Marine Technology, Vol. 90, No. 4, Oct. 1998, pp. 297-307 Resistance Prediction of Planing Hulls: State of the Art John M. Aimeter “There are literally dozens ot citerent ways that the boat designer can predict the resistance of planing hulls. The term planing hull is used genericaly to descrbe the majoty of hard chine boats being built ‘today. No single prediction method is good forall types of planing hulls. Some methods can be reed on 10 give good predictions for certain boats and other methods can't be relied upon at all. Tis paper is meant as a reference for designers in selecting resistance prediction mathods for planing hulls. It describes ‘numerous resistance prediction methods and gives their variable ranges and the type of plening hulls {they are based on or are intended for. Inherent problems or imitations of the methods are stated. The ‘concept of hull shape, which is often neglected in resistance prediction, and its important role are discussed Background ‘Tue vARiAsLEs commonly used in resistance prediction .. methods include speed, weight, length, beam, midship dead- (ise, and longitudinal center of gravity. These variables de- fine the basic dimensions and loading of the hull but they ° fail toaccurately describe the hull shape, Full shape includes 9 terms or variables such as Fae arial COC 88 gma a Lote om 0 Compute. B 5 hull warp, and’—> tie, taanpasol fhe, c2Gi08 > Ueeacon ae + concave, convex, or straight sections. foes coon ‘The hull shape can have a major if not dominant impact on ce, 7 ‘boat's resistance. These characteristics or variables of hull fies (plenarrconn) shape are often difficult to describe mathematically. The lines drawings [17 in Fig. 1 oll have the same basic dimensions but show a wide variety in hull shape” Even if all the hull shape variables could be described, the problem of trying to incorporate all of these variables into a resistance model is too difficult. The growth in the complexity of the model far excoods the growth in number of additional variables. The designer needs to select a resistance prediction method which minkins the oro caused by Tomitng” hull shape inthe resistance prediction. This is done by resistance ‘edition method which bet reels the designers ull Fos oer nl stapes pe. Planing hull series try to keep the hull shape fixed by simply stretching the hull in one direction or the other. Good _ resistance prediction methods are based on a particular hull |1¢ is not uncommon for designers of this type of craft to accu- type or class (hull shape). The boat designer needs to make rately predict resistance or power using simple formulas or sure that the craft not only falls in the dimensional and graphs based on their experiences. These same models would “probably give a poor prediction for other types of eraft such 4s a 20knot crewboat Inspection of a prediction method's parent hull lines draw- “By knowing the type of hull shape a resistance prediction ing or hull shape description may tell the designer fa method method is based on or is intended for, it becomes much easier will match his hull. The selection of a prediction method is toselect the appropriate method, Planing hulls with the same simplified if the designer can place the design into a class or basic dimensions intended for the same speed regime often ‘category, Planing craft often fall neatly into categories or have a very similar hull shape and similar resistance. The types such as offshore high-speed monohull raceboats.In this following are basic speed regimes whichcan drive hull shapd/ — ‘example almost all of the boats have very similar hull shapes", Pre-planing: Up to approximately Fy 25, This normaly and their nondimensional variables fall inasmall range. The covers up to and including hump speed’ In pre-planing the hhull shape is forall practicality fixed, and the powering or bulk of the craft's weight is eupported by buoyancy. resistance prediction model can be reduced to a compars- ”" \Semi-planing: Approximately from Fay 2. to 40. At this tively few variables based on a few random craft ofthis class. speed range the craft weight i supparied by beth nydne Fi eae static and dynamic forces. As the speed increases the dynamic pcm Dion Neva Sure Ware Cntr, Combatant Crat oven inresee,hydvetatic arco duoreeseand tyne ts "TMumbors iv brackets denguats Refeencus ced of paper. tends to decrease. Presented at the February 28, 1991 meeting of the Hampton Roads + Fully planing: Approximately Fyy 4.0 and above. At this Section of ux Socurry or Naval Ancuracts ano Mane Ewan. speed range the craft's weight is almost entirely supported Ogeg ope OCTOBER 1003, (0026-3316/03/0090-0207800.47/0 MARINE TECHNOLOGY 297y dynamic forces, Trim tends to be much lower than at ump. "The body plans in Figs. 2 and 3 are representative of hard hine boats designed to operate in pre-planing speed regime. igure 3is from referencs[1), The hull shapes tend to be very imilar to small fast round-bilge boats with the exception hat the chine or bilge is hard instead of rounded. These cats are intended to go more through the water than on top, erticularly at the lower end of the speed range. The bow is ‘with very high deadrise. The deadrise from midship to transom may or may not be constant. Recent trends in Zuropean designs of large ‘deep vee” hulls have been to keep fterbody deadrise constant. Traditional designs often have iad a large amount of hull warp in the afterbody to accommo- late multiple screws. The afterbody buttocks may be straight op | or have rocker. Boats intended for the lower end of this speed regime often have substantial rocker, for instance, the US. Naval Academy Series [2] shown in Fig. 4. Craft operating at the higher