Achievements with Advanced Craft

ABSTRACT Progress in the perfor-

Introduction
n c r e a s e d demand for speed in surface craft has g e n e r a t e d i n t e r e s t in vessels supported by dynamic forces. Therefore, planing monohulls, catamarans, stepped hulls, surface effect vessels, etc., have to a great extent replaced displacement hulls. This emphasis on speed has resulted in a larger portion of a projects costs being dedicated to the propulsion machinery and development of hydrodynamically efficient and light-weight s t r u c t u r a l hull forms. The selection of a hull concept is not made solely on the basis of calm water efficiency. Other complex and interactive factors must be evaluated to confirm that one hull form is superior to its alternatives. Economics often becomes the controlling factor in developing a successful project and must include all vessel development costs, the shore facilities, the number and/or size of the vessels dedicated to the operation, the operational e x p e n s e s and long t e r m rnaintenarxe. The ride quality, maneuverability and control of the vessel in expected sea conditions a r e also significant factors. In addition, the volume and weight of the payload and the ease of loading or off-loading affect the utility of a concept and its suitability for the specified service. In order to develop a new vessel, the requirements for its intended service must be quantified such that the designer can proceed with a comparative evaluation of various combinations of hull forms and propulsion systems. These requirements must also be considered in light of the operating environment such as sea and atmospheric conditions. Table 1
NAVAL EN G I N EERS J OU R N AL

mance of advanced craft and the merits of various hull forms differ with respect to the technological maturity of each concept. Full-scale, calm water trial data of speed and power for known displacement transport efficiency is used to compare the optimum performance of several hull forms such as planing, round bilge, stepped, catamaran and SES. Transport efficiency comparisons for a W i d e range of dimensionless speeds have been updated for trial results through the beginning of 1993. Trends that demonstrate increased transport efficiency are discussed when sufficient information is available to define resistance to weight ratios and overall propulsive efficiencies. Finally, data for useful load fraction, defined as the combination of payload and fuel weight relative to design full load displacement are presented for hard chine and SES craft.

highlights several design considerations that can be influenced by these environmental conditions; they are also depicted in Figure 1 as a speedwave height diagram. T o make credible comparisons from the various configurations, a consistent approach must account for hull drag, interactive factors and propulsive characteristics. The study methodology must lead to designs with sufficient dimensional information to make justifiable cost and/or technical decisions. For example, optimum planing monohulls and catamarans are apt to have different overall dimen~~ ~

Donald Blount has extensive experi-

ence as a naval architect and marine engineerfocusing on technologiesfor highspeed boats and craft. During his fvofessional career he has co-authored and presented more than fourteen papers to various technical societies in the United States and Eurhpe. He is presently a principal of Donald L. Blount and Associates, Inc., a private practice located in No$olk, Virginia. He serves as the design manager of Destriero, the 68-metergas turbine vessel holding the non-refueledAtlantic ocean crossing record at 53.1 knots. Mr Blaunt retired in 1990 after 35 years as a civilian employee of the United States N a y during which he was Head of the Combatant Craft Engineering Department, Head of the Design Branch, and Technical Manager for Research at Naval Sea Systems Command. For 15 years prior to that, he was with the David Taylor Research Centel: Ml: Blount is a fellow in both the Society of Naval Architects and Marine Engineers and The Rcyal Institution of s a member of the Naval Architects and i American Society o f Naval Engineers. He i s a registered Professional Engineer in Virginia, North Carolina and Florida. Mr Blount received a B.S. degree in Mechanical Engineering from George Washington Universi&in 1963.

