REFtDRT 19

?OL1KflAL sENrATION AIW DL'INC

OF SRIES 60 mILL FO1MS

By S. Gerritsm, ., . .Kerwin, and 3. N, Newman3

Hay 1962

t.1

1.. Thchnologjcaj University, Deift

Nassachusett Institute of Technology, Cambridge, Mass.
flavid Ta7lor Hodel Basin, W4shiugton, D.C.
 ABSTRACT

Polynomial representations and damping coefficients for

the Series. 60 Block .60, .70, and .80 hull forms are presented.

Several polynomials are given, ranging from 48 to 140 terms and

providing varying degrees of accuracy as analytic representa-

tions of the, hull forms, Damping coefficients based upon these

polynomials are presented, for various frequencies and Froude

numbers, and compared with experimeital data, The agreement

between experimental and theoretical coefficients is generally

good.
 INTRODUCTION
i

in the past few years, due to the establishment of modern digital

computers, it has been possible in the field of theoretical naval archi-

tecture to study problems which were previously impractical in view of

their cOmplexity. in particular, refined hydrodynamical theories can.

now be applied to fairly realistic ship hulls. As two inter-related

examples.of such problems, this paper presents several polynomial ap-

proximat ions to the Series 60 family of hull forms, together with -corn-

putations.of the damping coefficients of the Series 60 hulls, based

upon the polynomials, and an experimental comparison of these damping

coefficients.

The importance of polynomial hulls to facilitate hydrodynamic research

on ships has long been realized, and a practical method for fitting a

polynomial to a given hull form has been developed by Kerwin [1]. This

method consists of approximating the given hull shape by a two'-dimensio-

nal polynomial wfth coefficients which are determined by a least-squares

technique. For details of this technique and further examples of actual

ships with their polynomial approximation, we refer to (11. In the pre-

sent paper practical polynomials of -various degrees of, accuracy are given

for the analytical representation of the three Series .60 hulls, with

block coefficients .60, .70, and .80, which were developed by Thdd (2],

and upon which detailed experiments of seakeeping characteristics have

been made by Gerritsma (3].,

Although a comprehensive theory of ship motLons is still lacking even

for regular head wa?v-es, one important aspect of this problem, the damping

coefficients in the equations of mOtion, has received extensive attention,

 and a 'three-dimensional theory including the effects o forward speed has

been given by Newman [4] based upon the Michell or "thin_sip" approxima-

tion. We present here computations of the damping coefficients from this

theory, utilizing the above obtaied polynomials. The resulting comparison

with Gerritsma'a experiments [31 provides an opportunity to evaluate the

complete research cycle of polynomial representation, damping theory, and

experiments.

0'

2
 TH POLYNOMIAL HULL FORMS

Although a fairly detailed description of the procedure used to obtain

polynomial approximations appears in [11, it is possibly worthwhile to sum-

marie some of the more important features of the method..

A general expression for a polynomial hull surface is

h(x,z) = B/2 E EU m xi
am x z
(1)
n

where x and z are non-dimensional coordinates in the longitudiflal and

vertical directions, h is the half-breadth of the hull at a point (x,z)

and B is the maximum beam. This notation is illustrated in Fig. 1.

It is fair.y evident that most hull shapes are not easily ap-

proximated by. a single polynomial of the form given in equatio&I1.. This

is particularly true for single-screw merchant ship forms such as Series

.60 where extremely complex curvatures are present and where there are

relatively abrupt transitions from flat to curved regions on the hull.

Consequently if the principal objective is to obtain the most .ac*irate

representation of the hull, it is better not to attempt to find an ex-

pression such as. (1),. .but to divide the hull up into a number of regions

which can be fitted more easily. However, the objective in the present

case is to compute the damping coefficients of these hull forms, so that

the -visual quality of the fit is important only to the extent that the

accuracy of the hydrodynamic coefficients is affected. Since a single

polynomial expression is much more suitable for hydrodynamic calculations.,

it is obviously .
better to express the hull shape in this way provided

3
 that sufficient accuracy in the final result can be obtained. It can be

concluded from the results given in the next section that sufficient ac-

curacy can be obtained with the hull form expressed as a single polynomial.

One of the principal difficulties in obtaining a good polync*nl.al fit

to a merchant ship hull form is the fact that the flat bottom requires the

hull functidn h(xz) to have an infinite slope when z = 1. While a poly-

nomial can never have an infinite ølope, a close approximation can be ob-

tamed by including extremely high powers of z such as In order to

do this without incitiding all of the lower p0wrs of , it is convenient

to define a special daae 'of (1.)

N C1-i -1 C3-1
h(x,z) = B jm
{ '
az" + a, nl+Di+D2
n=l n=C1 n=C

+
'Z amn (2)

in which up to three arbitrary blocks Of powers of z haye been deleted.. The

eight integers N, N, C1 and D may then be elected arbitrarily to define

polynomials in which a wide range of possible powers of zcan be included

witiot an unreasonable increase in the total number of terms. Once these
constants, have .been the coefficients amp can be determined for
selected,

any arbitrary hull form by a modified least-squares technique described in

(I].
S

4
 The results of six different polynomial approximations to the Series

60 hull forms with block coefficients of .60, .70, and .80 are shown in

Pigs. 2, 3, and 4. The eight parameters characterizing each of these

potynornials are given in Table 1, ad the coefficients a for three of

the polynomials are tabulated in the Appendix. The figures were re-

produced directly from .a cathode ray tube recordar connected to the IBM

709 computer which was used to perform the computations. In these figures

the solid 'lines are ,a plot of the polynomial and the spots are the input

data. The polynomial. is plotted only up to the waterline (z = 0) while

'the input 'data is given for a èhort distance above the waterline mi order

toprovide sufficient constraint to the slope of the polynomial at z = 0.

It may be of some interest 'to note tha.t there are a few incorrect data

points evident in rig. .4 which are completely "smoothed out" by he

polynomial.

While 'there are a large number of possible combinations of the con-

stants M, N, C and D1 for any given total number of terms., it is fortunate

tba.t the choice is not very critical. Por the Series 60 fOrms, it appears

that it is essential to include one high power of z such a dud sb

least. one intermediate 'pomer such as or z°. It also seems. to be best

to have 'the 'ratio M/N somewhere around 1.4. It appears that the choice of

cone tants for the 48, 70 and 96 term polynomials given here is fairly close

to the optimum.

tt can be observed from Figures 4 - 6 that the 140 term polynomials

are nOt 58 good .a the 96 term polynomials due to oscillations in the stern
S

sections. These oscillations are present whenever the number of data points

is not sufficient. As the number of terms in the polynomial is increased,

the 'minimum number 'of dat pints naturafly ncreasee. In 'these example

.5
offsets were giyen at 21 stations and 51 waterlines, which seemed to be

sufficient for 96 terms but not for 140 terms. ]n a previous cdmputa-

tion using half as many waterlines, the oscillations were mu1a worse,

and were present in both the 96 and 140 term polynomials.

TIlE PITCH AND }tEAVg DAJPING C0EFFICIEN!I'

The polynomials presented in the preceding section have been used

for thecmnputation of the Series 60 pitch and heave damping coefficients,

based upon the theory of iewman [4]. This theory Consists essentially of

replacing the ship hull by a distribution of translating, pulsating sources

and dip1es which satisfy the 1inearied free surface condition; the

damping ny then be obtained either by integrating the energy radiation at

itlfinity,.or by integrating the pressure over the hull surface. Computa-

tiOns were presented in. [4] for the Weinbium polynomial model and compared

with Golovat&s experiments The qualitative dependence on forward speed

was similar between the theory and experiments, but the theoretical coef-

ftcients were substantially higher than the experimental results.

