2.

Wave-Making Resistance of Ships

By Dr. Takao Inui,1 Visitor

This paper discusses the wave-making resistance of displacement ships in steady motion.
It is not intended for detailed discussion of the quantitative relationship between certain
types of ships and their wave-making resistance, but for discussion of the method by
which the author believes such relationship should be studied. In such method, great im-
portance is attached to the photographic study of model ship wave patterns which hi~'herto
has been ignored almost entirely in tank experiments. The paper, in appropriate con-
junction with the theoretical study, suggests a new approach to the ship hull-form research.
Early in the paper the author points out in principle the defects found in the usual resistance
tests as a method of studying the ship hull form, and also the inevitable difficulties in the
theory of wave-making resistance. Part 1 is devoted to a description of the basic
elements upon which a new method of hull-form research is based. In Part 2 the cluthor
describes the effectiveness of the new method in solving various practical problems in
hull-form design. One example of the effective use of the method is the development
of the "waveless-form theory" in the Experimental Tank of the University of Tokyo. In
the last part of the paper the author suggests a course along which the proposed method
of hull-form research should be further developed.

OVER a period of almost a century since the first
experimental tank was built at T o r q u a y in 1870
b y William Froude such experiments have made a
great contribution to the improvement of ship's
resistance performance. In the meantime the
scope of tank experimental work has been grad-
ually increased both in volume and variety.
In addition to towing tanks, there have been built
seakeeping laboratories for seakeeping quality
study, maneuvering basins for maneuverability
research, and other new types of experimental
tanks, each being intended exclusively for a
special purpose.
As for the results of all such research work 'we
m a y safely say that remarkable progress has
been made with respect to tank experiments in
general compared to the age of Froude. How-
ever, in one particular aspect, little has so far
been achieved. This is what is known as the
"resistance test." Ever since Froude started
1 Professor, Department of Naval Architecture, Faculty ship's waves are complicated in all respects.
of Engineering, University of Tokyo, Tokyo, Japan.
Presented at the Annual Meeting, New York, N. Y., be possible to observe them. A force known as
November 15-16, 1962, of THE SOCIETY OF NAVAL
ARCHITECTSANDMARINBENGINEERS.
it in his tank, all work conducted in the experi-
mental tanks up to date for the ,;tudy of ship's
resistance (wave-making resistance) has been
nothing but the "resistance test." So far as the
wave-making resistance is concerned, no new
method of study, or no new method of experiment
has'ever been tried.
I t is the opinion of the author that, although the
"resistance test" is a vitally necessary, and very
important practical method for the investigation
of wave-making resistance of ships, it is by no
means perfect, or even adequate.
Let us now consider methodically the way in
which the physical quantity, the "force" known
as wave-making resistance of ships, is analyzed.
The process involved may be shown by the block
diagram Fig. 1.
At first there is (A), a given geometric body of a
ship which creates (B), ship's waves; as it advances
at a certain speed. A theoretical analysis of
(I), the process from (A) to (B) is troublesome and
However, since these waves are visible, it should
"wave-making resistance" is obtained through

283

,4, ~ '~'' ~ ~ {Ul) ~ " " "~" ~ ~ *~"%A
SHIP ~=~ SHIP } ~
GEOMETRY WAVE
(A) (B)
Fig. 1 Block diagram (1)
the process I I (this is a kind of integral process).
In the resistance tests so far conducted no work
has been done beyond the scope of measuring the
force involved, and no observation has been made
of (B); i.e., ship's waves. This means, in refer-
ence to Fig. 1, that in the resistance test one leaps
from (A) to (C), by-passing (I), the process con-
necting (A) with (B), and (II), the process from
(B) to (C). This makes the resistance test very
effective as a practical, though short-sighted,
means of quickly finding a result. However, it
offers no substantial clue in the more long-sighted,
fundamental and scientific research as to how
the result (C) comes out.
In the early period of tank experiments when
the hull form has not as yet been well developed,
the resistance test with such defects could serve
its purpose. When the tests were carried out
repeatedly on various hull forms in those days
they produced data that could be used to improve
hull form~. Supposing that it had been known
in the age of Froude that there was need for
another test to be conducted along with the re-
sistance test, from a theoretical point of view,
researchers could have no alternative other than
being totally dependent on the resistance test
because no such preliminary conditions could
have been fulfilled in those days that are called
for by such other testing method. Let us ex-
amine irt the following paragraphs what these
preconditions are.
The diagram, Fig. 1, might suggest that a new
method of tank experiments which could supple-
ment the aforementioned defects of the resistance
test should be one in which the greatest im-
portance is attached to the observation of waves
of models. However, mere photographic ob-
servation of a model's waves could be of no sig-
nificance because the phenomena shown in the
course of either (I) or (II) are quite complicated.
The observation could be useful only with the
knowledge of the physical law, or the theory
which explains the relationship between the hull
form and the waves created by it, and that be-
tween the waves so created and wave-making
resistance. In the proposed method of hull-
form research, it m a y be said, the theory precedes
the experiment. Since the phenomena to be
attacked are so complicated, the theory alone can
284
./
/
scarcely explain the whole picture. The theory
should be employed with respect to essential
WAVE-MAKING/ features, leaving the study of details to observa-
RESISTANCE tion. N o t all experiments can be conducted
(C} without technical difficulties. Be that as it may,
we can work under much more favorable condi-
tions than the researchers of Froude's time in
regard to the three following points:
(a) Of the two phases of process from the hull
form to ship's waves, and ship's wave to wave-
making resistance, with respect to the latter
process at least Havelock's theory of 1934 [1, 2]~
is effective.
(b) High-speed computers are available for the
required theoretical calculations.
(c) The advanced technique of photogram-
metrical survey can be used.
Under all of these favorable conditions the time
seems to have arrived that a new method of tank
experiments m a y be theoretically conceived, which
can be employed parallel and supplementary to
the resistance test. Even following the conven-
tional method, the wave-making resistance theory
should have been applied in planning an empirical,
methodical series test and in analyzing the data
obtained. The need of a theoretical guidance
should be emphasized in particular for the decision
of the parent form and the selection of principal
parameters. Owing to inadequacy in this regard
the result obtained by the methodical series tests
conducted up to date could have but quite a
limited significance, and could never claim the
applicability to general wave-making resistance
features of ships, thereby establishing a general
rule.
In connection with item (a) of the three favor-
able conditions mentioned, let us consider briefly
a method of analyzing the process (I), from the
hull form to ship's waves. It is to be admitted
that the theory has not yet been perfected by
which ship's waves could be obtained directly
from a given hull form. This still remains a
problem to be solved by future study. W h a t has
been found out so far is that either Michell's theo-
retical method (189S) [3] of linearization, in which
special restrictions are imposed to the hull form,
or Guilloton's "tangential potential" method
[4,5], in which the second-order corrections have
been included, cannot make rational high-order
corrections required owing to the viscosity
effect. In this respect the method [6] which the
author has been using since 1949 seems to achieve
better accuracy. I n this method, instead of
starting the analysis with ship geometry, the
Numbers in brackets indicate References at the end of
the paper.
Wave-Making Resistance of Ships
ship's geometric body is obtained starting at the
given source distribution. This method is as
indicated by the process (IA), in the diagram,
Fig. 2.
However, a source distribution is used to repre-
GIVEN SOURCE1
OISTRIBUTON
] HAVELOCK'S
THEORY
GEOMETRY
(Al
' WAVE
(B)
)q RESISTANCE
(C)
1 of the body, where fluid motion has :much simpler
Fig. 2 Block diagram (2)
sent an actual hull form as it is cannot be given
directly by this method without great difficulty.
Here again the proposed method of wave analysis
could prove very effective.
I t is a method of hull-form research intended
for the thorough investigation of wave-making
resistance by a combiried use of experiment
and theory which are co-related through the
photographic observation of a model's waves;
in particular through the analysis of stereopic-
tures. Part 1 is devoted to the discussion of the
basic principles and P a r t 2 to the "waveless form"
as examples of the application of the proposed
method. This method has been investigated
in the Experimental Tank of the University of
T o k y o over a period of several years.
Part 1 Basesof Proposed Method
In this part of the paper the discussions will be
on the three elenlents which constitute the bases
of the proposed method of hull-form research
adopted at the Experimental T a n k of the Uni-
versity of Tokyo. This method is essentially a
combination of theoretical and experimental
studies of ship's waves and wave-making resist-
ance. The two of the elements are the analytical
theories which correspond respectively to the two
phases of the process, (I) and (II), from "hull
form" to "wave-making resistance" via "waves"
as shown in Fig. 1. The third one is the tech-
niques involved in taking bird's-eye view pictures
of model's wave pattern and their stereo-analysis.
I Havelock's Theory
If an ordinary course of discussions is followed
with respect to the theories involved, this section
should start with how to establish a relationship
in the process (I) in ~Fig. 1 such that ship's waves
can be predicted from the geometry of a ship.
However, let us consider this subject later and
Wave-Making Resistance of Ships
study first another relationship in the process (II)
so that the wave-making resistance can be ob-
tained from ship's waves.
The wave-making resistance is a "force" vector
having the same direction as and the opposite sign
to the ship's velocity vector. In a general treat-
ram_it of the resistance of a body moving in a
fluid, the answer can be found from the energy
carried to the rear of the body. The energy carrier
may be a vortex system or a surface-wave system,
and so on. This analysis is made in the far rear
features. This is for the reason that, since the
scalar product of the two vectors just mentioned
is not zero, as the body advances it continuously
gives the fluid around it a positive work-(i.e.,
energy) which is in proportion to the distance
of its advance. When the viscosity of the fluid
is ignored, the energy so given is steadily aeeunm-
lated in the fluid as wave energy. I t is reasonable
to assume that this accumulated energy will
remain in some form behind the body. In the
wake the further the distance away from the
body the simpler are the features of the flow mo-
tion in general. This makes it comparatively
easy to investigate in what manner the energy
is carried to the far rear of the body.
A method like the foregoing has often been
employed effectively to explain the resistance of a
body in motion in a perfect fluid, as shown by such
outstanding examples as (a) the theory of resist-
ance due to K~rm{m vortices, (b) the theory of
discontinuous motion with respect to the pressure
resistance of a plate placed vertically in a flow,
and (c) the induced drag of a wing with a finite
span due to accompanying free vortices.
The method is applicable also to the wave-
making resistance of ships. The carrier of the
energy supplied into the water by a ship in motion
is its waves. But not all waves carry energy" to
the rear of the ship. Only a portion of ship's
waves transport energy rearward. To be more
precise, the gravity waves created by a ship ad-
vancing through the surface of water consist of
two types of waves, which are entirely different
in character, as expressed by the following equa-
tions.
~(x,y) = ¢,(x,y) + ¢,~.(x,y) (t)
where
fl(x,y) = local disturbance, (2)
f,,(x,y) = free-wave pattern (3)
In this case the coordinates are assumed to move
with the ship, with the z-axis vertically upward;
z = 0 on the still-water surface and the x-axis
opposite to the ship's course.
285
 0 1234 5
I

{;

/i
/
~-" / / / - - ~/

0 . ~~ j / /

/
o: oo Ce=o o)
x

", \ "\2~T~." \
~10 o
I, \\ \ \
I\. \ \ j \ . ~
\ \ \ \
I \ \ N \
\
~,20 o
80 ° 70 ° 60 ° 50 ° 40 ° 55°16 ' 30 °

Fig. 3 Kelvin wave group

T h e local d i s t u r b a n c e in e q u a t i o n (2) is con- I n his two p a p e r s [1,2] p u b l i s h e d in 1934, which

spicuous o n l y in t h e n e i g h b o r h o o d of t h e ship. were m e n t i o n e d p r e v i o u s l y , Sir T h o m a s H e n r y
T h e s e w a v e s are n o n o s c i l l a t o r y w a v e s which H a v e l o c k t r e a t e d a f r e e - w a v e p a t t e r n as a re-
m o n o t o n i c a l l y a n d r a p i d l y decrease as t h e y go s u l t a n t of t h e " e l e m e n t a r y w a v e s . " B a s e d on
f u r t h e r a w a y from t h e ship. C o n t r a r y to t h e this c o n c e p t he o b t a i n e d an e x t r e m e l y simple, a n d
local d i s t u r b a n c e , t h e f r e e - w a v e p a t t e r n of equa- elegant relationship between the elementary
tion (3) consists of o s c i l l a t o r y w a v e s which, are w a v e s a n d t h e w a v e - m a k i n g resistance as expressed
n o t f o u n d a h e a d of t h e ship, b u t a r e f o u n d o n l y in b y t h e following e q u a t i o n s :
its r e a r o v e r an endless s t r e t c h of distance. ~/2
B o t h w a v e s c o n t a i n w a v e e n e r g y (the s u m of
p o t e n t i a l e n e r g y a n d k i n e t i c energy). W h i l e t h e ~v,(x,y) ~ F,J--rr/2 S(O) sin [K0 sec 20(x - x0 cos 0

local d i s t u r b a n c e m a i n t a i n s a c o n s t a n t a m o u n t of
d- y sin 0) ] dO -I- ./2 (o) c o s [K0 sec20 (.~ - x0
w a v e e n e r g y r e g a r d l e s s of t i m e a n d t h e i r d i s t r i b u - ~/2
tion is c o n c e n t r a t e d in t h e s h i p ' s p r o x i m i t y , t h e
X COS 0 + y sin 0)]d0 (4)
r a n g e of t h e f r e e - w a v e p a t t e r n is increasing p r o -
p o r t i o n a t e l y to t h e d i s t a n c e over which t h e ship where
h a s a d v a n c e d . As a consequence t h e t o t a l s u m
Ko = g/V 2 (S)
of t h e w a v e - m o t i o n e n e r g y in t h e w a v e s y s t e m
increases w i t h t h e a d v a n c e of time. T o p u t i t I n (4) sign " ~ - / ' i n d i c a t e s t h a t this e q u a t i o n
in a n o t h e r way, t h e difference b e t w e e n the two becomes a c c u r a t e when t h e v a l u e of x ( > 0) is
w a v e s y s t e m s is t h a t , while t h e local d i s t u r b a n c e sufficiently large, V r e p r e s e n t s t h e s h i p ' s speed,
has n o t h i n g to do w i t h t h e t r a n s f e r of t h e w a v e a n d g t h e a c c e l e r a t i o n of g r a v i t y . E a c h t e r m
energy, t h e f r e e - w a v e p a t t e r n alone is responsible on t h e r i g h t - h a n d side of e q u a t i o n (4) r e p r e s e n t s a
for it. T h a t m e a n s t h e w a v e which is r e l a t e d K e l v i n w a v e g r o u p as shown in Fig. 3, or to be
to t h e s t e a d y w a v e - m a k i n g resistance is n o t t h e m o r e precise, a H o g n e r w a v e g r o u p as shown in
s h i p ' s w a v e as a whole, b u t o n l y t h e f r e e - w a v e Fig. 4. I t is well k n o w n t h a t these m a t h e m a t i c a l
p a t t e r n expressed b y e q u a t i o n (3). w a v e p a t t e r n s express s h i p ' s w a v e s f a i r l y well.

286 Wave-Making Resistance of Ships

w

~_ 19°30'
15o

//

I ~___
0 o×` "t s I ,0 15

Thin line: calculated

Thick line: measured with Model C-201
- - crest -- - trough

Fig. 4 Hogner wave group

H a v e l o c k took note of the fact t h a t at a given J

0-value the i n t e g r a n d in each t e r m on the right-
h a n d side of e q u a t i o n (4) represents a one-di- .&
m e n s i o n a l , sinusoidal wave t r a v e l i n g in a direction
,o
0-angle a w a y from the x-axis with a p r o p a g a t i o n
speed I/cos 0. T o u n d e r s t a n d this, we m a y refer
to Fig. 5. A n e q u a t i o n to express s t r a i g h t line L
can be given b y
(:c -- xo) c o s 0 + y s i n 0 = p (6)
a n d the w a v e l e n g t h of the g r a v i t y wave with prop-
a g a t i o n speed of gcos 0 m a y be given b y
2rr 2~r
x ( 0 ) = X0eos'-'0 = K0 c°s~° = -- (Vcos0)-' (7) Fig. 5
g
Havelock called the o n e - d i m e n s i o n a l waves
j u s t m e n t i o n e d " e l e m e n t a r y waves," a n d showed
t h a t the K e l v i n wave group is p r o d u c e d as a result
of the m u t u a l interference of these waves which (2~L Jr- 1~22)~r, @, =: integer)
are f o u n d over the range of T h e n a k e d eye c a n n o t d i s t i n g u i s h each ele-
7F 7r
m e n t a r y wave, b u t can o n l y see the K e l v i n wave
group which comes o u t as the final results of the
2 2
m u t u a l interference of the e l e m e n t a r y waves.
T o explain this more precisely, let us consider T h e K e l v i n wave group has, as is well k n o w n ,
envelopes consisting of a group of s t r a i g h t lines two wave systems of t r a n s v e r s e w a v e a n d diverg-
which satisfy the isophasal c o n d i t i o n given b y ing wave, of which the former consists of the
K 0 s e e ~ 0 (x -- x0 cos 0 + y sin 0) = const (S) e l e m e n t a r y waves 101 = no t, ~
L() -,-
do o I6', a n d t h e l a t t e r
of those 101 = 35016 ' to 90 ° . A t the so-called
As i l l u s t r a t e d in Fig. 3, these s t r a i g h t lines are
" q u a s i - c u s p " p o i n t a which corresponds to 0 =
g a t h e r e d t o g e t h e r to form the K e l v i n wave group
35016 ' there is a phase difference of X0/3 ( ~ of
as t h e envelopes. As for the K e l v i n wave group
the first integral on the r i g h t - h a n d side of e q u a t i o n a The "quasi-cusp" point means the iulaginary crossing
(4), i.e., the sine term, the crest is expressed when point of the transverse wave and the diverging wave when
the c o n s t a n t on the r i g h t - h a n d side of e q u a t i o n (S) the phase difference is ignored as shown in Fig. 8. On the
other hand, the cusp point means the true crossing point
is as shown in Fig. 4.

Wave-Making Resistanceof Ships 287

 (I) IB
I I', I',/
/ II! /I. J.
/ ../-;.2"~;;f
/ / / / ZJf-q
M~ /
_ ~ ~ ' 7.d-". . -- - 7
/ 1 1 1 / i / .¢.1~
Fig. 6
wavelength) between the two wave systems.
When this difference is ignored, the isophasal lines
in the wave patterns m a y be illustrated as in
Fig. 3; and when this difference is taken into
account the isophasal lines can be shown as in
Fig. 4. These, too, are well-known facts.
The concept of the "elementary waves" is
extremely useful in the discussion of all problems
relevant to the study of the wave-making resist-
ance. I t is so important that no efficient study
of wave-making resistance can be made easily
without a clear concept of the elementary waves.
For example, the discontinuous phenomenon
[7] due to the restricted water effect can be ex-
plained fully by empIoying this concept. The
discovery of the waveless form to be discussed
in this paper was made also from this very concept.
For simplicity let us represent the whole of the
right-hand side of equation (S) by F (0), calling
it the phase function of the elementary waves,
and S (0) and C (0) on the right-hand side of
equation (4) the amplitude functions of the sine
wave and the cosine wave, respectively. I t is
easy to imagine that where the value of x is suf-
ficiently large, in each integral of the right-hand
side of equation (4) the main contribution is from
a small range of 0-values. The contributions from
the remaining portion are cancelled with each
other because of rapid phase changes. This
means an asymptotic expansion can be applied
to the right-hand side of equation (4). Such
expansions are given in Appendix 1.
288 Wave-Making Resistance of Ships
(Ii)
v^+ I
Following another paper [2] of Havelock pub-
lished in 1934, we shall see next a relationship
between wave-making resistance and the free-
wave pattern mentioned in the foregoing. In
this case, instead of a coordinate system which
moves with a ship, we consider a coordinate system
fixed to the still-water surface. In Fig. 6 let us
consider two fixed planes, A and B , which are per-
pendicular to the direction of the ship's course, A
being far ahead of the ship and B far in the rear
of it. At the moment, t = t, the free-wave pat-
tern is at the position indicated by a soIid line,
and it will advance to the position shown by a
dotted line at the time, t = t + At. An increase
in energy in the fluid between A-plane and B-plane
is equal to an increase in wave energy correspond-
ing to the increase in the area of the free-wave
pattern. The quantity of the increase of wave
energy can be obtained by advancing the wave
patterns shown by the solid line to the position
shown by the dotted line over a distance, ax
= vat. By a lengthy calculation Havelock
obtained the expression for the time average of
such energy increase as
gax=~pv .~at F~/2 {A(0)}~ c°sB° do (9)
u-,/2 i + sin°"0
where
{.~(0)}~ = {s(0)}~ + {c(o)}~ (lo)
In equation (9) Ois the density of water.
This increase of energy m a y be attributable to
two sources, W~ and W2. The first source, 14:~
is the work performed by the ship as it advances
against wave-making resistance, Rw:
W~ At = R~ ~x = R~ V ,St
The second source, W.., is the work performed
through vertical plane /3, b y fluid (II), which is
in the rear of the vertical plane 13, to fluid (I),
in a form of (pressure) X (x-component of fluid
velocity). This work W2 performed is the energy
transfer due to the wave motion. The value of
W~ changes, like that of E, with time according
to the phase of the wave. The time average can
be expressed b y the following equation :
I F'~ ,~t = ~ p V :~ ~t
//~'/2 {A (0)
}2 - c°s~0
a-,/')
From the energy-conservation law in which the
viscosity of fluid is ignored we have
/~ Ax -- W, at ~- IP: At
and from the foregoing, wave-making resistance
R~ is expressed in a very simple form like
R~ = /~ l'P2
V _ 97r p 17:2 F "/2 {.4 (0) } ~ eos:~0 dO
- d - ~/2
Equation (14) shows t h a t the wave-making
resistance of a ship is an integration of the quan-
tity {A(0)}2 weighed by a factor cos:~0. From
this we can see that, where the value of A(0)
changes little with respect to 0, the wave-nmking
resistance is determined mainly by the amplitude
of the transverse wave. As the diverging wave,
especially at a large 0-value, has a small wave-
length, it is more visible than the transverse
wave when we observe ship's waves from above
downward vertically. This is because of the fact
t h a t the diverging wave has a steeper slope than
the transverse wave. This sometimes tends to
give us an erroneous impression about the relative
importance of these two waves with respect to
wave-making resistance. In order not to be
deceived by such an impression, it is advisable to
take notice of the relationship expressed in equa-
tion (14).
In the preceding paragraphs an outline has been
given of the concept of elementary waves formu-
lated b y Havelock, as well as to the related theory
of wave-making resistance. As a theoretical
approach to wave-making resistance of ships
there have so far been introduced several methods
including Michell's method of pressure integration.
(The detailed descriptions of these methods are
found in two papers [8,9] published b y Prof.
J. K. Lunde). However, the author regards,
for the two following reasons, Havelock's theory
as the most i m p o r t a n t and the most effective
means for the naval architect who undertakes the
study of wave-making resistance of ships in t a n k
(11)
experiments:
1. By following Havelock's theory it is possible
to connect the visible ship's wave directly to the
wave-making resistance.
2. His theory offers a great convenience for
making the viscosity corrections and other higher
order corrections b y comparing the theoretical
computations with the experimentally observed
ship's waves. I t is ahnost impossible to make
these corrections when the theory alone is em-
- dO
ployed.
1 -Jr- sin20 2 Nonlinear Treatment of Ship Surface Condition
(12) This section will be devoted to the discussion of
the process (I) in Fig. 1 which will explain a rela-
tionship between the "hull form" (A) and the
"ship's waves" (B). There are some reasons why
(13)
the process (I) is taken up after the process (II).
In the first place, since there are several theo-
retical approaches by which "wave-making re-
sistance" (C) is derived from the "ship's waves"
(B), the point to be emphasized in the discussion
of the process (I) will v a r y depending on which of
(14) these approaches is followed. From a hydro-
dynamic point of view, actual ship hulls have
quite complicated three-dimensional forms. I t
is extremely difficult to treat the wave-making
phenomena involved exactly. I t is necessary to
make some assumptions to simplify the problem
in order to make it amendable. The assumptions,
which can be made and still yield a useful solu-
tion, also influences the discussion of the process
(I). We shall linfit our discussion here to the
displacement ships with Froude number up to
0.3 or 0.35. Within this Froude-number range
our research work has been greatly emphasized.
As mentioned before, as far as wave-making
resistance is concerned, we need to study only the
free-wave pattern in the far rear of a ship. In
t a n k experiments, however, the model's waves
reflected b y the side walls make it impossible to
observe the wave pattern far enough in rear of
the model as to avoid local disturbances. I t is
necessary therefore to have the local disturbance
calculated beforehand so t h a t the free-wave
pattern can be separated from the total of the
waves observed. This means t h a t the " w a v e
analysis" which is the most i m p o r t a n t p a r t of
the work involved in the proposed method of
hull-form research, consists of two items: The
first one is the division of the observed waves into
the local disturbance and the free-wave pattern.
T h e other one is a detailed analysis of the free-
Wave-Making Resistance of Ships 289
wave pattern to obtain the amplitude function
of the elementary waves.
Generally speaking, in order to obtain ship's
waves, there are two methods, direct and indirect.
The direct method is one by which the wave
pattern is directly calculated from ship geometry.
Michell's theory and Guilloton's method (in the
latter the second-order corrections are added to
the former) are included in the direct method.
The approximation published by Havelock [10]
in 1943, useful for a high-speed range, m a y also
come under this category. In this method the
hull form is represented by a finite number of
point singularities.
The advantage of the direct method in this
case is that the relationship between the hull
form and the corresponding waves is direct. The
disadvantage is the poor accuracy caused by the
linearized treatment of the ship-surface condition,
which is necessary to permit such direct relation-
ship.
In the indirect method, a continuous distribu-
tion of comparatively simple equivalent singu-
larities is assumed instead of defining the detail
of the ship geometry, as the first step. Since a
velocity potential due to this system of singu-
larities has been formulated by Havelock [11,12],
the surface elevation f (x, y) at an arbitrary point
P (x, y) on the surface of the water can be ob-
tained. Therefore, there is no problem in the
process I(B) in Fig. 2. Only the process I(A),
through which "hull form" (A) is obtained from
"given source distribution," needs further dis-
cussions.
When we write the condition of velocity po-
tential on the free surface in a nondimensional
form and in the scope of the infinitesimal wave
theory we have
b2~ b~
bX.> KoL ~ = 0 (Z = 0),
where
q> = 4>/(I;L), X = x / L , Z = z / L ,
also
K o L = L g / V °" = 1 I F 2, (F = Froude number) (17)
Since we have K o L = 25 at F = 0.2 and K o L
= 11.1 at F = 0.3, the value of K o L is fairly large
compared to 1 within this range, and we m a y ap-
proximate equation (15) by the equation (18),
because the first term is considered to be negligible
bcP w direction ft.(z), as expressed by
- - 0, ( Z - - 0 ) ,
bZ V re(x, z) = f l (x) f2(z)
In equation (18) the surface of water z = 0
is regarded as a rigid wall. For the purpose of
290
obtaining the ship geometry from an assumed
singularity distribution, this rigid-wM1 effect is
represented by a mirror image of the assumed
singularity distribution. The ship geometry is
then obtained by tracing the streamlines on the
closed stream surface below z = 0. The nu-
merical calculation involved is rather troublesome
but with the use of high-speed computers this will
not impose any problem. I t should become
possible in the near future to trace the streamlines
by using equation (15) instead of its approxima-
tion (18), so that the effect of the free surface can
be included.
I11 the Experimental Tank of the University of
Tokyo, this indirect method has been used to
obtain more than ten models [13-15] since 1949.
A matter of primary importance in such work is
the choice of locations where the singularities are
to be placed. Various methods of distribution
can be considered, including the most complicated
volume distribution, a curved-surface distribu-
tion, a simpler vertical plane or horizontal plane
distribution, and others.
In this paper we shall discuss the simplest and
most effective one among all these distributions
with respect to displacement ships of F = 0.1
to 0.3 or 0.35. Since the waves made by ships
at such small Froude number has a short wave-
length compared with the hull length, the ship's
maxinmm beam and the midship section form
exercise little effect on the ship's waves, but the
ship's local geometrical characteristics near both
ends are the controlling factors, Appendix 2.
For usual ship hull form, the ship's beam is much
larger than the draft in the midship section.
But near the ends the ratio between the load-
waterline offset and the section depth is usually
very small. In a speed range from F = 0.1
to 0.3 or 0.35, as will be shown later, it is only
(15) necessary to make exact correspondence between
the source distribution and the hull geometry
near the ends. The simple vertical source dis-
tribution meets this requirement. This is the
(16)
reason that the singularities were distributed
within the central vertical plane z = 0 for all the
model experiments by the author. Fig. 7(e)
illustrates the simplest of this distribution known
as the rectangular distribution. The examples so
far calculated are only of the separated type dis-
tributions, in which the function of source strength
re(x, y) is separated into the lengthwise func-
tion fl(x) and the draftwise function of the draft
(18)
(19)
The hull form represented by the source dis-
tribution on the median plane, as shown in Fig.
Wave-Making Resistanceof Ships
 -I Y t

-T -T

(a) Plane o f S o u r c e Oisfribu÷iom

Z Z

l -4 /5'

