the formula needs to be further adjusted,
when applied to low and up to zero speed cases.
In order to check the behavior of a2 at low speed, some
experimental or numerical data are collected, as shown in Fig. 14,
to extrapolate the expression proposed by Jinkine and Ferdinande.
Carefully studying these data, the following expression is sug-
gested:
3.2. Adjustment of amplitude
It is evident that the amplitude factor a1 proposed by Jinkine
and Ferdinande has to be tuned by fitting to available experi-
mental data. In the STA2 method, after evaluating the results of
the MARIN database for various types of ship, CB was recom-
mended to be used as an amplitude parameter. During our con-
ducted numerical tests, it was noticed that the STA2 expression
works decently for full type ships. For fine hull forms, such as
containerships, however, an underestimation was observed. In
view of this, the following adjustment value is recommended:
 
0:87 1 þ Fn
a1 ¼ 60:3C B 1:34 ð13Þ
CB
3.3. Adjustment of slope

( As revealed in Fig. 2, the trend of the added resistance curve of

0:0072 þ 0:1676Fn for Fn o 0:12
a2 ¼ ð10Þ fine hull form is well captured on both sides by Jinkine and Fer-
Fn1:5 expð  3:5FnÞ for Fn Z 0:12
dinande's formula. However, if we bring an additional term (short
wave formula) to the results, it will lead to a flatter curve in the
Fig. 14 shows the behavior of this extended speed correction transition region. In consideration of this, we keep the short wave
factor a2 valid for Fn ¼0.0–0.3. formula unchanged but further tune the formula due to motion
In addition, the resonance position has to be extended to the effect. The following values are suggested after some conducted
low speed region. It is known that the location of the peak added numerical tests.
resistance is related to the location of the peak heave and pitch
for C B r0:75
motions, which are essentially determined by the heave-pitch
11:0 for ω o 1
natural frequencies. The natural frequencies of the uncoupled b1 ¼
heave and pitch motions are found by the following expressions:  8:5 elsewhere
8
< 14:0 for ω o 1
sffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi sffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi    2:66
d1 ¼ Lpp
C 33 C 55 :  566 6 elsewhere
ωn3 ¼ ωn5 ¼ ð11Þ B
Δ þ A33 I 55 þA55
forC B 4 0:75
Although C33 and C55 change with forward speed, for Fn o0.12 11:0 for ω o 1
b1 ¼
this effect is commonly very small (Gerritsma, 1960), which means  8:5 elsewhere
8    2:66
that the location of the resonance at low speed will not change >
>
< 566 B
Lpp
for ω o 1
radically. Therefore, in the following study, we will revisit the
d1 ¼    2:66 ð14Þ
performance of Jinkine and Ferdinande's expression at speed less >
> L
:  566 Bpp 6 elsewhere
than Fn ¼0.12 and see how to extend the expression in terms of

4. Numerical experiments

In this section, we will be testing the herein proposed simpli-

Fig. 14. Behavior of speed correction factor a2.
fied formulas by carrying out systematic numerical experiments
and comparing the results with available tank test data. Various
sample vessels of different types, namely, the KVLCC2 tanker (Guo
and Steen, 2010; Sadat-Hosseini et al., 2013), a bulk carrier ship
(Kadomatsu, 1988), the S175 ship (Takahashi, 1988), the WILS II
containership (Söding et al., 2014), a new containership design
(CONTiOPT project, Koepke et al., 2014), and a cruise ship (Ley et
al., 2014), and the models of S60 series (Strøm-Tejsen et al., 1973)
will be investigated. The main particulars of the tested ships and
models are presented in Table 3.
For the prediction of added resistance of ships in head waves at
any wave length, we proceed with the following formula for
218 S. Liu, A. Papanikolaou / Ocean Engineering 112 (2016) 211–225

validation tests:
RAW ¼ RAWR þ RAWM
rffiffiffiffiffiffiffi ! pffiffiffiffi

2:25 L 0:87 1 þ 4 Fn
RAWR ¼ ρgBζ 2a αT sin 2 E 1 þ 5 pp Fn
2 λ CB
b1  
RAWM ¼ 4ρg ζ a B2 =Lpp ωb1 exp 1  ωd1 a1 a2
2
d1
π 2 2
I 1 ðk e T Þ
αT ¼ ð15Þ
π 2 I 2 ðk T Þ þ K 2 ðk T Þ
1 e 1 e