end of the speed range often have rocker or wedges to reduce dynamic trim and resistance. These craft tend to have a forward longitudinal center of gravity (LCG), Typical ILOG location would be 40% and 45% of the chine length forward of the transom. "The forebody of a boat designed for the semi-planing range isa compromise between a good lifting surface and a displace- ‘ment hull. Figures 5 and 6 are typical. The forebody deadrise is much less than that of the pre-planing hulls. The afterbody buttocks tend to be straight. If there is any rocker it tends to be minimal when compared with that shown in Fig. 4. A hook or wedges on the transom may be added to decrease the drag at the lower end of the speed regime. A great deal of ‘afterbody hull warp, 10 to 15 degrees, say, is not as popular fs it once was for this speed range. Boats designed for the "upper end of the speed range often have little or no hull warp. ‘Afterbody hull warp does not have a major impact on hull resistance in this epeed range except at the high end [1,3,4) ‘The LOG tends to vary from about 38% to 45% of the chine length from the transom. As the speeds get greater the design L0G tends to move aft. "The body plans shown in Figs. 7 and 8 are typical of modern pare-planing boats. The hull area in contact with calm water of a pure-planing craft is designed to be an effective lift surface, The afterbody of today's i pBiamatic (constant section) with little or no hull warp. The ‘afterbody buttock’s are straight with comparatively little or no hook or rocker compared with Fig. 4. The forebody has little effect on calm water resistance at these speeds. The { forebodies of earlier designs tended to be fullor blunt. Modern || designs tend to have.a much finer forebody, which reflects \\ today's tastes and the desire for better seakeeping, Several longitudinal spray rails are often used on the hull bottom. ‘The same hull can often be effectively used for either the semi-planing or pure planing speed regimes. The LOG tends to vary from about 25% to 35% of the chine length from the ‘transom. As the speeds get greater the design LOG tends to move aft / Resistance prediction models based on hull shapes with a. high afterbody hull warp should not be used on prismatic pure planing boats because they will tend to greatly overpre- =~ dict reeistarice [1,4]. The high-warp-based prediction methods / - « don’t have the same problem in the pre-planing and semi- » planing regimes (1, Resistance prediction methods based on concave hull “ shapes are generally applicable to many of today’s convex, Joo Fig. 3 Pre-planing hull ' straight, combination straight and convex, and combination Nomenctature ———————_—__————— A, = projected planing bottom area LOG = longitudinal center of gravity, W = weight of craft ‘B= beam normally measured from A = weight of craft B,, = midehip chine beam transom, but may be measured static volume of displacement 2B, = transom chine beam Cy = lite coefficient, 6/Cpo"B.) G, = load coefficient, A/(8B,° C= speed coefficient (beam Froude ‘number, 0/(gB)* Fy = volumetric Froude number, v/ ery ‘#= scceleration due to gravity ‘R= resistance velocity enue 238 OCTOBER 1003 eee utp ui fetwcee ele from other reference poinia LCP = longitudinal center of preesure ‘Lp = chine length ig, = length between perpendiculars R/W = resntance/ displacement (weigh!) = velocity, knots Capen —oncle on be cormate prodoasly mass density of water eadrise jm = midship deadrise 7 = trim ‘= mean wetted length, projected ‘solid wetted area divided by chine beam specific weight of water paar err, Tord Oe Li oe MARINE TECHNOLOGY LMARINE TECHNOLOGY 200 OCTOBER 1909Fig. 8 Full planing hu ‘convex and concave hull bottoms. A classic concave hull typi- cal of the 1940s and 1950s is shown in Fig. 9 [5]. The concave based methods tend to overpredict the resistance by a few percent [4]. Figures 2 and 9-14) show the body plans and other informa- tion pertaining to the principal planing hull series which are the basis for many of today’s resistance prediction methods. ‘Resistance prediction Resistance prediction methods generally fall into the fol- lowing categories: Planing hull series Prismatic equations Numerical methods Empirical calculations Theoretical ‘All of the methods listed with the exception of theoretical fare based on data or observations of planing hull models or full-size tests, We obeerve or record data and produce graphi- cal or numerical models that describe what we observe. Be- yond basic scaling laws, very litle theoretical work is used in resistance prediction today. There have been several theo- retical models, but none are useful for the typical boat de- signer. ‘Resistance prediction errors are generally due to: + Hull shapes and/or dimensions outaide the range of the prediction method. + Scaling errors. + Prediction method that fails to accurately reflect its de- tabase. + Errors in measuring the resistance of the models or full- size craft of the database used in developing the predic- tion method. 