(b) Ship Geomefry

Fig. 7 Rectangular plane distribution

7(b), resembles an o r d i n a r y hull form near the Table 1 Values of KoT sec20
ends, b u t differs c o n s i d e r a b l y n e a r a m i d s h i p ~A'07" sec20 (T/L = 0 . 0 4 ) ~
toward which the keel line curves d o w n w a r d . F 0 = 0° 0 = 30 ° 0 = 60 °
However, the hull form n e a r the load w a t e r l i n e 0.1 4 5. 333 16
can be m a d e to a n y required form b y selecting an 0.15 1. 778 2. 370 7. 111
0.2 1 1. 333 4
a p p r o p r i a t e source d i s t r i b u t i o n f u n c t i o n re(x, z). 0.25 0.64 0. 853 2.56
T h a t m e a n s a m a j o r p o r t i o n of the difference be- 0.3 O. 444 O. 593 1 . 778
tween such form a n d a n o r d i n a r y hull form is near
the lower m i d d l e part. I t is well k n o w n t h a t the
a b i l i t y of a m o v i n g b o d y to m a k e surface waves According to T a b l e 1, when the theoretical
decreases with the increase of submergence. hull form in Fig. 7(b) is c o m p a r e d to the o r d i n a r y
W i t h respect to a b o d y s u b m e r g e d to a d e p t h f, hull form in Fig. S(b), the effect on the waves due
a n y wave with a w a v e l e n g t h less t h a n 2J" can be to a difference in the b o t t o m shape is of no sig-
neglected. T h e ratio b e t w e e n the d r a f t T a n d nificance in a speed r a n g e b e t w e e n F = 0.1 a n d
the w a v e l e n g t h of the e l e m e n t a r y waves in the 0.15. I t becomes noticeable when F r o u d e n u m -
0-direction X(0) is as follows: ber is larger t h a n this, b u t this effect is n o t very
serious w i t h i n the F r o u d e - n u m b e r range u n d e r
l"/x(o) = ~ KoI" see ~-O, (20) consideration.
Several m e t h o d s m a y be considered to keep the
Therefore, w h e n K 0 T sect0 exceeds 7r, the shape keel line straight. One m e t h o d m a y be, for
of the b o t t o m will have little effect on all the example, the source d i s t r i b u t i o n s in vertical tri-
e l e m e n t a r y waves with a direction angle larger angles as i l l u s t r a t e d in Fig. 8(a) i n s t e a d of the
t h a n 0. T h e values of K o T sec20 a t F = 0.l r e c t a n g u l a r p l a n e d i s t r i b u t i o n . In this case,
to 0.3 on the hull form T / L = 0.04 are given in however, it is expected t h a t a m u c h greater n u m -
T a b l e 1. ber of calculations m u s t be carried o u t in o b t a i n -

Wave-Making Resistanceof Ships 291

 a 1
~---x
r

-T
F// -T

(a) Plane of Scurce Dis+ribution

z Z

{b) Shlp Geometry

Fig. 8 Triangular plane distribution

ing the ship geometry, the wave pattern, and the
wave-making resistance.
In the Experimental T a n k of the University of
Tokyo, the simplest source distribution as shown
in Figs. 7(a) and 7(b) has been adopted as a pre-
liminary step in the experiment. At first a source
distribution is chosen to represent a hull form
with good resistance performance. From this
chosen source distribution the corresponding hull
geometry is obtained by following the indirect
method mentioned before. After the resistance
test and the wave observation experiment have
been completed, this model is modified near the
middle lower part to obtain a practical form
suitable for commercial use. The same tests are
also conducted on this modified model. I t has
been noticed that within the interested Froude-
number range the difference in resistance is usually
small. Also it has been found that the difference
in wave profiles observed correspond very well
with the difference in wave-making resistance
measured. More detailed discussion on this sub-
ject will be introduced in Section 5 of Part 2.
In the method introduced in the foregoing
paragraphs Michell's linearization in the treat-
ment of the ship-surface condition has not been
used. In Michell's theory the ship geometry and
the corresponding source distribution Vm(x, z)
are related directly by the following equation :
m(.v, o, z) = - 2 ~--Y (21)
bx
where
y = y(x, z) = equation for ship surface (22)
In the comparative studies of the theory of
wave-making resistance and the results of tank
experiments, this linearization assumed in equa-
tion (21) had always been employed until the
accuracy of such approximation was questioned
by the author. I t is rather important to know
the sources of inaccuracy of N[ichell's wave-mak-
ing resistance theory before we seek any im-
provement. In the past the viscosity effect was
thought to be the_major source and, as a result,
no satisfactory improvement to Michell's theory
could possibly be found. Since Wigley [16],
started the comparative study in 1926, such study
has been made on nearly sixty different hull

292 Wave-Making Resistanceof Ships

 O.OOS j-
½ I @,
Model 1113
I 0.004
Z,'~
2 CWL
OWl.
--o 0003
/
, q" 0.002

0.001

g.s 2.5 3.0 3.5 4,0 4.5 S.O

v- m / s e c

0.005
I iii
Model Ill~t
0.004

0.003

,'.-I~l~ o.ooz
h ~

o.oo i

°.s 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 ,5.0
V= Ft3/Sec

o 005 I /
Model 1136 t
0.004

~>~
° 0.003 ,,,7
OWL 0.002 I~' ~ °s

°°° °

05 '2". 1.5 2.0 2.5

v-m/sec
3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5,0
I I L I I I I I I I I
O.iO0 0.200 0-7:00 0.400 0.500 0.600
Model 1136 -v/g~c
~.-0.7238 ~ - 0 , 9 2 9 6= O,6lg t8.5 Ill) 15 5.5
, , , , , , , , IO.OB.O
2L51S~ , , , , ,G.05,04.235
, , , i 31.0 Z5 1. ,
2.0 ,
1.4 , __
1.0
3/7. = ~

Fig. 9 Comparison of measured (broken line) and calculated (solid line) wave-making resistance by Michell's
theory (Weinblum 1932)

forms by himself, Weinblum [17], and others, b y Weinblum. This is only one of the typical
Fig. 9 indicates an example of the result obtained examples which show that, when Michell's theory

Wave-Making Resistance of Ships 293

 5,/b Parc~bo/ic Wo+eriine

-I.0 0 I.o
3

oStern f I I ) ) Bow I0
-I.0 1 J I .,j~'O 1.0
b=0.20 ---

- 2 b = O .~ ~ \ ~- ~/" ' .n/ /

-4

Fig. 10 Comparison in waterline and in source distribution

is followed, t h e c a l c u l a t e d w a v e - m a k i n g r e s i s t a n c e 3
is a l w a y s s m a l l e r t h a n t h e m e a s u r e d one a t t h e
l a s t h u m p F - 0.5. C o n s i d e r i n g the fact t h a t , a t LIB =5
h u m p s , t h e v i s c o s i t y h a s a l w a y s the t e n d e n c y to 2
decrease w a v e - m a k i n g resistance, i t seems reason-
a b l e to believe t h a t M i c h e l l ' s t h e o r y u n d e r e s t i -
m a t e s t h e w a v e - m a k i n g resistance a t the n e i g h b o r -
~ >
,- ~
LIB=IO~~
"L/B = 20 ""
hood of F = 0.5.
T h i s t h o u g h t s t i m u l a t e d t h e a u t h o r to investi-
[
I
//// ~Exac+
..... Appro×[nmfe
g a t e t h e possible difference b e t w e e n t h e a p p r o x -
i m a t e source d i s t r i b u t i o n in e q u a t i o n (21) a n d t h e 0 !
0.2 0.3 0-4 0.5 0.6 0.3
c o r r e c t source d i s t r i b u t i o n . H e also o b t a i n e d t h e
difference b e t w e e n t h e w a t e r l i n e form r e p r e s e n t e d
---*v/~
b y t h e a p p r o x i m a t e source d i s t r i b u t i o n of equa- Fig. 11 Comparison in wave-making resistance
(parabolic waterline)
tion (21) a n d t h e original w a t e r l i n e form. A n
e x a m p l e is shown in Fig. 10, in which t h e w a t e r -
line is given b y t h e ship, a n d where F r o u d e n u m b e r is large t h e
w a v e s are affected b y t h e a r e a u n d e r t h e source-
y = b(1 -- x 2) (23) d i s t r i b u t i o n curves. I n Fig. 10 t h e w a t e r l i n e s
cross each o t h e r a t x = 0.S, a n d t h e source-dis-
w i t h b = B / L = 0.05, 0.10 a n d 0.20, or L / B t r i b u t i o n curves cross each o t h e r a t x = 0.9.
= 20, 10 a n d 5. T h i s e x a m p l e i n d i c a t e s t h a t b y In Fig. 1 t t h e p o i n t w h e r e Cw curves cross each
M i c h e l l ' s a p p r o x i m a t i o n , errors of a f a i r l y large o t h e r is F = 0.35. T h e s e t h r e e crossing p o i n t s
m a g n i t u d e a r e f o u n d even o11 a v e r y n a r r o w hull are r e l a t e d to one another.,
f o r m of b = 0.05 (L/B = 20). Fig. 11 shows t h e s e F r o m t h e foregoing results we m a y safely
errors in t e r m s of t h e c a l c u l a t e d w a v e - m a k i n g c o n c l u d e t h a t in a lower speed r a n g e t h a n F
resistance. T h e c o m p a r i s o n b e t w e e n these two = 0.35 M i c h e l l ' s t h e o r y o v e r e s t i m a t e s t h e w a v e -
figures shows t h a t where F r o u d e n m n b e r is small m a k i n g resistance, a n d in a higher speed range it
w a v e - m a k i n g r e s i s t a n c e is affected p r e d o m i n a n t l y u n d e r e s t i m a t e s t h e w a v e - m a k i n g resistance. A n
b y t h e source d i s t r i b u t i o n n e a r b o t h e n d s of e x a m p l e shown in Fig. 12 i n d i c a t e s some results

294 Wave-Making Resistance of Ships

 0.004
S-IOI (Exoctl~/Corresponding Model
~_ 0.003
- ------
A-101 (App~irnolel y CorrespondingModel)J ' ' "1' ~ , - ~ " - - ~
Colculofed(Uncorrecfed)
~: I ~ 0.002
U 0.001
i
o.~o o.~s o.zo o.zs o.3o
Fig. 12 Comparison of measured wave-making resistance for models S-IO1 (exact) and A-IOI (approximate)
obtained experimentally b y conducting resistance
tests on Models S-101 and A-101. B o t h models
were derived from the same given source distribu-
tion. Model A-101 was obtained based on equa-
tion (21), while Model S-10t was obtained b y
following the a u t h o r ' s m e t h o d m e n t i o n e d pre-
viously. T h e given source distribution is ex-
pressed as follows:
Jl(X) = a.~:v, (--I < x < 1),~ (24)
j"2(z) = 1, (--77< z < O) f
with
2'/(21) = 1"/5 = 0.05, a~ = 0.4:
Based Oil equation (21) it is easy to see t h a t the
waterline of A-101 is given b y
y = b(1 -- .~VZe), ( - - [ < :v < Z), (2.5)
where
b = a J 4 = 0.1 (26)
In the same figure the calculated w a v e - m a k i n g
resistance based on the same given source distribu-
tion in the perfect fluid is also plotted. F r o m
these curves it is quite clear t h a t the a u t h o r ' s
objection to Michell's theory is b o t h meaningful
and fruitful. These results also show t h a t the
difference between the two models agrees very
well with w h a t has been anticipated b y the a u t h o r
as stated previously. T h e tigure further shows
t h a t the effect of the errors due to 5,[ichell's
approximation is either equal to or greater than
the effect of the viscosity.
A l t h o u g h the a u t h o r ' s indirect m e t h o d has
a d v a n c e d a step .toward improving Michell's
approximation in the t r e a t m e n t of ship surface
conditions, it does not t r e a t the free-surface con-
dition exactly. This n a t u r a l l y leads to errors,
especially at the higher F r o u d e - n u m b e r range.
Such effect of free surface is shown, for the m o s t
part, as phase shift of the bow wave. T o be more
precise, a comparison between the measured and
Wave-Making Resistanceof Ships
I
~-Meos,~od
F¢~'_~_~"-~--~._
o.3s 0.40 o.4s o.so o.ss aoo o.os o.~o
r=vl~
calculated profiles of the bow waves shows t h a t the
phase of the measured wave leads t h a t of the
calculated as illustrated in Fig. 23. F o r the
a m o u n t of this phase difference = X r , 6r m a y
be defined as follows:
6~ = Xj,/'L (27)
As for w a v e - m a k i n g resistance, a comparison
between the result of the experiment and t h a t of
the theoretical calculation indicates t h a t the
former has h u m p s and hollows shifted t o w a r d a
higher speed range. I t seems reasonable to in-
terpret this as being due to the distance L be-
tween the starting point of bow wave and t h a t
of the stern wave having increased to (1 q- 6) L.
A portion of 6 is 6~. mentioned before, and the
remainder is 6A, which is used to a c c o u n t for the
viscosity effect. 3"o define this we nlay write
6 = 6F+,h (2S)
In equation (28) while 6,~ denotes principally
the viscosity effect, it also expresses a m u c h more
complicated substance. F o r example, when wave
profiles are measured along a centerline (:v-axis)
i m m e d i a t e l y behind the stern, the wave length
there is found clearly s o m e w h a t shorter t h a n the
theoretical wave length, which corresponds to
ship's speed V and is expressed b y
Xo = 2rrV'-'/g (2!))
This shows the effects of a frictional belt.
T h e fact t h a t the waves propagate in the rear
of a ship t h r o u g h this frictional belt seems to have
m u c h to do with 6~ (> 0). To explain it minutely,
6a (> 0) seems to come o u t for the reason that,
besides the effective starting point of the stern
waves lags behind (this has been proven b y a
result obtained in the course of the waveless stern-
form research to be described in Section 4, P a r t
2), the wave-lnaking separation L, measured b y
the actual wavelength which has become a little
smaller, works as if it becalne (t + 6) L when
measured b y the unit of the original wavelength.
295
 0.010
Correcfion Facfors
Cases Marks
0.008 _ _ Ideal Fluid 1 0 A

Viscous Fluid 0.8 0.05 B

2 ~ o.ooo O.G QIO C

~ l ~ 0.004

U
o.ooz

0,0 015 o zo o z5 030 03s o40 045 o so 05s 060 o os 070

F-v/J-C~
FiB. 13 Comparison of calculated wave-making resistance for ideal fluid and viscous fluid (T/L = 0.05)

0.008
----- C~lculafed (Uncorrecfed)
- - ]'S- 1011. Calculai-ed ('Cot reefed)
I_S-201J
0.006
tv- t~
• S-IOI M e a s u r e d .i
o S-201 Measured / J ~,~
0.004
"-----o-..___
t:~loJ
II
_5 0.002
t.)

0 -~,~
O/O 0.15 0.20 0.7_5 0.30
0.40 1~3`5
0.4.5 0.50 0.55 0.60 O.GS 0.70
F= V v/-~
Fig. 14 Measured and calculated wave-making resistance coefficients for models S-tO1 and S-201 (T/L = 0.05)

T h e a u t h o r has i n t r o d u c e d simple c o r r e c t i o n r e s u l t i n d i c a t e d in Fig. 14 shows t h e r e is a g r e a t

f a c t o r s (/3, 6) in which 6, t h e a f o r e m e n t i o n e d s i m i l a r i t y b e t w e e n t h e two. N e e d l e s s to say, in
p h a s e correction, is c o m b i n e d w i t h t h e r e d u c t i o n t h e t h e o r e t i c a l c o m p u t a t i o n of e q u a t i o n (14),
f a c t o r 3 which expresses t h e w a v e h e i g h t of t h e (/3, 6) is m a d e to v a r y s o m e w h a t w i t h F r o u d e
stern w a v e w h i c h b e c o m e s s m a l l e r due to viscosity. n u m b e r for t h e s a m e hull form. Besides, a hull
B y this m e a n s t h e c a l c u l a t e d r e s u l t has been m a d e self-interference coefficient h a s been i n t r o d u c e d
to agree with t h e e x p e r i m e n t a l result. from t h e c o n s i d e r a t i o n t h a t t h e a m p l i t u d e of b o w
L e t us consider a source d i s t r i b u t i o n as p u t in w a v e s is s m a l l e r owing to t h e self-interference of
e q u a t i o n (24). A s t h e n u m e r i c a l c o n s t a n t 01 t h e hull. H o w e v e r , we will n o t discuss this p o i n t
is increased, t h e s h i p ' s b e a m increases, t h u s further.
shifting t h e s e p a r a t i o n p o i n t of t h e b o u n d a r y l a y e r
f o r w a r d . T h i s should m e a n t h a t t h e v i s c o s i t y 3 Bird's-Eye View Pictures and their Stereo-
effect b e c o m e s g r e a t e r . F o r s i m p l i c i t y let us Analysis Applied to Tank Experiments
a s s u m e t h a t t h e v a l u e of (/3, 6) is c o n s t a n t t h r o u g h -
o u t a whole r a n g e of F r o u d e n u m b e r , a n d c a l c u l a t e T h e p r i m a r y f u n c t i o n of an e x p e r i m e n t a l t o w i n g
w a v e - m a k i n g r e s i s t a n c e coefficient Cw' = R,o t a n k should be to r e p r o d u c e t h e w a v e - m a k i n g
d i v i d e d b y (p/2V2aI2L 2) for t h e t h r e e following p h e n o m e n a of ships as e x a c t l y as possible on
cases : scaled models. H o w e v e r , t h e p r e s e n t facilities
of t h e t o w i n g t a n k s a r e n o t a p p r o p r i a t e in m a n y
Cases Correction factors Marks in Fig. 13
0 a r e s p e c t s for t h e e x t e n s i v e a n d m i n u t e i n v e s t i g a -
Ideal Fluid . . . . . . . . 1 0 A tion of t h e w a v e s of m o d e l s for t h e reason t h a t
Viscous fluid f0.8 0.05 B these t a n k s h a v e been used chiefly for m e a s u r i n g
. . . . . . . ~0.6 0.10 C "force." T h e r e are l i g h t i n g a n d o t h e r t e c h n i c a l
T h e r e s u l t of t h e c a l c u l a t i o n is shown in Fig. 13. difficulties in t a k i n g p i c t u r e s of w a v e s on t h e
T h e c o m p a r i s o n of this w i t h t h e e x p e r i m e n t a l surface of w a t e r from above. T h e difficulties

296 Wave-Making Resistanceof Ships

 (a) Model SR-452 (with full entrance and easy shoulder)

(b) Model SR-453 (with fine entrance and hard shoulder)

Fig. 15 Wave patterns for 2.5-m high-speed cargo liner models (F = 0.277, KoL = 13)

are d o u b l e d when, as in the ease of the a u t h o r a n d spect it should be n o t e d t h a t small size t a n k s w i t h

his colleagues, a n a t t e m p t is m a d e to i n v e s t i g a t e small size models are more a d a p t a b l e t h a n those of
waves in as wide a n area as possible. I n this re- a large size. C o m p a r e d to the difficulties in theo-

Wave-Making Resistanceof Ships 297

 SR-45
Fore Body Cp- Curve Series
0.003
A~ I z 3 4 s o
0.002
plane C
A.P.
2 " '1 ' 3 4 ~
Cw ;sobfained by using Hughes Line
to wifh form +ocfor K=0.25
0.001
I t
o.~s 020
Fig. 16 Wave-making resistance for Model SR-452 and Model SR-453
retical analysis as described in Section 2, however,
the difficulties of this kind can be overcome by
properly designing appropriate devices.
Fortunately, in the Experimental T a n k of the
University of Tokyo, such problems have been
for the most p a r t solved in the past five years,
primarily b y Professor Takahei. The method
of taking pictures of waves includes using alu-
m i n u m foil (mesh 150 to 170) which is spread on
the surface of water at a rate of about 1 gram
per sq meter, and strobo-light (flash time ]./2000
see) used for illumination. The extremely short
flashing time of this light permits us to obtain
sharp pictures of waves with vivid details and also
to take each pair of stereo-pictures with good
synchronization. The surface of the water is
made very bright by light reflected by the silvery
surface of the scattered aluminum foil. I t is
possible to ignore the effect of the foil on surface
tension when the model length is over 1 m.
Some ten years ago when the author conceived
the idea of employing an optical method for the
investigation of the wave pattern of a model, he
did not know which of the following methods
should be used:
(a) T a k e pictures of wave profiles cut by any
vertical plane b y casting parallel light beams onto
the surface of the water through slits having
small width; repeat this operation to photograph
various sections of waves.
298 Wave-Making Resistance of Ships
Full Load ~.~.~J
/,s
/
v a 9 FP I//
J
G ~9 'a' ' 7P. j ~
, I 1 ~co
II
I 1
~ / ~ SR-453
/ r i
o.z5 o.~o o.~s
F= v/V'ffwLCJ
(b) Use stereo-photogrammetry such as has
actually been employed in the author's experi-
ments up to date.
Method ((~), where a cylindrical lens is neces-
sary to cast parallel light beams, has proven
useful in case the measuring objects are not so
large; for example, for optical study of model
wing sections. For such use as intended by the
author such a cylindrical lens will have to be so
large that it is not practical.
In the case of method (b), on the other hand,
even if stereo-analysis could not be made, each
picture showing a wave pattern as a whole should
be very useful for qualitative study. Hence,
research work has been conducted using this
method as a major tool. As an example of pic-
tures used for qualitative observation a pair of
pictures is shown in Fig. 15. These pictures
were taken of two high-speed cargo liner models.
Both have ordinary conventional lines, and the
only difference is in the sectional-area curve of the
fore body. Model SR-452 has a large entrance
angle and an easy fore shoulder, but Model SR-453
has a small entrance angle and a hard fore
shoulder. The comparison of the two pictures
clearly shows the correspondence between the
ship geometry and the ship waves. The hard
shoulder produces a large shoulder wave, while the
large entrance angle gives a large bow wave. The
Cw-curves of the both models plotted in Fig. 16
show that, at speeds lower than F = 0.26, it is
better to have a smaller entrance angle and a hard
shoulder. However, since the shoulder effect in-
creases with speed, above this Froude number,
Model SR-452 performs better than Model
SR-453.
Figs. 17 and 1S show examples of quantitative
study by stereo-analysis. The model used is a
2.5-m model of MS Kurenai ~14(~ru., a passenger
coaster which was enlployed for full-scale experi-
ments carried out in the Spring of 1961, with a
"waveless" bulb attached. 4 In either figure, (c,)
is of a hull form with a conventional bulb, and
(b) is of a form with a large size waveless bulb
especially designed for these experiments. When
this kind of stereo-analysis is performed, we can
make any minute comparison between the theory
and the experiment, especially by obtaining wave
profiles from the wave contours shown in these
figures. The details on this subject will be dis-
cussed in Section 4, Part 2.
A few lines will be devoted here to the de-
scription of the importance of studying the "dif-
ference curves of wave profiles," and requirements
for the towing-carriage speed-control device.
In the process (I) from "hull form"(A) to
"ship's waves"(B), when analysis starts at a
given distribution of singularities, instead of at
ship geometry, there is such linear relationship
between singularities and waves that an addition
of some singularities to a given original distribu-
tion will always show its effect on waves in the
form of an addition. For this reason, the exam-
ination of the wave-profile difference between the
two becomes a very useful means of grasping the
wave-making effect of additional singularities.
In this case, it is necessary that the speed be
exactly the same in each set of two runs. This
means thai: the towing carriage must be provided
with an automatic speed-control device.
When the proposed method of hull-form research
is employed, it is usual that prior to tank experi-
ments the theoretical wave-profile curves are
drawn from calculations for each speed. For
this calculation, tables of functions related to
wave profiles are used. These tables have been
prepared for properly spaced round numbers of
KoL = 1/F'. The pictures shown in Figs. 15
and others were taken in this way with KoL
numbers having been chosen previously.
In the Experimental Tank of the University of
Tokyo, guided by past experience a plan has been
under way for the improvement of the experi-
mental facilities so that the proposed method
of ship hull-form research work could be carried
on with greater efficiency in the future. The
4 See iliustration, page 28;2.
Wave-Making Resistance of Ships
plan includes the following items, some of which
already have been put into effect:
1 I m p r o v e m e n t of the towing-carriage speed-
control device.
2 Installation of a triple-type wide-angle stereo-
camera.
3 Towing-carriage structure change as necessi-
tated for the mounting of the wide-angle stereo-
camera.
4 An increase of the number of strobo lights to
provide better illumination.
5 Installation of a double projection type
stereo-plotter.
Some comment is necessary concerning the size
of a towing tank in relation to the proposed
method of tank experimentation in which the ob-
servation of the waves of a model is of primary
importance. In the conventional method of tank
experiments a principal object has been the meas-
urement of force, or a quantity such as a force or a
torque which is in proportion to £a or L 4. Any of
these quantities sharply decreases as the size of a
model decreases, thus causing a relatively great
error in the measured values. Besides, for hydro-
dynamic considerations such as laminar effect, it
is considered good practice to use as large a model
as practicable.
However, in the new method intended for the
observation of the waves of a model astern and in
as wide an area as possible, the quantity to be
measured is the wave height which is in pro-
portion to L, and the required area in which the
measurement is in proportion to L 2. Hence, it is
appropriate to use a small-size model to facilitate
camera work and illumination, for this will not
cause appreciable lowering of accuracy in meas-
urement. It m a y be said, therefore, that the
proposed method has an interesting advantage,
and that no large model is ne.cessary. If possible,
it seems wise to have a small towing tank exclu-
sively used for this type of optical experiments
even in a laboratory provided with large tanks.
The efficiency of research work could thus be
greatly increased for the entire institution.
In summary, the following statements can be
made in regard to the proposed new approach
to the hull-form research:
1 Start from the source distribution instead of
hull geometry. Better agreement is obtained
between the measured and computed ship's
waves due to better approximation on the ship
surface condition.
2 Based on Havelock's elementary-wave con-
cept, and his method of computing wave-making
resistance from the amplitude functions of the
elementary waves, a much better understanding
of the ship's wave-making mechanism is obtained.
299
 (a) With small conventional bulb B1

(b) With large "waveless" bulb F4

Fig. 17 Wave patterns or 2.5-m high-speed passenger coaster Kurenai-Maru models (F = 0.316,
KoL = 10)

3 Using the b i r d ' s - e y e view p i c t u r e - t a k i n g technique, H a v e l o e k ' s c o n c e p t of ship's wave-

technique as well as s t e r e o p h o t o g r a m m e t r i e a l m a k i n g p h e n o m e n a can be s t u d i e d in m i n u t e

300 Wave-Making Resistanceof Ships

 5 o
o - -\

I~O.g

_ ~v ol3 "~ ,

~;/~__ 7/ I"Z" oImt~£

.............
.......
HEigHT ~ 1k~=2,50~)

2A KURENAI-MAIRU MOUE1.'S I~,~ P*tierus ~r v~=17 60"(W!THOUT lliJUB)

(a) With small conventional bulb B1

/ ~ .I ~ ~ i ~)b~--------~-Tl _i .-i N s

_. t
.....
r~, - I.....
1,°1,~ } ......... I7-I
[. . . . . . ....

2 ~ KURENAI-MARU MOOFLL'S W#w PatNrl¢ f~r Vs=I7.60"{WlTllB.L~)

(b) With large "waveless" bulb F4

Fig. 18 Stereo-analysis for the wave patterns in Fig. 17

detail experimentally. This fact makes the At this point it is interesting to mention that
further improvement of our present wave-making Prof. B. V. Korvin-Kroukovsky [18], Dr. K.
resistance theory possible arid the application of Eggers" [19], and Prof. L. W. Ward [20] have also
such to the design of ships much easier. realized the importance of observing and studying
With such a new approach, the author believes the ship's waves in a towing tank in order to have
t h a t effort expended in hulldorm research work more basic understanding about the ship's wave-
can be much more fruitful. making mechanism.

