Reducing Added Resistance of Ships in Waves

Reint P. Dallinga
1
, Tim Bunnik
1
, Etienne de Montgolfier
2

(1 Maritime Research Institute Netherlands, Wageningen, The Netherlands;
2 ENSTA-Bretagne, France)

Abstract: The application of new Rankine Source methods to quantify the hydrodynamic characteristics of
ships also shapes the perception of added resistance and ways to develop fuel efficient hull forms. Based on
a currently ongoing validation effort, the paper describes the present understanding of the contributions to
added resistance, the factors governing the validity of the above method and the effects of particular
choices in ship design.
Key words: seakeeping; added resistance; rankine source methods

1 Introduction
The apparent success of Rankine Source methods [Nakos 1990, Bunnik 1999] in the
prediction of ship behaviour and added resistance may offer a basis for a detailed balance of
the performance of ships in calm water and in waves. To investigate this possibility MARIN
has undertaken an elaborate validation effort for a wide range of contemporary and older hull
forms.

2 Prediction of added resistance by means of linear theory
2.1 Steady flow
It is customary to consider the total resistance of the ship as the sum of a steady flow
and an oscillating flow component. Reasons for a critical assessment of this assumption are
discussed in Section 5.2.
2.2 Unsteady flow
In order to understand the components of the mean forces acting on the ship as obtained
from linear seakeeping theory it is important to note that this theory evaluates the (first-order)
pressure distribution around the mean wetted surface at the mean position of the hull. At zero
speed Pinkster [1980] distinguishes the following zero-mean components in the mean drift
forces:
(1) The mean inward pressure from the relative wave elevation along the waterline given
simply by
1
/
4
gs
a
2
.
(2) The mean outward pressure from the square of the local flow velocities over the hull.
(3) The mean force due to the phase of the local motions and the spatial gradient of the
total first order pressure.
(4) The phase difference between the total vertical hydrodynamic force and the roll and
pitch motions.
Because the relative wave elevation is usually high on the weather side, the first
component acts in the direction of the waves; normally it is a dominant component. Because
58
the fluid velocities are relatively high on the same side this component normally counteracts
the first component. Also the last component normally acts against the direction of wave
propagation.
At zero speed the second order wave component, which is relatively large in long waves
on shallow water, yields a zero-mean oscillating
component as well.
Using a double-body steady flow estimate for
the effects of forward speed on the hull boundary
conditions and the pressure, Blok [1993] used
zero-speed 3D theory to calculate the motions,
relative wave elevation and added resistance. His
work neglects the actual dispersion of the radiated
and reflected waves (as visualized in Fig. 1).
Interestingly it does account for effect of the
motion induced changes in the steady flow on the
relative wave elevation; based on the observation
that the motion induced changes in surface elevation (the so-called dynamic swell-up
coefficient) resemble the effects of a steady sinkage or trim, these are evaluated in a quasi-
static way.
Bunnik [1999] accounts for the actual (non-linear) steady free surface elevation and flow
velocities induced by the mean forward speed and the details of the dispersion of the radiated
and reflected waves. Similar to Pinkster, the added resistance is analysed using a second-order
pressure integration. The (non-linear) forward speed effect results in important corrections to
some of the added resistance components:
- The contribution of the steady flow in the spatial gradient of the pressure in
contribution III.
- The vertical gradient of the pressure in the steady flow replaces the hydrostatic
gradient in the mean waterline contribution (I).
The physical interpretation of the second component is relatively straightforward.
The pressure gradient in the steady flow plays a role in the relative wave elevation and in
the related contribution to the added resistance.
The contribution of the relative wave elevation originates from estimating the pressure
on the actual time-varying wetted part of the hull, (induced by waves and vertical ship
motions; heave, pitch and roll). Since in the linear method, the pressure is only evaluated at
the mean wetted hull surface, the pressure on the oscillating wetted hull surface is estimated
using a Taylor expansion of the pressure at the waterline of the ship. This results in the
following formulation:
}
c
c
= dl n
z
p
RAW
rel
s
WL WL

