Downloaded from http://rspa.royalsocietypublishing.

org/ on December 4, 2018

144

A Comparison o f Experiment and Calculated Wave-Profiles and

Wave-Resistances fo r a form having Parabolic Waterlines.
By W . C. S. W ig l e y .
(Communicated by T. H. Havelock, F.R.S.—Received October 4, 1933.)
Introduction.
It has been found possible to calculate tbe wave-resistance of simple three
dimensional forms, and a number of such results have been obtained* which
on the whole have shown good agreement with actual measurements when the
forms are such as not to violate the assumptions on which the calculations are
founded. But the calculation of wave-profiles is at present limited to two
dimensional forms having infinite draft. Hence for the purpose of this research
two models were made, at the William Froude Laboratory one of the maximum
draft possible under mechanical limitations, with vertical sides and a flat bottom,
the other having the greatest draft and displacement which would allow of the
measurement of its resistance over the desired range of speeds, but with vertical
sides for only half its draft and being then rounded off in vertical section to an
edge at the keel. The first model (No. 1254) was used to measure wave-profiles
which were compared with those calculated for a model of infinite d ra ft; the
second model (No. 1302) was used for the comparison of measured and
calculated resistances.
It was impossible to use the first model for this purpose as the added resistance
due to eddying round the sharp corners at the bilges would render quite
meaningless any calculation of the frictional resistance which must be sub­
tracted from the measured force to find the wave-resistance. Its wave-
resistance was, however, calculated in order to show the similarity in shape
between the calculated resistance curves of the two models. Fig. 1 shows
perspective sketches of these models and the equations of their surfaces appear
below (equations (1) and (7) respectively).

Listof Symbols used throughout the Paper.

L = .total length of model,
l = length of curved entrance or run,
2a = length of parallel body,
* See *Proc. 3rd Int. Cong. Appl. Math.,’ Stockholm, 1930, vol. 1, p. 58, for a summary
of these results up to 1930.
 Downloaded from http://rspa.royalsocietypublishing.org/ on December 4, 2018

Wave-Profiles arid . 145

26 = maximum beam,
d —draft,
c= speed of advance,
p= density of water, taken as 1-94 foot lb. sec. units in calculations,
g= acceleration due to gravity, taken as 32*2 in calculations,
/c = g/c
=surface elevation due to wave-system,
=surface elevation due to “ non-wave ” portion of the disturbance
caused by the motion of the form,
= resistance due to wave-making,
H0 = Struve’s function of order zero,
1 (G. N. Watson’s
Y0 = Bessel’s function of the second kind and of order
| definitions)
zero.
Pn and Qn represent certain functions defined as they occur in the paper.
Model 1254.

Model 1302.
F ig. 1.—Sketch of under-water forms of models 1254 and 1302.

Foot-pound-second units and Cartesian axes were used throughout the

calculations ; Oxbeing in the direction of motion, 0 vertically downwards,
and 0 yat right angles to the other two axes. The origin of co-ordinates is
amidships, in the centre line and in the plane of the undisturbed water surface,
except that in equation (2) (to avoid negative values of the arguments of

VOL. OXLIV.— A. L
 Downloaded from http://rspa.royalsocietypublishing.org/ on December 4, 2018

146 W. C. S. Wigley.
certain functions) the origin has been taken at the bow and Ox reversed in
direction.
The calculations of resistances and wave-profiles are made on the following
assumptions, by the methods either of Michell or of Havelock:—
(1) The usual assumption in dealing with wave motion that the wave
height is small compared with the other lengths occurring in the problem
and that the velocities due to the wave motion are small compared with the
other velocities involved. For ship waves this means that the wave height
is small compared with the length and draft of the ship, and the velocities due
to the wave motion are small compared with the ship’s speed. It is also
assumed that the angle made by the tangent plane to the side of the form with
the vertical median plane of the ship is small.
(2) It is assumed that the effects of turbulence and viscosity can be neglected.
(3) In comparing calculated resistances with those of models in the tank,
it is necessary also to assume that the alteration in the trim and sinkage of
the hull during motion does not alter the effective wave-making form sufficiently
to affect the wave motion appreciably. When wave-profiles alone have been
compared this question does not arise, since the models were rigidly attached
to the tank carriage and not allowed to trim or sink.

Measurement of Wave-Profiles.
The model (No. 1254) used for the wave-profile measurements had water
lines with the equation
h = b { l - [ x — ajl]2}, from x = a to x = l-\-a
\ y = b, from x = — a to x = a >9 (1 )

I y = b{l — [x + ajl]2}, from x = — a — l to x = — a

where
1 = 7-5,
6 = 0-484,
a = 0 •5.

