ON THE SUBJECT OF HIGH-SPEED MONOHULLS

By Daniel Savitsky *
Presented to the Greek Section
Of the Society Of Naval Architects and Marine Engineers
Athens, Greece. October 2, 2003

Abstract

This presentation discusses the hydrodynamic evolution of the three

basic monohull forms; describes their upper limits of non-dimensional speeds; defines
their relative transport efficiencies and useful load fractions; and finally defines the
geometric and operational characteristics of a unique displacement type hull that has a
maximum speed of 50 knots ,a transport efficiency nearly twice that of existing 50 knot
craft and meets the suggested operational requirements for a high-speed sea- lift ship.
Most of this presentation is based upon first principles of naval architecture.
Also, since high speed and high sea state usually have an adversarial
relationship, the results of recent model studies at the Davidson Laboratory, Stevens
Institute of Technology, will be presented that demonstrate the beneficial effects of active
controls in making these conditions compatible. Again, this discussion will be based upon
first principles of dynamics.

Introduction

The title of this presentation should immediately raise at least

two questions ---first, what is meant by high- speed? Second, is why restrict this talk to
monohulls?. I’ll try to answer these questions.
I recently became aware of a study entitled “Small, High Speed
Vessels”. My first reaction was that this was a study of small, fast, planing recreational
craft or racing boats. I soon discovered that this was not at all the case since the paper
dealt with relatively large boats having displacements greater that 500 tons and “high”
speeds defined to be approximately 25-30 knots –clearly not what conventional wisdom
would have lead me to believe, Perhaps I shouldn’t have been surprised since the title did
refer to “vessels” which are usually larger than planing hulls. In fact, these were semi-
displacement vessels whose hulls shapes are distinctly different than planing hull forms.
It is usually accepted that the high speed of semi-displacement hulls or displacement
hulls are considered to be low- speed for planng hulls. This conclusion, however, is not
necessarily absolute but raises the question—what is meant by high speed? While it is
usually accepted that, the greater the boat speed, the greater the cost to buy and operate,
and the smaller the payload- it will be shown that the same value of high speed can be
designed into all monohull hull shapes, (not necessarily just small vessels) without
compromising their hydrodynamic efficiency, provided that their dimensions are
appropriately selected.
* Professor Emeritus, Davidson Laboratory, Stevens Institute of Technology
 My talk today will discuss the hydrodynamic evolution of the
three basic monohull forms; describe their upper limits of non-dimensional speeds; define
their relative transport efficiencies and useful load fractions, and finally define the
geometric and operational characteristics of a unique displacement type hull having a
maximum speed of 50 kts. that meets the suggested operational requirements for an
intercontinental high speed sea lift ship. Most of the presentation is based upon first
principles of naval architecture that must be familiar to this audience. Also, since high
speed and high sea state usually have an adversarial relationship, the results of recent
experimental studies at the Davidson Laboratory, Stevens Institute of Technology will be
presented which demonstrate the beneficial effects of active controls in making these
conditions compatible. Again this discussion will be based on first principles of
dynamics.
Relative to restricting this talk only to monohull forms, it is
because this hull form is ubiquitous; the shipbuilding industry has extensive experience in
building these hulls; monohulls are less expensive; have acceptable growth potential; and
have an excellent record of operational reliability. Certainly, other hull forms such as
catamarans, SWATH, air cushion craft, etc also have their own advantages –perhaps
these can be addressed at a future time.

Significance of Speed/Length Ratio (SLR)

Based on calm water resistance considerations, the appropriate

selection of a particular type of hull form is mainly dependent upon its operational
speed/length ratio (SLR). As you all know, this is defined as the speed in knots (Vk)
divided by the square root of the load water line length (LWL) in feet. Thus,

SLR = Vk/√LWL

The following paragraphs present a very brief description of the

hydrodynamic phenomenon associated with increasing SLR and how they influence the
geometric configuration of the hull form.

Hull Generated Waves: A marine craft moving thorough the water surface generates a
transverse wave system having a velocity (Ck) equal to the boat speed (Vk). This self-
generated wave system represents an irrecoverable expenditure of propulsive energy that
is a consequence of the “wave-making” resistance of the hull. As a first order
approximation, the characteristics of this transverse wave can be likened to sine waves
where the length of the wave, Lw (feet), is related to its celerity, Ck, (apparent velocity in
kts) by the following equation:

Ck = 1.3√ Lw

Interestingly, the SLR of every wave is thus equal to 1.3 regardless of its length.. The
SLR of a ship is however very much dependent upon hull length and speed in deep water.
Since Ck = Vk, the following relation exists between the wavelength generated by the
ship (Lw) and its load water line length (LWL) as a function of SLR
 Lw/LWL = SLR2 / 1.80
Tabulating this result:
SLR Lw/LWL
0.94 0.50
1.10 0.67
1.16 0.75
1.34 1.00
1.90 2.00

increases until at a SLR =1.34, the wavelength is equal to the hull LWL. At SLR > 1.34,
Thus, as the ship speed (or SLR) increases, the length of its generated transverse wave

the wavelength is larger than the ship length. This is illustrated in Figure 1. The
significance of this ratio of Lw vs. LWL as related to each hull type will be discussed
subsequently.

Negative Pressures on Convex Surfaces: One other major hydrodynamic phenomenon

associated with high speed itself is the generation of negative pressures along convex
surfaces of the hull i.e. convex longitudinal buttock lines or convex curvatures in the
transverse plane—particularly in the bilge area. The influence of this effect on hull form
selection is also discussed subsequently. The existence of these negative pressures can be
easily demonstrated by allowing a spoon to pivot at its upper end and slowly moving the
convex face of its lower bowl into the vertical water stream flowing from an open faucet.
It surprises some people to see how rapidly the spoon is drawn into the stream rather that
be repelled by it.

Hull Form Dependence on Speed-Length Ratio

Having described the two major hydrodynamic effects of increasing water speed,
the dependence of hull form as a function of increasing SLR can now be discussed.

Displacement Hulls: Lines drawing for a typical displacement hull form are
shown in Figure 2(a). The principal geometric characteristics are:
Fine water-line entrance angle.
Longitudinally convex buttock lines-particularly in the stern
region.
A narrow stern (in plan view)
Convex curvature of bilges, usually of constant radius.
The displacement ship is entirely supported by buoyancy forces. The convex shape
of the waterlines, buttock lines, and bilges are required to prevent flow separation -
especially at the stern and so minimize the residual drag component of the hull. At the
normal operating speeds of displacement hulls the negative pressures on these convex
surfaces are relatively small and have a minor effect on hull performance. This is no
longer the case if the speed of the displacement hull is substantially larger than its proper
design speed.
 Referring to Figure 1 it is seen that, at Vk / LWL > 0.94, the hull spans two or
more wave crests. There is a small sinkage of the hull and a slight increase in hull trim.
At V k / LWL > 1.3, the wavelength is larger than the hull length and the hull begins to
squat and trim down by the stern. The ship is literally climbing up the back of its own
bow wave. At these speeds the flow along the convex geometry of the hull bottom
develops large suction pressures that further increase the squat and trim of the vessel. The
result is that, for Vk/ LWL > 1.3, the hull resistance begins to increase dramatically
and thereby becomes a practical barrier to further increases in speed. Figure 3 is a plot of
total resistance coefficient versus speed/length ratio. It clearly demonstrates this “wall of
resistance” at a speed-length ratio equal to 1.34. Figure 4 is a typical plot of the
resistance/weight ratio vs. SLR for a displacement hull. The very sharp increase in
resistance at SLR > 1.25 is most obvious.
When towing tank models of displacement type hull forms are driven at speeds
substantially in excess of SLR = 1.3, the visual evidence of the excessive resistance is
dramatic. The model squats and trims by stern to the extent that the stern deck is nearly
underwater. In addition, the transverse flow around the bilges clings to the side of the
model and becomes a nearly vertical spray sheet that completely obliterates a view of the
model. Thus the upper limit of application of a displacement hull form is at a SLR which
is approximately equal to 1.3. Most displacement type hulls actually operate at SLR >
1.0.
In order to operate satisfactorily at higher SLR the displacement ship hull form
must be replaced by a configuration that is compatible with the hydrodynamic
phenomenon associated with higher speeds. This leads to the so-called "semi-
displacement" hull form.