2
2
1
q
In the above
z
p
s
c
c
is the vertical derivative of the steady pressure at the waterline. In the
case of zero speed, the hydrostatic pressure remains and this contribution simplifies into the
well known expression from Pinkster [1980]:
Fig.1 Dispersion of the reflected and
radiated waves as calculated with
the present Rankine source method
59
}
= dl n g RAW
rel WL WL

2
2
1
q
The relative wave elevation is given by the difference between the wave elevation and
the vertical ship motions:
( ) y x z
ert
u q q + =
where x and y are waterline coordinates with respect to the center of gravity of the ship and u
and are the wave-induced pitch and roll rotational motions.
The wave elevation is, as is usual in linear theory, composed of the incident, diffracted
and radiated waves. Consequent linearization with respect to the forward-speed induced
steady flow results in the following relation between wave elevation and velocity potential:
z
p
p
s
u
c
c
=
) 1 (
q
In the foregoing
) 1 (
u
p is the first-order oscillating pressure due to incident, diffracted and
radiated waves, which relates to the steady and first-order velocity potential as:
|
.
|

\
|
V V +
c
c
=
s u
u
u
t
I P

) 1 (
) 1 (
) 1 (

It can thus be seen that the RAW is inversely proportional to the vertical pressure
derivative (RAW~
z p
s
c c
1
). The effect is particularly large when
z
p
s
c
c
approaches zero,
representing a situation in which the vertical differences in the steady flow compensate the
hydrostatic pressure gradient.
The vertical pressure derivative can be estimated using a non-linear steady potential flow
method like RAPID [Raven 1994]. The present method estimates the vertical pressure
derivative from the vertical pressure derivative on the free-surface, by linear or constant
extrapolation towards the waterline. However, for short diverging bow waves, this
interpolation turns out to be difficult and extremely dense free-surface meshes have to be
used. An alternative is to estimate the pressure derivative from the pressure distribution on the
hull, but this is ongoing work.
The work of Blok and Bunnik puts the work of Boese [1970] in perspective. Not only
because both account (in different ways) for the disturbance of the free surface in the
contribution of the relative wave elevation but also because their work recognizes a larger
number of contributions.
The waterline contribution of Boese follows from simple hydrostatic considerations. It
can be formulated as:
dS n a
g
RAW
x ret S
=
}
2
4
q

In the above s represents the distance along the waterline circumference, n
x
the normal
direction in x and q
rel

a
the amplitude of the relative wave elevation (in which Boese
60
recognized contributions from the heave and pitch and the undisturbed incident wave). The
second contribution, which counteracts the contribution from the relative wave elevation in
head seas, is driven by the phase angle between the vertical force experienced by the ship and
the pitch angle. It is given by:
}
=
z
T
R
dt t t z m RAW
0
) ( ) ( u

in which m. Z

is the total external vertical force experienced by the ship and u the pitch
angle.

3 Calculation method
The evaluation of the steady flow follows the work of Raven [1994]. Most of the present
results were calculated with a half-mesh of two and a half times the ship length and a width of
three-quarters ship length containing some
7000-14000 panels. The cell length is
selected to yield about 20-30 cells in the
expected wave length of the transverse
wave system. The width is taken as one
and a half to double this value.
The numerical solution of the
unsteady flow was described by Bunnik [1999].

