11

th
International Conference on Fast Sea Transportation
FAST 2011, Honolulu, Hawaii, USA, September 2011

Modes of Vibration of High Speed Ship Hull Sections

Michael R. Davis
1
, Gary Davidson
2
, Timothy Roberts
2
and Christopher Cato
1


1
University of Tasmania, Hobart, Australia 7001
2
Revolution Design, Moonah, Australia 7009.

ABSTRACT
Impact testing of a typical high speed ship section has
shown that the mode of vibration most likely to fall in the
frequency range of excitation due to propeller or rotor blade
passing is that where the ship frame rocks in a fore and aft
direction about its base connection to the hull plate. This
vibration has significant amplitude to either side of the keel
and it is found that connection between the inboard and
outboard sides is weak. As a consequence vibration can
occur in two modes in which the opposite sides of the hull
either move together or in anti phase. This leads to the
structural strain energy in the two modes being slightly
different, the mode with opposite motion to either side
involving rather smaller strain energy. As a consequence the
two modes have slightly different frequency, the mode with
opposite motion to either side having rather less strain
energy and thus a lower frequency. Because the frequencies
of the two modes are thus close together the transient
response exhibits beating in which vibration energy is
exchanged between the two sides of the hull at the low beat
frequency. Vibration of the ship frames in this manner
appears to have been the cause of minor weld cracking
where the top of stiffeners pass through cut outs in the web
of the ship frames within the fuel tank areas of the hull.
KEY WORDS
Vibration modes, high speed ship hulls, lightweight hull
sections
1.0 INTRODUCTION
Propeller and water jet propulsion systems commonly cause
significant vibration problems in the stern region of high
speed lightweight ship structures if a propeller is located
close to the hull or if the intake of a water jet has a ramp
angle which is too steep. In both cases interaction of a non-
uniform flow with the rotor can be a powerful source of
vibration excitation. In addition, the installation of high
power diesel engines in a lightweight aluminium structure
can also lead to significant levels of structural vibration
excitation. Typical machinery speeds are in the range from
500 to 1000 revolutions per minute (8 to 17 Hz
approximately) whilst rotors with up to 5 blades can extend
the frequency of excitation to about 80 Hz. It is therefore of
interest to identify the modes of typical ship structures
which are likely to have frequencies which lie in the range
of typical blade passing frequencies and the lower order
harmonics of those frequencies. Therefore structural modes
in the frequency range up to about 160 Hz are of interest.
2.0 SOURCES OF VIBRATION EXCITATION
Propeller and water jet rotor blades give rise to unsteady
loading on the structure for several reasons. Firstly, the
blades may be operating in a non uniform flow field which
originates due to the hull boundary layer, due to the velocity
field around the aft end of the hull or in the water jet intake.
Non uniform flow in a water jet intake is essentially caused
by the fact that the flow speed entering the rotor is
significantly less than the forward speed of the vessel. The
critical parameter is the inlet velocity ratio, this being the
ratio of the vessel speed to the average speed in the intake.
Typical values may range from zero when the vessel is
docking to about 1.7 when cruising. Intake design thus
necessarily compromises between accommodating these
extremes of operation. Ideally design for the cruise
condition would result in the intake duct having a diffusing
cross section with the duct area increasing from the inlet to
the rotor. However, whilst such a design is often adopted in
small power boat designs, dockside maneuvering is
seriously compromised by the restricted inlet area. Most
often the intake ducts for large ferries are therefore designed
without significant area diffusion within the duct so that a
higher rotor speed can be sustained whilst maneuvering
without cavitation occurring at the aft lip of the intake.
Velocity profiles in a model two dimensional intake
obtained by wind tunnel testing (Davidson et al, 2011) for
extremes of inlet velocity ratio (IVR) show that for an
IVR=0 there is a severe flow separation at the intake lip
resulting in the velocity distribution in the intake having a
maximum towards the upper side of the duct. For IVR=2.1
the flow separates on the upper surface of the intake and the
velocity maximum is on the lower side of the duct. Whilst
these flow non-uniformities are somewhat reduced as the
flow remixes ahead of the rotor face, nevertheless the rotor
will experience non uniform flow and blade loading.
Observations of cavitation on the rotor blades of an INCAT
74m vessel using stroboscopic illumination showed the
cavitation region and thus the blade loading to be the
smallest at the upper part of the rotor disc and that
individual blades experience unsteady loads as they progress
in rotation around the rotor disc plane. Calculation of these
unsteady loads is difficult as complex interactions are
present between the non-uniform inlet flow and the rotating
blades. However on the basis of the variability of axial flow
velocity across the rotor disc between upper and lower
sections of the rotor an estimate of the variation of blade
incidence angle can be made and from that the variation of
524 2011 American Society of Naval Engineers
blade force can be calculated. For typical rotors and flow
non uniformity the variation of blade loading could be as
much as +/- 4 tonnes on each blade or +/-50% of the
average blade load. The magnitude of these variations can
of course be reduced if the intake flow non-uniformity is
reduced, but it is clear that there is considerable potential for
substantial unsteady loads to be transmitted onto the rotor
shaft and thence into the ship structure. In general these
effects become more severe as the intake ramp angle is
increased and angles significantly in excess of about 20
degrees can result in significant vibration excitation. Where
the propulsion system is an open propeller, similar problems
arise owing to separation of the flow boundary layer on the
hull surface in the region where the keel rises to
accommodate the propeller. The effects can be more severe
if the propeller is close to the hull surface so that the
unsteady pressure on the hull is larger and where the
propeller is likely to experience greater flow non-
uniformity. Also, significant unsteady loading can arise
where two propellers operate in close proximity. In general
the unsteady loadings which originate in the propulsion
system are difficult to predict and progress on the basis of
full scale vessel trials would be the most reliable approach
to adopt. For water jets the ramp angle is a critical
parameter and for propellers the proximity to the hull is
critical.