The draft of the actual model was 3-5 feet, with 0-5 feet of necessary free­
board. This gave a total depth of 4-0 feet, which was the m a x im u m vertical
dimension of a model which could be lifted into the Yarrow tank.*
* The dimensions of the cross-section of the Yarrow tank are 30 feet wide by 12J feet
deep.
 Downloaded from http://rspa.royalsocietypublishing.org/ on December 4, 2018

Wave-Profiles and Wave-Resistances. 147

For the purpose of the measurement of the wave-profiles this model was
rigidly attached to the travelling carriage of the Yarrow tank, and was towed
through the water at a series of speeds from 3*5 to 10*8 feet per second.
A network of vertical and horizontal lines had been previously marked on
one side of the model, the horizontal lines being \ inch apart, and the verticals
normally 1 foot apart, but placed more nearly together near the ends of the
model. During experiments at each speed the height of the water surface
at each vertical was observed, the closer spacing near the ends of the model
enabling more accurate observation where the slope of the water surface was
greatest.
Two wooden beams were clamped to the carriage, forming extensions of
20 feet aft and 6 feet forward respectively of the centre line of the model.
Each of these beams carried, at intervals of 1 foot, pointers sliding vertically
which were adjusted during each experiment so th at their pointed ends just
touched the water surface. By this means the wave-profile could be plotted
for a distance corresponding to the length of the beams. Additional pointers
were again fitted where the slope of the wave-profile was steepest, i.e., near
the bow and stern of the model. Owing to a very slow, long, and persistent
wave which is always set up in the tank during experiments, errors of measure­
ment of dr 0'05 inch are unavoidable. Once an experiment has been made
at one of the higher speeds, changes of this order in the water level are known
to last for some 24 hours, and it is therefore impracticable to wait for their
cessation.
Calculation of Wave-Profiles.
Calculations were made for a form as given by equations (1) but having
infinite depth using a formula given by Havelockf for the wave-profile of any
two-dimensional form of infinite draft. The profile actually given by the
formula is that along the centre line of the form (the axis of x) ; but the error
involved in using this formula to find the profile on the curved surface of the
model (which is of the same order as those introduced by the assumption that
the angle is small between the tangent plane to the side of the form and the
median plane) can be neglected. For this particular form the expressions for
the “ wave ” and “ non-wave ” portions of the profile become respectively

C = (8 l)[P 0 { kx} + P 0 {k
K
Z
b/T ( x - 21
2- a)} - (1 ( P ^ 1 {kx
— P 0-1 {k {x — l)} + P 0- ! {K (x —

* ‘ Proc. Roy. Soo.,’ A, vol. 135, p. 11 (1932).

 Downloaded from http://rspa.royalsocietypublishing.org/ on December 4, 2018

148 W. C. S. Wigley.
= (— 26/tocZ) [Q0 {kx} + Q0 { k (x ~ 2 l — 2a)} — (
— Qx {/c (x — l)}- f Qx {k (x—

In these expressions the origin has been moved to the bow, and the positive
direction of x is now astern. The functions P 0 and Px are supposed to be
zero for negative values of their arguments, and for other values to be defined
by the equations
/*7r/2
P 0 (u) = | sin (u sec </>). d<f>
Jo (Sa)*
rW2
P 0- i ( « ) = l + P i ( » ) ■ = ! cos </>. cos ( us
ec <j>)
Jo
The functions Q0, Qx are defined, for positive values of the arguments by the
equations

(3b)
Q i (u) —Qo (0 •

where H 0 is Struve’s function and Y0 the Bessel function of the second kind,
both of order zero, and by the convention that Q0 (— u) = Q0 (u) and
Q i(— u) = — Qx (u) for negative values of the argument.
Detailed calculations of the wave heights have been made for this form from
equations (2) for seven speeds covering a range which corresponds with possible
ship speeds. These speeds are given in Table I, with the value of the non-
dimensional speed unit used in this paper, the (p) speed unit commonly used
in shipbuilding work in this country, and the so-called Froude number {c/Vgl)
which is in common use abroad.
Table I.
c/VgL
c. c/V gl. © = (Froude number)

4-22 0*272 0-562 0-193

5-45 0*351 0-726 0-250
6-74 0*433 0-897 0-308
7-95 0*512 1-059 0-364
9-18 0*592 1-225 0-421
10*42 0*675 1-399 0-480
10*79 0*694 1-434 0-494

* For further particulars, series, and asymptotic expansion of these functions, see
Havelock, ‘ Proc. Roy. Soc.,’ A, vol. 108, pp. 81, 82 (1925); vol. 103, pp. 577-579 (1923)
 yy^ —
JFV*oo. J R o i / . 6"oc. , ^4, v o T . 144.

Parallel body
Bow v--------- v----------' Stern

Downloaded from http://rspa.royalsocietypublishing.org/ on December 4, 2018

Scale of fe e t fro m bow of m odel.