Wave-Making Resistance of Ships 301

 Part 2 Applicationsof Proposed Method
in P a r t 1 the principle of the proposed method
of hull-form research has been discussed. In
P a r t 2 we shall see the effectiveness of this method
in designing the actual hull form, using waveless-
form designs as examples. I t is true that the
application of the method is not to be limited only
to the waveless-form problem. However, the
concept of waveless form m a y be regarded as a
new idea in the field of ship hydrodynamics.
Further, findings of the waveless form is closely
related to the fact t h a t the proposed method has
been effectively applied. Section 4, with which
P a r t 2 begins will be devoted to the description
of how the waveless form was discovered, and
Section 5 to the discussion of some problems rele-
v a n t to ship geometry which will be encountered
in an actual design of the waveless form. In
Section 6, a relationship between the discon-
tinuity of a source distribution and ship geometry
will be taken up to furnish some information
which should be useful in the preparation of ship's
lines.
4 First Findings of the Waveless Forms
During a period of more than 90 years since
Froude started his t a n k experiments, resistance
tests have been conducted on an innumerable
nmnber of hulI forms in small and large towing
basins the world over. T h e exact number of
these tests is not known, b u t it nmst be m a n y
thousands. In hull-form research work so far
carried out the thinking about hull resistance has
been established based on the data obtained by
these tests. As a result, with respect to the wave-
making resistance the following conclusions have
been accepted generally :
a Although the wave-making resistance of a
ship depends greatly upon the hull form, it is
impossible to eliminate it entirely. Under a
given set of design condition, such as displacement,
hull length, speed, and so on, there m u s t be an
appreciable amount of wave-making resistance.
b As to what is the minimum value of wave-
making resistance for each particular case no
clear answer has yet been found. However,
what we caI1 the best hull forms today have been
established from the vast accumulated data of
past hulI-form research work. The possibly at-
tainable minimum wave-making resistance seems
to have been almost achieved, and it will be very
hard to make further improvements in presently
accepted near o p t i m u m forms.
These rather pessimistic views m a y have much
to do with the fact t h a t in recent years no notice-
able i m p r o v e m e n t has been made in hull-form
302 Wave-Making Resistanceof Ships
design as compared to the early period of hull-
form research.
The author held the same view until three years
ago. Even authoritative researchers, such as
Professor Havelock, seem to have accepted such a
view based on their theoretical thinking. In this
regard the author would like to quote the following
passage from Professor Havelock's letter, which
he wrote on July :?5, 1960, in reply to the author's
letter to him on July 13, 1960, immediately after
the author's experiment on the waveless form.
(Cordial approval has been obtained from Pro-
fessor Havelock for the quotation from his letter.)
From the author's letter to Professor Havelock
dated J u l y 13, 1960:
" . . . . . . Coming back to m y recent work, we
at the T o k y o University T a n k have succeeded
in realizing a 'waveless' huh form where wave-
making resistance is practically zero at a desired
Froude nmnber. This result, I believe, is wholly
due to you, not to me, because our success has its
theoretical ground exactly on ),our excellent
contributions to this field of science.
"Especially your paper on the energy-method
for obtaining the wave-making resistance of ships,
presented to Proc. Roy. Soc. (1934), is the most
important contribution . . . . . . . . . "
From Professor Havelock's letter to the author
dated July 25, 19(50:
" . . . . . . . Your 'waveless' hull form sounds
specially interesting. I t takes me back a long
time to when Kelvin used to refer to 'wave free
pontoons.' T h a t was, of course, for two-di-
mensional pressure systems where one could easily
picture interference between, say, bow and stern
waves completely cancelling out the resultant
disturbance.
" I do not suppose one could get such a complete
'wave free' result in three dimensions: but you
seem to have got a good approximation to
it . . . . . . . . . . . "
The purpose of this section is to state how the
"waveless-form theory" was discovered in the
Experimental T a n k of the University of T o k y o
and to reexamine the aforementioned pessimistic
beliefs. However, since three of the papers by the
autho~ and his research colleagues treating the
subject of waveless form have been translated
into English and published by the University
of Michigan lately [21], the repetition of the
contents in these papers will be avoided here.
This section will describe only the i m p o r t a n t
thinking which leads to the discovery of the wave-
less hull form.
In order to facilitate this discussion, Wigley's
[22] paper will be quoted for comparison for the
reason t h a t this paper of Wigley represents the
theory or the concept of the bulbous bow which
has generally been accepted. (It would seem
appropriate for the author to use this occasion
to state that the quotation of Professor Havelock's
letter and Mr. Wigley's paper is intended to give
readers the background against which the dis-
covery of the waveless form was made. The
author has held a high respect for both Professor
Havelock and Mr. Wigley because the former
gentleman made the greatest contribution to the
development of the wave-making theory and the
latter was the first pioneer to introduce this theory
in the tank experiment.)
In attacking any problem in the field of wave-
making resistance, the author would like to
emphasize that the researcher must have a very
clear yiew of the physical phenomena in his own
mind. Before the waveless-form theory was dis-
covered the author already had the following views
in his mind :
1 As a starting point, a suitable hull form to be
fitted with a bulb must be derived from a simple
continuous source distribution in such a way not
only that the integrated resultant of elementary
free waves of all the source will give only bow and
stern-wave systems, but also that the amplitude
functions of the two wave systems so obtained
must be simple.
2 I t is quite natural to combine these two wave
systems in the rear of a ship as was done by
Wigley. However, unlike the case of two-di-
mensional waves, to eliminate ship's three-di-
mensional waves entirely, it is absolutely neces-
sary to leave the bow-wave and the stern-wave
systems separate. If Wigley's path of combining
these two wave systems together is followed, the
waveless form can never be obtained.
3 In the next step, consider whether it is pos-
sible or not to cancel the bow or stern waves by
the system of waves which starts at the same point
as the bow or stern waves. So long as an ideal
fluid is concerned, the problem of eliminating the
stern wave is the same as that of eliminating
the bow wave. However, as the problem stands,
it is a very complicated three-dimensional prob-
lem.
4 We m a y recall the concept of Havelock's "ele-
mentary waves" which is described in Section 1,
Part 1, that a complicated three-dimensional
sional waves. I t seems that Wigley failed to take
advantage of this fact.
5 Now to solve this problem, we m a y ask
whether some kind of singularity can be found
which will produce the arnplitude functions S(O)
and C(O), the same as those in equation (4), but
with an opposite sign. In other words, the follow-
ing requirements must be satisfied:
(a) Inverse phase condition must be maintained
for all the elementary waves between the main
hull and those of the singularity to be sought.
(b) Equal amplitude conditions must also be
achieved.
The singularity to be sought to satisfy the
conditions (a) and (b), as will be shown later, is a
doublet representing a bull), If we denote the
amplitude function of the main hull by A(O)
and the amplitude function of the bulb by t3(0),
we must have
6 Supposing that the foregoing inverse phase
condition were satisfied, in the rear of the ship the
free-wave pattern of the main hull's bow-wave
system can be expressed by
~,o,~,(x, y) ~ .4~. (0) sin
,J -- ~/2
× [K0see ~-0 ( x - x0cos0+ysin0)]d0, (3t)
and the wave system of the: bulb by
¢~.,)(.V, y ) ,"-' - - 13~.(0) Sill
,J - - r / 2
X [ K 0 s e c ' 0 (x -- x o c o s 0 + y s i n 0 ) ] d 0 (32)
Then when these two systenas of waves are super-
posed we may write
r,o.,.+~(.~, y) {~tF (0) - 13,- (03} sin
d -~/2
X [K0sec ~0 (x -- x 0 c o s 0 - t - y s i n 0 ) ] d 0 , (3:3)
As for the wave-making resistance, where only
the bow-wave system of the main hull is con-
cerned, it can be given by
R,o,F = ~ p 1/2 f~/2
•J -- ~r/2
{~4 ~ (0) }" cos~ 0 do (34)

wave system, such as a Kelvin wave group can be When the bow-wave system of the main hull
reduced to two-dimensional elementary waves. and that of the bulb are superposed, the resultant
Then our problem is equivalent to cancelling the wave system will produce, a wave-making re-
integrand of equation (4) rather than the inte- sistance as expressed by the following equation :
grated result. T h a t means our complicated
71" f~r/2
problem of cancelling a three-dimensional wave R,~,~.+ ~ = ~ p y-' {.4 ~ (0) - ~ (0) 1 ~
system has been reduced to an elementary prob- ,J --~r/2
lena of mutual interference of simple, two-dimen- X eos30d0 (35)

Wave-Making Resistanceof Shi~s 303

 I t is clear from equation (35) that for practical
purposes, the equal amplitude condition, (5b)
above, or equation (30) does not necessarily
have to be satisfied exactly with respect to all
elementary waves. Beyond a certain value of
0, due to the weighing factor cos:~0, the contribution
from all the elementary waves is negligible.
7 At this point, let us examine to what extent
the equal amplitude condition could be satisfied
within the range of 0 value from which most of the
contribution comes. This is very important.
In the hitherto established theory of the bulbous
bow, Wigley and other researchers have in essence
expressed the wave-making resistance by the fol-
lowing equation instead of by equation (35) :
R~.~+D = 7) 0 V'-' F ~/~ {.4 (0) }., cos 3 0 dO
- d - -,,,-/2
+ ~7r p v~ f~/2 {B(0)}'-' cos3 0 dO
d -~-/2
-.-/2
- rr p lZ2 f
d - ~/2
A (0) B ( O ) c o s ~ 0
= Rn 4- RB 4- Rz
where Rn and RB are the wave-making resistance
of the main hull and the bulb, respectively, and
R~ is due to the interference effect between them.
If we compare equations (33) and (35), we can
immediately see the simple relationship between
the added bulb and the changes in the wave-
making resistance. The effect of a bulb upon
the wave-making resistance is through the inter-
ference of each pair of elementary waves of the
main hull and the bulb. If we take equation (36)
instead of equation (35), such a simple relation-
ship can never be obtained, especially when B(O)
is close to A(0). To understand the action of a
bulb through this relationship has not been sug-
gested in the reference [22]. Only with this
understanding can we ask what size of a bulb is
required for a specific main hull. Otherwise, no
matter how big or how small a bulb may be, it
may do harm rather than improve the situation.
The possibility of a bulb with a reasonable
enough size to cancel a bow or stern-wave system
has been considered for some time. Such possibility
was ascertained for the first time when the author
noticed that the wave-making resistance of a ship
at F ~< 0.35 was mainly determined by the local
characteristics of a source distribution near the
end. This relationship can be shown as follows:
In the past either the wave-making resistance
or the wave height was given by complicated in-
tegral expressions. However, the author believes
it might be possible to put such expression in a
form which is more elementary and easier to
understand. This has been done as shown in
304 Wave-Making Resistance of Ships
Appendix 2 by changing the integration to a
series through the process of integration by parts.
In this series, it is noticed that a bow or stern-
wave amplitude function is determined by the
values of the source distribution and its deriva-
tives at the end point. T h a t means only the
small portion of a hull geometry near the ends
determines the wave-making resistance. From
these facts it might be easily understood that, at
F ~< 0.35 the magnitude of the main hull free-
wave pattern is of a fairly small order compared
to the total displacement. On the contrary, the
magnitude of the bulb free wave is determined
exactly by the total volume of the bulb; viz., the
total moment of the equivalent doublet system
isolated, as shown in Appendix 2.
In consideration of the foregoing discussion as
well as that given in paragraph 6, the author had
little doubt about that, of the two conditions
(5a) and (5b), the condition for equal amplitude
function 5b could be satisfied effectively without
dO any serious difficulty in the range of interest of
Froude number F ~< 0.35. To verify this, an
(36) approximate estimate was made of the size of a
bulb which would be required to satisfy the con-
dition (5b); viz., equation (30), with a certain
main hull which has an ordinary length-beam
proportion L/B, but has an unusual curved
bottom as illustrated in Fig. 7(b). The value
obtained was, as mentioned previously, only a few
percent of the total displacement of the main hull.
8 Now our discussion has come to be focused on
the other condition, (Sa); viz., the inverse phase
condition. I t is a well-known fact in primary
hydrodynamics that a sphere placed in a uniform
flow can be replaced by a certain three-dimensional
point doublet with its axis directed against the
flow. Insofar as the existing theory is concerned
such as Wigley's paper [22], this concept has
also been aeccepted in the bulb treatment without
any question. No a t t e m p t seems to have been
made at any experimental tank to verify to what
extent the aforementioned replacement is actually
realized in the waves themselves of any bulbous-
form model.
As shown in Appendix 2(a) the free-wave pat-
tern caused by a traveling point-doublet is a sine-
component wave with a negative sign. This
means that this free wave of a doublet starts with
a trough. On the contrary, as also stated in
Appendix 2(c), either forward-end or after-end
free-wave pattern caused by a traveling system
of continuous sources is primarily dominated
by a sine-component wave with a positive sign,
since its cosine-wave component has a smaller
amplitude at the range of interest of Froude
number F = 0.1 ~ 0.35. T h a t means, the bow
 Fig. 19 First "waveless" model C-201F2XA4 (L = 2.5 m)

A Main Hull (without Bulb)"" o -I

B With Bow-Bulb ................. • ~-Measured
C With Bow-& Stern-Bulbs'" ~ J / f
D Wave Resistance due to Stern Waves alone /
~_leq
3-0.002O
_-____-~___A
D. B, C , } Calculated /
II
Q)

o 0.0010
v-
D ~/~
I B jD/iS
e~

).10 0.20 ! 0.30 0.40 0.50

Designed Speed (F=0.267) Froude number F'=V/,[~9
dq~'

Fig. 2O Wave-making resistance for C-201 (main hull alone), C-201F2 (with bow
bulb), and C-201F2)<A4 (with bow and stern bulbs)

or stern free-wave pattern of a main hull starts
with a crest having its origin fairly close to the
end point, in either case.
From these considerations, it appears quite
natural to believe the possibility of realizing
an inverse phase relationship between the afore-
mentioned two free-wave systems; one is the
bulb wave and the other is the main hull end
wave.
However, through the successive analysis from
1 to 7, it is also quite clear t h a t once such inverse
phase relationship is realized, a waveless hull form
could be obtained without any difficulty.
At this stage of analysis, it also must be recalled
t h a t the concept of a waveless hull form is con-
trary to the century-old and widely accepted
belief, as stated in (a) in the introductory part of
this section, t h a t the wave-making resistance
of any ship can never be reduced to zero.
9 Summarizing the foregoing discussion, it m a y
safely be concluded t h a t when the possibility of
replacing a bulb b y an isolated doublet system is
accepted, the possibility of finding a waveless
hull form m u s t also be accepted at the same time.
In other words, when the possibility of finding a
waveless hull form is denied at all, the possibility
of replacing a bulb b y an isolated doublet system
m u s t also be denied.
10 Now our question m a y finally be reduced to
a very elementary form as follows:
With respect to the phase of the free-wave
pattern caused b y an attached bulb is it possible

Wave-Making Resistanceof Ships 305

 . -- Main Hull ~ J
.... t~oil, ,,/ ~ .\~t0V/_d_]
< I
.... -, i;/_....4--"- ', ', I
1.~ t°
" ' ," "-.'.~./ ! -._ ~/,;c~-

,,.,L..... i J i
1~-~1 ~=1 >-I ~1 ',,I iI iI i II

I®
I
~i i ~ I
®J i
ml i I
ml I
mi t '
", ~ . I -- 0.5
'l° 20° 35~6 '40° (ill° 8--- 80"

.,t~/l'~'lilllllll"vl'~
(a) Amplitude Function
/ / ~i 77
,[Ar(O)]"c<,saO/ E -' (,,',/hour Butt>) ,'ix ," ,'/ "~a =-" , F_p •/,/Lg
I.~ ~ I I I
0.4 q.t0 0.15 0.20 0.25 0.30 0,35
I I I l
0i.5 1.0 1.5
- - blain Hull Fy=g/f,GTg
.... Bulb
t((///////H//////,'/,?'////4/////////,.~///~~
0° 20 ° ,10° 60 ° 80° Fig 22 Amplitude functions versus Froude number
(b)Wave Resistance Integral

Fig. 21 Amplitude functions of main hull wave and

bulb wave for M o d e l C-2OIF2 (F = 0.267, K o L = 14)
(a) Amplitude functions
(b) Curves for integrand in wave-making resistance
integrals
mm

4O
40

2O
20

0
0

--20 Stern
"
2
I
(measured)
I- I
4 /
/
.......>
6
I
~ - . 7 £
. 4_ "'% I
SY-f 7
'
Bow
-20
Hull Wave (with Bulb) C--201 × F 2
2O
20

0
0 ~'< ~ e ' lo ~_ ' 16<.~, " 4 \ 2 Ko,/,
"-" J ~ " ('calculated) \ ~ A'
--20 <m.-.-,, \V/ --20

Bulb Wave (Difference between C--201 ",'F2 and C - 2 0 1 ) "~J\./

--40
--40
Fig. 23 Measured and calculated wave profiles on M o d e l C-201 and C-201F2 (L = 2.5 m)

to replace the bulb with good approximation b y a experimental and theoretical, was carried o u t
certain isolated system of doublet ? [A113 E v e n t h o u g h this rather preliminary
A l t h o u g h this question seems as elementary as s t u d y was not intended for the waveless form it-
it seems self-evident, it has, at the same time, an self, its importance m a y be the greatest of all the
extremely great i m p o r t a n c e with respect to ship's work reported in the papers previously published
resistance problems. related to the w a v d e s s forms (Appendix 3), for
the reason t h a t this has given a definite answer,
Preliminary Approach to First Findings of Waveless for the first time, to the foregoing e l e m e n t a r y
Forms question, b y proving t h a t a bulb can be replaced
T o exalnine the aforementioned elementary
question, some preliminary research work, both s Refer to Bibliography in Appendix 3.

306 Wave-Making Resistanceof Ships

well by an isolated system .of doublet. The
method employed was nothing other than the
method proposed in Part 1 of ~-he present paper.
It also should be noted that for such purpose as
ours a conventional resistance test was of little
significance. The difference between the two
observed total waves f = fz -~- f~ was studied
carefully; one being for the case without the
bulb, the other for the case with the bulb. By
comparing this with the calculated waves caused
either b y a point source or by a point doublet,
the measured difference in waves was found to be
very close to the calculated waves due to a point
doublet, except in the vicinity of the bow.
First Waveless-Form Experiments
As mentioned before, since ~:he results of the
preliminary research work offered a sufficient
reason for the possibility of finding a waveless
form, the first experiment was carried out to
verify this possibility. In its first phase Prof. T.
Takahei attacked the waveless bow problem
[A2,A3], 5 and in the second phase Dr. M. K u m a n o
attacked the waveless stern problem [A4,A5,A6].
In either case the same main hull models were
used.
Source Distribution Adopted
Following the method proposed, Professor
Takahei and Dr. K u m a n o started not at the ship
hull geometry, but at the source ,distribution which
is given b y the following equations :
re(x, z) = fl (x) f',. (z),
fl(x) = a , sin <)
~ (-- l _ x _< l)
Ih (z) -~ 1 (:37)
From the discussion in Appemlix 2(c), the source
distribution (37) has the simplicity that either bow
or stern free-wave pattern consists only of the
sine-wave component throughout the whole
range of Froude number.
As for the values of at, it seemed appropriate to
adopt at least two different values for it. I t is
easy to understand that, when al is increased,
the beam-length ratio B / L must also be increased.
And with an increase of B / L , the viscosity effect
and the hull self-interference become remarkable,
thus pres.enting an unfavorable situation for the
intended experiment. On the other hand with an
excessively small a~ value, B / L will be too small
for practical purpose.
From these considerations, the following values
of al were adopted :
a~ = 0.4 ( T / L = 0.05) . . . Model C-101 (38)
al = 0.6 ( T / L = 0.05) . . . Model C-201
Wave-Making Resistance of Ships
The hull geometry for these two models was
obtaifled by tracing the streamlines as explained
in Part 1. Fig. 19 shows Model C-201 with the
bow bulb F2 and the stern bulb A4 attached. I t
has a curved bottom and both bulbs projected
outward rather remarkably. From the practical
point of view, these m a y cause various incon-
veniences. However, the main purpose of these
two models was only to ascertain the possibility
of the waveless hull form, but not to use them for
practical design. (Further practical develop-
ments will be discussed in Section 5.)
Results Obtained
Fig. 20 shows the wave-making resistance
curves for Model C-201 (main hull alone), MTodel
C-201 F2 (with bow bulb) and for Model C-201
F2xA4 (with bow and stern bulbs). The de-
signed speed for both bulbs is F = 0.267 (KoL
= 14). At this Froude number the wave re-
sistance of Model C-201 F 2 X A 4 is almost null.
Fig. 21(a) shows a relation between the two
amplitude functions AF(O) (main hull wave) and
BF(O) (bulb wave) for Model C-201 F2, at the
designed Froude number F = 0.267. Fig. 21(b)
illustrates the integrands of the right-hand side of
equations (34) and (35). By comparison between
these two figures, Figs. 21(a), (b), the statements
given under the paragraphs 6 and 7 of this section
will be clearly understood. Fig. 22 shows the
general trend of the amplitude functions AF(O)
and B~.(O) versus Froude number. From this
figure it will be noticed that the equal amplitude
condition (5b) can be satisfied with a smaller size
of a bulb at a lower Froude number.
Fig. 2:3 is for the comparison between the
measured and calculated wave profiles at the side
of Model C-201 (without bulb) and Model C-201
F2 (with bow bulb). This figure clearly shows
the forward shift of the bow free-wave system,
which is one of the results of the hull self-inter-
ference or the free-surface effect. The value of
~F = X~/L, where XF denotes such forward shift,
is about 0.06 for Model C-201, and 0.04 for Model
C-101.
Fig. 24 shows the bird's-eye view pictures for
the wave patterns of Model C-201 and Model
C-201 F2. Fig. 25 illustrates the corresponding
wave contours obtained through stereo-analysis.
From these two figures the waveless situation
concerning the bow-wave system will be under-
stood clearly. By making use of the wave con-
tours as shown in Fig. 25, any detailed analysis
can be carried out.
I t m a y be interesting to notice here that there
is a difference of some 40:30, in O¢~,p between the
measured and calculated wave patterns, where
307
 (a) M o d e l C-201 (without bulb)

(b) M o d e l C-201F2 (with bulb)

Fig. 24 Wave patterns for M o d e l C-201 and C-201F2 (F = 0.267 KoL = 14)

308 Wave-Making Resistanceof Ships

 10

\
0

0~

(a) Model C-201 (without bulb)

-9
|
.4 ! "2
k24

I
8. I
6"

/ 5//

.i /

(b) Model C-201F2 (with bulb)

Fig. 25 Stereo-analysis for the wave patterns in Fig 24

Oc,sp denotes the angle of the radial line passing c o m p a r i s o n with the calculated line Ocu.p = 15 °.
t h r o u g h the crossing p o i n t s (cusps) of the trans- T h e r e is a b o u t 4030 ' difference b e t w e e n the two,
verse w a v e a n d the diverging wave. I n Fig. 4 the reason for which still r e m a i n s unelarified.
the m e a s u r e d line Ocu~p = 19030 ' is shown in Fig. 26 is an example of detailed analysis of the

Wave-Making Resistance of Ships 309

 mm
' Hull Wave / ~ ~0
/
/\
40 -Main Hull Wave (without Bulb) C-201 .__ // ~ 40
--. (measured) / ~ Hull Wave (with Bulb) _" / \
20
~'~ ~Q/~. ~ Q ~ (calculated) C-201×1"2
//..
/ ~ ~'/J K (measured~t
,/_/j[""-. O0
.. .. ... .. .. ----.,-.
~" . . . . . .~ . . . . .
. . . . . . -.-, / - ,
. . . . . . . . ., '\
- . . . . . ~-wv'-- - -
. -
<Y-"
"'- 2 Ko R 0
o

--20 • ' -20

40

20 2, ,o
14// 12 IO~.x'~.,.,8 ~//~6 4 ~ K0R 0
-20 >j/ \ \ ,0
-40 Bulb Wave (l)ifferenee between C-201 x F2 and C-201) ~ --40

Fig. 26 Measured and calculated wave profiles on the radial line for Model C-201 and C-2OIF2
(O = 19030 ' for measured wave profile, O = 15 ° for calculated wave profile)

wave contours in Fig. 25. I n this case a compari- characteristics and, consequently, a curved bot-
sort is m a d e between the measured wave profile t o m which is impractical.
on the radial line 0 = 19o30 ' and the calculated F u r t h e r investigation is needed to bring this
wave profile on the radial line O = 15 °. waveless form into more practical hull geometry.
I n this section, the following points will be dis-
Possible Causes of Successful Experimental Results cussed:
T h e aforementioned results, as a whole, show a 1 Can the waveless form be realized also with a
v e r y good coincidence with the theoretical predic- conventional flat-bottom hull which will have
tion. This seems to be a t t r i b u t e d to the following to produce more complicated waves than a curved-
reasons: b o t t o m hull ?
i T h e use of the a u t h o r ' s m e t h o d of approxima- 2 U n d e r a given condition of displacement and
tion b y which a higher a c c u r a c y is obtained in the stability, there can be innumerable combinations
t r e a t m e n t of the hull-surface condition c o m p a r e d of a main hull and a bulb which will bring a b o u t
to Micfiell's approximation. I t would be quite the waveless situation in effect.
doubtful whether such successful results could However, the hull form with the bulb of the
have been obtained if Miehell's approximation smallest size and of the least projection o u t w a r d
had been followed as done b y Wigley. f r o m the main hull is m o s t desirable from the
2 T h e concept of the viscosity effect was bas- practical point of view, either for construction or
ically correct. I n fact, the o p t i m u m position of for operation.
the stern bulb's center was in good a g r e e m e n t W h a t kind of main hull g e o m e t r y can satisfy
with 6a = 6 -- ~p, where 8 was predicted b y the such condition ?
resistance test, while aF was determined b y the T h e m a t h e m a t i c a l t r e a t m e n t of the conven-
comparison between the measured and calculated tional flat b o t t o m , which is closely connected with
bow-wave profiles. the problem 1, was the subject which the a u t h o r
intended to s t u d y immediately after he finished
5 Practical Developments of the Waveless Forms his work published in 1957. I t is n o t so easy to
I n the preceding section the possibility of find- find the source distribution which exactly repre-
ing the waveless f o r m has been experimentally sents a given ship g e o m e t r y with a flat b o t t o m .
ascertained as theoretically predicted, with two However; for this purpose some approximation
basic models which have simple w a v e - m a k i n g m u s t be possible at a F r o u d e n u m b e r not higher

31 0 Wave-Making Resistance of Ships

than 0.35, because the wave-making effect of the distribution. This means the waterline form may
lower part around the midship section is com- exercise b y far a larger effect than the frameline
paratively small, as already discussed in Section form. This can easily be understood from the dis-
2 of Part 1. The easiest way to find this approxi- cussions in Appendix 2.
mation is to study, experimentally and theoreti- In the Experimental Tank of the University of
cally, the difference of ship's waves between the Tokyo, a plan was made for the study of these two
two hull forms, one with the curved bottom and problems after the work b y Professor Takahei and
the other with the flat bottom. This means that Dr. K u m a n o mentioned previously. The research
the new method of approach for hull-form re- work was started by two graduate students,
search, proposed in Part 1, can be applied for this Messrs. Kajitani and Ikehata under the author's
purpose, again. guidance. The work is still going on, and the
In order to find an answer to the question in stereo-analysis and the study on the stern bulb
item 2, the relationship between the main hull are yet to be finished• Consequently, only an
geometry and its free-wave pattern which starts outline of what has so far been found out will be
at the bow or at the stern should be studied introduced here.
carefully. Here again the method of approach A preparatory investigation was made of
• I • - -
illustrated by the block dmgram, Fig. 2, is useful. Ar(O)/L and hF(O)/L, an amplitude function and
T h a t is, the analysigis started not at the ship a phase-shift function, respectively. The follow-
geometry but at the~ given source distribution. ing procedure was used :
When a set of design conditions such as displace- Nondimensional variables
ment, stability, and so on, is given, it is not so
= x/l, ~ = --sit (t = T/1 = 2 T / L )
difficult to select some' series of source distributions
which represent the mlain hulls. I t is true that the were put in equation (19) which gives separated
details of the hull geometry cannot be obtained type source distribution functions, thus writing
unless the streamline calculations are completed
for the given source distribution. However, at fix) = m(~) = al~ :F an I~l"
the preliminary stage of analysis, the designed
waterline alone is sufficient for an approximate
(; -1 _< ~ < ' (39)
estimation of displacement and stability. f2(z) = f,~.(~) = l, o <_ ~ <_ 1, (40)
As stated in Appendix 2, either a bow or stern
free-wave pattern generally consists of two com- then taking
ponent waves; i.e., the sine wave and the cosine
t = O.OS or T / L = 0.04 (41)
wave. The resultant of these two component
waves can be obtained as expressed in equations and as n in equation (39), n = 2, 3, 4, 5, 6,
(4) and (10), where A (0) is the amplitude function and
of such resultant free wave. The magnitude of
this amplitude function A (0) determines the size 'm0 = m (~)l~=~ (42)
of the bulb which is required to satisfy the equal
was changed to *n0 = 0.2, 0.3, 0.4, 0.5.
amplitude condition (5b). On the other hand,
Av (0) and h~, (0) are given by the following
the effective origin of this resultant free wave
equations:
determines the longitudinal position of t h e b u l b
center. Here the word "effective" is used, be- ~/2

cause the origin of the resultant free wave changes

slightly according to the 0-value or the direction
.~,~ (x, y) ~'~
d
F - ~/2
Ar (0) sin [K0 see20

of the elementary wave, as shown in equation X{x-k hF(0) c o s 0 - t - y s i n 0}]d0, (43)

(50), Appendix 1.
Therefore the problem 2 will be reduced to
finding out, under the given condition, the source
distribution that gives the minimum amplitude
function A (0) for the resultant bow or stern free
wave as well as the most rearward position of the
effective origin of such resultant wave.
In this regard, it must be noted that the relative
importance of the sine-wave component and the
cosine-wave component greatly changes according
to f1(x) in equation (19), a function of lengthwise
distribution, not to f2(z), a function of draftwise
{Ap (O)/L}"- = {8F ~ (0) -}- Cv ~ (O)}/L ~ (44)
hv (O)/L = t a t , - ' i c y ( 0 ) ) / ( K o L sec 0), (45)
(& (0))/"
U(Ko'F, 0) = 1 - exp ( - K0T sec-" 0) (46)
Based on the foregoing calculations, the stream-
line calculation was made for eight cases; four
*no = 0.2 series and four *no = 0.5 series. The
model numbers and the values of *no and n are
given in Table 2.