Fig. 1. View of hull section under test showing frames,
stiffeners, hull plate and keel.

Fig. 2. Location of accelerometers on top of frame, on hull
plate and on top of stiffener
3.0 RESPONSE TO EXCITATION
PERPENDICULAR TO HULL PLATING
The modes of a typical hull section of an INCAT Tasmania
112m vessel were investigated using experimental impact
response testing. A general view of the hull section is shown
in Figure 1: the section was selected mid-way between
bulkheads at a location 38% ahead of the transom of an
INCAT 112m hull. This section was chosen because it was
relatively simple, comprising only the hull plate, frames,
keel and stiffeners. It should be noted that the section has
well rounded bilges and that somewhat different results
would be obtained if a flat bottomed section were chosen.
Also, the aft end of the hull would contain significant
additional framing and stiffening associated with engine,
water jet and ride control mountings. Figure 2 shows the
installation of piezoelectric accelerometers by magnetic
clamps onto small steel plates bonded to the frame, stiffener
and plate. Details of the section are given in Table 1.

Thickness Height Flange
Width
Pitch
Hull plate 16mm
Stiffener
T bar
6mm 140mm 55mm 345mm
Frame T
section
10mm 550mm 200mm 1200mm
Keel T
section
20mm 450mm 200mm

Table 1. Dimensions of aluminium components at test
location

Excitation was applied using a rubber hand held hammer
with impacts in directions perpendicular to and parallel to
the hull external plating on a ship frame and also directly on
the hull plating and stiffener as shown in Figure 3. Tests
were carried out with the hull both afloat and in dry dock.
1 2
3
4
6
5
A
B
C
Impact point
Accelerometer
D
Frame
flange
Frame
web
Hull plate
T-bar
Stiffener
7
Weld

Fig. 3. Details of impact and measurement points on frame,
stiffener and hull plate. Impact and accelerometer locations
on plate and stiffener are mid-way between frames. Test
locations are 1.2m from hull centre line

With the vessel in dry dock and impact on the stiffener top
in a direction perpendicular to the hull plate the response of
the accelerometer on top of the stiffener is shown in figure
4 and the corresponding power spectrum is shown in Figure
2011 American Society of Naval Engineers 525
5. We see that there is a dominant component at 349.6 Hz
with several other components in the range down to 180 Hz.
When the impact point is moved to the hull plate (Figures 6
and 7) the response is generally similar but the strongest
peak component is now at 264 Hz.