300 OCTOBER 1903, ‘The following methods are described to aid the designer in minimizing these errors. Resistance components Bare hull drag is a function of pressure drag and water frictional drag. Air and appendage drag are normally added separately. The water frictional drag is often broken down into two categories, solid water drag and spray drag. Today, spray drag is often ignored. Several of the methods presented in the 1960e included a significant contribution from spray drag, particularly at high speed. In reference (6] the frictional drag for a 20-deg prismatic model was determined by subtracting the calculated preseure drag from the total measured drag. The skin friction coeff cient was calculated based on the solid wetted area, The skin friction coefficient calculated was found to be in good agreement at planing speeds at Reynold’s numbers corres- ponding to a turbulent boundary layer with the Schoenherr friction line, The model had a large amount of spray wetted area. Had spray had a significant effect on drag, the calculated skin coefficients would have been well above the Schoenherr fri- tion line. It is this author's conclusion that spray drag can generally be neglected. The designer should know if the pre- diction technique being used includes the effect of spray drag. or not. ‘The preceding argument is relevant to the spray on the bottom of a typical planing boat. For other designs, such as catamarans, spray may have @ significant effect on re- sistance. Planing hull series Resistance can be predicted from the testing of scaled mod- els. In a systematic series the members are generally devel- oped by stretching or compressing a parent hull in one direc- tion or the other. ‘The resistance is scaled to match the full size using commonly used scaling laws. Various testing tech- niques were used for the series that will be described. ‘The different techniques may give different resistance predictions for the same model. It is important for the designer to under- stand how the models were tested. + Series 50 {5}—Series 50 is the granddaddy of planing hull series and is the largest U.S. series. It was developed in the late 1940s around PT boat type hulle, The series is intended for semi-planing boats. Unfortunately the parent hull of the series, Fig. 9, is dated and does not reflect modern planing hull designs. The hull’s characteristics include: —high warp —high beam taper concave hull —rocker (buttocks) ‘The series was constructed and tested as if it were a displace- ‘ment hull series and not like modern planing hull series. Series 60 is based on a constant block coefficient and a given waterline location. The principal geometric variables of the series are beam/draft and displacement length ratio, L/(Ay/ 100)", Each model of the series was tested at this reference condition and at 10% and 20% overload conditions. Each displacement was tested at static trim angles of 0, 2 and 4 ddeg by the stern. Planing hull designers generally don’t think in this way, and tend to use variables such as beam loading and LOG location. Reference [7] questions the accuracy of the series at the lower speeds. Series 50 is of little value to the typical modern planing hull designer. MARINE TECHNOLOGYSERIES 50 PARENT sau Te seu -puanine seo nance Zoewes ISeLACEMENT LeMoTH RATION cok coerriciext (a0 RAF + 18 6208 OM Log cnet) 40 10 160 0.407 Leone wwwer 5% Fig. 8 Series 50 + Series 62 [T}Series 62 was developed in the early 60s, Series 62 is based on a pure-planing design. The body plan is given in Fig. 10. The series differs from modern designs in: harrow transom (beam taper) —exceptionally blunt bow —maximum chine beam forward of midship ‘This is a low-constant-deadrise series. The series covered a wide range of speeds, loading, LOG location and L,/B.. This Series was tested at higher Fyy than other series. The midship deadrise was fixed at 13 deg: The LOG range of 36% to 48% of the chine length from the transom is more forward than commonly found in today’s pure-planing craft. In reference [7] the LOGs are referenced from the centroid of the area enclosed by the chine. The craft’s blunt bow and high beam taper give it a comparatively forward centroid. The centroid is slightly aft of midship. If the LCG is referenced from the centroid, the series LCG range is more consistent with that of today’s modern pure-planing hulls. Referencing from the SERIES 62 PARENT Seto nee ag es Fig 10 Saris 62 it when dealing with pure-planing boats operating at pure planing speeds. Complete tabular and graphical data are given in reference {7}. The data have been conveniently given at model, 10 000 and 100 000 Ib displacements. Scaled data are also presented in reference [8]. The series is eagy to use. It can be useful for low-deadrise hulls, particularly at unusually high or low loadings. The series may give a high hump drag prediction because of the series blunt bow. The significance of Series 62 goes beyond that of resistance Prediction. Series 62 models have also been used for shallow water planing [8], powering [10] and other unique testa, + Series 65 {11} Series 65, created in the early 70s to test hull forms for possible hydrofoil applications, is oriented to- wards larger pre-planing craft. Series 65 is really two series, Series 65A and Series 65B, each with its own unique parent, Footy chorea OB bth have ne and high deadrae sbody characteristic of pre-planing designs and look some. what like modified round-bilge hulls. Series 654s exceptionally narrow stern (high beam taper) is unconventional and limits its applicability as a resistance Prediction method. Series 65A is not normally used. Series 65B is a very useful series. It is applicable to the deep-veo concept hull shape which is becoming popular for patrol boats and other large hard chine craft designed for the pre planing range and the lower end of the semi-planing range. The models do not have any aft beam taper. Series S5B covers a wide range of loading, trim, L,/B,, and deadrise. The series was not fully tested at the heavier displacements at the upper end of the series speed range. The series was also tested at comparatively low speeds. ‘The series was tested by running the models at fixed weights and fixed trims. The resistance is presented in the baseline report in tabular and graphical forms at model scale ‘88 a function of dynamic or planing trim and weight for each MAXIMUM