Anda di halaman 1dari 52










Section: 01
Course: 4SMK



1.1 Background 1

1.2 Definition 2


2.1 Introduction 3

2.2 Savitsky Method 3


3.1 Water Rise And Splash-Up 9

3.2 Induced Resistance And Lift By Hassan Ghasemi And Mahmoud Ghiasi 11


4.1 Introduction 18

4.2 Deep Vee Bottom 19

4.3 Type of Deep Vee Bottom 20

4.3.1 Convex Section Shape 20

4.3.2 Concave Section Shape 20

4.3.3 Straight Section Shape 21

4.3.4 Inverted Bell Section Shape 21

4.3.5 Spray Stripes Shape 22


5.1 Planning Hull 23

5.2 Spray Tail 25

5.3 Deigning a Spray Tail 28

5.4 Wedge 30



6.1 Introduction 31

6.2 Model & Tow Arrangement 32

6.2.1 Planing Boat Model 32

6.2.2 Tow Arrangement 33

6.3 Test Program 35

6.4 Result 37

6.4.1 Resistance 37

6.4.2 Running Trim 38

6.4.3 Sinkage Results 40

6.4.5 Hull Pressure 41

6.4.6 Wave Profiles 42

6.4.7 Boundary Layer Velocity Profiles 43

6.5 Summary 48




1.1 Background

The expectation for high-speed craft performance has become far greater over the year as
people compete to have a better and faster craft. People demanding faster craft for reasons, some
use the craft as pleasure, some for traveling, but mostly the high-speed craft is used in military
and coast guard purpose. The limitation in speed for typical vessel leads engineer to design a
different and advanced vessel, as a result several type of vessel has been introduce over the
decade to overcome the speed boundary in more efficient and economical way. This can be
achieve by any 3 methods below

a. By placing displacement volume below free surface.

b. By placing displacement volume above free surface.
c. By having slander water plane area.

Planing craft is one of the vessel types that able to achieve high speed on the surface of the water
which follows the (b) method.


1.2 Definitions

Baird (1998) defines a high-speed vessel as a craft with maximum operating speed higher
than 30 knots, but this definition is too convenient and incomplete to define a high-speed vessel
because lot of considerations and factors must be included in a way to picture and classified the
high-speed vessel. Odd M. Faltinsen (2005) state in his book that hydrodynamicists define a
high-speed craft by using the Froude number,  = ⁄ where  is the ship speed,  is the
overall submerge length 
of the ship, and  is the acceleration of gravity. A craft is
considered has a high-speed craft when the Froude number is larger than 4.0 for vessel that
supported by the submerge hull, such as mono-hulls and catamaran. The value of Froude number
is different for different type of vessels.

Where else the definition of planing vessel is, according to savitsky (1992), a vessel is
considered as a planning vessel when the length Froude number, Fn > 1.2. However, according to
ODD M. Faltinsen (2005) sometimes for Fn > 1.0 also can be considered as a lower limit for
planning vessel.

According to Dr M. Pauzi Abdul Ghani(200X), he define severals mode of small craft

including planning vessel in several term as shown in the table 1 below:

 = ∇ =  =
ℎ !ℎ

" = 1

Displacement 0.40 1.35 < 0.75 < 0.50
" = 2

Semi-Planng 0.56 1.90 0.75 - 2.25 0.50 – 1.50
" = 4

Fully-Planing 0.80 2.70 > 2.25 > 1.50

Table 1 : Definitions of small craft for Displacement, Semi-Planing and Planing mode




2.1 Introduction

There is no uniform definition of planning and in practice; there are many borderline
cases in which it is difficult to decide on the basics of any definition. For prismatic surface where
the buttocks must be straight and the variation on the beam and deedrise in the planning area
must not be great; when a surface of this type moves with a positive angle of attack and the flow
separates cleanly from its chine and transom, it is planning.

2.2 Savitsky Method

Another criterion, Savitsky considers a boat to be planning when CV/√λ >1.0. This is good
criterion but is not practical for field observation.

For steady state planning all the forces and moments acting on the boat must be in equilibrium.
The simplest case is that of a flat plate planning at trim angle, τ.


In the case of a planning boat with a fixed LCG, the trim angle will adjust itself to place the
centre of pressure under centre of gravity. Therefore we have to determine the trim angle, which
produces equilibrium. There are two method of direct calculation, i.e.

Clement’s Method

This method is suitable only for high speeds where the buoyant contribution to lift is neglected

Savitsky’s Method

This method takes into account the buoyant forces and is therefore applicable to vary low speeds.

L = Lift
W = L = Weight
F = Normal Force
R = Resultant Force
J = Drag
E = Friction
ϴ = Trim Angle (Angle of Attack)

Savitsky (1964) has given formulas for lift and drag force on planning hulls. These formulas are
based on a large number of resistance tests with prismatic, or wedge-type surfaces, in which the
trim angle, dead rise angle, wetted length and length-beam ratio, were varied systematically.