Figures 5 6, and 7 show the computed Series 60 pitch and heave

damping coefficients for the three block coefficient8 .60., .70, and .80,

as funetins.of the non.dimensional frequency parameter..,/L/g and the

Froude number. AlsO showa in the same figure are the experimental re-

sults .of Gertitsixza [31. The agreement between these theoretical and ex-
b4 ho&4 L.t. i*Iitrpv-FiJ 'ijtt caIeoP
perimeutal results is n oodin view Of the earlier experience

in comparing the sane theory with other experiments [41. As in [4] we note

6
that the damping coefficients are infiiite at '1 = .Wc/g = . This mathe-

matical singularity, is also suggested by the experiments except in the

case of the .60 block coefficient,

The theory appears to exaggerate the dependence on forward speed by

comparison with the experinnts }Ioweyer it should be noted that the ex-

perimental results cover a relatively narrow speed range, from '.15 to .30

Froucte numbers. Considerably more speed dependence was foufld by GOlOvato

with different model [4], The effects of very high speed are shown in

Figure 6 for the .70 block coefficient, including Froude numbers'up to 1.0.

We note in particular that the pitch damping becomes negative for high

speeds at intermediate frequencies, in much the same manner as wds noted in

the damping of a submerged ellipsoid [5]. At very low frequencies, with

non-zero Froude numbers, the damping curves become quite erratic, while at

high frequencies the results are essentially independent of forward speed.

The negative pitch damping implies, if physically realistic, that at

high speeds floating (and submerged) bodies will be unstable in pitch, unless

the positive damping introduced by 'ri8cosity can prevent this. The physical

sOüre of negative damping Is briefly, discussed in [5].

The calculat:ions shown are based upon the 70 term polynomials (Figures

2, 3, and 4). In order to determine the influence on the .damptn, :ealcula -

Lions of modifying the polynomial accuracy, calculations were also made

with polynomials of 48, 56, 96, nd 140 terms. Typical results.are shown in

b1e 2. The maximum variation between the results with different.po1ynomtls

is seen to be only a few percent. Thus we may conclude that for practical.

7
purposes even the 48 term polynomial is sufficient for damping computations,

and presumably also for many other hydiodynamical computatiOns sxch as the

wave resistance. This is probably a consequence of the smoothing operation

of pressure integration er the hull surface since, as was shocm above, the

48 and 56 term polynomials do not accurately.describe the hull Shape in the

Stern.

CONCLUSIONS

Several polynomial representatiøns of Series 60 hill forms have been

given,, with yaryin.g degrees 'of accuracy. It has been Shown that the

simplest polynomial, with 48 terms., is sufficiently accurate or certain

hydrodynainical applications, but that 70 to 96 terms are greatly superior for

a accurate "visusl" fit to the entire hull surface

The damping coefficients obtained from thase polynomials show fairly

good -agreement with experimental results, suggesting that the thin-ship

theory of ship motions is potentially a valuable analytic approach to the

theory of seaworthiness The negative 'pitch damping at high roude numbers

indicates that experimental investigations of the motions and stability of

very high-speed Vessels re of vital importance, and should not await the

future 'develOpmeOt of these essels

8
 £CKOWGNZNT

Mr. M.R. Dabcovich Of the Department of Naval Architecture and

Marine Engineering at LIT. converted the polynomial program for use

with IBM 709/7090 cOmputers and also ran many of the results showi

here The authors wish to express their thark to him for his eforts

in what turned out to be very time consuming task.

The computations presented here were carried out on the IBM 704,

7O9 Sand 7090 digital computers at the LI.T,. Computation Center, LI,T,

Cooperative Computer Laboratory, aid the Dayid Taylor Model Basin Applied

Mathematics Laboratory.

The part of the work done at LI. was performed under Contracts NOnr

1841 (64) and Nonr 1841 (67) as part of the Bureau of Ships undamental

Hydromechardes Research Program, Project :S-R009-0l-0l, administered by

the David Taylor Model Basin.

9
 IEURENCS

j, "Po1yi,omial Surface Representation of Arbitrary Ship Forms,"

by .T. E... I(erwin, Journal of Ship Research, Volume 4, No. 1, 1960, pp

12-21.

"3p lurthsr xperiments Ott Single cr 'Merchant Ship Forms-

Series Sixty," byF. L Todd, Transactions, .SNA, Volume 61, 1953, pp.

516-574.

"Ship Motions In Longitudinal Wayes," by S. .Gerritsma, Inter-

pat:iona.l Shipbuilding Progreès, Volume 7, No. 66, 1960, pp. 49-7l.

"The flpiiig and Wave Resistance of a Pitching and Ileasing Ship,"

by S. N. Newman, Journal of Ship Research., Vol. 3, No. 1, Stifle 1959, pp.

1-19.

"The Dampirtg of ap Oscillating Nilipsoid Near A Free Surface,"

by S. N. Newman, Journal of Ship Research, VoL 5, No, 3, December 1961,

pp. 44-58.

T4e Farce: .,d /'foe,,tt o, f4eavii; S'h;,

f j/ova.'o ZflurJ .j' gtse1tfr /N n11..:i /9c7

/9.2

- 10
 ThBLE 1

POLYNOMIAL PA1S FOR NUMERICAL W1PIS

Total number Of, terms 48 56 70 84 96 140

Number of terms in x M 8 8 10 12 12 14

Ntunbr of terms in N 6 7 7 '7 8 10

First .gap position C 0 0 0 0 0 8

2nd gap position 5 6 6 6 7 9

3rd gap position C 6 7 7 7 8 10

First. gap value D 0 0 0 0 0 13

2nd gap value D 16 15 15 15 24 19

3rd gap value D 179 179 179 179 169 159

TNPtJT DATA AR NGMN IN ALL CASES

21 stations x = -L00 (0.10)1.00

51 waterlines z -0.250 (0.025) 1.000

11
 T&BLE 2

COMPARISON. OF DAMPING COEFFICIENTS. FOR C1, . ..70 4D...VARI0US. POLYNOMIALS

PrtCH HEAE

= .2.0. w7.=.4o = 20
NO. of
Terms Fr=0 Fr= 25 Pr=O Fr= 25 Fr=0 Fr= 25 Fr=0 Fr= 25
.48 .0915 .1282 .1245 .0900 .. 3.809 3.179 .2.204 .2.080
.56. .0935 .1321 .1283 .0937 3.848. 3.220 2.242 2.123
70 .0904 .1240 .1181. . .0858 3.7453.403 2.030 :1.929
84 .. O905 .1250 .1182 .0875 3..4'5 .3.166 2.031... 1.933
96 .0906 .1248 : .1183 p.0873 3.745 3.142 . 2030 1.932
140 . .0905 .1254 .1I85 .0881 .3.741 3163 . 2.028 1.931