-0.4
-0.2
0
0.2
0.4
7.9 7.95 8
Time (seconds)

Fig. 4. Response of accelerometer located on stiffener
(position B) following impact on stiffener (position 4) in
dry dock (Ordinate scale: volts, sensitivity =0.134 volts/g)

Fig. 5. Power spectrum of response of accelerometer located
on stiffener (position B) following impact on stiffener
(position 4) in dry dock (peak at 349.6Hz, ordinate: volt
2
)
-0.3
-0.2
-0.1
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
2.46 2.48 2.5 2.52 2.54 2.56
Time (seconds)

Fig. 6. Response of accelerometer located on stiffener
(position B) following impact on hull plate (position 5) in
dry dock (Ordinate scale: volts, sensitivity =0.134 volts/g)



Fig. 7. Power spectrum of response of accelerometer located
on stiffener (position B) following impact on hull plate
(position 5) in dry dock (peaks at 264 and 343Hz, ordinate:
volt
2
)


Fig. 8. Vibration of hull plate between ship frames



0
250
500
750
1000
1250
1500
1750
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3
Hz
Plate span (m)
No stiffeners With stiffeners
Square plate, no stiffeners


Fig. 9. First mode frequency of square and wide 16mm
aluminium plates clamped along edges separated by the
plate span. T-Bar stiffeners when fitted across the span are
6mm thick, 140mm deep with a 55mm wide top flange and
are spaced at 340mm
526 2011 American Society of Naval Engineers


Insight into the active modes can be gained from Figures
8and 9 which shows the first mode form and the frequency
of stiffened and un-stiffened plates rigidly attached to the
frames along the edges. The first mode frequency for a very
wide plate between frames spaced S apart is
,
where E is the modulus of elasticity, is the density, I is the
second moment of area of the plate and stiffener (if fitted)
and A is the cross sectional area of the plate and stiffener.
For a square plate of side S the frequency is

,
where t is the plate thickness and is Poissons ratio. For a
spacing of 1.2m the predicted frequency of the stiffened
plate first mode is 423 Hz. Whilst this is significantly higher
that the measured modal frequency in the impact tests it
must be noted that the ship frame is not totally rigid and that
flexibility at the stiffened plate edge mounting would lower
the response frequency. Of course if the plate is of finite
length then the modal frequency is increased (Figure 9
shows the result for a finite square plate fixed on all four
sides).
With the vessel afloat the transient response and
corresponding spectra measured on top of the stiffener to
impact on the stiffener and to impact on the hull plate are
shown in Figures 10 to 13. In both cases we see that there is
evidence of significant beating in the transient response and
that the spectra correspondingly show three modes relatively
close together, although in each case two of the modes are
of similar magnitude and are significantly stronger than the
third. Bearing in mind that the only difference between
these results and those in dry dock is the action of the water
loading on the outside of the hull plate it appears that the
occurrence of beating in the responses to excitation
perpendicular to the hull plate is associated with the external
water loading.

-1.2
-1
-0.8
-0.6
-0.4
-0.2
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
10.3 10.35 10.4 10.45 10.5
Time (seconds)

Fig. 10. Response of accelerometer located on stiffener
(position B) following impact on stiffener (position 4) when
afloat. (Ordinate scale: volts, sensitivity =0.134 volts/g)

0.00E+00
1.00E-05
2.00E-05
3.00E-05
4.00E-05
5.00E-05
6.00E-05
200 250 300 350 400
Frequency (Hz)

Fig. 11. Power spectrum of response of accelerometer
located on stiffener (position B) following impact on
stiffener (position 4) when afloat (peaks at 314.3 and
339.6.6Hz, ordinate: volt
2
)

-1.2
-0.8
-0.4
0
0.4
0.8
1.2
9.5 9.6 9.7 9.8 9.9 10
Time (seconds)

Fig. 12. Response of accelerometer located on stiffener
(position B) following impact on plate (position 5) when
afloat (Ordinate scale: volts, sensitivity =0.134 volts/g).

0.00E+00
4.00E-04
8.00E-04
1.20E-03
1.60E-03
200 250 300 350 400
Frequency (Hz)

Fig. 13. Power spectrum of response of accelerometer
located on stiffener (position B) following impact on plate
(position 5) when afloat (peaks at 315.6 and 324.9Hz,
ordinate: volt
2
).
2011 American Society of Naval Engineers 527

HULL AFLOAT HULL IN DRY DOCK
IMPACT
POINT ACCELEROMETER LOCATION
FRAME STIFFENER PLATE FRAME STIFFENER PLATE
1 (Frame)
437.6
627.7
325.2
603.9
604.4
310.1
336.8
346.4
496.2
37.7
198.5
203.5
258.4
442.6
583.9
190.2
347.1
347.4
557.1
557.4

216.9
217.3
272.0
345.5
345.6
566.5

2 (Frame)
182.3
183.0
480.8
129.1
129.2
340.2
613.4
614.4
195.6
196.2
290.3
290.8
480.4
189.3
288.0
290.2
189.8
457.2
487.8

