Sunteți pe pagina 1din 101

Ch.3.

Propulsion on Calm Water

Chapter 3. Resistance on Calm Water

Nomenclature for chapter 3


a longitudinal clearance (shift) as defined in Fig.3.1;
b transverse clearance as defined in Fig.3.1;
CA roughness addition;
CAA air resistance coefficient;
CAP coefficient of resistance of appendages;
CB block coefficient;
CE admiralty towing coefficient;
CF coefficient of frictional resistance;
CF0 frictional resistance coefficient for an equivalent flat plate;
CH coefficient of resistance of holes;
Ci inductive resistance coefficient;
CK form resistance coefficient;
CP prismatic coefficient;
CR residuary resistance coefficient;
CS splashing resistance coefficient;
CV viscous drag coefficient;
CVP vertical prismatic coefficient;
CVP viscous pressure resistance coefficient;
CW wave breaking resistance coefficient;
CWP waterplane area coefficient;
Cx or CT coefficient of total resistance;
d draft of ship (hull)
Dp diameter of propeller;
Fn Froude number relative to ship length;
Fn Froude number relative to ship length;
Fnv Froude number relative to volumetric displacement;
FnH Froude number relative to water depth;
FT area of above WL hull projected on midship section;
g gravitational constant
H water depth;
k model scale;
k form factor;
L length of ship (hull)
p hydrodynamic pressure;
PD power delivered to propeller(s);
PE towing power;
R total resistance;
RAW additional resistance due to high sea;
Re Reynolds number relative to ship length;
Rex Reynolds number relative to x-axis coordinate;
t suction coefficient;
V volumetric displacement;

96
Ch.3. Propulsion on Calm Water

v velocity, m/s;
vs ship speed, knots;
xC ,zC abscissa and ordinate of the center of volume;
bn wave heading angle;
zA wave amplitude;
zB wave ordinate;
t shear stress in flow;
t0 shear stress at a wall;
W wetted area;
r water density

97
Ch.3. Propulsion on Calm Water

3.1. Specifics of Resistance of Multi-Hull Ships


3.1.1. Mathematical Simulation of Multi-Hull Ship Resistance
3.1.2. Simplified Models
3.1.3. Wave-Making Resistance Calculations
3.1.4. Viscous Resistance
3.1.5. Hydrodynamic Effects (Experiments)
3.2. Wave Impact on Coastal Structures and Environment
3.2.1. Elevation of Free Water Surface
3.2.2. Wave Patterns of Mono- and Multi-Hull Ships
3.2.3. Energy of External Wave Action
3.3. Resistance and Propulsion of Catamarans and Trimarans
3.3.1. Towing Tests of Multi-Hull Models
3.3.2. Early Experimental Studies of Sea-Going Catamarans
3.3.3. Catamaran Series with Small Aspect Ratio Hulls.
3.3.4. Effect of Geometry of Catamarans on Their Resistance
3.3.5. Effect of Geometry of Catamarans on Hull-Propeller Interaction
3.3.6. Propulsive Performance of Catamaran of a Given Breadth
3.3.7. Resistance of High-Speed Catamarans
3.3.8. Catamarans and Trimarans with Flat Sides
3.3.9. Approximate Calculation of Resistance of Ships with Thin Hulls
3.3.10. Increasing Speed of Wave-Piercing Catamarans
3.4. Performance of SWATH Ships
3.4.1. General Features
3.4.2. Wave-Induced Forces and Moments during Steady Motion
3.4.3. Linear Problem of Wave-Making Resistance and Results for SWATH
3.4.4. Assessment of SWATH Propulsion
3.4.5. Ways for Reducing Resistance of SWATH in Calm Water
3.4.6. Concepts of High-Speed SWATH Ships
3.5. Comparative Still Water Propulsion of Multi-Hull Ships
3.5.1. Basis for Comparison
3.5.2. Propellers and their Operational Conditions
3.5.3. Input Data and Powering Estimate for Catamarans and Trimarans
3.5.4. Powering of SWATH
3.6. Shallow Draft Multi-Hull Ships at Supercritical Speeds
3.6.1. Resistance and Dynamic Trim
3.6.2. Comparative Resistance of River Monohulls and Catamarans
3.6.3. Resistance of Trimarans
3.6.4. Sea Trials of Catamarans at Supercritical Speeds
3.6.5. Energy Savings and Ecology
3.7. Towing Resistance of Ships with Outriggers
3.7.1. Elongation and Resistance of the Main Hull
3.7.2. L/B ratio and Resistance of Outriggers
3.7.3. Wave Interaction between the Main (central) Hull and strut-outriggers

98
Ch.3. Propulsion on Calm Water

3.1. Specifics of Resistance of Multi-Hull Ships

3.1.1. Mathematical Simulation of Multi-Hull Ship Resistance


Theoretical ship hydrodynamics have strongly advanced in the performance
prediction of multi-hull ships. This began from the classic work by Michell [1898] on
wave making resistance of “thin” ship. Later works by N.E. Kochin [1949] and L.N.
Sretensky [1977] initialized enormous growth of the applied analytical and numerical
investigations in this field. Assumptions of the linear theory of wave-making are less
restrictive for the multi-hulls than for the traditional monohulls.
Due to great complexity of the flow around ship’s hull, total ship resistance
cannot be accurately predicted by theoretical methods only. Model experiment is still the
most reliable data source on ship performance. Combined application of the theoretical
and experimental methods allows one to design a marine vehicle optimized under certain
set of constrains. Experimentally verified theoretical models make the design process less
costly.
Specific features of multi-hull hydrodynamics include the mutual interference of
hulls and relatively large wave making component in the total resistance. Some reduction
of this component can be achieved by decreasing the displacement, elongating the hulls,
submerging the hull under the free water surface or elevating above it, and by providing
favorable wave interference. However, for multi-hull ships, the viscous component,
which is proportional to the wetted surface, plays more important role in the resistance
budget. Total resistance of a multi-hull ship is given as follows:

rV 2
R  CT W (3.1)
2

where Wis the total wetted surface area of all hulls.


The total resistance coefficient of a multi-hull ship is

CT  CV  CW  C  CF 0  CK  CW  C  CF 0  CK  CW  (C A  C AA  C AP ) (3.2)

When experimental data are used for determining the components in (3.2), it is
convenient to combine both the wave-making and form resistance coefficients into a
component defined as a residuary resistance coefficient CR:

CT  C F 0  C R  C (3.3)

Among all components, the wave-making resistance is most affected by the


interference between hulls. Due to the usually high length-to-breadth and length-to-draft
ratios, the disturbances caused by the hulls are small within a major part of water domain
around the multi-hull ship. A comparison with conventional monohulls shows that the
linear theory assumptions are usually (not always) more applicable for multi-hulls.
Let us consider the linear theory of wave-making resistance of a multi-hull ship
with “thin” hulls moving through ideal fluid [Lyakhovitsky, 1974]. The vessel has n hulls
symmetrically placed regarding to the central plane xoz, Fig.3.1. If n is odd, the plane xoz

99
Ch.3. Propulsion on Calm Water

(with the z-axis is up) coincides with CL of the central hull. The ship moves along the x-
axis with constant speed Vm. Velocity potential  in the ship reference xoz-plane is
expressed as follows:

 ( x, y , z )  Vm   ( x, y, z ) (3.4)

where (x,y,z) is the


induced velocity
potential satisfying
Laplace equation.

Fig.3.1.
General schematics
and definitions for
trimaran.

Boundary conditions include the conditions of a constant pressure at the water


free surface and zero normal velocity at the hull surface, in expressions (3.5) and (3.6),
respectively:

d 2 d d
2    0 (3.5)
dx dx dz


0 at Sm(m=1, 2, … n) (3.6)
n

as well as symmetry of flow condition relative to the xoz-plane (if the multi-hull is
symmetrical relative to the plane),

  
 y   0 (3.7)
  y 0

In formula (3.5)  is Raleigh coefficient of dissipative forces,


=g/Vm2 is a constant.
Potential  can be represented as a sum of source-sink layers distributed over n
hulls [Sretensky, 1977],
n
 ( x , y , z )   m ( x , y , z ) (3.8)
m 1

The total potential,  is a combination of the incoming flow potential and ,

100
Ch.3. Propulsion on Calm Water

n
 ( x , y , z )   v0 x    m ( x , y , z ) (3.9)
m 1

A complete expression for m was derived by Lyakhovitsky [1974].


Resultant vector of all elementary forces, R can be found by integration over the
total hull surface,
ur r
R    pndS (3.10)
S

where S is the hull surface;


pr is the pressure at hull surface;
n is the outer normal to the hull surface.
Equation for the hull surface symmetric to CL is:

y   f ( x,z ) (3.11)

If function f(x,z) is given, components of the normal are:

r 1 f
  cos( n, x)   ;
d x
r 1
b  cos( n, y)   ; (3.12)
d
r 1 f
  cos(n, z )   ;
d z

2 2
f f
where d  1      
 x   z 
Ignoring the squares of the induced velocity yields:


Rw  v 0 r  dS (3.13)
S x

A similar formula was derived by Sretensky [1977] from energy considerations. Taking
into account (3.12), the formula for wave-making resistance can be rewritten as


Rw  4r  F ( x , z ) dS (3.14)
S x

v0 f
where F ( x, z )    (3.15)
2 x
S in formula (3.14) is the central plane surface.

101
Ch.3. Propulsion on Calm Water

Considering not more than three hulls and introducing local coordinate systems
for individual hulls, xi yi zi , i =1,2,3, (see Fig.3.1), yields the following relationships
involving the longitudinal and transverse clearances:

x1  x 3  x  a ;
y1  y  b ;
(3.16)
y 3  y  b;
x 2  x ; y 2  y; z1  z 2  z 3  z

Using formulas (3.9) and (3.14) for determining the wave-making resistance of a three-
hull ship, one can write:
3 3
 m
Rw  4r   Fi ( x , z ) dS (3.17)
S i 1 m  1 x

Because F1=0 at S2 & S3, F2=0 at S1 & S3, and F3=0 at S1 & S2, the wave-making
resistance is equal to:
3 3
Rw  R im (3.18)
i  1 m 1

 m
where Rim  4r  Fi ( x , z )( ) dS (3.19)
Si x Si

The case of i=m is associated with resistance of the ith hull, and im corresponds
to the effect of the mth hull on wave-making resistance of the ith hull. Substituting the
expression for potential m in (3.18) gives:


4r g 2
 v02 1
RW  {I 22  J 22  2( I12  J12 )[1  cos(2b 2  )] 
(3.20)
 2d 
4( I1 I 2  J1 J 2 ) cos(b 2  )}
 2 1
Ii    gz 2   cos   gz 2  f i
 ( )    exp  2       2   
Ji  Si   v0   sin   v0  x
(i  1, 2) (3.21)
g
2  2
  2 1
v0

The functions I1 and J1 should be calculated with the longitudinal clearance taken into
account.
Wave-making resistance of a catamaran is derived from (3.20) with I2=J2=0,

102
Ch.3. Propulsion on Calm Water

8 rg 2  2 2 d
Rw   ( I  J1 ) 1  cos( 2b2 ) 2
v02 1 1
2
(3.22)
 1

A monohull has its wave-making resistance in a form of (I1=J1=0)

8 rg 2  ( I 22  J 22 )2
Rw 
v02 1
 2 d (3.23)
 1

Formula (3.20) for a trimaran can be rewritten as a sum of three components,

Rw  R1  R2  R12 (3.24)

Here R1 is the wave-making resistance of the central hull,


R2 is the wave-making resistance of a catamaran made of the outer hulls of the trimaran,
R12 is an additional resistance due to interaction between the central and side hulls.
The above-mentioned formulas can be generalized for any number of hulls.

3.1.2. Simplified Models


The formulas derived in Section 3.1.1 enable one to estimate the wave-making
resistance of trimarans with an arbitrary displacement distribution among them. The most
important practical problems in which the linear theory is useful are as follows:
 effect of hulls’ arrangement (i.e. longitudinal and transverse clearances) on wave-
making resistance of trimarans;
 effect of displacement distribution among the central and outer hulls on wave-
making resistance;
 comparative analysis of the wave-making resistance for one-, two-, and three-hull
ships.
These problems were analyzed by Lyakhovitsky [1975a] for three-hull ship with
analytical hull forms. The hull surface was idealized as a product of polynomials, namely,

case 1 (k=1): f ( xL , zd )   (1  xL2 ) (3.25)

case 2 (k=2): f ( xL , zd )  (1  xL2 )(1  zd ) (3.26)

case 3 (k=3): f ( xL , zd )  (1  xL2 )(1  zd4 ) (3.27)

Here: xL=2x/L; zd=z/d,


Substituting formulas (3.25)-(3.27) into (3.20) yields after manipulations:

64 rB22 v06  LB 2 2 LB 2 
Rw  i 2 k  2( L ) ( i1k  i11 k )  4 L i12 k 
g 2 L22  B1 B1  (3.28)
( k  1,2 ,3 )

103
Ch.3. Propulsion on Calm Water


d
i1k   M 12 N 12k D1 (3.29)
1 
2( 2 k l )


d
i2 k   M 22 N 22k D1 (3.30)
1  2( 2 k  l )


2b d
i11k   M 12 N 12k D1 cos( 2    1 ) 2( 2 k  l )
2
(3.31)
1 Fn2 


  2  1 d
i12 k   M 1 M 2 N 1k N 2 k D1 cos( a )cos( b ) 2( 2 k  l ) (3.32)
1 Fn22 2
Fn2 

l  0 when k  1,2
l  4 when k  3
(3.33)

 2 Fni2  (3.34)
M i  cos 2  sin
2 Fni  2 Fni2

2

2 Fni2 L (3.35)
N i1  1  e Ti

  2 
N i 2   2  Fni2 Ldi  1  exp   2   (3.36)
  Fni Ldi 

   2    6 4 2  
N i 3    4 Fn L  exp   2
8 8 4
i di    6 3  3 4 2  6 2  6   6 (3.37)
   Fni Ldi    Fni Ldi Fni Ldi Fni Ldi  

1
D1  (3.38)
2  1

Here LBi, Ldi are L/B and L/d ratios for the ith hull, respectively;
Fni is the Froude number for the ith hull.
Formulas (3.20) and (3.28) can be expressed as:

RW  RW 2  2 RW 1  RWc  RWt (3.39)

where RW2 is the wave-making resistance of the central hull;


RW1 is the wave-making resistance of the side hull;
RWc is a component due to side hulls interference (so-called “catamaran effect”);

104
Ch.3. Propulsion on Calm Water

RWt is due to mutual interference of the central and side hulls (“trimaran effect”).
For a trimaran with congruent hulls the formula (3.39) can be simplified:

RW  3RW 2  RWc  RWt (3.40)

Wave-making resistance can be expressed in a non-dimensional form:

2 Rw
Cw  3
for a trimaran in general (3.41)
rv 2
0 W i
i 1

CW  CW 1  CWc  CWt for a trimaran with congruent hulls (3.42)

where CW1, CWc, CWt are the wave-making resistance coefficient of one isolated hull,
“catamaran effect” component, and “trimaran effect” component, respectively.
The effect of three-hull configuration on the total resistance coefficient can be estimated
by making use of coefficient KW, which is the ratio of the total wave-making resistance to
the sum of the resistances of the three individual hulls. Since

Rw  Rw 2  2 Rw1 (3.43)

coefficient KW is equal to

RWc  RWt
KW  1  (3.44)
RW 2  2 RW 1

Then the following condition should be satisfied for a favorable interference among
trimaran hulls
Kw  1
(3.45)

3.1.3. Wave-Making Resistance Calculations


The formulas derived in the previous section make it possible to calculate the
wave-making resistance of trimarans with congruent hulls and forms represented by the
equation (3.27). Wave-making resistance coefficients are plotted in Fig.3.2 for different
longitudinal clearances a and waterway depths h [Lyakhovitsky, 1974, 1977]. The
longitudinal clearance has a favorable effect for any water depth at supercritical speeds.
Calculations were made for Froude numbers Fn<0.75, when the wave-making component
is significant in the resistance budget. For higher Froude numbers this component and the
longitudinal clearance play less important role (see Fig.3.2). It is worth to note that an
increase of longitudinal clearance eliminates the “hump” in the wave-making resistance
typical for Froude number Fn0.5. Based on formula (3.42), the contribution of each
component in the wave-making resistance is shown in Fig.3.3. With a non-zero

105
Ch.3. Propulsion on Calm Water

longitudinal clearance, the “trimaran” effect plays a dominant role in resistance reduction.
As for transverse clearance, its changes within a practical range have no significant effect
on resistance on deep and shallow water,

Fig.3.4.
Fig.3.3.
Components of wave-making
resistance coefficient for trimaran
with b=0.10, a=0.6.
CW , CWc, CW1, and CWt are as in eq. (3.42).

Fig.3.2. Wave-making resistance coefficient as a


function of Froude number and longitudinal
clearance for a trimaran with b=0.10 in deep
and shallow water.

Fig.3.4.
Effect of transverse clearance on

106
Ch.3. Propulsion on Calm Water

wave-making resistance coefficient of a trimaran with a=0.4 in deep and shallow water:
solid line - b=0.100;
dashed line - b=0.125;
dash-and-dot line - b=0.150.

Effects of the wave-making components can be seen in detail in Fig.3.5 and 3.6.
Clearly, the “catamaran” effect (component CWc) increases the total resistance,
especially at the critical speed. The “trimaran” effect is unfavorable for small longitudinal
clearances and desirable for higher values of a.

Fig.3.5. Effect of longitudinal clearance


of the central hull on wave-making
resistance coefficient of a trimaran with
b=0.1 in shallow water hL=0.150: solid
line - CWt ; dashed line - CWc; dash-
and-dot line - CW1 .
Fig.3.6. Effect of longitudinal clearance
of the central hull on wave-making
resistance components of a trimaran
with b=0.1 in shallow water hL=0.050:
solid line - CWt; dashed line - CWc;
dash-and-dot line - CW1 .

107
The effect of the L2/L1 ratio (L2 and L1 are the lengths of the central and outer
hulls, respectively) on wave-making resistance is shown in Fig.3.7 as coefficient KW
defined by formula (3.45). Calculations were made for deep water at different L2/L1
ratios. Equal hull lengths provide the lowest wave-making resistance. Using favorable
combinations of Froude number and hull configuration, one can reach a zone with KW<1.
Taking the trimaran with congruent hulls as a concept, one can design competitive
multi-hull ships for a Froude number of Fn0.5. This fact makes it possible to distinguish
the three-hull design arrangement from those of mono- and two-hull ships designed for
supercritical speeds at Fn0.6 (see Section 1.4). Features of functions CWc and CWt
make it possible to investigate high-speed catamarans with favorable effects of their hull
arrangements (shifted hulls) on the wave-making resistance within critical and
supercritical speed ranges.

Fig.3.7.
Mutual hull interference for
trimarans when: a=0.4,
b=0.1, B1/B2 =1.0.

In general, the effect


of hull interference on wave-
making resistance is
significant at speeds which
are characteristic for the
displacing and transient
modes of motion (see
Section 1.4.1). At higher
speeds (Fn>1.5) the wave-
making component is less
significant and a hybrid type
of ships can be more
competitive (see Section 1.5). For this kind of ships, an optimal arrangement of hulls can
be specified taking the dynamic lift devices into consideration.

3.1.4. Viscous Resistance


Features of the viscous resistance component, RV, can be analyzed based on the
subdivision of the total resistance into the wave-making and viscous components
described in Section 3.1.1. It is determined assuming that the physical process of wave
generation doesn’t depend on viscosity of water while the viscous resistance is the same
as that at the given speed but with no waves generated. Thus, the viscous resistance is as
follows:
gV 2
RV  CV W (3.46)
2

Using formula (3.2), the viscous resistance coefficient can be expressed as:

CV  CF 0  CK  CF 0 (1  K f ) (3.47)

where Kf=CK/CF0 is a form factor [Voitkunsky, 1988].