12
Fig,. I. Nondi.mensi'onal co-ordinate system
 48 TERMS 56 TERMS

70 TERMS 84 TERMS

96 TERMS 140 TERMS

INPUT DATA POLYNOMIAL
FIG. 2 POLYNOMIAL APPROXIMATIONS TO THE SERIES
60-05 =60 HULL FORM
 48ITERMS 56 TERMS

70 TERMS 84 TERMS

96 TERMS 140 TERMS

INPUT DATA POLYNOMIAL

FIG. 3 POLYNOMIAL APPROXIMATIONS TO THE SERIES 60-CB .7O HULL FORM

 48 TERMS 56 TERMS

70 TERMS 84 TERMS

96 TERMS 140 TERMS

IN PUT DATA POLYNOMIAL

FIG. 4 POLYNOMIAL APPROXIMATIONS TO THE SERIES 60- CB .80 HULL FORM

 KEY TO EXPERIMENTAL POINTS
FOR VARIOUS FROUDE NUMBERS
0:0.15
F: 0
0.25
0.3
0.3

KEY TO EXPERIMENTAL POINTS

FOR VARIOUS FROUDE NUMBERS
0.25 0: 0.15
3
p:O.25
0.3
0.2 F:O

PITCH Ch 0.60
2 c.j
0.15

0.1

0.5

2 3 5 6 5

FIGURE 5 - DAMPING COEFFICIENTS FOR 0.60 BLOCK COEFFICIENT

5_
KEY TO EXPERIMENTAL POINTS
FOR VARIOUS FROUDE NUMBERS
0:0.15
A :0.2
0.25 KEY TO EXPERIMENTAL POINTS
4
xEQ.3 FOR VARIOUS FROUDE NUMBERS
0 = 0.15
A:0.2
b:O.25
) 0.3

3
HEAVE Cb :0.70

N
-J
2

FIGURE 6 - OAMPNG COEFFICIENTS FOR 0.10 BLOCX COEFFICIENT

 KEY TO EXPERIMENTAL POINTS
FOR VARIOUS FROUDE NUMBERS
0:0.15
03 0.2
0.5" D0.25
.

0.3 0.2
O.i5
03 KEY TO EXPERIMENTAL POINTS
HEAVE Cb;O.BO FOR VARIOUS FROUDE NUMBERS
0.25- 0= O.15
F: 0 = 0.2
o: 0.25
0.5 X: 0.3
0.2

PITCH Cb 0.80

0.l5

0.1

0.05
0
x
I ID
6 5 6
L

FIGURE 7 - DAMPING COEFFICITS FOR 0.80 310CK COEFFICIENT

 T/BLE A.i P0LYiOAL 00] ]C11NTS

)48 terms

1 . .z z
2 3 .20
.z z
2001

1 1.00119 0.007611. 0.27152 -0.39583 -0.15139 -0.73.310

x 0.00079 -0.09079 -0.25980 0.358011. -0.10572 0.09750
-0.38312 -0.37393. -2.4663o. 0.75357 0.20608 2.26362
3 1.11.7238 0.62350 6.710511. -6.6111.05 0.31490 0.43711.3
x1I -1.56638 .8773 6.8o8i -0.48576 -0.60236. -2.27828.
x5 2.62211.7 1.11.9665 -16.37150 13.73882 0.07986 -1,56656
0.98811.3 .1.94102 -3.93306 -0.32349 .0.595.32 043149
-1.18908. 1. 731111.7 9.28078 -7.07054 -0.33616 .1.04978
 TABE1E A.2 P0LIN01AL C0EPFICiNTS a
CB = 0.60 70 termE

2 20 ' 200
z z z

1 1.00380 -0.00691 -0.06580 0.52208 -0.61459 -0.08320 -0.75537

0.00029 -0.03750 -0.08134 -o.i6o4i 0.26.530 -0.01757 0.03122

.O.31?62 -0.23778 1.35346 - .31900 3.07211.1 0.17163 2.27186

-1.39521 -0.29552 0.75880 11.11.9658 -1]... 68415 0.06858 1. 05097

-1.96611.0. -2.52054 -11.81909 32.13318 -12.79666 -o.84888 -2.18137

2.24992 5.15154 io,o76 .47 08386 53.28766 -0.16262. -3.49856

1.71801 2.8511.7 23.386311. -'i.3.42'rrr 13. ?2127 2.00996 0.211.107

-0.715142 6.67850 -25.19531 98.19963 .68 .93 511.5 -p0.57225 3.89775

-0.40615 -0.38011.7 -12.133611. 16.41796 .2.68157 -1.23376 0.11.1806

-0.17596 2.15293 13.711.015'. -11.1.78005 26.87033 0.66699

 TABLE A. 3 POL0AL C0ETIwJaS a
0D 0.60 96 terms

1 z
2 3.
z.
-4
z z5
200

1.O0339 O.oi8 -0.03350 -0.21250 0.96116 -0.93120 -0.03651 -9.75903

x o.004o6 -0.06262 -0.09421 1.06895 .,2.32078 1.38150 -0.05893 0.08204
2
-0.32690 -0.13366 0.86728 7.21636 -25.21228 15.52977 .0.38604 2.44.556

-1.47891 0.758O 1.07995 -16.05129 46.30231 -31.10522 0.96476 0. 81218

-1.81642 -3.98459 -8.77268 -67.06824 195.59237 -113 44058 2.82639 -3.33680

2.75002 .
1.81791 8.31171 95.88598 -289.94523 183.85718 -5.23907 2.56396
1.20829 8.51596 17.16052 209.96434 -.523.13014 289.86147 -6.29178 2.71240
-1.89679 0.77714 -22.39593 -279.00048. .728.52983 J4.26 .39365 10.50876 -10.13427
0.28430 .85o79 8.16439 -234.. 5783 533.05326 -285.96935 5,24549 -1.34139
1.00263 -4.42681 .13.38316 318.07514 -738. 4088k 406.66397 -8.53613 12.25187
-0.31433 4.11469 -O.40995 84.77609 -183.25503 96.20157 -1.41209 0.29916
XII -0.41926 1.94884 -0.93173 -120.39790 ?57.83540 -135.65668 2.41516 -4.79551
 TAE L11 POLYNO COiCiJLriS a
O,70 48terins

2 20 200
1 z z.

1 0.98778 000683 0.15239 -0.15500 -0.15267 -0.82563

x o.6o o.o3i79 -0.56969 0.611.967 0.02121 .-c:.i6ioi

x2 0.1'.310'.i 0.118525 -1.92859 -0.31619 -o.c586 1.35069

-0.20693 -o689 6.71933 -5.45107 -0.e8261 0.110911.

-2.7816 -3.9992 5.597]A 1.21140 _0.320011.. 0.29399

x5 0.07059 4 30391'. -1k'. 811295 9 10695 1 18797 0 17264

3.3911.07 -3)12728 -1.03337 0.54333 -0.84104

X7 0.10685 -3.56591 8.1'.5694 :J1..12816 -0.75506 -0.U1ioi

 TABLE .A05 P0L0AL c0ETICNTS
0.70 70 texs

'1 z
.

z z.3 z z
.20 z
200

1 0.99762 0.011487 -0.01i.625 0.3379). -0.33311.0 _0.11311.11. -0.82757

x -0.01928 -0.014511. 0.03391 .
-0.35802 . 0.11.3294 0.03340 -0.11835
0.20100 O.L81 1.26810 .2.45589 O.32686 o.36i65:
H x3 o.11Ji82 -o.o114r9 i.94576 9.277b2 -66o345 o,6j36i -0.51152
X -1.60888 -2.711693 -9.35507 4.96689 7.67277 ..3.21l.911.7 3.3221-i

x5 -2.26447 1.17388 13.924311. -30.44687 12.15857 356555 1.88897

6
-047131 .0.92717 i7.8ob6o 6.73350 -23.76374 759 -6.38683
3.12984 1.92009 21l..13.9852 23.24867 4.81744 _7.20811.7 .4.40795
0.88614 2.47209 -9.20258 -10.35328 .17.16653 4.03673 3.06913
-1.29088 -2.97083 12.19425 -1.24941 -11.06455 4.23463 0.14591
 TABLE A.6 P0LO)AL CO iC.usrriS a
Inn

