Seakeeptng Constderattons tn a Total Destgn Methodology 
slamming at station 2. It is understood that these two probabilities 
are considered to be independent in the author's mathematical model. 
I would like to point out that these two probabilities are both a func- 
tion of relative motion at stations 1 and 2, respectively. Since these 
two relative motions are highly correlated, the two probabilities can- 
not be treated as independent. The correlation coefficient for relative 
motions at any two forward locations on the ship is usually of the 
order of 0.7 to 0.8 depending on ship speed. I would like to suggest 
that the evaluation should be based on the joint probability function of 
the two relative motions taking into account the correlation between 
them, 
REPLY TO DISCUSSION 
Chryssostomos Chryssostomidis 
Massachusetts Institute of Technology 
Cambrtdge, Massachusetts, U.S.A. 
Thank you, Dr. Ochi, for your recommendation, I will look 
into this. 
DISCUSSION 
Edmund V. -Telfer 
iitelace Vier Ate 
Ewell, Surrey, U.K. 
In my very early professional life this was a subject to which 
I devoted probably far too much of my time but I now find it rather 
sad, that although most of that work was probably published before 
the author was born, it has had practically no influence upon his think- 
ing. I do not mind this, but I do regret that the author makes no re- 
ference to the work of Professor Aertssen, and [ think anybody attempt- 
ing a thesis of this nature who has not carefully studied, and profited, 
I hope, by the work of Aertssen - and still earlier the work of Kent - 
will not see the many issues involved as clearly as he ought to inl1972 AD. 
1625 