F ig . 2.— M odel 1254. C om parison o f c a lc u la te d a n d observed w ave-profiles.

A. B ro k en lin e is observ ed w ave-profile a t 10-78 feet p e r second (cj's/gl = 0*694). (N o e x p e ri­

m e n ta l va lu e s o f w a v e-h e ig h t are a v ailab le a f t o f th e p o in t m a rk e d B for th is speed.)
C. F u ll lin e is c a lc u la te d w ave-profile a t 10-78 fe et p e r second (c/'s/gl — 0*694).
D . B ro k e n lin e is ob serv ed w ave-profile a t 10-50 fe et p e r second (c/ \ / g l = 0-675).
E . F u ll lin e is c a lc u la te d w ave-profile a t 10-50 feet p e r second ( c / \ / g l — 0-675).
F . B ro k en lin e is o b serv ed w ave-profile a t 9 -2 0 fe et p e r second {c jy /g l — 0-592).
G. F u ll line is c a lc u la te d w ave-profile a t 9*20 fe et p e r second ( c / \ / g l = 0-592).
H . B ro k en lin e is o b serv ed w ave-profile a t 7 -95 fe et p e r second ( c /V V = 0-512).
I. F u ll lin e is c a lc u la te d w ave-profile a t 7 -9 5 fe et p e r second ( c / V gl — 0-512).
J . B ro k e n lin e is ob serv ed w ave-profile a t 6 -7 4 fe et p e r second (c/ \ / g l — 0-433).
K . F u ll lin e is c a lc u la te d w ave-profile a t 6 -7 4 fe et p e r second { c / \ / g l = 0-433).
L. B ro k e n lin e is o b serv ed w ave-profile a t 5 -4 5 fe et p e r second ( c / \ / g l = 0-351).
M. F u ll line is c a lc u la te d w ave-profile a t 5 -4 5 fe e t p e r second (c / \ / gl = 0*351).
N. B ro k e n lin e is ob serv ed w ave-profile a t 4 -2 2 fe e t p e r second (c f ^ / g l = 0-272).
O. F u ll lin e is c a lc u la te d w ave-profile a t 4 -2 2 fe e t p e r second ( c / \ / g l = 0-272).

(F a c in g p . 1 4 8 .)
 Downloaded from http://rspa.royalsocietypublishing.org/ on December 4, 2018

Wave-Profiles and Wave-Resistances. 149

The actual and the calculated wave-profiles for each speed are shown in
fig. 2. It will be seen that along the side of the form the chief peculiarities
of the observed profiles are well reproduced by calculation. The observed
bow wave is generally a little higher than the calculated, except at the highest
speeds; whereas the stem wave is generally lower. Ahead of the form the
disturbance is never so high as calculated, while aft of the form the disturbance
(as would be expected) dies away much more quickly, particularly at the slow
speeds, than it would in a perfect fluid.
Examination of the first equation (2) shows th at the wave-profile may be
divided into six components, two originating a t the bow, two a t the stem,
and one a t each end of the parallel bod y ; th at is, a t the forward and after
shoulders. The two terms involving the function P 0 are the same as would
occur to produce bow and stem wave-systems in a form composed of straight
lines having the same angle a t bow or stem. This bow wave is decreased and
this stem wave increased by the terms
. P 0-1 (kx ) and (1 J k.P 0-1 {/c — 21 — 2a)},
respectively, which may be considered as representing additional wave-
systems due to the curvature of the form starting a t bow and stem respectively.
Owing to the presence of an extra factor k in the denominator, these terms
increase more rapidly with the speed than the terms in P 0, and their effect is
therefore much greater a t the higher speeds. The other two terms,
(1 Jk )I .P 0- 1 {k (x — l)} and (— 1 . P 0-1 {/c (x — l — 2a)},

represent wave-systems starting a t the beginning and end of the parallel

body; they also are of little importance at low speeds, owing to the factor k
in their denominator, and since they are equal in amplitude and opposite in
phase and separated only by the length of parallel body—which corresponds,
as the speed increases, to less and less difference in phase between them—
their combined effect does not grow greatly with speed, and they are never
of very great importance.
These statements are consistent with the known experimental facts, that the
wave-making of a parabolic form is largely concentrated at the ends, and that
it is an efficient form for low speeds, where the two terms mentioned in the
second place above are of no great importance. In order to exhibit the relative
importance of these terms, fig. 3 has been drawn showing their respective
sizes for c = 7 •95 ft. per sec. (cj\/gl — 0*512). To see the relative importance
at any other speed it should be noted that the two systems depending on the
bow and stem angles respectively will increase in height as the square of the
 Downloaded from http://rspa.royalsocietypublishing.org/ on December 4, 2018