CB=O.TO 96term

z z
2. z-3 11_

1 0.99925 0.0121].. -0,07915 -0.27111.11. 1.22970 1.O1677 -o.b4ili.4 -0.83225

x -0.00388 0.06769 -0.20927 1.O52k1 2.86917 -.1.628811. 0.1017]. -0.14413
0.11120 0.L5582 1.08215 3.52818 -13.29296 7.9i.Q83 -.220]. 0.69488
O.1C2Q9 -1.3189 2.84857 i4..86726 -35.81971 20.70053 -0.82463 -0.56174

-0.83146 ..3.26492 -6.718(2 ..24.60516 65.82087 -35.23973 -0.80072 5.639112

-0.220112 8.89193 -14.18847 .!65.43905 i89.6o89 -124.911221 4.36663 2.52470

.2.77827 5.84552 7.78356 52.43337 -91.77592 38.74701 4.57839 -14.83454

xl -1.81676. -18.7287? 146.61076 142.609411. -508.188k7 353.72791 .

-12.14313 -2.07477

3.64067 .8.05329 5.25234 -19.87137 -14.88192 25.611.933 -6.26797 14.53338

3.88478 21.48633 -64.92600 -176.65012 650.52440 -448.17633 14.49375 -0.63384

-1.13728 5.21319 -6.86637 -.12.083911. 53.59393 -36.26641 2.74359 -5.19723

x11 -1.911897 -10.34313 30.17866 86.17354 -299.35741 200.39751 -5.98809 0.887(2

 TAE A.7 P0LYIIOMIAL .00ETiC]INTS a__

CB O.8o 48 terms

20 200
z

I 0.99511.9 .0.03088 0.011.076 0.006.511. -0.12898 -0.88289

z -o.022i 0.11279. -0.28977 0.10219 0.03995 Ô.05903

x2 o..iu6 1.0311.18 -0.32987 -1. 33123 0 07220

.0.12285 -1.60577 2.11.0825. 1 £2706 -0.51006 -2.. (11206

-0.28513, -1i..68623 -0.096k5 11.. 23302 -1.75422 59020

,Q59l 39 6.02oo9 -3.9k375 -.112858 1. 358111 .3 39]

b828 3.11.4038 1.01311.9 -3. 337311 1.118925 -1.79735
xT -o.7o516 _11..,38502 1.11.5189 5.96885 -0.92653 -1.110336
 TA&E A.8 L0AL C.uthrxs amn
CB = 0.80 70 terms

2 3 4 20 200
1 z z z z z z

1. 1.00115 0.00553 -0.00523 -0.03549 0.03415 -0.11242 -0.88767

0.02598 _O.079911. -0.09008 0.38'i-18 -0.40399 0.97888 0.08499
2
-003999 -0.48987 -0.26992 6.31288 -6.09833 0.58824 -0.00323
-0.64856 1.47289 1.49067 -10.08535 11.79959 -1.88888 -2.14034
0.43297 3.800811. 2.23265 -46.85543 40.81862 -3.87310. 3.iiiii
3.65938 -6.53419 -5.74234 58.21311.8 -61.58751 9.05186 2.938ô9
-1.85356 -11.42216 -7.66868 10048151 -83.20669 7.38591 -.4.01798
-5.13990 14.21261 11.29255 -114.49785 108.78478 -15.07299 0.42369
0.47065 7.91311 6.46734 -61.29307 48.97929 -4.00562 1.46921
x9 2.09584 -8.951422 -7.4110O 66.65480 -58.91880 7.83997 -1.30831
 TALE A. 9 P0LYN0)AL C0J1ICJ..NT8

Cb = 0.80 96 tern's

-
1 z
2 -3
z
4.
-z 5 -z 30 z
200

1. 0.99930 0.00203 -0.03356 -0.09558 0.46785 -0.38286 -0.08136 -0.87582

0.02048 0.04.939 0.0011.911. 0.570311. 1.03328 -O.6121i.1 -o.oi4i4 0.08883
0.06579 o.563?7 -0.17834. .5.95334 14.17331 -9406t 1.0114.16 -0.5719$
-0.52592 _1.14.3005 -0.61816 12.1211.19 -22.18625 14.70202 0.15956 -2.22533
0.11.7029 -5.87423 2.20697 70.08940 -163,37639 97.63599 -9.05112 8.83966
x 2.91425 11.73400 6.24.786 -89.42125 171.70397 -110.51909 -2.06798 3.11.0657

0.80907 18.311.911.9 -9.15365 _266.11.4460 77.65bb5 .3?6.2?4911. 25.142237 -20.4.0739

-3.31551 -32.96618 -14.88312 294.611142 -600.62596 350.1i.0423 6.11.11.379 0.33683

2.6937i ..28a6'r538 9.85905 396.91272 -7911.50901 426.00732 -28.17851 21.27671
0.16627 11.3.80342 16.54893 -1420.751422 833.82379 -462.84.530 -8.15208 -2.59718
x1° 1.30177 15.42911.7 -1.93469 ..195..33502 365.48222 -187.53618 10.83115 -823825
0.73310 ..21.06408 -.7678o 204.49269 -389.63491 208.60542 3.6584.14. 0.97962
 R4ILlCVflc) - cJP

POLYNOMIAL REPRESENTATION AND

DAMPING OF SERIES 60 HULL FORMS.

by

J. GERRITSMA, J. E. KERWIN, J. N. NEWMAN

Reprinted from
INTERNATIONAL SHIPBUILDING PROGRESS
SHIPBUILDING AND MARINE ENGINEERING MONTHLY
ROTFERDAM
Volume 9 - No. 95 - July 1962
 3

POLYNOMIAL REPRESENTATION AND DAMPING

OF SERIES 60 HULL FORMS
by
J. GERRITSMA*), J. E. KERWIN**) and J. N. NEWMAN**)

Abstract
Polynomial representations and damping coefficients for the Series 60 Block .60,. .70 and .80 hull forms are pre-
sented. Several polynomials are given, ranging from 4.8 to 140 terms and providing varying degrees of accuracy as
analytic representations of the hull forms. Damping coefficients based upon these polynomials are presented, for
various frequencies and Froude numbers, and comparedwith.experimentaLdata..Jheagreement between experimental
and theoretical coefficients is generally good.

introduction The resulting comparison with Gerritsma's experi-

in the past few years; due to the establishment
of modern digital computers, it has been possible
in the field of theoretical naval architecfure to
study problems which were previously impractical
in view of their complexity. in particular, refined
hydrodynamical theories can now Ibeapplied to fairly
realistic ship hulls. As two inter-related examples
of such problems, this paper presents several poly-
nomial approximations to the Series 60 family of
hull forms, together with computations of the damp-
ing coefficients of the Series 60 hulls, based upon the
ments [3] provides an opportunity to evaluate the
complete research cycle of polynomial representa-
tion, damping theory, and experiments.
The polynomial hull forms
Although a fairly detailed description of the
procedure used to obtain polynomial approxima-
tions appears in [1], it is possibly worthwhile to
summarize some of the more important features of
the method. -
.

