i An update to this article is included at the end

Ocean Engineering 276 (2023) 114187

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

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

Simplified estimation formula for frequency response function of roll

motion of ship in waves
Sadaoki Matsui a, *, Kei Sugimoto b, Kyohei Shinomoto b
a
National Maritime Research Institute, Japan
b
ClassNK, Japan

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Handling Editor: Prof. A.I. Incecik This study proposes a simplified formula for estimating the frequency response function of ship roll motion
expressed by the main hull-form parameters of a ship (length L, breadth B, draft d, block coefficient Cb ,
Keywords: waterplane area coefficient Cw , height of center of gravity KG, and metacenter height GM). By taking a theo­
Roll motion of ship in waves
retical approach, starting from the equation for roll motion and approximating each fluid force component, the
Frequency response function
authors have developed a formula that is physically clear and simple, yet engineering accurate and extendible.
Simple estimation
Hull-form parameter For nonlinear effects, this study assumes the case where decay coefficients or Bertin’s N-coefficient are given, and
it considers the nonlinearities in the quadratic damping force by equivalently linearizing the force. For equiv­
alent linearization, a convergence calculation is usually required, but in this study, it is replaced by an explicit
formula. To validate the proposed equation, numerical calculations using the linear 3D-Green’s function method
program were performed for 154 actual merchant ships with a wide parameter range, and it was confirmed that
the equation is applicable regardless of ship type and size.

coefficients and safety factors.

1. Introduction
It goes without saying that the estimation of ship motion in waves is
important for ship design and operation. In particular, roll motion is
extremely important in terms of stability, container lashing strength,
strength assessment of transverse structural members, and so on. Today,
seakeeping tools such as the strip method (Salvesen et al., 1970) and the
Green’s function method (Papanikolaou and Schellin, 1992) can esti­
mate hull motions with a certain degree of rationality, but this requires
information on the hull form and its data preparation. On the other
hand, in designing a ship, explicit formulae specified in the classification
society rules are used, which are usually expressed only by the principal
particulars of the ship (IACS, 2020). The International Code on Intact
Stability (IS-code) provides a simplified formula for the maximum roll
angle for the weather criterion (IMO, 2008). In the early design stage,
when the hull form has not yet been determined, such simplified
formulae of ship response are extremely useful. However, since the
formulae in the classification rules and IS-codes are for the maximum
response, they cannot be used for estimating the response under arbi­
trary sea states. In addition, the physical meaning of these equations is
not always clear because they implicitly take into account empirical
For such a situation, a simple formula for the frequency response
function of ship response that has a clear and accurate physical meaning,
which can be obtained only by the principal particulars, would be useful
not only for designing but also for a wide range of purposes, e.g., sea
state estimation (Nielsen et al., 2018). Although the estimation of roll
motion by frequency response has limitations in terms of accuracy
because of the strong nonlinearity of damping and restoring forces,
statistical prediction in the frequency domain is in demand as a practical
estimation method and is widely used today. The frequency response
function can also be used as a basis for more advanced methods
considering nonlinear effects (Jensen, 2007; Takami et al., 2022).
The purpose of this study is to derive a simple and accurate formula
for the frequency function of roll motion using a physical approach. In a
previous study for the same purpose, Jensen developed estimation
formulae of ship motion and wave load in a closed form expression
(Jensen et al., 2004). Jensen constructed a frequency response function
of roll motion by starting from the one-degree-of-freedom (1-DOF)
equation of motion and giving approximate expressions for each fluid
force component. However, verification of the accuracy of Jensen’s
formula for each fluid force component has not been sufficiently per­
formed, and the use of Haskind’s theorem to estimate the excitation

* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: matsui-s@m.mpat.go.jp (S. Matsui).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.oceaneng.2023.114187
Received 7 December 2022; Received in revised form 3 March 2023; Accepted 11 March 2023
Available online 28 March 2023
0029-8018/© 2023 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
S. Matsui et al.
Nomenclature
L Ship length [m]
B Ship breadth [m]
d Mean draft [m]
Cb Block coefficient
Cw Waterplane area coefficient
M Mass of ship [kg]
Ixx Inertia moment of roll [kg-m2]
√̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅
kdry
xx Radius of gyration of roll ( = Ixx /M) [m]
kwet
xx Radius of gyration of roll with added mass ( =
√̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅
(Ixx + A44 )/M) [m]
KG Height of center of gravity from keel [m]
GM Metacentric height [m]
a Linear decay coefficient of roll
b Quadratic nonlinear decay coefficient of roll [1/deg]
N Bertin’s N-coefficient [1/deg]
moment leads to the inclusion of a scattering force component that
should not be considered in the 1-DOF equation of roll motion. Ac­
cording to a comparison with numerical calculations, the accuracy
seems to decrease near the resonance frequency (Ildstad et al., 2017),
and there is still some room for improvement.
In this study, as in Jensen’s approach, we start from the equation of
motion and derive a closed form of the frequency response function of
the roll motion represented by the principal particulars of the ship. The
approximation of the equation of motion itself and the approximate
formulas for each fluid force component are examined in more detail to
develop a widely applicable and highly accurate formula. For added
mass and Froude-Krylov force, simplified formulae have already been
derived by the authors and confirmed to have sufficient accuracy
(Matsui et al., 2021a, 2021c). In this article, the validity of the 1-DOF
equation of roll motion is also verified, and after giving its correction,
the frequency response function of roll motion including the damping
force coefficient is constructed. For the nonlinear effects of the damping
force, this study assumes the case where decay coefficients or Bertin’s
N-coefficient are given, and it considers quadratic nonlinearity by
equivalently linearizing the force. Equivalent linearization usually re­
quires a convergence calculation due to the recurrence formula, which
in this study is replaced by an explicit formula. To validate the proposed
equation, numerical calculations with a linear 3D-Green’s function
method program were performed on 154 actual ship models with a wide
parameter range.
2. Development of simplified formula of roll motion
In this section, the simplified formula of the frequency response
function is derived from the linear equations of roll motion. The defi­
nitions of motion, wave, and coordinate system are shown in Fig. 1. The
base time (t = 0) is set as the moment when the crest of the incident
wave reaches the center of gravity of a ship.
Fig. 1. Definition of motion, incident wave, and coordinate.
2
Ocean Engineering 276 (2023) 114187
ρ Density of sea water [kg/m3]
g Acceleration of gravity [m/s2]
ζa Incident wave amplitude [m]
ω Wave frequency [rad/s]
k Wave number ( = ω2 /g) [rad/s]
λ Wavelength ( = 2π/k) [m]
ωe Encounter wave frequency [rad/s]
β Wave angle [rad]
U Ship operation speed [m/s]
X4 Complex amplitude of roll motion [rad]
A44 Added inertia moment of roll motion [kg-m2]
B44 Damping coefficient of roll motion [kg-m2/s]
T44 Radiation force coefficient of roll motion ( = A44 +
B44 /iωe ) [kg-m2]
C44 Restoring coefficient of roll motion [N-m]
EFK
4 Froude-Krylov force of roll motion [N-m]
ES4 Scattering force of roll motion [N-m]
2.1. Equation of roll motion and its simplification
In linear theory, i.e., under a small wave height, roll motion is an
equation with three degrees of freedom coupled with sway and yaw
motions. Ignoring the coupling with yaw motion, which is generally not
large, the complex amplitude of roll motion X4 can be expressed as
follows.
{ }
X4 (iωe )2 (Ixx + T44 ) + C44 = E4FK + E4S − X2 (iωe )2 T42 (1)
where ωe is an encounter wave frequency defined as
ωe ≡ ω − kU cos β, (2)
X2 is a complex amplitude of sway motion, Tij is a radiation fluid
force coefficient in the i-mode direction due to j-mode motion and
defined as Tij = Aij + Bij /iωe by using added mass Aij and damping force
coefficient Bij , C44 is a restoring force coefficient, and EFK
4 and E4 are
S
Froude-Krylov force and the scattering force of roll motion, respectively.
When kB is small, the scattering fluid force can be approximated by
E4S ≅ (iωe )2 u2 T42 (3)
where u2 is the motion of the incident wave-particle in the sway direc­
tion. In the long wavelength range, sway motion is consistent with wave-
particle motion, so u2 ≅ X2 is substituted into Eq. (1) to obtain the
following roll one-degree-of-freedom (1-DOF) frequency response
function.
E4FK
X4 ≅ (1⋅DOF model) (4)
2
(iωe ) (Ixx + A44 ) + iωe B44 + C44
Although this equation was derived with kB as small, it is known to
be valid even at relatively short wavelengths since ships generally have
B≪L. This 1-DOF model was first given theoretical support by Tasai
et al. (1981) and is now used in the stability criteria (IMO, 2008).
Although the 1-DOF model in Eq. (4) has already been validated in
terms of theory and experiment, in this study, we investigate the error
from the simplified modeling of Eq. (4) in the framework of linear theory
in order to develop a formula based on the results of the linear 3D-
Green’s function method program (Sugimoto et al., 2020). A total of 154
actual merchant ships (77 ships in full-loading condition and ballast
condition) were used for the validation, including the various sizes and
ship types as shown in Fig. 2. Fig. 3 compares the peak value of the roll
⃒ ⃒
⃒ ⃒
motion amplitude ⃒X4pk ⃒ and the peak wavelength λpk of the 1-DOF model
in Eq. (4) and a 3-DOF model, which considers sway and yaw coupling
S. Matsui et al. Ocean Engineering 276 (2023) 114187

Fig. 2. Histogram of hull-form parameters of 154 actual merchant ships used for validation.