It is assumed that Kf does not depend on Froude and Reynolds numbers. The
value of Kf can be obtained from model tests in a towing tank or an aerodynamic tunnel.
The equivalent flat plate friction coefficient, CF0, is equal to the value found for each
individual hull. Moreover, in practical calculations Kf can be obtained as for monohulls,
after B.V. Kurilev [Dubrovsky, 1978].
Assuming that the number of hulls does not exceed three, one can analyze the
wetted surface area as a function of displacement distribution between the hulls and other
parameters of ship arrangement. Kovalev and Shatzman [1968] proposed an approximate
formula for the wetted surface, valid within a wide ranges of parameters. For a single
hull, the wetted surface area is obtained as:

2
W  ( 1  2 )V 3 (3.48)

where 1  f1 (l ) is a dimensionless coefficient depending on relative length l  L / V 1/ 3


only;
2=f2(B/d) is a non-
dimensional coefficient
depending on B/d only.
The values of specific
wetted surface area W=W/2/3
are plotted in Fig.3.8 for the
ranges of l and B/d.

Fig.3.8.
Specific wetted area.

For three-hull ship the


specific wetted surface area is
W2  2W1
W 2
( V2  2V1 ) 3
(3.49)
Here W2, & 2 and W1, & 1 are the wetted surface areas and displacements of the central
and side hulls, respectively. Or after elementary manipulations:

1  3 1  3 12   13
W  W1  2
3 3
(3.50)
1  2 b 1  b 12

1 W2 1 V2
where 1  ; b1  (3.51)
2 W1 2 V1

And finally, the wetted surface area of the trimaran is

1 1
W  1.26 W (3.52)
( 1  b 1 )2 3 1

This is a general formula for a three-hull ship. A similar formula can be derived from
(3.52) for a catamaran (1=b1=0),

W K  1.26 W1
(3.53)

For a three-hull ship with identical hulls, 1=0.5, b1=0.5, and the formula (3.52) can be
expressed in the following two forms:

W  1.44W1
(3.54)

11
W  WK
( 1  b 1 )2 3
(3.55)

The factor Win formulas


(3.52), (3.53), and (3.54) is the
specific wetted surface area of outer
hull and can be determined by
expression (3.48) or from Fig.3.8.
Within the practical ranges
of the principal dimensions,
transition from a mono-hull to
multi-hulls is always associated
with an increase in the specific
wetted surface area. A three-hull
concept with different central and
side hulls can have lower specific
wetted surface area than that for a
catamaran. Data on wetted surface area and wave-making resistance component (Section
3.1.3) enable designer to calculate total ship resistance and performance.

3.1.6. Hydrodynamic Effects (Experiments)


Hydrodynamic effects in multi-hull ships are determined by displacement
distribution between the hulls, their arrangements and principal dimensions. These effects
include changes in the viscous and wave-making components. For Fn<1.5 the wave-
making components are most profound.

Fig.3.9. Wave resistance coefficient CW (calculated) and residuary resistance coefficient


CR (experiment) for trimaran as a function of Froude number at b=0.1.

The “trimaran” effect, theoretically estimated in Section 3.1.3, was proven in


model experiments [Artushkov et al., 1975] in which, besides the “trimaran” effect,
elimination of the so-called “wave hump” was discovered as well. Wave-making
resistance coefficient CW (theory) and residuary resistance coefficient CR (experiment) are
plotted in Fig.3.9 for a trimaran model with congruent hulls.

3.2. Wave Impact on Coastal Structures and Environment

3.2.1. Elevation of Free Water Surface


Increasing speeds and displacements of ships have been accompanied by growing
ship-generated waves, especially on inner waterways and coastal waters. The ship-
generated waves affect adversely the encountered small vessels, barges with low
freeboard, coastal structures and riverbanks, as well as living organisms. A general
discussion of the wave impact on encountered sea-going ships was held in 1976 in
London [Anon., 1976b], while studies by Lyakhovitsky [1978, 1979, 1998] were
specifically addressed to the effects on inner waterways and coastal zones. This problem
is not new but it has recently emerged again in connection with operations of fast ferries
[Ryle, 1999]. It is interesting that the Ryle’s story of a fisherman losing his life due to a
wave generated by the ferry Stena Discovery in July 1999 at an England shore coincides
in almost every details with the death of a boy in 1912 described in the classic work by
Krylov [1979]. The almost century long span between the two stories only emphasizes
the need for regulating the ship-generated wave actions on the environment, both in
design and in operations. This can be done by developing criteria for permissible
dimensions of the ship-generated waves to be included in the rules of classification
societies or other regulatory bodies. After describing how the wave generated by the
frigate NOVIK killed the boy, A.N. Krylov proposed that each naval ship (frigate, cruiser,
etc.) would be provided by special Baltic Sea charts with plots of the isobaths
corresponding to her critical speeds. He wrote: “After studying such a chart and looking
on it, a captain or a mate could be able to select the heading and the speed of his ship so
that to cause no damage to coastal structures. In addition, they would not be surprised by
unexpected drops in speed …”. Similar guidelines could be recommended for the
operators of high-speed commercial vessels, including multi-hull ferries, and others.
The problem of wave impact can be subdivided into two parts:
 assessment of wave impact as a function of geometry and speed of the multi-hull
vessel and specifics of the water reservoir;
 determination of allowable, from the various viewpoints, wave parameters.
Transition from monohulls to multi-hulls is an effective way of reducing the wave
impact on environment. For its assessment, the mechanics of free water surface
disturbance by ship have been studied experimentally at MTU (formerly LKI) and
SUWC (formerly LIVT) towing tanks in St.-Petersburg [Lyakhovitsky, 1981]. The later
was equipped with a standard towing carriage and had the following dimensions: 45 x 2.6
x 0.8 m. Free water elevation was measured at four longitudinal sections by four vertical
electric gauges mounted on a rod connected to the tank wall (Fig.3.10). Position of the
model was controlled by a sensor. Electric signals from the gauges and the sensor were
recorded synchronically. The records were converted into a longitudinal cross section of
the wave field, as shown in a typical record sample in Fig.3.11.
Fig.3.10. Arrangement of water elevation
sensors in towing tank: 1 - ship model; 2 -
horizontal rod; 3 - dual sensing rods.

Fig.3.11. Typical wave profile records: 1,2,3,4 -


sensor numbers; 5 - reference plane
corresponding to the model stem.
Ch.3. Propulsion on Calm Water

3.2.2. Wave Patterns of Mono- and Multi-Hull Ships


There are two forms of experimental data presentation: plotting the maximums
and minimums of wave patterns, and plotting isobars (lines of constant water level).
Measurements of wave elevation along the hull-water intersection were made separately
in the same towing tank.
Water depth plays a significant role in wave formation. Water rises in front of and
behind the model. Between the bow and the stern water level decreases. Within this
region there are local water level oscillations corresponding to the bottom terrain of the
water reservoir (tank). The wave crest generated during motion on shallow water at a
supercritical speed is oriented at an angle to the ship motion direction with its peak
situated at approximately the midship. The wave crest intensity is characterized by the
volume of water displaced by the hull. This means that the use of a multi-hull
arrangement makes it possible to reduce the wave impact. More information on wave
patterns around the “Experimentalny-1” model can be found in [Lyakhovitsky, 1979]
where Froude number based on water depth was FnH=2.58. Similar measurements can be
made by the stereophotogrammetric technique [Sorensen, 1968, 1969].
Studies show a dominant role of ship displacement in wave generation. Reducing
the displacement and increasing the L/B-ratio are the most effective ways of attenuating
the wave height. Transition from monohulls to multi-hulls and the use of dynamic lifting
would have a favorably effect on reducing the wave impact (Section 1.4). Catamaran
arrangement makes it possible to reduce displacement of a single hull and to increase its
elongation, but the phases of interfering wave patterns cannot be changed. A three-hull
arrangement allows designer to control the phases and to achieve a maximum suppression
of the wave generation.
Capabilities of the experimental methods of determining the shape of water
surface disturbed by moving ships and models are illustrated in the two plots of Fig.3.12
of the wave fields around models of the catamaran Anatoly Uglovsky (top) and a river
trimaran (bottom), after Laykhovitsky [1975a]. The top plot shows the maximums and
minimums of the wave system near the model obtained by processing the model test data
similar to those in Fig.3.11. The wave crest, trough and the undisturbed level are shown
by double, single, and dashed lines, respectively. The bottom plot shows the isobars (here
the lines of equal water levels) near the moving trimaran model, with solid lines
corresponding to the unchanged
and elevated water level while the
lowered surface is represented by
dashed lines.

Fig.3.12. Wave fields near models


of a catamaran (top) and a
trimaran (bottom).
1, 2, 3, 4 – longitudinal sections
as shown in Fig.3.10 and 3.11.

110
Ch.3. Propulsion on Calm Water

Any of the test data presentation methods makes it possible to assess the ship-
generated wave system which can cause unfavorable impact on the environment, coastal
structures and other vessels. This in turn makes it possible to consider such a wave
impact at a design stage. Similar tests had been carried out by the authors in full-scale
conditions for a number of new fast ships.
Database on wave patterns of mono-, twin-, and tri-hull fast ships on deep water
were collected and generalized by Lyakhovitsky [1978, 1979, 1988]. The maximum wave
heights, hW, were recorded within the two-model-length water domain around the model.
And then, dimensionless wave heights, 10hb/V1/3, as well as residuary resistance
coefficient CR, were plotted in Fig.3.13 as a function of Froude number. For the monohull
“Experimentalny-1” the wave height is growing with speed within the entire range of
Froude numbers (Fig.3.13, top left). The fastest growth is, as expected, around Fn=0.5.
The wave interference behind the stern causes a relatively small increase in the wave
height. Similar data for a catamaran (the “Anatoly Uglovsky”) presented in Fig.3.13 (top
right) show a similar character of the dimensionless wave heights and residuary
resistance as compared to monohull. However, at Fn=0.5 the wave height near the
catamaran hull is by 30% less than that for the monohull.
A complicated character of wave generation
was observed for a three-hull ship (Fig.3.13,
bottom left). The phase shift between waves
generated by different hulls, along with Froude
number effect, makes the curves essentially non-
monotonic. Trimaran with congruent hulls
provides a 75% decrease in the maximum wave
height at Froude number Fn=0.5 (Fig.3.13,
bottom right). The wave heights near a three-hull
ship vary greatly depending on the relative speed
and location, both within the ship length and
behind the stern.

Fig.3.13. Dimensionless wave height and


residuary resistance coefficient for monohull (top
left), catamaran (top right), trimaran (bottom
left), and plotted together for monohull,
catamaran and trimaran (bottom right); curves
1, 3, 5 – within ship length; 2, 4, 6 - behind the
stern.

The experimental data are in good


agreement with the linear theory of wave-
making. They both demonstrate a favorable
effect of the displacement subdivision and hull
elongation on wave generation.

111
Ch.3. Propulsion on Calm Water

3.2.3. Energy of External Wave Action


Wave impact on the environment can be estimated on the basis of the energy
conservation law. With the given experimental data on wave patterns in towing tank, one
can calculate a specific value associated with wave energy. This value will remain
constant during all energy transformations (“during all mother nature tricky games”
according to Feynmann et al., [1963]). Comparison of these values calculated for
different models serves as a basis for selecting the best, with regard to environmental
impact, design concept.
Consider water flow field around a steady moving ship [Lyakhovitsky, 1988]. If
ship speed is Vm, and upstream cross section area of flow is F0, the flow flux Q0 is:

Q  F0Vm  FiVi (3.56)

Within a close proximity of the ship, these values are Vi and Fi, respectively. With local
water level hi, and based on the conservation of flow flux, the local water velocity is:

Vi  F0Vm / Fi
(3.57)

The specific energy is given as

E 0  h0  Vm2 / 2 g at an upstream section E0 (3.58)

and Ei  hi  Vi 2 / 2 g at an arbitrary ith section (3.59)

where hi is the average water level in the ith section.


Cross section area Fi depends on whether or not the ship is positioned at the section, as
well as on the free water surface transformation.
Formulas (3.57)-(3.59) represent the well-known hydraulic theory based on the
following assumptions [Basin, 1956; Basin et al, 1976, Lyakhovitsky, 1988]:
 midship section is large enough as compared to the river cross section (blockage
effect is great);
 water flow velocity profile across any section is constant;
 ship-generated wave and viscous wake are neglected;
 water flow at a ship reference frame is steady.
Besides these strong assumptions, additional experimental data are needed for obtaining
practical results. In particular, the specific energy is assumed known from (3.59) if water
level hi is measured in model tank. The following data are needed as well:
 hull geometry (hull lines drawings);
 geometry of the water reservoir;
 water level elevations;
 ship draft and trim.
Applying the method to a shallow water towing tank of width Bk, one can consider three
different types of water sections: undisturbed (section 0), disturbed beyond the ship

112
Ch.3. Propulsion on Calm Water

(section 1), and disturbed with the ship (section 2). If F0 and h0 are the undisturbed water
cross section and level, respectively, the cross section 1 is characterized by

Fi  F0  Fi (3.60)

and water level at any section hi  h0  hi (3.61)

BK 2

where Fi  2  z dy; i hi  Fi / BK (3.62)


0

Here zi is z-coordinate of the disturbed water level regarding to undisturbed level;


Fi and hi are the changes in cross section area and average water level, respectively.
In section 2 the cross section area Fi and its change Fi are:

Fi  h0 BK  b i Bi d i  Fi
BK 2
(3.63)
Fi  2  z i dy
Bi 2

and the corresponding change in the average water level is

Fi
hi 
BK  Bi
(3.64)

where bi, Bi, and di are cross area coefficient, breadth, and draft of the ith hull frame. The
similar expressions can be derived for a multi-hull ship.
The specific energy E of the flow between sections a and b is given
b

E  rg  E i ( x )Fi ( x )dx (3.65)


a

Part of the energy transferred from the ship to transforming the water free surface is:
b

E  rg  E i ( x )Fi ( x )dx (3.66)


a

where Ei ( x )  Ei  E0 (3.67)

Dimensionless energy coefficient of the basin is:

E
e (3.68)
rgVL

113
Ch.3. Propulsion on Calm Water

where V is ship displacement, and L is her length.


The dimensionless energy coefficient was used for assessing the environmental
impact of waves generated by ships of different designs [Lyakhovitsky, 1985]. Numerical
estimates of the energy transferred by a ship moving at supercritical speeds to water
reservoir are plotted in Fig.3.13 (top) for different Froude numbers Fn. The maximum
energy transmitted from the ship to the basin corresponds to the critical speed. Data for
two models with different bow shapes are plotted in the bottom part of Fig.3.13 as well.
The mutual positions of the curves at different water depths are similar to those of the
ship resistance curves. Obviously, energy transmitted to the basin from the ship is
associated with her resistance.
Energy saving for ships with subcritical speeds is incompatible with the motion
mode at near-critical speeds (curve h/d=3 in the top plot of Fig.3.14). Energy losses for
such ships with typically full lines grow dramatically when moving at speeds
approaching the critical one. In contrary, the ships designed for supercritical speeds
(curve h/d=4 in the top plot of Fig.3.14) have relatively small energy transmitted to the
basin during transition from sub- to supercritical speeds. Nevertheless, it is not
recommended to operate these ships near the critical speed. Energy coefficient is
sensitive to hull geometry, number of hulls, and the use of dynamic lifting.
The amount of energy transmitted by the ship to the surrounding water is an
indicator of her efficiency with regard to her environmental impact (a.k.a. ship’s
hydroecology). It can also serve as an index of quality of ship design. As hull
displacement is the major parameter affecting the wave height, a subdivision of the
displacement into two or more hulls is certainly
preferable from the hydroecology viewpoint.

Fig.3.14. Dimensionless energy transmitted from a ship


into water as a function of relative speed (Fn):
top plot - comparison at sub- (curve h/d=3) and super-
critical (curve h/d=4) speeds;
bottom plot - comparison of two hulls with different bow
shapes: solid line - sledge-shaped, dashed line -
cylindrical bow lines.

114
Ch.3. Propulsion on Calm Water

3.3. Resistance and Propulsion of Catamarans and Trimarans

3.3.1. Towing Tests of Multi-Hull Models


Model testing of multi-hulls has some specifics. Because the thrust should be
applied at the shaft level, the towing tests are carried out with a “fork” which enables the
model to move freely. For twin-hull models with identical hulls symmetric regarding CL
of the ship, there is an alternative method of testing by measuring the resistance of one
hull, while the other hull is also freely suspended in terms of draft and trim. This method
is not good if the hulls are shifted regarding each other.
The models of SWATHs, with typically high elongation of their hulls, can be
towed with a fixed suspension, when the model cannot change its position during run.
Plotted in Fig.3.15 are the residuary
resistance coefficients of a SWATH
model obtained by towing a bare hull
in a fixed suspension and the same
hull fitted with minimal-area stern
stabilizers in free suspension. This
plot proves the validity of either
towing technique.

Fig.3.15. Comparison of residuary


resistance of a single hull of SWATH
when towing in fixed (curve 1) or
free (curve 2) suspension with stern
stabilizers having area of 5% of WL
area.

When towing in the gravitational type testing tanks, the steady speed of the model
depends on its initial acceleration. This feature is illustrated in Fig.3.16 where curve 1
corresponds to an excessive acceleration and curve 2 - to an insufficient acceleration.
This ambiguity is due to different wave phenomena between hulls characterized by the
so-called “transverse” Froude number based
on minimum distance between hulls c:

115
Ch.3. Propulsion on Calm Water

Fnc  Vm / gc

Fig.3.16. Catamaran model speed records in a gravitational-type towing tank:


1 - excessive acceleration;
2 - deficient acceleration, Vm1>V m2.

In the case of a deficient acceleration, a gradual speed increase from Fnc=0.8 to


Fnc=1.0 results in a visibly growing transverse wave of a significant amplitude formed
near the intersection point of the diverging bow waves. At Fnc=1.0 the bow waves
transform into a hydraulic jump so that the model gets a trim by the bow and resistance is
noticeably growing. After Fnc>1.2 the regular wave pattern is restored.
At an excessive acceleration the wave pattern of steady motion is considerably
different. At Fnc=1.0 and to Fnc=~1.2, the water level between hulls drops and the model
gets a squat (trim by the aft). The fluid motion becomes smooth and resistance decreases.
Within this speed range, the velocity field near propellers changes dramatically. At
Fnc=1.05, the coefficient of nominal wake becomes negative for catamaran with
L/B1=4.7. This is probably due to a boundary flow
separation between the hulls. As a result of complex
wave interference, the wake and thrust deduction of
catamarans depend on Froude number. At high initial
accelerations, the further model testing by the towing
carriage at a constant speed produces a resistance curve
with local drops within the range of Fnc=0.8-1.2, as
shown in Fig.3.17. As for the full scale, this mode of
reduced resistance can be realized only in still water and
at a high power redundancy. This situation is very
unlikely in reality, but the phenomenon should be kept in
mind when planning and carrying out model tests.

Fig.3.17.
Bifurcation zone of speed-dependent resistance.

The catamarans with flat sides have a wave pattern with low amplitudes and with
an approximately halved, as compared with regular hulls, angle between the wave crest
and the hull side. These wave systems interfere behind the stern. The dynamic trim and
draft of the high-speed catamarans with flat outer sides depend on configuration and
location of the cross-structure. An intensive jet (so-called “rooster”), generated by
intersection of the diverging bow waves, induces a vertical force on cross-structure’s
bottom. It causes a squat and a small reduction of draft.
It should be noted that scaled model propellers have greater hydrodynamic
loading than they have in full scale. For this reason, the effect of propeller on trim is more
profound in model scale than in full scale.