polynomials, and an experimental comparison of A general expression for a polynominal hull

these damping coefficients. surface is
The importance of polynomial hulls to facilitate h (x, z) = B/2 E L' a5515 xm z (1)
hydrodynamic research on ships has long been real- m n
ized, and a practical method for fitting a poly-
nomial to .a given hull form. has been developed where x and z are non-dimensional coordinates in
by Kerwin [1]. This method consists of approxi- the longitudinal and vertical directions, h is the
mating the given hull shape by a two-dimensional half-breadth of the hull at a point (x, z) and B is
polynomial with coefficients which are determined the maximum beam. This notation is illustrated in
Fig. 1.
by a least-squares technique. For details of this tech-
nique and further examples of. actual ships with It is fairly evident that most hull shapes are not
their polynomial approximation, we refer to [1]. easily approximated by a single polynomial of the
In the present paper practical polynomials of form given in equation 1. This is particularly true for
variOus degrees of accuracy are given for the analy- single-screw merchant ship forms such as Series 60
tical representation of the three Series 60 hulls,. where extremely complex curvatures are present and
with block coefficients .60, 70, and .80, which were where there are relatively abrupt transitions from
developed b.y Todd [2], and upon which detailed
experiments of seakeeping characteristics have been
made by Gerritsma [3].
Although a comprehensive theory of ship motions
is still lacking even for regular head waves, one
important aspect of this problem, the damping
coefficients in the equations of motion, has received
extensive attention, and a three dimensional theory
including the effects of forward speed has been
given by Newman. [4] based upon the Michell or
"thin-ship" approximation. We present here com-
putations of the damping coefficients from .this
theory, utilizing the above obtained polynomials.
*) Technological University, Deift.
* *) Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, Mass.
***) David Taylor Model Basin, washington, D.C. Fig. 1. Nondime,,sjo,,al co-orsIi,,aI system

Reprinted from mt. Shipbuilding Progress - Vol. 9, No. 95 - July 1962

4

flat to curved regions on the hull. Consequently if

the principal objective is to obtain the most accurate
representation of the hull, it is better not to attempt
to find an expression such as (1), but to divide the
48 TERMS §6 TERMS
hull up into a number of regions which can be fitted
more easily. However, the objective in the present
case is to compute the damping coefficients of these
hull forms, so that the visual quality of the fit is
important only to the extent that the accuracy of
the hydrodynamic coefficients is affected. Since a 70 TERMS 84 TERMS
single polynomial expression is much more suitable
for hydrodynamic calculations, it is obviously better
to express the hull shape in this way provided that
sufficient accuracy in the final result can be obtain-
ed. It can be concluded from the results given in the
next section that sufficient accuracy can be obtained 96 TERMS 40 TERMS

with the hull form expressed as a single polynomial. INPUT DATA POLYNOMIAL

One of the principal difficulties in obtaining a Fig. 2. Polynomial approximalions lo the series
good polynomial fit to a merchant ship hull form 60__C 0.60 hull for,,,
is the fact that the flat bottom requires the hull
function h (x, z) to have an infinite slope when
z = 1. While a polynominal can never have an
infinite slope, a close approximation can be obtained
by including extremely high powers of z such as zCOO.
In order to do this without including all of the lower 48 TERMS 56 TERMS

powers of z, it is convenient to define a special case

of (1)
BM C1i
h (x, z) = - x"1 { a,,z°' +
2 m=l
C)!
,i 70 TERMS 84 TERMS
c2T
-- a,,,,, Zn 1+/)1 _j_. a,,,,, z° 1+D1+D2 .4.
n=C2
N
+ a,,,,, z_l+D1+l)2+l)3} (2)
n = C3
96 TERMS 140 TERMS
in which up to three arbitrary blocks of powers of INPUT DATA POLYNOMIAL
z have been deleted. The eight integers M, N, Ci and
D may then be selected arbitrarily to define poly- Fig. 3. Poly,,o,,,ial ajsproxi,natio,,s In the series
60C1 = .70 hull form
nomials in which a wide range of possible powers
of z can be included without an unreasonable in-
crease in the total number of terms. Once these
constants have been selected, the coefficients a,,,,, can
be determined for any arbitrary hull form by a
modified least-squares technique described in [1].
48 TERMS 56 TERMS
The results of six different polynomial approxi-
mations to the Series 60 hull forms with block coeffi-
cients of .60, .70 and .80 are shown in Figs. 2, 3 and
4. The eight parameters characterizing each of these
polynomials are given in Table 1, and the coeffi-
cients a,,,,, for three of the polynominals are tabulated 70 TERMS 84 TERMS
in the Appendix 1. The figures were reproduced
directly from a cathode ray tube recorder connected
to the IBM 709 computer which was used to per-
form the computations. In these figures, the solid
lines are a plot of the polynomial and the spots
are the input data. The polynomial is plotted only 96 TERMS 140 TERMS

up to the waterline (z = 0) while the input data INPUT DATA POLYNOMIAL

is given for a short distance above the waterline Fig. 4. Poly,,on:iaI apjiroxi,iiahio,Is to I/,c series
in order to provide sufficient constraint to the slope 6O_Ca = .80 hull form
 TABLE 1. Polynomial parameters for numerical examples
Total number of terms 48 56 70 84 96 140

Number of terms in x M 8 8 10 12 12 14
Number of terms in z N 6 7 7 7 8 10
First gap position C1 0 0 0 0 8
2nd gap position C2 5 6 6 6 7 9
3rd gap position C:i 6 7 7 7 8 10
First gap value D1 0 0 0 0 0 13
2nd gap value D2 16 15 15 24 19
3rd gap value 179 179 179 179 169 159

Input data arrangement in all cases

21 stations x = 1.00 (OJO) 1.00
51 waterlinesz = 0.250 (0.025.) 1.000

of the polynomial at z = 0. It may be of some Computations were presented in [4] for the Wein-
interest to note that there are a few incorrect data
points evident in Fig. 4 which are completely
"smooted out" by the polynomial.
While there are a large number of possible com-
binations of the constants M, N, C and D2 for any
given total number of terms, it is fortunate that the
choice is not very critical. For the Series 60 forms,
it appears that it is essential to include one high
power of z such as z200, and at least one intermediate
power such as or z40. It also seems to be best to
have the ratio M/N somewhere around 1.4. It
appears that the choice of constants for the 48, 70
and 96 term polynomials given here is fairly close
to. the optimum.
It can be observed from Figures 4-6 that the
140 term polynomials are not as good as the 96
term polynomials due to oscillations in the stern
sections. These oscillations are present whenever the
number of data points is not sufficient. As the
number of terms in the polynomial is increased,
the minimum number of data points naturally in-
creases. In these examples offsets were given at 21
stations and 51 waterlines, which seemed to be suffi-
cient for 96 terms but no,t for 140 terms In
previous.computation using half as many waterlines,
the oscillations were much worse, and were present
in both the 96 and 140 term polynominals.
The pitch and heave damping coefficients
The polynomials presented in the preceding
section have been used for the computation of the
Series 60 pitch and heave damping coefficients,
based upon the theory of Newman [4]. This theory
consists essentially of replacing the ship hull by a
distribution of translating, pulsating sources and
dipoles which satisfy the linearized free surface
condition; the damping may then be obtained either
by integrating the energy radiation. at infinity, or
by integrating the pressure over thq hull surface.
blum polynomial model and compared with Gob-
vato's experiments [4], [6]. The qualitative de-
pendence on forward speed was similar between the
theory and experiments, but the theoretical coeffi-
cients were substantially higher than the experi-
mental results.
Figures 5, 6 and 7 show the computed Series 60
pitch and heave damping coefficients for the three
block coefficients .60, .70 and .80, as functions of
the non-dimensional frequency parameter v'w v'L/g
and the Froude number. Also shown in the same
figures are the experimental results of Gerritsma [3].
A short description of the experimental determina-
tion of the damping coefficients for heave and pitch
is given in Appendix 2.
The agreement between these theoretical and ex-
perimental results is good, but should be interpreted
with caution, in view of the earlier experience in
comparing the same theory with other experiments
[4].. As in [4] we note that thedamping coefficients
are infinite at = wclg = ¼. This mathematical
singularity is also suggested by the experiments
except in the case of the .60 block coefficient.
a The theory appears to exaggerate the dependence
on forward speed by comparison with the experi-
ments. However it should be noted that the experi-
mental results cover a relatively narrow speed range,
from .15 to .30 Froude numbers. Considerably more
speed dependence. was found by Golovato with a
different model [4]. The effects of very high speed
are shown in Figure 6 for the .70 block coefficient,
including Froude numbers up to 1.0. We note in
particular that the pitch damping becomes negative
for high speeds at intermediate frequencies in much
the. same manner as was noted in the damping of a
submerged ellipsoid [5]. At very iow frequencies,
with non-zero Froude numbers, the damping curves
become quite erratic, while at high frequencies the
results are essentially independent of forward speed.
The negacive pitch damping implies, if physically