4 Results and their interpretation
In order to obtain an understanding of the effect of hull form on added resistance,
calculations were performed for a range of ship types, sailing at their typical speeds. The
series comprised contemporary designs for ferries, cruise ships, a cruise liner, a naval hull,
large container ships and general multi-purpose ships as well as more dated designs of a ferry,
two container ships and an LNG carrier. In addition two Wigley hull forms were considered.
In the course of these calculations it was found that for some of the ships very short
diverging waves (in combination with insufficient grid resolution) spoiled the extrapolation of
the pressure gradient towards the hull. Because of this the present results were all derived on
the basis of the gradient at the nearest grid point in the flow.
4.1 Character of the added resistance
Fig. 3 shows the components of the added resistance for the Wigley IV hull tested at
Fn=0.2 in the towing tank of the Delft University of Technology [Journee 1992].
Important forward components originate in the relatively high flow velocities over the
fore body and the phasing between the heave excitation and the pitch response.
The waterline component in aft direction is directly related to the magnitude of the
square of relative wave elevation along the diverging part of the waterline forward and the
pressure gradient in the steady flow. This elevation (see Fig. 4) contains two major
components: the heave-pitch induced relative wave elevation with respect to undisturbed
Fig.2 Mesh lay-out
61
incident wave (which governs the characteristic peak of the transfer function) and the
dispersion of the reflected and radiated waves (which governs the high-frequency tail in
short waves).
-400
-300
-200
-100
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
900
1000
1100
1200
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1 1.1 1.2
R
A
W

[
k
N
/
m
^
2
]
Wave Freq. [rad/ s]
RAW Wigley - Fn=0.2
Tot
I - 1/ 2rv2
II - Rot
III - Lin
IV- Fz.q
V- WL

Und.Incident Wave
Heave and Pitch
Rdaiated and Reflected
Waves
R
e
l
a
t
i
v
e

W
a
v
e

E
l
e
v
a
t
i
o
n
Wave Frequency

Fig.3 Added resistance component Wigley IV Fig.4 Components of relative wave elevation
Figure 5 indicates the magnitude of the relative wave elevation over the length of a ferry
at around the peak of the pitch response at Fn=0.23. Comparing the relative motion of the ship
with respect to the undisturbed incident wave with the present estimate shows that the
dispersion of the reflected and radiated waves almost doubles the relative wave elevation. The
local peak at St 18 is a result of the reduced pressure gradient in the steady flow at this
location. Because the related added resistance is proportional to the square of the relative
wave elevation this magnification yields a considerable increase in the added resistance. Fig.
6 shows the corresponding water line contribution to the added resistance over the length of
the fore body; most of this contribution originates entirely in the diverging area between St 18
and 20. The results are considerably higher than obtained according to Boeses [1970]
method (which is based on the undisturbed incident wave).
1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21
2
1
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
2
0
2
4
6
Undisturbed
FATIMA
FATIMA dpdz=-rho.g
Pressure gradient [rho.g]
Relative Wave Elevation
Longit.Location [St]
R
A
O

R
e
l
.
M
o
t
.
[
m
/
m
]
d
p
d
z

[
r
h
o
.
g
]

10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21
0
2.5
5
7.5
10
12.5
15
17.5
20
FATIMA Output
Calculated from FATIMA Rel.Wave
Estimate with dpdz=-rg
Boese with undisturbed wave
WL Contrib.RAW per m Ship Length
R
A
W

[
k
N
/
m
W
L
/
m
^
2
]

Fig.5 Relative wave elevation over Fig.6 Added resistance over the length
the length of the ship of the fore ship
In short waves (see Fig.7) the relative motion with respect to the undisturbed wave tends
to unity because the ship motions are small. The effect of the dispersion of the reflected waves
increases the actual relative wave elevation to around twice this value; the low pressure
62
gradient in the stationary flow around St 18 lifts it beyond this value. This magnification plays
a clear role in the added resistance in the bow area. See Fig. 8.
1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21
2
1
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
2
0
2
4
6
Undisturbed
FATIMA
FATIMA dpdz=-rho.g
Pressure gradient [rho.g]
Relative Wave Elevation
Longit.Location [St]
R
A
O

R
e
l
.
M
o
t
.
[
m
/
m
]
d
p
d
z

[
r
h
o
.
g
]

