Journal of Ocean, Mechanical and Aerospace August 25, 2015

-Science and Engineering-, Vol.22

Calculations of the Heave and Pitch RAO’s for Three Different

Ship’s Hull Forms

Hassan Ghassemi,a,*, Sohrab Majdfar,b and Valiollah Gill,b

a)
Department of Maritime Engineering, Amirkabir University of Technology, Tehran, Iran
b)
Department of Marine Engineering, Imam Khomeini University, Nowshahr, Iran

*Corresponding author: gasemi@aut.ac.ir

Paper History Longitudinal Inertia

Encounter Frequency
Received: 25-July-2015 Encounter Angle of Wave with i Direction
Received in revised form: 19-August-2015 Pitch Moment: Diffraction + exciting
Accepted: 25-August-2015 t Time

1.0 INTRODUCTION
ABSTRACT
Prediction of ship performances in calm and rough waters is one
The research carried out in this article is to determine the RAO of imperative concerns of naval architects and seakeeping
(Response Amplitude Operator) heave and pitch motions of three performance is one of the most important aspects of ship design.
different ship’s hulls forms. Ship is running at the head sea of the The hull is designed in most cases need to be optimized.
regular wave and its responses are obtained by modified strip It’s important to know that all process of optimize hull needs to
theory using Maxsurf software. Three different ship’s hull forms investigate seakeeping performance of vessels and all persons
(Wigley-S60-DDG) are selected in order to predict the results. who works on hull optimization, determined seakeeping. Some
The obtained results of RAO heave and pitch motions are researchers have considered two or three objective functions for
presented and discussed at various Froude numbers. optimizing hull form and some others only one objective
functions. Bagheri et al. (2014) work on optimizing the
KEY WORDS: Seakeeping; RAO; Heave and Pitch; Hull seakeeping performance of ship hull forms using genetic
Forms (Wigley -S60-DDG). algorithm, Scamardella & Piscopo (2014) use only one objective
function in Passenger ship seakeeping optimization by the Overall
Motion Sickness Incidence, Gammon (2011) uses three objective
NOMENCLATURE functions in Optimization of fishing vessels by multi-objective
genetic algorithm, Biliotti et al. (2011) utilize two objective
Added Mass Coefficient functions for automatic parametric hull form optimization of fast
Ship Mass naval vessels, Özüm, S., Şener, B., Yilmaz, H. (2011)
Acceleration in i-Direction investigated the seakeeping qualities of fast ships, Teresa
Damping Coefficients Castiglione (2011) investigate numerical analysis includes
Velocity in i-Direction evaluation of ship motions, effects of wave steepness on ship
Restoring Coefficients response, Grigoropoulos and Chalkias (2010) use utilize two
Motion in i-Direction objective functions in Hull-form optimization in calm and rough
Vertical Force: Diffraction + exciting water, Mousaviraad, Carrica, Stern (2010) developed a harmonic

1 Published by International Society of Ocean, Mechanical and Aerospace Scientists and Engineers
 Journal of Ocean, Mechanical and Aerospace August 25, 2015
-Science and Engineering-, Vol.22