Figs. 15–23 show the results by applying the above formula,

denoted as NEW (NTUA-SDL simpl.). The available experimental
data (denoted as EXPERIMENT) and results of CFD computations,
by use of Jinkine and Ferdinande's formula (denoted as

Table 3
Main particulars of the tested ships. Fig. 17. Added resistance of a bulk carrier ship in head waves by various methods,
Fn¼ 0.10.
Ship LPP (m) B (m) T (m) CB (m)

KVLCC2 320 58 20.8 0.808

Bulk Carrier 285 50 18.5 0.829
S175 175 25.4 9.5 0.572
WILS II 324 48.4 15 0.602
CONTiOPT 1446 Design 214.85 40.12 11 0.564
Cruise ship 220.32 32.04 7.2 0.654
S60 models 121.92 – – 0.6–0.8

Fig. 18. Added resistance of a bulk carrier ship in head waves by various methods,
Fn¼ 0.15.

Fig. 15. Added resistance of KVLCC2 ship in head waves by various methods,
Fn¼ 0.142.

Fig. 19. Added resistance of S175 containership in head waves by various methods,
Fn¼ 0.15.

Jinkine&Ferdinande) and STA-2 formula (denoted as STA2

(MARIN)), and results based on far field method (Liu et al., 2011;
denoted as Far Field Method (NTUA-SDL)) are also plotted for
comparison.
In short waves, the results based on the newly derived method
Fig. 16. Added resistance of KVLCC2 ship in head waves by various methods, agree better with experimental data for all cases in comparison
Fn¼ 0.18. with existing empirical methods.
 S. Liu, A. Papanikolaou / Ocean Engineering 112 (2016) 211–225
Fig. 20. Added resistance of S175 containership in head waves by various methods,
Fn¼ 0.2.
Fig. 21. Added resistance of S175 containership in head waves by various methods,
Fn¼ 0.275.
Fig. 22. Added resistance of WILS II containership in head waves by various
methods, Fn¼ 0.183.
In longer waves for full type hull forms, the KVLCC2 and a bulk
carrier was studied, as shown in Figs. 15–18. For the peak value, all
three empirical methods give very close prediction. The prediction
of the slope of the curve in short wave region is likewise; in the
219
Fig. 23. Added resistance of a cruise ship in head waves by various methods,
Fn¼ 0.223.
Fig. 24. Added resistance of a containership in head waves by various methods,
Fn¼ 0.213 (project CONTiOPT).
long wave region, the result based on the recommended formula
agrees better than the other two empirical methods.
In longer waves for fine hull forms, the S175, the WILS II con-
tainership, a cruise ship and a new containership design (CONTiOPT)
have been studied. For S175 and WILS II ships, as shown in Figs. 19–
22, the results based on both Jinkine and Ferdinande's formula and
the new formula agree fairly well with experimental data, while
STA2 significantly underestimates the peak. For the cruise ship, as
shown in Fig. 23, the three methods give very different results. It
appears that, Jinkine and Ferdinande's formula overestimates the
added resistance, STA2 underestimates it, while the recommended
formula better captures the peak, though the location of the peak is
not well captured. This may be due to the effect of an excessive
radius of gyration of pitch for the tested ship, in view of the cruise
ship design with excessive superstructure higher up at the ends. For
the new containership design (Koepke et al., 2014), as shown in
Fig. 24, the results of three semi-empirical formulas are compared
with conducted CFD calculations and similar good performance was
observed. Based on these observations, it is evident that the
recommended expression using CB can better capture the peak. It is
also worth noting that the original formula by Jinkine and Ferdi-
nande was derived based on the experimental data of fast cargo
ships; hence it is not a surprise that it works well for similar hull
types. On the other hand, when the STA2 was developed, data of
various types of modern ships have been analyzed, hence it is
220 S. Liu, A. Papanikolaou / Ocean Engineering 112 (2016) 211–225

been checked in combination with the short wave formula as the

added resistance in transition region is the sum of the added resis-
tance in short waves due to reflection effect and the added resistance
in longer waves due to radiation effect.
An attempt was made to apply also the proposed formula to the
prediction of the added resistance at lower speeds, as shown in
Figs. 25 and 26. It is observed that for Fn¼0.09 and Fn¼0.05, the
formula still captures decently the overall added resistance. Unfor-
tunately, no experimental data were available for speed lower than
Fn¼0.05. Therefore, the following expression is recommended:
8 pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiqffiffiffiffiffi
>
>
3 kyy 0:143
> Lpp =g Lpp 0:05 ω for Fn o 0:05
<
1:17
ω ¼ pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiq ffiffiffiffiffi ð16Þ
>
> 3 kyy
> L =g 0:143
Lpp Fn
: pp ω for Fn Z 0:05
1:17