Semi-Displacement Hulls: These hulls are designed to avoid the large squat
and trim angles associated with displacement hulls operating at SLR > 1.3. At these
speeds, the length of the bow-generated waves will always be larger than the hull length.
Thus regardless of hull form, the vessel will always be advancing up the oncoming flank
of its own bow wave. Hence the major objectives in configuring a suitable hull geometry
are to avoid suction forces along the aft longitudinal buttock lines and to reduce the
running trim angle. This is accomplished by using straight buttock lines aft that terminate
at a sharp, partially submerged transom whose width is somewhat larger than the narrow
width of a displacement hull. This configuration develops positive dynamic pressures
(rather than the suction pressures associated with convex buttock lines) that tend to lift
the stern, raise the hull slightly, and reduce the trim. These positive dynamic bottom
pressures are not very large so that the vessel is not a planing hull but instead is identified
as “semi-displacement” or “semi-planing”.
A typical lines drawing for a semi-displacement hull is shown
in Figure 2(b). It is characterized by:

Water entry lines that are fine, and straight buttock lines in the
afterbody with a slight steady rise aft. These terminate at a sharp
wide transom that is partially submerged.
 Round bilges along the entire hull -although some designers
may prefer a combination of sharp chine aft with round chine
forward or vice-versa.
Straight, Vee-formed cross-sections in the forebody.

The characteristic behavior of semi-displacement hull form with increasing speed-length

ratio is as follows:

0< SLR < 0.9: With increasing speed the flow separates from
the transom so that is completely ventilated to the atmosphere. The hull squats slightly
and trims up slightly.
0.9< SLR < 2.0: The hull attains its maximum squat (substantially
less that for a displacement hull) and maximum trim (approximately 2 degrees). There is
some evidence that the transverse flow from the bottom is clinging to the round bilges
due to the negative pressures in this area. In this speed range however there is only a
small effect on hull resistance.
2.0 < SLR <3.0: The hull rises to essentially its original static draft
and the trim angle decreases with increasing speed. The round bilges develop a spray
formation that rises rapidly with increasing speed. This spray climbs up on the sides of
the hull and can reach to the deck level at SLR approaching 3.0. For further increases in
speed, the trim is further reduced, the spray is intensified and the total wetted area
becomes significantly larger that the static wetted area. For SLR > 3, the resistance of the
hull usually increases very rapidly. Although properly designed spray rails can attenuate
the bow spray there is insufficient dynamic lift for the craft to plane.
Figure 4 compares the typical values of resistance/weight ratio for
semi-displacement hulls with those for displacement hull as a function of SLR. It is seen
that the semi-displacement hull easily passes through the so-called resistance barrier for a
displacement hull (SLR=1.3). However, at SLR equal to approximately 3.0, the resistance
of the semi-displacement hull increases very rapidly and thus defines a practical upper
limit for the operational speed of such hulls.
In summary, the semi-displacement hull form is recommended for
operation in the region of SLR between approximately 1.3 and 3.0. For higher speed the
hard chine planing hull form is required.

Hard-Chine Planing Hulls: The hard-chine planning hull is configured to

develop positive dynamic bottom pressures at high speed. These positive pressures
actually lift the hull and thereby reduce the buoyant component of hull support. As a
consequence the wetted bottom area, when planning, is substantially smaller than the
static wetted area. Unfortunately, the addition of induced drag associated with the
development of dynamic lift results in a total resistance- weight ratio that is substantially
greater than those for a displacement or semi-displacement vessel at their design speeds.
A typical lines drawing for a planing hull is shown on Figure 2(c). The
following geometric features are evident:
 Complete avoidance of convex surfaces (except for the bow area
which is out of the water at planing speeds) to avoid the development
of bottom suction pressures.
Sharp edge chines at the intersection of the bottom and sides to insure
complete separation of the transverse flow component from the
bottom.
A deeply submerged wide transom with a sharp trailing edge to insure
complete separation of the longitudinal flow from the bottom- thus
insuring that the entire transom is ventilated to the atmosphere.
Straight horizontal buttock lines at the aft end.
Vee-bottom transverse sections with the deadrise increasing towards
the bow. The deadrise is required to reduce the wave impact loads in a
seaway and to provide lateral wetted surface required for course-
keeping stability and maneuvering.

Although intended for high SLR operation, the planing hull must pass
through the entire range of SLR prior to attaining its design speed.. The planing hull has
somewhat larger resistance that the displacement or semi-displacement hulls up to a SLR
of approximately 3 (pre-planing speed). This is attributed primarily to the sharp chines
and submerged wide and sharp transom that promote flow separation and hence increase
the form drag component of the hull. The planing hull easily passes through the speed
“barriers” for a displacement ship (SLR = 1.3), and the limit for a semi-displacement
hull (SLR = 3.0)
In contrast to the other hulls, the performance of a planing hull is very
dependent upon the longitudinal location of the center-of-gravity that controls the trim
angle of the craft when planning. The trim angle in turn has a major effect upon the
resistance/weight ratio. Typically, the resistance of a planing hull is a minimum at trim
angles between 3-4 degrees and increases for both higher and lower values of trim. If the
center of gravity for a given hull cannot be varied, then transom flaps or transom
interceptors can be used to change the trim. Analytical methods are available for
evaluating the effect of center-of-gravity position or transom flap design on the
equilibrium running trim angle.
In conclusion, hard-chine planing hulls are the recommended hull
form when operating at SLR > 3.0.