10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21
0
2.5
5
7.5
10
12.5
15
17.5
20
FATIMA Output
Calculated from FATIMA Rel.Wave
Estimate with dpdz=-rg
Boese with undisturbed wave
WL Contrib.RAW per m Ship Length
R
A
W

[
k
N
/
m
W
L
/
m
^
2
]

Fig.7 Relative wave elevation over Fig.8 Added resistance over the length of
the length of the ship the fore ship
4.2 Effect of hull form
Adopting the peak value and the height of the high frequency tail as the characteristic
features of the quadratic transfer function of the added resistance, an effort was made to
identify the main hull form parameters which drive their magnitude in head seas.
In the case of the peak value it seems that the (cube root of the) displacement volume ,
the waterline entry angle (in deg) and the speed (in terms of the Froude number Fn ) are
primary factors for the adopted range of ships and speeds. See Fig. 9.
The deviating result for the LNG carrier (in which case, and contrary to most of the other
cases, the calculations under estimate the actual added resistance) is a reminder of the fact that
the correlation is perhaps limited to the kind of shallow hulls investigated in the present
work.
Fig. 10 shows that the parameters that correlate well with the peak value offer an even
better fit with the high frequency tail.
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0 8.0
R
a
w
/
(
p
g

a
2

1
/
3
)
Waterlineentryangle*Fn [deg]
Peak Value Added Resistance
ModernContainer
Cruiseship
Ferry
Frigate
Multi Purp Ship
CruiseLiner
WigleyIV
ModernFerry
Older Container
OldContainer
Cruiseship
Cablelayer
LNGCarrier
Older container

0.0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0 8.0
R
a
w
/
(
p
g

a
2

1
/
3
)
Waterline entry angle*Fn [deg]
High-Freq. Tail Added Resistance
Modern Container
Cruise ship
Ferry
Frigate
Multi Purp Ship
Cruise Liner
WigleyIV
Modern Ferry
Older Container
OldContainer
Cruise ship
Cablelayer
Older Container
LNG

Fig.9 Peak value of added resistance Fig.10 High-frequency tail of added resistance
4.3 Shallow hulls
Naval hull forms, ferries and cruise ships are designed for deck area; the underwater
volume is relatively small. This is reflected in a dominant waterline contribution. Fig. 11
shows a typical result (a ferry running at Fn=0.23).
63
-300
-200
-100
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5
R
A
W

[
k
N
/
m
^
2
]
Wave Freq. [rad/ s]
RAW Ferry - 18knots (Fn=0.23)
Tot
I - 1/ 2rv2
II - Rot
III - Lin
IV- Fz.q
V- WL

-1500
-1000
-500
0
500
1000
1500
2000
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
R
A
W

[
k
N
/
m
^
2
]
Wave Freq. [rad/ s]
RAW LNG - Fn=0.2
Tot
I - 1/ 2rv2
II - Rot
III - Lin
IV- Fz.q
V- WL
Meas

Fig.11 Added resistance components Fig.12 Added resistance components
of a ferry of an LNG carrier
4.4 Increasing draft
The draft of container ships and LNG carrier is larger than on passenger ships of similar
length while the waterline entry angles are similar. The results in Fig. 12 for a 273m
125,000m
3
LNG carrier (Fn=0.20) suggest (although, considering the measured values,
somewhat exaggerated) that the increasing draft increases the forward components of the
mean forces. As a consequence the added resistance reduces to some extent.
4.5 Longitudinal weight distribution
The input for seakeeping assessments in terms of
the longitudinal weight distribution may not always
get the attention it deserves. Fig. 13 shows the effect
of a 10% change in the longitudinal radius of inertia
k
yy
around the often adopted value of 25% L
pp
. It
shows that the peak value of the added resistance is
almost proportional to its value.
Considering the above it would be interesting to
re-examine the merits of a voluminous bulb from this
perspective.