SERIES 65-6 RANGEmodel. This requires the boat designer to interpolate and scale up the resistance to get a prediction. The designer can save time by using reference [8] for this series. In reference (6) the test data are presented conveniently in tabular format for each model as a function of loading, LOG and sealed dis- placement, + Naval Academy Series [2}—The United States Naval Academy tested three systematic round-bilge modela and three equivalent systematichard chine modela The body plan of one ofthe hard chine parents is shown in Fig. 4. The series is intended for the lower end of the pre-planing speed regime and is interesting for several reasons, including: irect comparison of round and hard chine hulls —Resistance of hard chine hulls intended for slow speeds —Effect of loading and LOG variation on resistance The series is really too small to be an effective resistance prediction. This is because deadrise is not an independent. variable but a function of L/B. Nondimensional model test data are given in reference (2). A regression method based on this method is discussed later in the numerical method section. + Dutch Series 62[12}—The Dutch Series 62 was developed in the late 70s, It is « high-deadrise (25 deg) version of the low-deadrise Series 62. The parent of the series is given in Fig. 12. thas the same unusual characteristis of the orginal Series 62. This is a pureplaning hull shape, but the series ‘was tested only in the pre-planing and semi-planing speed regimes. This series was tested at an even greater displace- ‘ment range than the original Series 62. The data are pre- sented in graphical and tabular formats at model size, and 10.000 and 100 000 Ib scaled displacements as done in the original series. The series is particularly interesting at the extremes of the loading range. + BK Series[1,15}—The BK Series is an exceptionally large semicplaning series tested in the 60s by the Soviets. The series is oriented towards large patrol boats. The body plan is given in Fig. 13. The hull shape is reminiscent of the concave PT boat designs of World War II. The BK Series can be broken down into two separate groups. In the fret group the principal nondimensional variables like L,/B,, were kept constant and the hull shape was varied to determine ite effect on resistance. ‘As an example, some of the forebodies had much sharper deadrises (entrance angles) than the parent, Fig. 13. The sec- ‘ond group of the series kept the hull shape constant, shown in Fig. 13, and varied the nondimensional variables like L,/ By. The series was tested over a wide range of Ly/Bq, midship K i DUTCH SERIES 62 PARENT MULL TYPE SPEED RANGE FULLY PLANING: Fao 0.75 te 3.0 Le/8m 2.0 te 7.0 Bm 25 DEGREES Lorn Hs 4.0 te 8.5 Lcg/Le 0.36 10 0.48 Fig. 12 Dutch Series 62 302 OCTOBER 1009 BK SUBSERIES PARENT HULL TYPE SEMI-PLANING SPEED RANGE Faq 1.0 40 4.5 Le/em 3.75 te 7.0 Bm 12 te 21° G 0.427 to 0.654 Lce/Le 0.35 te 0.45, Fig. 13. BK Series deadrise, loading and LOG. The hull shape of the second group was concave with high warp, had fairly high beam taper, and, unlike the Series 50, the afterbody buttocks were straight. ‘The result of the testing was a Taylor series equation for resistance (1,13). The equation was modified and expanded in reference [4] to increase accuracy. The equation, difficult to perform by hand but easily run on a computer, gives an excellent prediction for this type of hull shape. The concave hull shape has slightly higher drag than today’s modern semi- planing hull shapes. This may result in the equation giving ‘prediction that may be a few percent high in the pre-planing and semi-planing regimes. The series may greatly overpredict tthe resistance at the higher end of the series speed range Fur 4.0 to 4.5 because of the high afterbody hull warp. The effect of hull shape at model scale is presented in graphs in reference [1). This gives the designer a good under- standing of the relative effect of hull ehape. ‘* MBK Series (1,14}—The MBK Series is very similar to the BK Series in structure and approach but differs in the parent, Fig. 14. The MBK Series was tested in the early 708 ‘and is oriented towards emaller semi-planing hulls, ‘The basit resistance prediction equation is given in refer- ences [1,14]. The equation was modified and enhanced in ref- MBK SERIES PARENT HULL TYPE SEMI-PLANING SPEED RANGE Fao 1.0 to 4.5 Lp7m 2.50 te 3.75 Bm P to 18? & 0.158 40 0.352 Leste 0.35 16 0.45, Fig. 14 BK Sores MARINE TECHNOLOGYerence [4]. The effect of hull shape at model scale is presented graphically in reference (1). + Norwegian Series [15}-A small series of models was tested in 1969 in Norway. The model series is oriented to- wards small semi-planing and pureplaning boats. The ‘method is intended for the post hump speed range. The nondi- mensional variables and hull shape are typical of today’ small runabouts. Some of the series models had straight bow sections instead of the convex sections of the parent. The goal of the series was to plot R/W as a function of Cy, LOG/Bu midship deadrise and displacement at semi-planing and the lower pure-planing speeds. The series also studied the effect of aft beam taper and forebody hull shape. ‘The resulting prediction method is presented compactly in graphs [15]. The method automatically scales the resistance up to the full-size craft. The present author has checked the resistance predicted for the case of straight forebody sections and no aft beam taper and has found the method to give reasonable results. He would not recommend using either the transom breadth or spray strip corrections given in reference (15} It is not clear how reference [15] developed the transom m ‘The heart and soul of the