0,6 0.8 1.0 1.2 



Tuning Fac+on T^,o /Tg 



1.6 



0.2 0.4 O.G 0.8 1.0 1.2 



Tuning Fac+or Tpo/ Tg 



Fig. 22 Pitch-angle ratio 0t/20„ versus tuning factor Tpo/T» 

 (from Ochi, 1956*) 



Fig. 23 Heave-amplitude ratio Z/Hu- versus tuning factor 

 Tm/T, (from Ochi, 1956A) 



3eo 



320 



260 



s 



"o 



240 





2Q0 



IGO 



_g 120 



D- 



80 S^ 



40 



0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6 2.0 2.4 2.8 3.2 3.G 

 Ship Speed Vm M/sec 



0.4 



0.) 



1.2 1.6 



F=V//L 



2.0 



2.4 2.8 



0.4 0.8 1.2 I.G 2.0 2.4 2.8 3.2 

 Ship Speed Vm M/sec 



_i u 



0.4 



0.8 1.2 I.G 



F=V/\/L 



2.0 



2.4 



Fig. 24 Phase lag between pitch, heave and wave against ship 

 speed (from Ochi, 1956*) 



Fig. 2 5 Hogging, sagging deck stress of the V-form ship (from 

 Ochi, 1957) 



forecastle deck. It appears, therefore, that the increase 

 of the wetted beam at the bow flare contributes to the 

 increase of the sagging moment. 



Fig. 30 shows two interesting features of bending- 

 moment variation with speed at a constant wave height, 

 Ji = L/38. The first of these is the continuous decrease 

 of the hogging moment and the increase of the sagging 

 moment with increase of speed up to 3 m/sec for the 

 model or 23 knots for a full-size ship. Lewis and Dalzell 

 (1958) have found that this is caused by the addition 

 of the time-independent sagging moment which results 