5 Accuracy of the prediction
A first aspect of the accuracy of the prediction is convergence (grid-independence) of the
description of the specific physics that are covered by the method. A second aspect is whether
all relevant physical aspects are covered. A last aspect is accuracy of experiments with scale
models.
5.1 Convergence
The convergence of the calculation method was investigated by varying the size of the
RAPID-FATIMA domain and by varying the cell size in this grid. For several ships these
variations yielded a moderate scatter, in the order of 5-10% of the added resistance. In some
cases the scatter was substantially larger. A careful analysis showed that this originated in the
presence of very short diverging waves in the steady flow which caused problems in the
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
500
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5
R
A
W

[
k
N
/
m
^
2
]
Wave Freq. [rad/ s]
RAW Ferry - Effect k
YY
25%
27.5%
22.5%
Fig.13 Effect of longitudinal radius of
inertia on added resistance
(ferry, Fn=0.23)
64
estimate of the vertical pressure gradient on the hull. Because of these problems the present
results build on an estimate that is obtained from the nearest points in the flow. We are
presently investigating ways to obtain a more robust estimate of this quantity.
5.2 Physics of added resistance
Breaking waves
The theory the evaluation of the unsteady flow in RAPID breaks down in the case of
breaking waves. This seems particularly relevant in the diverging flow behind the stem, where
breaking is observed frequently. In practice this problem is suppressed by relative crude grid
adopted.
In the case of flare in the bow area, the local
change in transverse impulse of the water around
the waterline due to the steady flow is magnified by
the downward vertical motion during a downward
pitch motion (v
y
in Fig. 15), resulting in a local non-
linear flow regime as shown in the picture in Fig. 14.
This effect is stronger with decreasing deadrise.
The presently calculated estimates of the relative
wave elevation in the bow area (see Fig. 5) are often more than twice the relative wave
elevation with respect to the undisturbed incident wave. This is higher than observed in
measurements and also higher than the values
that one might expect if the local flow were
locally non-linear. Comparing the local flow
with a wedge entry one might expect a local
pile-up which is typically in the order of
20-40% on top of the undisturbed free-
surface elevation [Payne 1994].
If the reduced relative wave elevation is a true measure of the waterline contribution to
the added resistance, local wave breaking would reduce it substantially. Considering the
relatively high pressure in the spray root this is probably too simplistic.
An interesting observation is that, in the case of a
wedge-entry type non-linear behaviour of the free
surface, the pile-up is proportional to the
immersion. This suggests that the relative wave
elevation (taken to the top of the spray root) remains
fairly linear in character. This, and the more linear
character of the other contributions, may explain why
the measured relative wave elevation remains fairly
linear in character [Blok 1983], why the relation
between the added resistance and increasing wave
amplitude maintains its quadratic character and why
Fig.14 Breaking waves in the bow area