Saviteky method are the lift and torque equations given in references [17,19] The 1964 version [16] is the baseline method used today. The long form balances the torques from the craft drag, craft weight and thrust. The long-form version ascumes that the thrust is parallel to the ‘axis of the thruster. This assumption is not always correct. Spray drag is not included in this version. The version given by Hadler [20] is basically the ‘same except that it includes spray drag. Blount and Fox added the M factor to the 1964 ver- sion in 1976 in reference [3] for the hump range. ‘Their argument is that the prismatic model is not applicable in the hump range because the nonpris: 7 matic forebody is in the water. The M factor is « simple correlation allowance used to force the 1964 version to reflect boatlike hulls at the hump. The M factor was developed by comparing model boat resistance with that predicted by the 1964 version. ‘The M factor might be a little high for many of to- I | cena cares f4240{ day's pureplaning boat. Today's boats tend nat to Prismatic equations 2 jadbe] drag the nonprismatic bow in the water as much as A prismatic body has a constant cross section and straight buttocks along the body’s entire length. Many pure-planing hulls can be considered prismatic because the sections of the hull in contact with the water are constant when planing. ‘The assumption of a prismatic vee hull greatly simplifies the ‘modeling of planing hulls. This assumption breaks down at lower speeds when the forebody comes into contact with the water. The basic prismatic variables are beam, deadrise, LCG, and weight. Length and hull shape details are not considered. Design details or features such as spray rails and keel pads are not accounted for. The prismatic model equations do not include air drag. ‘One of the advantages of using prismatic shapes is that drag is simply considered to be the product of the tangent of the trim angle and the craft’s weight plus frictional drag. Prismatic models have been tested in a variety of ways for lift and torque or longitudinal moment. From these tests re- searchers have developed equations that relate lift and longi. tudinal moment to wetted planing shape, trim and speed. ‘The entations are often based on a flat plate whowe planing characteristics have been modified in various ways to account for deadrise. Unfortunately, the designer already knows his displacement and longitudinal moment and wants to know the trim and wetted area to determine drag. This requires algebraic manipulations and often iterations. Fortunately, the process has been greatly simplified by the use of graphs ‘or computers, Some prismatic methods include spray drag and others do not. Where it is included it is generally an independent term which can be ignored if desired. ‘Three good prismatic resistance prediction methods are described next. « Savitsky method [16}—The Savitsky method most often refers to the long- and short-form methods presented in 1964 in reference {16}. This method is oriented towards pure-plan- ing hulls operating at hump and beyond. Since reference [16] there have been numerous modified versions of this famous, paper and method. Even reference 16] is a continuation, col- lection and completion of earlier efforts 17,18,19]. The Savit- sky method in its many forms is probably the most commonly ‘used method for resistance prediction of planing craft. The different versions often give different answers. The various versions are as follow: ‘OCTOBER 1008 they used to because they tend to have a compara: tively aft center of gravity. The Mf factor method ‘greatly overpredict the resistance of very large L,/B, craft, over 6.0. The M factor will also tend to tunderpredict very-low-deadrise hulls like johnboats. It is not uncommon for individual designers and firms to use their own version of the M factor. | Saviteky modified slightly the 1964 version in 1976 in reference [21] to include side wetting of the hull. ‘The basic equations were rewritten using different variables for the “short form” case in reference [22] ‘The designer should be careful that the Savitsky method version being used is appropriate. Numerous computer pro- grams have been written that use the Saviteky method. Dif ferent computer programs using the same version of the Savi- taky method often give slightly different answers because of different computational techniques. Itis prudent tocheck any ‘computer program with the examples given in the various references or with a manual calculation. Most designers use either the 1964 version or the 1964 version with the Mf factor. The M factor is applicable to the majority of planing boats in the hump region. As discussed ‘above, it does have certain limitations. * Shuford method [23}—Like the Savitsky method, there ‘aro several versions of the Shuford method. The original ver- sion (23] was developed in the late 50s. It is oriented towards the pure-planing regime where the buoyancy contribution is ‘small. The base Shuford method does not include spray drag. Reference [23] shows that the method predicts lift and longitu inal moments reasonably well for the classic deep-vee prism traveling at very high speeds. The Shuford method also offers corrections for the effect of vertical or horizontal gussets (pray rails) at the chine. The present author has reviewed reference[23] and does not see a strong agreement with gusset, corrections and model testing. Clement modified the method in references [24,25] to incor- porate spray drag. Brown initially modified the Shuford method to account for buoyancy in reference [26], Brown presented an additional, revised version of these equations in reference 6}. The second