Wave-Making Resistance of Ships 31 1

 -1.0 -0.5 0 0.5 1.0
1.0_

0.5

0L~ - t ~ ..... i
0 05
V
I'~-.
0 5 ~ '-"
Source D[s~ribu~'ion 1///.//
/'~> "/
I
I U3

'"/ " 1
• ~ ~ ~'- ~ " ~
II 129
- I.o L. _/

Fig. 27 Source distribution functions for U-series models

Table 2 U-Series Models for Which Streamline m a d e in b o t h directions, ahead a n d astern. I n

Calculation Was Carried O u t
~ m 0 = 0.2 S e r i e s ~ ~ m 0 = 0.5 S e r i e s - -
Model No. mo n Model No. m0
U3 . . . . . 0.2 2 U7 0.5
U4 . . . . . O. 2 3 U8 O. 5
U5 . . . . . 0.2 4 U9 o. 5
U6 . . . . . 0.2 6 UI0 0.5
Of the eight models listed in T a b l e 2, four 2.5-111
models, k n o w n as U-series models, of U3, U5,
U7 a n d U9 were a c t u a l l y prepared. Fig. 27
shows their s o u r c e - d i s t r i b u t i o n curves, designed
waterlines a n d sectional-area curves. Since these
models h a v e curved b o t t o m s , a n o t h e r series of
models, k n o w n as UF-series, were also m a d e
which are of the same form except t h a t t h e y have
flat b o t t o m s an d slightly modified midship-section
forms. T o provide t h e m with flat b o t t o m s , the
b o t t o m of each model was m a d e s t r a i g h t along
the w a t e r p l a n e of d r a f t ratio T/L = 0.06 with
the bilge p r o p e r l y faired. Actually, however, two
modified UF-series models, U F 3 X U F 7 a n d U F 5
X U F 9 were b u i l t b y c o m b i n i n g U3 a n d U7, a n d
U5 a n d U9, respectively, because two models
c o m b i n e d together into a set have n e a r l y equal
b e a m s a t the m i d s h i p section.
F o r a n exact t r e a t m e n t of the effect of the flat
b o t t o m it is m o s t a p p r o p r i a t e to m a k e four U F -
series models s y m m e t r i c a l fore a n d aft, such as
UF3, UFS, U F 7 a n d UF9. However, in this
e x p e r i m e n t where a quick conclusion was desired
to be d r a w n in a l i m i t e d time, these two models,
a s y m m e t r i c a l fore a n d aft, were s u b s t i t u t e d for
four such s y m m e t r i c a l models. T h e r u n s were
the following, for example, when Model UF3
X U F 7 r a n with U F 3 fore it is shown as U F 3
n ( X U F 7 ) , a n d when it ran with U F 7 fore. it is
2 shown as U F 7 ( X UF3).
3
4
6 Results Obtained by U-Series Models
Fig. 2S indicates the results of the resistance
tests c o n d u c t e d with four U-series models. T h e
results related to the m a i n hull alone are shown
b y fine lines a n d those related to the models with
the o p t i n m m b u l b a t t a c h e d are shown b y thick
lines. T h e b u l b oll each model is m a d e o p t i m u m
at F = 0.277 (KuL = 13). Pictures of bow pro-
files are shown in the u p p e r p a r t of the figure,
which i n d i c a t e t h a t these o p t i m u m b u l b s are
different in size a n d position of the center. I n the
figure is also shown an a p p r o x i m a t e sketch of the
size a n d position of the o p t i n m m b u l b for an
i m a g i n a r y model C - 3 0 P which has a sine source
d i s t r i b u t i o n , as expressed in e q u a t i o n (37), the
same d r a f t ratio, s t a b i l i t y a n d d i s p l a c e m e n t as
U-series models.
A conclusion m a y be d r a w n from these experi-
m e n t s as well as from the p r e l i m i n a r y calculations
t h a t the o p t i m u m b u l b g r e a t l y changes b o t h in
size a n d the position d e p e n d i n g on the wave-
m a k i n g characteristics of the m a i n hull, a n d b y
t a k i n g a d v a n t a g e of this fact the size a n d the
position of the waveless b u l b can be changed to
m e e t the practical r e q u i r e m e n t s .
The source strength of C-301 is, in equation (38), at =
0.87 (t = 0.08 or T/L = 0.04). The word imaginary means
that actually this model was not made.

31 2 Wave-Making Resistance of Ships

 M. No. i W l f h o u + B. iW{kh Bulb ....' ,
0.00~ C-301x FI ] U3 1 // /'
I us -- I . . . . . . //

U-2o, : : - i---
C~[s ob{ained by using Hughes'Line / , } ; ~ ' / '
w'+h 'orm 'Oc~or K=O.Z5 / d / < /
0.001
tt

Designed Speed , 7 / ¢ S ' ~ . . . . -~

0 ~-~ ~ r c ==---=- - - I ~ i I 1
020 0.25 0.30 0.35 0.40
r:v/~

Fig. 28 Wave-making resistance for U-series models (with curved bottom)

Table 3 Particulars for U-Series Models and Their Optimum Bulbs (LBp = 2.5m)
Model No. B(m) v ( m ~) S(m 2) Bulb No. ao/L f/L XF/L &V/v (%) &S/S(%) AB/Am(%)
U3 . . . . . 0.389 0.1058 1.315 F2 . . . . 0.030 0.05 --0.025 2.49 4.07 21.8
U5 . . . . . 0.374 0.1074 1.299 F1 . . . . 0.034 0.05 --0.005 3.87 6.11 31.6
U7 . . . . . 0.371 0.1063 1.295 F1 . . . . 0.030 0.05 0.030 3.18 7.07 24.8
U0 . . . . . 0.363 0.1078 1.299 F1 . . . . 0.034 0.05 0.035 3.41 7.59 29.2
C-301... 0.356 0.1070 1.300 0.036 0.05 0.07

Table 4 Particulars for UF-Series Models and Their Optimum Bulbs (Lsp = 2.5m)
Model .",'o. /3(m) v ( m 3) S ( m 2) Bulb No. ao/L f/L Xp/L &V/v (%) & S / 3 (%) AB/A,~(%)
UF3(xUF7).. 0.380 0.08273 1. 170 F1 0.026 0.042 --0.020 1.95 3.09 20.0
UF5(xUF9) .. 0. 369 0.08386 1.17(} F1 0.030 0.042 0.010 2.99 5.52 29.5
UFT(xUF3) .. 0.380 0.08273 1.170 F1 0.030 0.042 0.040 3.92 7.77 28.2
UF9(xUFS).. 0.369 0. 08386 1. 176 F1 0. 030 0. 042 0.045 3.71 7.88 29.5
SR-451... 0.357 0.08302 1. 195
NOTE: As for ao, f, ,g[ Ab, Am in T a b l e s 3 a n d 4 l e f e r t o f o o t n o t e in T a b l e 5 p a g e 318.

Results Obtained by UF-Series Models
Fig. 29 also s h o w s t h e b o w profile p i c t u r e s a n d
t h e r e s u l t s of t h e r e s i s t a n c e t e s t s for f o u r cases
when two 2.5-m UF-series models, UF3XUF7
and UFSXUF9 w e r e r u n f o r e a n d aft. T h e
d e s i g n s p e e d of t h e b u l b w a s F = 0.277 (KoL
= 13), as in t h e case of U-series m o d e l s .
T h e c o m p a r i s o n b e t w e e n Figs. 28 a n d 29 s h o w s
a g r e a t s i m i l a r i t y of t h e t r e n d . I t also tells t h a t
e v e n w i t h t h e f l a t b o t t o m t h e r e is sufficient possi-
b i l i t y f o r t h e " w a v e l e s s " c o n d i t i o n to b e a p p r o x -
i m a t e l y r e a l i z e d . F o r c o n v e n i e n c e in c o m p a r i s o n ,
F i g . 29 s h o w s also t h e r e s u l t of a c e r t a i n c o n v e n -
tional hull form which has a similar design condi-
t i o n . T h e p a r t i c u l a r s of t h e m a i n h u l l s of U - s e r i e s
and UF-series models and their optimum bulbs
a r e l i s t e d on T a b l e s 3 a n d 4.
Effect of Flat Bottom
Fig. 30 s h o w s t h e d i f f e r e n c e in t h e w a v e profiles
a l o n g t h e m o d e l side b e t w e e n t w o m o d e l s U 9
and UF9 (XUFS) at four Froude numbers F =
0.250, 0.277, 0.302, 0.354, w h i c h c o r r e s p o n d t o
KoL = 16, 13, 11, 8, r e s p e c t i v e l y . I n t h i s figure
t h e o r i g i n a l l y m e a s u r e d w a v e profiles of M o d e l U9
a r e also s h o w n , for c o m p a r i s o n , a t t w o F r o u d e n u m -
b e r s 0.250 (KoL = 16) a n d 0.302 (KoL = 11).
T h e c o m p a r i s o n r e v e a l s t h a t , as w a s e x p e c t e d ,
t h e c h a n g e in w a v e - m a k i n g c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s d u e t o
t h e b o t t o m b e i n g f l a t t e n e d is n o t so g r e a t . Let

Wave-Making Resistance of Ships 31 3

 0.002
M. No. Wifhouf B. Wifh Bulb[
UF3(xUFT)
UF5CxUF9) . . . . . . . . . . . . .
UF'/(xUF3)
ea
UFg(xUFS)
SR-4BI
/

0.001
Ciw •Ls ob÷ained by using Hughes' Line / /

wifh form f~cfor K:0.23 u-.~C...."/ ~ . . j ~ :

J... ........

(5 J-
a

= .....................
~ ~ ~ D e s i g q e d Speed'
-.---~--~'~~, " l I/ " L "
o.~s o.zo o.~ o.so
Fo v / ¢ ~

Fig. 29 Wave-making resistance for UF-series models (with flat bottom)

- - Difference ~n measured focal w a v e s : ~ (UF9 x U g 5 ) - f~ {U9)

Difference in catculafed f r e e waves : ~w (UFgxUFS)-t~w (U9)
//I/'']]40G0
- - - - -

..... Measured fofal wave on M o d e l - U 9 : ~ (U9)

-. F*0.250 /// t 20 E

,/ ~ 8O
G0
j-20
// -40
F=0.302 // 40
"\ / 20
\~ -- --__ __---- - - . ~ /

_ -20 40

- ~ ~-20
I I ~ I I I I i ~ J j ]-40
A.R I 2_ 3 4 5 G 7 8 9 LR
Fig. 30 Measured and calculated difference in wave profile between Model-UF9 (XUF5)
and Model U9

us see b y w h a t simple s i n g u l a r i t y d i s t r i b u t i o n this s y s t e m of sink a n d source, r e s p e c t i v e l y . A m o n g

can be a p p r o x i m a t e d . T h e f o r w a r d half p o r t i o n t h e possible a p p r o x i m a t i o n s we consider a simple
a n d t h e after half p o r t i o n of the cut-off b o t t o m line d i s t r i b u t i o n on t h e x-axis a t a d e p t h f/L
should be a p p r o x i m a t e l y r e p l a c e d b y a c e r t a i n = 0.06 f r o m t h e surface of w a t e r , as given b y

31 4 Wave-Making Resistance of Ships

 0.003
I Model Measured Calculated
UFg(xUFS) • o
UF9*
U9 o o

• Model UF9 ~s obtained by cutting off the

0.002 lower middle port of Model U9 to obtain
N a flat bottom, o

C'w is obtained by using Hughes'L~ne • , o

with form fc~cfor K=0.Z3 . ~ ° " ,~,,9
/ ~ " ~
• /

5~ o.oo
/!

f o . . ~ . ~ ..~. ~-~y

o.~: ~

~ I I I I
o.~5 o.~o o.2~ o.~o o.35
F= v / ~ t ~

Fig. 31 Measured and calculated wave-making resistance for Model U9, UF9 (XUF5)
a n d UF9

. ( ~ ) = - 0.0327,~//,, (- 0 . s t < :~ _< 0.s/, Comparison Between UF-Series and DTMB60-Series

\at y = 0, z =
The chain lines in Fig. 30 show the calculated
wave profiles due to this line sink-source distribu-
tion, which is considered to represent approxi-
mately the effect of the bottom being flattened.
The comparison of these lines with the measured
ones mentioned previously proves that this ap-
proximation is good enough for practical use.
Fig. 31 compares the measured wave-making
resistance of U9 and UF9 ( X U F 5 ) , showing that
at F < 0.36 the flat-bottom model UF9 (X UF5)
has slightly larger wave-making resistance but at
F > 0.:36 the result is reversed. This figure
also shows the theoretically calculated wave-
making resistance for a combination of two source
distributions; one in which U9 (with curved
bottom) is originated and one of equation (47),
i.e., what m a y be regarded as corresponding ap-
proximately to UF9, a flat-bottom hull sym-
metrical fore and aft. This theoretical curve does
not exactly correspond to the asymmetrical Model
UF9 (X UFS), but these two are !m good agreement
at lower Froude numbers where the after body
effect to the total wave-making resistance is small.
With increasing Froude nmnber the measured
curve for the asymmetrical 5,Iodel UF9 (XUFS)
becomes greater than the calculated curve. This
seems due to the after body of Model UF9 ( X UFS)
having a greater wave-making effect than that of
Model UF9 in this speed range.
Test
--0.0GL/
(47) As mentioned before, all UF-serics models
usually have flat bottoms. This has one merit
in practical use. Among this series, Model UF3
(X UFT) has the smallest bulb with the least for-
ward projection. This does not seem to cause
any serious trouble in anchoring or in any other
ship operation. Therefore, it will be interesting,
from a point of practical design, to make some
comparisons in the resistance t)erformance be-
tween Model U F 3 ( X U F T ) and some existing
conventioual hull forms.
As the representative of the conventional forms,
~ o d e l No. 4240 (On = 0.60, LIB -- 6.5, /3/7"
= 2.5) of DTMB60-series [23] was selected,
because this model has ahnost the sanle particulars
as Model UF3 (X UFT), as shown in the table in
Fig. 32.
For this comparison it will be convenient to
follow the usual method of comparison widely
adopted in the United States. Therefore, the
residuary resistance was reanalyzed from the
measured total resistance of Model UF3 (X UF7),
by adopting Schoenherr's friction line with the
form factor K = 0. Fig. ,32 shows such compar-
ison between the two models; for example, at the
designed speed F = 0.277, C~ = 2.02 X 10-";
(5{.4240) and C~ = 1.23 X 10 -a (UF3 X UF7).
Even in the residuary-resistance comparison,
the decrease in C~ is found to be nearly 40 percent.
Let us make a similar comparison in the wave-
making resistance which is derived from the

Wave-Making Resistance of Ships 315

 0.003 UF3(×UF7)xFt l'd. No.4240
Mark /
LBp GO~' ~00'
Lex** 600.G' ~,0.2' / /
a/L~ o.s52o a~s38(:v~ 5) / /
o o /
0.002 BIT 2.5z~ ?_.50 ~" Jf
Cb 0.sgz o Goo i A
% LCB 0.3%fore 1.5%o*+ /E /I
Model LBp &ZO2'(=Z.5m) 20'(=6.096m) / ~ #tEl

o 0.001
** LEXdeno+es+he ex{reme leng{h
. . . . . . . . . . . . .
/
:Jl
J%" "[~. I

o.m o.15 020 o.t5 o.zo

F:V/V~WLg
Fig. 32 Comparison in residuary resistance between 1~odel U F3 (XUF7) and M.
No. 4240 (DTMB 60-series)

residuary resistance by s u b t r a c t i n g the so-called E H P (M.4240) = 27,400 and

form resistance given as K X Rp0 where K and RF0
are the form factor and the basic frictional re-
sistance, respectively. I n the case of Model
UF3 ( X U F 7 ) , the K - v a l u e is estimated as K
= 0.23 for H u g h e s ' line, and as K = 0.14 for
Schoenherr's line. In Fig. 32 the w a v e - m a k i n g
resistance so obtained is also shown; for example,
Cw = 1.62 X 10 -3 (M.4240) and C,~ = 0.71
X 10 -3 (UF3 X UF7) for Schoenherr's line with
K = 0.14, while C,, = 1.67 X 10 -3 (51.4240)
and Cw = 0.69 X 10-'; (UF3 X UF7) for H u g h e s '
line with K = 0.23.
F o r a n y scientific discussion, these comparisons
in the w a v e - m a k i n g resistance m a y be more sig-
nificant than those in the residuary resistance
mentioned previously.
Fig. 33 (a), (b) are for comparison in the effec-
tive horsepower E H P , assuming the same length
/5Bp = 600 ft in the two models as shown in the
table in Fig. 32. (The unit English horsepower
was adopted.)
In Fig. 33 (a), (b), the analysis is based upon
Schoenherr line, with (a) K = 0, ACF = 0.000'-t,
and with (b) K = 0.14, ZXCF = 0, where ACE
denotes the roughness allowance for the frictional
resistance of the assumed full'-scale ships.
A t the designed speed I~ = 22.8 knots ( F
= 0.277), we h a v e :
Case (a): Schoenherr line, with K = 0, &CF
= 0.0004
E H P (UF3 X UF7) = 22,000
Case (b): Schoenherr line, with K = 0.14,
AC~= 0
E H P (M.4240) = 22,900 and
E H P (UF3 X UF7) = 16,800
T h e foregoing figures of E H P m a y also be useful
for the purpose of d e m o n s t r a t i n g the practical
merit of the waveless forms, because the correct
value of E H P will be estimated b y interpolating
these two extremes.
F u r t h e r i m p r o v e m e n t s will still be possible b y
a d o p t i n g an appropriate waveless stern the prac-
tical development of which remains as a future
research problem.
6 Other Applications
In this section two problems of different aspects
will be discussed.
Effect of Oblique Frame Lines
W h e n the hull-surface g e o m e t r y is derived from
a given source distribution b y following the
a u t h o r ' s m e t h o d discussed in Section 2 P a r t 1,
the frame lines always cross the load waterline
vertically regardless of w h a t form is selected for
the draftwise function f2(z). On ships of shallow
draft like a coaster or a railway f e r r y b o a t the
framelines usually cross the load waterline not

31 6 Wave-Making Resistance of Ships

 30
/, / 30
M 4240 - -
/
[

/
N 4 Z40 - - I
I
UF3xFi .... / UFgxFI . . . .

Schoenherr Bose / ItIt S c h o e n h e r ' r Bose.

Form Foe+or K : O -/,I
- Form F o c f o r K=O.14 ]
gg zc ~ C f = 0'0004 p/Z/i/ zo Ac{=0 /,
o
.Iz .c
F-
k 7k-
EH // /"
o~ ~o
o. EHP / / HP{..~/P~ z
'///E
32 ~0 o~t0
113

t-

.-J
(b) Oesigned~
I , S~pe.ed 1 ' I --
16 18 20 22 [ Z4 16 t8 20 22 [ 24
, Vs (K+) I , ' Vs ( ~ ) i
0.20 0.25 0,30 F o.2o 0'30
Fig. 33 Comparison in EHP (L = 600 ft) between Model UF3 (XUF7) and M.
No. 4240 (DTMB 60-series)
(a) K (form factor) = O, ACF = 0.0004 (Schoenherr-llne base)
(b) K (form factor) = 0.14, ACt = 0 (Schoenherr-line base)

v e r t i c a l l y b u t a t f a i r l y large o b l i q u e angles. of F = 0.267 (KoL = 14) a n d the small b u l b F 5

T h e r e q u i r e d t r a n s v e r s e s t a b i l i t y for the v e h i c u l a r
d e c k a r e a will t h u s be a t t a i n e d . N o t sufficient
s t u d y has been given as y e t to w h a t effect this
o b l i q u i t y of t h e f r a m e l i n e s will h a v e on w a v e -
m a k i n g . H o w e v e r , this effect does n o t seem to
be so g r e a t as e x p e c t e d a t low s p e e d of F < 0.30.
A n e x a m p l e for this will be shown here of an a p -
p l i c a t i o n of t h e waveless form to a r a i l w a y ferry-
b o a t . I n this case for a d r a f t w i s e s o u r c e - d i s t r i b u -
tion f u n c t i o n f2(z), a U V - t y p e f u n c t i o n was
a d o p t e d which is
J2(z) = 1 -- , ( T / L = 0.04)
'After p e r f o r m i n g a p r e p a r a t o r y s t r e a m l i n e
c a l c u l a t i o n w i t h r e s p e c t to m0 = 0, 0.2, 0.5, m0
= 0.2 was finally a d o p t e d from a p o i n t of p r a c -
tical design. M o d e l $3 has t h e s a m e a f t e r b o d y
as M o d e l S1 of a c o n v e n t i o n a l hull form, a n d t h e
forebody having the load waterline exactly the
s a m e as given b y t h e foregoing s t r e a m l i n e calcula-
tion. Fig. 34 shows C~ c u r v e s of M o d e l $1,
$3 w i t h a n d w i t h o u t t h e bow bulb. M o d e l $3
was used w i t h b u l b s of different sizes, F 3 (large
b u l b ) a n d F 5 (small b u l b ) a t t a c h e d a l t e r n a t e l y .
T h e large b u l b F 3 is i n t e n d e d for a h n o s t c o m p l e t e
c a n c e l l a t i o n of b o w w a v e s a t the designed speed
for i n c o m p l e t e c a n c e l l a t i o n b y k e e p i n g t h e b u l b
size w i t h i n a c e r t a i n o p e r a t i o n a l limit. Fig. 35
shows p i c t u r e s of t h e w a v e p a t t e r n s of t h e t h r e e
m o d e l s $3, $3 X FS, a n d $3 X F3. T h i s is a
t y p i c a l e x a m p l e of i l l u s t r a t i n g t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p
b e t w e e n t h e size of a b u l b and its w a v e - c a n c e l l i n g
effect. M o d e l $1 X F 4 shown in Fig. 34 is one
which was c o n c e i v e d for the p u r p o s e of finding
to w h a t degree t h e b o w w a v e could be d e c r e a s e d
b y p r o v i d i n g t h e c o n v e n t i o n a l form $1 w i t h its
m o s t o p t i n m m b u l b F 4 a t t h e s a m e designed
speed. T h e c o m p a r i s o n b e t w e e n S1 X F 4 a n d
(48) $3 X F3 shows t h a t t h e l a t t e r is m u c h superior.
T h e s e results seem to suggest t h a t t h e f r a m e l i n e
t a n g e n t being o b l i q u e a t t h e l o a d w;iterline is n o t
likely to be an u n f a v o r a b l e f a c t o r in b o w - w a v e
e l i m i n a t i o n . T h e p a r t i c u l a r s of M o d e l s $1,
$3, a n d t h e i r b u l b s are shown in T a b l e 5.
Relation Between Singularity Distribution and Evaluated
Load Waterlines, With Special Reference. to Their
Discontinuities
I n the source d i s t r i b u t i o n m (~), in w h i c h U-
series m o d e l s are o r i g i n a t e d , m" (~) or m iv (~)
is d i s c o n t i n u o u s a t t h e m i d s h i p section, or a t
= 0 in e q u a t i o n (39), t h u s c a u s i n g t h e o r e t i c a l l y
a c e r t a i n f r e e - w a v e s y s t e m to be c r e a t e d a t t h e

Wave-Making Resistance of Ships 31 7

 x 10-4

5
H. No. Wifhouf B. Wifh Bulb

SI F4 - -
4 1:3-----
S3 F5 . . . .

~3 C~ is obfained bE using Hughes~Line

w~fh form { a c f o r K=0.25 / ../

it 2

£3

I " Speed
0.15 0.20 0.25 0.30
F=V/(LwL9
Fig. 34 Wave-making resistance for railway-ferry boat Models St and $3 (L = 2.4m)

Table 5 Particulars for Railway Ferryboat Models and Their Optimum Bulbs (Lsp = 2.4m)
Model No. B(m) v(m 3) S(m ~) Bulb No. ao/L f/L XF/L 2XV/v(%) AS/S (%) AB/A,~ (%)
S1 . . . . . . . 0.348 0.04843 0.9191 F4 0.020 0.0302 0.020 2.18 3.74 20.4
$3 . . . . . . . 0.3766 0.04741 0.9068 F3 0.020 0.0302 0.010 2.02 3.18 20.1
F5 0.016 0.0309 0 1.27 1.57 16.2
ao = effective radius of bulb.
f = immersion of bulb center.
XF = longitudinal position of bulb center ( + foreward, -- aftward from FP)
AB = maximum sectional area of bulb.
Am = midship sectional area.

m i d s h i p section. H o w e v e r , t h e l o a d w a t e r l i n e p r o d u c e d a t t h e m i d s h i p section, c a n n o t be ig-

y = y (x, z) a n d its successive d e r i v a t i v e s by/bx,
b2y/bx2, a n d so on, s h o u l d all be c o n t i n u o u s for
the reason t h a t t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p b e t w e e n given
source d i s t r i b u t i o n a n d ship g e o m e t r y is n o t b a s e d
u p o n M i c h e l l ' s linearization, b u t u p o n t h e a u t h o r ' s
n o n l i n e a r t r e a t m e n t . Now, one question m a y b e
p r e s e n t e d as follows:
W i l l such h i g h - o r d e r d i s c o n t i n u i t y in a given
source d i s t r i b u t i o n affect in a n y w a y t h e w a v e -
making?
Over t h e y e a r s t h e a u t h o r has t h o u g h t t h a t if i t
could affect t h e w a v e - m a k i n g to a n y degree, i t
should b e of such o r d e r t h a t could b e i g n o r e d for
p r a c t i c a l purpose. H o w e v e r , t h e t h e o r e t i c a l cal-
c u l a t i o n of C'~ c a r r i e d o u t for t h e U-series m o d e l s
p r o d u c e d t h e s u p r i s i n g r e s u l t t h a t t h e effect of this
free-wave system, t h e o r e t i c a l l y considered to be
n o r e d a t a speed higher t h a n F -- 0.25. Fig.
36 gives an e x a m p l e of t h e c o m p a r i s o n b e t w e e n
C'~ t h e o r e t i c a l l y c a l c u l a t e d a n d C'~ o b t a i n e d b y
e x p e r i m e n t w i t h r e s p e c t to M o d e l U7 a n d M o d e l
U7 M F1, t h e l a t t e r b e i n g U7 p r o v i d e d w i t h t h e
b u l b F1.
I n t h i s figure, C'w (1) is t h e whole of t h e f u n d a -
m e n t a l t e r m of w a v e - m a k i n g r e s i s t a n c e coefficient
C'w, while C'w (1) (1) is t h e f u n d a m e n t a l t e r m h a v -
ing o m i t t e d t h e m i d s h i p free wave. T h e differ-
ence b e t w e e n t h e t w o shows t h e effect of such
wave. T h e g r e a t e s t of t h i s effect is f o u n d on
M o d e l U3, a n d t h e effect g r a d u a l l y decreases on
M o d e l s U7, U5 a n d U9 in t h i s order. T h i s is
n a t u r a l owing t o t h e f a c t t h a t on U5 a n d U9,
m iv (~'), t h e f o u r t h - o r d e r d e r i v a t i v e of m (~), is
d i s c o n t i n u o u s a n d on U3 a n d U7 t h e second o r d e r

31 8 Wave-Making Resistanceof Ships

 (a) Model $1 (without bulb)

(b) Model $3 XF5 (with medium bulb F5)

Fig. 35 Wave patterns for railway-ferry boat models $3, S3NF5, S3XF3 (F = 0.267,
KoL = 14)

derivative rnr'(}) is discontinuous, both at the
midship section. The photogrammetrical survey
of wave patterns adopted b y the author cannot
as yet claim t h a t it is able to recognize clearly
such high-order free-wave systems, but it seems
undeniable t h a t these high-order free waves are
produced.
This gives us the warning t h a t in the prepara-
tion of ship's lines unless great caution is exercised
in this regard it m a y be a cause of a wave-making
effect to an unexpectedly great degree. From a
theoretical point of view it is especially interesting
to investigate the relationship between singularity
and ship geometry with respect to hull forms hay-

Wave-Making Resistanceof Ships 319

 (c) Model S3XF3 (with large bulb F3)

Measured U-/
0.0014 U-/xFI
Calcula÷ed wave-mcxking resi#ance
coefficienf of U]x Fi CaIculafed wifhouf Cw - -
O.O01Z correcfion C w'(I) - -
Calculcr~ed {undamen+al fern OKt/(t ] - -_ _
of UTxFI i i ) v w --. ve~
0.0010 CwQ)- C~ (l)= due % midship wa
Cw# due fo ~ern waye
and midship wc~veof U-( Calculafed wifh Cw
correcffon C~ (
C~ is obfolned
I~-~ 0.0008 by using Hughes' Line
wifh form facfor K= 0.7.3

o.ooo~
II

0.0004
Designed Speed
0.000Z

OpO.~o_q,e q - 0 , o _k . . . . r. . . . I I IJ i i I
o.~2 o~4 o,o o~8 020 o~2 024 o~ oz8 030 o3~ 034
F=V/L¢-C~-
Fig. 36 Measured and calculated wave-making resistance for Model U7 (without bulb) and Model U7 MF1 (with
bulb)

ing a parallel body. Fig. 37 illustrates the result
of load-waterline calculation m a d e for a case
where the forward h a l f - b o d y source a n d the after
half-body sink are separated. E v e n t h o u g h the
load waterline a n d its successive derivatives are
all continuous, there exists a r e m a r k a b l e diseon-
t i n u i t y in source d i s t r i b u t i o n which causes an
excessive shoulder wave.
Final Remarks
T h e foregoing sections discuss the fact t h a t a new
m e t h o d of hull-form research has b e e n developed.