wave group (HWG) single run seakeeping procedure, by using an known, strip theory remains a solid basis for seakeeping
unsteady RANS solver, Bunnik et al.(2010) carried out CRS calculations and competes successfully with newer and more
project that conducted a comparative study, like the ITTC rigorous methods, even at high speeds, when compared with
Seakeeping workshop and the results from the different experimental and full-scale results. The ship is considered to be a
approaches have been compared. Zhang et al. (2010) have paper rigid body floating in an ideal fluid: homogeneous,
about Time-domain simulations of radiation and diffraction forces incompressible, and free of surface tension, irrotational and
that studied large amplitude, time domain and wave bode without viscosity. It is assumed that the problem of the motions of
interactions problems with forward speed and used an exact body this floating body in waves is linear or can be linearized. For
boundary condition with linearized free surface boundary displacement vessels the range of under 0.4, where the heave
conditions. Zhang et al. (2010) also studied seakeeping motion show a resonant response with values of the heave RAO
computations using double body basis flow that free surface significantly in excess of unity. Whilst the introduction of ride
boundary conditions are derived based on a double body controls has somewhat reduced the severity of motions in some
linearization and the mixed Euler-Lagrange time stepping cases, there has been considerable interest in the underlying effect
techniques. Huang et al. (2009) the seakeeping tests and of hull form on the ship motions. As a result of this, only the
numerical predictions confirmed that even though sloshing impact external loads on the underwater part of the ship are considered
pressures are nonlinear and stochastic, global tank loads and and the effect of the above water part is fully neglected.
LNGC motions are deterministic, Bhushan, S. et al (2009) used The heave and pitch equations are coupled so that heave
the VOF scheme for numerical treatment of free surface in motions are influenced by pitch and vice versa.
seakeeping investigation, Greco et al. (2008) investigate concern
the further development of the numerical potential-flow method : + + + + + +
for seakeeping of a model in regular/irregular wave. = + 1
Simonsen et al (2008) carried out a motion analysis for the KCS
ship hull in heave and pitch motion in regular head waves, Clauss, ! ℎ: + + + + + +
(2008) proposed a technique to generate a sequence of waves for = + 2
the simulation of extreme seas for seakeeping tests. Sariöz, Sariöz
(2006) proposed a new optimization procedure, based on a However, the coupling is usually fairly weak and to a first
nonlinear problem solved by direct search techniques, approximate to the motions of two independent second order
Grigoropoulos (2004), Saha et al. (2004) employed different spring mass systems. The analogy is not rigorous because the
types of nonlinear linear programming as optimization coefficient in the equations is frequency dependent, in contrast to
techniques, Kukner & Sariöz (1995) optimized the seakeeping constant coefficients assumed in the classical equations.
qualities of a high speed vessel, using the Lackenby method to Nevertheless, we may define approximate natural frequencies for
generate several hulls, BAILEY, P. A. (2000) The NPL high- heave and pitch using equation (3):
speed round bilge displacement hull series, Journee (1992)
developed personal computer program based on both the ordinary
%&& %++
and the modified strip theory method, Hearn, Hills, Sariöz (1991) =$ , =$ (3)
'()&& ,++ ()++
Practical seakeeping for design, Besso and Kyozuka (1984) works
on ship motion reduction by anti-pitching fins in head seas.
Given the variety of some hull designs used vessels, the extent Where the heave added mass a and the pitch added inertia
to which overall design influences motion response is not clear. a are to be evaluated at the respective natural frequencies.
The objective of this paper is to investigate the extent to which The focus of this paper is the head sea seakeeping response of
hull design can influence the seakeeping response. In order to heave and pitch motions and no attempt is made to evaluate the
make such a comparison a computational method that is valid is efficiency of the designs considered with respect to resistance. In
required. this paper, we tried to obtain response amplitude operator of ships
motions in oblique waves and the damping factor of roll motion
as non-dimensional is considered 0.15 but since the major issue
2.0 HEAVE AND PITCH MOTIONS of our calculations is investigation of heave and pitch motions, we
preferred to ignore roll motion.
The basic of our calculation are the strip theory that is the
standard tool for ship seakeeping computation. Strip theory is a
frequency-domain method. This means that the problem is
3.0 THREE SHIP’S HULL FORMS
formulated as a function of frequency. This has many advantages,
the main one being that computations are speed up considerably. The hull forms selected for this comparative study are Wigley
However, the method generally becomes limited to computing the model, S60 model and a modern ship. The main dimensions of
linear vessel response. The vessel is split into a number of these models are shown in Table 1. For simulation of ship
transverse sections. Each of these sections is then treated as a motions and analysis we used Maxsurf motion module that is an
two-dimensional section in order to compute its hydrodynamic application which may be used to predict the motion and
characteristics. The coefficients for the sections are then seakeeping performance of vessels designed using Maxsurf.
integrated along the length of the hull to obtain the global The Wigley model is a popular model in ship hydrodynamics
coefficients of the equations of motion of the whole vessel. experiments. The Wigley Hull model tank test data is available
Finally the coupled equations of motion are solved. As is well were carried out at the Ship hydromechanics Laboratory of the