Reprinted from mt. Shipbuilding Progress - Vol. 9, No. 95 - July 1962

6

KEY TO EXPERIMENTAL POINTS

FOR VARIOUS FROUDE NUMBERS
o 0.15.
FO A0.2
4
0.25 o 0.25
x 0.3

KEY TOEXPERIMENIAL POINTS

FOR VARIOUS FROUDE NUMBERS
HEAVE CbO.6O O 0.15
.3 0.2
A 0.2
o 025
x 0.3

PITCH Cb 0.60
2 Cd

.0.15

0
2 5 6

Fig. 5. Damping coefficients for 0.60 bloc/c coefficient

KEY TO EXPERIMENTAL POINTS

FOR VARIOUS-FROUDE NUMBERS
0.3 025 0.2 o 0.15
. 015 0.3
A 0.2
o 0.25 KEY TO EXPERIMENTAL POINTS
4 x FOR VARIOUS FROUDE NUMBERS
F0 0.3
.0 0.15
A O.2
o 025
0.3

3 O.7O
HEAVE Cb

.5

H
m

lig. 6Dam ping coefficients for 070 blok coef1ient

 KEY TO EXPERIMENTAL P0!NTS
FOR VARIOUS FROUDE NUMBERS
OO.I5
0.3 0.25/02 A 0.2
0.15
O5-..' o 0.25
4 )( 0.3

r FO
0.3 çO.2
0.15
0.3-s KEY TO EXPERIMENTAL POINTS'
HEAVE CbO.BO FOR VARIOUS FROUDE NUMBERS
0I25 0 0.15
3
F0 A 0.2
o 0.25
0.5
x 0.3
0.2

PITCH Cb 0.80

0.15

X 0.I

0
X

0.05
a

-
0
A

I I I
X
sL0
A0XOX
1

2 3 4 5 6 2 3 4 5 6 7

Fig. 7. Damping coefficients for 0.80 block coefficient

realistic, that at high speeds floating (and sub-
merged) bodies will be unstable in pitch, unless the
positive damping introduced by viscosity can pre-
vent this. The physical source of negative damping
is briefly discussed in [5].
The calculations shown. are based upon the 70
term polynomials (Figures 2, 3 and 4). In order to.
determine the influence on the damping calculations
of modifying the polynomial accuracy, calculations
were also made with polynomials of 48, 56, 96 and.
140 terms. Typical results are shown in Table 2.
The maximum variation between the results with
different polynomials is seen to be only a few
percent. Thus we made conclude that for practical
purposes even tlie 48 term polynomial is sufficient
for damping computations, and presumably also for
many other hydrodynamical computations such as
the wave resistance. This is probably a consequence
of the smoothing Operation of pressure integration
over the hull surface since, as was shown above,, the
48 and 56 term polynomials do not accurately
describe the hull shape in the stern.
Concius ions
Several polynomial representations of Series 60
hull forms have been given, with varying degrees of
accuracy. It has been shown that the simplest poly-
nomial,, with 48 terms, is sufficiently accurate for
certain hydrodynamical applications, but that 70 to

TABLE 2. Comparison, of damping coefficients for Gb = .70 and various polynomials

PITCH HEAVE
No. of
Terms w.VL/g = 2.0 w/L/g=4.0 w.I/L/g = 2.0 wVL/g = 4.0
Fr0 Fr=.2 Fr0 Fr=.2S Fr0 Fr=.2 Fr=0 Fr=.25

48 .0915 .1282 .124.5 .0900 3.809 3.179 2204 2.080

56 .0935 .1321 .1283 .093 7 3.848 3.220 2.242 - 2.123
70 .0904 .1240 .1181 :08.58 3.745 3.103 2.030 1.929
84 .0905 .1250 .1182 .0875 3.745 3.166 2.031 1.93 3
96 .09.06 .1248 .1183 0 873 3.745 3.142 2.030 . 1.932
140 .090 5 .1254 .1185 .088 1 3.741 3.163 2.028 1.931

Reprinted from mt. Shipbuilding Progress - Vol. 9, No. 95 - July 1962

.8

96 terms are greatly superior for an accurate "visual"
fit to the entire hull surface.
The damping coefficients obtained from these
polynomials show fairly good agreement with expe-
rimental results, suggesting that the thin-ship theory
of ship motions is potentially a valuable analytic
approach to the .theory of seaworthiness. The nega-
tive pitch damping at high Froude numbers indicates
that experimental investigations of the motions and
stability of very high-speed vessels are of vital impor-
tance, and should not await the future development
of these vessels.
Acknowledgement
Mr. M. R. Dabcovich of the Department of Naval
Architecture and Marine Engineering at M.I.T. con-
verted the polynomial program for use with IBM
709/7090 computers and also ran many of the
results shown here. The authors wish to express their
thanks to him for his efforts in what turned out to
be a very time consuming task.
The computations presented here were carried out
on the IBM 704, 709 and 7090 digital computers at
the M.I.T. Computation Center, M.I.T. Cooperative
Computer Laboratory, and the David Taylor Model
Basin Applied Mathematics Laboratory.
The part of the work done at M.I.T. was perform-
ed under Contracts Nonr 1841 (64) and Nonr 1841
(67) as part of the Bureau of Ships Fundamental
Hydromechanics Research Program, Project S-
R009-0-1-01., administered by the David Taylor
Model Basin.
References
I. Kerwin, f. E.: "Polynomial Surface Representation of Arbitrary
Ship Forms." Journal of Ship Research, Volume 4, No. I,
1960, p. 12-21.
Todd, F. H.: "Sonic Further Experiments on Single Screw Mer-
chant Ship Forms-Series Sixty." Transactions, SNAME,
Volume 61, 1953, p. 516-174.
Gerritsma, I.: "Ship Motions in Longitudinal Waves." Internatio-
nal Shipbuilding Progress, Volume 7, No. 66, 1960, p. 49-71.
Newman, J. N.: "The Damping and Wave Resistance-of a Pitching
and Heaving Ship." Journal of Ship Research, Vol. 3, No. 1,
June 3959,p. 1-19.
Newman, J N.: "The Damping and Oscillating Ellipsoid Near
A Free Surface." Journal of Ship Research, Vol. 5, No. 3,
December 1961, p 44-58.
Golovalo, P.:: "The Forces and Moments on a Heaving Surface
Ship." journal of Ship Research, Vol. 1, No. 1, April 1957,
p. -19-26.

