0 evaluări0% au considerat acest document util (0 voturi)

0 vizualizări101 paginijkgjkfkfk

Mar 30, 2019

© © All Rights Reserved

0 evaluări0% au considerat acest document util (0 voturi)

0 vizualizări101 paginiSunteți pe pagina 1din 101

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

3.1.1. 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

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

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)

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)

induced velocity

potential satisfying

Laplace equation.

Fig.3.1.

General schematics

and definitions for

trimaran.

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

=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

100

Ch.3. Propulsion on Calm Water

n

( x , y , z ) v0 x m ( x , y , z ) (3.9)

m 1

Resultant vector of all elementary forces, R can be found by integration over the

total hull surface,

ur r

R pndS (3.10)

S

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)

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 4r 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 4r 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 4r Fi ( x , z )( ) dS (3.19)

Si x Si

The case of i=m is associated with resistance of the ith hull, and im 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( 2b2 ) 2

v02 1 1

2

(3.22)

1

8 rg 2 ( I 22 J 22 )2

Rw

v02 1

2 d (3.23)

1

Rw R1 R2 R12 (3.24)

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.

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,

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:

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:

2 Rw

Cw 3

for a trimaran in general (3.41)

rv 2

0 W i

i 1

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

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)

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 Fn0.5. 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).

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.

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 Fn0.5. 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 Fn0.6 (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.

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.

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)

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)

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.

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

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)

11

W WK

( 1 b 1 )2 3

(3.55)

(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.

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.

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

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.

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.

sensor numbers; 5 - reference plane

corresponding to the model stem.

Ch.3. Propulsion on Calm Water

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.

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.

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.

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

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:

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)

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)

BK 2

0

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

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

a

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

b

a

E

e (3.68)

rgVL

113

Ch.3. Propulsion on Calm Water

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.

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

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.

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

1 - excessive acceleration;

2 - deficient acceleration, Vm1>V m2.

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.

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].

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,.

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

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.

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.

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

Series

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

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

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

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

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)

Ke

t 1 (3.75)

KT

Here KT andKQ 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

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 .

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 Fn0.25, 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;

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.

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

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

Fn0.35. 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.

versus inverse of load coefficient KDT

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

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.

models with small L/B ratio.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(3.80)

t t1 ( K DE , L / B) t2 ( K DE , B1 / d ) t3 ( K DE , CB) t4 ( K DE , Fn, 2b )

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 Fn0.375

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 Fn0.325 (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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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;

resistance of slender single hulls.

134

Ch.3. Propulsion on Calm Water

at Fn=0.12 CVPCR (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)

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

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 Fn2.6-2.7 (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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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

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

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

th0 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

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

(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 ( , ) dd 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

dd .

0

139

Ch.3. Propulsion on Calm Water

2

r 2 2

H N ( 0 , ) H hN ( 0 , ) th0 hd

xh

8

h

cos 3 (3.96)

2 ch 0 h 2

2

cos

2

r 2 2 thh H hN ( , ) H hN ( , ) sin

yh

8

yh

4 d

cos (3.97)

2 ch h 2

2

cos

r r 2 2 th0 h

hN cos 4

2

zh 2 H ( , ) dd

8 0 4

2

J m H hN ( 0 , )H hN ( 0 , )

r 2

exp( h )

h

d

8 2

dv . p. (3.98)

0 shh cos chh

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

ir 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

ir 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

ir 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

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)

dr [ 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)

dr [ 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 )

dr [ 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 ddd 2 Re i exp i( x cos y sin )H N ( , )

8 g 0

(3.106)

cos ( cos )dd v

2 2

i 2

Re exp 2 ( x cos y sin )

cos

2

2g cos

2

d

H N ( , ) 4

cos

2

cos

142

Ch.3. Propulsion on Calm Water

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 dd R i d v . p.

8 2 g e 0 shh cos 2 chh

2

(3.107)

2v 2

th0 h

ix cos iy sin ) d Re

8g 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

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.

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

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

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

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

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.

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:

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:

interaction of hulls approach (from top to bottom):

regular SWATH, same with hulls shifted, tri-hull

SWATH with identical hulls, same with outriggers.

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:

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 2 cos 2b (3.116)

or after manipulations H st ( I st iJ st ) cos(a b ) 2 I st J st sin( a b )

2 2

(3.118)

If both gondola and strut are symmetric relative to their mid sections, the integral

associated with wave interference is as follows:

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.

147

Ch.3. Propulsion on Calm Water

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:

( 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

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:

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 )

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.

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.

clearances for twin-hull ships with thin

hulls versus Froude number related to

gondola length:

1 – calculations; 2 – model tests.

interference caused both by diverging and transverse wave patterns. The optimum

longitudinal clearance can be found from the following equation:

defines line of optimums (3.127)

theoretically and obtained experimentally, are

compared in Fig.3.56. The best agreement is at

Froude numbers greater than 0.4.

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.

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.

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

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

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).

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

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 CWP0.9 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

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

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

displacement SWATH at hull lengths of resistances of a regular SWATH and that

50, 75 and 100 m with outriggers

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

Fn0.3. 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

outrigger shifted aft.

157

Ch.3. Propulsion on 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.

admiralty coefficient C Vs W / P

3 2/3

on gondola elongation.

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

Fn0.35 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.

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

gondola length, respectively.

For a range of Fn0.4-0.6 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

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 Fn1.0 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

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.

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

displacement.

161

Ch.3. Resistance on Calm Water

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.

SWATH ships are competitive with conventional monohulls if special precautions are

taken to decrease the still water resistance of the multi-hulls.

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

FnV3.2-3.3. 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.

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.

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.

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

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

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

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.

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

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.

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.

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

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

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)

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.

CWP d / d (3.138)

CZ

Fn L / B

CB RL (3.139)

Cm

Fn 2 L / B

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.

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

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).

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.

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.

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

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.

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

(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.

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

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

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.

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.

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)

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.

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

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

L/B7, while at higher

speeds it gradually moves

to approach ~8.

Generally, it can be

assumed to be near

L/B7.5. 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/B7-8. 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.

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

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):

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.

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

were calculated as follows:

(3.144)

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

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.

outriggers relative to a U-shaped central hull:

I – please explain?????????????????

II - ??????????????????????????

181

## Mult mai mult decât documente.

Descoperiți tot ce are Scribd de oferit, inclusiv cărți și cărți audio de la editori majori.

Anulați oricând.