Based on this recommendation, the formula is now applied to

the prediction of the added resistance, or drift force in this case, of
Fig. 25. Added resistance of KVLCC2 ship in head waves by various methods, the KVLCC2 and bulk carrier at Fn ¼0.0. Figs. 27 and 28 show the
Fn¼ 0.09.
prediction against experimental data and the more laborious 3D
panel far field method results. It is observed that the added
resistance has been reasonably captured.

5. Application to irregular head waves

The mean value of added resistance of ships in irregular seas

was also calculated by applying the new formula. It was compared
to corresponding simulated experimental data. The sea state is
assumed to be described by JONSWAP spectrum (Hasselmann et
al., 1973), which is defined as following:
h i
αg 2 ω 4 exp  ðω  ωp Þ2
SðωÞ ¼ 5 exp  1:25 γ
p 2σ 2 ω p 2
ð17Þ
ω ω
where α ¼0.0081, γ ¼3.3, σ ¼ 0.07, for ω r ωp; and σ ¼0.09 for
ω 4 ωp
The mean added resistance in irregular waves may be expres-
Fig. 26. Added resistance of a bulk carrier ship in head waves, Fn¼ 0.05. sed as following:
Z 1
R ð ωÞ
RAW ¼ 2 SðωÞ AW2 dω ð18Þ
0 ζa
where S(ω) is the wave spectrum, RAW(ω) is the added-resistance
response function in regular waves and ζα the regular wave
amplitude.
In the numerical experiments, four methods have been tested:

1. STA2 method (ITTC (2012) guidelines), denoted as STA2(MARIN);

Fig. 27. Added resistance of a bulk carrier ship in head waves, Fn ¼0.0.

rational to adopt the parameters proposed by STA2 (hence reflect the

characteristics of various types of ships). For the control of the trend/
gradient on both sides of the curve, Jinkine and Ferdinande's formula
uses some constant parameters, while the STA2 formula introduces
the Lpp/B ratio to control the bending in the short wave region. In the
present formula, the Lpp/B parameter is kept and some constant is
complemented to ensure a better fit with experimental data. This has Fig. 28. Added resistance of KVLCC2 ship in head waves, Fn¼ 0.0.
 S. Liu, A. Papanikolaou / Ocean Engineering 112 (2016) 211–225 221

2. the herein presented method, denoted as NEW (NTUA-SDL, the “theoretical method” defined in ITTC (2012) guidelines,
simplified); herein denoted as “Far Field Method, corrected”;
3. potential theory calculations based on our previous work (Liu et 4. based on the available experimental data, a best-fit curve was
al., 2011), namely a 3D panel method based on Maruo (1960) far derived for each case.
field theory in combination with a correction for short waves
based on Tsujimoto et al. (2008) method, which corresponds to Six different sea states, shown as follows in Table 4, were
examined.
Table 4 Figs. 29–33 show the results of five Series 60 models with block
Sea states applied in the irregular sea calculation. coefficient ranging from 0.6 to 0.8 based on four methods together
with the sea spectra for sea states defined in Table 4. Overall, for
Case # ΤP (sec) ωP HS (m)
fine hull forms, namely models with lower CB values, STA2 tends to
JS 1 5.66 1.11 1.58 yield an overestimation in short waves and underestimation
JS 2 6.93 0.91 2.37 around peak value. As the test ship becomes fuller, the phenom-
JS 3 8.00 0.78 3.16 enon gradually becomes weaker but even for the fullest model
JS 4 8.95 0.70 3.95
(CB ¼0.8), the prediction in regular waves is still not satisfactory.
JS 5 9.80 0.64 4.74
JS 6 10.59 0.59 5.54
However, the performance of the method in irregular seas is much
better. The corrected 3D panel far field method in general captures

Fig. 29. Prediction of added resistance of Series 60, CB ¼ 0.6, in irregular seaways, Fn¼ 0.266; left side: JS1–JS6 corresponding JONSWAP sea and response spectra; right side:
statistical mean spectral values.

