Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
Sverre Steenl,
Hans
J@-gen
Rambech],
Rong
Zhaol
and Knut
Catamarans
J. Minsaas2
Resistance prediction is usually carried out at several stages in the design process. At an early stage, a quick
estimate with a minimum of required input is needed, and when the design proceeds towards completion,
more exact methods are required to catch the effect of the important details. In this paper methods for early
estimates, as well as more detailed numerical estimates and the final prediction based on model tests are
presented. A novel form factor concept deriving the form factorfiom the resistance at high speed is presented.
It is found that the empirical method gives a good estimate of the resistance, and that the numerical method is
a valuable supplement for investigating the effect of smaller hull line changes that is not catched by the
empirical method.
INTRODUCTION
During the last two or three decades, fast displacement
catamarans have become an increasingly popular means
of passenger transport world-wide. However, fast ferries
have huge power consumption.
Thus, the optimisation
with respect to resistance and propulsion, as well as exact
knowledge of the required power is very important to any
fast ferry project. Through our work for numerous
Norwegian
and international
builders of high-speed
catamarans, MARINTEK has collected a very valuable
database of results and experience
in the field of
prediction
and optimisation
of resistance
for fast
displacement catamarans. In this paper we will present
our methods in the three stages of power prediction and
optimisation:
=
TM
= cFm+CR tC&m
P.
m ~.v:.
sm
resistance
coefficient
is found:
(2)
is then:
coefficient
(1)
+ AcF)+CA + CAAS
CT,= cR + (cF,
(3)
co~dation line: CF =
0.075
(4)
(logRn - 2)2
EXPERIMENTAL
PREDICTION
OF RESISTANCE
tank with a
high-speed
The towing
is a light and
models are
model to be
915
(5)
to
full
for a
- C.4A.
=~+(l+k)
(6)
CF.
(8)
The correlation
coefficient
CA to be applied in this
method will be significantly smaller than the CA of the
formerly referred method. Thus, the same percentage
error in CA will give smaller impact on the accuracy of
the final prediction.
This might be attractive if the
correlation material is scarce. However, this concept
should be further verified before the existing method is
replaced. A problem with the form factor method is that
because the exponent x for the Froude number is
determined by a least squares method, the form factor
will be quite dependant on the curvature of the (C~~CMJ-curve,
not only on the level at high Froude
numbers.
EMPIRICAL
y=
2.
125
and
the
non-dimensionalised
~n
and Froude number
Correlation on CR (where CR is computed in the
sense of the MARINTEK standard method for
high speed craft, as described in the previous
chapter).
CR is represented
as an empirical
function of L/V and Froude number
Correlation on CR with correction for Bfl-ratio,
s/L ratio and the ratio S/Vm
Correlation on CW. Cw = CT - (1+ k). C~ where
1.3
0.5
3.
4.
0.1 OIX+l.32
1
0
Fn = V/@
1,55
12
PREDICTION
1.6
RESISTANCE
1.5
1
2
Fn==YcFm
Figure 1 Determination of form factor from experimental
results on a fast displacement catamaran
916
Method
3 Correlation
on CR with correction
cn$=c;m(
+d(k3+k4H
ki
-I- (CF$ +
ACF ) + CA
+ CAAS
on CW
(12)
as jimction
of
1.4.
1.2.
Method
Correlation
on CT,
coefficient
is expressed as:
2 Correlation
$r
c
1.
~.~ -
22%
+
*
+
f
E 0.6.
8
- 0.4.
0.2.
Oq
on CR
coeftlcient
y=3.4 275xaW
,,
Jh-
is expressed as:
Lengthdisplecement
10
11
12
ratio L/Vw
(lo)
5 Correlation
on Cw with correction
917as
Cr.