September 1994

49

Achievements with Advanced Craft

Boundaries of Operation for Intended Service in Required Sea Conditions

LIMIT

EXAMPLES OF CONTROLLING CONDITIONS

Survival Ride Quality Power Structu ra I Dynamic Stability

Wind-heel static stability-damage

stability

Passenger comfort, equipment operation, accelerations, motions, durability of cargo and packing Propulsion systems-characteristics t o meet severe combinations of speed and displacement, fuel rate Classification rules, expected structural loads and margins Maneuvering and control in quartering seas, dynamic transverse stability, pitch down (stuffing), porpoising, chine wa Iki ng

sions when designed for the same operational requirement. This paper documents the progress and achievements of advanced craft based on the authors experiences. These achievements are described in terms of overall performance efficiency, propulsive efficiency, and useful load carrying capacity. Since improvements are expected to continue as more advanced craft enter service, the benchmarks noted in this paper could serve as the current baseline for measuring evolution. As a final introductory note, Appendix A defines and briefly discusses vessel speeds in dimensionless format. For making comparisons of hull form and propulsor characteristics, a clear definition of the dimensionless speed format and its implications is necessary. Also, Appendix B defines a format for comparing various size vessels with respect to hydrodynamic loading, i. e. the footprint of the hull on the water surface.

weight ratio and propulsive efficiency. It is clear that E.,. increases by improving overall propulsive efficiency, q, and/or reducing the bare hull resistance to weight ratio, (RNV),,.
(Metric)

(English)

Figure 2 presents trial data as E-,. versus F,,, for selected hard chine craft to demonstrate the value of this format and significant achievements made by designers and shipbuilders. As seen in this figure, both efficient and inefficient craft have entered service. Some of the less successful vessels may be the result of inflexible design requirements o r constraints which prohibit integration of state-ofthe-art technology into various components of a vessel. Typical performance of hard chine craft in service is approximately 70% of the best calm water transport efficiency depicted in Figure 2. Thus, for new projects, it is useful to identify those aspects that may improve overall vehicle efficiency if some owner requirements a r e altered. In many cases, when presented with these findings, owners may be willing to revise their needs assuming performance will be improved. The relative calm water performance of craft depicted in Figure 3

Explanation of Variables Used in This Paper

- Projected area bounded by the chine and transom A, BOA -Overall Beam B, - Projected chine beam C, - V/BP3-Beam load coefficient D - Propeller diameter E, - q/(W),,-Transport efficiency - v/(g x B,)1/2-Beam Froude number F, - v/(g x V1/3)1/2-V~I~me Froude number F,, - Depth of propulsor below water surface H -Significant wave height H,,, - Propeller advance coefficient based on thrust measurements J, g -Acceleration due t o gravity LOA -Overall length L, - Projected chine length -Total shaft power for propulsion and dynamic lift P , R - Bare hull resistance t -Thrust deduction fraction v -Velocity of craft - Resultant velocity of flow at t i p of propeller v, W -Weight of displaced water a t rest W, -Thrust wake fraction q -Total (overall) propulsive efficiency - Efficiency of propulsor in absence of hull influence qo q , -Appendage drag factor q , - Relative rotative efficiency A - Displacement of craft a t rest V -Volume of displaced water a t rest - Cavitation number at a depth of H below the static water surface uH - Cavitation number based on resultant velocity at propeller tip uR

Performance Comparison
Full-scale trial performance defined by speed, total of propulsive and dynamic lift power and vessel weight can be combined into a transport efficiency, E,,., and a dimensionless speed, F,,,. This format provides a useful approach to discuss relative craft performance as well as the separate trends of bare hull resistance to
50

September 1994

NAVAL ENGINEERS JOURNAL

Achievements with Advanced Craft

are included for comparison where data for full-scale trial speed power and displacement have been made avadable. These data relating to craft from 5.5 to 68 meters (18 to 222 feet) in length have been reduced to a dimensionless format, with no Reynolds' corrections applied. The curves of E,. for each hull concept in Figure 4 were obtained from fullscale, calm water trial data of numerous military, commercial and recreational craft. These curves represent the upper boundaries of efficient performance for each concept as depicted in the example for hard chine craft in Figure 2. It is worth noting that sigmficant improvements occurred from 1975 to early 1993 in transport efficiency for hard chine monohulls in all speed ranges. This progress is indicated in Figure 5. Because this graphic is defined in log-log scales the results can be seen most clearly by evaluating the percentage improvements in E,. Analysis of the individual craft indicate that reduction in RNV generally contributed to increasing E.,. for F,, 51.5. For F,, > 1.5, improved E-,. was achieved almost entirely by increasing q.