198.3
264.1
459.2
461.7
3 (Frame)
77.4
126.8
187.6
457.7
479.9
480.6
129.7
130.5
325.1
340.2
130.4
130.5
195.5
479.9
128.8
128.9
189.0
454.6

189.6
263.5
265.0
459.9

189.0
266.9
268.5
457.7
458.1

4
(Stiffener)
177.5
431.1
546.1
550.6
314.6*
337.9
339.6*
326.9
346.5
190.0
263.9
264.2
267.0
189.9
190.2
197.0
263.1
263.9
264.2
351.6
558.3
588.1
588.9
197.0
197.9
264.4
343.3
347.0

5 (Plate)
142.6
325.0
340.7
447.9
449.8
150.4
315.6*
325.0*
103.7
143.8
314.7
325.7
340.1
189.6
264.1

190.0
190.4
264.4
343.9
347.2

198.0
264.4
342.6
343.8
500.9

6 (Web)
185.0 131.3
289.0
336.9
339.4
579.3
130.4
195.2
195.5
290.1
128.7
184.3
286.2
189.8
215.9
216.4
342.5
349.4

217.0
289.0
592.1

6 (Web)
128.8
129.0
186.7
286.6
290.1
195.1
215.9
216.5
264.9
265.1
289.0
66.9
191.8
218.5
264.9
265.0
290.0(web)


Table 2. Frequencies of identified components for each
impact position and each transducer position (Largest
component shown in bold and underlined; * denotes beating
observed))
Table 2 gives an overall summary of the observed
components of the responses when measured with various
combinations of impact point and measurement point
(Figure 3). Table 2 also identifies the strongest component
in each response. For impacts perpendicular to the hull
plate or at an oblique angle on the edge of the frame top
flange in dry dock the strongest mode was generally close to
190 Hz. With excitation applied to the centre of the frame, a
number of modes at higher frequencies were generally
observed. This is not unexpected as such excitation is
effectively straight down the line of the frame web and the
excitation is then directed onto a relatively stiff component
of the structure. One mode which might be anticipated is
that where the flanges of the frame vibrate as overhanging
cantilevers (Figure 13). The first mode frequency in this
case is
2
2
0.162 Et
f
L
=

where E is the modulus of elasticity,

is the density, t is the thickness and L is the length of the
overhang (half of the top flange width in this case). The
frequency for this mode is 822 Hz, which is clearly well
outside the range of interest.

Fig. 14. Frame flange cantilever mode (822Hz)
When afloat the responses were similarly dominated by a
variety of relatively high frequency components. Dominant
components of the responses measured when afloat on the
stiffener to impacts on the stiffener and hull plate (table 2)
reflect the beating components as discussed above at about
315, 325 and 340 Hz. These beating modes are strongly
evident on the stiffener top. They are also evident on the
frame flange if excitation was applied to the hull plate but
not if applied to the top of the stiffener. In dry dock a
variety of response modes over a range of frequency were
evident. The broad conclusion of these impact tests was that
the responses measured were all at frequencies beyond that
of interest in the context of propulsion system excitation and
that the responses reflect primarily vibration of the hull plate
and stiffeners between the relatively rigid ship frames.


Fig. 15. Accelerometer response at location 4 on frame web
on the inboard (port) and outboard (starboard) sides to a
horizontal impact on the frame flange at point 7. (Ordinate
scale: volts, sensitivity =0.134 volts/g)



Fig. 16. Power spectrum of accelerometer at location 4 (port
inboard side) to a horizontal impact on the frame flange at
point 7. (Peaks at 66.7 and 76.5 Hz. Ordinate: volt
2
)