150 W. C. S. Wigley.
speed, while the remaining four systems will increase in height as the fourth
power of the speed, and the wave-lengths of all the systems will increase in
proportion to the square of the speed.
From what has been written above it will be seen that the total bow wave-
profile is given by the equation
Kbw — (86/toc l)[P
and that the crests and troughs of the bow wave-system will therefore occur at
positions given by values of x such that

or, differentiating,
Y„ M / P 0 (kx)= -
since d.P 0 (u)jdu = — 7ry0 (u)/2and d . P 0_1 ( = P
function Y0 (w)/P0 (u) have been plotted, and with their aid the values of x
satisfying equation (5) for a series of values of c have been calculated. A similar
equation, with only the sign changed, holds for the stem wave system ; curves
showing the position of the crests and troughs of the waves of the two systems
over a range of speeds have been calculated and plotted in fig. 4 on a base
of cj's/gl.
From these curves the speeds of coincidence in the crests and troughs of
these systems can be seen; the relation of these to the maxima and minima
of wave resistance will be discussed a t a later stage in the paper.

Calculation of Resistance for the Form of Great Draft.

The wave resistance of this form was calculated by the use of Havelock’s
result, which in the notation of this paper is given by the equation
R Jo* = [64pi-2/™3*] [{1/3 + 1/ kV} + {P3 (ft)/2 - P4 (ft)/p + P5
W /p - P„ (p )/p 2 - p4 (+ P5 w / p 2 - P6 W / V f t (6)
in which, for brevity, p has been written for kI, p x for 2 + or L p %for
(2o -(- V) k and p z for 2a/c, whilst
r /2
P 3 (u) = I . cos3 <fj. cos (u sec <f>). d<f>
Jo
M2
P4 (u) = | . cos4 (f) . sin (u sec <f>). d<f>
Jo
p r/2
Pfi (^) == — ) • cos5 <f>. cos (u sec cf>). d<f>
Jo
* See footnote * on p. 148.
Downloaded from http://rspa.royalsocietypublishing.org/ on December 4, 2018

Wigley.
Proc. Roy. Soc., A, vol. 144.

F ig . 3. M odel 1254. A n aly sis in to c o m p o n e n ts o f c a lc u la te d w ave-profile. Speed 7 - 95 fe e t p e r second ; c / v V = 0-512.

^w>

O bserved w ave-profile.
T o ta l c a lc u la te d w ave-profile £,w + g iven in (2 a ).
T o ta l s te m wave-profile given b y te rm s (8b/nxl) [P 0 { k ( x — 21—+ (1 . P 0-i{*(a; — — in (2
-D. P rofile o f w av e-sy stem co m m encing a t s te m d u e to s te m an g le g iven b y te rm . P0 — 2a) } in (2 a ).
E . P rofile o f w a v e-sy stem c om m encing a t s te m d u e to c u rv a tu re o f form g iven b y te rm ( . I V 1{/c (pc — 21 — 2a) } in (2 a ).
F . S um o f profiles o f fo rw a rd a n d a f te r sh o u ld e r w av e-sy stem s given b y te rm (86/jt/c2Zs) [P ,,-1 {*• — } — P 0-1{/<- } ] in (2 a ).
G. P rofile o f w av e-sy stem c om m encing a t fo rw a rd sh o u ld e r a n d d u e to c u rv a tu re o f form , g iven b y te rm (8b/m<2l2). P „ -i { K (x } in (2 a ).
H . P rofile o f w av e-sy stem co m m encing a t a f te r sh o u ld e r a n d d u e to c u rv a tu re o f form , g iv en b y te rm
(— 8b/TZK2l2). P 0- i {K (x — l — 2 a ) } in (2 a ).
I. T o ta l bow w ave-profile g iv en b y te rm s (8 )lxn/b[P 0 { k*} — (1/Kl) P 0~i { x x }] in (2 a ).
J . P rofile o f w av e-sy stem c om m encing a t bow a n d d u e to c u rv a tu re o f form given b y te rm ( — 8b/izK2l2) . P 0-1 {/ca;} in (2 a ).
K . P rofile o f w a v e-sy stem co m m encing a t bow d u e to bow an g le g iven b y te rm (8b/nxl) . P 0{/cx) in (2 a ).
L . P rofile o f sym m etrical disturbance = £j, given in (2 b ).
 Downloaded from http://rspa.royalsocietypublishing.org/ on December 4, 2018

Wave-Profiles and Wave-Resistances. 151

Of the three terms of equation (6) in twisted brackets the first clearly represents
the steady increase of wave-making resistance with speed,‘apart from any
question of interference between the wave-systems. The second, depending
directly on the total length of the form, represents the interference between the
bow and stern systems. Each of the terms in the third bracket represents
some form of interference between the systems a t the ends of the parallel
body and the bow and stern systems, or between the systems a t the ends of
the parallel body themselves. These terms have not been considered separately
because in this form their total effect is comparatively small.
Fig. 5 gives curves showing these three components, and also a curve of
the total value of R w/c2. Owing to the great increase of this quantity with
speed, the scale of the lower portions of the curves had to be exaggerated as
shown in the diagram. I t is clear th at the main peculiarities of the total curve
of R w/c2 are due to the component corresponding with the second term in
twisted brackets on the right-hand side of equation (6), and are therefore due
to interference between the waves of the bow and stem systems. I t is there­
fore of interest to compare the speeds of coincidence of crests and troughs of

Table II.—-Values of cjy/gl Corresponding to certain Phenomena.

