See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/305109465

Three - Dimensional Pressure Distribution on Planing Hulls

Conference Paper · July 2016

CITATION READS

1 927

5 authors, including:

Simone Mancini Ermina Begovic

Università Telematica "Giustino Fortunato" University of Naples Federico II
36 PUBLICATIONS   129 CITATIONS    40 PUBLICATIONS   204 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Silvia Pennino Antonio Scamardella

Parthenope University of Naples Parthenope University of Naples
11 PUBLICATIONS   36 CITATIONS    52 PUBLICATIONS   199 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Hydrodynamic of stepped planing hulls View project

Fast - resistance evaluation method for planing hulls View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Ermina Begovic on 13 July 2016.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

COPYRIGHT © 2016 TAYLOR and FRANCIS GROUP, LONDON, UK CRC PRESS / BALKEMA - PROCEEDINGS AND MONOGRAPHS IN ENGINEERING, WATER AND EARTH SCIENCES
WWW.CRCPRESS.COM, WWW.TAYLORANDFRANCIS.COM

ISBN 978-1-138-03000-8

Maritime Technology
and Engineering 3

Editors:
C. Guedes Soares
T.A. Santos

help open
All Functions Active only with Adobe Reader version 8.0
 Maritime Technology and Engineering 3 – Guedes Soares & Santos (Eds)
© 2016 Taylor & Francis Group, London, ISBN 978-1-138-03000-8

Three-dimensional pressure distribution on planing hulls

S. Pennino, H. Klymenko & A. Scamardella

Department of Applied Sciences, The University of Naples “Parthenope”, Naples, Italy

S. Mancini & E. Begovic

Department of Industrial Engineering, The University of Naples “Federico II”, Naples, Italy

ABSTRACT: The aim of the work is to evaluate the 3-dimensional pressure distribution exerted on the planing
hulls by Morabito empirical method and by numerical simulations performed using the commercially available
flow simulation software CD-Adapco STAR CCM+. For planing hull model, tested in towing tank by authors,
Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD) simulations have been performed at three speeds. The “goodness” of
numerical prediction has been controlled comparing the total resistance, sinkage and trim prediction against
experimental values. The pressure distribution along the keel and at three buttocks has been assessed for all
considered speeds. From the Morabito’s method, the hydrodynamic and total pressure has been assessed for the
same test cases. Paper reports some of the numerical set up characteristics and extensive comparison of results.
In conclusions, the discussion on pro’s and contra’s of both methods is given, with respect to obtained results
and physical consistency in applied mathematical models.

1 INTRODUCTION provided so that as new data become available, sub-

The accurate evaluation of hydrodynamic performance
of planing craft by numerical and empirical methods
is still a challenge in the naval architecture field. The
flow separation at chine, together with the changing
of trim and sinkage due to the pressure field around
the hull are the principal characteristic of a planing
hydrodynamic regime.
To assess the hydrodynamic resistance of high speed
planing hulls experimental, empirical and numerical
approaches are used. The most used method to assess
the prismatic hull resistance in total hydrodynamic
lift was proposed by Savitsky (1964). Later on it was
improved by Blount and Fox (1975), Savitsky and
Brown (1976), Savitsky and Koebel (1993). The orig-
inal Savitsky method is based on regression analysis
of extensive experimental data on prismatic planing
hulls, giving formulas for lift, drag and centre of
pressure coefficients and determines the equilibrium
conditions at speed evaluating: trim, wetted keel and
chine lengths and finally hydrodynamic resistance.
Morabito (2014) presented an empirical method aimed
at the calculation of bottom pressures at any point on
the hull as a function of deadrise, trim, wetted length,
and speed. First investigations of the pressure distribu-
tion on the planing hulls were conducted experimen-
tally by Sottorf (1934), Smiley (1951) and Kapryan
et al. (1955). Morabito (2014) elaborated Kapryan’s
extensive pressure measurements to develop a new
empirical method of predicting planing hull pres-
sure distributions. Author reported that allowance is
stitutions may be made to the coefficients in the
expressions. Ghadimi et al. (2014) proposed a compu-
tational procedure for determining three-dimensional
pressure distributions on the planing hulls based on
Morabito’s approach.
Although in the last twenty years the use of CFD
codes has become a common practice in the marine
applications, in the evaluation of hydrodynamic per-
formance and running attitude of the planing ves-
sel, Reynolds Average Navier Stokes (RANS) codes
still have significant limits. One of the first applica-
tions in this field was conducted by Caponneto et al
(2001). For the prismatic hull, he compared the RANS
results for resistance, lift, running attitudes and lon-
gitudinal centre of pressure (LCP) with those of the
Savitsky’s method. Brizzolara & Serra (2007) have
investigated the accuracy of CFD codes in the predic-
tion of planing surfaces. They systematically varied
the trim of a wedge shaped planing hull and com-
pared the results with available experimental data, with
Savitsky’s (Savitsky, 1964) and Shuford’s (Shuford,
1956) methods. An average of 10% error in predict-
ing the total resistance and 5% error in predicting the
total lift, showed the capability of numerical methods
to assess accurately planing surface characteristics.
Yousefi et al. (2013) reported a comprehensive study
on the existing numerical techniques for high speed
planing hulls and, also, an extended overview of the
different commercially available CFD software. In Fu
et al. (2014) the results from a collaborative research
effort involving the CFD codes CFDShip-Iowa are