0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
60 65 70 75 80
Frequency (Hz)
528 2011 American Society of Naval Engineers
4.0 RESPONSE TO LONGITUDINAL EXCITATION
OF SHIP FRAMES
Since the motivation for this investigation was in part to
identify the causes of cracking of welds between the top of
the stiffeners and the cut outs in the frames where the
stiffeners pass through the frames, a second series of impact
tests was carried out by applying impacts at impact point 7
(Figure 3). Two accelerometers were mounted at the mid-
point of the frame web (accelerometer point D, Figure 3) on
opposite sides of the hull centre line. The time records of the
results of a typical test are shown in figure 15. We see that
there is strong beating of the time records at approximately
10 Hz indicating the presence of two modes separated in
frequency by about 10 Hz and having a frequency of about
70 Hz. This is shown clearly in the power spectrum of one
of the signals in Figure 16, the frequencies of the two modes
being 66.7 and 76.5 Hz. We see that thses modes lie within
the range of interest in the context of propulsion system
excitation of the structure. The intensity of the two modes is
approximately the same so that the beating interference of
the two modes is almost complete. We can see from Figure
13 that the damping of the modes is very low indeed: when
calculated over a duration of 1.35 seconds the ratio of
damping to critical damping was found to be only 0.0029.
To identify the nature of the two modes evident in the
impact tests a finite element analysis was undertaken using
FEMAP and the FE model of the ship structure. Figure 17
shows the FE model for the ship section and the test frame
is highlighted at the centre of this section. Figures 18 and 19
show the two modes in which rocking of the frame about its
connection to the hull plate occurred. In the mode at 71 Hz
(Figure 18) we see that the frame rocks in opposite fore and
aft directions to either side of the keel and that the frame
flange rotates in a horizontal plane about the connection
point to the keel on the centre line of the hull. In the mode at
80 Hz (Figure 19) the frame rocks in the same fore and aft
direction to either side of the keel and the top flange of the
frame does not rotate at the centre line and has only small
translation in the fore and aft direction where the frame
connects to the keel.



Fig. 17. FE model showing test frame position mid-way
between bulkheads

Fig. 18. FEA deformations of mode at 71 Hz


Fig. 19. FEA deformations of mode at 80Hz

To gain further insight into the modes in which the frame
vibrates Figure 20 shows a lumped parameter representation
in which the mass of the frame top flange (represented by
mass M) oscillates in a horizontal plane on the spring
stiffness of the frame web (represented here by the spring
rates K), the web being fixed at its lower edge to the hull
plate and bending in a fore and aft direction. The two
masses M represent the inboard and outboard sides of the
frame. At the centre line a link connecting the two sides is
free to rotate but translation of the link is resisted by a
relatively soft spring (k). This central spring is relatively
soft because the dimension of the frame transverse to the
keel is much greater than the depth of the frame and so
bending of the frame at the keel is not g so greatly resisted
as bending at the hull plate. The frequencies of the modes of
this system are given by 2 f e = t where
2
2
2 2
3
( ) / ( )
4 2 4
k Kk k
K M
M M
+
e = + +

.

The frame flange has a mass of 5.4kg for a 1 m length and
using this formula we find that the measured frequencies of
66.7 and 76.5 Hz can be matched with K=950,000 N and
k=598,500 N for a 1 m length. The stiffness of the web at
2011 American Society of Naval Engineers 529
the flange position if the web is rigidly fixed at its base and
at the top of the stiffeners would be 375,000 N/m per metre
length. It is evident from these values that whilst this
lumped parameter model is generally representative, the
actual deflection stiffness of the frame is significantly larger
than that of the web in bending alone owing to the other
constraints of the complete structure and that the top flange
of the frame is not moving as strongly at all points along its
length thereby reducing its effective modal mass.


Fig. 20. Dynamic lumped parameter model of frame
vibration
It should be noted that the application of a test impact on the
frame to one side of the keel imparts initial momentum and
kinetic energy around the impact point, the motion on the
opposite side of the keel initially being zero. In terms of the
lumped parameter model of figure 20 this means that the
initial conditions at time t=0 are X
2
= X
1
=0, (dX
1
/dt) =
initial value and (dX
2
/dt) = 0. The resulting solutions for the
motions are shown in Figure 21 for an initial unit velocity of
1 m/s. It can be seen that the lumped parameter model
replicates the test impact well and that the strong beating
motions observed in the impact test are due to the impact
creating and initial velocity on one side of the keel but not
on the others side.

0.0025
0.002
0.0015
0.001
0.0005
0
0.0005
0.001
0.0015
0.002
0.0025
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6
Time(seconds)
X1 X2