2 Published by International Society of Ocean, Mechanical and Aerospace Scientists and Engineers
 Journal of Ocean, Mechanical and Aerospace August 25, 2015
-Science and Engineering-, Vol.22

Delft University of Technology (DUT). The standard Wigley hull

is a mathematical displacement hull form, the geometric surface
of which can be defined as:

/ 04 0 8 0
. = 11 2 3 6 7 11 2 3 6 7 (4)
0 5 9

where B is the ship breadth, L is the ship length, T is the ship

draft, and 2T < z < 0. The Wigley model (Cm = 0.667, L=3m,
L/B = 10) have been tested at three forward speeds: Fn=0.2, 0.3,
0.4 that shape of this hull form is given in Figure 1. Vertical
motions of hull sections are predicted by the coupled strip theory
and the Frank method. The hull form seakeeping is carried out at
a single Froude number (Fn U/CgL) that is constant for each
Figure 2: S60 body plan.
model and that is 0.3 for the Wigley, where U and L are the speed
Model C.2340; Campana & Peri 2000). (L=93.4m, B=17m,
and the waterline length of the model, respectively.
CB=0.577, T=6.21m) that there is its other numerical and
empirical results. Figure 3 is shown its body plan.
Table 1: Models dimensions
Parameters Wigley S60 DDG51
Midship coeff.
0.6667 0.98 0.974
(Cm)
L/B 10 7 5.5
Length [m] 3 122 93.4
Breadth [m] 0.3 17.4 17
Draught [m] 0.1875 6 6.21
Displacement
0.078 9605 3450
[m3]
B/T 1.6 3 2.73
CB 0.48 0.7 0.577

Figure 3: Body plan of the DDG.

4.0 RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS

4.1 Wigley hull

The Ship hydromechanics laboratory of the Delft University of

Technology has published experimental data on hydromechanics
coefficients for heave and pitch, vertical motions, wave loads and
added resistance in head waves of two Wigley hull forms. The
wave is head sea with encounter angle of 180o and wave height
of 2 cm for this test. Using main dimensions and equation (4) to
Figure 1: Body plan of the Wigley.
calculate offset table then we draw the numerical model.
Comparison between numerical results and experimental data at
The second hull form is Series 60 model that is one of standard Fn=0.3 are shown in Figures 4-7.
series for merchant ships. The S60 model properties that is As shown in Figures 4 and 5, the peak value of heave and pitch
discussed in this article are L=122 m, L/B=7, CB=0.7, B/T=3, RAOs occur at λ/L=1.2 and is about 1.7 that means the ship has
and shown in Figure 2. worst condition of floating. Based on the experimental and
The third hull form is DDG. Models scaled by 1:24.824 of that numerical charts the computational error rate is about 10%. Now,
vessel have been constructed and tested by the David Taylor according to the low error rate of calculation can also be used to
Model Basin (model DTMB5415) and Istituto Nazionale per assess other environmental condition of vessel.
Studied Esperienze di Architettura Navale (INSEAN, the Italian We can see in predicted charts of seakeeping performance that
ship model basin. at low speeds, peak values of heave and pitch reduced and the
difference between peak value of heave and pitch increased. At
larger angle of attack the peak values of heave and pitch reduced
too. Also at higher speeds the peak value occurs at λ/L >1.2. In
general, the graphs illustrate that Heave and Pitch RAOs will
increase with increasing velocity but at higher angle of the wave