320 Wave-Making Resistance of Ships

 Load Waferline y(x)
y(×)
f 0.15..
-I.0 -0.6 0 0.6
Sfern (5~stole is doubled)
Source Distribution m(×) ~ ' ~ I
Sfern
1,0 0.6
[ I
0
I I ~ •
0.6
, '
Bow
1.0 ~'Draf~w(se D~sfribuf[on : U- Tspe T/L=O,O6)
\\ ~ .,,/
Fig. 37 Example for derived load waterlines (continu-
ous) related with given source distributions (discon-
tinuous)
In this method the hull form is studied both theo-
retically and experimentally. The theory is used
to relate the ship's geometry with ship's waves as
well as ship's waves with ship's wave-making
resistance. The experimental work, emphasizing
the observation and analysis of ship's waves, is
used to supplement the incomplete theory. Only
in this way, the author believes, the present theory
with m a n y of its defects can be applied fruitfully
to the practical problems of ship design. He also
believes that this is an effective way to improve
our imperfect wave-making resistance theory
through closely related experimental check.
However, since the proposed method has just
been put into practice, it must be developed fur-
ther in m a n y respects either in the experimental
technique or in the theoretical analysis by the
cooperation of tank work experts and theoreti-
clans. With respect to the theoretical analysis,
the author believes one of the improvements
should be made by taking the free-surface effect
into consideration in the treatment of the hull-
surface condition. The preparation of mathe-
matical tables for a great number of functions
used in our theory also should be made.
The author also believes that, if a majority of
towing tanks in the world are willing to add this
new method of tank experiment to their regular
resistance tests, a new technical committee should
be organized within the framework of the Inter-
national Towing Tank Conference. This com-
mittee can serve as a coordinator to plan a long-
range, hull-form research program as well as to
distribute all necessary work among tanks which
are interested in taking part in such a program.
Wave-Making Resistance of Ships
In this way we (:an learn from each other and the
duplication of efforts can be avoided.
As mentioned before, even though the proposed
new method has been already put into use at the
Experimental Tank of the University of Tokyo,
LO
this tank has m a n y limitations. Therefore the
Bow author cherishes a dream that, if this new com-
mittee is organized, it may even undertake the
task of building a new tank for the sole purpose
of studying ship's waves. The optical method
1.0 used b y the author to study ship's waves is of
course one of the possible methods. Other
methods such as described in references [18-20]
I.O
~ X
should also be examined carefully. Once the
method of studying the waves has been decided
upon, then the new committee slhould take the
responsibility of designing and bu:ilding the most
suitable tank for the sole purpose of studying
ship's waves and wave-lnaking resistance.
Acknowledgments
The author expresses his thank,; to the Papers
Committee of the Society for their kind invita-
tion to the author to write this paper. At the
same time profound thanks must be expressed to
m y graduate students Messrs. H. Kajitani and
M. Ikehata for their assistance in carrying out the
analytical work of this paper.
The author expresses appreciation for the per-
mission granted by Sir Thomas H e n r y Havelock
to quote his letter and wishes to mention here his
indebtedness to this great dean of the wave-
making theory, whose well-known and unexcelled
achievements had set a main course for the au-
thor's work and have always been a guide in his
research ever since. The author expresses his
appreciation also for the approwfl granted by
Prof. G. Weinblum and der Sch~fbautechnischen
Gesdlshaft to use illustrations published in the 1932
Jahrbltch.
The author must thank Dr. Masao ¥ a m a g a t a
on this occasion for considerate guidance and
encouragement given him all the years when he
worked as an assistant professor under this dean
of the University of Tokyo. The,. author owes
greatly to Dr. Yamagata for all the work that has
led to what has been reported in this paper.
References
1 T . H . Havelock, "Wave Patterns and Wave
Resistance," Trans. IN>I, vol. 74, 1934, p. 340.
2 T . H . Havelock, "The Calculation of Wave
Resistance," Proceedings of The Royal Society,
London, England, series A, vol. 144, 1934, p. 514.
3 J . H . Michell, "The Wave-Resistance of a
Ship," Philosophical A,[agazine, vol. 45, 1898,
p. 106.
321
 4 R. Guilloton, "Potential Theory of Wave of THE SOCIETY OF NAVAL ARCHITECTS AND
Resistance of Ships with Tables for Its Calcula- MARINE ENGINEERS, July 28-29, 1960.
tion," TRANS. SNAME, vol. 59, 1961, p. 86. 19 K. Eggers, "Uber die Ermittlung des
5 B. V. Korvin-Kroukovsky and W. R. Wellenwiderstandes eines Schiffsmodells durch
Jaeobs, "Calculation of the Wave Profile and Analyse seines Wcllensystems," Symposium fiber •
Wavemaking Resistance of Ships of Normal'Com- Schiffstheorie im Institut fiir Schiffbau der Uni-
mercial Form by Guilloton's Method and Com- versit~tt Hamburg, Hamburg, Germany, January
parison with Experimental Data," Technical and 1962.
Research Bulletin No. 1-16, SNAME, 1954. 20 L. W. Ward, "A Method for the Direct
6 T. Inui, "Study on Wave-Making Re- Experimental Deterrnination of Ship Wave Re-
sistance of Ships," 60th Anniversary Vohtmes, sistance," Doctoral Dissertation submitted to the
Society of Naval Architects of Japan, vol. 2, Faculty of Stevens Institute of Technology, Ho-
1957, p. 173. boken, N. J., May 1962.
7 T. Inui, "Wave-Making Resistance in a 21 F. C. Michelsen and H. C. Kim, "Three
Shallow Sea and in a Restricted Water, with Recent Papers by Japanese Authors on the effect
Special Reference to its Discontinuities," Journal of Bulbs on Wave-Making Resistance of Ships,"
of The Society of Naval Architects of Japan, vol. Department of Naval Architecture and Marine
76, 1954, p. i. Engineering, The University of Michigan, Ann
S J. K. Lunde, "On the Linearized Theory Arbor, Mich., December 1961.
of Wave Resistance for Displacement Ship in 22 W. C. S. Wigley, "The Theory of the
Steady and Accelerated Motion," TRANS. Bulbous Bow and Its Practical Application,"
SNAME, vol. 59, 1951, p. 25. Transactions, North East Coast Institute of Engi-
9 J. K. Lunde, "The Linearized Theory of neers and Shipbuilders, vol. 52, 1935-36, p. 65.
Wave Resistance and Its Applications to Ship- 2:3 F . H . Todd, G. R. Stuntz, and P. C. Pien,
Shaped Bodies in Motion on the Surface of a "The Effect upon Resistance and Power of Varia-
Deep, Previously Undisturbed Fluid," Technical tion in Ship Proportions," TRANS. SNAME,
and Research Bulletin No. 1-1S, SNAME, 1957. vol. 65, 1957, p. 445.
10 T . H . Havelock, "The Approximate Calcu- 24 T. Inui, "A Method of Finding Wave-Mak-
lation of Wave Resistance at High Speed," Tram- ing Resistance by Measuring Free Wave Pattern,"
actions, North East Coast Institute of Engineers (in Japanese), read at the Japan Towing Tank
and Shipbuilders, vol. 60, 1943-44, p. 47. Committee in June 1953.
11 T . H . Havelock, "Ship Waves: The Calcu- 25 E. Hogner, "A Contribution to the Theory
lation of Wave Profiles," Proceedings of 1"he Royal of Ship Waves," A rkiv for ~l,latematik, Astronomi
Society, London, England, series A, vol. 135, och Fysik, band 17, 1922-23, p. 1.
1932, p. 1.
12 T. H. Havelock, "Ship Waves: Their
Variation with Certain Systematic Change in Appendix I
Forms," Proceedings of l~he Royal Society, London,
Asymptotic Expansions for the Free Wave Pattern
England, series A, vol. 136, 1932, p. 465.
13 T. Inui, reference [6]. Putting x -- x0 = R cos 0, y = R sin 0 in
14 T. Takahei, "A Study on the Waveless equation (4) or (43), and applying the known
Bow (Part 1)," Joztrnal of The Society of Naval asymptotic expansions for the sufficiently large
Architects of Japan, vol. 108, 1960, p. 53. value of KoR, viz., KoR >~ 8, we have, approx-
15 M. Ikehata and H. Kajitani, "Ship Hull imately [24].
Form Design Method based upon the Waveless f(x, y) = f(R, o) = ~-,(R, o) + ~2(R, o), (49)
Form Theory," Doctoral Thesis for Master's
degree at the University of Tokyo, March 1962. where
16 W . C . S . Wigley, "Ship Wave Resistance, ( 2rr '~1'2
A Comparison of Mathematical Theory with K1 A (01) sin
Experimental Results," Tram. INA, vol. 68,
1926, p. 124.
17 G. P. Weinblum, "Schiffsform und
Wellenwiderstand," Jahrb. Schiffb. Gesellsch.,
E q
X F 1 K o R + h(01) + ~ ,

band 33, 1932, p. 419. Lo(R, o) k~/ K2 A (02) sin

18 B. V. Korvin-Kroukovsky, "A Simple
Method of Experimental Evaluation of the Wave X I F~ KoR + h(0.2) -- 41 (50)
Resistance of a Ship," Minutes of the H-5 Panel

322 Wave-Making Resistanceof Ships

 20 0=19°28 ' for a n y given wdue of 0 not higher t h a n 0 <
~5 ............ 18°30 '. I n Figs. 39 and 40 these numerical
functions are given respectively. E q u a t i o n s (49)
and (50) show t h a t the wave elevation at the rear
.... ....... " % - t of the model can be expressed linearly b y the
amplitudes A (0a), A (0o.) of the corresponding ele-
m e n t a r y waves 0 = 0a and 0~.
-10 -20 -30 -40 -50 -60 -70 -80 -g0 W h e n 0 exceeds 18030 ' and approaches or
Degrees
passes over the quasi-cusp line 0 -- 19°28 ',
Fig. 38 01.2versus 0 expression (50) m u s t be replaced with the expan-
sion of higher order which is similar to Professor
60
H o g n e r ' s early analysis [25]. This comes from
1.4 the well-known fact t h a t on the quasi-cusp line
0 = 19028 ' we have Y'(O) = F"(O) = 0, where
55 ~. F"(O) is the second derivative of F(O).
g FI,~ a n d o6~ 2 vS. H
c~ 1.2. ' JcJ These higher order expressions are given as
i
follows:
(a) Inside the quasi-cusp line: 18°30 ' < 0
I 1.0 FL ' l < 19028 ,

7-'->--. ~z~.~_.~i 45 :~,: 2 11'3

I I 19° 28'%
ft \Koo~t] H , d (0~) I, (~,) sin
0.~
5 ~0 ~5 20
~O-Oegrees x [f, KoR + h(O~) + ~,l,
Fig. 39 FI,2and ale versus O
f' \KoR] I-L,_A (0"-) I"- ft..,) sin (54)
3.0
I x IN KoR + h(O"-) -- ,~"-1
KI,2 vs. H
i where
2.0
I-I~ = [scc"-0," sin (0~ -- 0) ]-,/a
I,, = [I,, -~( ~ ) q- I,,'-' (~,)]IP-',
12 0
I aa = tan -1 (-o) ,
_.--m- ]
I
Uo: (~,)J
i K2 f l (55)
5 10 15 20
-----O-Degrees
x-C°S ( 0 - - O) + 2 t a n 0 s e c 0 s i n O
Fig. 40 K~.~versus 0
[cos 0 sin (0 -- O)] "'/a
T h e suffixes 1 and 2 denote the transverse- (a = 1,2)
wave system and the diverging-wave system,
and [~,, [ai (a = 1, 2) are given as follows:
respectively, and 0~, 0.. are given as the two roots of

d F(O) _ F'(O) = 0, (51) /1(if) = / l r ( f f ) - { - ? : / U ( ~ ) = £ - £ ~ _ e i(~w2+w~) dw,

dO
where F(O) is the phase function of the elementary eD

waves divided b y KoR, given as I"- (~) = h~ (~) + ir~.z (~) =

F
o --ira
~,i(o.:.+,:)gw,

F(O) = se:0 cos (0 - 0) (52) (56)

T h e n we have where Ia, and [a, are the real and the i m a g i n a r y
p a r t of I~ (~), respectively (a = 1, 2).
tan 0~) cot 0 [1 =F (1 -- 8 tan"- O)~/~-1 (53) ~a (a = 1, 2) in equations (54) or (55) corre-
tan O"-f =
spond to 4- 7r/4 in equation (50), and are shown
- -

The relation between the roots 0~, 0"- and the in Fig. 39. F r o m Fig. 39 we can see t h a t the
radial angle @ is shown in Fig. 38. Iq, F"-, K~, phase difference between the transverse-wave
K= are also the numerical values easily obtainable system and the diverging-wave system is nearly

Wave-Making Resistanceof Ships 323

 T/2
equal to (zr/4 + 7r/4) = ~r/2 or 1/4 wave length
t h r o u g h o u t the whole range 0 = 0 ° ~-~ 18°30 ~, f
~ , ( x , y) ~ a -~/2 C(O) cos (Kop see 20)dO, (61)
except the n a r r o w range 0 = 18030 ' N 19028 '.
with
W i t h i n this narrow range the phase difference
rapidly increases toward
C(O) = mKo sec3 0 exp ( - - K 0 f sec 2 0), (62)
71"
__ or m og h
and
(b) On the quasi-cusp line: 0 = 19o28 ` . I n p = xcosO +ysinO, (63)
this special case the roots 0~, 02 in equation (53)
where
coincides with each other, like
m V = strength of source (64)
01 = 02 = 00 = COS-1 ~ ] ~ (57) (b) A Traveling Point-Doublet. Let the
m o m e n t of the point doublet be M V (axis of
or 00 35°16 ' J which is in the negative x-direction). Point
doublet of m o m e n t M V is obtained as a limit
and equation (54) finally can be written as
when the distance between closely spaced point
source + m V and a point sink - - m V approaches
~0(0 = 19°28 ') F(-~) ( 2 )v3 zero, if the distance is denoted x = 5(>0)
"~ ~ \KoR] HoA(Oo)
X sin [FoKoR + h(00)], (58) M Y = lira (5 mY), (65)
~--~0

with This relationship leads to the conclusion t h a t

the free-wave p a t t e r n due to a point doublet
Fo = F(Oo) = 0.866, and H0 = Ha(0
can be obtained b y partially differentiating
= 1 9 ° 2 8 ' , 0 = 0o) = 1.347
equation (61) with respect to x and letting
(c) Outside the quasi-cusp line: 0 > 19°28. m equal to -~f.
As Professor H o g n e r clarified, the wave elevation T h e final result will be given as
outside the cusp line c a n n o t be neglected until ,, / 2
0 exceeds 21 °. F o r such region we h a v e ~wD "~ --
d
f - ~/2
S(O) sin (Kop sec20)dO, (66)

with
~(R, 0 >~ 19°28 ') ~-~ \~R/__ I-/3 A (0~) K(~-)
S(O) - -~l~/K°2sec 4 0 exp (--Kof sec 2 0) (67)
sin [ F 3 ' K o R + h(O.~)], (59) 7r

where (c) A Traveling Continuous Source Distri-

r = 2'/3(l£oR)2/3H.~[sin (0 + 03)
+ 2 tan 2 06" sin 0],
(60)
K(T) = d-f~ ei(¢w+w') dw
I t would be easily shown t h a t equation (58)
also can be obtained f r o m equation (59) as its
limiting case for 0 --~ + 19°28 '.
Appendix 2
Free-Wave Pattern Created by a Traveling Point-
Source, Point-Doublet, and Continuous Source
Distribution
(a) A Traveling Point-Source. A point source,
which is located at the point (0, 0, --f), is assumed
as traveling in the negative x-direction at the
speed V. T h e free-wave p a t t e r n which is created
b y such a traveling point source is given as [11, 12]
bution. Let a continuous source distribution
be located in the vertical central plane y = 0
within the rectangular region of 0 < x < L,
- - T _< z _< 0, where L = ship length- a n d - ] ~ =
d r a f t at the ends. E a c h source element will
create an elementary free-wave p a t t e r n as
described in (a). T h e integration of all free-
wave p a t t e r n s will result in only a bow wave
and a stern wave, if the source-distribution
function together with its successive derivatives
are continuous t h r o u g h o u t x = 0 --~ L.
N o w let the x-coordinate of a source element
be ~, x' = x/L, ~' = G/L, and let m (~') be the
distribution function of sources. T h e n integrat-
ing b y parts with respect to }' we obtain, for the
case y = O, the following result:
L 1 m(~') COS [KoL(x' -- ~') see O]d#l
- --[1
KoL see 0
m((') sin {KoL(x' -- ~') sec 0
o

324 Wave-Making Resistance of Ships


1
+ KoL sec 0 Y0' m'(~') sin [KoL(x' -- }') sec O]d~'
1 Architects of Japan, vol. 108, 1960, p. 53.
= KoL sec 0 {me sin (Kox sec 0) -- rna sin
1 Architects of Japan, vol. 109, 1961, p. 73.
× [K0(x - . L ) sec 0]} +
(KoL sec 0)2
X [m'(}') cos [KoL(x' -- ~') secO;'
1
(Kok sec 0y' fo m"(~') cos
X [KoL(x' -- ~') sec 0]d~' (68)
where m p = m (0) and ma = m (1) represent
the strength of the source (divided b y ]7) at the
bow and :stern, respectively. T e r m s which are
responsible: for the bow-wave system can be
written as follows, with m r ' = m'(0), m~," =
m"(0) . . . . . . .
KoL sec 0 (KoL sec 0) a
'?nFIV } Journal of The Society of Naval Architects of
Jr (KoL sec 0) '~ .... - sin (K0.v sec 0)
J. ngF ! in F I ! I
[(KoL see O)°- (KoL sec 0) 4
mFV 6 ... 1 c o s ( K ~ x s e c 0 )
+ (KoLsecO)
From the foregoing result, in general, the bow
wave is composed of slim and cosine waves.
B u t since KoL = 1/F"- is sufficiently large for
low Froude number, the amplitude of the sine
wave is much greater than t h a t of the cosine
wave. The cosine wave can therefore be neg-
lected. In the higher speed range, the magnitude
of the cosine wave cannot be neglected. The
cosine-wave component will shift the position
of crests of the bow-wave system forward or
aft depending on whether the amplitude of the
cosine wave is' negative (convex waterlines) or
positive (concave waterlines).
Similar results can be obtained for the stern-
wave system except the phase shift being opposite
to t h a t of the bow-wave system. However, it
should be noticed t h a t in our interested range of
Froude number (F ~< 0.35), the sine wave is
dominant.
Appendix 3
Published Papers on Waveless Hull Forms
A I * T. Inui, T. Takahei, and M. Kumano,
" W a v e Profile Measurements on the Wave-
Making Characteristics of the Bulbous Bow,"
Journal of Th.e Society of Naval Architects of
Japan, vol. 108, 1960, p. 39.
Wave-Making Resistance of Ships
A2* T. Takahei, "A S t u d y on the Waveless
Bow (Part 1)," Journal of The Society of Naval
A3 T. Takahei, "A S t u d y on the Waveless
Bow (Part 2 ) / ' Journal ~" The Society of Naval
A4* M. Kumano, "A Study on the Waveless
Stern (Part 1)," Journal of The Society of Naval
Architects of Japan, vol. 10S, 1960, p. 63.
A5 M. Kumano, "A S t u d y on the Waveless
Stern (Part 2)," Journal of The Society of Naval
Architects of Japan, vol. 109, 1961, p. 87.
A6 M. Kumano, "A Study on the Waveless
Stern (Part 3)," Journal of The Society of Naval
Architects of Japan, vol. ll0, 19611, p. 159.
A7~ N. Yokoyalna, "Fishing Boat of the
Waveless Hull Form," Journal of The Society of
Naval Architects of Japan, vol. 110, 1961, p. 119.
A8 S. Takezawa, "A Study on the Large
Bulbous Bow of a High Speed Displacement
Ship (Part 1--Resistance in Still Water),"
Japan, vol. 110, 1961, p. 145.
A9 S. Takezawa, "A Study on the Large
Bulbous Bow of a High Speed Displacement
Ship (Part 2--Perfonnance.s in Waves)," Journal
of The Society of Naval Architects of Japan,
vol. 1.]1, 1!)61, p. 19.
A I 0 T. Inui and T. Takahei, " T h e Wave-
Cancelling Effects of "Waveless Bulb on the
High Speed Passenger Coaster MS 'Kurenai
M a r u ' (Part ] - - T h e Model Resistance and
Propulsion Experiments)," Journal of The Society
of Naval Architects of Japan, vol. 110, 1961,.p. 75.
A11 M. Shigelnitsu and K. Kai, " T h e Wave-
Cancelling Effects of Waveless Bulb on the High
Speed Passenger Coaster MS 'Kurenai M a r u '
(Part 2 - - T h e Full-Scale Experiment)," Journal
of The Society of Naval Architects of Japan, vol.
11.0, 1961, p. 91.
A12 T. Takahei and 92. Inui, " T h e Wave-
Cancelling Effects of Waveless Bulb on the
High Speed Passenger Coaster MS 'Kurenai
M a r u ' (Part 3--Photogranlmetrical Observa-
tions of Ship Waves)," Journal of The Society oJ
Naval Architects of Japan, vol. 110, 1961, p. 105.
NOTES :
(a)* T h e English translations of these papers
were published by the University of Michigan,
[21].
(b)~ This paper alone is written in English;
all other papers listed are in Japanese, each with
a brief English abstract.
(c) Reference [All discusses mainly the phase
325
of bulb's waves, which leads to a prediction of
the waveless-hull form.
References [A2, 3] present the theoretical
discussion and the experimental result b y which
the possibility of cancelling the bow waves was
proved.
References [A4, 5, 6] t r e a t the waveless stern
problem and also describe self-propulsion tests
carried out in still water.
References [A7, 8, 9] are on the practical
application of the waveless form theory to a
fishing boat [A7] and a high-speed escort [AS, 9],
and self-propulsion tests in still water and in
waves.
References [A10, 11, 12] describe the full-scale
experinaents on the MS Kurenai )lfaru and the
related t a n k experiments for the wave cancelling
effect of the "waveless" bulb. The picture on
the second page is reproduced from one in [A12].
(d) The following three 16-mm color films
and one S-ram color film are available:
Film No. 1 (16 ram). "Full-.Scale Experiment
on the MS Kurenai-AIaru."
Film No. 2 (16 ram). "Observation of Ship
Models' Waves."
Film No. 3 (16 ram). "Maneuvering and
Sea-Keeping Tests on an 8-m High-Speed Escort
Model, Radio R e m o t e Controlled."
Film No. 4 (8 mm). "Seakeeping Tests on a
2-m Fishing Boat."

Discussion
Prof. T. Takahei, Member and Prof. R. B. Couch,
Council Member: The author has proposed an en-
tirely new model t a n k testing procedure taking
advantage of model wave observations and
analyses. I t is possible to use this procedure be-
cause of advances in wave-resistance theory, the
availability of adequate digital computers, and
the high degree of sophistication of present-day
instrumentation. The overall effectiveness of
his method has been verified quite well by the
evidence presented in the paper.
Another i m p o r t a n t contribution is the author's
explanation of the application of wave-resistance
theory to practical ship hydrodynanfics instead
of the tenuous calculations on the basis of Mi-
chell's theory which has been followed so far in
the theoretical works pretaining to ship resistance.
The procedure which author has outlined takes
advantage of the concept of "elementary waves"
to clarify the mechanism of wave interference
caused by the bulbous bow.
At The University of Michigan we have been
active in bulbous-bow research. One of the
writers, Dr. Takahei, is one of the co-developers
with the author of the new bulb theory, and has
been working at the University for the past year.
In t h a t time we have duplicated the Japanese
model tests on the mathematical forms C-101
and C-201 with and without bulbs using larger
models of 12 ft in length as compared to the S.2-

MEASURED,
- - 1 2 FT MODEL AT UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN
. . . . 8.2 FT MODELAT UNIVERSITY OF TOKYO /
/
A:MAIN HULL (WITHOUT BULB)
O.OO20 B:WITH B O W - B U L B , /

t~_j
%

-... O.OOIO
Ol

0 I ~ I ! r r I T
O. IO 0.20 ~' 0.50 0.40 0.50
DESIGN SPEED ( F = 0 . 2 6 7 ) FROUDE NUMBER F=V//'Cgg

Fig. 41 Comparison Of wave-making resistance of C-201 model of different sizes

(refer to Fig. 20)

326 Wave-Making Resistance of Ships

 5.6

3.2 ---e - -

2.8

P
2.4
o
x I
BARE HULL
a~,~ 2.0
WITH ORIGINAL __ Y
OBSERVATION CH A M B / , . ~ ~ " "
u .~
.{~WITH BULB F2
1.2 IWETT[ SURFACE
AREA
I BARE HULL 486 SQ FT
2 HULL WITH OBSERVATION
0.8 _ _ CHAMBER (ORIGINAL DESIGN) 509 SO FT
2, HULL WITH BULB F2 508 SQ FT
I I D~SIGNI-1SPEED
0.4
0.03 0.09 0.15 0)21 0.27 0.55 0.39
FROUDE NUMBER
L I I f I I I i I I I I I
0.1 0.3 0.5 0.7 0.9 I.I 1.3
SPEED-LENGTH RATIO

Fig. 42 Residuary resistance reduction due to bulb of Oceanographic and fisheries

research vessel

ft length of the Japanese models. Our results
compare very closely with the author's on the
C-101 form, but slight discrepancies were found
for C-201, as shown on Fig. 41 of this discussion.
These small differences .are negligible and our
tests very effectively conflrln the Japanese tests.
In both the Japanese and the University of Mich-
igan tests the ratio of tank cross section to n]odel
cross section was about 160.
We have also recently tested a model of an
oceanographic research ship of about 15() ft in
length on which was fitted an observation cham-
ber. This observation chalnber was replaced by
an Inui bulb to serve a double purpose. The
new bulb produced a total reduction in E H P of
about 1,5 percent at a design speed of 12 knots.
Fig. 42 shows the results in the form of CR curves
versus Froude number. This is an ideal ap-
plication of the Inui bulb.
Dr. Finn C . M i c h e l s e n , Associate Member: The
wave cancellation obtained with the large bulbs,
which the writer believes are already being gen-
erally referred to as Inui bulbs, is quite remark-
able. One m a y wonder why such results were
not obtained a long tinle ago. The author gives
the opinion that failure to realize a "waveless"
hull form is due to the failure of earlier investi-
gators to understand fully the lneehanisn~ of wave
cancellation. On that point the writer wishes to
express disagreement. If the author's judgnlent
is based on the difference between equations (35)
and (36) it is indeed dill]cult to follow his argu-
ment, since both formulations lead to the con-
clusion that the wave-making resistance will be
zero for B(O) identically equal to A (0). When
earlier investigators failed to imagine how two dis-
tinctly different three-dimensional bodies can
produce two wave systems of equal amplitndes
and inverse phase the writer finds himself in their
company. If the term "waveless" is to have an
exact meaning it must be demanded t h a t B(O)
is exactly identical to A (0). I t has been shown
that this is only al)proximately true, and we there-
fore have a form for which the wave-making resist-
ance is only approximately equal to zero. If
criticism is to be leveled against Havelock, \Vein-
blum, Wigley and others it can only be said that
they did not go far enough in their investigations.
In any theoretical treatment of a physical
phenomenon, approximations arise from two
sources; i.e., ai)proximations implied in the for-
mulation of the theory and those encountered in
numerical calculations. Since the streamlines
defining a hull form from a given singularity dis-
tribution are usually determiued by means of
numerical methods, such as that of Runge-Kutta,
the resulting form will not be an exact one. At
The University of Michigan it has been found,
for instance, that great care must be exercised in
the determination of the streanllines. A finer
mesh than that used by the author did, in fact,
reduce the beam in the case of model C-201.
The difference iu this case is small and is believed

Wave-Making Resistanceof Ships 327

 0.14 .....