3.3.2. Early Experimental Studies of Sea-Going Catamarans


The first publication on the wave interference effect on catamaran resistance was
probably made by V.P. Kostenko [1924]. His idea of resistance reduction was based on an

116
Ch.3. Propulsion on Calm Water

assumption of an inner wave between the hulls similar to that in a channel. He proposed
flat outer sides of the hulls assuming that this would prevent formation of an outer wave
system. A large series of the catamaran models was tested at Gorki Institute for Water
Communications [Alferiev, 1960]. The models had relatively small lengths and their
resistance was comparable with that of the turbulizer. By this reason, the accuracy was
low resulting to underestimates in the resistance of catamarans. More accurate compatible
tests at KSRI (Krylov Shipbuilding Research Institute) [Voevodskaya, 1969] showed that
with displacement, length, and speed being equal, a catamaran has significantly greater
resistance than a monohull. In addition to that, a strong and ambiguous effect of
transverse clearance on magnitude and location of residuary resistance extremes was
discovered.
Models of catamarans with a wide range of L/B ratio have been tested during the
1960’s-70’s at the towing tank of Kaliningrad Institute for Fishing Industry [Dubrovsky et
al., 1978]. It was found that clearance and Froude effects are different for small and large
L/B. Nevertheless, the optimums of residuary resistance are situated within the same
ranges of clearances and Froude number. At low Froude numbers the resistance grows
with a decrease in transverse clearance. At Fn=0.26-0.28, clearance has no effect on
resistance, and for Fn~0.3 a catamaran can be better or worse as compared with a
monohull. As for propulsion factors, wake fraction is slightly higher for catamaran with
conventional propellers, but virtually the same for catamaran with ducted propellers as
compared with that for monohull. Thrust deduction has a trend to increase with a
decrease in transverse clearance (for both types of propulsor).
Western studies of the catamaran performance began in the late 1950’s, most
notably at MIT [Alexander and Beyer, 1962]. For the first time were found such
combinations of the transverse clearance and Froude number when the resistance of a
catamaran is less than the summary resistance of its two individual hulls moving
separately. The optimum clearance increases with an increase in Froude number from
Fn=0.25 to 0.45; it decreases with Fn growing from 0.55 to 1.0 and does not exist around
Fn~0.5. At low Froude numbers, Fn<0.35, the optimum clearance is equal to 30-50% of
the hull length.
Effect of transverse clearance was studied during model tests with a research
catamaran [Michel, 1961]. The region of a favorable effect was found in the range of
b1/L=0.15-0.223 and Fn<0.41. Based on the Taylor-Gortler data for conventional ships, a
comparison with monohulls showed a lower power for catamarans at Fn=0.35-0.38.
When studying performance of a 210-m long cargo catamaran with both
symmetrical and asymmetrical hulls, resistance of the catamaran model was compared
with that of separate hulls [Turner and Tuplin, 1968]. It was found that after exceeding a
certain speed limit, effective power of the catamaran is less than the double power of one
hull. Series of catamaran models with S- and U-shaped frames were tested by Volheim
[1965] studying also the effects of block coefficient,
trim, and transverse clearance effects on resistance at
Fn ranging from 0.20 to 0.36. The S-shaped model
with 2b =0.312-0.390 and CB=0.65 had a favorable
wave interference at Fn=0.295-0.325, while for
CB=0.71 the similar range of Fn was 0.315-0.360,
see Fig.3.18. The U-shaped models had no favorable

117
Ch.3. Propulsion on Calm Water

wave interference (Fig.3.19) and a “hydraulic jump” was found for this type of hull lines.
As for propulsion factors, there was no clearance effect on wake fraction whereas the
clearance effect on thrust deduction was found only for Fn>0.25-0.30.

Fig.3.18. Towing resistance of catamaran model with S-shaped hull lines: 1 - one hull; 2
- 2b =0.327; 3 - 2b =0.24, [Volheim, 1965].

Fig.3.19. Towing resistance of a Fig.3.20. Wave angular spectrum for


catamaran model with U-shaped hull favorable hull interference [Everest,
lines [Volheim, 1965]: 1 - one hull; 1968]: 1 - monohull; 2 – catamaran.
2 - 2b =0.39; 3 - 2b =0.24.

Fig.3.21.
Wave angular spectrum for unfavorable hull
interference [Everest, 1968]:
1 - monohull; 2 – catamaran,.

Wave resistance of catamarans was studied at the


National Physical Laboratory, UK, using the wave
profile analysis technique [Everest, 1968]. At first
stage, the models with analytical forms were
investigated at Fn=0.236-0.556 and relative clearance
2b =0.2-0.8. In the favorable wave interference area,
catamarans have 20-30% lower wave resistance.
Within the range 2b =0.2-0.4, the optimum Froude
number ranges are Fn=0.22-0.26 and 0.30-0.36. At
second stage, models with traditional hull forms were
studied. It was found that the wave resistance of one
hull of catamaran constitutes at least 60% or more of
that of a monohull, while that value for the models with analytical hull forms is 40%. It
was found that the reduction of wave resistance of catamaran is due to attenuation of the

118
Ch.3. Propulsion on Calm Water

divergent waves. The effect of the different types of the waves is shown in Fig.3.20 and
3.21 for optimum and non-optimum relative lengths and clearances, respectively.

119
Ch.3. Propulsion on Calm Water

3.3.3. Catamaran Series with Small Elongation Hulls.


Design of this series was based on the following features of the catamarans
[Dubrovsky et al, 1978]:
 with ship speed, displacement, and length of a monohull and a catamaran being
equal, the latter should have a higher propulsion power; or with speed and
capacity being equal, the catamaran needs less power;
 catamaran resistance and propeller efficiency depend on transverse clearance, hull
asymmetry, principal dimensions ratios, and hull form;
 resistance of a catamaran is usually greater than that of her two isolated hulls
summed, except for some ranges of Fn and clearance ratio, when it is less than the
double resistance of one hull.
Based on these conclusions, the series was designed with symmetric hulls and
moderately V-shaped sections. The hull lines of the series were taken like those for
typical small and medium fishing ships, with the prototype shown in Fig.3.22. But the
principal dimensions and their ratios were varied much wider (see to Fig.3.23) to be
representative for virtually all catamaran models and ships known by that time. The B1/d
ratio was varied by changing draft d. In doing so,
the change of block coefficient due to changing
draft was taken into account by making use of
charts for CB sub-series. To reduce this effect,
cruiser types of stern were selected rather than
transom.

Fig.3.22.
Hull lines of the basic prototype in model tests.

Fig.3.23.
Ranges of model parameters in
different test series:
I - catamarans built by the
1970’s
II - Taylor-Gertler series;
III - series of fast transport
ships, Japan;
IV - series of tankers and bulk-
carriers, KSRI, Russia;
V - series of fishing ships, KSRI;
 catamaran series tested by the
author.

The series consisted of two


groups of models (Table 1): one with varying L/B ratios (models 1, 2 and 3) and with
varying CB (models 3, 5 and 6). Towing tests were carried out at speeds up to Fn=0.45
and with transverse clearances 2b =2b/L=0.2-0.5. Self-propelled tests of models 2 and 3

120
Ch.3. Propulsion on Calm Water

were performed with the same clearances and at Froude numbers up to 0.40. The length
of all models was 3.75 m.

Table 3.1. Principal dimensions and elements of catamaran models (Lbp=3.75 m)


Model B1 Lbp d LWL V S1 LWL/ B1/d S1/ CB CP CM CWL l1
Series

No m /B1 m m m3 wet., B1 2/31


m2
1 7745 1.072 3.5 0.410 3.90 0.823 4.66 3.63 2.62 5.33 0.482 0.578 0.833 0.822 4.18
0.425 4.01 0.871 4.80 3.73 2.53 5.27 0.477 0.572 0.835 4.20
0.477 4.05 1.044 5.28 4.06 2.25 5.12 0.505 0.550 0.855 4.00
2 7746 0.750 5.0 0.333 3.99 .502 3.80 5.32 2.25 6.03 0.504 0.605 0.883 0.819 5.01
0.405 4.03 .679 4.42 5.37 1.85 5.75 0.555 0.643 0.863 4.59
0.455 4.06 .811 4.85 5.40 1.65 5.57 0.585 0.665 0.880 4.36
3 7740 0.535 7.0 0.240 3.95 .238 2.70 7.40 2.23 7.02 0.470 0.565 0.833 0.820 6.37
0.325 4.04 .380 3.54 7.55 1.64 6.75 0.540 0.618 0.873 5.57
0.410 4.08 .540 4.35 7.63 1.30 6.53 0.603 0.672 0.897 5.02
4 7860 0.415 9.0 0.185 3.85 .171 2.18 9.28 2.25 7.08 0.578 0.655 0.884 0.820 6.95
0.250 3.91 .266 2.73 9.43 1.67 6.57 0.657 0.713 0.920 6.07
0.320 3.97 .373 3.33 9.57 1.30 6.45 0.708 0.765 0.925 5.53
5 7812 0.535 7.0 0.240 3.95 .282 2.73 7.40 2.23 6.35 0.557 0.670 0.833 0.820 6.00
0.325 4.03 .439 3.45 7.53 1.64 5.98 0.627 0.718 0.873 5.30
0.410 4.08 .604 4.15 7.63 1.30 5.83 0.677 0.755 0.897 4.82
6 7861 0.535 7.0 0.240 3.98 .328 2.93 7.43 2.23 6.18 0.643 0.772 0.833 0.820 5.77
0.325 4.04 .498 3.65 7.55 1.64 5.78 0.708 0.810 0.873 5.10
0.410 4.08 .674 4.33 7.63 1.30 5.62 0.752 0.838 0.897 4.65
7 7863 0.532 7.0 0.240 3.95 .240 2.59 7.43 2.23 6.65 0.475 0.678 0.700 0.820 6.38
0.325 4.02 .392 3.31 7.56 1.64 6.2 0.560 0.720 0.780 5.48
0.410 4.05 .560 4.01 7.61 1.30 5.9 0.633 0.760 0.830 4.90

Model resistance in towing tests, as well as thrust and torque in self-propelled


tests, were measured on one hull with free suspension of the second one. Results were
presented in standard form of dimensionless residuary resistance coefficient CR vs.
Froude number. The former is given as follows.

2R
C R  CT  C F   CF (3.69)
rv 2

where CT is the total resistance coefficient;


R is the resistance;
v is model speed;
 is wetted surface area;
CF is friction resistance coefficient of an equivalent flat plate according to Prandtl-
Schlichting formula.
Analysis of the resistance test results was based on the following representation of the
catamaran resistance

R  R F  RVP K f  Rw K w (3.70)

Here RF , RVP , RW are the friction, form, and wave resistance components for a single
hull, respectively;
Kf , KW are the viscous and wave interference coefficients, respectively.

121
Ch.3. Propulsion on Calm Water

This resistance subdivision allows one to consider the dimensionless resistance


coefficient of one hull of a catamaran CTCr in the same way as that for a monohull,

CTC  C F  CVP K f  CW K W (3.71)

where CF , CVP , CW are the dimensionless coefficients of friction, form, and wave
resistance, respectively.
It was assumed that Kf is a parameter of hull geometry and clearance, and coefficient KW
depends on the same variables and on Froude number.
The self-propelled model tests were performed for advance ratio J ranging from
near 0 to zero thrust point. According to standard procedure in Russia, the following
dimensionless coefficients were used in open water propeller tests,

K T ( J ); K Q ( J ); K e ( J ) (3.72)

where KT=T/(rn2D4) and KQ=Q/(rn2D5) are the thrust and torque coefficients,
respectively,
Ke=Te/(rn2D4) is, in self-propelled tests, the effective thrust coefficient.
n is the RPM of propeller,
D is the propeller model diameter,
Q is the torque delivered to the propeller model,
J is the relative advance ratio of the propeller.
The thrust identity-based wake fraction WT is

Jp
W  1 J
(3.73)

For the same thrust coefficient in open water and behind-the-hull conditions, torque is
different:

KQ
i2  KQ (3.74)

Thrust deduction coefficient t is specified at a given value of J as follows:

Ke
t  1 (3.75)
KT

Here KT andKQ are thrust and torque coefficients for behind-the-hull condition,
respectively.
Catamaran effect on hull-propeller interaction was studied by making use of
coefficients KV and Kt for wake fraction and thrust deduction,

wc  wK tc  t  K t (3.76)

122
Ch.3. Propulsion on Calm Water

Subscript “c” defines the value corresponding to the catamaran case.

3.3.4. Effect of Geometry of Catamarans on Their Resistance


Form resistance component as a function of block coefficient CB, B1/d ratio, and
transverse clearance is shown in Fig.3.24. For small clearance ( 2b 0.2), coefficient Kf is
decreasing with a growth of CB.
For larger clearances this effect
is less clear and does not
exceed 10% at 2b 0.5. There
is some possibility that the
relative decrease in viscous
interaction between hulls with
a growth of CB is due to an
expansion of laminar-turbulent
transition region. Effect of B1/d
is similar to that for a
monohull: a decrease in B1/d
results in a reduction of viscous
resistance. The effect is most
pronounced at 2b =0.2, but at
2b =0.5 it is less than 10%.

Fig.3.24.
Resistance coefficient CVP as a
function of B1/d and transverse
clearance 2b .

While the viscous resistance


is a virtually linear function of
CB and B1/d, the effect of L/B1
and clearance is quite non-
linear. For each value of L/B1
there is a limiting value of b below which the viscous resistance demonstrates a
significant growth. The maximum values of Kf=2.5-2.7 correspond to zero transverse gap
between hulls. The minimum value is Kf =1.2-1.4 which can be found at 2b =0.5. In
other words, the relative coefficient of viscous resistance is always greater than unity, and
the viscous component of one hull of a catamaran is always greater than that for a
monohull.
Residuary resistance of catamarans with L/B1=7.0 is plotted in Fig.3.25 for
various clearances and breadth-draft ratios. For all values of B1/d, the effect of CB is
almost the same. If the clearance is small and Fn0.25, coefficient CR increases with an
increase of CB. Clearly, within the tested ranges of Fn and clearance, an increase in block
coefficient has an unfavorable effect on the residuary resistance. In contrast, the L/B1 ratio
reduces coefficient CR. This is partly because the “effective” clearance, as a distance
between sides, is growing with an increase in L/B1. It is interesting to notice, that an

123
Ch.3. Propulsion on Calm Water

increase in block coefficient has positive effect on the relative coefficient of wave-
making resistance.

Fig.3.25.
Residuary resistance coefficient CR for
models with L/B=7 and 2b =0.2 versus
block coefficient at various B/d (solid line –
B/d=2.25, dashed line – B/d=1.65, and
dash-dotted line - B/d=1.30;

Effect of L/B1 on residuary resistance


plotted in Fig.3.26 demonstrates a
complicated dependence due to a dual effect
of L/B1 manifested in shifting the positions
of extreme values and in changing their
magnitudes. For a given Froude number, the
wave-making resistance coefficient has
three minimums of the wave-making
resistance coefficient corresponding to three
values of relative clearance. When L/B1
ratios are small (such as ~3.5), two
minimums merge forming a wide optimum
range. It can be considered as the optimum
associated with the “transverse” Froude
number, which is based on ship speed and
the minimum distance between hulls. This
phenomenon is accompanied with
transformation of wave pattern in the space
between hulls.

Fig.3.26. Residuary resistance coefficient


CR for various L1/B and Fn of single hull,
dashed lines – transverse clearance of 0.5.

The breadth-draft ratio, B1/d, was varied within the range of 1.3-2.25, typical for
catamarans only. The effect of B1/d was investigated in two ways. First, in the group of
models with L/B1=7.0, this ratio changed due to variation of d as shown in Fig.3.25. In
contrast to conventional monohulls, a reduction of B1/d with other parameters being
constant leads a to significant drop in the residuary resistance coefficient. In the case of
monohulls, this effect is less profound. In the second group of models with CB=0.5, the
relative breadth was changed due to variation of L/B1. The residuary resistance was
affected by the B1/d to a remarkably higher degree that it was in the second group.
Indeed, for a constant model length, a reduction of B1 results in a reduction of the factual
distance between the inner sides. Therefore, a decrease of the breadth can be
recommended as an effective measure to reduce the wave-making and viscous

124
Ch.3. Propulsion on Calm Water

components of resistance. The latter changes due to a decrease in the specific wetted
surface area.

125
Ch.3. Propulsion on Calm Water

3.3.5. Effect of Geometry of Catamarans on Hull-Propeller Interaction


Self-propelled model tests were carried out for models with l1=5.0 (transverse
clearances 0.3 and 0.4) and l1=6.4 (transverse clearances from 0.2 to 0.5). Effective thrust
load coefficient varied within the range of KDE=0.5-3.0. Due to wave interference, wake
fraction depends on Froude number. In the range Fn=0.30-0.35, wave interference is
favorable for both resistance and wake fraction. For large L/B1 and small-to-moderate
KDE, an increase of clearance and WT occurs together, resulting in a maximum near
Fn0.35. Wake fraction demonstrates a strong dependence on Froude number at high
load coefficients. A reduction of L/B1 leads to a growth of wake fraction; the growth is
less intensive than that for a single hull. In general, for catamarans with small clearances
( 2b =0.2), WT is less than that for a monohull, but it becomes greater at 2b >0.25.
The thrust deduction coefficient is also a function of Froude number. It was found
that a favorable, from the resistance and wake fraction viewpoint, range of Fn=0.30-0.35
is also good for thrust deduction. The latter reaches a local minimum here. At low values
of the load coefficient and with elongated hulls, coefficient t depends only slightly on
clearance. This dependence tends to be stronger at lower L/B1 ratios, but the maximums
and minimums of the t-curve do not change their positions at 2b 04 and 2b 0.3,
respectively. An increase of KDE leads to a
profound effect of the hull relative length L/B1
on the thrust deduction coefficient as shown in
Fig.3.27. The global picture is that catamarans
are characterized by higher thrust deductions
as compared with monohulls; the difference is
minimal at 2b =0.4. Relative rotating
efficiency does depend on hull interference.
As for hull efficiency coefficient, H, its value
for catamarans with Fn=0.30-0.35 and 2b
=0.3-0.4 can by 10-15% exceed that for a
monohull.

Fig.3.27. Thrust deduction and wake fraction


versus inverse of load coefficient KDT

3.3.6. Propulsive Performance of Catamaran of a Given Breadth


Results of the systematic model tests can serve as a basis for comparative analysis
of catamaran propulsion provided that its overall breadth is given. In the proposed
method the overall length of catamaran was also preset. It is believed that both
dimensions are among the primary cost-defining parameters.
With B and L fixed, variations of one hull breadth B1 would result in changes of
both L/B1 and relative transverse clearance 2b . The wetted surface area can be estimated
from the plot in Fig.3.28. The coefficient of residuary resistance, CR, as a function of
L/B1, 2b , and Froude number Fn, is presented in six plots from Fig.3.29 through

126
Ch.3. Propulsion on Calm Water

Fig.3.34. The graphs are plotted for constant


B1/d=1.30, 1.65, and 2.25. Each value of B1/d is
associated with a certain value of block
coefficient CB and prismatic coefficient CP (see
Table 3.1, model # 3). Influence of the
geometric parameters on residuary resistance
can be seen from the plots in Fig.3.29-3.34.

Fig.3.28. Specific wetted area for catamaran


models with small L/B ratio.

Fig.3.29. Residuary resistance Fig.3.30. Residuary resistance


coefficient for models with Fn=0.20. coefficient for models with Fn=0.25.

Fig.3.31. Residuary resistance


coefficient for Fn = 0.30.

127
Ch.3. Propulsion on Calm Water

Fig.3.32. Residuary
resistance coefficient for Fn=0.35.

128
Ch.3. Propulsion on Calm Water

Fig.3.33. Residuary resistance Fig.3.34. Residuary resistance


coefficient for Fn=0.40. coefficient for Fn=0.45.