Summary: In summary, referring to Figure 4, it is seen that displacement hulls

operating at their design speed have the lowest value of resistance/weight ratio. In fact
commercial vessels operate at SLR of approximately 0.9 that is well below the limiting
value of 1.3. Semi-displacement vessels and high- speed catamaran hulls operating at
their design SLR have a resistance/weight ratio that is nearly 10 times larger than for the
displacement ship. Planing craft have a resistance/weight ratio that is approximately 20
times larger than the displacement type hull. Thus if small craft are intended to run at
high speed, they will require the largest thrust per pound of displacement. The
recommended operational regimes for each of the hull types are also indicated on Figure
4.
 Comparison of Power Requirements for Various Hull Types

It is of interest to compare the expected horsepower for

displacement craft, semi-displacement hulls and planing craft at their maximum values of

70ft LWL hull having a displacement ∆ = 30LT. This combination of length and
speed/length ratio as defined on Figure 4. For this illustration, estimates are made for a

displacement results in a slenderness ratio (LWL/∇1/3) = 6.9 which is a most favorable.

value The symbol ∇ represents the displaced volume. To estimate the relative power
requirements of each craft type the following assumptions are made:
Bare Hull Resistance: Obviously, the resistance of any hull is dependent
upon its precise hull shape, loading, and speed. There are published analytical methods
and hull series data obtained from systematic model tests that can be used to accurately
estimate resistance for a given configuration. It is not the intention of this talk to examine
specific hulls but rather to discuss the relative magnitude of the powering requirements as
related to the three basic monohull forms previously defined.. For this simplistic
objective, the curve of hydrodynamic resistance/weight ratio vs. speed/length ratio
plotted in Figure 4 has been used to estimate the bare hull resistances.
Appendage and Aerodynamic Resistance: For the purposes of this
illustration their combined resistances will be taken to be 10% for a low-speed
displacement hull and 20% of the bare hull resistance for a high speed planing craft.
These are typical values but, if desired, these resistance components can be calculated for
a specific hull using published analytical methods.
Overall Propulsive Coefficients (OPC): These include components such
as thrust deduction, wake fraction, open-water propeller efficiency, and propeller relative
rotative efficiency. Obviously, each is dependent upon hull form, type of propulsor, and
speed. Again for the purposes of this simple illustration, the OPC will assumed to be 0.60
for all hulls and speeds.

Estimate of Shaft Horsepower (SHP) For Each Monohull Form

Since each monohull form can operate over a range
of acceptable speed/length ratios, a value was selected towards the high end of acceptable
values of SLR. Recalling that each hull has a water-line length of 70 ft and a
displacement of 30LT and using the values of added resistance components and OPC
provided above, the following estimates are provided for the SHP of each monohull form
when operating at its maximum acceptable value of speed/length ratio (see Figure 4)
.
Hull Type Vk/√LWL Vk Rh /∆ Rh Rapp+air Rt OPC SHP
Displacement 1.2 10.1 .018 1,210lb 120lb 1,330lb 0.60 70
Semi-Displacement 2.8 23.0 .095 6,400 770 7,170 0.60 840
Planing 6.0 50.0 .147 9,990 2,000 11,990 0.60 3,070

Where:
SHP = Rt x Vk x 1.69
OPC x 550
 The obvious conclusion is that, for a given length and displacement of a
boat, and using the hull geometry consistent with its operational speed/length ratio, the
required shaft horsepower increases very rapidly with speed. In fact, the 70 ft. planing
hull, driven at 50 knots,will require nearly 44 times the horsepower that the displacement
hull requires at 10 knots even though the speed was increased by a factor of 5. The direct
result is that, in addition to the high initial and operating costs of high-speed planing
boats, the machinery, fuel weight and space requirements for these boat are increased
substantially resulting in a significant reduction in payload. These are the costs of high-
speed planing boats which begs the question—is faster better and can it be justified?
I will now discuss the reduction in useful load associated with high-
speed, relatively small, boats.

Useful Load Fractions For Various Hull Types

Useful load fraction is defined as the sum of the weights of the

payload, fuel, crew, and potable water. It represents the difference between the total
displacement of the craft and the light-ship weight. The light ship weight is the sum of
the following major components:

Ws = weight of hull and super-structure.

Wp = weight of propulsion system.
Wo+a = weight of outfit and auxiliary systems

For the purposes of this illustration estimates are made of the

each craft type had an LWL = 70 ft and a total displacement ∆ = 30LT (67,200 lbs). It is
useful load for each of the monohull types previously described. It will be recalled that

further assumed that all craft are constructed of aluminum and are powered by diesel
engines. Obviously, somewhat different results will be obtained if other materials or
power plants are used. However I believe that the general conclusions related to the
relative values of useful load fractions will remain unchanged.

Weight of Hull and Super-Structure (Ws): The hydrodynamic loads resulting

from operation in waves govern the design and hence the weight of the structure. These
loads become more severe with increasing speed and sea-state. The structural weight of
any boat is best estimated by a detailed design of its hull structure—but this is beyond the
intent of my talk. However based upon trends for typical mono-hulls the structural weight
fractions (Ws/∆) for various types of 30-ton mono-hulls are taken to be as follows:

Displacement Craft-------------- Ws/∆ ≅ 0.23

Semi-Displacement Craft------- Ws/∆ ≅ 0.26
Planing Craft---------------------- Ws/∆ ≅ 0.30

It is again emphasized that these structural weight fractions are estimates to be used only
for the present illustration and should not be freely applied.
 Weight of Propulsion System(Wp): This includes the engines, reduction
gear, propellers, shafts, support struts, etc. Based upon a review of typical propulsion
system installations, it is estimated that the weight of the total propulsion system is
approximately 25% greater than the weight of the engine alone. Also, a review of
published engine weight data indicates that the average weight of diesel engines is
approximately 6.5 lbs/hp. Thus;
Wp/∆ = 6.5x1.25 x SHP = 8.13 SHP/∆

Where SHP for the three 70 ft. mono-hull types, each having a displacement of 30 LT,
are given in the previous tabulation. Thus;

Hull Type Vk (max) SHP Wp/ ∆

Displacement 10 kts 70 0.01
Semi-Displacement 23 840 0.10
Planing 50 3,070 0.36

Weight of Outfit and Auxiliary Systems (Wo+a): The outfit weight fraction is
assumed to be the same for the three mono-hull types. A typical value of the outfit and

Wo+a /∆ ≅ 0.12
auxiliary weight fraction is taken to be:

Comparative Useful Load Fractions: Using the various weight fraction estimates
given above, a typical useful load fraction for each mono-hull type is now summarized:

Hull Type Vk/√LWL Ws/∆ Wp/∆ W(o+a)/∆ Wls/∆ Wul/∆

Displacement 1.2 0.23 0.01 0.12 0.36 0.64
Semi-Displacement 2.8 0.25 0.10 0.12 0.52 0.53
Planing 6.0 0.30 0.36 0.12 0.78 0.22

Where:
Wls = light-ship weight
Wul = useful load

Summary

It is seen that the 50 kt planing version of the 70 ft-30 LT mono-hull has only
34% of the useful load of a comparative 10 kt displacement form. Also, the useful load of
the 23 kt semi-displacement hull version of the 70 ft-30 LT monohull has 83 % of the
useful load of the displacement hull but nearly twice that of the planing hull. These
differences are mainly attributed to the large resistance of the 50 kt planing hull. The
weight of the propulsion system of boats designed for high speed-length ratio (these are
usually relatively small planing craft) becomes a most significant component of the
empty weight. In conclusion high speed/length ratio craft are very costly in both their
reduced useful load capacity and, of course, in their increased acquisition and operating
costs. These features are compromised for the sake of high speed. An operator or boat
owner must surely develop convincing arguments to justify high speed-length ratio
planing boats! In fact most existing “high-speed’ commercial and military vessels are not
of the planing type but rather are of lower speed length ratio, such as the semi-planing
type, where their high useful load fractions make these vessels profitable to operate.