, I

+.,,.
0.12
0 I0 20 50 4'0 50 60 70 80 90 I00
No. OF SPACINGS IN X
Fig. 43 Runge-Kutta method, effect of disisions in x on maximum beam for C-201

to be insignificant. Fig. 43 shows the variation
of beam as a function of n u m b e r of subdivision
used.
T h e a u t h o r has now for m a n y years been one of
the m a j o r contributors to our knowledge of wave-
m a k i n g resistance of ships. His work on bulbs
has indeed stirred our imagination and has led to
full realization of the significance of the wave-
resistance theory. F o r this alone will he take a
place a m o n g the fotmders of this theory.
equations (61), (62), (63), (66) and (67). Equa-
tions (61) t h r o u g h (63) give the free-wave pat-
tern of a traveling point source, and equations (66)
and (67) the free-wave p a t t e r n of a traveling
point doublet. T h e point source produces waves
m u c h like those of the bow of a ship, while the
point doublet produces waves like those of a
sphere :
~os(x,y) N
f_ +/'~
,2 C(O) eos(K0p sec-~0) dO (6~)

Capt. S. W. W. Shor, USN, Member: Despite the

C(0) = inK0 see:+0exp (-- K o f sec ~0) (62)
becoming m o d e s t y of the author, the paper we 7r
have heard t o d a y describes discoveries in the
where
field of w a v e - m a k i n g resistance of ships which
r a n k in i m p o r t a n c e with those of Kelvin, Froude, p=xcosOq-ysinO (63)
Michell, and Havelock. I n one respect, however,
this p a p e r is unique: the a u t h o r has kept his f,,,,, N S(O) sin(K0p see'-'0) dO (66)
J --7ri2
a t t e n t i o n focused on w h a t hal)pens far astern of
the ship, and I do n o t think we have ever seen with
so m u c h progress ahead b y one whose eyes are so M K o -+
c o n s t a n t l y t u r n e d behind. S(0) - sec40 e x p ( - K 0 f see'-'0) (67)
11"
I would like to c o m m e n t on the potential of
the a u t h o r ' s theoretical attack. I n arriving T h e formula for the wave p r o d u c e d b y a doub-
at a waveless form, his m e t h o d has been to find let was obtained from t h a t for a point source by
an a p p e n d a g e to add to the hull of a ship which allowing a point source and an equal point sink,
will p r o d u c e waves of the same form as those pro- the source f o r w a r d of the sink, to a p p r o a c h each
duced b y the hull, b u t o u t of phase so t h a t t h e y other. T h e p r o d u c t of the source s t r e n g t h and
cancel. H e has chosen as his s t a n d a r d a p p e n d a g e the separation was held c o n s t a n t and the a p p r o a c h
a sphere, and has then adjusted its position and permitted to go to the limit of zero separation.
size so t h a t its waves just a b o u t cancel the bow We m a y inquire w h a t happens if the a p p r o a c h
waves or stern waves of the ship. I t is evidence is n o t carried to the limit of zero separation.
of the power of his methods, however, t h a t the This is equivalent to investigating the effect of
same calculations which he uses can also be usec) using an oblong b o d y r a t h e r like a blimp instead
to d e m o n s t r a t e t h a t a sphere is n o t the only of a sphere to cancel the ship's waves.
shape t h a t can be used for this purpose. L e t us assume a source and a sink, each of
T o show this, we can start with the a u t h o r ' s strength ImV[ and at the same depth, separated

328 Wave-Making Resistance of Ships

by a distance ~ in the x-direction. We can then
write for the amplitude of the waves produced by
this pair, following equation (61) :
~/2
~,o " " F
d --7r/2
C(O) cos(Kop~ sec"-O) dO
-- --I"'~/2 C(O) cos(K<&, sece0) dO
d - - 7r/2
where we have defined
p, = p + (~/2) c o s o
and
p.. = p -- (~/2) cos 0
The quantity C(O) is the function described in
equation (62).
We m a y simplify the right-hand side of equa-
tion (69) by ordinary trigonometric identities with
the following result:
f,, ,~, --2 C(O) sin(K0p sec20)
~r/2
sin(K0 :~ see0) dO
We now examine equation (71) and find that it is
like (66) except that in place of a factor see 0
it contains a factor
sin(K0 } see 0)
However, it is reasonable to eliminate the factor
see 0 because it is the only respect in which the
amplitude factor of a doublet differs from that
of a source like that of equation (61), which
resembles a ship wave. This means that our only
problem is the factor
sin (K0:5 sec 0)
This factor, however, can be made nearly equal
to unity over the range of integration of 0 which
produces nearly all the value of the integral if
we make an appropriate choice: of ft. For exam-
ple, if we choose 6 so that Ko 6/'2 is equal to 3~-/8
then the factor
6 by the comparison shown in Fig. 32 between a
sin(K0 ~ see 0)
ranges between 0.9 and 1.0 for 0 < 0 < 0.9, which
for any reasonable depth of bulb provides nearly
the whole value of the integral.
The interpretation of this result is t h a t we
should be able to use an elongated body of revolu-
tion in place of a spherical bulb. We m a y sub-
stitute some numbers in the result just worked out
to see how long this body will be :
6 = 2(3~/8)(1/K0) = 3rrV"/4g
Wave-Moking Resistance of Ships
If we let V = 32 fps (a little under 19 knots) we
get ~ = 247r or about 75 ft. The body described
by a source-sink pair this far apart will be a little
longer, so it appears that we m a y use a blimp-
shaped object somewhat over 75 ft long in place
of a spherical bulb on a 19-knot ship. I t will,
(69) of course, be smaller in diameter than the sphere.
In practice it m a y well be that the sphere will
prove more desirable than other possible shapes
in most eases; but it is good to know that the
author's theory provides a method so powerful
that alternatives such as the one discussed here
can be worked out easily.
(7O)
Dr. F. H. Todd, Member: The calculation or
measurement of the wave-making resistance of a
ship has a double significance. In the first place
it is that part of the total resistance over which
the naval architect has most control, since it
depends upon the "shape" of the hull, and there is
a natural desire to reduce it to a minimum consist:
ent with the other features of the design.
(71) The basic feature of model testing techniques
is the extrapolation of model results to the ship
size, and any better knowledge of the components
of ship resistance, such as that due to wave-lnak-
ing, wouM contribute greatly to our improved
understanding of the whole problem. Changes
in hull form made with a view to reducing wave-
making resistance have in the past depended
largely upon the results of model tests, either from
an analysis of the resistance data or observation
of the wave profiles. The lessons learned in these
ways from past models have been applied to new
designs by a mixture of statistics, experience and
intuition.
"Forms of minimum wave-making resistance"
have been developed mathematically by a number
of people, but in general they have had unortho-
dox if not impracticable shapes. The author's
approach is to calculate the wave-making resist-
ance for a particular form, defined by a source-
sink distribution, and then to cancel it as far as
possible by adding a bulb with its own associated
wave system. He has illustrated this procedure
Series 60, 0.60 C'B hull without a bulb (Model No.
4240) and one of his designs of similar proportions
fitted with a large bulb (his model UF3-UF7-
F1). From the curves given in the figure he
states that the residuary resistance is reduced by
4(I percent and the total resistance by some 20
percent. However, in making such comparisons,
one has to be sure that they are based upon
comparable cases. In the first place, it should
be realized that model UF-3-UF7 is not at all a
(72) ship-shape form, being wall-sided throughout,
329

25 FT )RAFT
WL R
WLS
WLT
WL U
KEEL
NOSE OF BULB
1560 F IS 75 FT
A F T OF F P
WL R
S~
T~ ~ ~ _ _ _ ~ .
u ~_ -- --
Fig. 44 D e t a i l s o f b u l b s fitted to models 1360 and 1478 (Wigley).
f o r a ship 400 ft X 37.5 ft X 25.0 ft draft
w i t h v e r t i c a l b o w a n d s t e r n contours, t h e displace-
m e n t - l e n g t h r a t i o is s o m e 5 p e r c e n t less, while the
L C B p o s i t i o n s differ b y 1.2 p e r c e n t of t h e length.
T h e effect of t h e b u l b on m o d e l U F 3 - U F 7 is
shown in Fig. 29, t h e v a l u e s of C,.' being 0.00026
a n d 0.000lS for t h e n o r m a l a n d b u l b forms,
r e s p e c t i v e l y . I t s h o u l d be n o t e d t h a t t h e dia-
g r a m s g i v i n g values of w a v e - m a k i n g r e s i s t a n c e in
this p a p e r a r e n o t t h e u s u a l ones where R , , is
r e f e r r e d to ~.~pSV 2, b u t t h e d e n o m i n a t o r is
],~pL"-V e. C o r r e c t i n g to t h e usual f o r m t h e
f o r e g o i n g v a l u e s of C.,' b e c o m e 0.00.139 a n d
0.00096, so t h a t t h e r e d u c t i o n d u e to f i t t i n g t h e
b u l b is 0.00043.
F r o m Fig. 32 t h e CR-value for m o d e l U F 3 - U F 7 -
F 1 w i t h b u l b is 0.00123, a n d a d d i n g t h e difference
of 0.00(14"3 for t h e b u l b effect we find a v a l u e of
CR for U F 3 - U F 7 w i t h o u t b u l b of (1.1)1)166. T h i s
c o m p a r e s w i t h C~ of 0.00202 for the Series 60
model, or a difference of 0.00036. T h e t o t a l
resistance coefficient for a ship 400 ft long b u i l t
to t h e lines of M o d e l 4240 is 0.00407, so t h a t the
I n u i form w i t h o u t b u l b has a lower resistance b y
a b o u t 9 percent. A s s u m i n g t h e stone r e d u c t i o n
could be achieved b y fitting a similar b u l b to the
Series 60 m o d e l as was found on U F 3 - U F 7 , t h e r e
would be a f u r t h e r r e d u c t i o n in t o t a l r e s i s t a n c e
of s o m e li) p e r c e n t . I t t h u s a p p e a r s t h a t t h e
r e d u c t i o n of 20 p e r c e n t p r e v i o u s l y m e n t i o n e d can
be a t t r i b u t e d a p p r o x i m a t e l y e q u a l l y b e t w e e n t h e
difference in basic forms a n d t h e effect of bulb.
M o r e o v e r , reference to Fig. 2S will show t h a t
m o d e l U3 w i t h o u t b u l b a n d w i t h a c u r v e d b o t t o m
h a d a w a v e - m a k i n g r e s i s t a n c e lower t h a n U F 3 -
330 Wave-Making Resistanceof Ships
LWL
STEM~
BULB ON BULB ON
---/1560 C ,478 B
i DIAMETER
7 !
F!P
51.25 FT. t
ELEVATION
WLU
/WL S ~
~ - - - - - - ~ ~
~- _. . . .
PLAN
D i m e n s i o n s are
UfT-F1 w i t h b u l b a n d a fiat b o t t o m , even t h o u g h
U3 was c a r r y i n g 25 p e r c e n t m o r e d i s p l a c e m e n t .
T h i s suggests t h a t t h e basic form h a s v e r y good
wave-making characteristics.
T h e b a s i c t h e o r y for t h e b u l b o u s bow was p u b -
lished b y W i g l e y in 1935. 7 I n 192S H a v e l o c k
c a l c u l a t e d t h e surface w a v e p a t t e r n due to a d o u b -
let i m m e r s e d in a u n i f o r m s t r e a m , which is
e q u i v a l e n t to an i m m e r s e d sphere, s T h e m o s t
i m p o r t a n t f e a t u r e of this p a t t e r n was t h a t i t h a d
a w a v e t r o u g h j u s t aft of t h e sphere, which sug-
gested to W i g l e y t h a t it m i g h t be possible to
p a r t l y cancel the bow w a v e of t h e hull b y l o c a t i n g
a sphere below t h e surface in t h e n e i g h b o r h o o d
of t h e stem. H e c a r r i e d o u t c a l c u l a t i o n s of
w a v e profiles a n d w a v e - m a k i n g resistance b a s e d
on H a v e l o c k ' s w o r k r e l a t i n g t h e expression for t h e
r e s i s t a n c e to t h a t for t h e w a v e profile a t a g r e a t
d i s t a n c e astern. H e expressed t h e t o t a l resist-
ance of t h e c o m b i n e d hull and b u l b in t h e f o r m
Rr = Ru +R~ +R~
where t h e first two t e r m s are t h e s e p a r a t e resist-
ances of hull a n d bulb, a n d RI is an i n t e r f e r e n c e
t e r m . T h e b u l b will also h a v e a frictional a n d
f o r m resistance R~. a n d if t h e n e t effect is to be
a r e d u c t i o n in resistance, then R~ m u s t be nega-
tive and n u m e r i c a l l y g r e a t e r t h a n (Rn 4- R~,).
T h e t e r m R,. p r e d o m i n a t e s a t low speeds, a n d
t h e r e f o r e t h e r e is an increase in t o t a l resistance.
7 W. C. S. W i g l e y , " T h e T h e o r y of t h e B u l b o u s Bow a n d
its Practical Application," Northeast Coast hlstitution of
Shipbuilders, 1935-36.
8 T. H. Havelock, Proceedings of The Royal Society,
London, Englmld, series A, vol. 121, 1928.
 +15

; " -..N ~ g JI
-+. o
F+5
Z
LIJ
"0
rY
:o+ ' - \ ia
ILl
n 0

- 5 _ _

~-t- 1.280
75 FT A F T OF" FP I I
-I0 ! FP
I 3L2IFT ~WD OF FP
I00 80 60 40 20 0 20 40 60
DISTANCE FROM FP TO NOSE OF BULB-FEET FOR 4 0 0 - F T SHIP
Fig. 45 Percentage change in resistance due to fitting of a bulb (\Vigley). Percentages
refer to a 400-ft ship

R~ increases n u m e r i c a l l y w i t h speed, a n d the I believe in fact t h a t W i g l e y did show the reason

t o t a l effect becomes n e g a t i v e a t a b o u t V/-v/Z, =
0.8 for t h e ship. W i g l e y m a d e c a l c u l a t i o n s for
b u l b s in different f o r e - a n d - a f t locations, a n d con-
eluded t h a t the b e s t position in. general "is w i t h
its c e n t r e a t the b o w a n d t h e r e f o r e w i t h a projec-
tion f o r w a r d of the hull."
Fig. 44 shows d e t a i l s of one b u l b design in t h r e e
different l o c a t i o n s a n d Fig. 4,5 t h e p e r c e n t a g e
c h a n g e in c a l c u l a t e d resistance for a ship 400
ft in length. T h e s e results were g e n e r a l l y con-
firmed b y e x p e r i m e n t s on 16-ft models. I t will
be seen t h a t t h e i m p r o v e m e n t is g r e a t e r the
f a r t h e r f o r w a r d t h e nose of the b u l b from the stem,
while in t h e f a r t h e s t a f t position t h e r e is a sub-
s t a n t i a l increase in resistance. T h e b u l b shown in
Fig. 44 in t h e m o s t f o r w a r d l o c a t i o n b e a r s a close
general r e s e m b l a n c e to sonae of those used b y the
a u t h o r - t h e nose is 31.25 ft f o r w a r d of the s t e m
for a 400-ft ship, a n d t h a t shown in Fig. 19 of the
p r e s e n t p a p e r , for e x a m p l e , has a p r o j e c t i o n of
a b o u t 37 ft. T h e p e r c e n t a g e i m p r o v e m e n t s in-
d i c a t e d b y W i g l e y ' s work v a r y front 2 to 7 per-
cent; w h i c h are less t h a n thai. achieved b y the
a u t h o r , b u t i n s p e c t i o n will show t h a t the l a t t e r
has used b u l b s of m u c h g r e a t e r t r a n s v e r s e di-
mensions, c o m i n g m u c h n e a r e r to t h e surface.
T h e a u t h o r r e m a r k s a t one p o i n t t h a t b y Wig-
l e y ' s m e t h o d t h e " w a v e l e s s hull f o r m " could n e v e r
h a v e been discovered. T h i s I do n o t u n d e r s t a n d .
Both Miehell's integral method and Havelock's
m e t h o d of c a l c u l a t i n g t h e r e s i s t a n c e from t h e
w a v e p a t t e r n well a s t e r n lead to t h e s a m e final
m a t h e m a t i c a l expression, as i n d e e d t h e y m u s t .
w h y resistance could be r e d u c e d b y t h e use of a
b u l b (the f a c t was, of course, a l r e a d y well k n o w n
as a m a t t e r of experience), a n d he d r e w t h e follow-
ing conclusions :
l T h e useful speed range of a b u l b is g e n e r a l l y
from I 7 ' ~ / ' ~ = 0.8 to 1.9, V b e i n g speed in k n o t s
a n d L the s h i p ' s l e n g t h in feet.
2 T h e worse t h e wave-naaking of the hull
itself is, the m o r e gain m a y be e x p e c t e d w i t h the
b u l b and vice-versa.
3 Unless the lines are e x t r e m e l y hollow the
b e s t position of t h e b u l b is w i t h its c e n t r e a t t h e
bow, t h a t is, with its nose p r o j e c t i n g f o r w a r d of
the hull.
4 T h e b u l b should extend as low as possible
c o n s o n a n t w i t h fairness in the lines of t h e hull.
5 T h e b u l b should be as s h o r t l o n g i t u d i n a l l y
a n d as wide l a t e r a l l y as p o s s i b l e , . . . .
6 T h e t o p of the b u l b should n o t a p p r o a c h too
n e a r l y to the w a t e r surface . . . .
W i g l e y did n o t proceed to e x t r e m e sizes of bulb,
a n d here the a u t h o r naust be c o n g r a t u l a t e d on his
courage in n o t being d e t e r r e d b y a p p e a r a n c e s !
The author repeats Havelock's statement that
the free-wave p a t t e r n of an ilnmersed d o u b l e t
or sphere s t a r t s w i t h a trough. T h i s I find diffi-
cult to visualize physically. A t the nose of t h e
sphere there is a s t a g n a t i o n p o i n t w i t h increased
pressure, and it seems t h a t the w a v e s y s t e m m u s t
s t a r t w i t h a crest, even t h o u g h this m a y be small
in m a g n i t u d e c o m p a r e d w i t h the ensuing trough.
By k e e p i n g the nose of t h e b u l b well forward, t h e

Wave-Making Resistance of Ships 331

 crest would not affect the hull bow wave, which
would longitudinally coincide with the trough of
the bulb system. In Fig. 23 of the paper, in-
deed, the calculated bulb free-wave profile be-
comes positive at the extreme fore end, i.e., ahead
of the first trough, and has an amplitude of more
than half that of the succeeding hollow. There
are also symmetrical disturbances of the surface
associated with both the hull and bulb, which
complicate the wave pattern but which travel
with the hull and do not cause any resistance once
a steady speed has been attained. Any change
in shape of the nose of the bulb, for example from
a sphere to an ellipsoid, would cause some change
in the associated wave profile and the resistance,
and so nmst affect the "free" wave pattern as
well as the symmetrical disturbance. I should
value the author's comments in connection with
this point.
The author advocates the use of observed wave
patterns for linking up experimental and the-
oretical results. In 1952 Guilloton gave details
of a method of determining the wave-making
resistance graphically from measured wave pro-
files. ° The wave profile and the resistance can
both be calculated mathematically to a first ap-
proximation. Guilloton assumed that the same
relation would hold between the actual profile
and wave resistance, so that by measuring the
former the resistance could be calculated by
graphical methods. He and others have obtained
good results.
All this work is for smooth water, and the
effects of such bulbs on seagoing qualities must
certainly be investigated before embarking on
their widespread use. The advantages of bulbs
in reducing smooth-water resistance have been
known from model tests for 60 years or more and
the theory for 30 years. One is tempted to ask
why large bulbs of the sizes used by the author
have not been tried before. The answer is
probably that no operators have been willing to
go to such extreme bulbs for fear of bad sea be-
h a v i o r - s p r a y , slamming and hull d a m a g e - - a n d
the difficulties of berthing and anchoring. The
possibilities shown by the author should en-
-courage the application of his design methods to
high-speed warships which have to carry large
sonar domes.
The author has confined his considerations to
the reduction of wave-making resistance. Yet
in the merchant marine most of the large bulbs
have been fitted to large full tankers of low speed-
length ratio where wave-making resistance is not
a problem. The reason is usually given that
9R. Ouilloton, "A Note on the Experimental Determina-
tion of Wave Resistance," INA, 1952.
332 Wave-Making Resistanceof Ships
such a bow design enables the center of buoyancy
to be kept in a desirable forward location without
requiring large angles of entrance on the load
waterline and so bad behavior and loss of speed in
head seas. The author's views on this application
would be of interest.
The author states that "the wave-making
resistance theory should have been applied in
planning an empirical, methodical series test and
in analyzing the data obtained." When Series 60
was planned by the Society's Panel and the Taylor
IX~odel Basin in 1949, this possibility was con-
sidered seriously. However, owing to the then
state of knowledge of the theory of wave-making
resistance and the difficulties of representing hull
forms mathematically, it was decided to adopt
instead a family of graphically defined and re-
lated parent forms, t° Progress in the theory
over the past 12 years and the development of
methods of defining ships' lines for use on a high-
speed computer have altered the situation to a
great extent, but the time has not yet come when
we can dispense with methodical series experi-
ments. For the vast majority of ships wave-
making resistance is but a small part of the total,
and in series work we are concerned with finding
the effects upon total resistance of changes in
fullness, proportions, and other features which
m a y also affect viscous drag to an important
extent.
The curves in the paper showing comparisons
between calculated and observed wave-making
resistance indicate very close agreement. It
should be remembered, however, that the calcu-
lated curves have been "corrected" by a number
of.factors which have in themselves been derived
from such experiments to allow for the virtual in-
crease in length due to viscosity, ~, the effect of
viscosity in reducing stern wave heights, ~, and a
hull self-interference coefficient. More informa-
tion on the latter would be of interest. The
measured wave-making resistance coefficient Cw
is always a derived value, since only the total
resistance is actually measured. The author has
used Hughes' "form factor" concept in the deriva-
tion. But there are other methods of doing this
and the correction factors will depend very much
on which method is used.
Prof. Philip Mandel, Member: I n a practical
sense the author's results are not yet revolution-
ary. While Figs. 32 and 33 show an appreciable
advantage for a 20 percent bulb form as com-
pared to the Series 60 at speeds, F > 0.25, this
i0 F. FI. Todd and F. X. Forest, "A Proposed New Basis
for the Design of Single-Screw Merchant Ship Forms and
Standard Series Lines," TRANS. SNAME, vol. 59, 1951,
discussion by Dr. G. P. Weinblum, pp. 722-724.
advantage disappears in a comparison with the First of all, let us take a moment to look at the
Taylor Standard Series ( D T M B Report 806) of approximation to the boundary condition Oil the
comparable displacement (35,000 tons) com- ship which is now used. The e.xact b o u n d a r y
parable prismatic, Cp (,-o0.615), L / B and B / H . condition on the ship is (for the case of a stationary
Using the wetted surface of the latter series re- ship in a superposed uniform flow):
sults in an E H P curve slightly more favorable
V.n=O
than t h a t shown for model UF3 x FI up to the
highest speeds shown. where
One question that the author has not raised is
of concern. He has chosen to limit his speed V = (u-U) l + v j + w k
range to F ___<0.35, perhaps for the reason that bF OF OF
the bulb sizes necessary to reduce resistance n = b~-~i + b y J-i- bz k
significantly at higher speeds become inordinately
large. Surely if the very large wave-making drag V being tile total vector velocity composed of the
could be eliminated, or even reduced at the last free-stream velocity - U parallel to the longitudi-
hump speed of F = 0.5, a major barrier to higher nal x-axis, and 'u,v,w being the conlponents of the
ship operating speeds would be reduced. The disturbance velocity due to the displacing effects
author's comments on this point would be very of the ship, and n is the normal vector to the ship
helpful. surface being computed from the equation of the
We hope and pray that the author's work will ship surface
continue into the future with enlarged scope.
Y(.v,£z) = 0 = f(x,z) -- y = 0
Significant advances in this field have been much
too rare since the pioneering work of the 1920's where y is the waterline half-breadth at any
and 1930's for us to fail to support an enthusiastic station x and height from the keel z
researcher of demonstrated competence in this
OF Of(x,y) OF OF f
field.
b,v bx ' b y --1; Oz z

Dr. J. P. Breslin, Member: While m a n y researchers In detail, then, the boundary condition requires
have been aware of the fact that the streamline that
shape associated with source distributions is not
that of the ship, the author has been the first, I b.f bf o
(..- u ) 57~ - ~ (0 + w b-;, =
believe, actually to nmke calculations to show what
these shapes are. Further, he shows that when so that
one builds a model to this shape rather than the
- UOf .Of wOf
one which the source distribution is supposed to
v- bx + bx + - bz
give, much better agreement between theory and
experiment is obtained. The last two terms are neglected on the basis that
He side steps this failure of the simplified they represent the product of small quantities.
relationships between the local source density and But in the neighborhood of the bow and stern
the desired or arbitrary ship geometry by accepting u --~ U and by/bz, the slopes of the sections are not
the resulting streamline shape which he calculates small and it is just these regions of a ship which
with the use of an electronic computer after are predominantly important in the generation of
selecting a source distribution. This is fine for waves. The thin-ship theory goes on then to
his purposes-particularly to demonstrate as he exploit the simple relation between the local
has-the effectiveness of bulb s;hapes to produce source strength of a distribution taken over the
interfering wave patterns which reduce the wave longitudinal centerline plane which says that on
resistance to very low values at certain design the plane
Froude numbers.
m
However, I think that it is essential to make vs± ~-~ =t=-
calculations for desired waterline and section 2
shapes so that we m a y learn how such factors as and that this expression is considered to hold out
entrance angle and waterline shape, for example, to the adjacent point on the ship boundary so that
influence wave resistance. Thus the direct
-- UOf(x,z)
p r o b l e m - - w h a t is the wave resistance for a m(x,z) = v ~ - bx
specified set of lines--is still with us, but the
answer is much nearer to hand than before and I This expression is then inserted into the formulas
would like to explain why this is so. for the Kelvin source distribution which satisfies

Wave-Making Resistanceof Ships 333

linearized free-surface conditions and the wave
resistance calculated. I t is not surprising that
this theory gives only the broad aspects of the
wave pattern but fails to predict the resistance
very well.
W h a t can we do in place of this?
The answer is complicated but feasible now that
the "space age" has accelerated the development
of large capacity, very high-speed computers.
Quite recently, the problem of finding the surface
distribution of sources which meets or satisfies a
given normal velocity distribution has been
solved by a caleulational procedure devised by
Hess and A.M.O. Smith at Douglas Aircraft under
support of the Bureau of Ships Fundamental
Hydromechanies Research Program. T h e y have
applied the method to a Series 60 hull shape.
The basic integral equation which they solved
is
m 1 F £ m cos(n,r)~S
2 4~ J J r~ v,,(p)
where
source strength density distributed over
surface S of the ship
n = outward drawn normal
r = distance between any point of interest on
' ship surface to any d u m m y point on surface
I t is to be noted that cos(n,r) is the cosine of the
angle between the directed line r and the normal
n which is clearly zero in the case of planar sur-
faces. Here v,, must be opposite and equal to the
normal component of free-stream speed at each
point of the ship surface S.
Having found the source strengths m for each
of the small segments into which the ship is
divided, one can then compute the wave resist-
ance through use of established formulas for the
drag associated with the waves generated by
isolated sources. The sum or integral over the
surface for all such sources and sinks will give a
theoretical wave resistance which is not subject
to the limitations of thin-ship approximations.
One can expect that some of the finite-beam
effects in providing wave-interference effects will
be exhibited by this more realistic model. I t will
still be necessary to modify this potential-flow
model to account for the softening of the pressure
rise at the stern provided by the boundary-layer
flow.
I t is hoped that calculations using the presently
available source distribution computed at Douglas
for a Series 60 hull will be completed at Stevens
Institute so that a measure of the importance of
more exact modelling of the boundary condition
can be ascertained.
334 Wave-Making Resistance of Ships
The author's plea for wave measurements as
the key for understanding wave resistance is very
well taken. I believe electrical methods for
obtaining these data (as developed by Dr. Ward
here in his doctoral dissertation) are more practi-
cal than stereo-photographs. Dr. Inui's studies
have certainly generated a renewed interest in
ship-wave resistance. His bows have been shown
to w o r k - - b u t I think it m a y be possible to achieve
the same result by smaller changes in the water-
lines near the designed waterline for already well-
designed lines. I have been particularly anxious
to know if the wave resistance of the sinusoidal
source distribution is larger than that which
would be obtained for a ship of the same propor-
tions designed by a competent naval architect
from empirical knowledge.
Finally, m a n y a "hard-shelled" naval architects
might say: "All this business of large bulb or
'wavy-waterlined' ships is the result of the
theoretical types who 'wander' about towing
tanks? D o n ' t they know that the cost of fuel is
about in seventh place in the order of cost items in
running a ship!" However, the answer m a y well
be that a substantial reduction in power as shown
by the author cozdd still spell the difference in the
margin for profit after all the other higher cost
items are paid.
Dr. P. C. Pien, Member: This paper, like m a n y
other contributions of the author, will have a
tremendous influence upon the future research
work in the field of wave-making resistance of
ships. The most important contribution made by
the author, I think, is the nonlinear treatment of
ship surface condition as described in Part 1,
Section 2 of this paper. This improvement to
Mitchell's original wave-making resistance theory
brings the theoretical and experimental results into
much better relationship. I t makes theoretical
analysis meaningful in searching for better hull
forms under a given set of design conditions.
At the David Taylor Model Basin, we are
doing some research work on hull forms. I would
like to show some of our results and, based upon
them, make some comments on this paper.
In order to save time in making a theoretical
analysis of a hull form, I have revised the author's
procedure for such analysis and have prepared
new tables for use with this procedure. The
variety of singularity distributions, as well as
their location, have been greatly extended. Now
a wave-making resistance coefficient curve or
elementary wave-amplitude curve of a chosen
singularity distribution can be quickly made.
I am going to show the results of an analysis we
have made on three mathematical models. The
 MOOELu3
EQUATIONS

--
OF SCOUR,CE DIS.~. _rBUTIONS

- - M(F~) = 3.68oo9~-3.48oo9
2 L
~40DEL X . . . . . M(~) = 3.55"35~ --.01386~ 2 _ 7.3891~ 3

+4.0537~4 _.19903~ ~

~IODEL 4946 - - ?J(g) = 3.88306~+ 1.8a4~ 2

,1.2 -17.q91~ 3 + 14.5792g ¢

-2.459'76~ 5
1.0
/
0.8
FOR 0 "::~ -~i
MODEL LENGTH = 2
/ i
/

0.6
ASSY~aETRICAL
T I
WITH RESPECT TO }fIDSHIP

/ \ \
\\
h_--

/
0.4
\

0.2 \
\
\
0

-0.2 ~ \ \
-0,4
\
\

,d /
-0.6 x,Q\
,\
-0.8 "~,k \

-3.,2
f
-i.0 -0.9 -0.8 -0.7 -0.6 - 0 . 5 - 0 . 4 -0.3 -0.2 -0.i O.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0