The following approach is followed.


V speed

b maximum beam over the chines or spray strips

& displacement volume at rest

Fn& =
, volumetric or displacement Froude number

CV = , Froude number based on b

- . ,.
CLb= , the equivalent flat plate lift coefficient

The following Savitsky’s formula can then be applied to determine the thrim angle for
 /, = 0 . ( 0.0120√" + (0.0055"7 )/ 7


τ is trim angle, deg

λ is mean wetted length-beam ratio, Lm/b

V is speed, m/sec

b is beam of planning area, m

g is acceleration of gravity


The first term of equation represents the dynamics component of list while the second
term is the buoyancy component of lift. At Cv > 1.0, there is little buoyant lift, so that, all other
condition being equal, lift varies as the speed squared.

The lift coefficient for a finite deadrise;

CLβ = CLb – 0.0065βCLb0.6, where β is the deadrise at the mid- chine positionin degree.

Savitsky’s (1964) also give a formula for the location distance, p, i.e. the centre of pressure
forward of the tramsom. However, in many cases it may assumed that the resultant nor,al force
on the planning bottom, N, passes through the CG, i.e. p = LCG as shown in figure below.

Resultant Normal Force on Planning Bottom


With appropriate value of Cv and p/b= LCG/b, the corresponding λ and CLb/ τ1.1 are then read off
the nomograph in figure below:

Nomograph for equilibrium condition when all force act through CG (Koelbel)

This nomograph by Koelbel is valid when the propeller thrust, the resistance force and the
resultant of the planning force all act through the CG. Hence, the mean wetted length Lm and
trim angle, τ can be determined.

Savitsky also gives a formula to correct the mean wetted length ratio, λk if desired,

λk = λ -0.03 + ½ [0.57 + ( β/1000)][(tanβ/2tanλ)-β/167]

where the value of β should be taken at the mid-chine length position.

The value of λk should now be compared with the value of LWL /b. If λk ≥ LWL/b then the bow is
not clear of the water and craft is not fully planning.


When λk ≤ LWL/b the bow is essentially clear of water and the resistance can be predicted from
the following equation:

RT = W tan τ + ½ ρ V2λ b2 CFO /(cos τ sec β)


CFO is the friction coefficient according to ITTC 1957 as a function of the Reynolds number,

Rnb = V1λb/ υ.

 = 91 − ?
√" cos τ

Here V1 is the average bottom velocity which is less than the forward planning velocity owing to
the fact that the planning bottom pressure is large than the free stream pressure.





3.1 Water rise and splash-up

The dynamic forces develop on relatively flat straight bottom (flat) of planning craft help
lift it up on the water surface. This able to laminate the wave making resistance component and
the total resistance is the sum of the surface resistance of the wetted surface area and pressure
drag term. In theory, the wetted surface are varies inversely as the square of the vessel’s speed,
so that the high speed resistance is roughly independent of speed.

As shown in figure below , for simplest case of prismatic planning surface,

 The pressure drag is a factor of @ sin 0 where 0 is trim angle and R is the total normal force,
if the vessel component speed is CD so the energy input for drag component is equal to
CD @ sin 0. Half of the energy converted into dynamic lift force R and the other haft turns to
kinetic energy of water spray and both divided by the ‘dividing streamline’.

 For planning hull, water always rises in front before breaking forward or sideways and
rearward. Water rise the greatest when the deadrise angle β =0 and will rapidly diminished as
the β increased.


 P.R Payne (1994) suggest to calculate the water rise in front of any prismatic planning
surface is best approximated by:

= G sin7 0 G = 2ℯ I7.6JK

Where; d = vertical water rise at the water/keel intersection

B = beam

L = submerged length of the keel

0 = trim angle

β = Dead rise angle in radians


3.2 Induced resistance and lift by Hassan Ghasemi and Mahmoud Ghiasi

Once model dimensions and running conditions have been defined, the potential flow solver
based on the BEM is employed to obtain the induced dynamic pressure, dynamic lift, and
resistance. Frictional resistance is computed by the two-dimensional thin boundary layer, and the
practical method is utilized to evaluate the spray resistance.

3.2.1 Theoretical and Calculations

Consider a Cartesian coordinate system fixed in the space O-XYZ as figure above the planing
hull travels with constant forward speed, Vs, on calm water surface and unrestricted flow. The
fluid motion generated by the planing ship can be treated as equivalent to the disturbance created
by a pressure distribution acting on the bottom of the ship.

Several assumptions are been made:

1. Inviscid
2. Incompressible
3. Irrotational
4. No surface tension


These lead to a boundary value problem for the velocity potential. The flow around the pressure
distribution which harmonic in the fluid domain can be define using the Laplace equation which
is the total velocity potential, Φ :

Φ= ϕ− V NOP . X

Where: ϕ is the perturbation velocity potential

NO is the position vector.