Model 1254. Model 1302.

Calculated values of c/Vgl Values of c/Vgl for

maxima and Maximum
for maxima and minima of minima of total R^/c2. or
Calculated values of minimum
c/Vgl for wave of
coincidences between Bow and stem R w/c2.
bow and stem systems. interference Total
component of Rio/c*. Calculated. Measured.
R m?/c2.

Crest with crest 0 •63 0-69 0-85 0*76 0*80 Maximum

Crest with trough 0 •49 0-51 0-51 0*51 0*52 Minimum
Crest with crest 0*42 0-44 0*44 0*44 0*44 Maximum
Crest with trough 0 •37 0-38 0*38 0*38 0*38 Minimum
Crest with crest 0 •34 0-34 0*34 0*34 0*35 Maximum
Crest with trough 0 •31 0-31 0*31 0*31 0*31 Minimum
Crest with crest 0 •30 0-30 0*30 0*30 0*30 Maximum

these systems, as calculated in the last section of the paper, with the corre­
sponding speeds of maximum and minimum values of R^/c2. This comparison
appears in Table II, which also includes for reference the calculated and
measured maxima and minima for the shallower model 1302, experiments
on this model and the corresponding calculations are described later.
Downloaded from http://rspa.royalsocietypublishing.org/ on December 4, 2018

Proc. Roy. Soc., A, vol. 144.

L ength of m o d e l

HunP c/Vjg. ‘(o%8.

T rough

.Stern
OF noO E L .
F ig . 4.— Model 1254. Positions of crests and troughs of bow and stern wave-systems a t various speeds.
(Facing p. 161.)

!*
 Downloaded from http://rspa.royalsocietypublishing.org/ on December 4, 2018

152 W. C. S. Wigley.
It will be seen that the wave-coincidences agree quite well with the maTim^
and minima of Rw/c2, excepting at the highest speeds where the maxima and
minima of Rw/c2 always occur at a higher speed than that of the wave-coin­
cidences—seriously so in the last maximum. Further, the main discrepancy

S tA U E OF

F ig. 6 a.—Parabolic model of infinite dralt model 1254. Separation of wave resistance
into components, c/'s/gl < 0*675.

is between the last maximum of total R and the last maximum of the
interference component of R^/c2. This latter difference is due entirely to the
term 1/kH2 in the first term in the bracket on the right-hand side of equation
(6): this term varies as c4, and therefore delays the maximum of the Rw/c2
 Downloaded from http://rspa.royalsocietypublishing.org/ on December 4, 2018

Wave-Profiles and Wave-Resistances. 153

curve by causing the function to continue to increase after the interference

term has actually begun to decrease. The difference between the highest
TPQYirrmm of the component and the corresponding wave coincidence is due
to the factor 1JkH2 outside the bracket, which acts in a similar way. Naturally
the effects of these factors are only sensible for large values of c, and their
influence has been checked by separate calculations, which confirm the remarks
made above. I t is noteworthy th a t the distance from the first crest of the

O 4

O 3

C o m po n e n t op ftw /c &

Conp«WKHT OP Rv/c1

F ig. 5b .—Parabolic model of infinite draft model 1254. Separation of wave resistance
into components, > 0-675.

bow wave to the first crest of the stem-wave, as shown in fig. 4, increases
from a value equal to the length of the model (= 1 6 feet) at very slow speeds
to a value of just over 20 feet a t cjy/gl = 0-80, where l is, as above, the length
of the curved surface of the bow or stem of the form ( = 7 -5 feet). Owing to
the delay in the higher maxima of Rw/c2, for reasons which are stated above
this distance if deduced from the calculated resistances would appear to increase
more than it actually does. Thus Havelock ( . cit.) has calculated the apparent
value of this distance from the resistance of a model, like No. 1254 but without
 Downloaded from http://rspa.royalsocietypublishing.org/ on December 4, 2018

154 W. C. S. Wigley.
parallel, whose length was 160 feet: he finds this distance-equal to Z )./2 +
in his notation-to increase from 166 feet at the slowest speeds to 260 feet
at c/vgl = 0·72.