version ofthis method should be used. Brown's modifications allowed the Shuford method to be used in a much lower speed range than the original equations, The Shuford/Brown equa- MARINE TECHNOLOGY 208 bobs petions are pertinent over the same basic speed range as the Savitaky method. + Lyubomirov method {1}—In the 1940s Lyubomirov dev coped equations for the lift and moment of prismatic hulls. In the Lyubomirov method the wetted surface, lift and trim angle are calculated as if a flat plate were used. The trim ‘and wetted surface are then corrected using correlation allow- ances. In the Savitsky method the projected wetted planing area is independent of deadrise. This is consistent with Savit- sky's argument that the spray does not contribute signifi- cantly to the full-scale drag. The Lyubomirov method has retted surface increasing with increasing deadrise. The wet- ted surface predicted by the Lyubomirov method would be ‘almost the same as that predicted by Savitsky if the Lyubomi- Tov wetted surface correction were not used. ‘The present author: that the wetted surface correc- tion due to deadrise be used only in the trim correction caleu- lation. He has found the Lyubomirov method to give good results with this modification. Other prismatic prediction methods [23}—Several addi- tional prismatic model prediction methods were developed in the 408 and 50s. Reference [23] does an excellent job describ- ing these methods and comparing them with model tests, ‘Prismatic prediction method equation comparison—Over the past 60 years there have been numerous prismatic models tested. The data often do not agree due to different test tech- niques, different test condit is 3 over dofini- tions, test error, small model size, and other reasons. Thus evaluation of prismatic prediction methods is difficult. Data ‘can be found to justify almost any equation. The three meth- ods reviewed (Saviteky [16], Shuford/Brown (6), and Lyubomi- tov [1] with proposed modification) will be discussed with selective data. ‘The predicted nondimensional wetted lengths (A) from the three methods at various speeds and loadings are compared in Fig. 15 with 20 deg prismatic test data taken from reference Test ATA. 20 069 > 7 F ye tf Roe Fig. 18. Prismatic methods, LCP prediction 304 OCTOBER 1993, {6]. 2 is the projected solid wetted area divided by the beam. ‘are in good agreement with the test data. All three practicality the same. Differences did become pronounced between these two methods at exceptionally high wetted lengths. ‘The predicted trims from the three methods at various speeds and loadings are compared in Fig. 16 with data from tthe same reference. All three methods are once again in reer sonable agreement with the test data. The Lyubomirov ‘method has the best agreement. ‘The predicted trims from the three methods at different conditions and deadrises using data taken from reference [27] ‘are shown in Fig. 17. The model was tested at 4 and 6 deg of fixed trim. The agreement here with the test data is not exceptionally good. The Shuford/Brown predicted lower trim than the other two methods. At the very high deadrise angles the Lyubomirov and Shuford/Brown converge. Tin Fig, 18 the predicted trim from the three methods is compared with the model test data condition of 6 deg for a lightly loaded beam at 10 and 30 deg of deadrise over a wide ‘speed range [28]. At 10 deg of deadrise the Lyubomirov method and Saviteky gave the same basic prediction. The Shuford/Brown method was quite a bit lower at the lower ‘end of the speed range. At the higher end of the speed range all three methods converged. At 30 deg of deadrise the Shu- MARINE TECHNOLOGY= 0.600 6 Es ee SAVETSKCY Sheorovecwn + TIER 4.00 s G = 608 MIDSHIP DEADRISE Fig. 17 Priamatc methods, tm prediction la Savi ToKy IS Sale ora /6oms e.0 (CLTUBOMTAGY | 4 29 So 10 s.o] e no 2.0 oy Fig. 18. Pramato methods, tim predion 3.0 4.0 ford/Brown gave the lowest prediction, Lyubomiroy was in the middle and Savitsky gave the highest prediction. ‘Theee examples illustrate that the three methods for trim prediction or lift are complex. The Shuford/Brown method tended to predict a lower trim than the other two, but not for all cases. Savitsky predicted lower trim than Lyubomirov at low deadrise, approximately 10 deg and under, and higher trim than Lyubomirov at the higher deadrises, over 25 deg. ‘The difference in predicted resistance between these tech- niques is not that great, generally under 10%. The Savitaky ‘method will tend to give the highest prediction because of ts higher running trim and wetted surface. Shuford/Brown will, tend to predict the lowest resistance due to its lower trim. ‘These are tendencies and will not hold true for all cases of load, deadrise and speed. + Non-immersed chines—Prismatic prediction methods #s- sume that the entire beam of the boat is wetted with solid water—chine immersion. Unfortunately, this is not always true with high-speed planing craft. This false assumption can cause underestimated planing trim, overestimated wetted surface, or overestimated drag. ‘OCTOBER 1969 In reference [28] two different 20 deg prismatic models of the same weight were tested at the same speeds. One of the bodies had a narrow beam and its beam was fully wetted or close to being fully wetted. The other had a wide beam which ‘was not close to being fully wetted. For the same LOG the ‘two models had the same basic trim. The prismatic prediction ‘methods would have predicted that the wide body would have hhad a much lower trim than the narrow model. ‘The error can be reduced by calculating the wetted beamon the transom and then using this wetted beam in the prismatic prediction methods. It is not clear what