3 Published by International Society of Ocean, Mechanical and Aerospace Scientists and Engineers
 Journal of Ocean, Mechanical and Aerospace August 25, 2015
-Science and Engineering-, Vol.22

hit the ship is inversely related. Also the comparing charts 0 20

showed the accuracy of experimental test and numerical errors.
Figure 8 shows peak values of heave and pitch occur at λ/L=1 for -10 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5
0
Froude number 0.2 and the RAO’s values reach to unit value at -20 -20

Heave Phase angle

λ/L=3.5. Max values of heave and pitch are 1.3 and 0.95.Figure 9 -30
shows heave and pitch for Froude number 0.4 that peak values -40
occur at λ/L=1.3. The Froude number of this condition is for case -40
-60
that the speed is near to reach high speed vessels. Maximum -50
Exp. [Journée] -80
values of heave and pitch are 2.6 and 2.3.The model at this speed -60
will have sever shocks and due to maximum amount of RAO can Present method -100
be seen the ship simply move up and down until λ/L reach about -70
3 that the ship movement is smoothly. Numerical results of the -80 -120
RAO heave and pitch at various encounter angles that is the angle -90 -140
between wave attack and the ship motion are shown in Figures
10~12. -100 λ/L -160
Figure 6: Comparison of the phase heaves for Wigley = 0.3
1.8
1.6 250
1.4 200
Heave RAO

1.2 150 present method

Pitch phase angle

1 100 Exp. [Journée]

0.8 50
present method
0.6 0
Exp. [Journée]
0.4 -50 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5
0.2 -100
0 -150
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5
λ/L -200
Figure 4: Comparison of the RAO heave for Wigley ( 0.3 -250 λ/L
Figure 7: Comparison of the phase pitch for Wigley = 0.3
2 1.4
1.8
1.6 1.2
1.4 1
Pitch RAO

1.2
0.8
1
0.8 heave by present method
present method 0.6
0.6 pitch by present method
Exp. [Journée] 0.4
0.4
0.2 0.2
0
0 λ/L
0 0.5 1 1.5 2
λ/L 0 1 2 3 4
Figure 5: Comparison of the RAO pitch for Wigley = 0.3 Figure 8: RAO Heave and Pitch for Wigley at = 0.2

4 Published by International Society of Ocean, Mechanical and Aerospace Scientists and Engineers
 Journal of Ocean, Mechanical and Aerospace August 25, 2015
-Science and Engineering-, Vol.22

3 2.5
heave by present method
2.5
2
2 pitch by present method
1.5
1.5

1 1
heave by present method
0.5
pitch by present method 0.5
0
λ/L
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 0
0 1 2 3 4
Figure 9: RAO Heave and Pitch for Wigley at ( 0.4 λ/L
Figure 12: RAO heave and Pitch for Wigley at = 0.4 & I =
210°
1.2

1
4.2 S60 Hull
Using data for the S60 offset table and its dimensions, we draw
0.8 our numerical model then compare Bagheri’s RAO charts with
present method. The wave is type of Param. Bretschneider head
0.6 sea with encounter angle of 180o. According to charts of Figures
13 and 14, the peak value occurs at λ/L =1.2. Figure 15 shows
0.4 heave and pitch for Froude number 0.3 in head sea that max
heave by present method value of heave RAO is 2.3 and occurs at λ/L=1.4, the max value
0.2 of pitch RAO is 1.45 that occurs at λ/L=1.4. Figure 16 shows
pitch by present method
heave and pitch peak values of Froude number 0.4occur at
0 λ/L=1.6 that is the case when the ship is like a fast ship. For
0 1 λ/L 2 3 4 heave, max value is about 2.8 and it’s 1.9 for pitch graph. Figure
17 shows heave and pitch RAO at Froude number 0.6 that the
Figure 10: RAO Heave and Pitch for Wigley at = ship starts planing. The peak values occur at λ/L=1.9 with heave
0.2 & I = 210° and pitch maximum values of 3.9 and 3, respectively. Increase
speed by higher Froude numbers causes peak values occur in
further place of chart. In all cases the RAO reach to unit value at
1.6 λ/L about 3.5. The last mode is shown, can’t choose this type of
hull as a high speed craft and it’s only suitable for displacement
1.4
vessels.
1.2
1 1.6