353
presented and discussed to examine the hydrody-
namic forces, moments, hull pressures, accelerations,
motions, and the multiphase free surface flow field
generated by a planing craft at high-speed (Fr = 1.8–
2.1) in calm water and waves. For the considered
prismatic hull form, the trim was under-predicted and
the resistance was over-predicted at high Fr when com-
pared against the experimental data. Mousaviraad et al.
(2015) presented a detailed verification and valida-
tion study carried out for planing hull at high Fr using
the historical benchmark experiments of Fridsma. The
satisfactory results are obtained for the simulation con-
ditions that include hull resistance in calm deep and
shallow water and in regular and irregular waves.
This work explores the advantages and lacks of fast
and robust Morabito’s empirical method and sophis-
ticated CFD solver implemented in the commercial
software CD-Adapco StarCCM+. The comparison is
performed for planing hull form tested in Towing Tank
of University of Naples Federico II, for which the resis-
tance, dynamic trim and sinkage values were available.
Hydrodynamic and total pressure distribution at keel
and three buttock lines from two approaches are com-
pared for three model velocities. In conclusions, the
discussion on pro’s and contra’s of both method is
given, with respect to obtained results and physical
consistency in applied mathematical models.
2 EMPIRICAL METHOD BY MORABITO
(2014)
2.1 Pressure area, spray area and reference planes
The shape of planing hull wetted surface can be divided
into two parts. The first, described as “pressure area”,
is limited by wetted chine length (LC ), wetted keel
length (LK ) and stagnation line and it is the part of hull
for which all hydrodynamic equations for lift, drag and
centre of pressure are applicable. The second, smaller,
called “spray area” is forward of stagnation line,
Savitsky (1964). This area is the part of the hull bottom
still in contact with water delimited by the stagna-
tion line and the spray edge. Both areas can be easily
identified in the Figure 1, photo from Begovic et al.
(2012).
Figure 1. The projected area of a planing hull (Begovic et al.
2012).
354
The pressure distribution has different “character-
istics” in longitudinal plane, along the keel or buttock
lines and along the stagnation line.
In the Morabito’s method, the reference planes are
taken parallel to the stagnation line, as shown in Fig-
ure 2, different from the typical transverse reference
planes utilized in 2D + T theory shown in Figure 3.
The difference between transverse reference planes
and planes oriented parallel to the spray root line is
in the spray area. Section AA, shown in Figure 2, is
taken along the spray root line. In correspondence of
the centre line the pressure peak has its maximum.
The section A-A is the stagnation line and therefore
contains the pressure peaks maxima. Approaching the
chine, a rapid decrease of the pressure into atmospheric
pressure occurs and this drop in pressure gives rise to
the main spray (Savitsky & Morabito 2010).
In Figure 3 is shown transverse reference planes
used in 2D + T studies, the section CC is taken across
the spray root line. In this section, the pressure distri-
bution shows a minimum near the centreline and peaks
on the stagnation line, outboard of the spray root the
pressure become atmospheric pressure. The pressure
distribution for sections BB and DD, taken far aft of
the spray root, is essentially the same when using the
two different reference planes.
Figure 2. Illustration of reference planes (after Morabito,
2014) – Reference planes parallel to spray root.
Figure 3. Illustration of reference planes (Morabito,
2014) – Transverse reference planes used in most 2D + T
methods.
2.2 Morabito’s method – summary of equations 2.5 Longitudinal pressure distribution
For any point (X and Y) defined as:
X = Bx – non-dimensional longitudinal distance aft
of the stagnation line
Y = By – non-dimensional transversal distance from
the keel, C and K are constant in each longitudinal section
B – beam on the chine and are calculated as:
λy is the non-dimensional distance between the tran-
som stern and the stagnation line at each transverse
location, defined as follows:

where λ is the mean wetted length-to-beam ratio

2.6 Pressure reduction at transom
PT is the parameter introduced by Morabito, which
expresses the decreasing pressure in the longitudinal
strips, defined as:
The value of λy is maximum at centreline (Y = 0)
and minimum at chine (Y = 0.5).