calculated by the 3D-Green’s function method. In these figures, the fluid ⎧ 2 1.7
force components of the 1-DOF model in Eq. (4) are also calculated by ⎨ BM ≅ B Cw
⎪
the 3D-Green’s function method. As can be seen from Fig. 3, the 1-DOF where dCb 12 (9)
⎪
⎩
model has a strong correlation with the 3-DOF model and uniformly KB ≅ 0.49(Cb /Cw )− 0.4
d
yields an excess response of about 20% regardless of the size or type of
ships, making it a practical model in terms of safety assessment. In this where BM is the metacentric radius (metacentric height from center of
study, the following equation, multiplied by the correction factor for buoyancy), and KB is the height of the center of buoyancy from the keel.
errors in the 1-DOF model, fX4 , is used as the basis for the simplified From this formula, GM can be approximated by B, d, Cb , Cw , and KG. In
formula.
this paper, however, we treat GM as known.
fX4 E4FK
X4est = 2
(5) 2.2.2. Added mass
(iωe ) (Ixx + A44 ) + iωe B44 + C44
For the additional mass of roll motion A44 , we proposed the following
where formula in a previous study (Matsui et al., 2021c).
⃒ FK ⃒ { ( )2 ( )3 }
⃒E + ES − X2 (iωe )2 T42 ⃒ A44 Cw2.25 KG KG
fX4 ≡ 4 4
⃒ ⃒ ≅ 0.8 (6) ≅ 1 − 10.6 + 17 (10)
⃒EFK ⃒
4
ρB4 L 16π B B

In the Appendix, the reasons for the high correlation between the 1-
where Cw is waterplane area coefficient. C2.25
w /16π is added based on the
DOF and 3-DOF models are discussed in terms of the frequency depen­
theoretical solution for the horizontal plate at zero frequency, and the
dence of fX4 . According to the results, the approximation in Eq. (3) does
braces are coefficients that account for the effect of sidewall contribu­
not always hold at any wave frequency, and it seems that several factors
tions. The accuracy of this formula with respect to the numerical results
cancel each other out, making estimation good when focusing on the
is reasonable, as shown in Fig. 4. Fig. 4 shows the results for two
vicinity of the roll resonant frequency.
wavelengths, indicating that the effect of oscillation frequency on A44 is
small.

2.2. Simplified formulae of fluid force components

2.2.3. Froude-Krylov force
For the Froude-Krylov force EFK 4 , there are several estimation
Each fluid force component in Eq. (4) is approximated by full-form
formulae or calculation methods for the effective wave slope coefficient
parameters and wave condition parameters.
γ (≡ EFK
4 /kζa C44 ). In the second generation of IS-code, a simple esti­

2.2.1. Restoring force coefficient mation of the F.K. force at each cross-section and integration in the
The restoring force coefficient C44 is expressed by the following longitudinal direction is adopted on the basis of the idea of the strip
method (IMO, 2013; Umeda and Tsukamoto, 2007).
formula by using the mass of ship M and metacentric height GM.
This paper uses the following simplified formula, which we devel­
C44 = MgGM (7) oped on the basis of a theoretical approach and which does not require
integration (Matsui et al., 2021a).
We previously proposed the following estimation formula of GM
using the height of the center of gravity on the keel KG (Matsui et al., E4FK
= − ikBe−
C
kdCwb
ν
dCb
GM (11)
2021b). ρgζa LB2 B2

GM = BM + KB − KG (8) 2 sin β kLCw cos β

where ν = sin . (12)
kLCw cos β 2

3
S. Matsui et al. Ocean Engineering 276 (2023) 114187

Fig. 4. Comparison of A44 /ρB4 L between proposed formula and numerical

calculation (Matsui et al., 2021c).

Fig. 3. Comparison of peak amplitude (top) and peak wavelength (bottom) of

roll-RAO in beam sea for 154 actual ships among exact 3-DOF model and
simplified 1-DOF model.

This formula can also be applied to oblique waves via the coefficient
ν. As shown in Fig. 5, the accuracy is slightly lower at shorter wave­
lengths but is sufficiently good.

2.2.4. Damping force

Roll damping force, as is well known, is an extremely important
component that affects the maximum roll angle in resonance. This paper
does not go into a simple estimation of the damping force itself but uses a
typical expression with decay coefficients a (linear), b (quadratic) or
with Bertin’s N-coefficient (ITTC, 2011).
Since the damping force defined by decay coefficients or the N-co­
efficient contains a nonlinear term proportional to the square of the roll
angular velocity, it must be equivalently linearized to be treated as a
linear damping force coefficient B44 . Given decay coefficients, a and b
[1/deg], the equivalent linearized damping force coefficient is expressed
as:
{ ( )}
3 8 180 Fig. 5. Comparison of EFK 2
4 /ρgζa LB between formula and numerical calculation
B44 = ωe (Ixx + A44 ) a + |X4 | b (13)
4 3π π (Matsui et al., 2021a).

where 8|X4 |/3π is the coefficient of equivalent linearization. If using

Bertin’s N [1/deg], it is expressed as follows.

4
S. Matsui et al. Ocean Engineering 276 (2023) 114187

( )
8 3 180 substituted into Eq. (5).
B44 = |X4 |ωe (Ixx + A44 ) N (14)
3π 4 π
2.3.2. Proposed formula of frequency response function
The amplitude of the roll motion |X4 | appears on the right-hand side,
Substituting the formulae for each fluid force component in section
which depends on the wave amplitude ζa , so B44 is a nonlinear hydro­
2.2 and expression of B44 in Eqs. 17 and 18 into Eq. (5), we obtain the
dynamic coefficient that depends on wave height.
estimation formula for the frequency response function of roll motion in
In this paper, a, b or N are treated as input parameters. These pa­
closed form. Eq. (5) is the complex amplitude of roll, whose amplitude
rameters are generally determined by the free-roll test or numerical ⃒ est ⃒
⃒X ⃒ [rad] and phase ε(= arg(Xest )) [rad] are expressed as follows.
4 4
calculation done using Ikeda’s method (Ikeda et al., 1976; ITTC, 2011).
⃒ FK ⃒
There is also a simplified formula for the damping coefficient based on ⃒ est ⃒ ⃒
fX4 E4 ⃒
Ikeda’s method proposed by Kawahara et al. (2011). These coefficients
⃒X ⃒ = √̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅
4 { }2 ̅ (19)
include the dependence on the ship speed U. ω2e (Ixx + A44 ) − C44 + (ωe B44 )2