the wetted beam is. ‘The wetted beam calculated using Shuford/Brown or Savit- sky is probably high. These methods assume there is a high- pressure area behind the outboard corners of the wetted area. For a rough approximation the author proposes that the wet. ted transom beam be taken as the average of that predicted by Shuford/Brown or Savitsky and the transom intersection with the undisturbed water surface. This would result in the following roughly corrected values for trim and wetted sur- face for the non-immersed chine condition. ‘Trim (deg): rere = 9.87°%5,6A/tanB)-2877 Wetted surface Qn) Keor = 6.6Mtanr/tanB ‘The author is not aware of sufficient data to either prove or disprove the equations. ‘Numerical methods ‘This paper calle resistance prediction methods numerical ‘methods which use regression methods and other similar ap- roaches to predict resistance. The Savitsky method and simi- lar methods are in the broadest sense numerical methods, Dut for the purpose of this paper are not called so. ‘Numerical methods can be very useful tools in resistance prediction, but they can also give bogus results. The numeri- cal methods are most often based on model tests or full-size, testing. Review of the methods reveals that often they don’t accurately reflect their databases. A method can reflect the database but give bogus results for cases outside the database. ‘When using numerical methods the designer has to ask: How accurately does the method reflect the database? Does the data base reflect my design? ‘Just being in the stated nondimensional range ofa prediction ‘method does not always mean that the design is similar to that used in the development of the method. ‘The following are a few of the numerical methods being used today. ‘+ US. Naval Academy Series regression [2}—Reference [2] sives a regression equation for the three hard chine models of the U.S. Naval Academy YP Series described earlier. This regression is intended for comparatively slow craft, up to and including Fy» 1.5. The regression equation is representative of the series and uses the variables L/B, displacement length ratio and longitudinal center of gravity. The regression could give bogus results if used outside the small number of L/B and deadrise combinations used in the series. Reference [2] makes no claims that this method can be used outside the ange of the series. ‘The regression is not incorrect, but its applicability is very limited and there is great potential for misuse. This example illustrates how careful the designer must be in selecting a prediction method + Series 62/65 regression (Hubble) [29}—Hubble presented 1 regression of Series 62 and Series 65 in reference [29]. This method covers a wide speed range and is intended for the early stages of design before the hull shape is defined and the principal dimensions are known. The only variables used MARINE TECHNOLOGY 205in the regreasion are the craft's speed, length and displace- ment. The predicted resistance has to be considered very rough. The potential error associated with this method is quite high. This regression is a reasonable tool in the early days of design before the beam and deadrise variables are deter- mined. It should not be used if hull variables are known. + Japanese regression [30}—A regression done on a large collection of hulls designed for the semi-planing regime was reported in reference [30]. The goal was to optimize hull vari- ables. The database is very large. The range of Ly/By and other variables is emall but consistent with typical commer- cial and military craft. The variables of the regression model define the hull shape to a much greater degree than other prediction methods. The regression method uses only first- order terms. Normally this would be a crude approximation, but it is acceptable in this situation because of the narrow ‘range of the variables. ‘The present author tested the regression with several test cases. The regression gave reasonable results for those cases that fell within ite bounds but it also tended to give bogus answers for those that fell outside its range. The way the variables are defined, their range is too tight, and regression method has very minimal applicability. The regression is dif- ficult to use. The hull shape needs to be exceptionally well defined. Many of the variables are unusual and complex and the typical designer would not have an intuitive understand- ing or feel for them. * Series 62/65 regression (Radojvic) (82}—Radojvic pre- sented two different regression models based on the Series 62, Dutch Series 62 and Series 65B. The regression models are intended for planing eraft in the pre-planing and semi- planing speed regimes—the first in 1984 (31) and the second in 1985 [82]. The second regression is entirely independent of the first. Of the two, the second model should be used and will be discussed further. The regression model uses the classic variables of L,/Bu» 1G, deadrise and loading. The body plans of the three series are shown in Figs. 10, 11, and 12, These hull shapes are entirely different. As stated earlier, the two Seriee 62 hull shapes are designed for the pure-planing speed regime and the Series 65B for the pre-planing speed regime. Additionally, the Series 62 models have a very characteristic beam taper ‘and exceptionally blunt bow. Series 65B has a unique bend in ite sections above the chine and a very fine forebody. Radojvic ‘attempts to account for these wide differences in hull shape by the use of an independent dummy variable in the regres- sion. Reference [82] in actuality presents two different mod- els, one for Series 62 and Dutch Sories 62 style hulls and the other for Series 65B. ‘The proof of