APPENDIX 1.-

TABLE A. 1. Polynonüal coefficients a,,171

C,3 = 0.60 48 terms

i . z z200

1.00119 -0.00764 0.27152 -0.39583 -0.15139 -0.733 10

x 0.00079 -0.09079 . -0.25980 0.35804 -0.10572 0.09750
x2 -0.3 83.12 -0.373:93 -2.46630 0.75357 0.20608 2.263 62
-1.47238 0.62350 6.71054 -6.61-405 0.31490 0.43 743
x4 -1.5:6638 -1.87273 6.80581 -0.48576 -0.60236 -2 .27 828
x5 2.62247 1.49665 -16.37150 13.73882 0.07986 -1.56656
x 0.98843 1.941-02 -3.93306 -0.32349 0.59532 0.73 149
x7 -1.18908 -1.73447 9.28078 -7.07054 -0.33616 1-. 0497 8

TABLE A. 2. Polynomial coefficients a,,,,,

C,3 = 0.60 70 terms
a z2 z4 z20 a200

1 - 1.00380 -0.00691 -0.06580 -0.52208 -0.61459 -0.08320 -0.75537

x 0.00029 -0.03750 -0.08134 _0.16041: 0.26530 -0.01757 0.03122
x2 -0.31262 -0.23778 1.35346 -6.31900 3.07241 0.17163 2.27186
-1.39521 -0.29552 0.75880 11.49658 -11.68415 0.06858 1.05097
-1.96640 -2.52054 -11.81909 32.13318 -12.79666 -0.848-88 -2.18137
xa 2.24992 5.15154 10.05576 -67.08386 53.28766 -0.16262 -3.49856
x 1.71801 2.85047 23.38634 -43.42777 13.22127 2.00996 0.24107
-0.71542 -6.67850 -25.19531 98.19963 -68.93545 -0.57225 3.89775
x8 -0.40615 -0.38047 -12.13364 16.41796 -2.68157 -1.23376 0.41806
x" -0.17596 215293 13..7401i -41.7-8005 26.87033 0.66699 -1.47471
 TABLE A. 3. Polynomial coefficients aiim
C1 = 0.60 '96 terms

I Z 72 z3 z31)

1 1.00339 0.00818 -0.03350 _0.21250 0.9611.6 -0.93120 -0.03'6S1 -.0.75903

x 0.00406 -0.06262 -0.09421 L06895 -2.32078 1.38.150 -0.05893 O'.08204
x2 -0.32690 -0.13366 0.86728: 7.2.1636' -25.21228 15.52977 0.38604 2.44556
x3 -1.47891 0.27580 1.07995 -16M5.i29 46.30231 -31.10522 0.96476 0.0121.8
x4 -1.81642 -3.984.59 -8.7728 -67.06824, 195.59237 -113.44058 2.82639 -3.33680
x5 2.75002 1.81791 831171 9..885,98 -289.94523 183.85718 -5.23907 2.56396
x 1.20829 8.51596 17.1:6.052 209.96434 -523.13014 289.86147 -6.29178 2.71240
xT -1.89679 0.77714 -22.39593 -279.00048 728.52983 -426.39365 10.50.876 -10.13427
0.28430 -8.85079 -8.16439 -234.25783 533.05326 -285.9.6935 5.24:549 -1.34139
x9 1.00263 -4.42681 13.38316 318.07514 -738.40884 406.66397 -8.53613 12.25187
x10 -0.31433 4A1469 -0.40995 84.77.609 -183.25503 9.6.20157 -1.41209 0.29916
xU -0.41926 1.94884 -0.93173 -120.39790 257.83540 -135.65668 2.41516 T479551

TABLE A. 4., Polynomial coefficients a,,11

C,1 -. 0.70 48 terms

z20 z20°

1' - 0.98778 -0.00683 0.15239 -0.15500 -0.15267 -0.82563

x . 0.0260.5 0.03 179 -0.56769 .0.64967 0.02 121 -0. 16 101
x2 0.43441 0.4852.5 -1.92859 -0.31619 -0.02586 1.35.069
x3 -0.20693 -0.68947 6.7193.3 TS.45107 -0.48261 0.11094
x4 -2.78176 -3.99992 5.59714 1.21140 -0.32004 0.293,99
x5 0.07059 4.30394 -14.84295 9.10695 1.18797 0. 172 64
x 1.36368 3.3940.7 - -3.42728 -1.03337 0.54333 -0.84104
xT 0.1068,5 -3.56591 8.45694 -4.12816 -0.75506 -0..1 1401

TABLE A 5. Polynomial coefficients afl1fl

GB = 0.70 . 70 terms

z z2.

1 0.99762. -0.01487 -0.04.625 0.33794' -0.33340 -0.11344 -0.82757

x -0.0:1928 -O.O'144 0.o3391 -0.35:802' , 0.44294 0.03340- -0.11835
0.20100 0.11814 1.2681.0 ' -2.455:89 -0.2686 0.36465 0.83054
x 0.44182 -0.04479 ' -1.94576 9.27702 -6.60345 -0.613-61 -0.51152
x4 -1.60888 -1.74693 -9.3507 4.96689 . 7.6727.7 -3.24947 3.3.2211
-2.26447 1.17388 13,92434 -30.44687' 1215857 ' 3i.6'555 1.88897
x6 -0.47137 -0.92717 17.80060 6.73350 -23.76374 7;01259 6.38683
x7 3.12984 1.92009 -4.4985.2 23.248,67 4.81744 -7.20847 -1.40795
0.88614 2.47209 -9.20258 -10.35328 17.16653 -4.03673 3.06913
-1.29088 -2.97083 12.19425 -1.24941 -11.06455 4.23463 . 0.14591

Reprinted from mt. Shipbuilding Progress - Vol. 9, No. 95 - July 1982

10

TABLE A. 6. Polynomial coefficients aiim

= 070 96 terms

z2 Z' z$o z200

1 0.99925 0.01211 -0.07915 -0.27144: 1.2 2970 -1.01677 -0.04 144 -0.83225
x -0.00388 0.06769 -0.20927 -1.0 5 241 2.8 69 17 -1.628 84 0.10:171 -0. 144 13
x2 0.11120 0.155 82 1.08215 3.52818 -13.29296 7.94083 -0.22 016 0.6948 8
x3 0.10209 -1.3.12 89 2.848 5,7 14.86726 -35.81971 20.7005 3 -0. 82463 -0.5 6174
x -0.83146 -3 .26492 -6.71802 -24.6.05 16 65.82087 -35.23973 -0.80072 5.63942
x -0.22042 8.89193 -14.78 847 -65.43905 189.60899 -124.94221 4.3 6663 2.5 2470
x6 -2.77827 5.8452 7.78356 52.43337 -91.77 592 38.74701 4.57839 -14.83454
xT -1.81676 -18.72872 46.61076 142 .6 0944 -S 08.18 847 3 5 3 .7279 1 -12. 143 13 -2.07477
x8 3.64067 -8 .0 5 3 29 5.25234 -19.8 7.13 7 -14.88192 25.64933 -6.26797 14.53338-
x' 3.88478 21.48633 -64.92600 -176.65 012 650.52440 -448.1763 3 14.49375 -0.63 384
X11 -1.13728 5.2 13 19 -6.86637 -12.083.94 53.59393 -36.26641 2.74359 -5.19723
x11 -1.94897 -10.343 13 30.17866 86.17354 -299.3 5741 200.39751 -5.98809 0.8 8702