2.3 Transverse pressure distribution

In the plane parallel to the spray root, the maximum 2.7 Hydrodynamic pressure on the planing surface
pressure is at the centreline and decreases to atmo-
spheric pressure toward the chine. PY take into account
the transverse decrease of the pressure:

2.8 Hydrostatic pressure

2.4 Maximum pressure at the stagnation line in

each longitudinal section
where αW is the angle between keel and calm water
For prismatic hull the projection of pressure area can
intersection
be described by the angle between the stagnation line
and the symmetry plane, defined as:

CV is the speed coefficient

where τ and β are trim and deadrise angles,

respectively.
The maximum pressure is given by:
2.9 Total pressure

Py_stag /PN represents the pressure distribution on the All parameters are explained in detail in Morabito
stagnation line calculated as: (2014).The range of method applicability is those from
Kapryan and Boyd (1955) measurements:
CV > 2
β < 45
4 < τ < 30
1 < 0.5(LK + LC )/B < 5.5

355

Figure 4. Flowchart of the present algorithm in order to
evaluate the pressure distribution over planing hulls.
Figure 5. Validation of programmed procedure against
Morabito’s original data.
It can be commented that the trim range is huge,
indeed, 30 degrees trim angle does not correspond
to realistic cases of planing. On the other hand with
the use of trim tabs, flaps or interceptors, will be
very interesting to have covered also the lower trim
angles 2 < τ , common in service of modern plan-
ning hull.
The flowchart to determinate the 3D total pressure
is shown in the following Figure 4.
The input data are:
– a geometry file used to obtain the deadrise angle in
all the considered transversal sections;
– planing condition data: λ and τ for assigned speed;
– velocity, only for the evaluation of the hydrostatic
pressure.
Y assumes value from 0 to 0.5 while X is 0 in
correspondence of the stagnation line and assumes
its maximum value at λy which is variable with the
considered Y.
In the Figure 5 the validation of programmed proce-
dure is compared against original Morabito example
(Figure 13 in Morabito 2014). As the identical results
are obtained, the program is considered valid for
further method accuracy verifications.
356
Figure 6. Mesh topology around the hull.
3 NUMERICAL SIMULATIONS
The computations are performed with the RANSE
solver CD-Adapco StarCCM+. To solve the time-
marching equations, an implicit solver has been used
to find the field of all hydrodynamic unknown quanti-
ties, in conjunction with the iterative solver to solve
each time step. The software uses a Semi Implicit
Method for Pressure Linked Equations (SIMPLE) to
conjugate pressure field and velocity field, and the
Algebraic Multi-Grid (AMG) solver to accelerate the
convergence of the solution.
The free surface is modelled with the two phase vol-
ume of fluid technique (VoF). A segregated flow solver
approach is used for all simulations. The Reynolds
stress problem is solved by means of Realizable k-ε
turbulence model.
All simulations are performed using the overset
mesh technique. This approach is not a conventional
way to evaluate the hull performances in still water
condition but it has been chosen with the aim to take
into account the significant dynamic trim effect on the
free surface behaviour, in particular in order to avoid
that during the simulation the grid refinement of the
VoF-interface does not follow the free surface. More
details of the setup used are reported in Begovic et al
(2015). A visualization of the mesh topology used for
the computations has been plotted in Figure 6.
The time-step used in the simulations, function of
the hull speed and wetted keel length, is determined
from the equation 13 (according to ITTC 2011).
The main simulation parameters are summarized in
Table 1.
The wall function approach “All-wall y+” was used
for the near wall treatment for all simulations. This
approach is considered to be a reasonable compromise
between the boundary layer definition with accepT-
able quality and the time required for the calculation.
The obtained y+ values for the highest speed are
shown in Figure 7.
3.1 Grid independence analysis
As the purpose of the work is the pressure distribution
comparison, the validation of the grid and numeri-
cal set up is done for the available resistance, trim
Table 1. Numerical simulation properties. Table 3. Model main dimensions.