The total potential and perturbation potential are both governed by Laplace’s equation

∇7 Φ = 0
∇7 ϕ = 0 (2)

The potential ϕ is computed by the BEM, which is based on Green’s identity. In general, the

potential ϕ is given by the following integral expression with points Q on body surface and free
boundary surface includes the body surface (SB) and the free surface (SF). Thus, the perturbation

surface SB+SF and P in the fluid domain D.

4RST(U) = V WT(X) − Z[ _
P\]P^ Y Y


E is the solid angle

E = ½ If point P is placed on the boundary (body surface),

E = 0 If point P is placed inside and outside of the body

G is Green’s function

G = 1/r+1/r’,

where : r is the distance between the field point P and the source point Q.
r0 is the distance between the field point P and the image of source point
relative to the mean free surface.


3.2.2 Boundary conditions

I. On the body surface:

= − a. 
NO + b/

Here: vBL is the velocity by Takinaci et al. (2003)

Y(c d ∗ )
b/ =
s = line along the surface of the craft,
Ue = flow velocity at the edge of the boundary layer
d = displacement thickness.

II. On the free surface:

(∇T − a ), ∇ξ = ϕh on z = ξ (x, Y)

1 1
Where: ξ is the wave elevation
l = m− NNNNO
a . ∇T + ∇T. ∇Tn
On z = ξ (x, Y)

III. At infinity:

lim s∇Tt = 0

IV. Boundary condition on the free surface:

The linearized equations are,

− a . lu = Tv , w x = 0

l = − a Ty , w z = 0

By (9) and (10)

Tuu − {D Tv = 0, w z = 0


3.2.3 Pressure on hull

| = ∇T,
The pressure on the craft hull surface is calculated by the derivative of perturbation potential


U = UE + U} = 0.5 ~ (2
NNNO| −  NNNO| ) + ~ℎv
NNNO| . 

UE is the dynamic pressure produce by the velocity

U} is the hydrostatic pressure

The hydrodynamic force (lift and induced resistance) can be obtain by

y = @ = V U u _f ,

€ = V U  _f = 0,

‚ = @ƒ =  = V U v _f ,

Where NO(u , € , ‚ )is outward unit normal vector on the craft


3.2.4 Boundary layer theory and frictional resistance

The resistance can be obtain by

dxP Š‹Œ(Ž)
R ^ = V τD ds = 0.5ρ V C‡ U‰7 dx = 0.5ρ  C‡ U‰7 (∆x)
D ds D •–

C‡ = Local friction coefficient


τD = Shear stress
NP˜™š› = number of strip in longitudinal direction


3.2.5 Upwash geometry and spray resistance

Figure x

Figure x above show the wetted bottom area which divided into 2, the aft part of the
stagnation line is the pressure area. It is surrounded by the wetted keel length, LK and wetted
chine length, Lc.
The relation ship between those lines is as below:

According to Savitsky(1964)

B tan β
L − Lž =
π tan τ
Where else, Bowles and Danny (2005) state that

B tan β 1
L − Lž = . .
π tan τ 
¢11 + tan β tan ¢ 2££ +1



The hydrodynamic pressure of the spray is proportional to the geometrical configuration

of the hull (such as the deadrise, the trim, and chine wet/dry regions) and operational conditions
(such as the craft speed and the resulting free surface waves). Spray surface may practically be
expressed by the following equation:

{ (§ − ¨ )
¤a¥q¦ =
cos ©


Where K1 depends on the craft speed.

0.2 ª ∇ < 3

{ = ª(∇ ) = «0.4 ª 3 ≤ ∇ < 5±
0.7 ª ∇ ≥ 5

Where ∇ is volumetric Froude number,


∇ =

The pressure of spray is given by,

U = {7 .

Where, p = obtain from equation (11)

2 ª ²(³) < 0.5

{7 = ª(©, 0, ²(³)) = «1.5 ª 0.5 ≤ ²(³) < 0.9 ±
1.2 ª 0.9 ≤ ²(³) < 
Finally, the spray resistance and lift generated can be estimate using equations below,

@a¥q¦ = U ¤a¥q¦ sin 0

a¥q¦ = U ¤a¥q¦ cos 0




3.2.6 Total resistance and lift

The total resistance of planning is given by,

µ¶ = µ· + µ¸ + µ¹º»¼½

From here we can get the effective power which by

¾¿ = µ¶ À¹ (24)

The hydrodynamic lift and buoyancy is expressed as following

E = V UE ‚ _

a = V Ua ‚ _

Other useful coefficients are,

Non-dimensional pressure coefficient

¥ =
1 7
2 ~ a

Non-dimensional hydrodynamic coefficient

/Â =
1 7
2 ~ a Ã

Non-dimensional hydrostatic coefficient

/Ä =
1 7
2 a Ã

Non-dimensional resistance coefficient

1 7
2 a Ã




4.1 Introduction

The following sections will give a brief description on various type of planning hulls available

a) Deep vee bottom

b) Inverted vee bottom
c) Round bottom

From the above three configuration, they could further be developed into their own classes.
Since limited information is available on the inverted vee and round bottom type, so in this
section the focus will on the deep vee hull geometry. The various type of deep-vee hull section
are describe in the following paragraph.