0.8 1.4
heave by present method
0.6 1.2
pitch by present method
Heave RAO

0.4 1
0.2 0.8
0 λ/L 0.6
0 1 2 3 4 Present method
0.4
Exp. [Bagheri]
Figure 11: RAO Heave and Pitch for Wigley at = 0.3 & I = 0.2
210° 0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3
λ/L
Figure 13: Comparison of the RAO Heave for S60 at = 0.2

5 Published by International Society of Ocean, Mechanical and Aerospace Scientists and Engineers
 Journal of Ocean, Mechanical and Aerospace August 25, 2015
-Science and Engineering-, Vol.22

1.4 4.5
heave by present method
1.2 4
3.5 pitch by present method
1
3
Pitch RAO

0.8 2.5
Present method 2
0.6
Exp. [Bagheri] 1.5
0.4
1
0.2 0.5
0 0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 0 1 2 3 4
λ/L λ/L
Figure 14: Comparison of the RAO Pitch for S60 at ( 0.2 Figure 17: Numerical results of RAO Heave and Pitch for S60 at
= 0.6
2.5
4.3 DDG Ship
In this section, we focus on the seakeeping performance of DDG.
2 The wave properties of model test are head sea and rough water
with spectrum type ParamBretschneider and significant wave
1.5 height H1/3=1m and modal period 10s. Figures 18 and 19 show
thecomparison of the presents results withother results. The
1 results derived by strip theoryusing Frank (S-T-F) close-fit
method are older than three-dimensional (3-D) panel code by
heave by present method SWAN2-2002, a modern time-domain 3-D Rankine source panel
0.5
code, and strip theory using Salvesen method using in this paper.
pitch by present method
The heave graphs show that Frank calculation errors are more
0 than other methods and our present method has error less than
0 1 2 3 4 5%. The peak values of heave and pitch charts occurs at λ/L about
λ/L 1.4. By our negligible error of calculation, we predict modern
Figure15: Numerical results of RAO Heave and Pitch for S60 at DDG seakeeping performance for other Froude numbers as well
= 0.3 as Fn=0.3, 0.4 and 0.7, in Figures 20, 21 and 22, respectively.
Figure 20 show RAO heave and pitch of Froude number 0.3
with peak values of 1.08 and 1.2 for heave and pitch that these
3 values occur at λ/L about 1.2. At Froude number of 0.4 as shown
in Figure 21, the RAO peak values occur at λ/L=1.3. Seakeeping
2.5
performance of DDG is more smoothly at λ/L=3.2. Figure 22
show heave and pitch RAO for Froude number 0.7 that DDG will
2
work like a planing craft and peak values occur at λ/L=1.6.
1.5
Maximum values of RAO heave and pitch are 2.2 and 1.5
respectively.
1
heave by present method
1.6
0.5
pitch by present method 1.4
0 1.2
Heave RAO

0 1 2 3 4 1
λ/L 0.8
Figure 16: Numerical results of RAO Heave and Pitch for S60 at Present method
= 0.4
0.6
Exp.
0.4
Numerical[Frank]
0.2
0
0 1 λ/L
2 3 4

Figure 18: Comparison of the RAO Heave for DDG =

0.237

6 Published by International Society of Ocean, Mechanical and Aerospace Scientists and Engineers
 Journal of Ocean, Mechanical and Aerospace August 25, 2015
-Science and Engineering-, Vol.22