π ( )
2.3. Derivation of simplified estimation formula of roll motion ε=− sign(ν) − atan2 − ω2e (Ixx + A44 ) + C44 , ωe B44 (20)
2

2.3.1. Expression of B44 independent to X4 where sign(∗) is a sign function, and atan2 (x, y) is an argument of the
On the basis of Eq. (5), we developed a simplified explicit formula of complex number x + iy. The formulae for the fluid force components and
roll motion. In the process, the challenge is how to handle the recursion coefficients are as follows.
caused by the damping force coefficient B44 in Eq. (13) or (14), which ⎧ { ( )2 ( )3 }
includes the roll amplitude. A sound approach would be to substitute Eq. ⎪ 2.25
⎪
⎪ 4 Cw KG KG
⎪
⎪ A = ρ B L 1 − 10.6 + 17
(13) into Eq. (5) and solve for X4 , but in that case, the expression of X4 ⎪ 44
⎪
⎪ 16π B B
⎪
becomes very complicated. Therefore, in this study, the dependence of ⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪
⎛ √ ̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅
⃒ ⃒ ⎞
⎪
the damping force on the roll amplitude is treated as an approximation ⎪
⎪
⎪ 3C44 ⎝ 2560 ⃒EFK ⃒
⎪ B44 = a + a2 + 2 fX4 4 b ⎠
and is represented by its value at resonant frequency. ⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪ 8ωe π C44
⎪
First, the roll amplitude at resonant frequency, considering that the ⎪
⎪
⎪ √ ̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅
̅
⎪
inertia and restoring forces cancel each other out, is expressed as fol­ ⎨ 1 360 ⃒⃒ FK ⃒⃒
= fX4 E4 C44 N (21)
lows. ⎪
⎪ ω e π2
⎪
⎪
⃒ FK ⃒ ⎪
⎪ C44 = MgGM
⃒ pk ⃒ ⃒ ⃒ ⎪
⎪
⃒X ⃒ = fX4 E4 (15) ⎪
⎪
⎪ C
4
ωe B44 ⎪
⎪ FK − kd b
⎪ E4 = − ikζa C44 e Cw ν
⎪
⎪
⎪
Substituting Eq. (13) for B44 on the right side of Eq. (15) and solving ⎪
⎪ fX4 = 0.8
⎪
⎪
⎪
for |X4 |, we obtain the following simple formula for the roll amplitude at ⎪
⎪
⎪ 2 sin β kLCw cos β
⎪
resonant frequency. ⎪
⎩ ν =
kLCw cos β
sin
2
⎛ ⃒ FK ⃒ ⎞
√̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅
⃒ pk ⃒ 2
⃒X ⃒ = π ⎝ − a + a2 + 2560fX4 E4 b ⎠
⃒ ⃒ The coefficient ν becomes 1 for beam sea (β = 90◦ , 270◦ ). The effect
(16)
4
960b π2 C44 of ship speed U on roll motion is considered through the coefficients a, b
or N and the encounter wave frequency ωe in Eq. (2).
The moment of inertia Ixx should be a unique value for each ship, but
Here, we used the relation ω2e (Ixx +A44 ) = C44 at the resonant frequency.
since accurate estimates are difficult to obtain except for model ships,
Then, to obtain an expression for X4 other than the resonant frequency,
some existing approximate formulas are presented below. In the Com­
we derive an expression for B44 that is independent of X4 . Here, we
mon Structure Rules, the following estimation formula is given for the
equate the right-hand sides of Eqs. (15) and (16) with each other and √̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅
solve for B44 to obtain radius of gyration kdryxx (≡ Ixx /M ) for the oil tanker and bulk carrier
⎛ (IACS, 2020).
⃒ FK ⃒ ⎞
√̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅
3C44 ⎝ 2560 ⃒E ⃒ ⎧
B44 = a + a2 + 2 fX4 4 b ⎠. (17) dry
kxx ⎨ 0.35 for full load condition
8ωe π C44 ≅ 0.40 for partial load condition (22)
B ⎩
0.45 for ballast condition
The same applies when using N-coefficient, leading to the following
expression. The IS-Code also provides the following formula for estimating the
√̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅
√̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅ radius of gyration including the added mass kwet
xx (≡ (Ixx + A44 )/M )
1 360 ⃒⃒ FK ⃒⃒ (IMO, 2008).
B44 = fX4 E C44 N .
4 (18)
ωe π2 √̅̅̅ ( )
wet g
kxx B L
For EFK (23)
4 in Eqs. (17) and (18), the simplified formula (11), which
≅ 0.373 + 0.023 − 0.043
B π d 100
depends on the wavelength, is used because there is no special reason to
fix the value at the resonant frequency and B44 ωe →0 is also valid in the Other formulae for estimating the radius of gyration are detailed in
long wavelength region. The expressions in Eqs. (17) and (18) are the report by Grimm et al. (2017).
nonlinear coefficients that depend on the square root of the wave
amplitude ζa due to EFK 2.3.3. Simple expression of peak amplitude of roll motion
4 ∝ζ a . It should be noted, however, that Eqs. (17)
and (18) were determined so that the value of roll motion at resonant The peak amplitude of roll motion is given by Eq. (16), which can be
frequency takes the correct value when given a certain a, b or N. concretely shown by substituting the expression for F.K. force as follows.
Therefore, they should not be considered as estimation formulae for B44
itself, but rather a convenience expression that only make sense when