Fig. 30. Prediction of added resistance of Series 60, CB ¼ 0.65, in irregular seaways, Fn ¼0.237; left side: JS1–JS6 corresponding JONSWAP sea and response spectra; right side:
statistical mean spectral values.
222 S. Liu, A. Papanikolaou / Ocean Engineering 112 (2016) 211–225

Fig. 31. Prediction of added resistance of Series 60, CB ¼ 0.70, in irregular seaways, Fn ¼0.222; left side: JS1–JS6 corresponding JONSWAP sea and response spectra; right side:
statistical mean spectral values.

Fig. 32. Prediction of added resistance of Series 60, CB ¼ 0.75, in irregular seaways, Fn¼ 0.177; left side: JS1–JS6 corresponding JONSWAP sea and response spectra; right side:
statistical mean spectral values.

well the added resistance except for an overestimation of the peak
value. As commented earlier, this may be improved by applying an
improved seakeeping model for the motions in the response
region. The new formula of NTUA-SDL performs in general very
well, both in the regular waves or irregular waves cases, especially
considering the fact that it uses only a few main particulars of the
tested ships.
Fig. 34 shows the estimation of the added resistance of KVLCC2
in regular waves and the six defined sea states (JS1–JS6). As can be
seen, all six seaway spectra are actually located in the region
where wave lengths are relatively small. For all the six cases, STA2
gives an overestimation, in comparison with results based on the
employed far field 3D panel method, which are in this case very
close to experimental data. For JS1 and JS6, the new fast method of
NTUA-SDL gives an estimation which is slightly larger than those
of the more exact far field method. This can be readily explained,
when looking at the results in regular waves: for JS1, in very short
waves, the new method of NTUA-SDL gives a larger estimation
than the far filed 3D panel method; for JS6, the new method gives
a larger estimation than the theoretical method in 0.6 o λ/
Lpp o1.0, which is partly included in JS6. For JS2–JS5, the predic-
tion by new method is close to the far field 3D panel method.
Fig. 35 shows the estimation of the added resistance of S175 in
the six defined sea states. For JS1–JS4, STA2 gives a much larger
prediction than the corrected 3D panel far field method, while the
results based on new method are actually quite close to results
based on corrected far field method. JS5 is a particularly inter-
esting case. It appears that both STA2 and new method of NTUA-
SDL give a lower prediction than theoretical method. Examining
the results in regular waves, it is clear that the prediction based on
new method is closer to experimental data. The corrected 3D far
field method gives good prediction in wave region λ/Lpp o0.85 but
 S. Liu, A. Papanikolaou / Ocean Engineering 112 (2016) 211–225 223

Fig. 33. Prediction of added resistance of Series 60, CB ¼ 0.80, in irregular seaways, Fn¼ 0.147; left side: JS1–JS6 corresponding JONSWAP sea and response spectra; right side:
statistical mean spectral values.

Fig. 34. Prediction of added resistance of KVLCC2 ship, in irregular seaways, Fn ¼0.142; left side: JS1–JS6 corresponding JONSWAP sea and response spectra; right side:
statistical mean spectral values.

gives an over-prediction for wave region 0.85 o λ/Lpp o1.15. This
explains why the mean added resistance in irregular waves pre-
dicted by the corrected far field method is larger than new method
based results. On the other hand, STA2 gives an over prediction in
wave region λ/Lpp o 0.85 and an under estimation in wave region
0.85 o λ/Lpp, these two effects actually cancel each other for JS5
and an estimation close to new method is obtained. The results of
JS6 can be explained similarly.
6. Conclusions
In this research, we first derived and validated a new approx-
imate formula for the fast calculation of the added resistance of
ships in short head waves using very basic ship design informa-
tion. For the tested cases, including tanker, bulk carrier,
containership and cruise ship types, this newly derived simplified
formula can yield satisfactory results. Thus, this formula can be
used for the fast evaluation of the added resistance of large ships
in typical sea conditions, which are predominately short in rela-
tion to ship's length. In the following, we proceeded to examine
the approximate formula proposed by Jinkine and Ferdinande for
the added resistance of ships in longer waves. This formula was
further tuned to cover more types of ships and extended to a
wider speed range. Combining the two formulas, the added
resistance of ships in head waves in the whole range of wave
lengths of interest can be readily estimated with satisfactory
engineering accuracy, as shown by the conducted systematic
validations in both regular waves and irregular sea states.
Based on the conducted studies, the new formula to predict the
added resistance of ships in regular head waves of any length, for
224 S. Liu, A. Papanikolaou / Ocean Engineering 112 (2016) 211–225