A Concept for a 50-Knot Displacement Hull

The combination of 50 knots with a hull operating in the

displacement mode may seem, at first glance, to be a contradiction of capabilities. This
conclusion follows from the conventional wisdom that a displacement type hull is a
relatively low speed ship while 50 knots is usually associated with planing hulls.
If we revert to the earlier discussions in this talk you will recall
that the speed/length ratio was shown to be the dominant factor in selecting a suitable
hull shape for a given application and each monhull type was identified to have a
maximum value of speed/length ratio above which it will experience sudden large
increases in resistance/displacement ratio. Further, it was shown that the horsepower per
ton within the range of speed / length ratios suitable for a hull in the displacement mode
was impressively smaller than those for the speed / length ratios suitable for semi-planing
or planing hulls. I thus became curious as to whether a 50 kt displacement ship was
viable and if there was a possible application for such a ship.
The following discussions describe the possible application
and requirements of this unique ship; its powering requirements; its performance in calm
water and waves; and finally its weight fractions including structure, propulsion system,
payload, fuel load, and range. A complete analysis of this ship was given in Reference 1.

Operational Requirements

The motivation for even considering this ship was the rather ambitious
requirements for a high- speed sealift ship as identified by the US military. The broad
operational requirements were stated to be:
Maximum speed----------------------------50knots
Payload------------------------------------12, 000 LT
Range-------------------------------------- 9,000 nm
SHP/ Displacement-------------------≈ 1/2 that of exiting 50 knot craft.

While 50 kt. hulls do exist, they are of modest size, require very large
horsepower per ton of displacement, and cannot transport large payloads over
intercontinental routes. These include hull forms such as SES, ACV, Catamarans, Planing
monohulls ,Semi-displacement, etc. They all operate at speed/length rations greater than
1.3. Let us first identify and then examine the Transport Factors ( efficiency) of some
existing and projected high speed hull designs.
Transport Factors (Efficiency) of High –Speed Marine Vehicles:

Various definitions of Transport Factor (TF) have been used in past

studies. The definition used in this talk is chosen to be consistent with recently published
data presented by the US Navy’s David Taylor Model Basin (Ref 2). The Transport
Factor is there defined as:

TF = Displacement x Speed = ∆ x V / SHP x 550

Installed Horsepower x 550

TF = ∆ x V x OPC
or:

Rt x V

Where:
Rt = total resistance, lbs
V = ship speed, ft/sec

∆ = total ship displacement, lbs

SHP = shaft horsepower = Rt x V/OPC

OPC = overall propulsive coefficient

Thus,
TF = (∆ / Rt) x OPC

The term ∆/Rt is the “lift-drag’ ratio of the ship and is associated directly with the
hydrodynamic efficiency of the hull.

Figure 5, taken from Ref.2, provides TF data for a wide range of high-
speed vehicle types for speeds between 35 and 90 kts. It is seen that the envelope of
maximum values of TF decreases rapidly with increasing speed. At 50 kts the maximum
value of TF is approximately 20. Thus the objective of the present study was to define a
hull that has a TF equal to approximately 40!

Selection of Hull form:

In 1961, MARAD sponsored model tests at the Davidson Laboratory to
define the calm water resistance and sea keeping characteristics of high-speed
displacement hulls. (Ref. 3). In 1965, the David Taylor Model Basin also conducted
resistance tests on a series of high-speed displacement hulls forms referred to as Series
64. (Ref. 4). These tests were conducted over a speed/length ratio range from 1.0 to 5.0.
Both hull series had high length/beam ratios and hull forms that were very fine and
narrow; had low block coefficients; low displacement/length ratios; and very fine water
line entrance angles. These geometric characteristics are especially compatible with the
desire to drive displacement hulls at high speed. Hence a comprehensive set of model test
data was available upon which to undertake this study of a 50 kt displacement hull.
 It will be recalled from the earlier discussions, that the maximum
speed/length ratio, SLR, of a displacement hull should not exceed the value of 1.3. If this
SLR is combined with the 50 kt speed requirement, the water-line length of the ship will
be 1480 ft.! Although this is an impressive size, it would not be the longest ship ever
built. In 1979, the Sumitoma Shipyard in Japan, actually launched a 1500 ft long tanker
(named the Happy Giant) for a Norwegian company, but its speed was only 13 kts. This
ship was classed by Lloyds. Just last year Bureau Veritas described the design of an Ultra
Large Container Vessel having a length of over 1300 ft. and a speed of 25 knots. Maybe
1480 ft. is not out of the question.

Non-Dimensional Hull Characteristics: A block coefficient of 0.43 was

assumed since fine waterlines would be consistent with high speeds. Further, a
displacement /length ratio of 20 was selected since the residual resistance/displacement
ratio is smallest at this loading. Model No. 4804 of Series 64 was selected for this study
since it most closely matched the desired hull particulars. Figure 6 shows the lines for this
hull. The stern is wide and flat below the design waterline, the buttocks are straight lines
at the afterbody, and the transom is immersed with sharp cutoff at the end. Because of the
contemplated 50 kt speed, it is expected that the afterbody will have a hard chine or
knuckle. This will avoid the development of negative pressures in the bilge area. The
following is a tabulation of its principal non-dimensional characteristics:

Cb 0.43
LWL/B 12.7

∆/(0.01 LWL)3
B/H 4.0
20
S/(∇ x LWL)1/2 16.6
1/2ε 5.2 deg

1/2 ε
where:
= Waterline entrance half angle
H = Draft at full load
S = Wetted surface area of hull at full load
B = Waterline beam at full load
LWL = Waterline length at full load

∆
Cb = Block coefficient at full load
= Full load displacement, LT

Final Dimensions of Notional 50 kt Hull Design: Using the above parameters,

the following principal dimensions of the notional 50 kt displacement hull were
established:
LWL = 1480 ft.
B = 117 ft

∆
H = 30 ft
= 63,800 LT
S = 161,300 ft2
1/2ε = 5.2 deg
Cb = 0.43
 Estimated Hydrodynamic Resistance and Powering:
Using the above values of non-dimensional coefficients with the data
presented in Ref.4, the estimate for the residual resistance/displacement ratio of this hull

Rr / ∆ = 15 lb/ LT, so that

is :

Rr = 15 x 63,800 = 957,000 lb

Using the wetted surface area listed above and the appropriate Reynolds
number and associated friction coefficient, the frictional resistance is estimated to be:
Rf = 1,353,000 lb
Therefore, the total resistance at 50 kts is
Rt = 957,000 + 1,353,000 = 2,310,000 lb

Estimated Shaft Horsepower (SHP) at 50 knots:

EHP = Rt x Vk x 1.69 / 550 = 354,900 hp
OPC = 0.60 (estimated)
SHP = EHP/OPC = 591,000 hp
Allowing for a 10% margin , the total installed shaft horsepower is 650,000 hp.

Transport Factor For 1480 ft LWL Displacement Ship at 50 kts.

Using the above calculated Rt and a displacement of 63,800 LT, the transport
factor TF is calculated to be:

TF = ∆ x OPC = 63,800 x 2240 x 0.60 = 34

Rt 2,310,000 x 1.10

This value is plotted on Figure 5 and clearly demonstrates the significantly greater
efficiency of a very long displacement ship compared to other hull forms when operating
at 50 kt.. Thus one of the operational requirements postulated for a high- speed sealift
ship is attained.