Fig. 46 Source distribution

first one is on Model U3 of this paper. I t is the
best model of the U-series for V~/L = 0.93
(F = 0.277). The second one is D T M B Model
4946 which was just recently tested. The third
one, Model X, is selected particularly for the
purpose of this discussion.
Fig. 46 of this discussion shows the source dis-
tributions of the three models. The notations
are the same as used in the paper. Model X has
a T / L value of 0.04 and has the source distribu-
tion on the central plane. 2/-'and L are the depth
and the length of source distribution, respectively.
Model 49'.4.6 has a T / L value of 0.03 and has the
source distribution placed off the central plane.
This is done in order to obtain a desired B/I-Iratio.
Fig. 47 shows the resultant elementary wave
amplitudes of the models at the designed 17/~/~
value of 0.93. From this figure, it may be expected
that Model 4946 will have better performance
than Model U& Fig. 48 shows the amplitude
curves of the sine and cosine components of the
free-wave system of these models. As mentioned
before, Model X has been specially chosen. I t
was selected so that the sine component of the
free-wave system is negligible, and the dominating
component is the cosine component. In this case,
a bulb derived from a point doublet cannot possi-
bly cancel the free wave. Instead, concentrated
source (sink at stern) at ends should be employed
for this purpose. This concentrated source at
ends will avoid the cusp of waterline .endings of
this model. In the case of Model U3, the cosine
component within the range of important 0-values
is actually larger than the sine component. A
bulb derived from both a concentrated source and
a doublet should, at least theoretically, be more
effective. Furthermore, the doublet should be
distributed along a vertical line at the ends in
accordance with the amplitude curve of the sine
component of the free-wave system. Likewise,
the source should be distributed along the same
line in accordance with the amplitude curve of the

Wave-Making Resistance of Ships 335

 i.~ x lO-2

- -
MODEL

~ODEL
U3

7~ODEL 4 9 4 6 - -
/
1.0

/
+-------- J

/
"t
o.5 \
\

/
/ \

/
// \

0° i0 ° 20 ° 30 ° 40 ° 50 ° 60 ° 70 ° 80 °

Fig. 47 Resultant elementary free wave amplitude curves

cosine component. B y doing so, not only a more
effective bulb can be obtained but also better hull
geometry near the ends can be developed. For
the case of Model 4946, both the sine and the
cosine components of the free-wave system are
negligible within the range of important 0-values.
Therefore, no bulb would be required.
Fig. 49 shows the total measured resistance-
coefficient curves of Models U3 and 4946. The
former was obtained at the University of T o k y o
both with and without bulb, while the latter was
obtained at D T M B . The lower portion of the
figure shows the Cw curves obtained from the
measured 'total resistance coefficients by using
Sehoenherr's friction line with a K-factor of 0.14.
The computed C,v curves have been plotted also
as shown. There is a shift of phase between
measured and computed C., curves for both
models. The better resistance quality of Model
4946 near the designed speed, as predicted by
theory, has been verified experimentally. Aside
from the phase shift, the agreement between
measured and computed Cw-values of Model
4946 is very good.
In conclusion, I would like to make the follow-
ing statements based on the results in Figs. 46 to
49:
1 A large bulb seems not a necessity for a low
wave-making resistance hull form as shown in the
case of Model 4946.
2 Line source should be considered as a very
desirable element in designing an effective bulb.
In any case, it is not possible to have a bulb de-
rived purely from a point doublet. The necessary
arbitrary fairing, in order to blend the sphere to
the main hull, in reality is equivalent to the intro-
ducing of additional source. Would it be better
to include the source in the design stage of a bulb
rather than to introduce it arbitrarily on the
drawing board?
The author's comments on these points will be
greatly appreciated.
Prof. Lawrence W. Ward, Associate Member:
T h e a u t h o r presents a s t r o n g case f o r w h a t c o u l d
be called "the photographic analysis of ship wave-
making performance"; by this I mean the tech-

336 Wave-Making Resistance of Ships

 MODEL U3
y/
1.0 X I0 -2 MODEL

MODEL
X

4 9 4 6 - -
/
/
/
O.5
//
f
/
J
_ j r /

/
\ /
/
/
. ,f

SINE COMPONENT /
/
/
/
o--- l I /

- COSINE COMPONENT

-0.5 - -
. . . . ,.I
/
I d

0 ° 10° 20 ° 30 ° 4o ° 50 ° 60 ° 70 ° 80 °

Fig. 48 Component elementary free wave amplitude curves

nique of circumventing completely the determina-
tion of any number corresponding to the energy
in the ship wave system but rather relying on
visual observation of the photographs themselves
for the purpose of assessing the value of changes
made in the hull form. The success obtained
herein for the case of adding bulbs makes this
method one difficult indeed to criticize; however,
those of us who have taken as our goal the im-
provement of the theory of ship waves still must
insist that we have that number, however elusive
it m a y be, for comparison with the theory with a
view to finally improving it to the point where it
can guide us .truthfully in our various design
problems. Of course it is possible as the author
himself has shown [24] to derive such a number
from the photographs but only with considerable
analytical effort and still requiring complex and
large facilities, nor does it seem possible, as the
author suggests, to cut down the size of this equip-
ment since the wave pattern itself depends o11 the
viscous-flow regime to an unknown extent. Thus
his method will not eliminate the need to establish
practical methods for the experimental determi-
nation of wave resistance directly from measure-
ments of the wave pattern as in the methods of
the writer [20] and that of K. Eggers [19].
The author is to be commended on having in-
eluded an investigation into the validity of the
usual linearized treatment of the ship hull surface

Wave-Making Resistance of Ships 337

CO
/
I I i
-3
/,'
U 3 . .

U 3 u~th Lulb . . . . . . . . .
. . C,¢ = 6.77 X lO

, C~ = 6.94 X lO
-3 //// 1.5
TMP, NC,D'ZL 49146 , C.~ = 5 . 0 3 X 10
-3 N

L %

~ /~U_3 ~¢ith bulb ~

tm

8"
P~
O

[ T~.~a r,(,D~ u946 ___ //

0.5 %

/ a
TMB~O~EL, 4946.]X /

I I I
0.15 0.20 0.25 0.30 0.35

Fig. 49 Comparison of C, and Cw


"r ~
X V o l u m e of t h e S o c i e t y of N a v a l A r c h i t e c t s of
Fig. 50
I0
0
o/)
o5
0
0 1.6 5 I0 15 20
koXo
Fig. 51 Theoretical wave pattern
b o u n d a r y c o n d i t i o n ; this is an e x t r e m e l y ques-
t i o n a b l e link in t h e p r e s e n t t r e a t m e n t a n d one
which could r e s u l t in q u i t e m i s l e a d i n g conclusions
r e g a r d i n g t h e effect of c h a n g e s in t h e hull form.
F i n a l l y I would like to c o m m e n t on t h e m o d e of
p r e s e n t a t i o n b y t h e a u t h o r of t h e simplified ship-
w a v e p a t t e r n ; this can be t h o u g h t of as t h e ap-
p r o x i m a t i o n to t h e a c t u a l p a t t e r n b y the m e t h o d
of s t a t i o n a r y phase. Figs. 3, 4 a n d 6 a p p e a r to
n e g l e c t t h e differences in p h a s e b e t w e e n the two
s y s t e m s inside t h e cusp line; however, u p o n
e x a m i n a t i o n of t h e t e x t it is seen t h a t this is
realized a n d m e r e l y ignored in p r e p a r i n g the
d i a g r a m s . T h i s is Ulffortunate in t h a t it t e n d s to
perpetuate a wrong impression originated by
Lamb's "Hydrodynamics" but corrected by a
f o o t n o t e in s u b s e q u e n t editions. I n a d d i t i o n the
a u t h o r a v o i d s t h e use of t h e t e r m " c u s p line" to
d e s c r i b e the line a t an angle of 19°-2S ' to the
axis along which t h e s t a t i o n a r y - p h a s e s o l u t i o n
shows t h e w a v e d i r e c t i o n angles 01 a n d 02 to be
equal, a n d o u t s i d e of which t h e s t a t i o n a r y - p h a s e
s o l u t i o n does n o t exist. T h i s is a p e r f e c t l y good
t e r m to use, if one r e m e m b e r s its being based on
t h e s t a t i o n a r y - p h a s e solution, a n d is u n i v e r s a l l y
used. Of course t h e w a v e s y s t e m does n o t end
there, o n l y t h e s t a t i o n a r y - p h a s e solution! Re-
c e n t l y t h e w r i t e r [20] was a b l e to a l t e r t h e
a n a l y s i s to include the o u t s i d e w a v e s y s t e m . T h i s
Wave-Making Resistanceof Ships
consists of a single w a v e s y s t e m whose d i r e c t i o n
angle 0, v a r i e s from t h e s a m e 3 5 ° - 1 6 ' a n g l e of t h e
inside w a v e s a t t h e cusp to z e r o ' a t large d i s t a n c e s
a w a y , t h u s it s h o u l d be classified as a t r a n s v e r s e
s y s t e m . T h i s is shown in Fig. 50 of this discus-
sion. K e e p i n g this d i a g r a m in mind, I would
like to show t h e results of a c o m p l e t e e v a l u a t i o n
of t h e w a v e s f r o m a p o i n t d i s t u r b a n c e as given b y
T. J i n n a k a in 1957 in t h e 60th A n n i v e r s a r y
J a p a n , Fig. 51. T h i s is a c o n t o u r d i a g r a m a n d
with a l i t t l e s t u d y one can see c l e a r l y b o t h t h e
two inside s y s t e m s s u p e r i m p o s e d a n d also t h e
n e w l y conceived o u t s i d e t r a n s v e r s e s y s t e m .
N o t i c e also t h a t the c o n c e p t of a line w i t h i n w h i c h
the waves are c o n t a i n e d is n o t a definite one; one
would h a v e to s a y "90 d e g r e e s " to be sure. T h i s
is n o t new to m o s t t a n k e x p e r i m e n t e r s , b u t has
often been a s c r i b e d to an effect of the finite b e a m .
Dr. Jack Kotik, Associate Member: H a v e l o c k was
a m o n g t h e first to consider the w a v e s a n d w a v e
resistance of s i n g u l a r i t y d i s t r i b u t i o n s i n s t e a d of
hulls. T h i s is an i m p o r t a n t f o r w a r d s t e p since it
--e--- ~ - - c$rxl /
~ A,a ,~ P P e o x ~MAT~OA'
. . . . . ex,~cr S~APE /
{.~ E-.o~- /__
O t
.0~ I
I
.O/ I
I
./ .~ .$ .÷ .$
X
Fig. 52 Graphs of optimum strutlike dipole distribu-
tion, w h i c h is infinite at b o w and stern, the exact shape,
w h i c h is finite, and an approximation to the shape,
all at infinite Froude number. The shape is exact at
great depths, but would be perturbed near the_free, sur-
face. e is the average half-beam over the length
leads to an i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of M i c h e l l ' s i n t e g r a l as
giving t h e e x a c t w a v e r e s i s t a n c e of a s i n g u l a r i t y
d i s t r i b u t i o n ( a s s u m i n g t h e lineari:,ed free surface
condition), t h e relation b e t w e e n the s i n g u l a r i t y
d i s t r i b u t i o n a n d t h e hull form being left as a
s e p a r a t e p r o b l e m to be t r e a t e d as e x a c t l y as
desired. W o r k i n g f r o m this p o i n f of view K a r l ) ,
K o t i k a n d L u r y e 1~ were a b l e to f o r m u l a t e a n d
solve t h e p r o b l e m of t h e s t r u t of m i n i m u m w a v e
resistance, which p r o b l e m h a d led to a n o m a l o u s
results when a t t a c k e d from t h e M i c h e l l v i e w p o i n t .
n See footnote l l, page 341.
339
 |z
I.~/6Z

o .~ z . "~

tE

(..&3
( • OP

E =.OP

o ./ Z .~ ÷ T~

Z
f-÷Z

/, \

[z
¢-.~o
~* 0 3

Fig. 53 Optimum shapes, i g n o r i n g free-surface distortion, for eight values of

Froude n u m b e r / = V/~v/gL.. e is the average half-beam over the length

340 Wave-Making Resistanceof Ships


o
°
z x x
c.:s .4o .# .io
Fig. 54 Various wave resistance curves, show-
ing that optimization has cut the wave resistance
in half
O O O Wave resistance, as a function of
Froude number, of form which is
optimum at that Froude number.
X X X Wave resistance, as a function of
Froude "number, of form which is
optimum a t / = O.5.
Wave resistance of a parabolic dipole
distribution
A /~ A Michell's wave resistance for a len-
ticular strut
[] [] [] Wave resistance of dipole distribution
which generates a lenticular strut
exactly in an infinite fluid
Wave resistance here is normalized
by volume per unit depth, which quantity varies
only slightly from one of these forms to another.
Karp, Kotik and Lurye found that the optimum
s i n g u l a r i t y d i s t r i b u t i o n s h a v e infinite s t r e n g t h
n e a r t h e b o w a n d stern, whereas the c o r r e s p o n d i n g
o p t i m u m forms are p e r f e c t l y finite,- Figs. 52 a n d 53.
T h e y also f o u n d t h a t in t h e F r o u d e - n u m b e r r a n g e
0.38-0.70 t h e o p t i m u m w a v e r e s i s t a n c e is a b o u t
half t h a t of s t r u t s h a v i n g m o r e c o n v e n t i o n a l
waterlines, Fig. 54. T h e m e t h o d has been ex-
t e n d e d to m o r e p r a c t i c a l forms. T h e s e results
were first p u b l i c l y p r e s e n t e d a t t h e S e h e v e n i n g e n
S y m p o s i u m in 1960. T h e y r e p r e s e n t w o r k d o n e
as e a r l y as 1957, a n d c o m m u n i c a t e d to O N R ,
S N A M E P a n e l H - 5 a n d to a n u m b e r of s p e c i a l i s t s
in w a v e resistance. T o this e x t e n t t h e a u t h o r ' s
r e m a r k s , a n d t h o s e of s o m e of t h e discussers,
c o n c e r n i n g t h e l a c k of n o t i c e a b l e i m p r o v e m e n t in
hull design in r e c e n t y e a r s a n d t h e p r e v a l a n e e of
H S. Karp, J. Kotik, and J. Lurye, "On the Problem of
Minimum Wave Resistance for Struts and Strut-Like
Dipole Distributions," Proceedings of the Third Symposium
on Naval Hydrodynamics, Seheveningen, Holland, Septem-
ber 1.960. Available from Code 438, Office of Naval Re-
search, Navy Department, Washington, D. C.
Wave-Making Resistance of Ships
p e s s i m i s m w i t h r e g a r d to lowering w a v e r e s i s t a n c e ,
are n o t correct.
W e i n b l u m has s e v e r a l t i m e s called a t t e n t i o n t o
t h e i m p o r t a n c e of d i s t i n g u i s h i n g b e t w e e n hull
f o r m a n d s i n g u l a r i t y d i s t r i b u t i o n . A l t h o u g h this
p o i n t is classical for s u b m e r g e d bodies its i m p o r -
t a n c e as a possible source of error in M i c h e l l ' s
t h e o r y h a s been insufficiently a p p r e c i a t e d . T h e
a u t h o r , using d i g i t a l m e t h o d s in c o n j u n c t i o n with
a low-speed a p p r o x i m a t i o n , shows t h a t t h e linear-
ized (Michell) relation between singularity
s t r e n g t h a n d hull f o r m is q u i t e e r r o n e o u s even for
r a t h e r t h i n forms, a n d t h a t this e r r o r leads to a
c o r r e s p o n d i n g l y large error in M i c h e l t ' s w a v e
resistance. K o t i k a n d M a n g u l i s , te by c o n s i d e r i n g
c i r c u l a r - a r c w a t e r l i n e s for w h i c h a n a l y t i c a l solu-
tions a r e a v a i l a b l e , were led to t h e s a m e conclu-
sion. I n fact, for c i r c u l a r - a r c w a t e r l i n e s w i t h
b e a m - l e n g t h r a t i o of 0.18 ( w a t e r l i n e coefficient =
2/3) t h e w a v e r e s i s t a n c e based on the s i n g u l a r i t y
d i s t r i b u t i o n is 170 p e r c e n t of M i c h e l l ' s w a v e
r e s i s t a n c e a t f = 0.4, a n d s u b s t a n t i a l l y exceeds it
a t all f > 0.33. F o r a c e r t a i n m o d e l t h e a u t h o r
finds t h a t this error equals or exceeds t h e re-
m a i n i n g error due to viscosity. By first c o r r e c t i n g
f o r ' t h i s error a n d t h e n a p p l y i n g a c o r r e c t i o n for
v i s c o s i t y he is a b l e to a c h i e v e i m p r e s s i v e agree-
ment between calculated and measured wave
r e s i s t a n c e over a large speed range. N a t u r a l l y an
i m p o r t a n t c o n d i t i o n for g e n e r a l a c c e p t a n c e of t h i s .
m e t h o d is t h a t i t c o n t i n u e to succeed when t h e
c a l c u l a t i o n s a r e m a d e before t h e m e a s u r e m e n t s .
I t a p p e a r s t h a t b u l b s c a n n o t be u s e d to r e d u c e
w a v e r e s i s t a n c e a t higher speeds. I s h o u l d like the
a u t h o r to s t a t e w h a t he believes is t h e m a x i m u m
F r o u d e n u m b e r a t w h i c h b u l b s a r e useful. F o r
i n s t a n c e , can b u l b s b e u s e d to i n c r e a s e t h e m a x i -
m u m speed of a d e s t r o y e r ?
T h e a u t h o r confines his t e x t a n d references to
resistance. I a m sure t h a t o t h e r s beside m y s e l f
w o u l d like to l e a r n of r e s e a r c h a n d references
c o n c e r n i n g p r o M e l n s such as t h e following:
1 Effect of b u l b s on r e s i s t a n c e in waves.
2 Effect of b u l b s on ship m o t i o n s .
3 C a v i t a t i o n p r o b l e m s of bulbs.
4 S t r u c t u r a l p r o b l e m s of bulbs.
5 I n t e r a c t i o n of s t e r n b u l b s a n d propellers.
W e w o u l d be g r a t e f u l to him for i n c l u d i n g such
i n f o r m a t i o n in his w r i t t e n r e p l y to t h e discussion,
p r o v i d i n g t h e r e b y a final o r n a m e n t to a p a p e r
which will be r e a d w i t h i n t e r e s t for a long t i m e
to come.
12j. Kotik and V. Mangulis, "Comparison of Two Ap-
proximate Dipole Distributions for a Lentieular Cylinder
in a Semi-infinite Fluid," this appeared as a report under
ONR Contract Nonr-2427(00).
341
 Dr. Rene Guilloton, TM Visitor: Before stating the in-
terest which this paper has for the writer, he m a y
be permitted to explain an i m p o r t a n t point of dis-
agreement in theory. In using the method of
sources, the author presents a method of calcula-
tion which appears to him to represent the correct
solution for the problem without the assumption
of linearization. I t seems t h a t he has there made
a fundamental mistake.
Havelock's potential for a source defines the
motion of the fluid for a body represented b y ah
assembly of sources and sinks defined in the fol-
lowing manner:
(a) The source considered, situated at a d e p t h f
in the fluid below the free surface Z = 0.
(b) A sink situated at the height -f above the
free surface Z = 0.
(c) A continuous distribution of sources and
sinks situated in the plane -f.
But, the author makes this potential corre-
spond to a b o J y defined b y
(a) The source situated at the depth/'.
(b) An image source situated at the height -f.
A p a r t from the continuous distribution of
sources in the plane -f of which he takes no-ac-
count, the author gives a solution which is in
error by double th~ valzte of the image sources used
above the free surface. Since these image sources
form the delts ex machina which allows him to
represent reasonable floating bodies, these bodies
have no longer meaning when the image sources
are removed, and matters are still worse when the
source images are replaced b y sinks, which how-
ever is unavoidable to agree with the true theory.
I t will be remembered that, on the subject of
the true theory, it suffers from the approximations
due to the linearization of the conditions at the
surface of the fluid, which are very i m p o r t a n t at
the low speeds considered. Besides, in the paper
" E x a m e n critique des m&hodes d'&ude th6orique
des car~nes de surface" (Sch{ffstechnik, Hamburg,
January, 1962), the writer has shown b y a very
suggestive example, t h a t when the potential of
sources is used without linearization of the sources
which makes it equivalent to Michell's potential, it
cannot be applied to floating bodies because, then,
the free surface of the fluid no longer exists. I t
has also been shown t h a t this theory does not de-
fine closed bodies, and t h a t this defect is pre-
cisely measured by the waves which are the ina-
p o r t a n t result to be found from the theory.
The general importance of the paper is again to
draw the attention of scientists to the predomi-
n a n t importance of the study of waves in any
advance in the scientific s t u d y of ships. This
la St. Denis (Seine), France.
342 Wave-Making Resistanceof Ships
opinion has been held by the writer for 25 years,
and he is interested in the remarkable photo-
graphs of waves given b y the author, for he has
given the complete linearized theory of these
waves in two papers (RINA, London 1960 and
A T M A , Paris 1960).
The question whether it is preferable in order to
s t u d y hulls and determine their resistance, to in-
vestigate the wave system at a distance aft of the
boat or in the immediate neighborhood of the hull
as the writer has proposed in his paper, "A Note on
the Experimental Determination of Wave Resist-
ance" (RINA, London 1952) will be decided in
the future b y the possibility of experimefltal ac-
curacy.
We note in passing t h a t this paper of 1952 brings
to light a fact which contradicts the author's sug-
gestion t h a t viscosity is responsible for the greater
p a r t of the existing difference between the resist-
ance due to the real wave and the resistance due
to the calculated wave at high speeds, say, when
F > 0.,5. I t has been found t h a t the actual resist-
ance deduced from the experimental wave is less
than the residuary resistance, which can only
happen if the coefficient of friction increases for
these high speeds, and cannot be due to the
changes in the wave caused by viscosity. In
general, the reader of the paper m a y form the
general opinion t h a t the author has not perhaps
sufficiently explained the existing difference be-
tween the residuary resistance and the experi-
mental wave resistance, these two quantities be-
ing very different in certain cases.
Finally there will be a real practical interest in
the bulbs realized b y the author, if they allow the
development of forms which have, for the same
displacement and speed, a total resistance less than
t h a t usually found at present. We shall await
hopefully developments which the author will
certainly a t t e m p t towards this end.
C. Wigley, 14 Visitor: In this paper the author sug-
gests changes in the methods used for the calcula-
tion of the wave resistance of floating forms which
he thinks will give greater accuracy in the results.
The writer does not agree t h a t such changes are
possible without a complete solution of the prob-
lem in which higher powers of the ratio of wave
height to wave length are taken into account.
The changes which the author suggests appear
to be based on comparison of the calculated wave
resistance with the residuary resistance, found by
subtracting from the total measured resistance
the frictional resistance as estimated b y one of the
usual methods from the known resistance of a
thin plank.
14London, England.
 The residuary resistance thus found includes
any difference between the frictional resistances
of a plank and of the actual form, usually named
the "form resistance," and its direct comparison
with the calculated wave resistance m a y therefore
lead to considerable error.
An illustration of this is found in the statement
that "Michell's theory underestimates the wave-
making resistances in the neighbourhood of F =
0.5."
Actually as soon as the model starts to trim,
that is at Froude numbers greater than 0.35, the
form resistance increases and this increased form
resistance is included in the so-called measured
wave resistance. This is the reason for the ap-
parent increase of the latter over the calculated
wave resistance as the Froude number approaches
0.5.
The author's suggestion of photographing the
waves some distance aft of the form, to deduce
therefrom the wave resistance, is very interesting.
In order to arrive thus at a value for the wave re-
sistance it is necessary to use Havelock's results of
1934 described in this paper. T h e y only apply to
wave-making under the assumption of small ratio
of wave height to length so that the use of this
method does not in fact avoid this assumption.
For the purpose of comparing theoretical and ac-
tual results I think this suggestion would not be
any better than a comparison of wave profiles
along a model; a number of which have been pub-
lished. With modern methods of computation
the calculation of the local wave disturbances
should not present any difficulty. Also there
seems to be some difficulty inherent in finding an
area to photograph which is at the same time far
enough aft for the local disturbance to have died
out and not so far aft that the reflection of the bow
waves from the sides of the tank affects the
measurements.
The author suggests that an experimental proof
of the equivalence of a small sphere with a doublet
might be made by experiment. Actually the
difficulty in measurement of resistance for sub-
merged bodies is always the wave-making of
whatever towing arrangements exist since they
must penetrate the free surface of the fluid, and
their wave-making m a y easily be much greater
than that of the body. In particular it would be
very difficult to design such an apparatus for tow-
ing a sphere owing to the unstable vertices in the
wake. Such a comparison could be made much
more easily with a Rankine oval represented by a
source, and sink at a finite distance apart. Pro-
vided that great care is taken to avoid surface
waw~.-making by the towing apparatus as far as
possible, the results might be very interesting.
Wave-Making Resistanceof Ships
Finally, although the writer disagrees with the
author in m a n y ways, he would like to congratu-
late Professor Inui on writing, and the Society on
publishing a very entertaining and stimulating
paper.
Dr. K. Eggers, is Visitor: From a mathematical as-
pect m y feeling is that the author m a y slightly
overestimate the difference in methods cited for
theoretical study of the bulbous-bow effect.
From calculations performed here at the Uni-
versity I have determined that adequate choice of
dipole contribution even to equation (.36) m a y re-
duce theoretical resistance down to one tenth in a
wide speed range, especially at low Froude num-
ber. This becomes evident from the fact that the
in terference term
f_'/~- AF(O)Br(O)cos ~ 0 dO
~r/2
will turn out positive under rather general as-
sumptions. This means that resistance m a y be
reduced in any case, provided the dipole is not too
strong.
However, the considerable improvement gained
by author's approach results from better choice
of bulb intensity and location by taking ac-
count of the actual, not only the theoretical bow-
wave system, and here separation of bow and
stern wave system becomes pertinent.
I strongly favor the author's proposal to es-
tablish special tank facilities for tests on wave-re-
sistanc~ theory. Regarding tank width, how-
ever, I suggest he consider that it is not in any
case necessary to avoid wave reflection, within the
domain of observation, provided the reflection
lneehanism is satisfactory and the effe.ct on resist-
ance m a y be estilnated. At H a m b u r g we per-
formed a wave analysis in the rear of a model, as-
suming nothing but a free wave p a t t e r n - - n o Kel-
vin system-and taking account of tank width. I
understand that Dr. Gadd and Dr. Hogben at
NPL, England, operate on similar lines.
Dr. G. P. Weinblum, Member: The clear-cut dis-
tinction between ship form and the form of singu-
larity distribution is again the backbone of this
paper. A lot of basic information could have been
derived from pertinent results for cylinders, bodies
of revolution, and the general ellipsoid, but some
kind of mental friction prevailed in this field be-
fore the " h m i bodies" were published. The
writer was aware of the importance of the problem
but did not succeed in solving it.
For similar reasons the practical advantage of
15Institute fiir Schiffbau, I-[amburg, Germany.
343
 Havelock's interpretation of Mitchell's integral
has not been sufficiently realized.
A serious confusion resulted herefrom when
dealing with the problem of ships of minimum
wave resistance. Only recently resulting "ship
lines" which as such appear senseless have been
interpreted as doublet distributions and now be-
came meaningful [3]. The infinite horns at the
ends of the extremal curves present nothing else
t h a n concentrated doublets.
Thus a satisfactory link between the develop-
m e n t of bulb form and the general theory of op-
t i m u m ship lines has been established. In the
light of the latter the application of the bulb is not
a useful perverted trick but an essential feature
of such optimum forms.
The theory of bulb forms has been developed at
the same time b y Mr. Wigley and the writer.
The latter restricted his investigation to con-
tinuous distributions. T h e results led to the
recommendation of the stern bulb; they were ex-
perimentally checked (Schiffbazt, 1936). Fur-
ther, similar to w h a t the author has done on a
higher level, a t t e m p t s were made to reduce the
magnitude of the integrand rather than t h a t of
the integral itself.
In the light of the present development it turns
out t h a t Mr. Wigley's procedure based on the
concentrated doublets was more basic. When
trying to optimize the shape of bodies of revolu-
tion it was shown b y the writer and his collab-
orators Dr. Eggers and Sharma t h a t b y intro-
ducing a concentrated doublet term in addition to
a continuous distribution the wave resistance of
resulting bodies could be reduced by one order of
magnitude.
The author's work excels by the simplicity in
representing complicated matters. The empha-
sis laid on the wave phenomena as means of re-
ducing resistance is creative and leads to an evi-
dent method suitable to the mind of an engineer.
I t admits further of considering experimentally
i m p o r t a n t effects. Thus a much more advanced
method of improving ship forms is developing in
comparison to which the present use of routine
photographs of wave contours appears completely
outdated.
The weakest point in this outstanding pa-
per is probably the use of the notation "wave-
less hull forms." Obviously, the forms investi-
gated are not waveless but low-resistance shapes.
Author's Closure
I want to t h a n k Professors Couch and Takahei
for their informative discussion of m y paper as
well as for their general interest in the work of
mine and m y colleagues. Their results obtained
344 Wave-Making Resistanceof Ships
from 12-ft models indeed agree very well with our
results obtained from S.2-ft models. I t should
also be mentioned here t h a t quite recently a simi-
lar duplication test with a 19.7-ft model was car-
ried out on the fuller model C-201 at The
Mitsubishi Experimental T a n k at Nagasaki,
Japan. In this case, not only the bow-bulb test,
but also the stern-bulb test were made to check
the possible scale effect upon the stern waves. I
am v e r y glad to see t h a t Professors Couch and
Takahei have made good use of our findings in
designing the oceanographic research vessel.
Professor Miehelsen's interests in our work has
been greatly appreciated especially for his effort
in translating several' Japanese papers into Eng-
lish [21]. His discussion is related to three items
as follows:
(a) No i m p r o v e m e n t will be possible b y re-
placing equation (36) with equation (35), because
these two equations are mathematically identical.
(b) The term "waveless" must be used only
for the "exactly" waveless case when we can
satisfy equation (30) exactly throughout the
whole range of 10] = 0 ~ ~r/2.
(c) A sufficiently fine mesh should be used in
the determination of the streamlines.
Concerning item (c), I agree wholeheartedly
with Professor Michelsen, and his instructive
result, Fig. 43, m u s t be highly appreciated. Con-
cerning the items (a) and (b), however, m y opinion
is somewhat different.
I t is true t h a t equations (35) and (36) are
mathematically equivalent, but from the "physi-
cal" point of view there exists a great difference
between them. T h e practical merit of equation
(35) is t h a t we can get a clear understanding about
the physical relation between the observable wave
phenomenon and its resulting wave resistance.
Equation (36) gives the sum of three integrals,
while equation (35) emphasizes the importance of
reducing the integrand. The full meaning of
equation (3,5) is clearly demonstrated in Fig. 21.
This figure, is certainly more informative than a
wave-resistance curve as obtained from equation
(36).
Further it nmst be added here t h a t the afore-
mentioned method of analysis ean be made ef-
fective only when we treat the bow and stern-
wave systems separately, not as a whole.
Coneerning the usage of the term "waveless,"
I must confess t h a t I cannot guess exactly what
kind of feeling this English term has in general,
because I am a Japanese. However, Professor
Michelsen's opinion seems to be a little bit too
strict when we consider the working limit of the
"elementary wave" concept. The concept of