Fig. 35. Prediction of added resistance of S175 ship, in irregular seaways, Fn ¼0.20; left side: JS1–JS6 corresponding JONSWAP sea and response spectra; right side: statistical
mean spectral values.

the speed of Fn¼ 0.0–0.3, takes the following form: main characteristics, consisting of ship's length, beam, draft, block
RAW ¼ RAWR þ RAWM coefficient, radius of gyration, length of entrance of waterline, and
rffiffiffiffiffiffiffi ! pffiffiffiffi forward speed. Hence this formula appears fully satisfactory in

2:25 L 0:87 1 þ 4 Fn
RAWR ¼ ρgBζ 2a αT sin 2 E 1 þ 5 pp Fn terms of simplicity with respect to IMO's request for simplified
2 λ CB approaches to the added resistance and powering in head waves
b   (IMO, 2013).
RAWM ¼ 4ρg ζ a B =Lpp ωb1 exp 1  ωd1 a1 a2
2 2 1
d1 Nevertheless, some caution is necessary before concluding on
the general validity of the proposed new formula for all types of
where
  ships without systematic validation. It is namely inherent to the
E ¼ atan B=2LE use of semi-empirical formulas that they are, to a great extent,
π 2 2
I 1 ðk e T Þ dependent on the quality and versatility of available experimental
αT ¼ data, which belong to past ship designs.
π 2 I 2 ðk T Þ þ K 2 ðk T Þ
1 e 1 e
Finally, the herein proposed formula is valid only for head
  waves. To some extent it may be used for assessment of wave
0:87 1 þ Fn
a1 ¼ 60:3C B 1:34 headings close to head waves. For a wider range of wave headings,
CB
( the problem itself becomes much more complicated from the
0:0072 þ 0:1676Fn for Fn o0:12
a2 ¼ physical point of view. At the moment, a reliable prediction of the
Fn1:5 expð  3:5FnÞ for Fn Z0:12
added resistance in oblique seas is still a very challenging task, not
8 pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiqffiffiffiffiffi
>
>
3 kyy 0:143 only for simplified methods, but even for advanced theoretical
> Lpp =g Lpp 0:05 ω for Fn o 0:05
<
1:17 methods and numerical tools. Therefore, the further development
ω ¼ pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiq ffiffiffiffiffi
>
> 3 kyy of the present formula to cover a wider range of wave headings
> Lpp =g Lpp Fn
0:143
: ω for Fn Z 0:05 will be pending and may be developed once more experimental
1:17
data for oblique seas scenarios become available.
for C B r 0:75
11:0 for ω o 1
b1 ¼ Acknowledgments
8:5 elsewhere
8
< 14:0 for ω o 1
   2:66 The work presented in this paper is supported by the Colla-
d1 ¼ L
:  566 Bpp 6 elsewhere borative Project (Grant agreement number 605221) SHOPERA
(Energy Efficient Safe SHip OPERAtion) co-funded by the Research
forC B 4 0:75
DG of the European Commission within the RTD activities of the
11:0 for ω o 1
b1 ¼ FP7 Thematic Priority Transport / FP7-SST-2013-RTD-1/ Activity
8:5 elsewhere 7.2.4 Improving Safety and Security / SST.2013.4-1: Ships in
8    2:66
>
> Lpp
for ω o 1 operation. The European Community and the authors shall not in
< 566 B
d1 ¼    2:66 any way be liable or responsible for the use of any knowledge,
>
> L
:  566 Bpp 6 elsewhere information or data of the present paper, or of the consequences
thereof. The views expressed in this paper are those of the authors
This formula can be readily processed by MS EXCEL or in and do not necessary reflect the views and policies of the Eur-
similar software environment, using very simple input of ship's opean Community.
 S. Liu, A. Papanikolaou / Ocean Engineering 112 (2016) 211–225
The authors are thankful to Professor M. Arai of Yokohama
National University for the provision of experimental data of a
bulk carrier ship; Mr. Shang of MARIC-China provided the data of
10 ships in Fig. 6; Dr. Shigunov of DNV-GL provided the waterline