Possible Propulsion Systems:

Prime Movers: It is believed that gas turbines will be the preferred

engines for high- speed, sea- lift ships. This is due primarily to their lightweight,
compactness, fuel efficiency, and their potential to develop large power. Fortunately,
the gas turbine industry continues to pursue the development of lighter, more powerful,
and more fuel efficient engines. These anticipated future results will be essential for the
successful design of a 50 kt displacement ship.
Figure 7, taken from Ref. 5, shows the specific fuel consumption rate and
power of existing and developmental gas turbines in terms of near and far time goals. Of
particular interest is the LM9000 gas turbine which is being developed by General
Electric with support from the US Department of Energy. This turbine has a projected
maximum power of 125 MW (167,000 bhp) and a fuel consumption nearly 15% less that
the existing LM6000 , 40MW (54,000 bhp) turbine. Rolls Royce is developing the 47.5
MW (65,000 bhp) turbine for possible use on the FastShip Atlantic project. Four LM
9000 turbines would easily power the proposed displacement hull at 50 kts.

Propulsors: Both waterjets and propellers should be considered as

possible producers of the very large thrust required for the present 50 kt ship. ( total
resistance equal to 2,310,000lbs).

Waterjets:
Waterjet propulsion appears to be the present day preferred propulsion system
for high-speed vessels. Unfortunately, large 50 kt ocean going displacement ships require
very large amounts of power to be transmitted to the waterjets for propulsion. The largest
near term waterjet that is currently being designed is the KaMeWa 325 (inlet diameter =
10.7 ft) which is expected to absorb 49 MW ( 66,000 bhp). Thus for the present
application, nine such waterjets, each combined with a Rolls Royce 325 turbine, will
provide the required thrust. The installation of nine waterjets will be difficult but can be
accomplished.
Certainly, in the far term, it is expected that larger capacity waterjets will be
developed . Figure 8, taken from Ref.5, demonstrates the power rating and design speed
of existing and developmental waterjets. It is to be noted that the far term powering
objectives, 100MW (134,000 bhp) very much exceed the power absorption of existing
waterjets. If these objectives are indeed achieved, they will facilitate the design of this 50
kt ship.
Some of the disadvantages of waterjet propulsion include the cutting of many
large holes through the transom to accommodate the exit nozzles; the loss of
displacement in the aft region of the hull due to containment of large masses of water in
the watejet ducts; and aeration of the waterjet inlet can result in a sudden reduction in
shaft torque which can damage the propulsion machinery. Nevertheless, waterjet
propulsion should be considered to be an option in the present design.
The other option for providing thrust is to use propellers and this is now
discussed.

Propellers:
Propellers are reliable thrust producers and have a long history of success.
However, a common first reaction to considering propellers for 50 kt ships is that
cavitation will be a problem; the added resistance of propeller shafts and their support
struts can be significant; and the effective draft of the ship due to the propeller will be
increased. Consequently, since the waterjet minimizes these effects, it has been widely
accepted for ship speeds of 50 kts or greater.
For the present 50 kt displacement ship, its particular dimensions and
geometric form substantially overcome the so-called limitations of a propeller
installation. Further, an existing well documented propeller series can be used
immediately to design a trancavitating propeller that produces much greater thrust that
the largest waterjet that is being considered for future designs. In fact four such propellers
will provide the total thrust required to propeller this 50 kt ship. Compare this with the
nine waterjets (yet to be developed) required to propel this ship.
Let us consider the so-called limitations of a propeller installation and how
the present large ship substantially overcomes them;

Cavitation: Recall that the cavitation number ,σ, is defined as:

σ = Po + Ph - Pv
(1/2) ρ V2
large values of the cavitation number indicate less tendency for the propeller to cavitate
and vice-versa.

Where:
Po = atmospheric pressure, lbs/ft2 = 14.7 x 144 = 2120 lbs/ft2
Ph = static water pressure, lbs/ft2 = ρgh
Pv =vapor pressure of water, lbs/ft2

ρ = mass density of water, lbs-sec2 / ft4

h = depth of propeller centerline below water surface at rest , ft.

V = ship speed, ft/sec

In the present ship, the draft of the transom is approximately 10 ft. and the draft
at mid-ship is 30 ft. Thus, if a 20 ft. diameter propeller is used, it will not extend below
the ship base line. Also, the propeller shafts will be horizontal and penetrate the hull 10
ft. above the base line. Recall that this is a concept design and hence the dimensions are
approximate.
The quantity, h, is thus 20 ft and Ph =20 x 64.4 = 1290 lbs / ft2. Hence,

σ = 2120 + 1290
neglecting the small value of the water vapor pressure, the cavitation number at depth is:
= 0.48
2
(1/2ρ) (50x1.69)

Notice that the large static water pressure at the deeply submerged propeller centerline
results in an increase in cavitation number by 3410/2120 = 60 %. This in turn increases
the vessel speed by 27 %-- for the same cavitation number = 0.48.

Propeller Series: Conventional subcavitating

propellers, such as the Gawn-Burrill (G/B) series (Ref.6) have been installed on planing
craft operating at speeds up to approximately 38 kts . At higher speeds these propellers
experience severe cavitation erosion problems and thrust breakdown. Fortunately, there is
a developed series that can accommodate cavitation without the serious performance
deterioration associated with the G/B series. This is the Newton-Rader (N/R) series
(Ref.7) where the propeller develops a cavity over more than 85% of the blade surface
which terminates beyond the trailing edge. (Fig.9) They are frequently referred to as
transcavitating propellers. At typical values of advance coefficient, (J = 0.8), and a
cavitation number of 0.50, the N/R propellers demonstrate a gain in efficiency of
approximately 20% compared with the G/B series. Full- scale experience with the N/R
propeller on planing boats has shown minimal blade erosion at speeds up to 55 kts.

Recommended Propeller for 50kt Displacement Ship:

Using the Newton-Rader series, the following propeller was selected to meet the thrust
requirements of the present design.
Number of Blades----------------------------3
Diameter---------------------------------------20 ft
Pitch/Diameter-------------------------------1.05
Blade Area Ratio-----------------------------1.15

ηrr = 0.97
RPM--------------------------------------------275

ηo-----------------------------------------------0.63
(1-w)= 0.94 (1-t)=0.90

Thrust/propeller = Rtx1.10= 642,000 lbs SHP x 1.10 = 171,000 hp

Use 4 propellers:

Total Ship Thrust = 2,568,000 lbs SHP x 1.10 = 686,000 hp

The design of these propellers is based upon a well documented propeller series and they
are certainly capable of being delivered in the present time frame with a minimum of
research and development. This is in sharp contrast with the large development efforts
involved in delivering suitable waterjets for this application.

Estimated Seakeeping Charcteristics----Head Seas

In addition to the desirable low resistance per ton of displacement for

this 50 kt hull, its long length also has inherently excellent seakeeping characteristics.
This conclusion follows from the fundamental observation that, for wave lengths shorter
than 0.75 LWL, there is very little ship response at any speed. As stated in Ref..8, for
these waves, “the exciting forces and moments are too small to cause appreciable motion
so that the likelihood of deck wetness, high accelerations, and slamming is also small”.
Consider the present 1480 ft LWL ship running in head seas having a
significant wave height H1/3 = 30 ft.—this can be considered to be a relatively severe
operating environment. Using the Pierson-Moskowitz sea spectrum relations, the
following major properties of this 30 ft seaway are defined:

Tmodal-(period of maximum wave energy)---------------15.1 sec.

