BSRA. Methodical series experiments on single-screw ocean-going merchant ship forms. Extended and revised overall analysis. BSRA Report NS333, 1971.Google Scholar

Gertler, M. A reanalysis of the original test data for the Taylor standard series. David Taylor Model Basin Report No. 806. DTMB, Washington, DC, 1954. Reprinted by Society of Naval Architects and Marine Engineers, 1998.Google Scholar

Bocler, H. The position of the longitudinal centre of buoyancy for minimum resistance. Transactions of the Institute of Engineers and Shipbuilders in Scotland. Vol. 97, 1953–1954, pp. 11–63.Google Scholar

Watson, D.G.M. Practical Ship Design. Elsevier Science, Oxford, UK, 1998.Google Scholar

Molland, A.F. (ed.) Maritime Engineering Reference Book. Butterworth-Heinemann, Oxford, UK, 2008.Google Scholar

Schneekluth, H. and Bertram, V. Ship Design for Efficiency and Economy. 2nd Edition. Butterworth-Heinemann, Oxford, UK, 1998.Google Scholar

McEntee, W. Cargo ship lines on simple form. Transactions of the Society of Naval Architects and Marine Engineers, Vol. 25, 1917.Google Scholar

Molland, A.F. A survey of the interrelation between shipyard production methods and the structural design of ships. M.Sc. Thesis, University of Newcastle upon Tyne, 1969.Google Scholar

Johnson, N.V. Experiments with straight framed ships. Transactions of the Royal Institution of Naval Architects, Vol. 106, 1964, pp. 197–211.Google Scholar

Silverleaf, A. and Dawson, J. Hydrodynamic design of merchant ships for high speed operation. Transactions of the Royal Institution of Naval Architects, Vol. 109, 1967, pp. 167–196.Google Scholar

Swaan, W.A. and Vossers, G. The effect of forebody section shape on ship behaviour in waves. Transactions of the Royal Institution of Naval Architects, Vol. 103, 1961, pp. 297–328.Google Scholar

Ewing, J.A. The effect of speed, forebody shape and weight distribution on ship motions. Transactions of the Royal Institution of Naval Architects, Vol. 109, 1967, pp. 337–346.Google Scholar

Lloyd, A.R.J.M., Salsich, J.O. and Zseleczky, J.J. The effect of bow shape on deck wetness in heads seas. Transactions of the Royal Institution of Naval Architects, Vol. 128, 1986, pp. 9–25.Google Scholar

Kracht, A.M. Design of bulbous bows. Transactions of the Society of Naval Architects and Marine Engineers, Vol. 86, 1978, pp. 197–217.Google Scholar

Steele, B.N. and Pearce, G.B. Experimental determination of the distribution of skin friction on a model of a high speed liner. Transactions of the Royal Institution of Naval Architects, Vol. 110, 1968, pp. 79–100.Google Scholar

Wigley, W.C.S. The theory of the bulbous bow and its practical application. Transactions of the North East Coast Institution of Engineers and Shipbuilders, Vol. 52, 1935–1936.Google Scholar

Ferguson, A.M. and Dand, I.W. Hull and bulbous bow interaction. Transactions of the Royal Institution of Naval Architects, Vol. 112, 1970, pp. 421–441.Google Scholar

Holtrop, J. A statistical re-analysis of resistance and propulsion data. International Shipbuilding Progress, Vol. 31, 1984, pp. 272–276.Google Scholar

Lewis, E.V. (ed.). Principles of Naval Architecture. The Society of Naval Architects and Marine Engineers, New York, 1989.Google Scholar

Buxton, I.L. and Logan, J.A. The ballast performance of ships with particular reference to bulk carriers. Transactions of the Royal Institution of Naval Architects, Vol. 129, 1987, pp. 17–42.Google Scholar

Moor, D.I. Resistance and propulsion properties of some modern single screw tanker and bulk carrier forms. Transactions of the Royal Institution of Naval Architects, Vol. 117, 1975, pp. 201–204.Google Scholar

Hoyle, J.W., Cheng, B.H., Hays, B., Johnson, B. and Nehrling, B. A bulbous bow design methodology for high-speed ships. Transactions of the Society of Naval Architects and Marine Engineers, Vol. 94, 1986, pp. 31–56.Google Scholar

Thomson, G.R. and White, G.P. Model experiments with stern variations of a 0.65 block coefficient form. Transactions of the Royal Institution of Naval Architects, Vol. 111, 1969, pp. 299–316.Google Scholar

Dawson, J. and Thomson, G.R. Model experiments with stern variations of a 0.80 block coefficient form. Transactions of the Royal Institution of Naval Architects, Vol. 111, 1969, pp. 507–524.Google Scholar

Thomson, G.R. and Pattullo, , The, R.N.M. BSRA Trawler Series (Part III). Block coefficient and longitudinal centre of buoyancy variation series, tests with bow and stern variations. Transactions of the Royal Institution of Naval Architects, Vol. 111, 1969, pp. 317–342.Google Scholar

Molland, A.F. and Turnock, S.R. Marine Rudders and Control Surfaces. Butterworth-Heinemann, Oxford, UK, 2007.Google Scholar

Lloyd's Register. Rules and Regulations for the Classification of Ships. Part 3, Chapter 6. July 2005.Google Scholar

Kariafiath, G., Gusanelli, D. and Lin, C.W. Stern wedges and stern flaps for improved powering – US Navy experience. Transactions of the Society of Naval Architects and Marine Engineers, Vol. 107, 1999, pp. 67–99.Google Scholar

Kim, J., Park, I.-R., Van, S.-H. and Park, N.-J. Numerical computation for the comparison of stern flows around various twin skegs. Journal of Ship and Ocean Technology, Vol. 10, No. 2, 2006.Google Scholar