= a(k+ka(k+
C;mp.
kl + kz
significantly
to improving
the
NUMERICAL
RESISTANCE
(13)
where kJ to k6 are empirically calculated coefficients that
are independent of Froude number. The values for ki are
different
for correction
of CRP and CWeW. The
expression for Cwew is equal to the one in method 4. In
the same way as method 3, this method is used for vessels
that are not quite typical for the regression material.
method
i CT,
2 CR
3
CR with correction
Cw
A DWL
4.7 %
3.970
3.7
B DWL
~0
4.8
5.0
5 Cw with correction
A WLl
4.470
?404.3%
~0 3.3 %
3.9 %
5.1 Y.
5.2
B WI
9.5%
13.3%
13.4%
5.7 %
6.5 %
5.9 Y.
6.4 k
method
ADWL
AWLI
BDWL
4.47.
3.5 Y.
5.2 ZO 3.8 %
2 CR
4.7 %
0.9%
6.1 %
7.1 %
3 CR with correction
3.7 %
1.1 k
5.4%
7.2%
3.3 k
5.7 ~o
2.5%
5.9%
2.2 %
Cw
5 Cw with correction
5.0
~0
3.970
5.1
YO
v~=o
BWL1
1 cr.
WAVE
Theory
A potential theory is used to solve the wave resistance
problem since the viscous effects are neglected here. The
problem is solved as a steady problem.
A right-handed coordinate system that is fixed in the
yOt0.4%
9.9 v.
OF
Introduction
Since the viscous resistance of high-speed displacement
catamarans is quite well predicted by friction coefficients
or boundary layer theory, we are looking for a numerical
method to predict m
resistance of displacement ships
at high forward speed. The method should also be robust
and easy for an engineer to use. Since the demi-hulls are
slender for high-speed displacement vessels, the 2% D
solution may be used. The 21%D method means that one
use two-dimensional
Laplace
equation
and threedimensional free-surface conditions. The 2V2 D methods
have been much used in the seakeeping problem, see for
instance Faltinsen and Zhao (199 la, 1991 b). The 2Y2 D
solutions are valid for slender body at high Froude
number. The methods can be applied for predicting wave
resistance of high-speed displacement
ships. Since the
hull is slender and the linear solutions predict quite well
the wave resistance for relatively slender ships, our idea
is to introduce non-linear corrections to improve the wave
resistance prediction. We start with the linear problem
with linear free-surface conditions satisfied on the mean
water surface. The non-linear terms will be included in a
similar way as for the second order problem of mean
wave drift force. That means that the quadratic term in
the Bernoullis equation and a water line integral are
included.
Verifhmtion
Verification
of an empirical method is never really
completed. It will always be of interest to see how good it
is at predicting the resistance of another design. Thus, the
verification carried out in this study is only an example of
the accuracy of the prediction you get.
The verification example included here is for two vessels.
Both are passenger catamarans in the 30-40 m range.
Model A is driven by waterjets, while Model B is driven
by propellers. Both are run at two draughts, DWL and a
deeper draught (IVL 1). The model test results of these
vessels is not a part of the experimental material used to
make the empirical formulas in Catres. Note that the
values above Fn=l.0
in the Catres predictions
are
extrapolations.
The tables below show maximum deviation between
model test based predictions and Catres predictions. In
table 1, the entire speed range that has been model tested
is included, while in Table 2, only the speed range up to
Fn= 1.0 is included. The values are in % of total
resistance.
Computational
PREDICTION
= O is
of the
Ux is
and @
(14)
on z = <(x,y)
The kinematic free surface condition is
(15)
918
(17)
where
r = [(y~)z
+(z~)z~s,
ij = (q,;),
SB the body
that
~=
O(fEx),
$=
O(f&-*)
and
(18)
I afb
&=__onz=o
ax
(19)
u dz
alogr
f#(ti)~
is the derivative
+C* (x)
(y +Z)
919
(21)
(y+2)
which can be
use
free
each
The
~f
surface
can
be
+[[$J+HIPV
22)
RW=
(23)
~~Pn, dS
(l+k)+cA
(24)
1O!s(ij)
(20)
in the cross-
CR =C;m+C~m.