Property Parameter Model

Type of mesh Trimmed/ Polyhedral
No. of cells 1532766 Length (m) 1.613
Boundary physics Beam (m) 0.392
Inlet Velocity inlet condition Draft (m) 0.066
Outlet Pressure outlet condition Displacement (kg) 19.00
Bottom/Top Velocity inlet condition Speed (m/s) 3.86; 4.50; 5.14
Side Symmetry condition CV 1.968; 2.296; 2.624
Hull Wall with no-slip condition FrV 2.394; 2.792; 3.191
Symmetry plane Along centreline of the hull
Solver settings
Convection Term 2st order
Temporal Discretization 1st order
Time-step (s) 0.0019; 0.0016; 0.0014
Iteration per t.s. 5
Turbulence Model Realizable k-ε
Overset Interpolation Scheme Linear

Figure 8. Pressure lines definition.

However, to assess the weight of the grid as source

of error in the simulation results, a grid independence
analysis was conducted. The assessment of grid uncer-
tainty is performed using the Grid Convergence Index
method modified by Xing and Stern (2010). Three dif-
ferent grids: course (1.56 million cells), medium (2.17
million cells) and fine (3.07 million cells) are √gener-
Figure 7. Wall y+ values on the hull at FrV = 3.191. ated with uniform refinement ratio equal to 2. The
results of this analysis show that the grid uncertainty
Table 2. CFD Set up validation against experimental data. for the RT is 3.60% of the simulation result of the finest
grid, for trim is 10.50%, and for RF is 14.14%.
CV Model tests CFD Diff (%)

RTM /
1.968 0.158 0.142 10.81 4 TEST CASE
2.296 0.171 0.158 8.19
2.624 0.179 0.170 5.29 Longitudinal pressure distribution has been assessed
Trim (deg) by both methodologies for a planing hull form, tested
1.968 3.434 2.79 23.3 in Towing Tank of University of Naples Federico II.
2.296 3.682 3.07 19.95 Hull model built in scale 1:16 is relative to a motor
2.624 3.567 3.05 16.95 yacht and the main dimensions are given in Table 3.
Z/V1/3 Longitudinal pressure distribution is considered at
1.968 0.006 0.005 29.45 the keel line and three buttock lines as shown in
2.296 0.011 0.008 36.41 Figure 8.
2.624 0.015 0.011 38.40

and sinkage data. Measured and calculated values are
reported in Table 2. In this analysis, cells number is
1.56*106 and CPU time for 20 seconds of simulation
at each speed is about 36 hours at 32 processors. This
set up is chosen for all the simulations inasmuch it
provides sufficiently accurate results and minimizes
computation time.
It has to be commented that the obtained results
for resistance, trim and sinkage are in the order of
the reported state of the art errors. As the resistance
results are within 10% difference against experimen-
tal results, it has been considered that the numerical
set up is well settled and pressure distribution can be
analysed.
5 RESULTS
5.1 CFD results
All calculations have been performed in model scale.
Time history of drag, trim, shear and sinkage for the
highest velocity are shown in Figure 9. As can be seen
from Figure 9, the convergence of the calculated results
is obtained in 6–7 seconds of simulation. The results
reported in Table 2 are evaluated as the mean value of
10 seconds simulation window.
The dynamic wetted surface and pressure area, iden-
tified from the maximum pressure envelope curve, for
three velocities are shown in Figures 10–12. From
these Figures, the wetted length at keel and at chine

357
 Table 4. Model main dimensions.

Speed CV LK LC λ τ
(m/s) – (m) (m) – (deg)

3.86 1.968 1.250 0.916 2.763 2.79

4.50 2.296 1.123 0.808 2.463 3.07
5.14 2.624 1.019 0.704 2.198 3.05

Figure 9. Time history of drag, shear, trim and sinkage.

Figure 13. Dynamic pressure by empirical Morabito’s

method.

Figure 10. Pressure area and wetted surface at CV = 1.968.

Figure 14. Total pressure by empirical Morabito’s method.

Figure 11. Pressure area and wetted surface at CV = 2.296.
The results of wetted lengths from CFD are used
as input for Morabito’s method and are summarized in
Table 4.
To obtain dynamic pressure, comparable to Mora-
bito’s definition, in all simulations it has been esti-
mated as the difference between total and hydrostatic
pressure.