s
0
s
1
z
Spray
Pile-Up
Spray-Root
v
z
v
y
Deadrise
Fig.15 Anticipated changes in calm water drag
Direct contribution of
motions, waves
Effects of increased
vorticity on viscous drag
Effects of mis-tuning of
interactions in the flow
Optimized hull in ideal circumstances
Resistance
Wave height, wind speeds, ship motions
Fig.16 Non-linear flow regime
65
the added resistance in irregular waves can be predicted with fair accuracy on the basis of
the quadratic transfer function derived from regular waves.
Bow flare
On the one hand a limited deadrise in the waterline forces the local flow into a non-linear
mode. On the other hand it leads to a locally high pressure below the spray root. The nett
effect of these effects in terms of added resistance is hard to judge.
Changes in the steady flow resistance
The steady-flow resistance consists of frictional drag and pressure drag components.
These components interact in various ways. First of all the wave making components of the
hull interact mutually (like the carefully orchestrated interaction between a bulbous bow and
the forward shoulders or the stern lift affecting the bulb submergence). Also the frictional
drag shows interaction between various parts of the hull. The aft ward increase in the
thickness of the boundary layer results in a reduced drag of the aft body. The disproportionate
drag penalty of relatively small flow disturbances (like imperfectly aligned bilge keels,
stabilizer recesses and bow-thruster openings) may originate in a partial downstream loss of
this favourable shielding of the aft body.
In addition to the above unilateral interactions there are bilateral interactions between the
wave making and frictional drag; a smooth flow with a lower wave making drag component
also yields a benefit in terms of lower frictional drag.
Considering the fact that the frictional drag of a ship model contributes
disproportionately, the former effects may affect measurements on added resistance.
Drift angles
In general the mean forces are not limited to the longitudinal direction. In oblique waves,
when sailing a fixed track, the transverse wave drift forces and related yaw moments are the
cause of a drift angle (which compensates the
transverse drift forces, see Fig. 17). When sailing
a fixed course the ship will experience a
transverse drifting velocity which is similar to the
above drift angle (as long as the drifting velocity
is limited).
Because both the transverse drift forces and
the lift of the hull from the drift angle (or drift
velocity) are largest in the bow area, the resulting moment acting on the ship is quite small.
Because of this the effect of additional rudder drag will probably be small.
The increase in frictional drag and the induced drag may explain why the results of
experiments in waves from the bow quarter are usually higher than in head seas, a result that
is less pronounced in the calculated results.
5.2 Experiments
Seakeeping tests are typically performed with a free-running model. In this case the
added resistance is obtained by subtracting the calm water thrust from the average propeller
Transverse Drift Force

Reaction Force due to Drift Angle

Drift Angle
Fwd Speed
v

Fig.17 Drift angle in oblique and transverse

waves
66
thrust in waves. The results are corrected with the calm water estimate of the thrust deduction.
An important source of noise in the above procedure is lack of stationarity in speed
due to a mismatch between the model velocity at the moment of its release and the eventual
mean velocity and a mismatch between the course of the model and the eventual equilibrium
(in particular in quartering and beam seas) over the limited run length. In irregular waves the
low frequency character of speed variations adds to this problem.
In some cases towing the model is considered. This procedure does not solve all
problems. It affects the natural behaviour of the model (surge-pitch coupling) and is (perhaps)
only appropriate in head seas; fixing the model in sway and yaw greatly affects the relative
wave elevation in waves from oblique and beam directions.
5.3 Accuracy of the prediction
Fig. 18 indicates the correlation between the calculated and measured non-dimensional
(with .g.
a
2
.V
1/3
) peak value of the quadratic transfer function of the added resistance in head
waves.
The peak value was established with several repeat calculations in the narrow peak area.
Because most of the test data cover only a few frequencies over a broad range, the established
peak value is relatively uncertain. If the peak is missed, it is likely to be somewhat too low.
0.0
5.0
10.0
15.0
20.0
25.0
30.0
4 6 8 10 12
T
A
W
/
H
s
2
Tp[s]
Effect of Flare on Added Thrust
Ferry in Head Seas
Typical
Modest
Extreme

0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5
P
r
e
d
i
c
t
e
d
Measured
Peak Value Added Resistance
Modern Container
Cruise ship
Ferry
Frigate
MPship
Cruise Liner
Wigley IV
Modern Ferry
Older Container
Older Container
unity
LNGCarrier