I
(3

w *

\' : . ' .
I

\ -*,

SPEED
F I G U R E 1 SpeedWave Height Diagram

Overall Propulsive Efficiency

There are several propulsors used to propel high-speed craft. The majority of vessels in operation utilize submerged propellers, surface propellers, or waterjets. However, the number and type of thrusters as well as the type of maneuvering system may vary on each craft. A large number of advanced vessels have propellers on an inclined shaft with a strut ahead and a rudder aft. As the design speed of a craft increases, the shaft angle relative to the hull must be reduced to minimize loss o f efficiency A variation on the inclined shaft propulsion may require incorporation of a hull tunnel in order to permit use of a small shaft angle, to reduce operating draft and to allow

the engines to be placed in an appropriate location for longitudinal center of gravity Waterjets are being utilized on large high speed vessels with increasing frequency. In some applications, waterjets may be the only propulsors to offer steering, reversing, quietness and shallow draft in a single system. While waterjet efficiencies are increasing for high horsepower units, steering and reversing capabilities for more than 14,900 kW (20,000 horsepower) are yet to be demonstrated on an operational vessel. Efficient examples are available of surface propellers mounted close to the transom andlor on shafts extended aft of the transom. For steering, some surface propellers are on articulated shafts and others have rudders which are often located aft of
NAVAL E N G I N E E R S J O U R N A L

the propeller. A pair of surface propellers each with input of 4,800 kW (6,500 horsepower) may be the highest powered units demonstrated on an operational craft. Due to a small database, ddference in the efficiency of the propulsors relative to a hull concept cannot be absolutely defined. However, when fullscale power measurements and model test data are available, it is possible to establish reasonable bandwidths of achievable overall propulsive coefficients. Figure 6 presents the author's experience based on values resulting from instrumented full-scale trials. When efficient performance is the sole criterion, submerged propellers are the preferred choice for applications 25 knots (13 mis) or less and waterjets the preferred choice for applications 43 knots (22 mis) or more.
September 1994

51

Achievements with Advanced Craft

I
I

FW
Transport Efficiency for Selected Hard Chine Craft

the operational requirements for maximum speed. The interactive factors for estimating overall propulsive efficiency for each propulsor concept have a relatively small bandwidth and vary with speed as seen in Table 2. Whde propulsor characteristics are related to thrust loading and cavitation number, the interactive propulsive factors are mfluenced to a large extent by the proximity of the hull. Thus, the data in Table 2 is organized by the dimensionless speed of F,, related to the significant aspects of hydrodynamics for the hull. When evaluating various propulsor concepts, it is important to apply the appropriate interactive factors such as wake, relative rotative efficiency and propulsor pressure field relative to their impact on bare hull drag and trim. Should a propulsor develop significant vertical or transverse forces, an unfavorable interaction with the hull could alter dynamic stability to an unacceptable level. The overall propulsive efficiency is related to these interactive factors in the following manner:

FIGURE 2

Between these speeds, waterjets should be given serious consideration. However, in all situations for selecting propulsors hull motions in rough seas, thrust production at hump speed, hydro-acoustics, cost and reliability must also be considered. By defining (R/W),, and q separately over the entire operating speed range, the technical risks associated either w i t h the speed-drag characteristics of a hull concept or the speedperformance of a propulsor may be critically evaluated. At the same time, it is especially important to be aware of hull drag and thrust characteristics of the propulsors when a craft transitions from displacement speeds to a dynamically supported condition. Dynamically supported craft could have a high thrust loadmg condition more demanding at transition speed than
52