Measurement of Retristance of Shallow Model.

It has been shown that the calculated components of the wave-profiles for
this form are related to the maxima and minima of the calculated curves of
Rw/c2, and that these calculated components add up to form a complete wave-
profile which, generally speaking, has the same peculiarities of shape as the
wave-profile actually measured with model 1254. It remains to show that the
calculated resistance curve agrees in the same way with a measured resistance
curve. As explained earlier, the sharp corners at the bilge of model 1254
would render resistance measurements with this model of very doubtful
interpretation. Since it is known that draft has very little influence on the
shape of resistance curves,* a model, No. 1302, was constructed having the
equation
y= b {l - [x - a/l] 2} from z = = 1 1 from x = l + a
0 to z
y= (b/3){4 - z2}{1 - [x - a/l] 2} from z = 1 to z = 2f to x = a

y=b from z = 0 to z = 11 from x = a

y = (b/3) (4 - z2) from z = 1 to z = 2J to x = - a

y = b {l - [x + a/l] 2}
from z = 0 to z = 1} from x = _ a
y = (b/3){4 - z2}{1 - [x + a/l] 2} from z = 1 to z = 2 to x = a
(7)
where a, b, l have the same values as for model 1254 described above, i.e.,
0 · 5, 0 · 484, and 7 · 5 feet respectively. The form of this model is shown in
fig. 1 ; it is the same as model 1254 for 1 foot depth, but then tapers off in a
parabolic curve to a knife edge keel at 2 feet depth; the waterlines at any
section are similar parabolic arcs joined by 1 foot of parallel body amidships.
It will be seen from the equation that there is a slight vertical angle or knuckle
at z = 1, but this was rounded off in the actual model on the sections near
amidships, where alone it was sensible. The resistance of this model was
measured in the Yarrow tank, using the ordinary resistance dynamometer, over
a range of speeds from c = 4 · 0 to c = 12 · 3 ft. per sec. Since the dynamometer
is only capable of measuring 49 lbs. resistance, added pulls of 10 and 20 lbs.

* See Havelock, 'Proc. Roy. Soc.,' A, vol. 108, pp. 582 et seq. (1925).
 Downloaded from http://rspa.royalsocietypublishing.org/ on December 4, 2018 Proc. Roy. Soc., A , vol. 144.

Ratio of sinkage
of c.G.
To DRAFT ATREST.

Angle of
TRJM
O F RADIANS.,

5 calc Of c/ v^
F ig . 6. —Resistance of parabolic models Nos. 1254 and 1302.
A. Curve rises to maximum value of R w;/cr = 1*52 at e/y/gl = about 0*79. B. Zero line for sinkage curve. C. Curve of sinkage of C.G. (plotted as proportion of
draft at rest). D. Zero line of trim curve. E. Curve of angle of trim.
Key to Resistance Curves.
------ Calculated curve of R w/c2 for model of infinite draft with vertical sides—approximately Model 1254—load water line same as Model 1302.
. . . Observed curve of Rwjc2 for Model 1302. Frictional resistance subtracted as calculated by Froude using surface as actually wetted during motion.
"0 — Calculated curve of R w/c2 for Model 1302.

(Faring p. 154.)
 Downloaded from http://rspa.royalsocietypublishing.org/ on December 4, 2018

Wave-Profiles and Wave-Resistances. 155

were provided as required by cords attached to the model and tensioned by

the necessary weights. The speed of advance was measured, as usual, by
the aid of an electric contact which opened momentarily a t intervals of 20
feet travel, and of a clock recording half-seconds. In addition the trim and
bodily sinkage of the model due to its motion were recorded during each experi­
ment, in order to estimate the actual violation of the third assumption men­
tioned above. The actual measured speeds and resistances are given in
Table III.

Table III.—Model 1302. Mean Temperature 55 •7° Fahrenheit.

Speed. Resistance. Speed. Resistance. Speed. Resistance.

4-04 3*507 6*71 13*09 9*22 30*11

4-21 3*827 6*83 13*56 9*26 29*26
4*29 4*025 6*96 14*26 9*46 31*94
4-46 4*389 7*08 14*54 9*59 33*00
4-57 4*650 7*21 14*62 9*74 35*83
4*74 5*064 7*32 14*85 9*71 36*49
4*84 5*211 7*47 14*93 9*92 39*37
4*97 5*450 7*54 15*04 10*14 40*18
5*04 5*713 7*67 15*24 10*29 42*61
5*17 6*165 7*81 15*62 10*25 42*69
5*32 6*541 7*93 15*80 10*47 46*44
5-58 7*291 7*98 16*17 10*56 46*59
5*69 7*579 8*18 17*04 10*67 48*82
5*81 7*706 8*23 17*40 10*73 49*25
5*98 8*515 8*43 19*01 11*04 52*15
6*04 8*587 8*46 19*41 11*21 54*94
6*24 9*238 8*70 21*77 11*81 59*65
6*32 10*14 8*79 22*61 12*04 62*71
6-49 11*04 8*93 24*57 12*28 64*74
6*56 11*99 8*96 25*14