Ukon, Y., Sasaki, N., Fujisawa, J. and Nishimura, E. The propulsive performance of podded propulsion ships with different shape of stern hull. Second International Conference on Technological Advances in Podded Propulsion, T-POD. University of Brest, France, 2006.Google Scholar

Tregde, V. Aspects of ship design; Optimisation of aft hull with inverse geometry design. Dr.Ing. thesis, Department of Marine Hydrodynamics, University of Science and Technology, Trondheim, 2004.Google Scholar

Stratford, B.S. The prediction of separation of the turbulent boundary layer. Journal of Fluid Mechanics, Vol. 5, No. 17, 1959, pp. 1–16.Google Scholar

Muntjewert, J.J. and Oosterveld, M.W.C. Fuel efficiency through hull form and propulsion research – a review of recent MARIN activities. Transactions of the Society of Naval Architects and Marine Engineers, Vol. 95, 1987, pp. 167–181.Google Scholar

Bertaglia, G., Serra, A. and Lavini, G. Pod propellers with 5 and 6 blades. Proceedings of International Conference on Ship and Shipping Research, NAV’2003, Palermo, Italy, 2003.Google Scholar

Flising, A. Ducted propeller installation on a 130,000 TDW tanker – A research and development project. RINA Symposium on Ducted Propellers. RINA, London, 1973.Google Scholar

Andersen, O. and Tani, M. Experience with SS Golar Nichu. RINA Symposium on Ducted Propellers. RINA, London, 1973.Google Scholar

Carlton, J.S. Marine Propellers and Propulsion. 2nd Edition. Butterworth-Heinemann, Oxford, UK, 2007.Google Scholar

Harbaugh, K.H. and Blount, D.L. An experimental study of a high performance tunnel hull craft. Paper H, Society of Naval Architects and Marine Engineers, Spring Meeting, 1973.Google Scholar

Blount, D. Design of tunnels for high-speed craft. Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on Fast Sea Transportation, FAST’97, Sydney, July 1997.Google Scholar

Lloyd, A.R.J.M. Seakeeping: Ship Behaviour in Rough Weather. Published by the Author, Gosport, UK.Google Scholar

Blok, J.J. and Beukelman, W. The high-speed displacement ship systematic series hull forms: seakeeping characteristics. Transactions of the Society of Naval Architects and Marine Engineers, Vol. 92, 1984, pp. 125–150.Google Scholar

Hearn, G.E., Hills, W. and Sariöz, K. Practical seakeeping for design: a ship shape approach. Transactions of the Royal Institution of Naval Architects, Vol. 134, 1992, pp. 225–244.Google Scholar

Grigoropoulos, G.J. and Chalkias, D.S. Hull-form optimisation in calm and rough water. Computer-Aided Design, Vol. 42, 2010, pp. 977–984.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Blume, P. and Kracht, A.M. Prediction of the behaviour and propulsive performance of ships with bulbous bows in waves. Transactions of the Society of Naval Architects and Marine Engineers, Vol.93, 1985, pp. 79–94.Google Scholar

Ström-Tejsen, J., Yeh, H.Y.H. and Moran, D.D. Added resistance in waves. Transactions of the Society of Naval Architects and Marine Engineers, Vol. 81, 1973, pp. 109–143.Google Scholar

Grin, R. On the prediction of wave-added resistance with empirical methods. Journal of Ship Production and Design, Vol. 31, No. 3, August, 2015, pp. 181–191.Google Scholar

Arribas, F.P. Some methods to obtain the added resistance of a ship advancing in waves. Ocean Engineering, 34, 2007, pp. 946–955.Google Scholar

X-BOW^®. Ulstein Group ASA, Ulsteinvik, Norway.Google Scholar

Keuning, J.A., Toxopeus, S. and Pinkster, J. The effect of bow shape on the seakeeping performance of a fast monohull. Proceedings of the Sixth International Conference on Fast Sea Transportation, FAST’2001, Southampton, UK, September, 2001.Google Scholar

Keuning, J.A., Pinkster, J. and van Walree, F. Further investigation into the hydrodynamic performance of the AXE-Bow concept. Proceedings of the 6th Symposium on High Speed Marine Vehicles, WEMT’2002, Castello di Baia, Italy, 2002, pp. 25–38.Google Scholar

Raven, H.C., Van Der Ploeg, A., Starke, A.R. and Eça, L. Towards a CFD- based prediction of ship performance – progress in predicting full-scale resistance and scale effects. Transactions of the Royal Institution of Naval Architects, Vol. 150, 2008, pp. 31–42.Google Scholar

Hämäläinen, R. and Van Heerd, J. Hydrodynamic development for a large fast monohull passenger ferry. Transactions of the Society of Naval Architects and Marine Engineers, Vol. 106, 1998, pp. 413–441.Google Scholar

Valkhof, H.H., Hoekstra, M. and Andersen, J.E. Model tests and CFD in hull form optimisation. Transactions of the Society of Naval Architects and Marine Engineers, Vol. 106, 1998, pp. 391–412.Google Scholar

Tzabiras, G.D. A numerical study of additive bulb effects on the resistance and self-propulsion characteristics of a full form ship. Ship Technology Research, Vol. 44, 1997.Google Scholar

Turnock, S.R., Phillips, A.B. and Furlong, M. URANS simulations of static drift and dynamic manoeuvres of the KVLCC2 Tanker. Proceedings of the SIMMAN International Manoeuvring Workshop. Copenhagen, April 2008.Google Scholar

Larsson, L. and Raven, H.C. Principles of Naval Architecture: Ship Resistance and Flow. The Society of Naval Architects and Marine Engineers, New York, 2010.Google Scholar