the regression is if it can accurately predict the resistance of Series 62 and Series 65 boats inside and ‘outside the databases within the stated range of the regres- ions. Reference (32] claims very low error based on ita fit with the database. ‘The present author checked the accuracy of the regressions based on a collection of ad hoc Series 62s and Series 65B hulls for various loadings. A total of 93 cases were tested corresponding to a total of six models taken from the series used in the regression. The predictions above Fyy 3.0 (3.5) were generally unacceptable. The regression should not be used above Fay 3.0. For Fyy 3.0 and below the regression sometimes gave a very good fit of the data and other times 1 very poor fit. Often the error was over 15%. if Series 62 or 65 are used for resistance prediction it would be prudent to interpolate the data of the series from the source documenta. There is a large amount of potential error associated with this regression. 308 OCTOBER 1993 ‘The regression method’s calculations are somewhat tedious but are nowhere near as difficult as the Japanese regression. ‘This method is very simple to do on a computer. Empirical caleulations—The term empirical calculations or graphs is used in this paper to refer to the simple calcula tions or graphs that have been developed to perform resist- ance predictions. These simple empirical calculations or graphs have been produced by numerous designers, boat builders, engine makers, waterjet manufacturers and the like. They are often expressed in terms of horsepower per pound as a function of displacement or length versus speed. This approach can give good results if done properly. The secret is to limit the models to similar craft such as raceboat classes. The error comes in when the methods are based on craft which are not similar or if a method is used for boats upon which the method is not based. ‘One must be careful when using an empirical method devel- ‘oped decades ago. The hull shapes used to develop these meth- ods may not be representative of the hull shape for which the designer is making the prediction. There has been some improvement in propulsors, particularly surface-piercing propellers, which is reflected in older empirical methods. ‘One representative empirical calculation approach will be discussed. Levi {83}—Levi [83] gave a very simple equation for high- performance planing boat power. The formula takes into ac- count the differences in propulsive performance of different propuleors. Levi states clearly that this method is intended for calculating the top-end performance of the classic deep Yee, constantdeadrise offshore hulls. He assumes that the hull is properly loaded and has a center of gravity appropriate for the top-end speed. ‘The present author compared the power predicted by this method with full-scale testing of boats like the ones defined by Levi. The results are tabulated as follows: Boar VivE Proruison/ Nuun SHP/SHP 1 Prop/ehaft 5 1.08 2 Prop/thaf 5 122 3 Surface prop 2 108 4 Prop/shatt 2 135, 5 Surface prop 2 1.00 ‘The Levi method gave a conservative prediction for the small sampling listed above. It is interesting to note how well the method predicted the power requirements of the craft with surface-piercing propellers. The method gives great advan- tage to surface-piercing propellers over conventional sub- merged shafts, outboards and stern drives. According to the Levi method, submerged shafted propellers require 44% more power than surface drives. A typical boat will have to be traveling exceptionally fast, on the order of 60 knots, for surface drives to have this kind of performance advantage over traditional drives. Other empirical methods—Lord’s classic book on planing craft [34] contains several additional empirical methods for power prediction. References [35-38] also contain similar nu ‘merical formulas. As stated earlier, the user should be very careful when using empirical methods based on old boats. ‘Recommended resistance prediction methods Sem ee med Darema TSE aa a pn png rm method modified by Blount/Fox modifier with no spray. HE ne 9 tnuene — Higt (over 5) semi-planing craft: Soviet BK method (1,4). MARINE TECHNOLOGY— Very low Bq (7 to 10 deg) semi-planing craft: Soviet ‘MBK method (1,4) — Preplaning craft: Series 65B (8,11), ‘This is not meant to imply that some of the other methods described in this paper are . A eories resistance prediction should be used if the series hull shape is similar Yothat of the eraft for which the resistance prediction is being "The biggest weakness of the various planing hull series is ‘that none of them really have a hull shape representative of that commonly used today. A new constant highdesdrise series, nominally 23 deg, tative of today’s semi-plan- ing and pure-planing craft is needed. The geometric variables of the series would be deadrise,and,Z,/ Bu, 14 Bun'kov, M. M, "Study of the Resistance of Planing Hulls,” Kat- agua, No 2048) 198 in Roan NAVSEA Tranaation No 86, "1S. Werenskiold, P. “Powering of Planing Chine Hulls” Ship ond Boat Internationa.” April 1970. “fe Savitsky, D, “Hydrodynamic Design of Planing Hulls,” Maanes ‘TecamwouooY, Val. 8, No.4, Oct. 1964, TP Koctin Rroukovaky, BV. Savitaky,D, and Lehman, W.F.."Wet- td Area and Genter of Preasure of Planing Surfaces,” Stevens Inativate ‘Davidson Laboratory Report No. 360, Hoboken, N.d, Au. Trane, Vol. 8 1900. “fd” Savitaky, D. and Neidinger, J. W., “Wetted Area and Center of Prosture of Placing at Very Low Speed Goeffcient.” Stevens Institute ‘technology, Deion Laboratory Report No 498 Hoboken, Nt J8ty 954. 20. Hadler, J. B, “The Prediction of Power Performance of Planing arsenevm fer .BNAME Trans. Vol. 74, 1986.