The frictional resistance was calculated from the data of Froude,* a cor­
rection being made when the temperature differed from the standard value of
55° F. used by Froude. The area of wetted surface assumed in the calculation
exceeded the actual wetted surface of the model when a t rest by an amount
varying from 1^% a t the lowest speed to 5J% a t the highest, to allow for the
additional surface wetted during motion. This correction was the same as
had been measured on a model of similar dimensions used previously. Since
the correction is in any case only an approximation, the added error due to
this procedure is not of importance.
When the frictional resistance as thus calculated is subtracted from the
measured resistance, the measured wave resistance Rw is found ; and in fig. 6
* *Trans. Inst. Naval Arch.,’ vol. 29, p. 304 (1888).
 Downloaded from http://rspa.royalsocietypublishing.org/ on December 4, 2018

156 W. C. S. Wigley.
is shown the curve of B>w/c2 as measured for this model. The values of the
measured angle of trim (in radians), and of the measured sinkage of the C.G. of
the model (expressed as a fraction of the draft) are also shown in this figure.

Calculation of Resistance for Shallow Model.

The resistance of this form has also been calculated by the use of the expres­
sion found by Michell* for the wave-resistance of a form obeying the assumptions
quoted at the beginning of this paper. For a form having the equation
y —f ( x, z)this expression is as follows :—

Rk, = (4p#2/ra32) j* (I2 -f J 2) (X2/VX2 — 1). dX

where
f 00f +00
I= I f )z,x(. e~xtgz!c' . cos ( 2) . dx dz» ( 8)
J 0 J-oo
poo P+00
J = f (x, z ) . e~xtgz/c*. sin ( 2) . dx dz
Jo J -oo
where/' (x, z) — B { / (x, z)}JBx.
For model 1302, having the equation (7) above, a simple integration shows
that
J = — (1024/225 62) {sin 0 — sin (0/16)
— (15.0 . cos 0)/16> {3^2 — 2e"*. (<|i + 1) + 2e-2* . (2^ + l)}/3^3,
1 = 0,
where
0 = 8XgJc2, 4* — X2#/c2,
and hence
R„/c* = 11-98
J lj
f“ {F, (+). F 2 (9)/ V x x*=T> d \, (9)

where 0 and 4 are as above, and

F i (<J0 = {1 - 2 e “ * . (<|> + l)/3 ^ 2 + 2e~™ (24» + l)/3< {i2} 2,

F 2 (0) = {sin 0 — sin 0/16 — (15.0 . cos 0)/16}2/04.

The functions Fx and F 2 have been calculated and plotted on a large scale ;
it is thus a simple matter to calculate the value of the integrand on the right-
hand side of the equation (9) for a number of values of Xat each speed. Hence
the value of the integral has been obtained by Simpson’s rule, care being taken

* * Phil. Mag.,’ vol. 45, p. 113 (1898).

 Downloaded from http://rspa.royalsocietypublishing.org/ on December 4, 2018

Wave-Profiles and Wave-Resistances. 157

th a t a sufficient number of values was used to ensure accuracy in the final

result. The apparent infinity a t the lower end of the range of integration was
avoided by the usual method of assuming th a t to the order of accuracy required

f '° 01 (<M• Fs (6)/xa Vx4 — 1} d \ = i { [ M f c L J j iiS

J tL X* —U-i-ooi
p , (■!>),r , ( e n i i™ 1 ax
L Xa -h=i-ooof J x \/X 2— 1 *

the right-hand side of this equation being easily calculated. At the upper
end of the range of integration the approximate integration was a t each speed
carried out sufficiently far to ensure th a t F x (<Jj) had attained to within 2%
of its maximum value of unity. The rest of the integral can be expanded in
inverse powers of 0O, and the first two terms of the result are given by the
equation
Correction to integral == (225/c2/320o4) (1 — 2 sin 20O/0O),

where 0Ois the value of 0 up to which the approximate integration has been
carried out.
Table IV.—Calculated R for Model 1302.

c/vgi- K-to/c2. c/Vgl. B,w/c2.