4.2 Deep Vee Bottom

"Deep-V" boats have an undesirable tendency to pitch severely in rough seas in

resonance with the frequency of the wave action. When moving with the waves, these hulls fall
off one wave and plow into the next where their sharply inclined bow surfaces act like a rudder
around which they rotate or broach. Yet their wide amidship bottom surfaces still pound against
oncoming waves. Further, at high planing speeds, these hulls need to have their center of gravity
substantially rearward of amidship in order to keep the bow up and reduce wetted area which
reduces frictional drag, but such a rearward center of gravity causes excess bow rise at low

The lifting characteristics of the continuous hull result in a non-level ride, and the boat
exhibits lateral instability at rest. In high speed turns such a boat banks severely, and a large
turning radius is required for low speed turns because the boat pivots on its bow. Trim tabs or
similar devices are often necessary to provide the necessary lift at the stern area, depending on
the orientation of the power unit. Further, if the angle of the V is not deep, these hulls tend to
skid excessively in a turn.

Boats with deep-V hulls produce a large wake with a heavy spray, displace a great deal of
water at all speeds, have a relatively high aerodynamic and hydrodynamic resistance, and
generally have poor fuel economy.

One reason for the poor efficiency of deep-V hull boats is their tendency to ride at an
angle to the water with the bow up high and the stern low. Thus, the hull presents a large frontal
surface area to encounter wind and water resistance. In addition, visibility is reduced as a result
of the high bow. Some boat designers have attempted to overcome this characteristic by adding
trim tabs and/or lifting strakes to the hull; however, these additions cause an increase in drag and
add to the cost and maintenance of the boat while reducing fuel economy.


4.3 Type of Deep Vee Bottom

4.3.1 Convex Section Shape

This is inherently a wet section (wetted surface of the hull is quite high) but can be overcome
by spray rail and bulwark, which have anti spray characteristic, hence wetness will be avoided.
The section pounds less than other of equal deadrise because it is less likely to contact the water
on large area at the same time.

4.3.2 Concave Section shape

This shape in inherently considered as a dry section, but it is found to be very hard riding
shape. Owing to the fact that the hollow area underneath almost always ‘packets’ the water and
produces impacts, it is hence to be known to have a very high riding shape.

Depth of concave/convex section are extremely important, too much depth reduces
reduce some
damping coefficients and may adversely other parameters.


4.3.3 Straight Section Shape

These shapes are found to be about as good as any section shapes by some model testers,
when transverse section is considered, this opinion has some degree of merit by
b its own. But
when the entire forebody surface produced by straight section is considered, it because evident
that this section shapes have all the concave and convex section shape i.e they produce a wet
pounding boat.

4.3.4 Inverted Bell Section shape

This section is designed as the constant force sections. The advantage is that the rounded keel
does not pound, but the disadvantage is that the shape produces a strong tendency to directional
instability. This shape needs an external centerline keel and low spray
spray strips to break up the cross
flow as to avoid the directional instability.


4.3.5 Spray Stripes Shape

With these spray stripes at the bottom, they may lead to the flow separated especially for
high deadrise boats and hence perform antispray characteristics.
characteristics. This allow the possibility of the
craft planning on a wide bottom in preplanning regime (low speeds) and on narrow bottom at
high speed.




5.1 Planing hull

To be able to develop or improve such theory, it is important to learn and study about the
hull nature first. One of the planning hull criteria is to generate a hydrodynamic lift, which
contributes to the reduction of the wave-making component thus increase the efficiency.
Unfortunately, comes with this advantage, planing hull invites other problem such as augmented
slamming, porpoising, and dynamical heel. High-speed planing craft also generates spray with
impact pressure at the bow region. It is important in planing craft study to consider the spray
generated because the ratio of spray mass to the boat mass is big compared to other type of
vessel. At very high speed, the effect of spray, the quantity and not to mention the pressure
produced becomes more obvious and should not be taken lightly. The direction of the spray will
induce the position of the pressure to its maximum level.

Hassan Ghasemi and Mahmoud Ghiasi (2007) in their study about a combined method
for the hydrodynamic characteristics of planing crafts, they have studied the effect of spray
resistance on four different models by using the boundary element method to analyze the


hydrodynamics of the model. In the end of their study, they come up with conclusions as

• Comparison of the pressure distribution for the three models shows that a concave
planing model may give further lift and induce resistance relative to the other
• The practical method is very effective for estimating the spray resistance.
• It is calculated that the hydrodynamic lift to weight ratio (L/W) is about 65% and
85% at Fn of 3.35 and 5.0, respectively.
• Greater emphasis on numerical computation of the jump pressure due to the spray
is recommended as an alternative to the present practical method