Lmodal- (wave length of maximum energy)---------------1170 ft
Lmodal/LWL----------------------------------------------------0.79

155 ft ≤ Lw ≤ 1550 ft
Ranges of wave lengths which contain measurable energy:

0.10 ≤ Lw ≤ 1.05
LWL
 It is seen that the wave length of maximum wave energy is only
0.79 LWL. Thus there will be relatively little response to this wave at any speed.
Considering the dynamics of ship response, it is estimated that the natural pitch and
heave periods of the ship are approximately 7.3 sec. Also, at 50 kts, the period of
encounter with the 1170 ft. modal wave is 7.2 sec. Thus, although the ship is in a
resonant condition, the wave forcing function is small so that only small ship motions are
expected. The largest wave in the spectrum that has measurable energy has a length of
1550 ft and is 1.05 x LWL. Although this wave length would be expected to induce ship
motions, its energy content in this sea state is very small so that only minimal ship
motions are expected to occur.
These qualitative conclusions were confirmed by seakeeping
tests of the MARAD hull series conducted at the Davidson Laboratory in 1961.( Ref.3) A
model of essentially similar proportions and loading was tested in a sea state having a
significant wave height, H1/3 = 35.4 ft.. The following is a summary of some of the more
important test results obtained at a simulated full-scale speed of 50 kts.

Deck Wetness: With normal freeboard, there was no water shipped over the decks.
Bow Immersion: It was found that the wave rise at the bow (relative to the static
waterline) was only 20% to 25% of the bow freeboard. This is
consistent with the lack of deck wetness.

measured, the center of gravity accelerations will be < 0.20g.

1/10 Highest Bow Acceleration This was approximately 0.20g. Although not

Slamming Impacts: One moderate slam in 37 cycles.

Tranverse Stability in Beam Seas

The metacentric height (GM) of the ship was estimated to be approximately 14 ft.
This is approximately 12% of the ship beam (117 ft.) and is substantially larger than that
for most commercial vessels. Thus adequate roll stability is implied.
Considering an 80 kt. beam wind, and a reasonable ship profile area, the
maximum roll angle is estimated to be 2.0 deg.
Considering a beam sea with a significant wave height of 30 ft. and estimating the
natural roll period to be 13.8 sec. and a roll damping factor = 0.20 critical, the significant
roll angle is estimated to be 23 deg. This is considered to be acceptable.

Seakeeping—Summary

It has been shown that, primarily because of it’s long length, this 1480 ft. LWL
ship will have excellent seakeeping characteristics in a seaway whose significant wave
height is as much as 35 ft!
 Estimated Weight Breakdown and Performance

The structural weight estimate is based upon the application of a specially

modified version of the American Bureau of Shipping’s SafeHull program. SafeHull is
normally applied to conventional size hull forms but was modified by ABS to apply to
the present long ship. They estimated that the structural weight would be approximately
24,000 LT.
The propulsion system is expected to be one LM9000 gas turbine to drive each
of the four 20 ft. diameter Newton- Rader propellers.. It will be recalled that this future
gas turbine is expected to develop 167,000 hp so that it is a good match for the 171,00 hp
required for each 20 ft. diameter propeller. The total weight of the propulsion system
(including reduction gears, propellers, shaft, etc) were estimated using several
unpublished sources and with contributions from Band, Lavis & Associates , Naval
Architects. It was estimated that the weight of the propulsion system is 5,300 LT.
The weight of the auxiliaries, including electric plant, electronics outfitting etc
were estimated by Band Lavis & Associates to be approximately 5,000 LT.
The light ship weight is thus equal to 24,000 +5,300 + 5,000 =34,300LT and
the useful load is equal to 63,800 – 34,300 = 29,500 LT.or, 46% of the full load
displacement.

Performance According to Figure 8, the fuel consumption for the future

LM9000 turbine is projected to be 0.30 lbs/hp/hr. Thus, for a range of 9,000 nm at a
speed of 50 kts, where the horsepower ( including the 10% margin) is 686,000 hp, the
required fuel weight is.16,500 LT. Hence, the payload will be 29,500 -16,500 =
13,000LT

Summary of Estimated Performance of 50 kt Displacement Ship

.
Design Speed--------------50kts
Displacement-----------63,800 LT
Range----------------------9,000 nm
Payload-------------------13,000 LT
Transport Factor--------------35

In conclusion, this 1480 ft long displacement ship operating at 50 kts is

expected to meet the operational requirements proposed for a high-speed logistic sea lift
ship. This will be the longest ship ever built; will have substantially larger installed
power that any other ship; and will have a maximum speed nearly twice as large as any
existing seagoing transport.. This is the only ship concept that can meet the postulated
requirements for large high- speed intercontinental maritime transport. If these ship
dimensions appear to be overwhelming, serious consideration must be given to redefining
the sea- lift requirements.
 Potential of Active Flap Control in Improving Seakeeping Characteristics
of High-Speed Planing Hulls.

Perhaps the most important deficiency of high-speed planing hulls is

their perceived inability to comfortably negotiate even a moderate sea state at high speed.
I use the word “perceived” since, for many years, planing hulls were designed to achieve
high speed in calm water without regard to their seakeeping ability. As a consequence the
earlier hull forms were notoriously bad “seakeepers” and this impression has existed with
the general public even to this date.
There are many young boating enthusiasts who consider rough
riding characteristics in a seaway to be an asset. They enjoy the “thrill” of being airborne
when flying off the flank of one wave, then impacting against the flank of an oncoming
wave, while being surrounded by large sheets of spray. The very popular jet-ski planing
craft configurations (referred to as personal water craft) are notorious wave jumpers –to
the great satisfaction of their owners. This does make for an exciting photograph (Fig.10)
but, unfortunately, this is the image of high speed planing hulls that remains.
Fortunately, for the vast majority of owners of high speed craft
who prefer a civilized ride, research to improve the seakeeping of planing hulls has been
most rewarding. Today, designers have the knowledge and tools to optimize the hull for
both smooth and rough water performance. This research continues so that on- going
improvements in the ability of high speed planing craft to operate in a seaway are
expected. Current efforts in this regard involve the use of active transom flaps to
attenuate the motions and accelerations of the craft in a seaway.
I will now present some model test results of the effectiveness of
active transom flaps that were recently obtained at the theDavidson Laboratory. It would
be of interest however to first discuss existing ways to reduce the motions and
accelerations of planing boats in a seaway. These include incorporation of the following
design parameters.

Existing Ways To Improve Seakeeping Behavior.