data of WILS II; Professor El Moctar of University of Duisburg
provided the data of a cruise ship; Mr. Mourkoyiannis and Mr.
Bolbot of NTUA-SDL prepared the panelization of the five Series 60
models for the far field method calculation.
References
Faltinsen, O.M., Minsaas, K.J., Liapis, N., Skjordal, S.O., 1980. Prediction of resistance
and propulsion of a ship in a seaway. In: Proceedings of the 13th Symposium on
Naval Hydrodynamics.
Fujii, H., Takahashi, T., 1975. Experimental study on the resistance increase of a ship
in regular oblique waves. In: Proceeding of the 14th ITTC. pp. 351–360.
Gerritsma, J., 1960. Ship motions in longitudinal waves. Int. Shipbuild. Prog. 7 (66),
49–71.
Gerritsma, J., Beukelman, W., 1972. Analysis of the resistance increase in waves of a
fast cargo ship. Int. Shipbuild. Prog. 19 (217), 285–293.
Grin, R.A., 2012. On the prediction of wave added resistance. In: Proceedings of the
11th International Marine Design Conference (IMDC). Glasgow, UK.
Guo, B., Steen, S., 2010. Added resistance of a VLCC in short waves. In: Proceedings
of the 29th International Conference on Ocean, Offshore and Arctic Engineer-
ing. OMAE, 2010.
Hasselmann, K., Barnett, T.P., Bouws, E., Carlson, H., Cartwright, D.E., Enke, K.,
Ewing, J.A., Gienapp, H., Hasselmann, D.E., Kruseman, P., Meerburg, A., Mller, P.,
Olbers, D.J., Richter, K., Sell, W., Walden, H., 1973. Measurements of Wind-Wave
Growth and Swell Decay During the Joint North Sea Wave Project (JONSWAP).
Deutsche Hydrographische Zeitschrift, Deutsches Hydrographisches Institut,
Hamburg.
Havelock, T.H., 1940. The pressure of water waves upon a fixed obstacle. Proc. R.
Soc. Lond. Ser. A Math. Phys. Sci. 175 (963), 409–421.
IMO, 2011. Amendments to the annex of the protocol of 1997 to amend the inter-
national convention of pollution from ships, 1973, as modified by the protocol
of 1978 relating thereto, MEPC.203(62). (Inclusion of regulations on energy
efficiency for ships in MARPOL Annex VI).
IMO, 2013. Interim Guidelines for Determining Minimum Propulsion Power to
Maintain the Manoeuvrability in Adverse Conditions, MEPC.232(65).
ITTC, 2012. Recommended procedures and guidelines, speed and power trials, part
2 analysis of speed/power trial data, 7.5-04-01-01.2.
Jinkine, V., Ferdinande, V., 1974. A method for predicting the added resistance of
fast cargo ships in head waves. Int. Shipbuild. Prog. 21 (238), 149–167.
Kadomatsu, K., 1988. Study on the required minimum output of main propulsion
engine considering maneuverability in rough sea (Ph.D. thesis). Ship Design
Lab., Yokohama National University, Japan.
Kashiwagi, M., 1992. Added resistance, wave-induced steady sway force and yaw
moment on an advancing ship. Ship Technol. Res. (Schiffstechnik) 39 (1), 3–16.
Kim, K.H., Kim, Y., 2011. Numerical study on added resistance of ships by using a
time-domain Rankine panel method. Ocean. Eng. 38, 1357–1367. http://dx.doi.
org/10.1016/j.oceaneng.2011.04.008.
Kim, Y., Seo, M.G., Park, D.M., Lee, J.H., Yang, K.K., 2014. Numerical and experimental
analyses of added resistance in waves. In: Proceedings of the 29th International
Workshop on Water Waves and Floating Bodies. Osaka, Japan.
View publication stats
225
Koepke, M., Papanikolaou, A., Harries, S., Nikolopoulos, L., Sames, P., 2014. CON-
TiOPT – holistic optimization of high efficiency and low emission containership.
In: Proceedings of the 5th Conference on Transport Solutions: from Research to
Deployment, European Transport Research Arena. TRA2014, Paris, France.
Kuroda, M., Tsujimoto, M., Fujiwara, T., 2008. Investigation on components of added