Fig. 21. Response of lumped parameter system to unit
velocity at position 1 (Fig. 20)
5.0 EFFECT OF FUEL OIL LOADING
Where the frame is located within the fuel tank section of
the hull the frame vibration will be subject to significant
added mass owing to the fuel. This has the potential to bring
the frame vibration directly into the frequency range of
water jet blade passing and thus to provide a rational
explanation of cracking in the weld between the top of the
stiffener and the cut out in the frame. As illustrated in figure
22 the added mass for the frame can be modelled
approximately on the basis that the web vibration motion is
3
0
x
y=Y Sin(2ft)
a
| |
|
\ .
where Y
0
is the lateral vibration
amplitude at the top flange. Also, the top flange is assumed
to be rigid and rotates with angle 3Y
0
/a. The added mass is
then evaluated on a kinetic energy basis for rectangular fluid
section moving laterally beneath the top flange adjacent to
the web and the fluid beyond that with semicircular
weightings as shown in the diagram for areas projected from
the web and flange faces by the circular arcs. If M is the
added mass per unit length (referred to the flange lateral
vibration amplitude Y
0
) for one side of the frame then we
have:

( )
{ }
( )
{ }
6 a L
2 2 2 2 2 2
0 0
2 4 2
x
M L a x dx (18 / a ) y L y dy
a
aL
{ 0.062a 3.2(L / a) }
7
| |
= + +
|
\ .
= + +
} }
where is the fluid density. The total added mass for both
sides of the frame is 2M. For the ship frame under test
immersed in fuel oil (density 870kg/m
3
) this yields an added
mass of 2M=48.5 kg/m length of frame (ie for both sides of
the frame).

Fig.22. Added mass model for vibrating frame

With fluid loading applied to the frame the modal
frequencies determined by finite element analysis of the
ship section are reduced as shown in Figure 23. Here the
mass representing fluid loading on the frame is distributed
uniformly over the web. For the vessel which experienced
frame vibration the blade passing frequency of the water jet
was 26 Hz, and we see that 100kg/m or 150kg/m distributed
mass is needed to bring the modal frequencies to this value.
This is rather more than calculated from the formulation
above, but a distinction needs to be made between the
distributed mass applied to the FE model and the modal
2L
a
y
x
a

M

M
Light mass link
Soft spring
(k)
Spring (K) Spring (K)
Fixed base
X
1
X
2

530 2011 American Society of Naval Engineers
added mass referred to the top end of the frame web where
the vibration amplitude is largest. Therefore it is to be
expected that the distributed mass would be substantially
larger than the vibration added mass owing to the cubic
distribution of the frame vibration amplitude between the
hull plate and frame falnge.

0
20
40
60
80
0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20
F
r
e
q
u
e
n
c
y
,

H
z
Frame di stri buted fl ui d mass (tonnes/m l ength)
Asymmetri c mode
Symmetri c mode


Fig. 23. Effect of mass distributed on the frame web in the
FE model on modal frequencies

6.0 CONCLUSIONS
It has been found that most vibration modes in a typical ship
section which are perpendicular to the hull plate occur at
frequencies beyond those likely to arise due to excitation
from the propulsion system. Evidence was found of
vibration of the hull plate and stiffeners between the frames
at about 264Hz, 343Hz and 349.6Hz when in dry dock.
When afloat, modes at 314.3Hz, 315.6, 324.9Hz and 339.6
were observed. These occurred at sufficiently close
frequency spacing that beating was then evident in the time
records. Fore and aft vibrations involving rocking of the
ship frames was found to occur at frequencies of 66.7Hz and
76.5 Hz. These modes also gave rise to beating which
alternated in magnitude between the inboard and outboard
sides of the frame. Finite element analysis predicted slightly
higher frequencies (71Hz and 80Hz) for these modes
compared to the measured values, suggesting that the FE
model slightly overestimated the stiffness of structural
connections. The FE analysis showed that the two modes
had either in phase or out of phase vibration of each side of
the hull. Damping of the vibration was low, with a ratio of
damping to critical damping of only 0.0029. The vibrations
were modelled by a simple lumped parameter model in
which realistic values of mass and stiffness gave rise to the
observed modes. Finally, the effect of added mass when the
frame is immersed in fuel was found by finite element
analysis to reduce the frequencies of these frame rocking
modes to the range below 40 Hz. This is well within the
range of excitation by the propulsion system and gives a
rational explanation for cracking of welds between the top
of the stiffeners and the frames.

REFERENCES
Davidson, G., Roberts, T.R., Friezer, S., Thomas, G.A.,
Bose, N., Davis, M.R. and Verbeek, R. (2011). 130m
Wave Piercer Catamaran: A new energy efficient
multihull operating ate critical speeds. Proceedings of
International Conference on High Speed Marine
Vessels, 2-3 March 2011, Fremantle, Australia

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This investigation has been supported by INCAT Tasmania,
Revolution Design, the University of Tasmania and the
Australian Research Council.


2011 American Society of Naval Engineers 531