5.2 Morabito’s results

Figure 12. Pressure area and wetted surface at CV = 2.624.
were determined. It has to be pointed out, that the wet-
ted length on chine is defined from the intersection of
bottom pressure area and chine. In the upper part of
each Figures 10–12, the stagnation line is mirrored to
indicate the difference between two areas and conse-
quent difference in wetted chine length for different
definitions.
The longitudinal dynamic pressure distribution at keel
line is given in Figure 13 for all considered speeds. It
can be appreciated from Figure 13 that the empirical
method describes well the behaviour at transom, and
wetted length decreasing with the speed. If compared
with the LK values reported in Table 4 it can be seen
that empirical method has about 20% longer wetted
keel length. Total pressure on the keel line is given
in Figure 14. The total pressure at the stern is almost
identical for all velocities (Figure 14), while dynamic
is not (Figure 13).

358
 Figure 17. Empirical and numerical dynamic pressure dis-
Figure 15. Empirical and numerical dynamic pressure dis- tribution comparison at CV = 2.624.
tribution comparison at CV = 1.968.

Figure 18. Empirical and numerical total pressure distribu-

tion comparison at CV = 1.968.

Figure 16. Empirical and numerical dynamic pressure dis-

tribution comparison at CV = 2.296.

It can be appreciated how for lower values of CV

the contribution of the hydrostatic pressure is greater,
what is the Morabito’s correction of hydrostatic pres-
sure term obtained from the Archimed’s law to account
for the dynamic lift.

5.3 Comparison of dynamic pressure distribution

Longitudinal total pressure distribution at different
buttock lines for all three speeds is given in Fig-
ures 15, 16, and 17 for both Morabito’s method and
CFD simulations.
The tested hull is monohedral in aft region extend-
ing, approximately, 1/3rd of the overall length. The use
of the equation (3) to evaluate the α angle is not cor-
rect because it concerns projection only of prismatic
hull area. Consequently, the λY assessment is affected
by errors. To reduce the error, the considered dead-
rise angle is a mean of deadrise from transom to the
corresponding LK .
It has to be noted that CFD simulations reproduce
the physics of the boundary condition problem at the
transom. The total pressure will be equal to the atmo-
spheric but there will be a hydrostatic component due
to the difference in height from the calm free surface
and there will be a dynamic component balancing it.
Figure 19. Empirical and numerical total pressure distribu-
tion comparison at CV = 2.296.
5.4 Comparison of total pressure distribution
Total pressure distribution by empirical method and
by CD-Adapco Star CCM+ simulations is shown in
Figures 18, 19 and 20.
It can be seen that at the Y = 0, in the aft part
of the hull, both methods have very similar values.
The empirical method has almost constant maximum
pressure at the different buttocks intersection with the
stagnation line. It can be seen that at CV = 2.296 and
2.624, except the pressure peak value at Y = 0, the
dynamic pressure peak maxima are basically the same
by both methods. This is a great achievement for a
simple empirical method.