Where else, Muller-Graf claims that well shaped and properly arranged spray rail, if
combine with a transom wedge, are the most effective devices to reduce the hull resistance of
given semi-displacement round bilge hull. It is also state that the advanced spray rail system
(ASRS), developed in the Berlin Model Basin, combine with a wedge, leads to remarkable
power saving, which are larger than those obtained by each component solely. Additionally, the
seakeeping qualities of round bilge hulls are improved by this special spray rail system and the
apparent loss of metacentric height of this hull type at high speeds can be reduces considerably


5.2 Spray rail

By knowing the flow nature on the hull, the designer is able to improve the boat
performance by doing some modification or adjustment on the hull. This modification is usually
in the form of rail or strake. The use of spray rail has proven that the maneuvering of the craft
has increased. Spray rail is a horizontal profile on the hull, the function is to spray out water and
reduce the added mass thus increase the lift force and hydrofoil effect. When more of the craft
hull is above the water surface, the resistance and drag force is less and thus increase the craft
speed. ITTC (1984) suggests that semi-displacement round-bilge hulls should be tested with
spray rails, in order to avoid substantial increase of the wetted surface area which could reach 50
to 60 % of the wetted surface area at rest. The effect of stern wedges and controllable flaps (trim
tabs) could decrease 5% in resistance for 0.4 < Fn < 0.45 and up to 11% for 0.5 < Fn < 0.9.

Andi Haris Muhammad (2008) has done research on the effect of spray-strake on
maneuvering performance of a planing hull patrol vessel and conclude that the use of Spray-
strake improve the aspect of maneuvering depending on the position, shape and angle of the
strake. Muller-Graf (1991) claims that well shaped and properly arranged spray rails, if
combined with transom wedge, are the most effective devices to reduce the hull resistance of
given semi-displacement round bilge hulls. It is also stated that the advance spray rail system
(ASRS), developed in the Berlin Model Basin, combined with a wedge, leads to remarkable
power saving, which are larger than those obtained by each component solely. Additionally, the
sea-keeping qualities of round bilge hulls are improved by this special spray rail system and the
apparent loss of metacentric height of this hull type at high speed can be reduced considerably.

Even though the rail on the hull is the same through out the entire hull but it serves for
many purposes. Rail located at the side of the bow is to create spray separates the water from the
hull or else the water will stick to the hull and become additional mass. This type of rail is known
as spray-rail or spray-strake. Rail located at the bottom of the hull is designed to keep the craft in
its course while in a high speed. The use of the rail is also able to improve the lateral stability
and reduce the rolling tendency of the craft.


Yushu Washio (1995) in his patent document, titled high-speed lateral-stability hull
construction with patent number 5,425,525 has designed various style and position of rail on
hull. The design is to provide a hull of a single-hulled ship having a transom and either a chine or
round bilge, which suppresses wake and exhibits excellent lateral stability even at high speed.
The design also has the capability to produce a restoring force to counter large-amplitude rolling.

Figure 7: A former hull type (on left) and the later hull type (on right) [Yushu Washio, 1995]

In figure xx, the former hull is designed to employ a chine to form a squarish bilge while
the later hull design is to employ a slender hull. In addition, for the later hull design, to prevent
waves from washing up along a surface of the hull or spray from arising at the bow region during
high speed navigation, it is common to install a small reaction flap or spray strip as shown in
figure 8.


Figure 8: Implementation of spray strip [Yus

hu Washio, 1995]


5.3 Designing a spray rail

Although there is various design of spray strip in hull design, there are still no formal
steps and guide line in designing a spray strip. The entire existing spray strip nowadays is
designed based on the designer experience. Though there are many research and study about the
effect of spray strip that can be used as a guideline such as presented by Muller-Graf (1991) in
which he did a test on the effect of various geometry of spray strip for semi-displacement hulls.
The geometry description of the spray rail can be seen in figure 9.

The spray rail had a triangular cross-section with constant bottom width bSR=0.0055LWL.
Transversal slope of spray rail, (β), where located at the bottom of the rail and the horizontal line
with angle 00 < β < 450. Break angle of spray rail, ζ > 900. Height of rail above DWL (hSR) can be
calculated in figure 10..

Figure 9: Example of spray rail geometry. (Muller-Graf, 1991)


Figure 10: Guideline to determine the rail high. (Muller-Graf, 1991)


5.4 Wedge

Figure XX: Definitions of Wedge

Wedge is an appendix on vessel located at aft and bottom as shown in figure above.

Wedge angle Æ is measured relatively to the buttock line slope. The wedge’s aft edge can be
obtain by the equation propose by Predrag Bojovie and Prasanta K. Sahoo :

© = tanI ÇÈ ÈÊ
‚É I‚)
yÉ Iy)

xË = x + (ÌD − Ì ). tan(© − Æ)





6.1 Introduction

This case study was taken form the experiments were performed in the Clearwater
Towing Tank at the National Research Council of Canada's Institute for Marine Dynamics and
consisted of a series of resistance tests with a planing craft. Model scale experiments were done
to collect data to validate developments in computational fluid dynamics methods. Tests were
done over a range of speeds and in 6 different ballast configurations (displacement and
longitudinal center of gravity). Measurements were made of tow force, running trim and sinkage,
hull pressures, wetted surface area, and wave profiles. Additional tests were done to measure the
boundary layer thickness at two locations along the hull using a laser Doppler velocimeter. These
were done for four speeds in a single ballast configuration. The boundary layer at each position
and at each speed was delineated using about 20 runs.