Based on the proposed method, the residuary resistance coefficient is obtained as


a product of the “basic” value and “influence” factors, as follows:

CRC  CR 0 ( Fn, L / B1 , 2b, B1 / d )  K CB (CB , Fn, B1 / d )  K CP (CP , Fn, B1 / d ) (3.77)

Factor KCP should be taken into account only if midship coefficient CM deviates from
0.85. The resistance of one hull is given by the following formula

R1  0.5K rVm2 (CRC  C F  C AP  C A ) SW (3.78)

SW   0 ( L / B1 , B1 / d ) K ( B1 / d , C B ) (3.79)

where K=1.15 is a correction factor for air resistance component;


SW is the wetted surface area, m2, as in Fig.3.28;
CF is given by Prandtl-Schlichting formula for friction of equivalent flat plate;
CAP is an appendages resistance coefficient:
=0.2 10-3 for bilge keels;
=0.25 10-3 for thrusters inlets;
=0.10 10-3 for conventional propeller;
=0.2 10-3 for propeller in nozzle;
CA is a correlation coefficient equal to the similar one for monohull.
Wake fraction WT and thrust deduction coefficient t are obtained in a form similar
to formulation of the resistance coefficient:

129
Ch.3. Propulsion on Calm Water

W  W1 ( K DE , L / B1 ) W2 ( K DE , B1 / d ) W3 ( K DE , CB ) W4 ( K DE , Fn, 2b ) 


 (3.80)
t  t1 ( K DE , L / B)  t2 ( K DE , B1 / d )  t3 ( K DE , CB)  t4 ( K DE , Fn, 2b ) 

where W1  A10  0.031(9  L / B1 ) (3.81a)


W2  0.6  0.3( B1 / d  1.3) (3.81b)
W3  0.375  1.25CB (3.81c)
1.57
W4  A40  A41 sin(2b  0.2)( ) for Fn<0.375 (3.81d)
0.4
1.57
W4  A40  { A41  A42 ( Fn  0.375)40sin[(2b  0.2) ]} for Fn0.375
0.4  40( Fn  0.375)
t1  C10  0.182C11 (9  L / B1 ) (3.81e)
t2  0.4  0.47( B1 / d  1.3) (3.81f)
t3  0.325  1.35CB (3.81g)
t4  C40  C41 (2b  0.2) / 0.3  C42 sin[(2b  0.2)10.5] for Fn<0.325 (3.81h)
t4  C40  C41[1  ( Fn  0.325) / 0.075]  C42 sin[10.5(2b  0.2)] for Fn0.325 (3.81i)
Dp v
K DE  (3.82)
T1 / r
Dp is the propeller diameter;
R1 is the resistance of one hull of catamaran including interference effect;
Ai , Ci are coefficients given in Table 3.2.

Table 3.2. Coefficients for wake and thrust deduction


KDE 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3
A10 0.20 0.156 0.125 0.10 0.08 0.07
A40 1 1 1 1.2 1.3 1.4
A41 0.05 0.20 0.35 0.45 0.50 0.55
A42 0 0 0 0.20 0.15 0.10
A43 0 0 0 0.10 0.15 0.20
C10 0.08 0.10 0.12 0.13 0.15 0.19
C11 0.09 0.10 0.12 0.16 0.26 0.32
C40 1 1.5 1.2 1.25 1.35 1.45
C41 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6
C42 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.35 0.40 0.45
C43 0.1 0.13 0.14 0.16 0.18 0.20

3.3.7. Resistance of High-Speed Catamarans


Resistance of high-speed catamarans designed for high Froude numbers has been
studied [Ermolaev et al., 1972, 1976] to predict performance of perspective catamarans
with displacement ranging from 100 to 3000 t and a speed of up to 60 kn. The authors
considered conventional catamarans with transient and planing modes of operation, foil-

130
Ch.3. Propulsion on Calm Water

assisted, air-cushion assisted, and hydrofoil catamarans. A wide spectrum of hull forms
was studied from round-bilge to skimming hard-chine (Fig.3.35), as well as a range of
length-to-beam ratios, geometry of fore and aft frames, keel line shapes, waterline
configurations, bottom deadrise and its change along the hull length, inner side hull
forms, and hull horizontal clearances. The choice of the hull principal dimensions was
based on the restrictions associated with main propulsion machinery accommodation. As
for additional lift devices, only fixed foils with no automatic control were considered;
flexible skirts with different pressure were studied as well. All available information on
more than 120 model tests was analyzed.

Fig.3.35.
Some typical hull
forms of
catamaran
models.

Over the
range of Froude
numbers from 0.5
to 3.7, the
conventional
catamarans
designed to the
principal
dimensions
optimal for a
given speed have
a higher specific
resistance R/V, as
compared with that for optimally-designed
monohulls of the same displacement1. Nevertheless, optimization of hull forms and
dimensions with regard to the preset speed and mode may bring about a considerable
improvement of the catamaran drag (Fig.3.36 and 3.37). The highest effect of up to 50%
can be reached by a proper choice of the beam-to-length ratio. Optimization of hull form
can reduce the resistance by 15-20%. The right choice of the inner side shape, suitable for
the horizontal clearance, speed, and other geometric parameters, is an important design
issue. One can expect reduction of the resistance by 5-7% relative to that of separate
hulls, even in the case of flat inner sides (Fig.3.37).
Hydrofoil assistance is one of the most effective means for improving the
hydrodynamic characteristics of high-speed catamarans and for providing them with
advantages over monohulls regarding to the resistance. The foil effect is associated with
load redistribution between the hulls and foils, the ship surfacing and its trim changing,
elimination of wave interference between the hulls and its reduction near the outer sides
and the general reduction of the water level between the hulls. The resistance is also
1
Some exemptions may include monohulls with considerable operational trim, e.g. ships with unusually
wide hulls moving at considerably high Froude number. In such cases a twin-hull configuration may result
in a gain in the resistance of up to 8-10% due to a smaller, as compared with this monohull, trim.

131
Ch.3. Propulsion on Calm Water

sensitive to the foil parameters, such as angle of attack and configuration. Despite of
some increase in resistance at intermediate speeds due to the presence of foils, the
hydrofoil-assisted catamarans are competitive with other types of high-speed craft,
Fig.3.38. Active control of the foils makes it possible to further improve their
performance in calm water and rough seas.

Fig.3.36. Influence of conventional Fig.3.37. Influence of conventional


catamaran’s hull form and dimensions catamaran’s inner side shape, clearance
on water resistance. and Froude number on water resistance.

Fig.3.38.
Comparison of specific
water drag for main types
of high-speed catamarans.

As for hydrofoil
ships, the twin-hull arrangement opens the way for reducing the water resistance both in
the take-off mode and in the mode of full hull lifting over the water surface. The former

132
Ch.3. Propulsion on Calm Water

is due to optimization of the interaction between catamaran’s foils and hulls, while the
latter is due to optimization of fore and after foils interaction.
However, the highest drag reduction may be reached in the essential take-off
mode where drag reduction over
10% can be obtained by assisted
foils’ installation and
optimization of their parameters
– see Fig.3.39.

Fig.3.39.
Effect of the location and number
of foils on drag reduction of
hydrofoil-assisted catamarans.

At cruise speeds, the


highest power saving effect can
be achieved with air cushion-
assisted catamarans, for which,
however, additional power is required for the air injection, Fig.3.38. Among attractive
features of this kind of catamarans are: redistribution of load between hulls and air-
cushion, and ability to change effective length-to-beam ratio for the whole structure
depending on the horizontal clearance. The limits of drag reduction can be as high as up
to 30-35% due to hull form modification, up to 20% due to optimizing the air
consumption, and up to 15-20% due to a rational design of the flexible skirts.
Rough seas effect is an important issue for high-speed catamarans. For a 1000-t
catamaran on high sea with wave height of h3%=0.06L taken as an example, the additional
resistance due to head seas, as compared to that on calm water, is approximately 8-11% at
Froude numbers of Fn=1-2. The similar values are 7-8% for foil-assisted catamarans, and
27-30% for hydrofoil catamarans. As for air cushion catamarans, the additional resistance
is 5-6% at the lower values of the Froude number range (Fn~1) and up to 36-40% at
Fn>2.

3.3.8. Catamarans and Trimarans with Flat Sides.


The idea of catamarans with flat sides has a long history. One of the earliest
proposals was made by Kostenko [1926]. Proponents of this concept believed that the flat
outer sides would not generate waves and an appropriate transverse gap would provide a
favorable wave interference. Proponents of the flat inner sides tried to abolish the
between-hull wave interference at all at any clearance. Some non-systematic experiments
with flat sides have been conducted many times, basically at low speeds [e.g. Dubrovsky,
1978]. On the same token there were trimaran model tests with the forward hull twice as
wide as the rear hulls and with flat outer sides of the latter’s [Lackenby, 1969; Seo et al.,
1973].
Comparative tests of catamarans and trimarans with flat sides were performed
with models of high L/B1 ratios of 9 and 18 for the central hull and side hulls,
respectively. Their relative breadths were 3 and 1.5, respectively, and the total block
coefficient was 0.5. The tests includes catamaran models with either inner or outer sides

133
Ch.3. Propulsion on Calm Water

being flat, as well as trimarans with flat outer sides of the side hulls. Results of model
tests extrapolated for a full-scale ship of 100-200 t displacement are plotted in Fig.3.40 in
the form of admiralty coefficients vs. Froude number (based on the length of one hull). At
a typical for high-speed ships transverse clearance of (1.5-2)B1 and at high L/B1 ratios, the
catamarans with flat inner or outer sides have virtually the same resistance. Within all
Froude range greater than Fn=0.2, highly elongated hulls are preferable from the
viewpoint of resistance, assuming a constant displacement. A trimaran with an optimum
advance of the central hull has a lower resistance at Fn<0.8, as compared with catamaran,
but the advance should be up to approximately 80% (what could be a challenge for a
designer). It is also worth noting that at Froude numbers Fn>1, catamarans with
symmetric hulls are better than those with the flat sides (provided their elongations being
equal). No reasonable explanation of this result has been found yet.

Fig.3.40. Comparison of
the Admiralty coefficients
for multi-hull ships:
curves 1 to 3 - statistical
data for catamarans with
L/B1=5, 7, and 9,
respectively; curves 4 and 5
- catamarans with flat inner
(solid line) and flat outer
(dashed line) sides at
L/B1=8 and 10, respectively; 6 - envelope for a trimaran with flat outer sides; 7 – a large
SWATH with outriggers.

3.3.9. Approximate Calculation of Resistance of Ships with Thin Hulls


To estimate the residuary resistance coefficient of catamarans and trimarans with
thin hulls, the following information is used as input data [Dubrovsky, Lyakhovitsky,
1978].
 residuary resistance of a single hull as a
function of Froude number, CR(Fn); if
these data are not available, the plots in
Fig.3.41 can be used as a source; CR is
subdivided into:
 “form” viscous resistance CVP,
 wave-making resistance
coefficient CW,
 relative transverse clearance, 2b =2b/L;
 for trimaran relative advance of the central
hull (longitudinal clearance) a=a/L;

Fig.3.41. Specific residuary


resistance of slender single hulls.

134
Ch.3. Propulsion on Calm Water

for a single hull:


at Fn=0.12 CVPCR (3.83)
and CW(Fn)=CR(Fn)-CVP

135
Ch.3. Propulsion on Calm Water

Fig.3.42.
Wave
resistance
factor for
catamarans

132
Ch.3. Propulsion on Calm Water

Fig.3.43.
Clearance effect on
form resistance
coefficient.

The coefficients of
residuary resistance for
catamarans and trimarans are as given by equations (3.84) and (3.85), respectively.

C RC ( Fn,2b )  CVP  K F ( 2b )  CW ( Fn)  K W ( Fn,2b )
(3.84)
C RT ( Fn, a ,2b )  C F  K FT ( a ,2b )  CW ( Fn)  K WT ( Fn, a ,2b ) (3.85)

Coefficients KW and KF are plotted in


Fig.3.42 and 3.43 for catamarans. For
trimarans they are plotted in Fig.3.44-
3.45, based on tests by Lyakhovitsky
[Dubrovskiy, 1975b].

Fig.3.44.
Form resistance coefficient KFT as a
function of clearance and advance.

Fig.3.45.
Wave resistance factor for trimaran KWT
(CB is about 0.5).

133
Ch.3. Propulsion on Calm Water

134
Ch.3. Propulsion on Calm Water

3.3.10. Increasing Speed of Wave-Piercing Catamarans


The wave-piercing catamarans had emerged as an effective means to improve
seakeeping of high-speed catamarans. They have been built for operating at relative
speeds up to Fn2.6-2.7 (for Froude number related to volumetric displacement of one
hull). At higher Froude numbers, a tendency to decrease the hulls’ elongation could be
expedient from the hydrodynamics viewpoint, as one can see in Fig.3.46. However, this
trend is constrained by the design considerations. First, with the open deck area being
equal, a reduction in the hull length would result in a widening of the already-wide-
enough catamaran and in
decreasing its longitudinal
stability. Second, that would
result in higher operational trim
angles and, as speed increasing,
in approaching the zone of
unstable planing
(“dolphining”). In addition, an
increase in the beam of the
hulls would result in stronger
slamming loads on the bottom,
thus eliminating the wave-
piercing catamaran’s superiority
in seaworthiness.

Fig.3.46.
Hydrodynamic quality
coefficient (W/R) of monohulls.

An alternative way for perfecting the wave-piercing catamarans can be found in


replacing the two highly elongated hulls by three hulls of lower elongations and lower
widths with an initial trim for reducing the slamming. Such re-arrangement would not
result in a significant growth of the wetted surface area, while the longitudinal clearance
would provide better stability and smaller trim. There are other profits associated with a
better propulsion machinery arrangement in the after hulls. Acceptable performance is
achievable if the three hulls have sufficiently lower drag and a favorable wave
interference. The drag reduction could be achieved by using an appropriate high-speed
monohull as a prototype suitable for the intended speed in designing each of the three
hulls. As for the wave interference, a feasibility of minimizing it was demonstrated in the
model tests whose results are shown in Fig.3.47. Here, a ratio of hydrodynamic quality
coefficient for a monohull to that for a trimaran made of such monohulls is plotted vs.
Froude number (based on volumetric displacement of one hull, FnV1) for different
arrangements of the hulls. One can see that at high Froude numbers the ratio is virtually
equal to unity, i.e. wave interference is negligible at large Froude numbers. This makes it
possible to expect that at Froude numbers FnV1 being around 5-6, the hydrodynamic

135
Ch.3. Propulsion on Calm Water

quality of a wave-piercing trimaran would be comparable with that for the best
monohulls, i.e. having the quality coefficient around 6-5, respectively. Other comparisons
are made in Section 3.5. Seakeeping
features of the wave-piercing trimaran
are described more in Chapter 4.

Fig.3.47.
Ratio of relative hydrodynamic quality
coefficient of a single isolated hull to
that for a trimaran made of three such
hulls at rational clearances.

3.4. Performance of SWATH Ships

3.4.1. General Features


As compared with catamarans and monohulls, SWATH ships have deeper relative
drafts and more complicated shapes of cross sections. That results in a greater specific
wetted surface area, see Fig.3.48. For three-hull arrangements, the total specific wetted
area further increases (by a factor of 1.31 for congruent hulls). With regard to their
specific wetted area, ships with outriggers are between tri-hull and monohull ships. On
the other hand, immersion of the main volume beneath the free water surface reduces the
wave-making resistance. This makes SWATH ships competitive with other types of water
displacing ships.

Fig.3.48. Specific wetted surface areas for


different ship types versus relative length of
hull (gondola), 1=L1/(V1)1/3: 1 – monohulls;
2 and 3 – single-strut SWATH with gondola’s
draft-to-depth ratio of 1.5 and 2, respectively;
4 and 5 – same for twin-strut SWATH.

Wave-making resistance of SWATH


ships is influenced by the wave interference
between hulls but to a lesser degree than that
for catamarans. This is due to greater
transverse clearances of the former. A greater
effect on wave-making resistance of SWATH is due to strut-hull wave interference. This
effect can be seen in Fig.3.49 where residuary resistance coefficient is plotted for a
single- and a twin-strut SWATH. Short struts of twin-strut SWATH, usually as long as 25-
30% of gondola length each, significantly
affect the wave-making resistance of the
entire hull. The effect of strut is
unfavorable at Froude number (based on

136
Ch.3. Propulsion on Calm Water

strut length) being around 0.5 and favorable for greater speeds. As a result, twin-strut
SWATH’s residuary resistance is maximum at the gondola-length-based Froude number
of ~0.3. As compared with single-strut, twin-strut SWATH has lower residuary resistance
at the Froude numbers of around 0.5.

Fig.3.49. Residuary resistance coefficient for a duplus (curve 1) and trisec (curve 2) with
the elongations of their gondolas being equal to 16.

Systematic tests of SWATH ships with outriggers have revealed a remarkable


effect of the central hull on the resistance of outriggers, depending on their lengthwise
position. Their inverse effect on the central hull’s wave-making resistance is much less
but also depends on their lengthwise position. There are some combinations of Froude
numbers and clearances when the interference between the central hull and outriggers is
negligible and the wave-making resistances can be simply summed up.
Wave interference is most profound for tri-hull SWATH where, similar to that in
trimarans, the resistance component can double or triple because of that, as compared to
10-15% change for a twin-hull SWATH. This is shown in Fig.3.50 which demonstrates
both the effect of advance and the speed ranges where a tri-hull SWATH has an
advantage.

Fig.3.50.
Residuary resistance
coefficient for twin-
hull and tri-hull
SWATH. Elongations
of gondolas are the
same.

Due to reduced longitudinal stability of SWATHs, they have larger operational


trim and draft change. The latter is somewhat ambiguous and depends on gondola’s
submergence and shape. The speed-dependence of the trim plotted in Fig.3.51 shows a
trim by the bow at Froude numbers between 0.2 and 0.4 and a squat at Fn>0.4. There is
no standard behavior of the amidships draft. A trim by the bow is unfavorable and even
dangerous as it results in a decrease in the vertical clearance at the bow and in surfacing
the propellers. There are three ways to change the operational trim: appropriate profiling
the gondola, ballasting, and controlling the horizontal rudders. The first way is most
effective energy-wise; the third one causes energy losses due to additional resistance. It is
hard to predict SWATH resistance. A great variety of forms and insufficient experimental
data make theoretical and numerical analyses attractive.

Fig.3.51.
Typical operational
trim of a SWATH
versus speed (positive
for trim by the stern).