5
S. Matsui et al. Ocean Engineering 276 (2023) 114187

⃒ pk ⃒ 8fX4 kpk ζa γ First, shown in Fig. 6 is a comparison of the response functions at

⃒X ⃒ = √̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅
̅ (24)
4
3 a + a2 + 23040 bf kpk ζ γ three wave directions for a bulk carrier with a relatively large GM. The
X4
wave height Hw (= 2ζa ) and ship speed U were set to be 2 m and 5 knots,
9π 2 a

⃒ FK ⃒
⃒E ⃒ respectively. Although the accuracy slightly decreased at higher fre­
quencies than the resonant frequency, the proposed formula correctly
C
kpk dCwb
(25)
4 k=kpk
where γ ≡ = e− |ν|
kpk ζa C44 took into account the peak deviation due to the Doppler effect and the
difference in peak values depending on the wave direction, and it was
where kpk is the value of k at resonant frequency. For beam sea, |ν| = 1
confirmed that it was sufficiently accurate for all wave directions. The
and ωe = ω hold, so Eq. (24) can be expressed simply. If Smith’s
difference in peak values from the wave direction was mainly due to the
correction factor in the effective wave slope coefficient is approximated
difference in the Froude-Krylov force EFK 4 , which is correctly considered
by a constant, e− k dCb /Cw ≅ 0.85, a rough estimation formula of the
pk

by the coefficient ν in Eq. (21).

maximum roll angle in beam sea [deg] can be derived as follows. Next, the response functions at two wave heights, Hw = 2 m and 8 m,
⃒ pk ⃒ 104kpk ζa in beam sea for a container ship are shown in Fig. 7. From Fig. 7, the
⃒X ⃒
4 β=90◦
≅ √̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅
a + a2 + 176kpk ζa b
[deg] formula was valid for small GM vessels such as container ships, and
(26) through the wave height dependence of the damping coefficient in Eq.
√̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅
/ ̅
≅ 7.82 kpk ζa N [deg] (21), it can be seen that the nonlinear effects of wave height could also
be correctly considered. In the derivation process, the damping force is
where the wave number at resonant frequency in beam sea is expressed represented by the value in the resonance for simplicity, but it has suf­
as ficient practical accuracy for other frequencies as well. This is because
the ratio of the damping force to the total fluid force is not large at
kpk =
GM
=
MGM
. (27) frequencies other than the resonant frequency.
Fig. 8 shows a comparison of peak values of roll amplitude and peak
wet 2
kxx Ixx + A44

The above Eq. (26) shows that, for the same value of N, the maximum
roll angle is approximately proportional to the square root of the wave
slope angle at the resonant frequency kpk ζa .
3. Numerical validation
To confirm the accuracy of the proposed formula, the linear 3D-
Green’s function method program (Sugimoto et al., 2020) was used to
calculate the motions of the 154 ships shown in Fig. 2. In the validation,
the N-coefficient was uniformly set to N = 0.02 [1 /deg], which assumes
the roll motion amplitude of 20◦ used in the old Japanese stability
standard (Japan, S. R. A., 1960), the program applies an equivalent
linearized formulation of Eq. (14) for B44 , and X4 is obtained by
convergence calculations. For the moment of inertia, both methods used
the value from Eq. (22), depending on the loading conditions.
wave frequency in beam sea for the 154 ships. The vertical axes are the
maximum value and its wave frequency obtained from the response
amplitude function of Eq. (19), not Eqs. (26) and (27). The accuracy was
sufficient regardless of the size, type, and loading condition of the ships.
To confirm the trend of the approximate formula (26), Fig. 9⃒ shows a
⃒
plot of the numerically calculated values of peak amplitude ⃒Xpk ⃒ with
λpk on the horizontal axis, and the curve of formula (26) is also dis­
played. The plot follows the trend of formula (26).
4. Conclusion
This study proposed a simplified formula for the frequency response
function of roll motion in any wave direction and wave height regardless
of ship size and ship types, explicitly expressed using the ship principal

Fig. 6. Comparison of frequency response function of roll motion of bulk car­ Fig. 7. Comparison of frequency response function of roll motion of container
rier at different wave angles (β = 270◦ , 240◦ , and 210◦ , ζa = 1 m, U = 5 knot). ship at different wave heights (β = 270◦ , Hw = 2 m, 8 m).