0,14
~TZ
0,I0
0,o8
~o6 I/i\
0o
i':=' I'r , ',.,
0 ~PE6~EE)
Fig. 5 5
elementary waves is, of course, one of the results
obtained from the linearized wave theory, where
the wave slope is assumed as infinitesimally small.
Referring to equation (7), it would be easily
understood that the wave slope of the "elemen-
tary waves" rapidly increases with inereasing 0.
For a numerical example, Fig. D5 is reproduced
from Professor Takahei's paper [A-3], Fig. 10.
When we remember that the limiting allowable
wave slope is, say 1/7, the concept of the "elemen-
tary waves" m a y fail its physical meaning in the
range beyond a certain finite value of 0, say 0 =
70 deg.
In conclusion, this problem seems rather "reIa-
tive," not "absolute." T h a t lneans, since the
wave-resistance level of the conventional hull
form is not so low, we lnay be allowed to use the
term waveless.
I want to thank Captain Shor for his interests in
m y paper as well as for his informative comments
on the usefulness of a combined system of point
source and sink in place of a point doublet. In
his case, the additional displacement due to the
added system of singularity would be larger, and
must be taken into consideration at an early stage
of design.
Dr. Todd's discussion is very interesting to me
especially because his comments might be ac-
cepted generally as representing the average opin-
ion of the naval architects who are working at
ship model basins the world over. He first pointed
out the several minor differences in the hull-form
characteristics between the two models, UF3-
(xUF7) and Series 60, Model 4240. As I remarked
clearly in the snmmary of m y text, the main pur-
Wave-Making Resistanceof Ships
pose of this comparison lies in explaining the need
and effectiveness of the proposed method of hull-
form research. As we can see in Dr. Pien's dis-
cussion, Fig. 49, or in my reply, Fig. 58, our pro-
posed method is effective in seeking "better" hull
forms irrespective of with or without bulbs. I t is
important for us to make a clear-cut distinction
between the method of confirmation and that of
seeking better hull forms. The existing "resist-
ance test" is quite practicable in confirming the
resistance value of a given ship-huU geometry.
But it cannot tell us how to improve a given hull
form.
As Dr. Todd mentions, it is true that model
UF3(xUF7) and Series 60 model 4240 have dif-
ferent LCB location, end contours, and so oi1.
However, these differences are not necessarily in
favor of model UF3(xUF7). Besides, the purpose
of m y UF-series is not to compete with other forms
but rather to study how the optimum size and
location change with main hull forms. Our re-
sults are shown in Fig. 29. Even though the
resistance at F -- 0.277 is quite different among
the forms UF-series models, if each of them is
fitted with its own specially designed bulb, their
wave-making resistance can all be reduced to a
very low magnitude. Concerning the end con-
tours, it should be noted that the railway ferry
boat model $3 has a conventional <~tem and a
cruiser stern•
The second item of Dr. Todd's discussion is the
comparison of our theory of bulb with that of
Mr. Wigley's. From the six conclusions of Wig-
ley's work on bulbs as quoted by Dr. Todd, very
little is said about the relationship between each
main hull form and its optimum bulb. This rela-
tion is a vital requirement in order to design an
effective bulb. Each bulb has to be specially
designed to fit a particular hull form. Wigley's
conclusions are too vague to be useful for a par-
ticular design. For exalnple, if the bulbs of the
form UF-series models are interchanged, no
satisfactory results can be obtained.
Concerlfing the free-wave pattern of an im-
mersed doublet or sphere, Dr. Todd expressed his
experience that he could not find visual evidence
that the free wave starts with a trough, as the
theory explains. In such conlparison between ob-
served and calculated wave profiles, the following
two points must be considered:
(a) To clearly make a distinction between
the "free" wave and the "total" wave.
(b) To appreciate the difficulty of obtaining
tile wave profile of a bulb directly. As explained
in Fig. 2"3 an indirect method was used by sub-
tracting the wave profile measured on the without-
bulb model from that lneasured on the with-bulb
345
 /.o o.,¢

o,4

Ol t , . a

0,4 0,2 O-3

0.2 l>.1

#,# I I I 0
0.2 0.3 ~.4. f=v~"£-~ o,.r 0,2 0,3 0.4 a..¢
O.l

I,~ 1.0

0.8 $-~oI e.#

?, ~ ~ o~
.D a
O.Z 0,2

O,O i I I 0 I | I
o.I ~.2 0.3 ,~.4 ,c~Y/(/'~ ,~..¢ 0.1
g

/,o 1,0

0,8 o,~

ZI 0. /~ 'Z o.6

0,4- o.,
jz
#2 O2

I,O o I I I
0.2 o,4. /: = ~,/'~$ d.i a,2 o,3 o,4 ~ = V o,g
0./ a. 3

Fig. 56 Correction factor

model. T h e d i r e c t m e t h o d of t o w i n g a s u b m e r g e d
sphere alone m a y be m e a n i n g l e s s d u e to a s t r o n g
s e p a r a t i o n of t h e b o u n d a r y l a y e r on t h e surface of
t h e sphere.
Dr. T o d d ' s f o u r t h c o m m e n t is on t h e d o u b t of
t h e usefulness of t h e w a v e p i c t u r e a n d our stereo-
a n a l y s i s in c o m p a r i s o n w i t h t h e existing m e t h o d of
m a k i n g use of t h e m o d e l - s i d e w a v e profiles, as
r e p r e s e n t e d b y Dr. G u i l l o t o n ' s e l a b o r a t e w o r k
p u b l i s h e d in 1952. As I e x p l a i n e d in t h e text,
t h e m o d e l - s i d e w a v e profile r o u g h l y c o r r e s p o n d s to
a single r a d i a l section s u r v e y on S = 0 °, which
gives us o n l y a small p a r t of t h e i n f o r m a t i o n a b o u t
t h e n a t u r e of t h e f r e e - w a v e p a t t e r n c o r r e s p o n d i n g
to 0 = t) °. I n our m e t h o d we can d r a w v a r i o u s
r a d i a l lines from 8 = 0 ° to, s a y S = 25 ° or more,
a n d o b t a i n all t h e n e c e s s a r y i n f o r m a t i o n s a b o u t
t h e a m p l i t u d e f u n c t i o n A(O) t h r o u g h o u t ]01 =
0 ,--, rr/2 ( A p p e n d i x 1).
F u r t h e r i t should be n o t e d t h a t even a single
s t e r e o - p i c t u r e of such w a v e p a t t e r n is q u i t e use-
ful to us to g e t general i n f o r m a t i o n a b o u t t h e
w a v e m a k i n g c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of a n y given hull
form, as i l l u s t r a t e d in Figs. 15 a n d 16.
Dr. T o d d ' s fifth c o m m e n t is on t h e effects of
large b u l b s on t h e sea-going qualities. F o r t h i s
Dr. Y o k o y a m a ' s w o r k on fishing b o a t s (reference
A7 a n d F i h n No. 4) as well as Dr. T a k e z a w a ' s
w o r k on h i g h - s p e e d escorts (References AS, 9 a n d
F i l m No. 3) is m o s t i n s t r u c t i v e .
I agree w i t h Dr. T o d d ' s sixth c o m m e n t o11 t h e
p r a c t i c a l m e r i t of a b u l b o u s b o w in keeping L C B

346 W a v e - M a k i n g Resistance o f Ships

 at a desirable forward location without requiring
large angles of entrance. Dr. Todd's seventh
comment on the prehistory, in 1!)49, of Series 60
is most interesting. He expressed his feeling, as
"the time has not yel: come when we can dispense
with methodical series experiment." As far as
the self-propulsion test is concerned, I agree
with his conclusion, but when we confine our-
selves to the resistance-test, I do not agree with
him. Within a few years, a distinct improvement
or, I dare say, a revolution will take place on the
wave-making characteristics of ships. Ships with
very low level of wave resistance will be designed
and launched one after another all over the world
in the near tuture, I believe. A scientific ap-
proach, when it is adopted correctly, is much
superior to an empirical or intuitive method of ap-
proach.
Dr. Todd's last comment is on the so-called cor-
rection factors (3, ~). Fig. 56 is reproduced from
reference [15] in reply to his comment. Con-
cerning the adoption of Hughes' "form-factor"
concept, I believe this concept may give us, for
the present, the most reliable amount of the
"measured" wave resistance.
Professor Mandel mentions the comparison
between Model UF3(xUF7) xF1 and Taylor
Standard Series. His conclusion that the latter
with corresponding particulars (A = 35,000 tons,
Cp = 0.61,5, with close L/]3 and B / T ) is slightly
superior to the former sounds to me a little bit
.strange, because it ~s m y impression that Series
60 Models of lower block coefficient have better
performance than Taylor Standard Series. I t
seems that the choice of C~, value of 0.615 is not
quite proper. For the purpose of confirming the
foregoing question, 1: have made a rough calcula-
tion by referring to D. W. Taylor's "The Speed
and Power of Ships" (194:3 ed.). Our model
UF3(xUF7)'xF1 has C,,, = 0.919, Cv = fl.644 and
CB = 0.592, and "],aylor's Standard Series has
C,~ = 0.923, which is very close to the C~-value
of our model. Now, fixing T / L (=0.06),
V/(L/IO) a = 5.398 [corresponding to A/(L/I()O) :~
= 154.21 in Taylor's notation], and CH = 0.592,
we have a corresponding Taylor's Standard Series
model as follows:
Case (a): CB = 0.592, C,,, = 0.923, Cp = (L641,
with B / I ' = 2.54 (unchanged)
Therefore the choice of Cp = 0.641 should be
made in our comparison, and I wonder why
Professor Mandel adopted the finer Cp value of
0.615. If this Cp w~lue is arbitrarily chosen, we
have a finer CB and. larger B / L and B / T as fol-
lows.
Case (b): CB = 0.568, (7,, = 0.923, Cp = 0.615,
with B/I" = 2.78
Wave-Making Resistance of Ships
Fig. 57 shows the residuary-resistance coeffi-
cient curves versus Froude number obtained from
Taylor's charts for these two cases ,~cL) and (b),
together with those of Model UF3(xUF7)xF1 and
the Series 61) Model 4240 as shown in Fig. 32.
If Fig. 57 would be accepted as correct, our model
UF3(xUF7)xF1 is superior not only to case (a),
which should be used for comparison in the first
place, but also to case (b).
Professor Mandel raises an interesting question
about the possibility of a large amount of reduc-
tion in wave-making resistance at the speed range
higher than 0.35 Froude number, including the
last hump of 0.50. Certainly this is a speed range
most profitable to reduce the wave-making resist-
ance. In the near future when I sha!!l be able to
complete the research work of my present in-
terest-the improvement of ships' lmll forms in the
speed range of ordinary commercial use-[ shall
extend my work to this high-speed range. In
this case, the adoption of the concentrated source
as mentioned in Captain Shor's and Dr. Pien's
discussions will be considered.
I must express my heartfelt th~,nks to Dr.
Breslin for his very interesting discussion which is
suggestive in many respects. Firstly, he em-
phasizes the necessity and importance of the
"direct" solution or the "direct" finding of the
equivalent singularity distribution which repre-
sents the given "desired" or "arbitrary" ship-form
geometry. I agree with him completely on this
point. Quite recently I received a copy of Messrs.
Hess and Sm.ith's paper (Report No. E. S. 40622,
Douglas Aircraft Division), and found it very
interesting and quite useful. I t is true that we
need to treat: the ship surface condition more ex-
actly as the hull forms get better and better.
However, I would like to raise one question. My
question is related to the problem of variation, or
to find the best hull geometry under a given design
condition by applying the principle of variation.
In this case the method described in the aforemen-
tioned report cannot be applied in its present form
because the location of the singularity is different
with a different hull geometry. In conclusion, it
seems to me that a simpler mathematical treat-
ment sometimes may work as a better guide for
an engineer. However this does not deny the im-
portance of further improvement of our mathe-
matical theory. I am very anxious to know the
result of Dr. Breslin's work on a Series 60 model
now being carried on at Stevens Instimte of Tech-
nology.
Dr. Breslin has mentioned the possibility of
making changes in the waterlines rather than using
big bulb for reducing the wave-making resistance.
347
C~
!
I
I
/
I /
I /
i /
I /
O. 0 0 3 I /
I

, /
I

M. N a ~F240 (&T,H,8 ~o- Ser;e.s) ' 6 4Z4O

I

U P 3 ( x UFq) ,rFl

/ / I

0
? o.ool
B--+---
C~se Ca) ~[ "7"^yl.oR~
C=~e Cb)
ST,4~D,~RO ,St~rz i $

/
I
/
/
I I
!
o I

/
//

UF3 0 L/F,7) x F I

o
0 r4 z~
0
/
7 _
0")

0.ool

J N

.¢ II

¢4c~rAI~Cf RR f ( = 0,/4. • Licct K--G. 23

I I I
,Ir~ •/S ,~3" • 30

Fig, 57

C~, = ~ / ~ a ¢ t . ' )
2 x / o -u . ~ - / . 8",4~a x / b ~
I ~ I0 -ll
+ U.C'B
+ TJ 3 B
+ U qB
+ U'q8
I I
2 3
Fig. 58 M i n i m u m w a v e r e s i s t a n c e due to f o r e - h a l f b o d y
Presently in writing this reply I agree with him
wholeheartedly, but [ must confess that when I
prepared m y text, which is only 6 months ago, ]
would not have expected a drastic result from such
an approach. At that time I assumed t h a t the
better forms of existing designs represented a near
limit of such as approach, and I was inclined to
believe t h a t the long history of ship model basin
work would indicate, very little possibility for
further improvement.
All this thought has now clearly turned out to
be questionable, as indicated by Dr. Pien's model
D T M B 4946 (refer to Figs. 48 and '4.q).
Dr. Breslin's final c o m m e n t is " W h y the wave
resistance of the sinusoidal source distribution
(Models C-101, C-20l without bulbs) is larger
than t h a t which would be obtained for a ship of
the same proportions?" These models were used
to obtain the simplest wave-making characteris-
tics, without making use of the "internal self-
interference," of the source distribution.
Dr. Pien's discussion brings out m a n y i m p o r t a n t
fundamental points. Especially, his calculation
and experiment on D T M B Model 4946 show
epoch-making results, the importance of which I
P#oupL" ~Mak¢ F,,= e,a~9 (Y, .ao.s,,,,,~= ~,, Z-~o')
6) CA z-CUL-ATGp ( I$,'l ~o 7o )
4- H~A,vU,q~O ( "g" ~a,,oT~.S ~'~,~z-#.8#L~*)
8~IIRcE PIGT-RIBUT/olV :
- Z o. i c =o .o, )
J:l
I)R. Pigwts [~Esecr (c,,t.cUl..,4rg:o)
+*1
o, o Og3 ~rlO-~,
. . . . . T 4
4 8- x
*
can never fully emphasize. Owing to these re-
suits, it m a y be safely concluded that m y bulb
form is not always the necessary condition for ob-
taining "practically" waveless forms. Thus, from
the mathematical point of view, we m a y divide the
waveless forms into .three categories, as; follows:
Category (A): A s y s t e m of a "simple" con-
tinuous source-sink distribution in combination
with a concentrated doublet, just like those de-
scribed in Part 2 of m y text.
Category (B): A system of a "complicated"
continuous source-sink distribution alone, without
adopting any concentrated singularity, just like
Dr. Pien's model D T M B 4946.
Category (C) : A system of a "simple" or "con>
plicated" continuous source-sink distribution in
combination with two different kinds of con-
centrated singularities; i.e., the concentrated
doublet and the concentrated source.
Mathematically speaking, category" (C) m a y
be the best. However, from a practical point of
view, category (B) m a y be most important.
In Fig. 47, A, (O)/L and ..:1~ ( 0 ) / [ of Model
4.q46 change their sign with increasing 0. This is
Wave-Making Resistance of Ships 349
 Op7-/Mu,~ ~ou~eCE Dmr~/aurlon ( "rZ, = o . o ~ , F = o . 2 7 7 )

o U3
1,0

12t///
o.6
")2=2

0.2

-O.g -0.41 -0.2

-0.2

-o.4

-0,6

-O,B

-I. 0

-/,2

-1,4

-I.£
Fig. 59 Optimum source distribution (T/L = 0.04, F = 0.277)

q u i t e a r e m a r k a b l e f a c t ; I w o u l d n e v e r h a v e ex- As examples, I h a v e p r e p a r e d Figs. 58-61.

p e c t e d such a p o s s i b i l i t y b e f o r e h a n d .
C o n c e r n i n g Dr. P i e n ' s conclusions ( l ) a n d (2),
I agree w i t h him c o m p l e t e l y .
H a v i n g been s t r o n g l y i m p r e s s e d w i t h Dr.
P i e n ' s u p - t o - d a t e r e s u l t on M o d e l 4946, as soon
as I r e t u r n e d f r o m N e w Y o r k to T o k y o , I pre-
p a r e d some m a t h e m a t i c a l t a b l e s of the " w e i g h e d
a m p l i t u d e funetion'i. A*(0) = A(O) cos a/2 0 re-
l a t e d to t h e c e n t r a l v e r t i c a l p l a n e d i s t r i b u t i o n of
sources in p o l y n o m i a l form, such as
m(~,¢) = ~ &,,,~"r"
n,m
I n this w o r k t h e I B M 71)90 was a d o p t e d , t h a n k s
to t h e v e r y e a r n e s t c o o p e r a t i o n of the M i t s u b i s h i
Y o k o h a m a S h i p y a r d . T h e r a n g e of t h e indices is
n = 1~-~9, m = 0 ~ 3 . B y m a k i n g use of these
t a b l e s t o g e t h e r w i t h s o m e r e l a t e d tables, we can
find o u t v e r y easily t h e o p t i m u m source d i s t r i b u -
tion w i t h i n c a t e g o r y (B) u n d e r a n y given design
condition.
Here, for s i m p l i c i t y ' s sake, t h e s i m p l e s t case of
m = 0 or the d r a f t w i s e l y u n i f o r m source d i s t r i b u -
tion is considered. T h e d e p t h of source d i s t r i b u -
tion is T/L. = 0.04, a n d t h e designed speed is
F = /).277 (KoL = 13). B y increasing t h e n u m b e r
of t h e t e r m s in t h e source p o l y n o m i a l s
m(~) = ~2&~",
1
we can r e d u c e t h e w a v e resistance m o r e a n d more,
u n d e r t h e a p p r o x i m a t e l y fixed d i s p l a c e m e n t
which, in this case, is s a m e as t h e U-Series. Fig.
58 shows this t e n d e n c y in m i n i m u m Cw-value
versus n, where Cw is r e l a t e d to t h e w a v e - m a k i n g
resistance in an ideal fluid, n o t in total, b u t in p a r t ;
or m o r e strictly, t h e c o n t r i b u t i o n in w a v e resist-
ance from fore or aft- half b o d y . T h e r a p i d d r o p
of m i n i m u m C~ f o r m n = 2 to n = 3 is q u i t e re-
markable. Fig. 59 shows t h e c o r r e s p o n d i n g
s o u r c e - d i s t r i b u t i o n c u r v e s for such o p t i m u m solu-

350 Wave-Making Resistance of Ships

 A~C$) = Asw)'cosse (=m-co,~?e#~#r)
"~ A* ~ ~') 14c CO.). (-*0S46 0 ( ( 0 ~ " C,Z~'IP o lVL=IV"T .~
•10 e

,4 ~ ap) .7"l= Z

O ---------

-/ -- ( DE &gEE )

-~" / z
_~. .__---~ ~

Fig. 60 Weighed amplitude function (T/L = 0.04, F = 0.277)

/
/V/IN/HUH ~/AVe ~EsISTANeE DUE TO / FoRE--~'IALF BODY"
"'°~ / ( T/= = , , , , , # , ,~ =o 2~,;, )
R .,
C w =--i--~-7~,--~-- ~ .rl SOIII~CE DI~STRII3/JTION

" ~ -o. ~ :3 CALCULAT O

U3 ~ J ,4
.~ MEA~SURED.
M/N. PoZN'f /tCEACH ~ CASE
( < > D£NOTES ~ vALUE..)
W ~IW
..... DE.NOTJ=S tIWITfl BULB #
1.0 W- 3
..... D~'. Pf~f; Result ( C~CUL~I'/ED)
Po- O~A..~,R~P.)
~u3B (~=2) . __ X , v ~

. m

•~ 0 ' , o ? ~ <0"~12"
0 i ~lLJ'/S('~t'2~ -'~o
o O, ! 0.2 0.3 o,4. o ,$" o.g

Fig. 61

Wave-Making Resistance of Ships 351

tions. Here it m a y be interesting to note that the
source distribution of our model U3 is practically
identical with the optimum solution for n = 2.
In this regard Dr. T o d d ' s comment that Model
UF3(xUF7), which is modified from U3, has al-
ready better performance, even without the bulb
F1, than Series 60 Model 424(I is interesting.
Fig. 61) shows the corresponding "weighed"
amplitude-function curves, which m a y be snore
convenient and useful than the amplitude-func-
tion curves themselves.
Fig. 61 shows the similar results when we adopt
the second fixed condition
m0 = [m(~)]~=l = const
for the purpose of obtaining a more practical
value of B/L. Under the first fixed condition
V -- const, smaller m0 may give larger 13/L, and
vice-versa.
In concluding m y reply to Dr. Pien's discus-
sion I would like to express my profound respect
to his epoch-making discovery of category (.B).
Professor Ward has presented a very interesting
discussion. I agree with his comments that all
kinds of efforts, theoretical or experimental,
should be exerted to the study of ship's waves
themselves. Only in this way, I believe, a full
understanding of ship's waves and wave-making
resistance can be established. In this connection,
Professor Ward's contribution to this field nmst
be evaluated carefully. With regard to the
theoretical wave patterns, it seems to me there
remains a huge amount of work, both analytical
and numerical, to be done. For this purpose
some kind of international cooperation would be
most desirable, I believe.
Dr. Kotik outlines the essentials of two papers
presented by himself and his colleagues. These
papers treat the wave resistance of a body with
infinite draft. I t is true that they are very valu-
able contributions from a theoretical point of view.
However, unfortunately, I have never heard of the
fact that their analytical results obtained with
such "two-dimensional" cases alone have actually
been applied to any practical ship hull forms.
Dr. Kotik's other questions are ahnost the same
as those raised by Dr. Todd and by Professor Man-
del. Therefore repetition will be avoided here to
save space.
Dr. Guilloton mentioned that I made a "funda-
mental" mistake in assuming the free surface as a
rigid wall when I traced the streamlines. He
pointed out that Havelock's potential for a travel-
ling source consists of three terms, as denoted
(a), (b), (c) in his discussion. This is not always
correct. As is well known, Havelock's potential
can be interpreted in various ways according to
352 .Wave-Making Resistanceof Ships
Froude number of K L , value, as follows :
(a) For lower Froude nmnber (F < 1, KoL
> 1):
II
~s(x,y) = ,u
47rr m +
47rr' 9_@f dO
2
£ ~ e x p [ - - K ( f - z) + iKP] kdk
K -- K.sece0 + lT#sec0
(b) For higher Froude nmnber (F > 1, KoL
< U:
9~n m.K~ r 2
. II
¢s(x,y) -= - -4rrr
- + 4 ~ r ' + _9~-~r
5 a| ~ L sec0 dO
£ ~ e x p [ - - K ( f ~ z) + i K P dk
Though. these two expressions are mathematically
identical, we must make a proper choice between
the two. Since we have confined ourselves to the
low-speed range, say F -< 0.35 (KL >- S), we have
to adopt (a) instead of (b) in our interpretation
which leads to our "rigid-wall" assumption.
Further, in the very near future, we m a y be able
to take all terms of Haveloek's potential in tracing
streamlines by virtue of the high-speed computer.
Dr. Guilloton raises doubt that I might mis-
place the residuary resistance as a true wave
resistance. This is not the fact at all. Ever since
I started m y study o11 wave resistance many
years ago, it has always been a matter of greatest
concern to me as to what is the best way to find
the "true" experimental wave resistance. This
problem includes m a n y technical aspects, such as
(a) the laminar effect (turbulence stimulation), (b)
the form effects (resistance test with submerged
double models), (c) the effect of trim and sinkage
during a test run (preparation of a specially de-
signed "horizontal" guide), and so on. M y pre-
liminary work concerning all these technical prob-
lems is outlined in m y chapter of the second vol-
ume of the Japan Society of Naval Architecture
published in 1957.
Mr. Wigley's first comment on the necessity of
a strict distinction between the residuary resist-
ance and the "more true" experimental wave
resistance is the same as Dr. Guilloton's, for which
I have already replied. I agree with Mr. Wigley
on the point that our theory is not complete,
especially the finite amplitude effect is in urgent
need of solution. However this requires, so to
speak, a high jump from ordinary linearized theory
to nonlinear theory. No one can predict when
such state of higher development of the theory
m a y be successfully attained. Instead of waiting
for the solution to these nonlinear treatments, of
the differential equations, we n m s t t r y hard to
m a k e good use of the existing theory, because we
are naval architects, not mathematicians, who are
pressed daily to produce better hull forms under
various design conditions. For such purpose and
for complementing our incomplete theory, I sug-
gest the approach of photographing the wave pat-
tern of models. By this means we can get not
only the immediate wave characteristics of each
individual model, but also accumulate the experi-
mental evidence needed for further i m p r o v e m e n t
of the theory. One of the main objectives of m y
paper lies in emphasizing this point.
Mr. Wigley mentions in his discussion, " . . .
the author suggests t h a t an experimental proof
of the equivalence of a small sphere with a
doublet might be made by e x p e r i m e n t . . . . . . "
This is not the fact. I agree with him t h a t it is
very difficult to carry out the resistance test or the
wave observation for a submerged sphere. W h a t
I intended to suggest in m y text is to take the dif-
ference in the measured waves between two cases:
(a) tile main hull alone without the bulb, and (b)
the main hull with the bulb attached.
Dr. Egger's first c o m m e n t on the mathematical
identification between equations (35) and (36) is
Wave-Making Resistance of Ships
similar to Professor Michelsen's discussion.
Therefore repetition of nly reply will be avoided
here. I am very pleased with Dr. Egger's second
c o m m e n t on the importance of the separate treat-
ment of bow and stern-wave systems as well as his
third and final c o m m e n t on the necessity of
establishing special t a n k facilities for the detailed
study of the model's wave patterns.
Dr. Weinblum gives a very elaborate review of
the past and the present state of wave-making
theory with special reference to the bulb problems.
I would like to express m y heartfelt thanks to this
pioneer in the field of wave-making theory.for this
valuable contribution. Concerning his last state-
lnent on the use of the notation "waveless," I
have already presented m y opinion in m y reply to
Professor Michelsen's discussion.
In concluding this closure I would like to t h a n k
all discussers for their very interesting and quite
valuable contributions to m y paper. In addition
I m u s t express nay cordial gratitude to the Office of
N a v a l Research for their kind help in m y trans-
portation problem, and to the Mitsubishi Nippon
H e a v y I n d u s t r y C o m p a n y Ltd., for their generous
permission of publishing Figs. 5S-61 which I
have cited in m y reply to Dr. Pien's discussion.
353