0-186 0-0039 0-443 0-1013

0-222 0-0086 0-471 0-0766
0-251 0-0085 0-499 0-0540
0-277 0-0105 0-526 0-0561
0-306 0-0265 0-554 0-0820
0-319 0-0178 0-590 0-1379
0-332 0-0303 0-627 0-1840
0-343 0-0435 0-663 0-2164
0-358 0-0377 0-697 0-2315
0-387 0-0303 0-762 0-2355
0-399 0-0490 0-815 0-2234
0-415 0-0816 0-886 0-1974
0-426 0-0954

The curve of R^/c2 as thus calculated is shown in fig. 6 compared with the
curve for the same quantity as derived from the model experiments; it will
be seen that there is general agreement. The actual calculated values .of
R„/c2 are also given in Table IV. The curve of Rw/c2 as calculated for model
1254 by the method described above is also shown on the diagram, and it
will be seen that apart from amplitude the positions on a speed base of the
maxima and minima of all three curves are in good agreement. These are
 Downloaded from http://rspa.royalsocietypublishing.org/ on December 4, 2018

158 Wave-Profiles and Wave-Resistances.

tabulated in the last two columns of Table I I ; they have been derived from
curves drawn on a much larger scale than can be reproduced here.
It appears from Table II and from inspection of all the relative curves in
fig. 6 that the main features of the wave-making of the shallower three-
dimensional model are the same as those of the model of infinite draft, and
accordingly must originate in interference of similar wave-systems to those
relating to that form and described above. As might be expected, the resistance
at the higher speeds (corresponding to larger waves) is very much larger for
the model of infinite draft, whereas at slower speeds the difference is not so
great. It is known that the depth to which the shape of a form affects the
wave-making varies, at any rate approximately as the length of the wave
generated, and this is supported by the foregoing observation.

General Conclusions.
The maxima and minima of the resistance curves have been shown to
originate in interference between the bow and stem component wave-systems,
this being calculated definitely for the model of infinite draft, and inferred
from the similarity of the resistance curve for the shallower three-dimensional
model. It is noted that the higher speed maxima of the resistance curves
tend to occur at higher speeds than would be predicted from the speeds of
coincidence of the wave-systems, and the reason for this is given.
This general result is in contrast with that obtained previously from a model*
having sections composed of straight lines meeting at angles at the shoulder;
in the latter shoulder wave-making was of primary importance.
It is hoped to make further experiments with models of different shapes,
and in this way to obtain some definite relation between form and wave-
profile. Particularly it is proposed to investigate a form with hollow water-
lines, since straight and convex lines have now been dealt with. Until this
has -been done it is not wise to draw any general conclusions regarding the
wave-making properties of forms not yet investigated, since it is clear that in
different forms the relative importance of different portions of the form will
vary greatly. . '
Summary.
The several effects of the various geometrical features of a body on the
form of the waves it generates when moving on the surface of water, and on
the resistance it experiences, are of theoretical as well as practical interest to

* See *Trans. N.E. Cst. Instn. Eng. Shipb.,’ vol. 47, p. 163 (1931).
 Downloaded from http://rspa.royalsocietypublishing.org/ on December 4, 2018

Electrolytic Dissociation of Nitrates. 159

shipbuilders. It is now possible to investigate this influence, for simple forms,

by approximate methods of calculation; in this paper an investigation is
described for a form having parabolic waterlines; where possible the results
of calculation are compared with actual measurements made in the Alfred
Yarrow tank at the William Froude Laboratory.
I t is found that there is a general agreement between measurement and
calculation. The main difference between the parabolic forms dealt with here
and straight line forms previously investigated is that the ends of the former
contribute more largely to the wave resistance.
No conclusions can be drawn concerning the wave making efEects with other
shapes until further experiments and calculations have been made.

Study o f Electrolytic Dissociation by the Ram an Effect. II.— N itrates.

By I. R amakrishna R ao, M.A., Ph.D., Andhra University, Waltair.
(Communicated by 0. W. Richardson, F.R.S.—Received October 18, 1933.)

1. Introduction.
In the first part* of these investigations by the author, the possibility of
studying electrolytic dissociation by the Raman efEect has been described
with special reference to nitric acid. Accurate quantitative estimation has
sincef been made of the degree of dissociation in the acid by measuring
the intensities of Raman lines corresponding to the dissociated N 0 “ 3 ions
at various concentrations. The results thus obtained indicated that the
dissociation in nitric acid is progressive between the concentrations 1-16 N
and not complete as has been assumed for highly dilute solutions.
A comparison of the values of the degree of dissociation obtained from this
method with those calculated from conductivity measurements revealed a
large discrepancy which was attributed to the uncertainty of the latter. The
degree of dissociation cannot be directly evaluated from the values of electro­
lytic conductivity, which depend upon a number of factors such as viscosity
of the solution, mobility of the ions, etc., as there is much uncertainty as to the
dependence of conductivity on such factors. With Raman spectra, however,
* ‘ Proc. Roy. Soc.,’ A, vol. 127, p. 279 (1930).
t 1Proc. Acad. Sci., Amst.’ vol. 33, p. 632 (1930).