6
S. Matsui et al.
Fig. 8. Comparison of peak of roll amplitude (top) and peak wave frequency
(bottom) in beam sea between proposed formula and numerical calculation for
154 ships (ζa = 1 m, N = 0.02 [1/deg]).
particulars (length L, breadth B, draft d, block coefficient Cb , waterplane
area coefficient Cw , height of COG from keel KG, and metacenter height
GM) and decay coefficient a, b or Bertin’s N-coefficient. The proposed
equation is equivalent to the results obtained by a linear seakeeping
program when the quadratic nonlinear damping force is equivalently
linearized.
The proposed formula is useful in the initial design stage when there
is no hull form data and when the roll motion in arbitrary regular or
irregular waves needs to be investigated in a simplified manner.
7
Ocean Engineering 276 (2023) 114187
Fig. 9. Tendency of peak value of roll amplitude against peak wavelength for
154 ships and rough estimation formula (26) (ζa = 1 m, N = 0.02 [1/deg]).
Furthermore, the proposed formula is superior in terms of extendibility
because it is formulated as a combination of each fluid force component
based on a physical equation. For example, if one wishes to change the
formula of the damping force coefficient, one only needs to change the
expression for B44 in the proposed formula.
CRediT authorship contribution statement
Sadaoki Matsui: Conceptualization, Methodology, Software, Vali­
dation, Data curation, Writing – original draft, Supervision, Visualiza­
tion, Writing – review & editing. Kei Sugimoto: Conceptualization,
Resources, Writing – review & editing, Supervision. Kyohei Shino­
moto: Software, Validation, Resources, Data curation, Writing – review
& editing.
Declaration of competing interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial
interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence
the work reported in this paper.
Data availability
The data that has been used is confidential.
Acknowledgments
We are deeply grateful to Dr. Toichi Fukasawa, Fellow of the Na­
tional Maritime Research Institute, and Dr. Hiroshi Kawabe for their
advice in conducting this study and writing this paper. We are also
deeply grateful to Mr. Shinsaku Ashida of Kawasaki Heavy Industries,
Ltd., Mr. Yusuke Fukumoto and Dr. Fuminori Yanagimoto of ClassNK,
Mr. Tomofumi Katsuraya, Mr. Daisuke Hanawa, and Mr. Hiromasa
Onishi of MOL, and Mr. Junya Matsuwaki of Imabari Shipbuilding for
their cooperation in the data analysis of this research.
S. Matsui et al. Ocean Engineering 276 (2023) 114187

Appendix. Consideration on validity of 1-DOF model in linear theory

To investigate the reason for the strong correlation between the peak values of the 1-DOF model in Eq. (4) and the roll motion that takes into
account the scattering fluid force and the coupled effects of sway (called the 2-DOF model), we examine the trend of the amplitude ratio of the roll
between the 1-DOF and 2-DOF models defined as follows.
⃒ FK ⃒
⃒E + ES − X2 (iωe )2 T42 ⃒
fX4 ≡ 4 4
⃒ ⃒
⃒EFK ⃒ (28)
4

The fX4 at the peak frequency of roll is denoted as fX4

pk
. fX4 is a coefficient that indicates how much the term (ES4 − X2 (iωe )2 T42 ) ignored in the 1-DOF
model reduces the Froude-Krylov force EFK
4 . For the 154 ships, the fX4 in the beam sea was calculated, and the fX4 is highlighted with red markers in
pk

Fig. 10.
First, focusing on the red markers, the value of fX4
pk
was around 0.8 regardless of the peak wavelength, confirming the strong correlation between the
1-DOF and 2-DOF models. fX4 had a general trend in that it approached 1 at long wavelengths because Eq. (3) holds well. It decreased from long to
short wavelengths. However, for ships resonate in the short wavelength region, fX4 had a peak near the resonant wavelength due to the strong coupling
effect of sway and roll, and fX4
pk
was located about 0.8 around the peak. On the other hand, while fX4 increased as the wavelength increased, the value of
fX4
pk
was almost fixed at 0.8 for λ/B > 10. The reason for this is that when we consider up to the term of O((kB)2 ) the scattering force is approximated as

E4S ≅ u2 (iωe )2 T42 − u4 (iωe )2 T44 , (29)

where u4 is the wave slope in the breadth direction (Ohmatsu and Matsui, 2019), hence
⃒ FK ⃒ ⃒ ⃒ ( )
⃒E − ω2 ζa kT44 ⃒ ⃒C44 − ω2 T44 ⃒ B
fX4 ∼ 4
⃒ e⃒
⃒EFK ⃒ = e
≅ 1 − ckB as kB→0 (30)
4 |C44 | GM

holds in beam sea. The rightmost approximation is the trend confirmed in the numerical investigation of fX4 for λ/B > 10, where c is an appropriate
positive coefficient. From this, the smaller the GM and the longer the resonant wavelength of the ship, the smaller the value of fX4 becomes, which
cancels the increasing trend of fX4 and results in fX4
pk
taking a fixed value around 0.8.
Thus, although fX4 itself does not have a constant value, several factors cancel each other out when focusing on the roll resonant frequency,
resulting in a constant value around fX4
pk
= 0.8. It was confirmed that this trend is the same when a linear decay coefficient is applied instead of Bertin’s
N-coefficient.