R a r m BILE

HARD CHI&

STEFFUJ

SES

CATAMARAN

F I G U R E 3 Typical Sections for Advanced Craft

NAVAL ENGIWEERS JOURNAL

September 1994

Achievements with Advanced Craft

I Y
I

P
n
t

m ).ma-

d d d d

Fnv

H - M

FIGU R E 4

Upper Boundaries of Calm Water Transport Efficiency

NAVAL E N G I N E E R S J O U R N A L
September 1994 53

Achievements with Advanced Craft

Useful Load Fraction (UW

The useful load Provides a means to make unbiased comparisons between several craft concepts and is d & ~ d as the total weight required for fuel

and payload. This approach is helpful to evaluate the suitability of a craft when considering its operational requirements: duration, range, payload, personnel and equipment. If the operation requires the transport of a large, low-density payload, then use-

ful load should be expanded to include hull volumetric characteristics and/or the available deck area. The ULF is defined as follows: ULF
=

(Fuel Payload) (Full Load Displacement)

DISPLACEMENT

PLANING

Fnv
F IGU R E 5

Increasing Trends in Transport Efficiency for Hard Chine Craft

54

September 1994

NAVAL ENGINEERS JOURNAL

Achievements with Advanced Craft

In most cases, the ULF was derived from a buildmg yard's weight reports. Weight estimates for selected vessels were validated by load cells or draft readings at the time of inclining experiments or sea trials and were sigdicant in developing Figure Z

In many cases when instrumented sea trials were conducted, speed and power measurements were taken for light, design and overload displacements. Thus, two curves a r e depicted for ULF versus F,,,; one for design and one for the overload con-

dition. These curves represent the best load carrying capability for hard chine, monohulls and SES vessels operating in calm water. It can be assumed that ULF will be lower than that depicted in Figure 7 for complex craft requiring additional

d;; (H=O)

F I C U R E 6 Achievable Overall Propulsive Coefficients for Several Propulsors

NAVAL ENGINEERS J O U R N A L

September 1994

55

Achievements with Advanced Craft

Typical Propulsive Coefficients for High Speed Craft

SPEED RANGE PROPULSION CONCEPT Propeller on Inclined Shaft 6 Degree Shaft 12 Degree Shaft Propeller in Tunnel 40% D 65% D Outboard & Outdrive Propeller Partially Submerged Propeller Flush Inlet Waterjet Tractor Propeller Pusher Propeller (Under Hull) DISPLACEMENT F.4 SEMI-PLANING lrFn,s2.5
I)R

PLANING F,r> 2.5

I)R

wt
0.01 to -0.02 0.02 t o -0.02 0.01 0.05 0.10 0.12
0 0

wt

wt

I)R

0.97to1.01 Oto0.04 0.97 t o 1.01 0.04 t o -0.05 0.92 0.92 0.02 to -0.03 Oto0.05

0.01tO0.02 0.97to1.01 O t O -0.10 0.05 t o 0.07 0.97 t o 1.01 0.03 t o -0.05 0.07 to 0.10 0.93 t o 0.90 0.03 0.10t00.12 0.93t00.90 0.04t00.05
0 0