137
Ch.3. Propulsion on Calm Water

3.4.2. Wave-Induced Forces and Moments during Steady Motion


As SWATH ships have elongated hulls situated sufficiently far from each other,
the linear wave theory is applicable for determining the wave-making resistance.
Formulation of the linear theory problem is given above in equations (3.4)-(3.9). The
potential of each hull i(x,y,z) should be obtained taking into consideration the mutual
hull interference. However, assuming that the hulls are situated far enough from each
other so that their mutual interference does not change noticeably the hydrodynamic
fields, we can express the velocity potential of a multi-hull ship as a sum of potentials of
all individual hulls. After manipulations for a hull of an arbitrary shape this yields for the
case of deep water:

 
1
 N ( x, y, z) 
8 2 H
0 
N (  ,  ) exp[ z  i ( x cos   y sin  )]d d  

 /2
i   d
 Re  exp[ 2 ( z  ix cos   iy sin  )]H N ( 2 ,  )  (3.86)
2  / 2
cos  cos  cos4 
  /2
  (1   )  (1   ) d  d
 Re
4 2  vp


 / 2
exp[
cos 2

( z  ix cos   iy sin  )]H N (
cos 2

)
 cos 4 

where v=g/Vm2;
N
H N ( , )   Hi (  , ) (3.87)
1

and for the case of shallow water:

  N
1
 hN ( x, y, z)  2
8   H
0  1
hi (  , ) exp[ ( z  h  ix cos   iy sin  )]d d  

 /2 
1    cos 2  N N

8 2
Re  d vp 0 exp(  h ) [
 sh  h   cos2  ch  h 1
 hi
H (  )  1 H ( )] 
 / 2

{exp[ ( z  h  ix cos   iy sin  )]  exp[ ( z  h  ix cos   iy sin  )]}d   (3.88)



2 th  h
 Re i  {exp[0 ( z  h  ix cos   iy sin  )] 
8  (ch 0 h   h / cos 2  )
 0
2

N N
d
 exp[0 ( z  h  ix cos  iy sin  )]}[ H hi ( , )   H hi (  , )]
1 1 cos 4 

N
where H hN ( , )  H hi ( , ) (3.89)
1
Here and in what follows, 0 is the positive root of transcendental equation

138
Ch.3. Propulsion on Calm Water

h
th0 h  0 , h (3.90)
cos 2 

which is valid for any value, if speed is subcritical, and for >0=arcos(1/Fnh), if speed
is supercritical. The right hand terms of equations (3.86) and (3.88) are derived under
condition that the origin is above the center of buoyancy of the immersed body.
Denoting ai, bi, ci as the coordinates of the center of buoyancy of the i-th hull, the
Kochin’s function for a multi-hull ship in deep water is as follows
N
H N ( , )   exp ( d i  iai cos   ibi sin  )  exp ( z i   i cos  
i 1 Si
(3.91)
  
i i sin  ) i   i  i cos  cos( n , i )  i sin  cos( n , i )  cos( n , z i ) dS
 n 

and for shallow water it is:


N
H hN (  , )   exp ( d i  iai cos   ibi sin  )  exp ( z i  h 
i 1 Si

  i (3.92)
i i cos   i i sin  )    i  i cos  cos( n , i )  i sin  cos( n , i ) 
 n

 cos( n , z i ) dS

As a first approximation, the 3-D ellipsoids potentials can be used in formula


(3.91). It is possible to find the induced velocities, free surface elevation, wave forces and
moments by making use of formulas (3.86, (3.87) with modified Kochin’s function in
accordance with equations (3.91) and (3.92). For example, the components of the wave
force acting on a ship on deep water,

2
rv 2 2
 d
x
8
 H N ( 2 , )
cos  cos 3 
(3.93)
 2


2
2r 2  sin d
y 
8 
H N (  2 , )
cos  cos 4 
(3.94)
2


 
r r 2 2
d 1
1 
   H N ( , ) dd  4 2  v . p. 
2
z 2 
8 cos   
4
0   2
(3.95)
2 2   2
(1   ) r    cos 
2

 HN (
cos 
2 , ) d  2
8
H N (  , )
   cos 2 
dd .
 0

139
Ch.3. Propulsion on Calm Water

and similar components for moving in shallow water are as follows,

 2
r 2 2
H N ( 0 , )  H hN (  0 , ) th0 hd
xh  
8
 h

cos 3  (3.96)
 2 ch 0 h  2
2
cos 
 2
r 2 2 thh H hN ( , )  H hN (  , ) sin 
yh  
8 
 yh
 4 d
cos  (3.97)
2 ch h  2
2
cos 

 
r r 2 2 th0 h
  hN  cos 4  
2
zh   2  H (   , ) dd 
8  0 4  
2

J m  H hN ( 0 , )H hN (  0 , )


r 2
exp( h )

h
d 
8 2
 dv . p.   (3.98)
0 shh   cos chh
2
ch 2 0 h   2
cos 2 
 2
 H hN (  , )  H (   , ) d
2

Similarly, one can derive expressions for the wave induced moment components when
moving in deep water

 
r    cos 2 
Mx  
8 2
Re  N
 0
 H (   ,  )[ H Ny (   ,  )  i sin  H Nz (   ,  )]
   cos 2 
d  d 

 /2
ir     d
 Re
2 
 / 2
cos 
2
H N ( 2 )[ H Ny ( 2 , )  i sin  H Nz ( 2 ,  )]
cos  cos  cos  cos 2 

(3.99)

r  (1   )
1
 (1   )  (1   )
 Re 2
4  r  cos 2  H N ( cos 2  , )[ H Ny ( cos2  , ) 
 (1   ) d  d
 i sin  H Nz ( , )]
cos 2
 cos 2 

140
Ch.3. Propulsion on Calm Water

 
r 1
M y   2 Re    H N ( , )[i cos  H Nz ( , )  H Nx ( , )]d  d 
8   0
 /2
ir     d
2 / 2 cos 2 
 Re H N ( 2 , )[i cos  H Nz ( 2 , )  H Ny ( 2 , )] 
cos  cos  cos  cos 2 
(3.100)

r 1
 (1   )  (1   )  (1   )
 Re 2
4  r  cos2  H N ( cos2  , )[i cos H Nz ( cos2  , ) 
 (1   ) d  d
 H Ny ( , )]
cos 2   cos 2 

 
r 1
  0
Mz   Re i H N ( , )[sin  H Nx ( , )  cos H Ny ( , )]d  d 
8 2
 /2
ir i    d
 Re
2 
 cos 
2
H N ( 2 , )[sin  H Nx ( 2 , )  cos  H Ny ( 2 , )]
cos  cos  cos  cos 2 

 /2

(3.101)
r 1
i (1   )  (1   )  (1   )
 Re 2
4  r  cos2  H N ( cos 2  , )[sin  H Nx ( cos2  , ) 
 (1   ) d  d
 H Ny ( , )]
cos 2
 cos 2 

and for a shallow water depth

r  
M hx   Re     H hN ( , )[ H hNy ( , )  i sin  H hNz (  , )]d  d 
8 2   0
 /2
th 0 h
 i 2  [ H hN (0 ,  )  H N (0 , ) H Nyh (0 , )  H Nyh (0 , ) 
 / 2 ch 2  h 
h
cos 2 
0

(3.102)
d
 i sin  H Nzh (0 , )  i sin  H Nzh ( 0 , )] 
cos 4 
 /2 
1 exp( h)
  dr  [ H Nh ( , h)  H Nh ( , )][ H Nyh ( , ) 
  / 2 0
 sh  h   cos 2  ch  h
 H Nyh (  , )  i sin  H Nzh ( , )  i sin  H Nz ( , )](   cos 2  ) d 

141
Ch.3. Propulsion on Calm Water

r  
M hy  Re     H hN ( , )[i sin  H hNz (  , )  H hNx ( , )]d  d 
8 2   0
 /2
th 0 h
 i 2  [ H hN (0 , )  H Nh (0 , )][i cos  H Nzh (0 , ) 
 / 2 ch 2  h 
h
cos 2 
0

(3.103)
d
i cos H Nhz (0 , )  H Nhx (0 , )  H Nhx (0 , )] 
cos 4 
 /2 
1 exp( h)
  dr  [ H Nh ( , h)  H Nh ( , )][ H Nxh ( , ) 
  / 2 0
 sh  h   cos 2  ch  h
 H Nxh ( , )  i cos  H Nzh ( , )  i cos H Nz ( , )] d  

r  
M hz  Re    H hN ( , )[i sin  H hNx ( , )  i cos H hNy (  , )] d  d 
8 2   0
 /2
th 0 h
 i 2  [ H hN (0 , )  H Nh (0 , )][i sin  H Nxh (0 , ) 
 / 2 ch 2  h 
h
cos 2 
0

(3.104)
d
 i sin  H Nhx (0 , )  i cos  H Nhy (0 , )  i cos  H Nyh ( 0 , )] 
cos 4 
 /2 
1 exp[ h(   cos 2  )
  dr  [ H Nh ( , h)  H Nh (  , )][i sin  H Nxh ( , ) 
  / 2 0
 sh  h   cos 2  ch  h
 i sin  H Nxh ( , )  i cos H Nyh ( , )  i cos H Nyh (  , )] d  

Surface elevation is associated with the velocity potential, so that for low
amplitude waves we can get:

Vm  ( x, y,0)
z w ( x, y )  (3.105)
g x

and for the waves induced by a multi-hull ship moving in deep waters:
 
v
z WN ( x , y )   2 Re i   exp i( x cos   y sin  )H N ( , ) 
8 g   0
 
v
 cos ddd  2 Re i   exp i( x cos   y sin  )H N (  , ) 
8 g   0
 (3.106)
 cos  (    cos  )dd  v
2 2
i 2
  Re  exp 2 ( x cos   y sin  ) 
   cos 
2
2g  cos 
2

 d
H N ( , ) 4
cos 
2
cos 

142
Ch.3. Propulsion on Calm Water

and in shallow waters


 
v
z hW ( x , y )   R i   exp   ( h  ix cos  iy sin  ) 
8 2 g e   0


v 2
exp h(    cos 2  ) cos 
 H N (   , ) cos dd  R i  d v . p.  
8 2 g e   0 shh   cos 2 chh
2

 H N (  , )  H N (   , )  exp  ( h  ix cos   iy sin  )  exp   ( h 


 (3.107)
 2v 2
th0 h
ix cos   iy sin  )  d  Re  
8g   h
2 ch 0 h 
2
cos 2 

 exp  0 ( h  ix cos   iy sin  )  exp   0 ( h  ix cos   iy sin  ) 
d
 H N ( 0 , )  H N (  0 , )
cos 3 

The wave-making resistance of a catamaran on deep water was made by Amromin


and Timoshin [1997] by summing the Kochin’s functions for the left and right hulls.
Based on systematic methodological calculations of flow around 3-D bodies, Smorodin
[1970] estimated an error caused by neglecting the neighboring elements in the system of
linear equations modeling the integral equation for velocity potential. He found that the
error is about 1-2% for a source panel located at 0.25L from the point of interest and 5-
6% when this distance is 0.15L, where L is the length of the body. This conclusion
supports the assumption that the mutual interference between potentials of each hull is
insignificant if relative transverse clearance exceeds 0.15L. In terms of the wave-making
resistance component these errors can result in overestimating the resistance by 2-4% for
0.25L and by 10-12% for 0.15L. This assumption can be effectively used for comparative
and parametric studies of the effects of principal dimensions.
Similar approach can also be used for assessing the forces and moments with
viscous flow imitation and for hull-propeller interaction, as well as in ship motion
analysis.

3.4.3. Linear Problem of Wave-Making Resistance and Results for SWATH


The approaches based on the theory of wave-making resistance have been widely
used in the field of SWATH where variety of forms, principal dimensions, and
configurations gives more room for design and optimization. In particular, high
elongation ratio of hulls used in practical design makes it possible to apply the linear
theory and get results with an acceptable accuracy. Here the linear theory is used for
analyzing the wave-making resistance of:
 single gondola beneath the free surface;
 strut of large elongation;
 twin-hull SWATH;

143
Ch.3. Propulsion on Calm Water

 same with a longitudinal shift of the hulls;


 tri-hull SWATH with identical hulls;
 tri-hull SWATH configuration with small outer hulls (outriggers).
Hereafter, the term “hull (of a SWATH)” means a gondola + a strut.
In the linear theory of waves, Kochin’s method has been found suitable for many
applications, in particular for multi-hull ships [Timoshin and Pikin, 1965, Dubrovsky,
1965]. In the linear theory, summation of velocity potentials leads to the same result as
summation of the Kochin’s functions does. For a ship with N hulls:
N
H N ( , )   Hi (  , ) (3.108)
i 1

where HN(,) is the Kochin’s function for ship with N hulls;


Hi(,) is a similar function for the i-th hull relative to the origin common for all hulls.
In a generalized form

H i ( , )  exp[ (di  iai cos  ibi sin  )] exp[ ( i  i i cos  i sin  )]q( , , f ) (3.109)
Si

where i, i, zi are the surface coordinates of the ith hull;
ai, bi, di are the coordinates of the center of buoyancy of the ith hull;
q(,f) is the intensity of sources modeling the hull with f-ordinates.
Wave forces and moments acting on a multi-hull ship can be obtained using
Kochin’s functions in a similar way as for a monohull by replacing function H(,) with
function HN(,).
There are two types of hull interaction: near- and far-field interactions. If the
function q(,) is taken as source distribution for a single hull and only the terms
including clearances a and b contribute to the formulas for the force and moment, then
one can consider wave interaction as being the far-field interaction only. Actually, the far-
field interaction is associated with interference of the far wake wave fields of the hulls.
For the hulls situated far apart, this approach gives a reasonable accuracy.
Near-field interaction implies a change in the source distribution, namely,

q  q0  q

where q0 is the source distribution function for a single hull;


q is an additional term due to wave interference of the hulls.
For the simplest case of a multi-hull ship with distant slender hulls, the far-field
approach is effective, especially when Haskind’s form of solution is used. Replacing a
real hull with an ellipsoid of revolution, one can derive a simple formula for the
additional wave-making resistance due to hull-to-hull interaction. For example, for a
quadruple-hull ship (N=4) it yields:

144
Ch.3. Propulsion on Calm Water


4 r g 4 Am2  gZ a
R 
Vm 6 
0
exp( 2 c ch 2 u )Q 2 ( q, C p ) cos( 2 ch u ) 
Vm Fn
(3.110)
2b
 cos( 2 ch u sh u)ch 4 udu
Fn

where CP is the prismatic coefficient,


1
2x
Am is the midship section area; Q ( q, C p )   X ( , C p )cos qx * dx ;
0
L
chu 2x 2x
q , X ( , C p )  Ai ( C p ) * Am ,
2 Fn L L,
Ai is relative area of a section on station “i”, Am is midship section area;
Zc is the height of the center of buoyancy.
The integral includes several specific components shown graphically in Fig.3.52:
 gZ
 fast diminishing exponential function: exp( 2 c ch 2 u)
Vm
 positive periodic function, depending on Froude number and hull geometry (it is
plotted here for a higher (a) and lower (b) Fn values);
 cosine function with a decreasing
period; it depends on transverse
clearance and Froude number;
 a similar function, depending on
longitudinal clearance and Froude
number.

Fig.3.52.
Components of resistance integral for a far-
field interaction of hulls:
I – positive half-wave,
II – negative half-wave;
III – oscillation zone.

Separate effects of the clearances make


it possible to optimize each clearance
individually. The fast growth of the arguments
of “clearance functions”, cos(2b ch u sh u / Fn 2 )
2
and  cos(a ch u / Fn ) , results in appearance of positive, negative, and oscillating
functions. Respectively, the wave-making “interference” resistance integral can be
represented as a sum of three components:

R  R1  R2  R3 (3.111)

145
Ch.3. Propulsion on Calm Water

The first term is an integral of the product of two positive functions and is,
therefore, always positive. The second component is always negative because one of its
functions is negative. The third term is a result of integration of a product of positive
functions times an oscillating function, rapidly alternating from positive to negative
values at minor changes of its argument and, hence, R3 is negligibly small. Therefore,
the wave making resistance caused by hull interaction is controlled by R1 and R2 only.
The values of these quantities depend on behavior of periodic functions, or in other
words, on positions of their minimums and maximums.
When the negative half-wave of the “clearance”
function coincides with a maximum of “hull form”
function Q2, the value of R is negative, and the total
resistance of the multi-hull is less than a sum of wave-
making resistances of the individual hulls. For twin-
hull ships, a favorable wave interaction can be
achieved only by reducing the amplitude of divergent
waves. For three-hull ships, both wave patterns,
transverse and divergent, contribute to the wave-
making resistance. It should be pointed out, that the
“far-field” interference is most intensive for S-shaped
hulls, in other words, for SWATH.
Assuming high elongations for the gondolas and
struts, as well as significant distances between them,
one can derive the following formulas for different
types of SWATH shown in Fig.3.53:

Fig.3.53. SWATH types analyzed based on the far-field


interaction of hulls approach (from top to bottom):
regular SWATH, same with hulls shifted, tri-hull
SWATH with identical hulls, same with outriggers.

a) duplus with struts shifted longitudinally:

H g2  (2 H g  2 H st )2  4( H g2  2 H g  H st2 ) (3.112)

where subscript “g” designates the Kochin’s function for gondola and “st” for strut.
The right-hand sum corresponds to the following resistance terms:

RWduplus  RWg  RWinteraction  RWst (3.113)

When the origin is at the midship section, a=0, and

H g2  ( I g  iJ g ) exp 2ib (3.114)

where I and J are the symmetric and anti-symmetric components of the Kochin’s
function, respectively.

146
Ch.3. Propulsion on Calm Water

For a gondola with and without symmetry (i.e. when Jg=0) relative to its midship
section we can get expressions (3.115) and (3.116), respectively:

H g2  ( I g  J g ) cos 2b  2 I g J g sin 2b (3.115)

H g2  I 2 cos 2b (3.116)

For struts shifted longitudinally, a0, and

H st2  ( I st  iJ st ) 2 exp 2ia  exp 2ib (3.117)


or after manipulations H st  ( I st  iJ st ) cos(a  b )  2 I st J st sin( a  b )
2 2
(3.118)

For the struts symmetric relative to the midship, Jst=0, and

H st2  I st2 cos( a  b ) (3.119)

If both gondola and strut are symmetric relative to their mid sections, the integral
associated with wave interference is as follows:

H g H st  I g I st (cos a  cos b  sin a  sin 2b ) (3.120)

Therefore, the wave-making resistance for a duplus with shifted struts is:
 /2
4 r 2   
RWg   [I , ) cos 2b  I g ( 2 , ) I st ( 2 , ) cos(a  2b ) 
2
g (
 cos 
2
cos  cos 
0
(3.121)
 d
 I ( 2 , ) cos(2a  2b )] 3
2
st
cos  cos

Once again, the first term under integral sign represents the wave-making resistance of
the gondolas, the second term – the interference of gondolas and struts, and the third is
the wave-making resistance of the struts.

b) twin-hull SWATH with hulls shifted longitudinally and struts shifted relative to
gondolas:
 /2
r 2
RW 2 s   [I cos 2b  I g2 cos(2c  2b )  I st2 cos(2 a  2b )  I st2 cos(2a  2b  2c )  I g2 cos(c  2b )
2
g
 0
(3.122)
d
2 I g I st cos(a  2b )  4 I g I st cos( a  2b  c )  2 I g I st cos( a  2b  c )]  2 I st cos(2a  2b  c )]
cos3

where as before, subscripts “g” and “st” stand for gondola and strut, respectively; and
“o” and “s” mean ordinary and shifted positions of gondola or strut.

c) tri-hull SWATH with struts shifted relative to gondolas:

147
Ch.3. Propulsion on Calm Water

H 32  ( H cg  2 H eg  H cst  2 H est ) 2 (3.123)

Here subscripts “c” and “e” stand for central and side (external) struts or gondolas,
respectively. With the clearances of gondolas and struts relative to the origin being as
follows
Element longitudinal clearance transverse clearance
central gondola 0 0
side gondola c B
central strut a 0
side strut a+c B
one can obtain for the case of gondolas and struts being symmetric relative to their mid
sections:

H 32  I g2  6 I g2 cos(2b  2c )  (4 I st2  2 I g I st ) cos(2a  2b  2c )  I g I st cos a 


( I st2  I g I st ) cos 2a  I g I st cos(2b  2c )  6 I g I st cos( a  2b  2c )  (3.124)
4 I g I st cos(2b  2c )  2 I st cos(3a  2b  2c )

d) tri-hull ship with the main central gondola and two small outriggers

H (12  2)  ( H cg  2 H eg  H cst  2 H est )2 (3.125)

Clearances in this case are the same but the integrals for the central and side struts
and gondolas are different from those in case (c). They are as follows:

H (12  2)  I cg2  (4 I eg2  2 I cg I eg ) cos(2b  2c )  (4 I est


2
 2 I cg I est ) cos(2a  2b  2c ) 
 I cg I cst cos a  I cst
2
cos 2a  (2 I eg I cst  4 I eg I est ) cos( a  2b  2c )  (3.126)
2 I cst I est cos(3a  2b  2c )

Therefore, the wave-making resistance of SWATH with any number and


arrangement of hulls can be calculated by applying standardized integrals for a single
gondola, Ig, and a single strut, Ist. A comparison of calculations and model test data on
wave-making resistance for SWATH plotted in Fig.3.54 shows a satisfactory agreement
between theory and experiment for a twin-hull ship. However, for tri-hull ships with a
large longitudinal advance, a disagreement between the theory and tests is greater. The
most probable reason for this is a near-field interaction of hulls, which is ignored by the
linear theory.

Fig.3.54.
Model tests and
calculations of the
residuary resistance
coefficient for SWATH:

148
Ch.3. Propulsion on Calm Water

1 – model test for elliptic bow gondola; 2 – same for conical bow gondola; 3 –
calculations for bulbous bow gondola.

Systematic calculations for twin-hull ships demonstrate a good agreement with


experiments for gondolas with elongations greater than 12 and for clearances greater than
0.35L. The reasonable accuracy of the linear theory makes it possible to perform
parametric variations for optimizing the gondolas/struts arrangement with regard to
towing resistance for any twin-hull ships with thin hulls, see Fig.3.55. It was found that at
a constant Froude number, the
“interference” wave resistance
component depends essentially non-
monotonically on the clearance.
Generally, there are three minimums
(two minimums for Fn=0.5) with the
absolute minimum associated with a
large clearance. Experiments confirm
these minimums but to a lower level of
magnitudes.

Fig.3.55. Optimal transverse


clearances for twin-hull ships with thin
hulls versus Froude number related to
gondola length:
1 – calculations; 2 – model tests.