TABLE A. 7. Polynomial coefficients aiim

C, = 0.80 48 terms

z2°

0.99549 -0.03088 0.04076 0.00654 -0.12 898 -0.8 829

x -0.02421 0.11279 -0.28977 0.10219 0.03995 0.05 903
x- 0.11126 1.0347:8 -0.3 2987 -1.33123 0.44247 0.07220
x3 0.1228 5 -1.60577 2.40825 1.62706- -0.5 1006 -2.04206
x4 -0.28513 -4.68623 -0.09645 4.2 3302 -1.7 5 422 2.5 9020
x') 0.5'9439 6.02009 -3.943,75 -7.42858' 1.35814 3 .3 98 8 1
-0. 8092 8 3.44038 '1.01349 -3.33734. 1.48925 -1.7973 5
x7 -0.70516 -4.38502. 1.45 189 5.96885 -0.92653 -1.40336

TABLE A. 8. ' Polynomial coefficients 'aiim

C1. = 0.80 70 terms

!fflP
z4

1.00115. .0.00553 -0.00523 -0.03549 0.03415 -0.11242 -0.88767

x 0.02598 L007994 -0.09008 0.38418 -0.40399 0.07888 0.08499
-0.03 999 -0.48987' -0.26992 6.3 1.2 88 -6.09833 0.58824 -0.00323
x3 -0.64856 1.47289 1.49067 -10.08535 11.79959 -1.88888 -2.14034
0.43297 ' 3.80084 2.23265 46.85543 40;81862 -3.87310 3.44441
x 3.65938 ' -6.5.3419 -5.74234 58.21348 -615'8751 9.05186 2.93809
x -1.85356 -11.42216 -7.66868 100.78151 -83.20669 7.38591 -4.01798
xT -5.13990 14.21261 11.29255 -114.49785 ' 108.78478 -15.07299 0.42369
x8 0.47065 7.91311 6.46734 -61.29307 4:8.97929 '-4.00.5 62 1.4692-1
x9 2.09584 -8.95422 -7.411.00 --66.6-5480 --5-8.9-1-8 80 7.83997 -1.30831
 11.

TABLE A. 9. Polynomial, coefficients a,,,

C11 = 0.80 96 terms

z .z2 z4 z3°

1 0.99930 0.00203 -0.03356 -0.09558 0.46785 -0.38286 -0.08136 -0 . 8 7 5 8 2

x 0O2048 0.04939 0.00494 -0.57034 1.03328 -0.61241. -0.01414 0.08883
x2 '0.06579 0.56327 -0.17834 -5.95334 14.17331' -9.10691 1.01416 -0.57798
x:l -0.52592 -1.43:005 -0.61816 12.12419 -22.18625 l4.702O2 0.15956 -22253,3
x4 -0.47029 -5.87423 2.20697 70.08940 -163.37639 97.63599 -9.05112 8. 8:3 9 66
x 2.91425 11.73400 6.24786 -89.4212'S 177.70397 -110.51909 -2.06798 3.40657
x6 0.80907 18.34949 -9.15365 -266.44460 577.65005 -326.22494 25.42237 -20.40739
x7 -3.31551 -32.96618 -14.88312 294.61142 -600.62596 35040423 6.44379 0.33683
x8 -2.69371 -28.67538 9.85905 396.91272 -794.50901 426.00732 -28.17851 21.27671
x9 0.16627 43.80342 16.54893 -420.75422 833.82319 -46284530 -8.15208 -2.59718
X1° 1.30177 15.42947 -1.93469 195;.33502 365.48222 187.53618 10.83115 -8.23825
X1 0.73310 -21.06408 -7.76780 20449269 -389.63491 208.60542 3.65844 0.97962

APPENDIX 2.

The experimental determination of the damping 'be described with sufficient acëuracy. by:
coefficients' for heave and pitch was carried out
with three eight-feet models of the Series-Sixty z = z0 sin (co I- a)
[2]. The main dimensions of the ship models are where:
given in Table A 10. z0 = heaving amplitude
The forced oscillation technique was used to de- a = phase angle with respect to the motion of
termine the' damping coefficients. In the case of the Scotch Yoke.
heaving a vertical sinusoidal force is applied to the
Assuming a linear damping term, the equation
ship model by means of a Scotch Yoke and a 'soft of motion for this system'can be written as follows:
spring. The model is restrained for all motions
except for heave. az + b + cz=.k. (r-z),
The vertical motion of ' the upper part of the or:
spring is given by: krsinw/,
az + bz+ (c+ k) z
r r() sin ('J I, where:
where: a = total mass, including the hydroclynamic
the circular frequency of the motion, mass
r0 half the stroke of the Scotch Yoke. b damping coefficient
c waterplane area, multiplied by the specific
The resulting heaving motion of the model can 'weight of the fluid.

TABLE A 10. Main dimensions of ship models.

Length between perpendiculars '2.438 m 2.43 8 m 2.43 8 m

Breadth 0.325 m 0.348 m ' 0.376 m
Draught 0.130 m 0.139 m 0150 m
Displacement 61.9. kg 82.9 kg 109.9 kg
Block-coefficient 0.600 0.700 0'800
Waterplane coefficient 0.706 0.785 0.871
Longitudinal radius of gyration 0.25 L 0.25 L 0.25 L
Moment of inertia of waterplane 0.170 m4 0.229 m4 0.321 m2
Centre of flotation from A 0.094 m ' A 0.041 m F 0.010 m
Centre of buoyancy from A 0.037 m F 0.012 m F 0.061 ni

Reprinted from mt. Shipbuilding Progress - Vol. 9 No. 95 - July 1982

 12

Substitution of z'= z0 sin (oi I - a) in the where:

equation of motion gives an expression for. the
damping coefficient:
kr0
b= w z0
sin a
During the experiments, r and z were recorded
on a base of time and consequently r0, z0, w and a
could be determined from the recordings. A high
recording speed was used to increase the accuracy
of the phase readings.
The experiments covered a frequency range of
w = 3 to w= 14 and each model was tested at
four speeds namely:
V//gL = .15, .20, .25 and .30
The same program was carried out for the pitch-
ing motion ip. In this case the model is free to
pitch but is restrained for the other motions. The
pitching axis goes through the centre of gravity of
the ship model and the spring of the oscillator is,
connected' to the 'model at a distance 1 from the
centre of gravity. Now the equation of motion
will be:
A = total mass moment of inertia of the model
including the hydrodynamic mass moment
of inertia.
B = damping coefficient.
C = moment of inertia of waterplane multi-
plied by the specific weight of the fluid.
The pitching motion can be described by:
p=yosin(wtfl),
where:
= pitch amplitude
fl = phase angle with respect' to the motion of
the Scotch Yoke.
Substitution of this expression in the equation of
motions leads to:
B =Afro
1/)o W
Due to the finite tank width (4.3 meters) the
damping coefficients are influenced by wall effects

or:
A.y -j-- By -j-Cy = It! (r - lip)
when w < 3 to 4.
Moreover the absolute values of a and fi in' this
region are too small to give a reliable phase deter-
4';' ± By + (C + k12) 'ip = kir0 sin w t, mination.