Fig. 10. Ratio of roll amplitude by 1-DOF model and 2-DOF model fX4 in beam sea for 154 ships.

References ITTC, 2011. Numerical estimation of roll damping. In: The 26th ITTC Specialist
Committee on Stability in Waves.
Japan, Shipbuilding Research Association, 1960. A Study of the Application of the
Grimm, M., Smith, W., Fortescue, D., 2017. The Influence of Roll Radius of Gyration
Results of Research on Stability. SR23 2-3.
Including the Effect of Inertia of Fluids on Motion Predictions. Pacific 2017
Jensen, J.J., 2007. Efficient estimation of extreme non-linear roll motions using the first-
International Maritime Conference.
order reliability method (FORM). J. Mar. Sci. Technol. 12 (4), 191–202.
IACS, 2020. Common Structure Rules for Bulk Carriers and Oil Tankers.
Jensen, J.J., Mansour, A.E., Olsen, A.S., 2004. Estimation of ship motions using closed-
Ikeda, Y., Himeno, Y., Tanaka, N., 1976. On roll damping force of ship: effects of friction
form expressions. Ocean Eng. 31 (1), 61–85.
of hull and normal force of bilge keels. J. Kansai Soc. Nav. Archit. Jpn. 161, 41–49.
Kawahara, Y., Maekawa, K., Ikeda, Y., 2011. A Simple Prediction Formula of Roll
Ildstad, J.B., Kolstad, T.M., Halse, K.H., 2017. Comparison of a Simplified Vessel
Damping of Conventional Cargo Ships on the Basis of Ikeda’s Method and its
Response Estimation with a State of the Art Vessel Response Prediction Computer
Limitation, Contemporary Ideas on Ship Stability and Capsizing in Waves. Springer
Tool. ASME 2017 36th International Conference on Ocean, Offshore and Arctic
Netherlands, Dordrecht, pp. 465–486.
Engineering.
Matsui, S., Shinomoto, K., Sugimoto, K., 2021a. Development of simplified formula of
IMO, 2008. Adoption of the International Code on Intact Stability, 2008 (2008 IS Code.
Froude-Krylov force of 6-DOFs acting on monohull ship. ClassNK Technical J. No.2
Resolution MSC, 267/85, MSC 85/26/Add.1 Annex 2.
2021(I) 65–79.
IMO, 2013. Development of second-generation Intact stability criteria: vulnerability
assessment for dead-ship stability failure mode. In: Document SDC 1/INF.6
Submitted by Italy and Japan.

8
S. Matsui et al.
Matsui, S., Shinomoto, K., Sugimoto, K., 2021b. Development of simplified formula of
hydrodynamic force acting on ship in waves - 1st report: restoring force coefficient.
Papers of National Maritime Res. Institute 21 (3), 45–59.
Matsui, S., Shinomoto, K., Sugimoto, K., 2021c. Development of simplified formula of
hydrodynamic force acting on ship in waves - 3rd report: added mass moment of
inertia of roll -. Papers of National Maritime Research Institute 21 (3), 79–89.
Nielsen, U.D., Brodtkorb, A.H., Sørensen, A.J., 2018. A brute-force spectral approach for
wave estimation using measured vessel motions. Mar. Struct. 60, 101–121.
Ohmatsu, S., Matsui, S., 2019. On the improvement of approximate calculation method
of diffraction potential in strip method. Papers of National Maritime Research
Institute 19, 79–89.
Papanikolaou, A., Schellin, T., 1992. A three-dimensional panel method for motions and
loads of ships with forward speed. Ship Technol. Res. 39, 145.
Salvesen, N., Tuck, E., Faltinsen, O., 1970. Ship Motions and Sea Loads.
9
Ocean Engineering 276 (2023) 114187
Sugimoto, K., Fukumoto, Y., Matsuwaki, J., Akamatsu, T., Ashida, S., Onishi, K.,
Houtani, H., Oka, M., Kawabe, H., Ishibashi, K., 2020. Non Linear Effect on Wave-
Induced Loads for Hull Structural Design: Bulk Carrier, Container Carrier, Vehicles
Carrier. ASME 2020 39th International Conference on Ocean, Offshore and Arctic
Engineering.
Takami, T., Jensen, J.J., Nielsen, U.D., 2022. Short-time FORM analysis for extreme roll
motion prediction in beam seas. Mar. Struct. 82, 103160.
Tasai, F., Takaki, M., Inada, M., 1981. On the wave exciting forces for lateral motions of a
ship and the calculating method of roll in waves. Transact. WEST-Japan Soc. Naval
Architect. 62, 137–149.
Umeda, N., Tsukamoto, I., 2007. Simplified Prediction Method for Effective Wave Slope
Coefficient and its Effect on Capsizing Probability Calculation. Conference
Proceedings The Japan Society of Naval Architects and Ocean Engineers 5E,
pp. 23–26.
 Update
Ocean Engineering
Volume 283, Issue , 1 September 2023, Page

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.oceaneng.2023.115212
 Ocean Engineering 283 (2023) 115212

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

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

Corrigendum to “Simplified estimation formula for frequency response

function of roll motion of ship in waves” [Ocean Eng. 276 (15 May 2023)]
Sadaoki Matsui a, *, Kei Sugimoto b, Kyohei Shinomoto b
a
National Maritime Research Institute, Japan
b
ClassNK, Japan

The authors apologise for an error in the coefficient for the linear Note that the correction is due to the fact that the coefficient for the
decay coefficient a. The relevant formulae are corrected as following linear decay coefficient a was incorrectly multiplied by 3π /8; the for­
table. mula using N-coefficient is not affected.