Fig.18 Effect of bow flare on measured added Fig.19 Correlation of measured and calculated
resistance of a ferry in irregular peak value of the transfer function of
head seas the added resistance
The results in Fig. 19 indicate that, despite the above problem, on average the calculated
results are similar to the measured values. However, the scatter in the results is very
substantial. We speculate that in the cases where the
linear prediction is too high, this is caused because
effects of wave breaking are not accounted for. Once
broken, the effect of the flare angle may not be as large
as sometimes assumed. This may explain the limited
effect of excessive flare as observed in in-house
experiments for a ferry (see Fig. 18) and by, for instance,
Kuroda [2010].
For ships with a deeper draft the calculated values
seem too low.
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
P
r
e
d
i
c
t
e
d
Measured
HFTail Added Resistance
L.Container
Cruise ship
Ferry
Frigate
MPship
Cruise Liner
Wigley IV
Modern Ferry
Older Container
Older Container
unity
LNGCarrier
Fig.20 Correlation of measured and
calculated high frequency tail
of the added resistance
67
The scatter in the correlation resides in the limited accuracy of the estimate of the peak
value (insufficient frequency resolution), the relatively large effect of the vertical pressure
gradient in some of the results, non-quadratic effects due to wave breaking and the limited
accuracy of common test procedures.
A plot (Fig. 20) for the height of the high frequency tail shows comparable result. The
reduced accuracy of the measurements on the low values of the added resistance in the high
frequency tail might explain some of the scatter.

6 Conclusions
6.1 Ship design
The present prediction method for the added resistance combines a detailed assessment
of the steady flow with a Rankine source method to describe the unsteady wave pattern.
Considering the predicted added resistance for a broad range of ships it is clear that the
displacement, the water-line entry angle and speed are important parameters in the added
resistance. A locally low vertical pressure gradient, which magnifies the relative wave
elevation, also magnifies the added resistance.
6.2 Validation of prediction methods for added resistance
It seems that the prediction of a second-order quantity like added resistance requires
second-order coverage of the details of the flow and second order accuracy of experiments.
This means that details of description of the steady and unsteady flow will inevitably always
play a relatively large role in calculated results.
Regarding the validation, the scatter in the correlation of calculated and measured results
and the speculative nature of the explanation is simply unsatisfactory. It seems highly
desirable to obtain insight into the validity at component level. In particular the magnitude of
the waterline component, with uncertain effects of wave breaking and bow flare, should be
checked in detail. The change in the calm water resistance may also be worth checking.
Because of the details involved the validation should be done for specific ship types.
6.3 Future developments
The present assessment puts emphasis on relatively shallow ships. The deviating
results for ships with a deeper draft (like container ships, LNG carriers and bulk carriers)
suggest the need for an additional validation effort for this class of ships.
An assessment of the need to describe the very short diverging waves affecting the
vertical pressure gradient is an important next step. If relevant, a robust way must be found to
deal with it in the results.
If wave breaking is a relatively local and well defined effect it may be possible to
account for it in the prediction of added resistance.

References
[1] Boese, P. Eine einfache Methode zur Berechnung der Widerstandserhhung eines Schiffes im
Seegang, Technische Universitat Hamburg-Harburg, Februar 1970
68
[2] Blok, J.J. and Huisman, J., Relative motions and swell-up for a frigate bow, RINA Proceedings, 1983
[3] Blok, J.J., the resistance increase of a ship in waves, PhD Thesis, Delft University of Technology,
1993
[4] Bunnik, T.H.J., Seakeeping calculations for ships, taking into account the non-linear steady waves,
PHD Thesis Technical University Delft, 1999
[5] Journe, J.M.J., Experiments and calculations on 4 Wigley hull forms in head waves, Report 0909
Delft University of Technology, 2009
[6] Larsson L. And Raven, H., Ship resistance and flow, SNAME PNA 2010
[7] Nakos, D.E., Ship wave patterns and motions by a three dimensional Rankine panel method, PhD
Thesis, MIT, 1990
[8] Payne, P.R., Recent developments in added mass planning theory, Ocean Engng, Vol 21, No.3,
pp.257-309, 1994
[9] Pinkster, J.A., Low frequency second order wave exciting forces on floating structures, PHD Thesis
Technical University Delft, 1980
[10] Raven, H.C., A solution method for the nonlinear ship wave resistance problem, PhD Thesis, Delft
Univ. of Technology, 1994
69