As it was mentioned before, three-hull objects can have a favorable wave


interference caused both by diverging and transverse wave patterns. The optimum
longitudinal clearance can be found from the following equation:

aopt  a / L  (2n  1) Fn 2 , n=0, 1, 2, …- natural line of numbers, which


defines line of optimums (3.127)

The optimum longitudinal clearances, calculated


theoretically and obtained experimentally, are
compared in Fig.3.56. The best agreement is at
Froude numbers greater than 0.4.

Fig.3.56. Optimal longitudinal clearances for


SWATH versus Froude number related to
gondola length: solid lines – model tests;
dashed lines – calculations.

149
Ch.3. Propulsion on Calm Water

As for optimum values of the prismatic coefficients, plot in Fig.3.57 shows a local
minimum at a high value of CP and moderate Froude numbers which are close to Froude
numbers corresponding to that minimum for monohulls.

Fig.3.57.
Optimal prismatic coefficient for SWATH and
monohulls (1 – after Kostyukov, 1959; 2 – after
Dubrovsky, 1965) versus Froude number related to
gondola length: solid lines – model tests; dashed
lines – calculations.

An analytic study had been performed to find a


limit when the clearance can be considered “large”
enough to ignore the hulls interference. Assuming
the hulls are symmetric relative to their midship
sections, the wave making resistance for a ship with
N hulls is given as follows:

 N N N j N N j
RW   r  [ ( I 5i )   ( I 7 i )  2  ( I 5i I 7(i  j ) )  2  ( I 7i  I 7(i  j ) )]ch udu
2 2
(3.128)
 0 i 1 i 1 i 1 j 1 i 1

where
0 L/2
I 5i    exp( ch
2
u ) cos( ai ch u ) cos( bi th u ch 2 u ) cos( s h 3 u ) 
d 0
(3.129)
S
 [(2   x )   y ]d d

0 L/ 2
I 7i    exp( ch
2
u ) cos( ai ch u) cos( bi th u ch 2 u ) cos( sh u) 
7 0
(3.130)
f
 ( x   z ) th ud  d

wx, wy, wz are the velocities induced by adjacent hulls on the i-th hull at point (,,z);

N
  4 2 3 3i  BV
Wx     12i  2i  
i m
(3.131)
i 1      L2i
2

N
  4 2 3 5i  BV
Wy     42i  5i  i m
 L2 (3.132)
i 1     2
 i

150
Ch.3. Propulsion on Calm Water

N
  4 2 3 9i  BV
Wz     72i  8i  i m
 L2 (3.133)
i 1     2
 i

Changes in function q were calculated for the middle section of a twin-hull ship
with elongations of the hulls as high as 15. The results were compared with tests data for
a monohull in a channel. Based on the maximum discrepancy of 10% in the wave-making
resistance, transverse clearances of 0.35L and greater can be considered as “large”.
Therefore, the “far-field” approximation can be used for calculating the wave-making
resistance of a SWATH with a relative clearance of 0.35 and greater.

3.4.4. Assessment of SWATH Propulsion


The method used for assessing SWATH propulsion is based on systematic model
tests with twin-hull SWATH ships carried out at the KSRI. A composite model was used
for towing tests (Fig.3.58). Its forebody was a semi-ellipsoid with axes ratio of 1.5:1:1,
the afterbody part is a cone with an apex angle of 2x12. The cross sections were circular.
The struts were half as wide as the
gondola and stretched from the
stem to a point 100 mm fore from
the cone’s apex. Elements of the
models are shown in Tables 3.3-
3.6.

Fig.3.58.
Block model of SWATH hull

Table 3.3. Principal dimensions of single-hull SWATH models tested


Gondola elongation, L/Dg 9 12 15 18 24
Gondola length, m 1.8 2.4 3.0 3.6 4.8
Volumetric displacement, m3, at draft 0.25m .048 .070 .093 .115 .160
0.30m .056 .081 .106 .130 .181
0.35m .064 .092 .119 .146 .202
0.40m .072 .103 .132 .163 .223
Wetted surface area, m2, at draft 0.25m 1.01 1.40 1.80 2.20 3.00
0.30m 1.18 1.63 2.07 2.53 3.42
0.35m 1.38 1.87 2.36 2.85 3.84
0.40m 1.57 2.11 2.66 3.20 4.27

Table 3.4. Clearances for the models tested (Dgondola=0.2m, Bstrut=0.1m, d=0.35m)
Gondola elongations 9 12 15 18 24
Gondola length, m 1.8 2.4 3.0 3.6 4.8

151
Ch.3. Propulsion on Calm Water

Transverse clearance (distance between 0.45 0.60 0.75 0.90 1.20


center planes), m 0.54 0.72 0.90 1.08 1.44
0.63 0.84 1.05 1.26 1.68
0.72 0.96 1.20 1.44 1.92
0.90 1.44 1.50 1.80 2.40
1.06 - 1.80 - 2.88
Table 3.5. Principal dimensions of tri-hull SWATH models
Gondola elongation 9 12 15 18 24
Transverse clearance 0.63 0.84 1.05 1.26 1.68
(distance between center planes), m 0.72 0.96 1.20 1.44 1.92
0.90 1.20 1.50 1.80 2.40
1.06 1.44 1.80 2.15 2.88
Longitudinal clearance 0.54 0.60 0.90 1.08 1.44
(distance between the central and side hull 0.63 0.72 1.05 1.26 1.68
stems), m 0.72 0.84 1.20 1.44 1.92
0.81 0.96 1.35 1.62 2.16
0.90 1.20 1.50 1.80 2.40
1.05 1.44 1.80 2.15 2.88

Single hulls, as well as twin-hull models, were tested under towing carriage with
fixed trim. Twin-hull models were tested with a permanent draft and variable transverse
clearances. Effect of free trimming was investigated on a model with horizontal stern
rudders with their surface area being 5% of waterplane surface area. Test results (see
Fig.3.15) are approximated below in terms of residuary resistance coefficient CR vs.
Froude number based on gondola length,

r 0.455
CR  CT  CF   (3.134)
rVm 1 ( Rn) 2.58
2

where CT(Fn, Rn) is the total resistance coefficient (Froude and Reynolds numbers with
respect to gondola’s length).

Table 3.6. Principal dimensions of SWATH models with outriggers


Central hull elongation 12 15 18 24
Outrigger gondola elongation 6 6 6 6
9 9 9 9
12 12 12
15 15
18
Transverse clearance (distance between outrigger center 0.72 0.90
planes), m 0.84 1.05
0.96 1.20
1.44 1.50
Longitudinal clearance (distance between the central hull 0.30 0.30 0.30 0.30
and outrigger stems), m 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.60

152
Ch.3. Propulsion on Calm Water

0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90


1.20 1.20 1.20 1.20
1.50 1.50 1.50 1.50
1.80 1.80 1.80
2.10 2.10
2.40

The high elongations of the models tested predetermined relatively small values
of the form factor (CR<0.4x10-3 at Fn=0.1). Therefore, it appears reasonable to apply
Froude hypothesis about equal residuary resistance coefficients of the model and ship for
predicting the full-scale resistance by recalculating from the model test data. For a greater
area of rudders, their resistance should be accounted additionally. For relative drafts,
different as compared to the model tested, correction factors can be applied based on
model tests of a single hull at different drafts. When no data are available on these
factors, the correlation coefficient used for conventional ships can be applied. Air
resistance component is calculated separately depending on individual configuration.
The proposed procedure for assessing ship propulsion is based mainly on model
tests and should therefore be applied mainly within the ranges of models’ principal
dimensions ratios and characteristics. Based on the model test, towing resistance is
influenced by the following parameters:
 gondola elongation;
 gondola relative submersion;
 relative transverse clearance.
Input data for the prediction procedure are the following:
 volumetric displacement V, m3 ;
 gondola length L, m;
 design draft d, m;
 overall beam Bm , m;
 waterplane area SWP, m2 ;
 ship speed range covering design speed VS.
It is also assumed that the initial width-to-height ratio Bg/Dg. From the viewpoint
of still water resistance (wetted area), the value of Bg/Dg=1.0 is preferable, while values
of 1.5-2.0 are more favorable for seakeeping. As for the gondola depth-to-draft ratio, a
range of Dg/d=0.50-0.65 includes a majority of built/designed SWATH ships. Lower
numbers within this range provide better seakeeping but result in greater wetted surface
area. Based on the input data, the following geometrical parameters are calculated for
each of the variants to be considered:
 relative length of one hull 1=L/(Vg/2)1/3;
Vg
 gondola beam Bg  , where CB is obtained from Fig.3.59 as
LCB ( Bg / d g )
a function of 1;
 gondola depth Dg=Bg(Dg/Bg);
 strut volume (assuming its vertical sides) Vst=0.5Sd(1-Dg/d);
 gondola volume Vg=0.5V-Vst,
 strut width Bst=S/(LCWP(d-Dg), where CWP0.9 and assuming Bst<Bg/2;

153
Ch.3. Propulsion on Calm Water

 relative clearance 2b  ( Bm  Bg ) / L .
Having specified the model geometry, the effective power and powering
characteristics can be assessed as follows:
 wetted surface area can be obtained from the following
approximate formula

2 S w1  KW L[3.14 Dg  2( B1  Dg )  Bst  2( d  Dg )] (3.135)

where KW is taken from Fig.3.59 and residuary resistance coefficients can be taken from
Fig.3.60;
 Reynolds number, flat plate friction coefficient, and allowance
correlation for surface roughness are determined by regular procedures for
conventional ships;
 for the given Froude number range, relative clearance 2b , and
gondola draft/depth ratio, d/Dg, the base residuary resistance coefficient, CR0, is
obtained from Fig.3.60;

correction factor Kd/B is
obtained from Fig.3.61;
 design
residuary resistance
coefficient CR is
obtained as a product of
CR0 and Kd/B;

Fig.3.59.
Geometric characteristics
of a hull of SWATH

 the total resistance coefficient,


towing resistance, and effective power
for bare hulls of the SWATH are
specified by regular procedures.

Fig.3.60.
Residuary resistance coefficient of regular
SWATH at 2b=0.3L and d/Hg=1.75

154
Ch.3. Propulsion on Calm Water

Fig.3.61.
Correction
factor Kd/B at:
Lg/Dg=9.2
Lg/Dg=15
Lg/Dg=24
(curves 1, 2, 3)

155
Ch.3. Propulsion on Calm Water

Fig.3.62.Towing resistance of a 2000t Fig.3.63. Comparison of towing


displacement SWATH at hull lengths of resistances of a regular SWATH and that
50, 75 and 100 m with outriggers

As an example, a dependence of CR vs. ship speed VS is given in Fig.3.62 for a


2,000 t displacement SWATH with hull lengths of 50, 75, 100 m. A significant “hump” in
resistance, and hence in effective power, is seen on the graph at speeds corresponding to
Fn0.3. It is virtually impossible (or impractical) to determine in advance the optimal
elongations for each combination of speed and displacement. And since elongation also
has a remarkable impact on seakeeping and other features, its parametric variations and
its effect on the towing resistance should better be analyzed during conceptual design
rather then during designing the detailed geometry
of the hulls. Comparative calculations of the
effective power are plotted in Fig.3.63 for several
configurations of SWATH including a duplus, a
SWATH with outriggers amidships and with
outriggers shifted aft. Optimum positions of
outriggers can be determined using the plot shown
in Fig.3.64.
Fig.3.64.
Coefficients of interference between the central
hull and outriggers: 1 – central hull and midship

156
Ch.3. Propulsion on Calm Water

outriggers; 2 – same as 1 when outriggers shifted aft; 3 – a midship outrigger; 4 – an


outrigger shifted aft.

157
Ch.3. Propulsion on Calm Water

3.4.5. Ways for Reducing Resistance of SWATH in Calm Water


The main purpose for creating SWATH ships was to provide high seakeeping for
marine vehicles. However, due to greater wetted surface area, in calm water performance
the SWATH ships rank below traditional displacement monohulls. The only way to make
them competitive on calm water is to reduce their wave-making resistance at high speeds.
There are two groups of design recommendations for reducing the resistance: the first
group of more general ways is applicable to any speed regime and the other one is
specific for a given Froude number.
As of the general recommendations, since high-speed SWATH ships are
characterized by moderate losses of speed on high seas, one can choose their maximum
speed by 2-3 knots less than that for compatible monohulls and expect the same service
speed. This recommendation is
effective for the high- and medium-
speed SWATH ships only. Another
venue is in selecting an appropriate
general configuration providing a
minimum wetted surface area and a
favorable wave interference. In this
way, an optimum gondola elongation
is an important design parameter.
Within a wide range of Froude
numbers, from 0.4 to 1.0, an increase
in gondola elongation from 9 to 24
results in improving still water
performance. But the degree of the
improvement depends strongly on
Froude number as seen in Fig.3.65 for
resistance coefficient CR.

Fig.3.65. Dependence of SWATH


admiralty coefficient C  Vs W / P
3 2/3

on gondola elongation.

A number of recommendations can also be formulated for specific speed regimes.


For small Froude numbers (Fn<0.25) the rounding of the strut afterbody has a favorable
effect on resistance. For Fn<~0.4-0.5, a configuration with one SWA hull and side struts
(outriggers) without gondolas has a relatively small wetted surface area and a reduced
wave-making resistance of the struts (up to zero) within some (rather narrow) speed
ranges. Also a configuration consisting of one hull and one outrigger promises an
improvement in performance.
It is worth noting that shifting the outrigger(s) aft results in a significant reduction
of wav-making resistance and in widening the speed range of favorable interactions to
Fn0.35 or even 0.25. Moreover, as seen in Fig.3.64, an afterward location of outriggers
can result even in a “wave thrust” (negative residuary resistance coefficient). Shifting a
strut relative to a gondola can also reduce wave-making resistance. Because of design

158
Ch.3. Propulsion on Calm Water

restrains, the shift is limited by 10-15% of the gondola length. Based on tests of a single
hull, a 10% gondola shift results in a significant residuary resistance reduction, especially
near the resistance “hump” (see Fig.3.66). An additional effect can be reached by
optimizing the gondola’s form (Fig.3.67).
Further reduction of the residuary resistance is possible by making unusual
arrangements, for example, a longitudinal shift of a hull of a SWATH ship. The residuary
resistance as a function of Froude number is shown in Fig.3.68 for different relative shifts
ranging from 0 to 30% of hull length.

Fig.3.66.
Effect of shifting the strut’s
stem on residuary resistance
coefficient of SWATH:
1 – strut’s stem at 0.05 of
gondola length;
2 - strut’s stem at 0.10 of
gondola length.

Fig.3.67.
Effect of changing gondola’s
profile on residuary resistance
coefficient of SWATH:
1 – original shape (Fig.3.58);
2 – profiled gondola.

Fig.3.68. Effect of shifting the hulls longitudinally on residuary resistance coefficient of


SWATH: 1 – no shift (symmetric arrangement); 2, 3, 4 – shifting by 10%, 20%, 30% of
gondola length, respectively.

For a range of Fn0.4-0.6 the most effective way of reducing the resistance is
transition from twin- to tri-hull arrangement of identical hulls with the central hull shifted
forward by 30-60% of its length. Despite of increasing the total wetted surface area, the

159
Ch.3. Propulsion on Calm Water

interaction of hulls in tri-hull arrangement results in a considerable advantage in wave-


making resistance over the twin-hull. A farther shift of the central hull beyond ~0.6L can
further improve the performance but might be impractical due to design and strength
restrictions. At Froude numbers greater than 0.6, there appear and become noticeable
some uncontrolled phenomena of ship surfacing and operational squatting, unless special
preventive measures are taken during design. The draft reduction due to surfacing results
in lowering the wetted surface area but also in increasing the wave-making resistance
accompanied by an additional resistance due to deflected horizontal rudders (up to 10-
15o). Also at these Froude numbers the shape of struts becomes a more important factor
in the resistance budget. Water jets generated by struts at Fn~1 can be reduced by the
longitudinal reflectors mounted above waterplane. These reflectors generate the
additional forces in confused seas: damping and wave-induced components. The use of
controllable reflectors is an effective way to improve seakeeping performance
[Dubrovsky, 1980].
It should be noted that no experimental studies have been published on applying a
combination or all of some of the methods of reducing the ship resistance. Individual
effects of different means are shown in Fig.3.69 in a form of the admiralty coefficient
versus Froude number based on hull length. The data for conventional ships spread
significantly due to a great variety of their hull forms. Keeping in mind this fact in
general, we can conclude for still water propulsion:
 at Fn<0.2 even the best SWATH ships rank below the worst conventional
monohulls;
 for 0.25<Fn<0.3 a SWA ship with a strut-outrigger is competitive with small
fishing and passenger ships; at these speeds such measures as shifting struts or
hulls can enhance its competitiveness as compared with traditional ships;
 for 0.3<Fn<0.6 a SWATH ship with shifted hulls, as well as a tri-hull SWA ship
can have an advantage in resistance over surface combatants and high speed
ferries;
 at Fn>0.6 SWATH ships become competitive with high speed monohull crafts
and semi-planing catamarans;
 at Fn1.0 advantages associated with a draft reduction of high-speed SWATH
ships can be utilized. When the WL is at the gondola’s top (e.g. due to
deballasting or hydrodynamic lift, which can be considerable at such speeds), the
wetted surface area of SWATH reduces by 30-40% (and the displacement by 15-
20%). The draft effect is seen in Fig.3.70 for small SWATH ships of 110 and 150t
in displacement (d=1.5m and 2.5m, respectively). The draft effect prevails despite
of the opposite effect of additional rudder resistance.
One should also keep in mind that the design Froude number of a monohull is not
necessarily the same as that for a SWATH ship even at the same speed. This is due to
their different hull lengths. Moreover, depending on the intended service, displacement of
a SWATH ship can differ from that of comparable monohull. Therefore, the comparative
plots are not intended for selecting directly the principal design characteristics but should
rather be considered for comparing qualitatively the propulsion performance of different
ship types on calm water.

160
Ch.3. Propulsion on Calm Water

Fig.3.69. Admiralty coefficients for ships of


different types and displacements: 1 – large
monohull vessels; 2 – high-speed conventional and
naval ships; 3 – small monohull ships; 4 – monohull
boats; 5 – existing catamarans; 6 - SWATH ships
with gondola elongation of 9; 7 - same as 4 but with
gondola elongation of 24; 8 - tri-hull SWATH ships
(elongation 9); 9 – SWATH ships with outriggers.
Dashed lines show a transition area to propellers
exciding beyond the base line, or water jets.

Fig.3.70.) Towing power for a SWATH boat with: 1 –


2.5m draft, 150 t displacement; 2 – 1.5m draft, 110 t
displacement.

161
Ch.3. Resistance on Calm Water

As for hull-propeller interaction, the wake fraction and thrust deduction


coefficients can be determined by making use of
experimental data plotted in Fig.3.71 for the
propeller diameter equal to the gondola
diameter. These data, along with resistance
database, allow a designer to calculate powering
of SWATH ships.

Fig.3.71.
Averaged wake fraction and thrust deduction
coefficients of SWATH models.

Concluding the analysis one can say that


SWATH ships are competitive with conventional monohulls if special precautions are
taken to decrease the still water resistance of the multi-hulls.

3.4.6. Concepts of High-Speed SWATH Ships


Further significant growth of SWATH speed can be achieved only with new
hydrodynamic and design concepts. Existing high-speed SWATH ships have Froude
number close to the upper boundary of transition area between displacement and planing
modes (Fn~1; FnV~2.7). In this case the hulls with smaller elongation are more effective
from the performance viewpoint (see Fig.3.46). Lower elongation makes propulsion
machinery arrangements easier and decreases the lightship weight.
A study had been carried out focused on increasing the design speeds of SWATH
ships. Two venues were considered. First one was based on high sensitivity of SWATH
drafts to changing weights, i.e. a possibility to change draft easily by taking/discharging a
small amount of ballast. For a particular SWATH, her principal dimensions were selected
in such a way that the design draft at full load would be located at the upper edge of the
gondolas. With this draft the SWATH had a minimum wetted surface area and a
maximum ship speed in still water. In high seas, the SWATH takes additional water
ballast thus increasing the draft. As a
result, her seakeeping on high seas
would improve as compared with that at
the gondola’s top draft while the speed
loss due to the deeper draft would not
be so dramatic as it would be due to
poor seakeeping at the lower draft. To
increase speed, low elongation gondolas
were used. Hydrodynamic performance
of this concept is shown in Fig.3.72. At
the low draft, this variable-draft
SWATH can provide efficient
propulsion characteristics up to
FnV3.2-3.3. Further increase in speed
could likely be achieved with three

157
Ch.3. Resistance on Calm Water

hulls of even lower elongations. Unfortunately, this concept would lead to slightly larger
displacements and greater speed loss in high seas.