Use of high deadrise hulls: Many of the early designs of planing craft
had a very low bottom deadrise angle (less than 10 deg.) in order to achieve low
resistance in calm water. This resulted in boats with very poor seakeeping qualities and
were primarily responsible for the negative opinions associated with planing hulls.
Today, it is well recognized that high deadrise angles (greater than 20 deg.) will improve
seakeeping substantially. The use of deep-vee hulls (deadrise angles up to 30 deg.) is now
quite common. Despite the fact that high deadrise angles increase the smooth water
resistance, the improvement in seakeeking totally justifies their use. Fig.11 illustrates the
powerful effect of high deadrise in reducing wave impact accelerations.
Operation at small trim angles: The wave impact accelerations are now
recognized to be linearly dependent upon the equilibrium running trim angle. The lower
the trim angle the lower the impact accelerations. Fig. 11 clearly demonstrates the linear
dependence of impact acceleration upon trim angle. A reduction in trim angle is readily
achieved by forward transfer of ballast or by deflection of transom flaps or interceptors
located on the transom.
 Reduction in beam of craft:: It has been well established both by

vary inversely with increased beam loading coefficient C∆ = ∆/wb3 , where ∆ is the load
analytical means and by full-scale and model tests that impact accelerations in waves

on the water; w is the weight density of water, and b is the beam of the craft.. Thus, even
a 10 % reduction in beam of the boat is expected to reduce the wave impact accelerations
by nearly 30 %. The double chine hull form, Fig. 12, was developed by recognition of
this relationship. The upper chine provides the beam necessary for roll stability at low
speed and the lower chine, which causes flow separation during the impact process,
provides the reduction in beam desirable for reduction in impact loads. The excellent
seakeeping performance of the double chine hull has been demonstrated by the US Navy
in full scale trials with a 95 ft. long 45 kt planing hull . Further, the Greek government is
presently developing a hull series based upon the double chine concept.

Use of Controllable Transom Flaps:

Active control systems to attenuate the motions of high speed ferries in
a seaway are in wide use today. However, their application to high speed planing hulls is
just coming along even though, nearly 20 years ago, Wang Long-Wen of Delft University
in The Netherlands published a theoretical and experimental report (Ref.9)
demonstrating the beneficial effects of controllable flaps. These results, plus the long
interest of the Davidson Laboratory in the seakeeping of planing hulls, motivated us to
perform a simplified analysis and a brief series of model tests on a planing hull with
transom mounted active control flaps.
Descriptive Behavior of Planing Hulls in Head Seas: A planing hull
running into waves can be considered to be a coupled 3 degree of freedom (heave, pitch
and surge) dynamic system wherein the hull is acted upon by a forcing function generated
by the waves it encounters. The dynamic properties of the hull are represented by the
acceleration forces due to its physical and added mass and moments of inertia; the force
and moment acting on the hull due to a unit displacement in heave or pitch (the so-called
spring constants of the hull); and the force and moment acting on the hull due to its heave
or pitch velocity (the so-called damping forces). The forcing function acting on the hull at
a given speed is due to the interaction of the encountered wave properties (height, orbital
velocities, accelerations, etc.) and the physical geometry of the hull. As expected, this is a
complex non-linear mathematical system even without the force and moment inputs due
to an active control system.
For the purpose of illustration only, consider a linear one degree of
freedom, (heave), damped, dynamic system subjected to a sinusoidal forcing function.
This can be is represented by the following equation. (Fig.13)

(M+m) dz2 + cdz + kz = Fw Sinϖt

dt2 dt

The first term is the force acting on the system due to acceleration of the physical mass,
M, and the added mass, m; the second term is the force due to damping of the system
taken to be linearly dependent upon the normal velocity of the hull and the damping
coefficient, c; the third term is the force due to displacement where k is the effective
be acting on the system in a sinusoidal fashion at a frequency of ϖ.
spring constant of the hull. The term on the right hand side is the wave force assumed to

The hull also has natural pitch and heave periods of oscillation Neglecting
the small effect of damping, the natural period of the hull, say in heave, is :

ϖ =√ k/(M+m)

An analogous expression can be derived for the natural pitch period of the hull but is not
necessary for the purposes of this simplified presentation.

These equations must be familiar to most of you since they were

probably introduced to you during your first classes in physics. I am using them in this
talk since they contain the essential basic ingredients that describe the motions of a
damped, forced oscillatory system without the complications associated with the
equations for a non-linear, coupled, controlled system. Also, the solution provides results
that are easily understood and can be used to guide the design of the more complex active
motion control system
The solution of the above equation of motion is contained in all
references dealing with the analysis of dynamic systems and so will not be repeated here.
Fortunately, the results have been presented in the form of a classic plot that readily
quantifies the response of a dynamic system to a sinusoidal forcing function. This classic
plot is shown in Fig.14.---I’m certain you’ve all familiar with it. To summarize, this is a
plot of amplification factor vs. ratio of applied frequency of forcing function /natural
frequency of the dynamic system as a function of the damping ratio of the system.
In terms of ship motion terminology, the magnification factor can
be likened to the response amplitude operator (RAO), i.e. considering heave motion, the
RAO is the ratio of the magnitude of heave of the craft to the height of the wave that
caused this heave motion. Likewise this RAO can also represent the ratio of craft pitch
amplitude to the slope of the wave that caused the craft to pitch. There is a separate curve
for different values of damping ratio. It is noticed that the RAO decreases rapidly with

ratios ξ < 0.70, the RAO is < 1.0 so that the heave and pitch motions will actually be less
increasing damping ratio particularly at resonance (ϖ =ϖn ). At super-critical damping

that the disturbing wave height or wave slope. Of course the maximum RAO occurs at all
damping ratios when the frequency of wave encounter is equal to the natural frequency of
the craft (so-called resonant condition).
Because of the simplicity of these analytical results, I was curious
to explore their possible applicability to planing craft operating free to trim and heave in
regular head waves. Fortunately, there was a complete set of both analytical and model
test results presented in Ref.9 for such a planing condition. The analytical equations of
motion given in that reference represented heave and trim coupling with and without a
transom flap control system. The magnitude of the flap deflection was made proportional
to the angular velocity of the hull and hence effectively increased the pitch damping
coefficient. Both sets of results were presented as ROA plots. The LOA of the test model
was 1.5m; its average beam was 0.37m; the deadrise angle was 24 deg; and the model
weighed 27.34kg. There was a full span flap that had a chord of 12% beam. Most tests
were run at a speed of 4.5 m/sec in regular waves having lengths between 1 and 6 times
the hull length. The wave height was 0.055 times the beam.
Fig. 15, taken from Fig. 28 of Ref.9, compares the calculated and
experimental pitch motions of Ref. 9 for both the uncontrolled model and with the model
having various amounts of flap deflection sensitivity to pitch velocity. The agreement
between theory and experiment in both cases is excellent.
To evaluate the potential applicability of applying single degree of
freedom response curves (Fig.14) to estimate the pitch motions of this two-degree of

ξ =0.375. Superposing the ξ= 0.375 curve of Fig.14 on the curve and data of Fig. 15
freedom model, the pitch damping ratio for the uncontrolled model was estimated to be

shows quite good agreement between the simple single degree of freedom results and the
two degree of freedom system. Of course this may be an entirely fortuitous result even
though I have since applied this approach to other data obtained at the Davidson
Laboratory and found similar good agreement. The limited success of this simplified

of ξ. It is not at all suggested that single degree of freedom solutions will always be
approach of course depends upon things other than just the selection of a realistic value

applicable to each component of a coupled system. Much further study is required to

understand and rationalize the nature of the present agreement.
Fig. 16 presents the heave motion data for the coupled heave and trim
model. As with the pitch, the agreement between analytical and experimental results are

taken from Fig. 14. In this case, the heave damping ratio, ξh was ,estimated to be 0..375.
quite good. Superposed on this plot is the RAO for the single degree of freedom system