0.03 0.07 t o 0.11 0.03 t o 0.07 0.08to0.10

0

0.97 to 1.01 0.97 t o 1.01

-0,03
-0.03
0.03

0.88t00.90 0.97 t o 1.01 0.97 to 1.01

0.97 to 1.01 0.03 0.97 t o 1.01 0 0.02 to 0.04 1.00

0.97 to 1.01 0.03 0.97 to0.98 0 0.05 1.00

0 0 t o 0.02 0
0.05 to 0.07

0
-0.02 to -0.07

0 to 0.08
0 to 0.05

0.05

0 to 0.05

0 t o 0.05
0.05

1.00 0.97 t o 1.01

0.05 t o 0.07 0.97 t o 1.01 0.05 to 0.07

0.05 to 0.07 0.97 t o 1.01 0.05 t o 0.07

.a

0.e
0.0 0.7

0.6

a. s
0.4

a. 5

0.2

0. I 0.09

0.m

systems for dynamic support and structure related to each concept. These two factors increase the light ship weight fraction relative to that achievable by monohulls. The achievements of planing vessels with regard to carrying capacity are quite remarkable. Useful load fractions of 50% have been demonstrated for F,, > 3 and even ULF = 25% is possible for F,, = 5. SES vessels with ULF of 40% to 47% have been demonstrated by sea trials for F,, 5 5. The rapid drop of ULF with increasing F,, is not an exclusive characteristic of hard chine craft. The same trend can be observed for other dynamically supported craft. Furthermore, new construction advanced craft do not always achieve their design ULF as a result of selecting hull dimensions for an optimistic light ship weight.

?nv

Discussion
There is much to be learned from the comparison of calm water transport

F I G U R E 7 Achievable Useful Load Fractions

56

September 1994

NAVAL ENGINEERS JOURNAL

Achievements with Advanced Craft

efficiency for various hull concepts described in Figure 4. These data represent the best performance from carefully conducted sea trials and do not include model experimental or theoretical study results. However, it is important to remember that these data are just one of the considerations with regard to selecting the optimum hull concept. Figure 4, may be considered for selection of a hull concept for a single design speed performance. Viewed from this perspective, the choices for the primary and secondary hull concepts at each F,, are summarized in Table 3. It is clear that SES and hard chine hulls a r e the competitive choices for a wide range of speeds. However, commercial, paramilitary or rmlitary vessels seldom have a single speed performance requirement. Thus, selecting a hull solely on that basis could result in an inappropriate choice when other factors or requirements are considered. Analysis of the E, trends with increasing F,, offers insight into the characteristics of each hull concept. For example, stepped hulls have greater efficiency a t very high speeds. However, they have more complex thrust requirements in order to accelerate from displacement to dynamically supported conditions and must be fitted with a longitudinal trim control capability to operate in load carrying service. E,. for round bilge hulls decreases at a greater rate above semi-planing speeds than do hard chine hulls. E,,.

for SES hulls is nearly constant for lower speeds and reduces with increasing speed above F,, of 2.5. Of the hulls discussed, the SES is the superior configuration when calmwater requirements dictate dimensionless speeds, F,,, between 1.6 and 3.0. The size and speed of various configurations play a signdicant part in the complex marriage of technologies when developing a craft to meet an owners requirements. This is demonstrated in the upper charts in Figure 4. For example, at F,,, = 2.0, those hull hydrodynamic factors sensitive to Froude scaling are the same for a 1 MT SES at 12 knots and a 1,000 MT SES at 38 knots. Several propulsors a r e available for the smaller vessel operating at IT,, = 5.0. However, a limited number of practical choices exist for the 1,000 MT vessel operating at u,, = 0.5. The preceding discussion of calm water transport efficiency E,, applies only to vessel speeds for a significant wave height of zero as seen in Figure 1. To make valid comparisons of marine vehicle configurations, all factors must be considered. It is imperative that a design study be undertaken to determine each hull concepts applicability for the operational requirements. The same speed-wave height diagram defining performance and the operating environment must be applied to all of the configurations. In most cases, the optimum vehicle for each hull concept will be dimensionally unique, and will have different

shore side interfaces and/or transportability needs, maintenance demands and life cycle expenses.
CONCLUDING REMARKS

The data presented herein addresses the comparative technologies associated with calm water performance demonstrated by operational craft. Achievements in transport efficiency, E.,., continue to improve as the boundaries of hull and propulsor technology are extended. Overall propulsive efficiencies continue to increase at high speeds especially attributable to flush inlet waterjets. ULF tends to increase at higher speeds as hull structures and propulsion machinery become more weight efficient. Smaller gains in ULF also result from improved engine fuel rates. Future commercial operations of advanced marine vehicles may well be concentrated in the range of 2.0 5 F,, 5 3.0 and rely upon improved useful load fractions, payload volume/ area and ride quality, i.e. larger vessels rather than very high speeds. The future of hyper-speed (Fn, 2 4.0) marine vehicles is likely to be in recreational, racing, security/paramilitary and special military operational services.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