1.4 2.5
1.2
2
1
Pitch RAO

Present method
0.8 1.5
Exp.
0.6 Numerical[Swan] 1
0.4 Numerical[Frank] heave by present method
0.5
0.2 pitch by present method

0 0
λ/L 0 1 λ/L 2 3 4
0 1 2 3 4

Figure 19: Comparison of the RAO Pitch for DDG ( 0.237 Figure 22: Numerical results of RAO Heave and Pitch for DDG at
= 0.7
1.2

1 5.0 CONCLUSIONS
Calculations of the RAO heave and pitch of the three different
0.8 ship’s hull at various Froude numbers are presented. These three
different ships are Wigley, S60 and DDG. Some results are
0.6 heave by present method compared with experimental data and seem that the results are
satisfactory. Froude number is from 0.2 to 0.7 applied, even at
0.4 pitch by present method high Fn, the trend of the results are relatively well. Therefore, it is
revealed that the present calculations method can estimate
0.2 properly for the RAO of the ship motions.

0
0 1 λ/L 2 3 4
REFERENCES
Figure 20: Numerical results of RAO Heave and Pitch for DDG
at = 0.3
1. Bagheri, H. Ghassemi H. Dehghanian, A.(2014). Optimizing
the Seakeeping Performance of Ship Hull Forms Using
Genetic Algorithm, the International Journal on Marine
1.6
Navigation and Safety of Sea Transportation, Vols. 8, No.1.
1.4 2. Scamardella, A., & Piscopo, V.(2014). Passenger ship
seakeeping optimization by the Overall Motion Sickness
1.2
Incidence. Ocean Engineering, vols. 76, pp: 86‐97.
1 3. Siow C.L., Koto J. and Abyn, H.(2014). Semi-submersible
heave response study using diffraction potential theory with
0.8
heave by present method viscous damping correction, Journal of Ocean, Mechanical
0.6 and Aerospace, Vols. 5.
0.4 pitch by present method 4. Gammon, M. A.(2011), Optimization of fishing vessels using
a Multi-Objective Genetic Algorithm, Journal of Ocean
0.2 Engineering, Vols. 38(10), pp: 1054-1064.
0 5. Biliotti, I., Brizzolara, S., Viviani, M., Vernengo, G.,
0 1 λ/L 2 3 4 Ruscelli, D., Galliussi, M., Guadalupi, D. and Manfredini, A.
(2011), Automatic Parametric Hull Form Optimization of
Fast Naval Vessels, 11th International Conference on Fast
Figure 21 : Numerical results of RAO Heave and Pitch for DDG Sea Transportation (FAST), Honolulu, Hawaii, USA.
at = 0.4 6. Özüm, S., Şener, B., Yilmaz, H.(2011). A parametric study
on seakeeping assessment of fast ships in conceptual design
stage, Ocean Eng., vols. 38, pp: 1439–1447.
7. Teresa Castiglione, Frederick Stern, Sergio Bova,
Manivannan Kandasamy.(2011). Numerical investigation of
the seakeeping behavior of a catamaran advancing in

7 Published by International Society of Ocean, Mechanical and Aerospace Scientists and Engineers
 Journal of Ocean, Mechanical and Aerospace August 25, 2015
-Science and Engineering-, Vol.22