Fig.3.72.
Specific power of propulsion machinery for different types of ships: 1 - existing SWATH;
2 – catamarans; 3 – monohull ships; S – potential for the high-speed SWATH; WPT –
wave-piercing trimarans.

The other approach was to offset the disadvantages of the previous approach. It
was aimed at providing a hydrodynamic lift at higher speeds. It envisioned a minimum
design draft sufficient for normal operation of the propellers, the lowest possible depth of
the gondola (~0.65d), simplified hull forms with smaller wetted surface area, and fine
lines at the bow to provide a lift at Fn>1.2 (or at FnV>~2.7) with a squat. It resulted in
lower resistance and improved seakeeping characteristics. This design concept was also
considered in zone “S” in Fig.3.72.

3.5. Comparative Still Water Propulsion of Multi-Hull Ships

3.5.1. Basis for Comparison


Ship propulsion analysis is an essential stage of the design process. This is also a basis for
selecting an appropriate ship type. As a bottom line, comparing the full-scale propulsion
of different ships or ship types is the only basis for decision-making. Indeed, when
comparing the model resistance or residuary resistance coefficients, one would ignore the
real contributions of the wetted surface area and wave-making components to propulsion.
It is clear that ships of different types designed for the same mission can come out
with their displacements being different from each other. On the same token, a
comparative analysis based on equal displacements is a common practice in conceptual
design and in parametric variations. However, such comparisons have more qualitative
rather than quantitative character since a number of factors other than displacement might
have a major impact on ship propulsion. These
factors include the elongation and prismatic
coefficient of each hull, clearances, type and
configuration of the propellers. All the above-
mentioned aspects were taken into consideration
in the following comparative analyses.

3.5.2. Propellers and their Operational


Conditions
All known types of propulsors can be used on
multi-hull ships. As for propellers, their
operating conditions differ significantly from
ship to ship. As a rule, twin-hull ships have a
propeller at each hull. A ship with one or two
outriggers can have a single propeller installed

158
Ch.3. Resistance on Calm Water

on the main hull and in addition propellers or water jets at outriggers if needed. Power
augmentation plants can also be installed on the outriggers. A twin-hull river ferry can be
equipped with two propellers diagonally-arranged at opposite ends and operating
alternately one in pushing and the other in pulling regimes. Tri-hull ships with identical
hulls are usually fitted with two propellers on the side hulls.
Hull interference usually results in an asymmetry of the wake flow fields in the
vicinity of propellers, as shown e.g. in Fig.3.73 for a catamaran with low elongation hulls
[Volheim, 1965]. The wake skewing can usually be as high as 5-10. The asymmetric
wake may not necessarily take place on straight forward motion but can generate on
circulation.

Fig.3.73. Velocity fields at the propeller disks of a catamaran with low elongation hulls,
after Volheim, 1965.

Hull/propeller interaction coefficients are determined both by arrangement of the


hulls and by the types and arrangements of propellers. With one propeller per hull and
when the propellers are installed in the viscous wake of the hull the interaction coefficient
is greater than unity. But it is less than unity for a two propellers-per-hull arrangement.
For low and medium speed multi-hull ships with traditional hull shapes the
propeller diameter does not exceed the hull draft. With drafts being equal, the propeller
disk diameter of a double-screw catamaran is twice as big as that for a single-screw
monohull. Even if compared with a twin-screw monohull, the catamaran propellers have
a larger total disk area. This is the reason why the propulsive coefficient of a catamaran
can be greater than that for a comparable monohull. Another way to improve propulsive
efficiency of catamaran/trimaran propellers is in increasing their operational immersion,
i.e. draft at the stern. There is also a possibility of designing the sterns asymmetric
relative to CL, shifting the propeller lines inside the ship and tuning the clearances so that
the hull interaction wave would have its crest just above the propeller disk.
SWATH ships with their deeper, as compared with catamarans, drafts can be
designed with propellers of relatively larger diameters. Therefore, when a high reduction
ratio transmission gear is not a problem, the large-diameter low-RPM propellers can
provide higher propulsion efficiency for SWATH. Another feature that is unique for
SWATH is a possibility of installing propellers with a diameter larger than gondola’s
diameter. As a result, pulling propellers can be used. A pulling propeller in front of
gondola provides less vibration excitation and underwater noise, but reduces the
propulsive efficiency. The decrease is less if
the gondolas are small (as of outriggers).
Special diagrams based on model tests at a
cavitation tunnel are used for designing the
pulling propellers.
The wake flow field in the plane of a
SWATH pushing propeller is characterized
by a significant velocity deficit (up to 30-
50% of incoming velocity) behind the strut.
Flow equalizing devices are able to reduce
the flow non-uniformity by 1.5-2 times

159
Ch.3. Resistance on Calm Water

(Fig.3.74). Passive foils can also be installed on a gondola upstream of the pushing
propeller to reduce the wake flow non-uniformity and compensate velocity deficit
associated to about 20-25% of the incoming flow. In addition to that, the strut’s smaller
beam makes it important to account the wave profile above the propellers (Fig.3.75). This
is partly compensated by lower hydrodynamic loading of the SWATH propellers.
Appropriate propeller immersion can be determined from Fig.3.76 based on model test
data by V. Ilyin [1972]. Depending on the reverse relative load, the values above line of
the figure ensure zero influence of free surface on propeller efficiency.
Fig.3.74. Velocity fields at the propeller disks behind the hulls of a SWATH without (line
1) and with equalizing devices of two different types (lines 2 and 3).

160
Ch.3. Resistance on Calm Water

Fig.3.75. Typical surface Fig.3.76. Graph for selecting the minimum


elevation ordinates above a immersion of SWATH propellers in still water with
SWATH propeller. no aeration during straightforward motion.

3.5.3. Input Data and Powering Estimate for Catamarans and Trimarans
Propulsion power, speed, and displacement are among the most important parameters
when comparing propulsion of different ships. Based on systematic tests data, a study
was performed to predict the main engine power for catamarans and trimarans and to
compare it with that for reference monohulls. Dimensions of the multi-hull ships were
determined in a way to provide the same power as for the reference monohulls what
would not necessarily result in equal displacements. As the towing resistance depends
most on elongation (relative length), L/B1, this characteristic was taken as the principal
variable.
Other parameters were treated as follows. As a majority of small and medium size
catamarans and trimarans operate at relatively have high Froude numbers, it was assumed
that their block coefficients vary mainly within a narrow range of 0.5-0.55. The B1 /d
ratio was also assumed to be within a narrow range of 2.3-2.5, i.e. virtually constant. The
prismatic coefficient, CP, was taken as the optimal value for a monohull at the given
Froude number. Clearance between the inner sides of catamarans was taken as the
breadth of one hull. For trimarans, the longitudinal advance of the central hull was
optimal for the given Froude number, thus ranging within (0-0.6)L of one hull.
Propulsion power was calculated for monohull, catamaran, and trimaran of four
displacements (50, 250, 1500, and 5000 t) at Froude numbers varying from 0.2 to 0.45.
The L/B1 ratio varied from 3.5 to 9.5 for monohulls, and from 5 to 12.5 for catamarans
and trimarans. For the monohulls and catamarans, their residuary resistance, wetted
surface area, wake fraction and thrust deduction were estimated from systematic model
tests (Tables 3.7-3.9). As for trimarans, their residuary resistance was calculated based on
monohull data with model-test based corrections on hull interference for the optimal
central hull advance at each Froude number; while the wake fraction and thrust deduction
were taken as for catamarans. The number of propellers was taken equal to the number of
hulls. Other details were: RPM was taken optimal for each propeller diameter, the air
resistance addition was taken 10%, roughness correlation coefficient was (0.4-0.6)x10-3
depending on hull length.

161
Ch.3. Resistance on Calm Water

Table 3.7 Lengths and wetted areas of 1-t-displacement monohull models.


Model No. 1 2 3 4 5 6
L/B 3.5 5.0 7.0 9.5 12.5 19.1
Model length, m 4.2 5.05 6.05 7.0 8.05 10.0
Wetted area, m2 5.25 6.05 6.4 8.0 9.0 10.0

Table 3.8 Residuary resistance coefficient, CR 103, for the monohull models in Table 3.7.
Fn 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4 0.45 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8
Model # 1 1.65 0.2 3.65 5.6 12.4 - - - - -
Model # 2 1.2 1.9 3.0 4.5 8.6 - - - - -
Model # 3 0.8 1.55 2.5 3.3 4.8 - - - - -
Model # 4 0.65 1.15 2.0 2.1 3.1 3.3 3.5 3.0 2.0 1.8
Model # 5 0.55 0.9 1.8 1.6 2.4 2.8 3.1 2.5 1.8 1.7
Model # 6 0.5 0.8 1.4 1.2 1.6 1.8 2.1 1.8 1.6 1.4

Table 3.9 Residuary resistance coefficients, CR 103, for the hulls of traditional form used
in catamaran and trimaran models.
Fn 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4 0.45 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8
L/B1=5.0 catamaran 1.4 2.2 3.7 5.8 10.8 16.1 - - - -
trimaran 1.7 2.3 3.7 5.2 8.6 9.5 - - - -
L/B1=7.0 catamaran 1.2 2.1 2.6 3.8 5.4 6.8 - - - -
trimaran 1.4 2.2 2.6 3.4 4.3 3.6 - - - -
L/B1=9.5 catamaran 0.9 1.4 2.1 2.4 3.5 4.0 5.0 3.3 2.3 2.0
trimaran 1.1 1.5 2.1 2.2 2.8 2.4 3.0 3.3 2.3 2.0
L/B1=12.5 catamaran 0.7 0.9 1.4 1.7 1.6 2.0 3.6 2.8 1.8 1.6
trimaran 0.8 1.0 1.4 1.55 1.3 1.2 2.2 2.8 1.8 1.6

Some of the resulting power predictions for different types of 5,000 t


displacement ships are plotted in Fig.3.77. Discrepancy between the calculated speed
predictions and available data for the existing catamarans is about 0.5 kn at Froude
numbers around 0.2, and up to 1 kn for Froude numbers up to 0.45. According to
analysis, elongation L1/B is indeed the most influential parameter for the catamarans. For
Froude numbers of 0.35 and above, catamarans offer better performance than monohulls
of the same displacement. For catamaran propulsion the elongation is more important
than hull interference whose influence usually does not exceed 30%.
As for trimarans, an increase in elongation does not necessarily result in
enhancing performance (due to a significant growth of wetted area), but the hull
interference has the greatest impact on propulsion. For example, at Froude numbers 0.4
and above, the residuary resistance of a trimaran with an optimal longitudinal advance is
approximately 60% of that for three isolated hulls. Trimarans are competitive with
monohulls and catamarans at Fn>0.4. It is also worth to note that an increase in the
number of hulls decreases hydrodynamic loading on propellers and leads to a propeller
efficiency gain by approximately 0.05, e.g. from 0.60 to 0.65.

162
Ch.3. Resistance on Calm Water

Fig.3.77.
Typical powering relationship between a
monohull (solid line with circles), a
catamaran (solid line) and a trimaran
(dashed line) of approximately equal
displacements.

Comparison of propulsion data for


catamarans and monohulls of equal
displacements is shown in Fig.3.78. Here
the ship speeds corresponding to the
operating points when the powers of
catamaran and monohull are equal is
plotted versus hull elongation and
displacement. At speeds greater than that
on the curve, catamaran needs less power
than a monohull of the same
displacement. From the designer’s
viewpoint, the region with minimum
L1/B is most interesting. It should be
pointed out that a monohull and a
catamaran designed for the same purpose
may have different displacements: for a given deadweight, a catamaran has greater
displacement. And vise versa, for a given capacity or deck area, a catamaran has smaller
displacement. Propulsion data for catamarans and trimarans of equal hull elongations is
also shown in Fig.3.78. Here the ship speed corresponding to the operating points when
the powers of catamaran and trimaran are equal are plotted versus displacement.

Fig.3.78.
Combination
of speed and

displacement for which the powering of a monohull of a given elongation is equal to that
of a catamaran:
1 – L/B=3.5 for monohull and L/B=5 for catamaran;
2 – L/B=5 for monohull and L/B=7 for catamaran;
3 – L/B=7 for monohull and L/B=9 for catamaran;

163
Ch.3. Resistance on Calm Water

4 – L/B=9 for monohull and L/B=12 for catamaran; 5 – limits where trimarans with the
same elongations as for catamarans and with optimal advances are competitive.

164
Ch.3. Resistance on Calm Water

For each given range of L1/B of a monohull,


there is a speed range where catamaran
becomes competitive from the powering
viewpoint; similar conclusion is valid for a
trimaran of equal displacement, see Fig. 3.81.

Fig.3.79.
Admiralty coefficients for different types of
ships:
1 – large monohulls;
2 – small monohulls;
points and dashed lines stand for the existing
catamarans and their limits, respectively;
solid lines – trimarans with different
elongations.

3.5.4. Powering of SWATH


Powering of ships, including SWATH, can be predicted on the basis of systematic
comparative calculations for different types of ships. Principle dimensions of SWATH
type ship models analyzed in such study are presented in Table 3.10 while the results
obtained from the systematic model tests are given in Table 3.11. A traditional monohull
with L/B=9.5 (a pre-WW2 destroyer) was selected as a reference point for comparison. In
all calculations, the propeller efficiency was taken from the systematic series for optimal
RPM as it is shown in Fig.3.80, with propeller diagrams taken from [Voitkunskiy, vol. 1,
1985]. It was also assumed that the hull influence coefficient varied from 1.15 to 1.05 for
the gondola elongations of 9 and 24 respectively.

Table 3.10 Principal dimensions of 1-ton-displacement hull models.


Model # Length, m Relative draft Wetted area, m2 No. of struts
1 5.8 0.10 8.7 1
2 5.1 0.15 9.2 1
3 6.2 0.10 8.4 2
4 6.1 0.15 8.9 2
5 6.65 0.10 11.2 1
6 6.2 0.15 12.5 1
7 7.5 0.10 10.6 2
8 6.75 0.15 12.2 2

Table 3.11 Residuary resistance coefficients, CR 103, for the SWATH models.
Fn 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4 0.45 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0

165
Ch.3. Resistance on Calm Water

Model # 1 0.6 1.0 1.3 2.8 1.6 2.2 4.0 4.7 3.9 2.9 2.2 1.9 1.6
Model # 2 0.5 0.7 1.0 3.0 1.2 1.9 3.3 3.9 3.4 2.7 2.1 1.8 1.5
Model # 3 1.1 2.9 1.2 3.8 1.6 4.2 4.8 4.3 3.5 3.0 2.6 2.1 1.7
Model # 4 0.9 3.5 6.0 6.5 3.0 3.2 3.6 3.4 2.9 2.2 1.8 1.4 1.2
Model # 5 0.7 1.6 1.1 3.6 1.5 2.0 3.1 4.0 3.5 2.8 2.3 2.0 1.7
Model # 6 0.6 0.8 0.9 2.1 1.0 1.9 2.9 3.2 2.7 2.2 1.6 1.5 1.3
Model # 7 1.3 2.6 7.2 12.0 8.5 4.9 4.6 4.2 3.5 3.2 3.0 2.9 2.6
Model # 8 1.1 2.2 6.0 9.0 6.7 7.5 3.5 3.2 2.9 2.9 2.5 3.4 2.2

Fig.3.80.
Standard dependency of propeller efficiency
versus diameter-based coefficient of loading

Results of calculations are given in Fig.3.81.


As expected, the SWATH disadvantage due
to large wetted areas is compensated by the
propulsive coefficient that is typically high
for SWATH ships. It should be noted,
however, that these propulsion coefficients
take place only at the optimal RPM of propellers. As for tri-hull ships with identical hulls,
they are competitive in a narrow range of Froude numbers between 0.4 and 0.6. At higher
speeds, the enhanced propulsion of
trimaran can be reached at very
large advances of the central hull.

Fig.3.81.
Powering calculations for several
types of a 5000 t displacement
ship:
1 – monohull;
2 – trimaran with the same LOA as
for the monohull (1);
3 – catamaran;
4 – SWATH.

As expected, tri-hull
arrangements for SWATH type
ships provide good performance in
the same range of Froude numbers
from 0.4 to 0.6. At lower speeds a
favorable wave interference does
not overcome the increase in
viscous resistance, and at higher speeds the optimal advance can be greater than the
length of the central hull, thus greatly complicating the design. At Froude numbers below
0.4, SWATH type ships with outriggers are most effective, but at higher speeds the

166
Ch.3. Resistance on Calm Water

outriggers, especially the small ones, operate in regimes far from optimal and their
resistance rapidly grows. Using planning outriggers one could hardly expect an
improvement in resistance and seakeeping

167
3.6. Shallow Draft Multi-Hull Ships at Supercritical Speeds

3.6. Shallow Draft Multi-Hull Ships at Supercritical Speeds

3.6.1. Resistance and Dynamic Trim


There is a relationship between ship resistance and dynamic trim, more visible in shallow
water. As an example, Fig.3.82 demonstrates the relative speed effect on ship resistance
and dynamic trim for a model of fast river ship on shallow water. Clearly, a significant
growth in resistance is accompanied with
a change in draft and an increase in
squatting (operational trim by the stern).
At supercritical speeds, on contrary, a
drop in resistance and trim angle takes
place. A detailed experimental study of
hull and bottom pressure distributions
would make the phenomenon clear. Some
data on bottom pressure and surface wave
measurements, obtained at Duisburg
model testing basin, are given in Fig.3.83
for two sections at 0.341L and 0.571L,
parallel to the model center plane [Graff,
1962]. The curves are plotted versus
dimensionless longitudinal distance S/L.
Obviously, such kind of pressure
distribution causes an operational trim and
a “micro-tsunami” near the critical speed.

Fig.3.82.
Hydrodynamic characteristics of a high-
speed model as a function of Froude
number:

Vertical hydrodynamic force RZ, and trim moment MY, which result in a dynamic
trim, can be associated with midship draft change d and trim angle 

d  RZ / r gS (3.136)

  M Y / rgVH (3.137)

where S, V, H are waterplane area, volume displacement, and longitudinal metacentric


height, respectively.

165
3.6. Shallow Draft Multi-Hull Ships at Supercritical Speeds

Fig.3.83.
Changes in bottom
pressure, P, and
water surface
elevation, h, at
different locations S
behind the model
moving within the
critical speed zone.

In dimensionless form, formulas (3.136) and (3.137) can be expressed as follows

CWP d / d (3.138)
CZ  
Fn L / B

CB RL (3.139)
Cm  
Fn 2 L / B

where RL=R/L is the relative longitudinal


metacentric radius.
Coefficients CZ and Cm calculated in
accordance with formulas (3.138) and (3.139), as
well as residuary resistance coefficient CR, are
given in Fig.3.84 for a hull of a simplified
geometry - see equation (3.25). It is seen that the
patterns of functions Cm(Fn) and CR(Fn) are
identical. It is worth noting that the maximums
of the CR and Cm curves coincide with the zero-
crossing or minimum of the CZ curve. This
fundamental effect has an impact on ship design.
Indeed, any improvement in ship wave
resistance leads to a less dynamic pitching and
therefore, to better service conditions.

Fig.3.84. Coefficients of vertical hydrodynamic


force (CZ), trimming moment (Cm), and residuary
resistance (CR) versus Froude number at various
water depths h.

166
3.6. Shallow Draft Multi-Hull Ships at Supercritical Speeds

The effect of hull elongation L/V1/3 on wave


resistance is shown in Fig.3.85 for three
models whose geometry is given by equation
(3.25). The plot demonstrates a positive effect
of increasing elongations on wave resistance
both near the critical zone area and at
supercritical speeds. The plot also implies that
multi-hull arrangements make it possible to
increase speeds in shallow waters.