I wish to express my thanks to those international organizations which shared the detailed weight and fullscale trial data contained in this paper. Also, I wish to thank the members of my staff for their contributions to bringing this effort to fruition. .E
BIBLIOGRAPHY [l] Blount, D.L. Reflections on Planing Hull Technology, Presented to 5th

Hull Concept Choices Based on Figure 4

SPEED

FnT

PRIMARY

SECONDARY

1 2

3 4
5

6 7 8
9 10

Round Bilge SES SES SES SES SES Stepped Stepped Stepped Stepped

Hard Chine Hard Chine Hard Chine Hard Chine Stepped Stepped Hard Chine Hard Chine

SNAME Power Boat Symposium, February 1993. [a] Blount, D. L. and E. Bjarne, Design and Selection o f Propulsors for HighSpeed Craft, Paper Presented to the 7th Lips Propeller Symposium, Nordwijk, The Netherlands, 1989. [3] Blount, D.L. and L.T. Codega, Dynamic Stability of Planing Boats, Marine Ethnology, January 1992.
September 1994 57

NAVAL ENGINEERS JOURNAL

Achievements with Advanced Craft

Blount, D.L. and D.L. Fox, Small Craft Power Predictions, Marine Echnology, January, 1976. Blount, D.L. and D.L. Fox, Design Considerations for Propellers in a Cavitating Environment, Marine Echnology, April, 1978. Blount, D.L. and D.W. Hankley, Full Scale Trials and Analysis of High-Performance Planing Craft Data, Transactions,SNAME, 1976. Blount, D.L. and E. Nadine Hubble, Sizing Segmental Section Commercially Available Propellers for Small Craft, SNAME Propellers 81 Symposium. ! and D.L. Blount, Clement, Eugene F Resistance Tests of a Systematic Series of Planing Hull Forms, Transactions, SNAME, 1963.

[lo] Dennx S.B. and A.R. Feller, Waterjet Propulsor Performance Predictions in Planing Craft Applications, DTRC Report SPD/O905-01, August 1979. [ l l ] Gabrielli, G. and T. von Karman, What Price Speed?, Mechanical Engineering, October 1950. [12] Gawn, R.W.L. andL.C. Burrill, Effect of Cavitation on the Performance of a Series of 16-Inch Model Propellers, Transactions, INA, Vol 99, 1957. [13] Hadler, J.B. The Prediction of Power Performance on Planing Craft, Transactions, SNAME, 1966. [14] Hadler, J.B. and E.N. Hubble, Prediction of Power Performance of the Series 62 Planing Hull Forms, Transactions, SNAME, 1971.

[15] Harbaugh, K.H. and D.L. Blount, An Experimental Study of a High Performance Tunnel Hull Craft, Transactions, SNAME, 1973. [16] Hoerner, S.E Fluid Dynamic Drag, published by the Author, Midland Park, NJ, 1965. [17] Mantle, F!J. Air Cushion Craft Development (First Revision), DTRC Report 80/012, January 1980. [18] Savitsky, D. Hydrodynamic Design of Planing Hulls, Marine Echnoloa, Vol. 1, No. 1, October 1964. [19] Savitsky, D.; J. Roper and L. Benen, Hydrodynamic Development of a High-speed Planing Hull for Rough Water, 9th Symposium of Naval Hydrodynamics, August 1972.