6.2 Model & Tow Arrangement

6.2.1 Planing Boat Model

The hull shape used in the experiments discussed in this paper was a 1:8 scale model of a
full scale vessel currently in operation. It was constructed out of carbon fiber reinforced plastic
strengthened with transverse and longitudinal stiffeners, a watertight bulkhead near the stern, and
a shear deck with coaming. A plastic splash guard cover was fitted during tests.
The hull surface, shown in Figure 1, was marked with station numbers on the bottom and port
side. Knife edges extending 1mm from the hull surface, were fitted along the chines to promote
flow separation. The hull was not prismatic but did have a simple shape as shown in Figure 2.
This cross section was constant from the transom for about 2/3 the length of the hull (covering
the wetted length of the model for all ballast conditions when planing). A small flat bottom area
at the centerline turns to a low deadrise of 5.9°. This deadrise then turns sharply to 40.8° near the
chine (see Figure 2).

Figure 1. Model Hull (LOA = 1.475m)


Figure 2. Model Hull Cross Section

6.2.2 Tow Arrangement

The model was fitted to the tow carriage using a gimbal and yaw restraint. Tow force was
transmitted from the heave post through a linear bearing to an ‘S’-shaped load cell (max. load =
50 lb.) and then through a universal joint to the model (see Figure 3). The universal joint allowed
the model to pitch and roll freely and the heave post was free to move vertically in the tow post
arrangement. The model was prohibited from rotating about the heave post by a yaw restraint
which was counterbalanced so that it did not affect the ballast. The tow arrangement is shown in
Figure 4.


Figure 3. Gimbal. Figure 4. Tow Arrangement.


6.3 Test Program

The test program consisted of two phases. The first phase focused on testing the effects of
different ballast conditions over a range of speeds. Measurements were made of tow force,
running trim, sinkage, hull pressures, wetted surface areas, and wave profiles. The second phase
was performed solely at the design ballast condition, and was used to measure boundary layer
velocity profiles below the hull surface using a laser Doppler velocimeter (LDV).

As planing craft performance is sensitive to ballast condition, tests were performed over a
range of displacements and locations of the longitudinal center of gravity (LCG). These
conditions are given in Table 1, which also shows the static trim angles of the model. The first
column lists the three displacements (design displacement ±15%) and the first row lists the three
LCG positions (design LCG ±7%). LCG position was referenced from the transom base.

A plan view of the model hull bottom is given in Figure 5 showing the relative locations of
the LDV windows, pressure transducers (labeled P1 through P9), tow point, and LCGs.

Displacement LCG =0.49m LCG =0.53m LCG = 0.57m

25.2 kg - 1.0o -

29.6 kg 2.0o 1.1o 0.4o

33.9 kg - 1.3o -

Table 1. Static trim angle for ballast conditions,


Figure 5. Instrument Positions in Model


6.4 Results

6.4.1 Resistance

The resistance curves for the model were typical for a planing vessel and had the
characteristic ‘hump’ speed at the onset of planing. Figure 6 shows the resistance results for the
various ballast conditions. Only the design condition was tested over the full speed range. The
curves closest to the design condition show the effect of a 7%change of LCG (both fore and aft)
on resistance, while the two more distant curves show the effect of a 15% change in

Figure 6. Model Scale Resistance.


6.4.2 Running Trim

Trim angle is an important factor in planing craft performance as it changes the geometry of the
hull relative to the water. The running trim angles for this model followed similar trends as the
resistance curves, clearly identifying the ‘hump’ speed at which planing begins. Shown in Figure
7 are the absolute running trims for the various ballast conditions.

Figure 7. Running Trim.


It can be seen from the plots that the different ballast conditions were not tested to the same
maximum speeds. For instance, the aft LCG ballast condition was only tested to 6.0 m/s and the
forward LCG condition was tested to8.0 m/s. This occurred because the model was prone to
dynamic instability, or propoising, at high speeds. The aft

LCG position made the model susceptible to this instability at speeds above 6.0 m/s and
therefore it was not tested beyond that limit.

Another way of presenting the running trim results is to plot the change in trim angle developed
at speed from the static trim angle at rest (given in Table 1). This plot, Figure 8, shows that when
in the planing regime, the threshold above which porpoising occurred was when the change in
trim angle dropped below approximately 2.1°. More details of the porpoising characteristics of
this model can be found in Thornhill et al. (2000).

Figure 8. Change in Trim.