359

Figure 20. Empirical and numerical total pressure distribu-
tion comparison at CV = 2.624.
6 CONCLUSIONS
This paper deals with calm water pressure distribu-
tion on planing hull bottom. Empirical method by
Morabito (2014) has been programmed and applied
for the pressure distribution prediction of a planing
hull model tested by authors. For the same hull the
CD-Adapco Star CCM+ simulations have been per-
formed at three speeds and these results were used as
input in empirical method. Comparison of dynamic
and total pressure distribution pointed out different
aspects, pros and contras of both methods. Empirical
method is fast and works very well for monohedral hull
at high CV . Main lacks identified in Morabito’s method
are: applicability only for monohedral hull, and non-
realistic range of trim angles. The main lacks of CFD
simulation for planing hull are the necessity of very
experienced user to model the mesh to avoid ventila-
tion in the pressure area and high computational time.
As regard resistance, trim and sinkage EFD – CFD
comparison, reported in Table 2, it can be observed
that total resistance is within 10% error. This 10% in
total resistance is not equally distributed in pressure
and viscous resistance component, as evident from
Figures 10–12. Viscous part is overestimated by the
CFD because the whisker spray area is accounted. Dif-
ferent pressure area leads to higher error in trim and
sinkage the pressure area, generally underestimated
for about 20%.
As the final consideration on the applicability of the
considered methods, both methods could be improved.
In the case of the empirical method, the improvement
means account for realistic hull forms. In the case of
CFD, means an improvement of the evaluation of the
hydrodynamic pressure through the improvement of
the model of the air-water interface (VoF Method) and
user’s knowledge of the limits of methodology.
REFERENCES
Begovic, E. Bertorello, C. Mancini, S. 2015. Hydrodynamic
Performances of Small Size SWATH Craft, Brodogradnja,
Vol. 66, No. 4, 2015.
Begovic, E. & Bertorello, C. 2012, Resistance assessment of
warped hull form, Ocean Engineering 56 (2012) 28–42,
DOI: 10.1013/j.oceanengineering.2012.08.004.
360
View publication stats
Blount, D. & Fox, W. 1976. Small-Craft Power Prediction.
Marine Technology, January, Society of Naval Architects
and Marine Engineers, Jersey City, NJ.
Brizzolara, S. & Serra, F. 2007,Accuracy of CFD Codes in the
Prediction of Planing Surfaces Hydrodynamic Character-
istics. 2nd International Conference on marine Research
and Transportation ICMRT2007, 1, p. 1–12. Ischia.
Caponneto, M. 2001, Practical CFD Simulations for planing
Hulls, High Performance Marine Vehicles (HIPER), pp.
128-138, Hamburg.
Fu, T.C. Brucker, K.A. Mousaviraad, S.M. Ikeda, M.C.
Lee, E.J. O’Shea, T.T. et al. 2014. An Assessment of
Computational Fluid Dynamics Predictions of the Hydro-
dynamics of High-Speed Planing Craft in Calm Water
and Waves, 30th Symposium on Naval Hydrodynamics,
Hobart, Tasmania.
Ghadimi, P. Tavakoli, S. Dashtimanesh, A. Pirooz, A.
2014. Developing a computer program for detailed
study of planing hull’s spray based on Morabito’s
approach. J Marine Sci. Appl., 13 (4), pp. 402–415.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11804-014-1280-8.
Kapryan, W. J. & Boyd, G. M. 1955. Hydrodynamic pres-
sure distribution obtained during a planing investigation
of five related prismatic surfaces, Langley Aeronautical
Laboratory, Hampton, Virginia, US, National Advisory
Committee for Aeronautics Technical Note No. 3477.
Morabito, M.G. 2010. On the spray and bottom pressure
of planing surfaces, PhD thesis. Stevens Institute of
Technology, Hoboken, New Jersey.
Morabito, M.G. 2014. Empirical equations for planing
hull bottom pressures. Journal of Ship Research, Vol. 58,
No. 4, pp. 185–200.
Mousaviraad, S. M., Wang Z., Stern F., 2015. URANS Studies
of Hydrodynamic Performance and Slamming Loads on
High-Speed Planing Hulls in Calm Water and Waves for
Deep and Shallow Conditions, Applied Ocean Research,
vol. 51, pp. 222–240, 2015.
Savitsky D., 1964. Hydrodynamic design of planing hulls.
SNAME Mar. Technol. 1 (1), Oct 1964.
Savitsky, D. & Brown, P.W. 1976. Procedures for Hydrody-
namic Evaluation of Planing Hulls in Smooth and Rough
Water. Marine Technology, Vol. 13, No. 4, pp. 381-400,
Jersey City (USA): SNAME.
Savitsky D., Koebel J.G. 1993. Seakeeping Considerations in
Design and Operation of Hard Chine Planing Hulls, Tech.
Res. Bull. R-42, 124 Jersey City (USA): SNAME.
Savitsky, D. & Morabito, M. G. 2010. Origin and Character-
istics of the Spray Patterns Generated by Planing Hulls.
Davidson Laboratory Technical Report No. 2882.
Shuford, C. L., 1956. A theoretical and Experimental Study
of Planing Surfaces Including Effects of Cross Section
and Plan Form. Technical Note 3939, NACA.
Smiley, R.F. 1951. An Experimental Study of the Water-
Pressure Distributions during Landing and Planing of a
Heavily Loaded Rectangular Flat-Plate Model. NACA
Technical Note NO. 2453.
Sottorf, W. 1934. Versuche mit Gleitflächen, Werft-Reederei-
Hafen, [English Version: Experiments with Planing Sur-
faces]. NACA Report No TM 739.
Xing T., Stern F., 2010, Factors of Safety for Richardson
Extrapolation, Journal of Fluids Engineering, vol. 132,
pp. 061403 1–13, June 2010
CD-Adapco STAR CCM+ User’s Guide Version 9.06, 2014
ITTC Recommended Procedure and Guidelines, 7.5-03-02-
03, 2011