Appendix A
DIMENSIONLESS SPEED Advanced craft technology is speed and hull loading dependent. Two dimensionless speed coefficients have generally been used to document hydrodynamic trends for dynamically supported craft. As neither of these dimensionless speed coefficients is universally suitable for technical analysis, either one may be used as appropriate:

F, F,,

= =

F,, (V1/3/Bp)12

(4)
(5)

F,, (V1r3/L)1L

Volume Froude Number - F,, Beam Froude Number - F,

=

v/(g x V13)1rL (1) v/(g x Bp)lr2 (2)

C,

A third dimensionless coefficient based on waterline length is used for displacement and surface effect vehicles where wetted length is essentially constant throughout the operating speed range. This Froude number is related to speed-length ratio by a constant and is seldom used for planing craft. Length Froude Number
-

F,,

v/(g x L)

(3)

F, seems to best represent hydrodynamic phenomena at high speeds where the forebody is not in contact with the water surface. F,, best represents hydrodynamic phenomena for planing hulls as wetted length varies with speed and F,, is best suited for displacement vessels. The discussion regarding F,,, F, and F,, relates to dunensionless speed for significant aspects of hydrodynamics related to hull form. However, for propulsors a cavitation number, cr, must be considered as a significant dimensionless speed coefficient. Cavitation number, uH,based on vessel speed and depth of the propulsor below the water surface is most commonly used in reporting characteristics of propellers. An alternative cavitation number, uK, based on the resultant velocity of flow at the tip of a propeller has use whenever heavily loaded applications must include situations when a vessel is at rest such as bollard conditions.
aH =

F,, uses the cube root of the displaced volume as the linear measure for achieving a non-dimensional speed coefficient while F, uses the projected chine beam and F,, uses wetted length as the linear measure. Thus, F,, relates speed to total load on the water suggesting three dimensional effects, and F, and F,, respectively relate speed to the hydrodynamic beam and length. As a result, no direct comparison can be made for technology presented on F,,, F, or F,, without considering equivalent hull loading, length-beam ratio or slenderness ratio. The relationships between these coefficients are:
58

PA

+ PgH
1/2 pv

(6)

The relationship between these two cavitation numbers is:

I

September 1994

NAVAL ENGINEERS JOURNAL

Achievements with Advanced Craft

Because no analytical relationship exists between Froude and cavitation numbers, the charts at the top of Figure 4 provide a convenient reference for F,, and uH for a range of vessel displacements and speeds. Figure 4 represents the upper boundaries of transport efficiency for various hull concepts which represent the best combination of hull and propulsor. Since hull hydrodynamics tend to have a strong relationship with Froude number and propulsors have a strong relationship with cavitation number, actual vessel size and speed must be considered when selecting and integrating a hull form with a propulsor concept.

5.0
4.0

3.0

2.0

I .o

0,s
0 . 1 1

0.7

Appendix B
RELATIVE HULL LOADING W seakeeping, stabilitx anL other important performance characteristics of dynamically supported craft are affected by hydrodynamic hull loading. The following dimensionless definitions are used in various references as quantative expressions of loading for hard chine monohulls:

0.0

0.5
0.4

0.3

0.2

Lp/V1'" C, A,IV"':'

= =
=

Slenderness ratio Beam load coefficient Area coefficient

(9) (10) (11)

0. I

It is helpful to determine hull loading in order to compare various size vessels to analyze their relative performance. H u l l loading is frequently referred to in subjective terms as being heavy or light without any widely accepted definition. Furthermore, details are often unavailable for vessels designed by others so that the above hull loading factors cannot be calculated. However, when information is limited to LOA, BOA and displacement, relative hydrodynamic loading can be dehed in a simple quantitative form. Applying the loading criteria from DTRC Series 62, Figure 8 was prepared to represent a nominal hull pressure versus LOA. Each line

FIG UR E 8

Hydrodynamic Hull Loading

depicts constant hydrodynamic hull loading annotated as extremely light, light, heavy and extremely heavy The majority of commercial and military planing monohull craft have design full load displacements between the dimensions identified as light and extremely heavy Some representative craft have been incorporated into Figure 8 for reference.

NAVAI

FNGINFFRS .IIIIIRNAl

Seotember 1994

59