6.4.3 Sinkage Results

Sinkage refers to the change in the vertical position of the model at speed and was
measured using an LVDT (linear voltage differential transducer) mounted on top of the heave
post (see Figure 4). Shown below in Figure 9 is the sinkage profile for the design ballast
condition. Also given in the figure is the trim profile for this condition.

These are presented together because sinkage is related to trim angle (the model did not
necessarily rotate about the tow point where sinkage was measured). At low speeds, the model
began to trim by the stern and sank downwards in the water. As it climbed its bow wave, trim
peaked and then began to decrease while the model continued to rise upwards. At high speeds,
trim angle continued to decrease while the vertical position leveled off to approximately 3.5cm
above its original position.

Figure 9. Sinkage and Trim Results.


6.4.5 Hull Pressures

Hull pressures on the model were measured using 9 pressure taps mounted flush to the hull
bottom at various locations. Several of these pressure taps malfunctioned during tests while
others encountered relatively high levels of noise. The final results could not therefore be relied
upon for specific quantitative information of the pressure distribution on the hull. They can,
however, be used to show the range of pressure on the hull and identify certain trends that
developed with increasing model speed. The most notable of these are shown in Figure 10.

Figure 10. Hull Pressure at Two Locations.

The figure gives the results from two pressure transducers located fore and aft at the same
longitudinal plane in the model (P1 and P6 shown in Figure 5). The forward transducer records
increasing pressure with increasing speed, while the aft transducer shows the opposite trend, with
negative pressure values at high speeds. These negative pressure values correspond to increased
flow velocities near the hull as discussed in a later section.


6.4.6 Wave Profiles

The surface wave profiles produced by the model at speed were captured by a transverse array of
capacitance probes located midway along the tow tank. The 23 probes were spaced 7 inches
apart, the first being 7 inches from the side of the model as it passed by. Sampled at 100 hz, the
time traces from the probes show the wave elevations at the various longitudinal cuts. A
proximity switch was used to correlate the position of the model with the probe data: when the
switch was triggered, the model’s bow was in line with the probe array. The probe array is
shown in Figure 11 attached to a beam fixed to the tank wall. An example of the data collected
from the probes is shown in Figure 12.

Figure 11. Wave Probe Array in Tank.

Figure 12. Wave Probe Data


6.4.7 Boundary Layer Velocity Profiles

The second phase of the experimental program was dedicated to determining velocity
profiles in the boundary layer at two locations for four different model speeds in the design
ballast condition. The measurements were made using a laser Doppler velocimeter (LDV) fitted
in the model. This instrument has several advantages over other more common techniques for
velocity measurements such as pitot tubes and hot-film anemometry. The primary advantage of
the LDV is its non-intrusiveness; only the laser beams enter the water, so they do not influence
the thin layer of fluid where measurements are being taken.

The LDV uses intersecting laser beams to make velocity measurements. Strictly
speaking, the LDV measures the velocity of particles in the flow and not the flow itself. A
particle, when traveling through the volume of intersection of the beams, reflects light as it
passes through an interference pattern of light and dark bands caused by the lasers of matching
wavelength. Processors in the LDV determine the frequency of this pulsating reflected light
picked up by sensors in the probe. As the distance between the interference bands is known, the
processor can then calculate the velocity of the particle. Numerous particle measurements are
averaged to determine the mean flow velocity.

Particles are added as “seed” to the flow and are generally in the size range of 0.5 – 5.0
microns. The measurement volume of the LDV depends on both the beam diameter and the angle
of intersection. For these experiments the volume was an ellipsoid 0.64 mm in height
(perpendicular to the hull) and 76 µm in diameter.

Seeding is an important part of LDV testing as it controls both the data rate (the number
of particles passing through the intersection volume per second) and validation (the percentage
of particles that could be processed into velocity measurements). For these experiments, seed
was added for each test by aiming a small stream of a concentrated water/seed mix in the path of
the model. Several types of seed were used, including silver-coated glass micro-balloons and
pre-sifted all-purpose flour. Data rates for the experiments ranged from 30 Hz to 3 kHz with
validation between 60-95%. Typical values for most tests were data rates around 500 Hz with
75% validation.

The set-up for the experiments had the LDV probe mounted inside the model on a set of
micrometer tables used to locate the probe for each measurement. The probe faced downward
and projected the lasers through a small acrylic window in the hull. The beams intersected at a
point just below the window where a measurement was taken (see Figure 13). The micrometer
tables were used to precisely position the probe at different positions within the boundary layer.
A single run of the carriage was used to measure the velocity of each point in the boundary layer
at each model speed. Successive runs were needed to resolve the velocity profile for a given
model speed.


Figure 13. LDV Mount.

Raw data from a typical test is given in Figure 14. It shows the acceleration, constant
speed, and deceleration portions of the run. The figure also shows that the raw velocity data fell
onto equally spaced discrete values (seen as bands of points). This feature is an artifact of the
LDV’s internal processors that determine the particle velocities.

The width between these bands can be changed, but doing so also alters the range of
velocities which can be measured. A smaller bandwidth results in a smaller velocity range. These
experiments used a bandwidth of approximately 0.1 m/s.