Error Correction Eq.

( )} ( )}
3 { 8 180 2ωr ωe 180
{ √̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅ (13)
B44 = ωe (Ixx + A44 ) a + |X4 | b B44 = (Ixx +A44 ) a + |X4 | b where ωr (≡ C44 /(Ixx + A44 ) ) is resonant frequency.
4 3π π π ωr π
⎛ √̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅ ⎛ √̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅
⃒ ⃒ ) ⃒ FK ⃒ ) (16)
⃒ ⃒ 3π2 ⎝ 23040 ⃒EFK ⃒ ⃒ ⃒ π ⎝ ⃒E ⃒
fX4 4 b − a + a2 + 360fX4 4 b
⃒ pk ⃒ ⃒ pk ⃒
⃒X4 ⃒ = − a + a2 + ⃒X4 ⃒ =
2880b 9π 2 C44 360b C44
⎛ √̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅
⃒ ⃒ ̅) ⎛ √̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅
⃒ FK ⃒ ) (17)
3C44 ⎝ 23040 ⃒EFK ⃒ C44 ⎝ ⃒ E ⃒
B44 = a + a2 + fX4 4 b B44 = a + a2 + 360fX4 4 b
8ωe 9π 2 C44 πωe C44
{ ( )3 } { ( )3 }
2.25 ( )2 2.25 ( )2 (21)
⎧ 4 Cw KG KG ⎧ C KG KG
⎪ A44 = ρB L 16π 1 − 10.6 B + 17 ⎪ A44 = ρB4 L w 1 − 10.6 + 17
⎪
⎪
⎪ B ⎪
⎪
⎪ 16 π B B
⎪
⎪ ⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪ ⎧ ̅⎫
√̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅
⃒ ⃒ ⎪
⎪ ⎛ √̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅
⃒ ⃒ ⎞
⎪ ⎪ ⃒EFK ⃒
⎪
⎪ 3C44 ⎨ 23040 ⃒EFK ⃒ ⎬ ⎪
⎪ C44 ⎝
4
a + a2 + 360fX4 4 b ⎠
⎪ ⎪
⎪ B44 = a + a2 + f b ⎪ B =
⎪ 44 πωe
⎪ 2 X4 C
⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪ 8ωe ⎩ 9 π 44 ⎭ ⎪
⎪ C44
⎪
⎪ ⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪ ⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪ √ ̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅ ⎪
⎪ √̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅
⎪
⎪ 1 360 ⃒ FK ⃒ ⃒ ⃒ ⎪
⎪ 1 360 ⃒ FK ⃒ ⃒ ⃒
⎨ = f E C N ⎨ = fX4 E C44 N
ωe π2 X4 4 44 ωe π2 4
⎪
⎪ ⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪ C44 = MgGM ⎪
⎪
⎪ C44 = MgGM
⎪
⎪ ⎪
⎪
⎪ ⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪ Cb ⎪
⎪
⎪ Cb
⎪ − kd ⎪ − kd
⎪
⎪ EFK
⎪ = − ikζ C 44 e Cw ν ⎪
⎪
⎪ E FK
= − ikζ a C 44 e Cw ν
⎪
⎪ 4 a ⎪
⎪ 4
⎪
⎪ ⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪ fX4 = 0.8 ⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪ fX4 = 0.8
⎪
⎪ ⎪
⎪
⎩ 2 sin β kLCw cos β ⎩ 2 sin β kLCw cos β
ν= sin ν= sin
kLCw cos β 2 kLCw cos β 2
⃒ ⃒
⃒ pk ⃒ 8fX4 kpk ζa γ ⃒ ⃒
⃒ pk ⃒ πfX4 kpk ζa γ (24)
⃒X4 ⃒ = √̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅ ⃒X4 ⃒ = √̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅
3 23040 a + a2 + 360fX4 kpk ζa γb
a + a2 + bfX4 kpk ζa γ
9π2
(26)
⃒ ⃒
⃒ pk ⃒ 104kpk ζa √̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅ ⃒ ⃒
⃒ pk ⃒ 122kpk ζa √̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅
⃒X4 ⃒ ≅ √̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅ [deg] ≅ 7.82 kpk ζa /N [deg] ⃒X4 ⃒ ≅ √̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅ [deg] ≅ 7.82 kpk ζa /N [deg]
β=90◦ a + a2 + 176kpk ζa b β=90◦ a + a2 + 245kpk ζa b

The authors would like to apologise for any inconvenience caused.

DOI of original article: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.oceaneng.2023.114187.

* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: matsui-s@m.mpat.go.jp (S. Matsui).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.oceaneng.2023.115212

Available online 12 July 2023

0029-8018/© 2023 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.