resistance in short waves. J. Jpn. Soc. Nav. Arch. Ocean. Eng. 8, 171–176.
Ley, J., Sigmund, S., el Moctar, O., 2014. Numerical prediction of the added resistance
of ships in waves. In: Proceedings of the 33rd International Conference on
Ocean, Offshore and Arctic Engineering. Vol. 2. doi: 10.1115/OMAE2014-24216.
Liu, S., Papanikolaou, A., Zaraphonitis, G., 2011. Prediction of added resistance of
ships in waves. Ocean Eng. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.oceaneng.2010.12.007, pp
1-10.
Liu, S., Papanikolaou, A., Zaraphonitis, G., 2015. Practical approach to the added
resistance of a ship in short waves. In: Proceedings of the 25th International
Offshore and Polar Engineering Conference. KONA-USA.
Maruo, H., 1960. The drift of a body floating on waves. J. Ship Res. 4 (3), 1–10.
Maruo, H., 1976. Calculation of added resistance in head sea waves by means of a
simplified formula (in Japanese). J. Soc. Nav. Arch. Jpn. 140, 136–141.
Naito, S., Yamanoto, O., Takahashi, T., 1988. Effect of ship hull forms on resistance
increase in waves. In: Proceedings of the 5th Marine Dynamics Symposium.
Newman, J.N., 1967. The drift force and moment on ships in waves. J. Ship Res. 11.
Papanikolaou, Α, Zaraphonitis, G., 1987. Οn an improved method for the evalua-
tion of second-order motions and loads on 3D floating bodies in waves. J.
Schiffstechnik-Ship Technol. Res. 34, 170–211.
Papanikolaou, A., Zaraphonitis, G., Maron, A., Karayiannis, T., 2000. On nonlinear
effects on vertical plane motions of ships in waves. In: Proceedings of the 4th
International Osaka Colloquium on Seakeeping Performance of Ships. Osaka.
Papanikolaou, A., 2014. Ship Design-Methodologies of Preliminary Design. Springer,
ISBN: 978-94-017-8751-2, p. 628 e-book.
Pinkster, J.A., 1979. Mean and low frequency wave drifting forces on floating
structures. Ocean Eng. 6, 593–615. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0029-8018(79)
90010-6.
Sadat-Hosseini, H., Wu, P., Carrica, P., Kim, H., Toda, Y., Stern, F., 2013. CFD ver-
ification and validation of added resistance and motions of KVLCC2 with fixed
and free surge in short and long head waves. Ocean Eng. 59, 240–273.
Salvesen. N., 1974. Second-order steady state forces and moments on surface ships
in oblique regular waves. In: Proceedings of the International Symposium on
Dynamics of Marine Vehicles and Structures in Waves. University College
London, pp. 212–226.
Sakamoto, T. and Baba, E. (1986). Minimization of resistance of slowing moving full
hull forms in short waves, Proc. 16th Symposium on Naval Hydrodynamics,
Berkeley, USA, pp 598-612.
Söding, H., Shigunov, V., Schellin, T.E., el Moctar, O., 2014. A Rankine panel method
for added resistance of ships in waves. J. Offshore Mech. Arct. Eng. . http://dx.
doi.org/10.1115/1.4026847
Strøm-Tejsen, J., Yeh, H.Y.H., Moran, D.D., 1973. Added resistance in waves. Trans.
Soc. Nav. Arch. Mar. Eng. 81, 109–143.
Takahashi, T., 1988. A practical prediction method of added resistance of a ship in
waves and the direction of its application to hull form design. Trans. West Jpn.
Soc. Nav. Arch. 75, 75–95.
Tsujimoto, M., Shibata, K., Kuroda, M., 2008. A practical correction method for
added resistance in waves. J. Jpn. Soc. Nav. Arch. Ocean. Eng. 8.
Ursell, F., 1947. The effect of a fixed vertical barrier on surface waves in deep water.
Proc. Camb. Philos. Soc. 42, 374–382.
Valanto, P., Hong, Y., 2015. Experimental investigation on ship wave added resis-
tance in regular head, oblique, beam, and following waves. In: Proceedings of
the 25th International Offshore and Polar Engineering Conference. Kona-USA.