Fig.3.85.
Wave-making resistance coefficients at various
water depths h (h/L ratio) and three different
values of relative length: L/V1/3=7.66 (dashed
lines), L/V1/3=8.26 (solid line) and L/V1/3=9.92
(dash-and-dot line).

3.6.2. Comparative Resistance of River Monohulls and Catamarans


Relative hull length is one of the most important parameters in designing the river
ships operating at supercritical speeds [Lyakhovitsky, 1972]. This mode corresponds to
Froude numbers ranging: 1<FnV <3. Designing this kind of ships can be recommended
for Fn>0.6 as shown in Fig.3.86 where relationships between Fn, FnV, and relative length
L/V1/3 are plotted. From hydrodynamic point of view, an increase in hull length L and a
decrease in breadth B for a given volumetric displacement V is the most effective way of
increasing the elongation, L/V1/3. Then,
assuming CB and d constant, an increase in
elongation can be achieved by
simultaneously decreasing B/d and
increasing L/B. As a result, the wave-
making resistance drops while the wetted
area and viscous resistance increase.

Fig.3.86.
Relationship between relative hull
elongation and relative speeds.

167
3.6. Shallow Draft Multi-Hull Ships at Supercritical Speeds

Based on systematic test data [Dubrovsky, 1968, 1978] and assuming an affine
relationship between the viscous resistance of a floating body and the frictional resistance
of a flat plate components, the wave-making resistance was approximated as a function of
L/V1/3, as shown in Fig.3.87 for one of the tested ships with V=40 m3 at a speed
corresponding to FnV=1.9. As one can see the viscous component dominates for highly
elongated hulls at supercritical speed.

Fig.3.87.
Effect of relative
elongation on ratio of
wave-making (Rw) and
viscous (Rs) resistance
components.

Comparison of the total resistance for the mono- and twin-hull configurations is
shown in Fig.3.88. A beneficial effect of the L/V1/3 ratio increase is obvious for both
configurations. Once again, one can see that the total resistance of catamaran is always
greater than that for monohull with their relative speed, displacement and relative length
being equal. However, practical realizations of these monohull’s benefits are limited due
to design and stability constrains. And the use of a multi-hull arrangement provides more
opportunities. This is because for each relative length of a monohull there is a certain
relative length of catamaran’s
hulls at which both ships would
have equal resistance.

Fig.3.88.
Comparative total resistances
of a monohull (dashed line)
and a catamaran (solid lines at
S/L= and S/L=0.08 marked
by 1 and 2, respectively).

Further enhancement of
catamarans can be achieved by optimizing wave interference between the hulls controlled
mainly by the horizontal clearance. On the same token, for catamarans without a
hydrodynamic lift and operating at supercritical speeds, a decrease in horizontal clearance
results in an increase in wave-making resistance. This conclusion was supported by data
plotted in Fig.3.89 [Everest, 1968], which also show that favorable wave interference can
take place only at low speeds (Fn<0.38). In some cases, it is possible to make the length
larger by using dynamic lift, such as at foil-assisted hulls. In terms of favorable wave
interference, trimarans can be competitive as well.

168
3.6. Shallow Draft Multi-Hull Ships at Supercritical Speeds

Fig.3.89.
Effect of horizontal clearance on wave-
making resistance of catamaran,
after Everest, 1968.

3.6.3. Resistance of Trimarans


When designing a trimaran, the opportunity to vary the longitudinal advance of the
central hull, and thus manipulate the wave systems between hulls, makes it possible to
eliminate or at least to suppress the “wave hump” of resistance at the speed range where
monohulls and catamarans have it. For deep water this was proved experimentally at
Fn=0.5 (Section 3.1). Plotted in Fig.3.9 is a comparison of the wave resistance
coefficient, CW, calculated analytically and the residuary resistance coefficient, CR,
measured in model tests for a trimaran with identical hulls. Geometry of each hull was
defined by equations (3.27) while the principal
dimensions of the model hull were: L=2.6 m,
B=0.196 m, d=0.065 m, CB=0.533, wetted surface
area 0.533 m2; L/B=13.25, B/d=3.02. The
residuary resistance coefficient was calculated
using Prandtl-Schlichting’ formula as for an
equivalent flat plate of the length equal to the hull
length (L) and wetted surface area equal to the
tripled wetted area of a single hull. The
discrepancy between model tests and numerical
predictions is due to hull-to-hull viscous flow
interference.
On shallow water, the effect of advance on
resistance of trimarans remains similar to that for
monohulls and catamarans, as seen from Fig.3.90
where CR is plotted vs. Froude number at different
water depths. The advance and transverse clearance
of the trimaran’s model with congruent hulls
were:b=0.070, a=0.283.

Fig.3.90. Residuary resistance coefficients of


trimaran versus Froude number for restricted
water depths of h/L=0.08, 0.15, 0.33 and on deep
water (h/L=).

169
3.6. Shallow Draft Multi-Hull Ships at Supercritical Speeds

At critical speeds on shallow water, the effect of longitudinal advance a on


residuary resistance coefficient CR, can be favorable, as shown in Fig.3.91. For the case
of deep water, the critical speed is associated with Fn=0.5. Based on this, a zone where
trimarans can compete in their resistance with
catamarans is given in Fig.3.92 for the case of
identical hulls. The zone is plotted in the
[=arctan(b/a), Fn] coordinate system and it
shows the favorable (with respect to resistance)
ratios of clearances of the hulls. The zone is
greater than that for catamarans (0.2<Fn<0.7).
For higher relative speeds, the values of  tend
to decrease.

Fig.3.91. Effect of longitudinal advance on Fig.3.92. Zone of clearance ratios


residuary resistance coefficient of trimaran on =arctan(b/a) and Froude
restricted water depths, numbers where trimaran can have
an advantage over catamaran with
regard to resistance.

For non-congruent hulls, Section 3.1.5 contains data for an optimal subdivision of
the ship displacement between hulls in such a way that the wetted area of trimaran is less
than that for catamaran. For the case shown in Fig.3.88, a curve for trimaran could be
situated between the curves for monohull and catamarans.
A comparison of monohull, catamaran and trimaran can be helpful in justifying
the most effective one during the conceptual design stage. As an example, such a
comparison is presented below for a river passenger ship with different number of
identical hulls [Lyakhovitsky, 1975a]. The principal characteristics of the ship are given
in Table 3.12, while their propulsion parameters are plotted in Fig.3.93. Based on these
data, the arrangements can be ranked with regard to the attainable speed as follows:
monohull, trimaran, and catamaran. This example is limited in scope of the means of
enhancing ship’s propulsion. Dynamic lift could change the optimization procedure and
ranking of the hull configurations.

170
3.6. Shallow Draft Multi-Hull Ships at Supercritical Speeds

Table 3.12. Principal characteristics of the compared hull arrangements for a river
passenger ship [Liakhovitsky, 1975a].
Multi-hull concept Monohull Catamaran Trimaran
Length overall, m 38.20 32.0 32.0
LBP, m 36.0 28.0 28.8
LBP of individual hulls, m - - 18.0
Molded beam of individual hulls, m - 2.3 2.3
Ship breadth at design waterline, m 5.3 7.1 8.8
Deck breadth of ship, m 5.9 7.5 9.5
Relative longitudinal clearance - - 0.6
Relative transverse clearance - 0.086 0.18
2
Total wetted area of the ship, m 178.5 197.4 189
Volumetric displacement at design WL, m3 105 100 99
Passenger capacity 238 262 268
Ship speed at 2x300 hp, km/h 27.7 23.7 24.8

Fig.3.93. Residuary resistance coefficient CR (left-hand graph) and total resistance R


(right-hand graph) for a river passenger vessel designed as monohull (curve 1),
catamaran (curve2) and trimaran with a  0.6, b  0.18 and a  0.6, b  0.23 (curves
3 and 4, respectively. Propeller thrust, Teff,, is also plotted.

3.6.4. Sea Trials of Catamarans at Supercritical Speeds


Theoretical and experimental studies of river ships with supercritical speeds were
concluded with full-scale trials of the “Experimentalny-1” and the “Anatoly Uglovsky”.
The major feature for both of these ships was their ability to attain and then to maintain a
virtually constant speed at varying shallow depths. As discussed in section 1.3, the zones
of sub-critical and supercritical speeds are shown in Fig.1.27 versus water depth.
Operational regimes of these two vessels had always been selected to be within the
supercritical zone (II in Fig.1.27) and mainly above the unfavorable part of this zone
marked III in Fig.1.27 [Lyakhovitsky, Zorin, 1980]. The full-scale trials of the

171
3.6. Shallow Draft Multi-Hull Ships at Supercritical Speeds

“Experimentaly-1” performed on rivers and Ilmen Lake in the northwestern part of


Russia revealed the speed fluctuations at her draft of 0.75m as follows:

Water depth, m 1.3 2.1 3.2 5-5.6 7.6-8


Ship speed, km/h 32.0 34.4 35.0 35.0 35.0

Clearly, the ship speeds did not change significantly but rather slightly at very
shallow depths (h/d<2). Powering of this ship at her 39-ton displacement is shown in
Fig.3.94 for five shallow water testing sites. The typical humps can be explained by the
drops in propeller/hull interaction coefficients at near-critical speeds. But sufficient
powering reserves of the
ship made it possible to
overcome these humps
easily for attaining the
supercritical speeds.

Fig.3.94.
Power variations during
the full-scale trials of the
“Experimentaly-1”
versus speeds on five
shallow water testing
sites.

Results of the full-


scale trials of the “Anatoly Uglovsky” are presented in Fig.3.95 [Lyakhovitsky et al.,
1977; Lyakhovitsky and Zorin, 1980]. The tests were performed with screw-protecting
fins what, however, resulted in a significant
increase in resistance. Fig.3.96 incorporates
the test data for both ships in a form of
specific power versus speed. At a given
specific power of 18.7 hp/t, the catamaran
“Anatoly Uglovsky” without protective fins
had a speed 24% higher than the monohull
“Experimentalny-1” could attain. With the
fins installed the speed advantage of the
catamaran was 11%. This effect was due to
more favorable wave-making resistance
component of the catamaran with greater
L/B.

Fig.3.95.
Power variations during the full-scale trials
of catamaran “Anatoly Uglovsky” versus
speeds on five shallow water testing sites.

172
3.6. Shallow Draft Multi-Hull Ships at Supercritical Speeds

Fig.3.96.
Specific power versus
speed based on full-
scale trial data of two
ships at a 7-8 m water
depth .

Longitudinal profile
of the hull lines,
especially in the stern
area is an important
issue for a vessel
operating at
supercritical speeds in
extremely shallow waters. Afterbody hull lines of the “Experimentalny-1” near her
transom were changed to make a part with an attack angle relative to incoming flow. This
was intended to reduce the operational squatting and thus minimizing the allowable
clearance between the ship bottom and the river/lake bed. The results of improving the
stern lines for extremely shallow waters are shown in Fig.3.97. At subcritical and critical
speeds the effect is
insignificant, but at the design
supercritical speed the
dynamic drafts both at the
stern and at the bow become
close to the static drafts (i.e.
reduced by 30 cm or 40% of
the static draft), thus
maximizing the propulsion
efficiency. With her 0.80 m
static draft the fully loaded
ship was able to move at the
full speed in 1 m deep
shallow waters and to pass
slowly the water areas as
shallow as only 0.95 m deep.

Fig.3.97.
Changes of bow and stern
drafts of “Experimentalny-1”
versus her speeds (top) and
RPM (bottom) for the
original and improved
profiled stern lines, based on
full-scale trial data

173
3.7. Towing Resistance of Ships with Outriggers

The success story of the “Experimentalny-1” was used for designing the
catamaran “Anatoly Uglovsky” (see hull lines in Fig.1.26). Small dynamic trim of the
ship was measured at full-scale tests by optical instruments [Lyakhovitsky, Zorin, 1980].
A safe minimum shallow water depth was as little as 1.5 m at any speeds, but at the full
speed the ship could safely pass limited zones (shallow banks, rapids) with only 1.2 m
water depth.

3.6.5. Energy Savings and Ecology


Among factors limiting the development of high-speed transportation means for
internal waterways are the problems associated with designing economically competitive
and environmentally safe vessels. Ecological aspects of designing a high-speed river ship
are associated with the energy generated by the hull and absorbed by the environment.
Mathematically, this energy is characterized by the propulsion power, namely,

PS  Rv  (3.140)

where R is the ship resistance,


is the propulsive coefficient    0 H  S (3.141)
0 is the propeller efficiency in open water,
H is the coefficient of hull influence,
S is the coefficient of engine-to-propeller transmission efficiency,
Energy saving can be achieved by the power minimization [Lyakhovitsky, 1988],

PS  min
(3.142)
v  const

Energy saving is not the only ecological aspect. A more general approach was
proposed by Ivanov et al, 1991 and Gorstko et al, 1985, Aschepkova, 1978. Pollution
associated with propulsion plant operation was studied by Shepelsky, 1991. This part of
the problem relates to the efficiency of fuel consumption and ship hydrodynamics. For
multi-hull ships, this problem was addressed by Lyakhovitsky, 1993.

3.7. Towing Resistance of Ships with Outriggers


Ships composed of a main hull and one or two much smaller hulls situated outside
the main (central when two outriggers are fitted) hull are discussed in this section. Hull
shapes both of the main (central) hull and outriggers are considered to be of traditional
hull lines, or more specifically with U-shaped cross sections, unless stated otherwise.
From towing resistance point of view, the data presented are valid both for ships with one
and two outriggers. But this is not the case from the maneuverability viewpoint.
The application of outriggers results in a dramatic increase in lateral stability, thus
eliminating some restrictions on ship design. There are two specific problems for
dimensioning the main (central) hull and outriggers: specifying the appropriate
elongations (L/B ratios) of each hull and minimizing the hydrodynamic interactions
between the hull and outriggers.

175
3.7. Towing Resistance of Ships with Outriggers

3.7.1. Elongation and Resistance of the Main Hull


A widespread opinion had usually prevailed that there is a minimum of relative
towing resistance (i.e. total resistance to displacement ratio) as a function of hull
elongation (L/B ratio). An attempt was made to determine some optimal values of the
L/B-ratio for the towing resistance of an isolated main hull. However, no such minimum
resistance versus L/B was found in systematic model tests of catamaran single hulls.
What was indeed found was a consistent change in the first derivative of relative
resistance as a function of the L/B ratio, as seen in Fig.3.98 where the calculated effective
power for a single hull of catamaran is
plotted versus the L/B-ratio. With minor
deviations this result is valid for a wide
range of speeds and displacements. It is
clear that no absolute minimum exists
but there is a «conventional» point after
which the rate of resistance curve
changes considerably.

Fig.3.98.
Effective power of catamaran single hull
versus L/B ratio at various speeds.

176
3.7. Towing Resistance of Ships with Outriggers

At lower speeds the «conventional optimum» point is situated in the vicinity of


L/B7, while at higher
speeds it gradually moves
to approach ~8.
Generally, it can be
assumed to be near

L/B7.5. Selection of an optimal value of the L/B-ratio for the main hull is also governed
by many other factors, including the longitudinal hull-girder bending moment at head
seas, weight considerations and others. As for the weight of shell plating, the plot in
Fig.3.99 provides some useful guidance on the relative weight of shell plating (i.e. its
total weight to displacement ratio) versus the L/B ratio. The dependence is somewhat
similar to that in Fig.3.98 with the “conventional optimum” point located within the same
of L/B7-8. For the central hull with traditional lines, the residuary resistance coefficient
and wetted area are plotted in Fig.3.100 and Fig.3.101, respectively, as a function of
relative hull length =L/V1/3.

Fig.3.99. Relative Fig.3.100. Residuary resistance coefficient as a function


weight of shell plating of relative length and Froude number for the main hull
versus L/B. at CB=0.6, CP=0.88 and B/d=3.75.

Fig.3.101.
Relative wetted area of the
main hull with traditional
hull lines.

177
3.7. Towing Resistance of Ships with Outriggers

3.7.2. L/B ratio and Resistance of Outriggers


The waterplane area and draft of outriggers are determined to satisfy transverse stability
requirements. Block coefficients of outriggers do not usually exceed 0.5 unless
propulsion machinery is installed there. Averaged data on the residuary resistance of
outriggers versus the
L/B-ratio and Froude
number are shown in
Fig.3.102.

Fig.3.102. Residuary
resistance coefficients
for outriggers versus
Froude numbers and
L/B ratios related to
their dimensions.

It should also be
noted that outriggers usually have the beam-to-draft ratio near to or less than unity.
Therefore, the data for traditional shape hulls are hardly applicable to outriggers. When
outriggers operate at Froude numbers (as related to the length of outrigger) greater than
unity, the total resistance of outrigger(s), based on test data, rises sharply. This fact can
also be used for selecting the appropriate length of the outrigger(s):

Loutrig  VS2 / g (3.143)

Together with the values of draft and waterplane area being specified, the length
limitation (3.143) for outriggers allows to obtain their displacement and relative length.
After that the outriggers’ resistance can be calculated.

3.7.3. Wave interaction between


the main hull and
outriggers (struts)-
Towing model tests were carried out to
assess the interaction between the
main hull and an outrigger, as well as
between the central hull and two
symmetrically located outriggers. The
main (central) hull was simulated by a
destroyer-like model. Each outrigger
was modeled as a strut-outrigger type
model. Two outrigger models were
used. Their lengths were equal to
about 16 and 33% of the main hull
length so that the total displacement of
the two outrigger(s) would constitute
about 5 and 16% of the main (central)

178
3.7. Towing Resistance of Ships with Outriggers

hull displacement, respectively. The outriggers were positioned so that lengthwise their
midship sections were placed at the 10th (midship), 7.5th, 5th, 2.5th, and 0th (FP) stations of
the main (central) hull, and transversely the distance between CL’s of the outriggers
varied to be about 0.2L, 0.3L and 0.47L. The test data are presented in Fig.3.103 and
3.104 for various arrangements of outriggers.

Fig.3.103.
Wave interaction coefficient for outriggers at the 10 (midship), 7.5 , 5 , 2.5th, and FP
th th th

stations.

179
3.7. Towing Resistance of Ships with Outriggers

Interaction coefficients CI(Fn) in Fig.3.103


were calculated as follows:

C I ( Fn )  [CRC ( Fn )  CRA ( Fn )]/ CR 0 ( Fn )


(3.144)

where: CRC(Fn) is the residuary resistance


coefficient of the entire ship (central hull
with outriggers) including interaction;
CRA(Fn) is the coefficient of total
resistance of the outriggers only, divided
by the wetted area of the main hull
CRO(Fn) is the residuary resistance
coefficient of the main (central) hull only.

Fig.3.104.
Effect of different arrangements of the 8%-
displacement outriggers on the CRC/CRO-
ratio of residuary resistance coefficients

Then the towing resistance of a


ship with outriggers when the main
(central) hull has traditional lines can be
obtained using the resistance of the isolated
main (central) hull factored by an
interaction coefficient and the resistance of
proper outriggers, as given by formula
(3.145) below.
It should also be noted that the
interaction coefficients depend
considerably on shape of the main hull.
This is shown in Fig.3.105 where the
interaction coefficients for the main hull
are plotted both for a box-shaped hull and a
hull with a U-shaped midship section, with
their displacements, lengths, drafts and
outriggers arrangements being identical.
The shape influence is self-explanatory and
is more noticeable at lower Froude
numbers.

RO (VS )  0.5 rVm [CR 0 ( Fn)  CI ( Fn)  C f 0 ( Rn)  C AP 0 ( Fn)  C A ]  Routrig (VS )
2
(3.145)

180
3.7. Towing Resistance of Ships with Outriggers

Fig.3.105.
Comparison of interaction
coefficients for hulls with different
shapes.

Optimal positioning of
outriggers lengthwise depends
considerably on the main (central)
hull’s shape. The optimal positions
for a U-shaped central hull are
shown in Fig.3.106. Zone I of
optimal positions is ????usually
relative, while zone II is of
an ?????absolute value????. Optimal
positioning in zones I or II is characterized by
the transverse clearance in accordance with the
data in Fig.3.104.

Fig.3.106. Optimal advance ranges of


outriggers relative to a U-shaped central hull:
I – please explain?????????????????
II - ??????????????????????????

181