Figure 14. Typical LDV Data.

Boundary layer velocity profiles for two positions on the hull for each of four model
speeds (4 m/s, 5 m/s, 6 m/s and 6.5 m/s) were measured. Results for the model speed of 4 m/s are
given below in Figure 15.

Figure 15. Boundary Layer Velocities (Vm = 4 m/s).


The results from these measurements clearly show the boundary layer velocity form,
thickness, and the free stream velocity for both of the two locations at each speed tested (for a
total of 8 profiles). In the figure, the forward position shows a boundary layer thickness of about
4 mm with a free stream velocity equal to the model velocity.

The aft position shows that the boundary layer had grown thicker and that the flow
achieved a greater free stream velocity, exceeding that of the model speed. This is consistent
with the negative pressures measured in the aft region of the hull. Profiles at the other model
speeds tested were qualitatively similar as those shown in Figure 15. The percentage increase in
free stream velocity from the forward to the aft position decreased as the model speed increased
(trim angle also decreased). The boundary layer thickness also decreased with increasing model

This drop in pressure and increase in speed in the after region of the hull can be partially
explained by taking into consideration the potential head due to depth of immersion, a factor that
is omitted in simple classical planing theory which predicts only positive pressures over the
length of a planing surface. However, the pressure drops and speed increases for the
corresponding trim and sinkage conditions were somewhat larger than expected from this cause
alone. It is planned to investigate this behaviour further using CFD simulations.

The positions of the forward and aft measurement positions relative to the leading edge of the
wetted hull area for a given model speed are shown below in Figure 16.

Figure 16. Vessel Attitude (4 m/s).


One difficulty with the technique used to determine the boundary layer velocity profile
was the determination of the reference or zero position of the hull surface. The procedure for
finding this zero position consisted of systematically moving the measurement point closer to the
lens until the photo-detectors gave an overload error.

This meant that the measurement volume was inside the lens, and that the beams were
reflecting directly back to the detectors. It was, however, possible that measurements could be
taken with a small portion of the measurement volume inside of the lens, without overloading the
photo-detectors. The size of this overlap could not be determined.

The orientation of the probe meant that the largest dimension of the measurement volume
(0.64mm) was perpendicular to the hull. It was assumed that measurements could not be made if
more than half of the measurement volume was inside the lens. This gives an uncertainty in the
hull zero position for the LDV measurements of approximately 0.32mm. The shape of the
profiles is not affected by this bias, which would shift the entire curve up or down.

Another result from the analysis of the raw LDV data came from the standard deviations
of the samples used to calculate the mean flow velocities. Shown Figure 17, the standard
deviations followed a similar trend as the velocities. High standard deviations were measured
close to the hull, while in the free stream they leveled off. The higher values close to the hull can
be attributed to two primary factors: turbulence and velocity gradient. Wall bounded turbulence
in the boundary layer can cause fluctuations in velocity that would result in increased standard
deviation. The large velocity gradient close to the hull would also result in increased standard
deviation since a broader range of velocities spanning from the bottom to the top of the
measurement volume would have been captured.


Figure 17. Standard Deviations from LDV Data.


Tests were performed on a 1/8 scale model of a planing vessel to generate a set of
performance data to be used in future validation of numerical simulations. Sample results were
presented for the measurements of resistance, running trim, sinkage, hull pressures, wave
profiles, and boundary layer velocity profiles. Resistance and running trim results showed
characteristics common to planing craft. Hull pressures were found to increase in the forward
part of the hull but decrease and become negative in the aft. Boundary layer thicknesses were
found to increase in the direction of flow and to decrease with increasing model speeds as
expected. Velocities measured just outside the boundary layer were found to be greater than free
stream in the aft part of the hull, showing an acceleration from the forward position.



BERTRAM, V. (2000), Practical ship hydrodynamics, Butterworth+Heinemann, Oxford

BLOUNT, D.L.; CLEMENT, E.P. (1963), Resistance tests of a systematic series of planing hull
forms, SNAME 71, pp.491-579

CODEGA, L.; LEWIS, J. (1987), A case study of dynamic instability in a planing hull, Marine
Technology 24/2, pp.143-163

SCHNEEKLUTH, H.; BERTRAM, V. (1998), Ship design for efficiency and economy,
Butterworth+Heinemann, Oxford

Thornhill E., Veitch B., Bose N., “Dynamic Instability of a High Speed Planing Boat Model”.
Marine Technology, July 2000.

Savitsky D., “Hydrodynamic Design of Planing Hulls”, Marine Technology, vol. 1, no. 1, pp. 71
– 95, October 1964.

Du Cane P., High Speed Small Craft 3rd Ed. Temple Press Books, London. 1964.

Payne P.R., Design of High Speed Boats Volume 1: Planing. Fishergate Inc. Annapolis. 1988.

Dr Mohamad Pauzi Abdul Ghani (2010), Small Craft Technology, UTM.