Again, the results of the simple single degree of freedom system seem to represent the
two-degree of freedom results reasonably well.
Of particular interest in examining Figures 15 and 16, is that both pitch
and heave motions can be reduced significantly if the damping ratios are increased.
Hence, the guidance for the design of an active control system to reduce the motions was
that it increases the damping of the system. This resulted in an actively controlled
transom flap whose deflections were dependent upon the pitch velocities. Thus;

δf = k dφ
dt

δf = flap deflection, deg

where:

k = constant
dφ = angular velocity, deg/sec
dt

The model was tested with an installed rate gyro that measured its pitch velocity.
This signal was sent to a controller that then deflected the transom mounted flap in
accordance with the above equation. Various values of k were used during the tests and
the results are shown in Fig, 15 and 16 The value KCM = 0 represents the uncontrolled
model. It is estimated that the value KCM = 2.0 represents a controlled model with critical
pitch damping. As shown in Fig.15, the effectiveness of increased damping in reducing
the pitch motions is indeed impressive. Superposed on these plots is the RAO taken from
Fig.14 for a single degree of freedom system having value of critical damping ratio
ξ = 1.00. The agreement between these simplistic results and the pitch data for the
coupled motion, flap controlled planing hull is again reasonably good.

control. In this case the active flap appeared to increase the heave damping ratio to ξ =
Similar conclusions are observed in Fig.16 for the heave motions with active flap

0.75. The curve from Figure 14 for ξ = 0.75 is also plotted on Fig. 16. It seems to
represent the data quite well
These observations are to be taken merely as interesting results and, for the time
being, should not be generalized in their potential application.

Davidson Laboratory Model Tests of Active Flap Controlled Planing Craft

The Davidson Laboratory recently conducted model tests to determine the
effectiveness of active transom flaps in attenuating the motions and accelerations of
planing hulls in head waves. The tests were not unlike those described in Ref.9 where the
magnitude of flap deflection was linearly dependant upon the angular pitch velocity of
the model. As stated previously such a control system increases the pitch damping of the
hull that, in turn, attenuates the motions of the hull in waves.
A sketch of the test model is shown in Fig.17. The principal dimensions are
:
LWL------------------4.58 ft.
Transom Beam------1.12 ft.
Deadrise Angle------20 deg.
Displacement--------52 lbs.
Natural pitch period--0.65 sec.
Natural heave period—0.64 sec

The transom flaps (one on each side of deadrise bottom) were full span; had a chord of

transom; and had a range of deflections equal to ± 10 deg. An electric motor, mounted in
.05 ft; were pivoted at their leading edges that were located at the aft end of the hull

the hull model, rotated a cam that, in turn, oscillated a rod attached to each flap. The rod
motions caused the flaps to deflect up or down as directed by the signal from the angular
rate gyro. This gyro was located in the forward part of the hull. Its output signal was
amplified, sent to a signal conditioner, and then to the flap drive motor.( Fig. 17) The
gain of the amplifier was adjusted to deflect the transom flaps 0.56 deg. for 1.0 deg./sec
of angular velocity.
All tests were conducted at a speed of 16 ft./sec in regular waves having a
height of 1.5 in. and periods that varied from 1 to 4 seconds. Tests were made without
and then with the control system activated. Measurements were made of the drag; time
histories of the pitch, heave, angular rate gyro, flap deflection, accelerations at the LCG
and bow, and encountered wave height. The data were reduced to RAO’s (heave
amplitude/wave amplitude; and model pitch angle/wave slope) and presented in Figures
18 and 19 as a function of the ratio of wave encounter frequency/ natural frequency of
model. Data are plotted for the controlled and uncontrolled conditions. The RMS CG
acceleration data are presented in Fig. 20 for both the controlled and uncontrolled
conditions.
It is evident that, at the resonant condition, the pitch motions with active
flap control are approximately 50% of those for the uncontrolled hull. The heave motions
with active control are nearly 70% of the values without control. Comparing these RAOs
with the single degree of freedom response curves taken from Fig. 14. The following
observations are made:

Assuming a pitch damping ratio of ξ≈ 0.28 for the uncontrolled

Pitch Motions:.

model, it is seen that the present model data essentially agree with the RAOs obtained

ξ ≈ 0.28. The RAOs for the active flap controlled model have all the characteristics of a
from the single degree of freedom results plotted in Fig.14.for a pitch damping ratio

critical damping where ξ ≈ 0.80.

Heave Motions: The uncontrolled model heave RAOs are compared with the

for this configuration was ξ ≈ 0.30. The active flap control increases the effective heave
single of freedom results taken from Figure 14. It appeared that the heave damping ratio

damping to a value of ζ ≈ 0.40. Hence, the pitch velocity control of the flap has a greater
beneficial effect on pitch motions than on heave motions..

Accelerations: Fig. 20 plots the RMS acceleration data as a function of the ratio of
wave encounter frequency to natural frequency. It is seen, that at resonant frequency, the
accelerations are reduce by approximately 65 % when the control system is activated.

Resistance in Waves: While these data are not included in this presentation, it was
observed that the hull resistance in waves was slightly decreased when the flap control
was activated. This is consistent with the reduction in motions achieved with the control
system activated.

Conclusions

An active transom mounted flap control system is most effective in

reducing the motions and accelerations of planing craft operating in
head waves.
Using the output from a pitch angular velocity sensor to control the
flap deflection is shown to be a very effective and simple way to
reduce hull motions and accelerations. This control system increases
the effective pitch damping of the system.
Surprisingly, it appears that, if the natural frequencies and damping
ratios are known, the motions of a damped, linear, single degree of
freedom dynamic system subjected to a sinusoidal forcing will provide
results which are representative of the motions of a two degree of
freedom, controlled, dynamic system. It is cautioned that this result is
not yet to be generally applied.
 REFERENCES

1. Savitsky, Daniel; Bagnell, Daniel; Basu, Roger: “Viability of Large High-Speed

Displacement Hulls” March, 2000. Presented at 23rd Meeting of the U.S.-Japan
Marine Facilities Panel of U.S. Japan Cooperative Program in Natural Resources.
Tokyo, Japan. May 17 &18, 2000.
2. Ritter, Owen K. and Templeman, Michael T: “High-Speed Sea lift Technology “
Volume 1. NSRDC, Carderock Division. CDNSWC-SD-98. August,1998.
3. Van Mater, Paul R. Jr.; Zubaly, Robert, B.; and Beys, Petros, M.; “Hydrodynamics
of High-Speed Ships” Davidson Laboratory, Stevens Institute of Technology
Report No.876. October, 1961.
4. Yeh. Hugh, Y.H. “On High-Speed Displacement Forms” SNAME “Marine
Technology, July,1965.
5. Carderock Division, NSWC, Bethesda MD. “High–Speed Sealift Technology
Development Plan” NSWCCCD-20-TR-2002/06 May 2002.
6. Gawn,R.W.L. and Burrill, L.C., “The Effects of Cavitation on the Performance
of a Series of 16 Inch Model Propellers” Trans. INA, Vol. 99,1957.
7. Newton, R.N. and Rader,H.P. “Performance Data of Propellers for High-Speed
Craft”. Trans. RINA Vol. 103, 1961.
8. “Principles of Naval Architecture” SNAME, Vol. 3, 1989.
9. Wang Long-Wen. “A Study on Motions of High-Speed Planing Boats with
Controllable Flaps in Regular Waves” International Shipbuilding Progress.
Marine Technology Monthly. Vol. 32, No. 365, Jan. 1985 .