regular head waves, Ocean Engineering, vols. 38, pp: 1806– seakeeping validation study, Transactions of the Royal
1822. Institution of Naval Architects, vols.142, pp: 44–77.
8. Grigoropoulos, G. J. and Chalkias, D. S.(2010). Hull-form 25. Journée, J.M.J.(1992), Experiments and calculations on four
optimization in calm and rough water, Journal of Computer- Wigley hull forms, TU Delft.
Aided Design, vols. 42, no. 11, pp: 977-984. 26. Hearn, G.E., Hills, W., Sariöz, K.,(1991), Practical
9. Mousaviraad, S.M., Carrica, P.M., Stern, F.(2010), seakeeping for design: a ship shape approach, Trans. R. Inst.
Development and validation ofHarmonic wave group single- Nav. Archit,
run procedure for RAO with comparison to regular wave 27. M. Besso, Y. Kyozuka,(1984), On the ship motion reduction
and transient wave group procedures using URANS”, Ocean by anti-pitching fins in head seas, Proceeding 15th
Engineering, vols.37, pp:. 653-666. Symposium Naval Hydrodynamics, pp: 109-118.
10. Bunnik, T., Daalen, E.V., Kapsenberg G., ShinY.,
Huijsmans, R., Deng, G., Delhonmeau, G., Kashiwagi, M.,
Beck, B.(2010), A comparative study on state-of-art
prediction tools for seakeeping, ONR 28thSymposium on
Naval Hydrodynamics, Pasadena, California,USA.
11. Zhang X., Bandyk P., and Beck R.F.(2010), Time-Domain
Simulations of Radiation and Diffraction Forces, Journal of
ship research, vols. 54, No. 2, pp: 79-94.
12. Zhang X., Bandyk P., and Beck R.F.(2010), Seakeeping
Computations Using Double Body Basis Flow, Journal of
Applied Ocean Research, vols. 32, issue. 4, pp: 471-482.
13. Huang, Z.J.,Danaczko, M.A., Esenkov, O.E. Martin, C.B.,
O’Donnell, B.J., Yung, T.W., (2009), Coupled Tank
Sloshing and LNG Carrier Motions.
14. Bhushan, S., Xing, T., Carrica, P., Stern, F.(2009), Model-
and Full-Scale URANS Simulations of Athena Resistance,
Powering, Seakeeping, and 5415 Maneuvering, Journal of
Ship Research, Vols. 53, No. 4, pp: 179-198.
15. Greco, M., T. Bazzi, G. Colicchio, And C. Lugni,(2009), 3D
ship-seakeeping problem: weak-scatter theory plus shallow-
water on deck. In 23rd Int. Workshop of Water Waves and
Floating Bodies, Jeju, Korea.
16. Simonsen, C., Otzen, J. & Stern, F.(2008), EFD and CFD for
KCS heaving and pitching in regular head waves, In:
Proceedings of the 27th Symposium on Naval
Hydrodynamics, Seoul, Korea,.
17. Clauss, G.F,(2008), The Taming of the Shrew: Tailoring
Freak Wave Sequences for Seakeeping Tests, Journal of Ship
Research, Vols. 52. No. 3, pp: 194-226.
18. Perez Arribas and J.A. Fernandez Clemente,(2006), Strip
theories applied to the vertical motions of high speed crafts,
Ocean Engineering vols.33, pp: 1214-1229.
19. Sariöz, K., Sariöz, E.(2006), Practical seakeeping
performance measures for high speed displacement vessels,
Nav. Eng. J., vols. 118(4), pp: 23-36.
20. Gregory J. Grigoropoulos,(2004), Hull Form Optimization
for Hydrodynamic Performance, Marine Technology, Vols.
41, No. 4, pp.167–182.
21. Fang Chih-chang and Chan Hoi-sang, (2004), Investigation
of seakeeping characteristics of high- speed catamarans in
waves, Journal of Marine Science and Technology, vols. 12,
no.1, pp: 7-15.
22. Saha, G. K., Suzuki, K. and Kai, H.(2004), Hydrodynamic
optimization of ship hull forms in shallow water, Journal of
Marine Science and Technology, vols. 9, no. 2, pp: 51-62.
23. Kukner, A., Sariöz, K.,(1995), High speed hull form
optimization for seakeeping, Adv. Eng. Software, vols. 22,
pp: 179–189.
24. Bailey, P. A., Hudson, D. A., Price, W. G., Temarel, P.
(2000), Comparisons between theory and experiment in a

8 Published by International Society of Ocean, Mechanical and Aerospace Scientists and Engineers