(25)
3.OE-037
2.5E-03 .
3
Q
2.OE-03 .
~
s
C.R, ModelTest
c-w
...0...
QR kyrl.og
3.oE-03 -
~
al
o
2.5E-03 - h
v
1.5E-03 -
j
= 5.OE-04 %
K
O.OE+OO+
0.7
C.R, ModelTest
C.w
1.5E-03 -
:
=
#
1.OE-03 -
5.OE-04 -
8
W O.OE+OO0.8
0.9
Froude nutier
1.1
1.2
0.7
0.9
0.8
Fn [-]
1.1
1.2
Figure 4 Comparison
PREDIC-
0.7
0.8
0.9
Froude nu~r
1.1
!A)del TW -.=.-.
/% Empirical
-Q-
R Numerical
B;
Mel
B; Emplrkel
-*-
B Numerical
~G,
-*-
C, Num*al
teat ..-*--
1.2
Fn [-]
30~
O.OE+OO~
0.7
0.8
0.9
1.1
1.2
FroudenumberFn[-]
AA
~
C;
A Empirical
C; Empirical
---~
Numarkal
-+-B;
Numerical
-+--C;
Numerical
REFERENCES
Faltinsen, O. Bow flow and added resistance of slender
ships at high Froude number and low wave lengths, J.
Ship Res., V01,27, pp. 160-171, 1983.
Faltinsen, O. and Zhao, R. Numerical predictions of ship
at
high
forward
speed,
Philosophical
motions
Transactions of the Royal Society, series A, 1991.
Faltinsen, O. and Zhao, R.Flow predictions
around
high-speed
ships in waves, M. P.Tulins festschrift
Mathematical Approaches in Hydrodynamics,
SIAM,
1991.
Hohrop, J., and Mennen, G. G. J., An approximate power
prediction method, International Shipbuilding Progress,
Vol. 29, No. 335, July 1982
Holtrop, J., A statistical re-analysis of resistance and
Shipbuilding
Progress,
propulsion data, International
Vol. 31, No. 363, November 1984
Newman,
J.N. Linearized
wave resistance
theory,
International seminar on wave resistance, Japan, 1976.
Ogilvie, T.F. Singular-perturbation
problems
hydrodynamics, Adv. Appl. Mech. 17, 1977.
CONCLUSIONS
Model tests are still the most reliable way of determining
the resistance of a high speed catamaran. The empirical
method presented here shows good results as long as the
design is not too far from the ones used to make the
resistance regression. But since the number of parameters
that go into the regression is limited in order to make it
useful in an early design stage, it is not that well suited to
study changes in hull lines and details in the hull design.
The numerical method for prediction of wave resistance
921
in ship
LIST OF SYMBOLS
SW!!X!
Explanation
B
Bdemi
CA
Cu
cj7
cR
cRev
Cv
Beam of hull
Beam of demi-hull
Correlation coefficient
Air resistance coeftlcient
Frictional resistance coefficient
Residual resistance coefficient
Empirically calculated residual resistance
coefficient
Total resistance coefficient
Empirically calculated total resistance
coefficient
Viscous resistance coefficient
Cv=(cF+dcF)
*(I+k)
CUJ Wave resistance coefficient
CwempEmpirically calculated wave
g
H
k
L
P
RAA
resistance
coefficient
Numerically calculated wave resistance
coefficient
Froude number. Fn=V/sqrt(g*L)
Acceleration of gravity
Hull roughness (in p)
Form factor (for high Fn)
Length of hull (in waterline)
Pressure
Air resistance
Rn
RT,
Reynolds number
Total resistance (full scale)
RW
Wave resistance
T
s
Draught
Hull separation (distance from centerline to
center of demi-hull)
Wetted surface
Water velocity
Speed
Increase of frictional resistance due to hull
roughness
Water density
Fn
u
v
ACF
Displacement
Velocity potential
Free surface elevation
Subscript m means model scale value
Subscripts means full scale value
922