ABS TECHNICAL PAPERS 2008

SLAMMING IMPACT DESIGN LOADS ON

LARGE HIGH SPEED NAVAL CRAFT
Sungeun (Peter) Kim, Derek Novak
American Bureau of Shipping, Houston, Texas, USA
Kenneth M. Weems
Science Application International Corporation, Bowie, Maryland, USA
Hamn-Ching Chen
Texas A&M University, College Station, Texas, USA

International Conference on innovative approaches to further increase speed of fast marine vehicles, moving above,
under and in water surface, SuperFAST’2008, July 2-4, 2008, Saint-Petersburg, Russia

ABSTRACT

This paper presents the recent developments at ABS to revise the requirements for slamming impact loads on high speed
naval craft. According to the ABS Guide for Building and Classing High Speed Naval Craft (HSNC 2007), slamming
impact load is one of the most critical factors for the scantling design of hull structures. As modern naval craft design
requires higher ship speed with increasing ship size, ABS is continuously putting efforts to refine prescriptive rules,
analysis procedures and numerical tools. Recently, ABS investigated large high speed naval craft designs and proposed
new requirements for slamming impact loads.

This paper is mainly focused on the refinement of prescriptive rules for bottom slamming design pressure on mono-hulls
and wetdeck slamming design pressure on the cross-structure of multi-hulls. Extensive numerical simulations were
carried out using the nonlinear time domain seakeeping program LAMP. Vertical acceleration, impact forces and
slamming pressures were calculated and compared with available model test data and design practices.

This paper also presents ABS’s on-going efforts for the development and validation of computational fluid dynamics
(CFD) code as an alternative numerical tool to analyze the extremely violent nonlinear free-surface flows such as
sloshing, slamming and green water impact problem. Some of the most recent CFD simulation results are presented
including the wetdeck slamming of a catamaran using the level-set Finite-Analytic Navier-Stokes (FANS) code.

1. Design Conditions
INTRODUCTION
1.1. Design sea states and ship speeds
As the new generation of high speed naval craft becomes For the determination of design loads on high speed naval
larger and faster, slamming impact loads on these vessels craft, design sea states are to be defined by significant
are a critical design concern. Currently available rules for wave height, wave modal period and ship speed. Table 1
slamming design pressure were mostly developed for shows an example of the sea states and significant wave
small planing hulls based on experimental and theoretical heights typically being used for the design of naval craft
work undertaken in the 60’s and 70’s [2, 3]. operating in the North Atlantic. Vm denotes the
maximum desgin speed.
To revise the current design criteria specified in the ABS
Guide for Building and Classing High Speed Nacal Craft Table 1: Sea sates in North Atalntic
(HSNC) [1], ABS recently carried out extensive Sea State Hs (m) V(knots)
numerical analysis for the new designs of high speed 2 0.5 Vm
naval craft As testing vessels, high speed naval craft of 3 1.25 Vm
large semi-planing mono-hull, small planing mono-hull, 4 2.5 Vm
displacement mono-hull, and wave-piercing catamaran 5 4 Vm
are considered, and the state-of-the-art nonlinear 6 6 10
seakeeping program LAMP is used for numerical 7 9 10
8 14 10
simulation.

Slamming Impact Design Loads on Large High Speed Naval Craft 207
 ABS TECHNICAL PAPERS 2008

Table 2 shows the design sea states and ship speeds

defined in ABS HSNC guides (3-2-2/Table 1). Note that ⎡12h ⎤ V 2 Bw2
the significant wave height of survival condition is not to [
ncg = N 2 ⎢ 1/ 3 + 1.0⎥τ 50 − β cg ] Δ
(1)
be taken less than L/12. Vm denotes the maximum speed ⎣ Bw ⎦
for the craft in the design condition, and the ship speed of where
10 knots in survival condition is to be verified by the
Naval Administration. ncg average of the 1/100 highest vertical acceleration
at LCG in g’s
Table 2: Design sea sates and ship speed N2 0.0078
Operational Survival Condition h1/3 1/3 highest significant wave height, in m,
Condition as given in Table 2
h1/3 V h1/3 V Bw maximum waterline beam, in m
Naval Craft 4 m Vm 6 m 10 knots βcg deadrise angle at LCG, in degrees, not to be
Coastal 2.5 m Vm 4 m 10 knots taken less than 10o nor more than 30o
Naval Craft V design speed in operation and survival
Riverine 0.5 m Vm 1.25 m 10 knots conditions, in knots, as given in Table 2
Naval Craft Δ displacement in kg
τ running trim angle at V, in degrees,
1.2. Tested vessels
This study is mainly focused on the slamming impact
loads on high speed naval craft. In this study, two semi- Note that the vertical acceleration in equation (1) is a
planing mono-hulls and one displacement mono-hull and function of running trim angle of the hull. At the early
one planing mono-hull are considered for bottom stages of design, however, the running trim angle is not
slamming design pressure. Also a wave-piercing high known a priori. Furthermore, the running trim angle of the
speed catamaran is considered for wetdeck slamming vessel in a seaway varies in time and is not much relevant
design pressure. to the vertical acceleration of the vessel operating in
severe sea states.

Based on the numerical study presented in Section 3, the

empirical formula for vertical acceleration is revised as
follows.
CAT-2
⎡12h ⎤ VB w2
MONO-1
[
n cg = 35 N 2 CV ⎢ 1 / 3 + 1.0⎥ 50 − β cg
Δ
] (2)
⎣ Bw
CAT-1
MONO-2 ⎦
MONO-4 where
MONO-3

ncg average of the 1/100 highest vertical acceleration

Fig.1: Typical high speed naval vessels
2. BOTTOM SLAMMING DESIGN PRESSURE
FOR MONO-HULLS
2.1. Vertical acceleration
According to the Heller and Jasper [2], bottom slamming
design pressure on planing hull can be expressed in terms
of vertical acceleration of the craft. The vertical
acceleration is to be determined by a model test or
theoretical computation. If this information is not readily
available during the early stages of design, the following
formula may be used.
Based on the experimental study of seakeeping
performance of planing boats [4, 5], Savitsky and Brown
presented an empirical formula for the vertical
acceleration of planing hull in a seaway [3].
at LCG in g’s
CV = 0.657 L − 2.5 , not to be taken less than 1.5
nor more than 5
The vertical acceleration at any section of the hull along
the ship length may be expressed as below.
n xx = ncg K v (3)
where
nxx average of the 1/100 highest vertical acceleration
at any section, in g’s
KV vertical acceleration distribution factor
A revision of the vertical acceleration distribution factor
KV is proposed, as given in Fig. 2. The factor has been
significantly increased for survival condition, based on
the numerical simulation results presented in Section 3.

208 Slamming Impact Design Loads on Large High Speed Naval Craft
 ABS TECHNICAL PAPERS 2008

Vertical Acceleration Distribution Factor Kv Longitudinal Pressure Distribution Factor F_L

8 1.2
Current
Operation Condition 1
6
Survival Condition
0.8
Kv

Fv
4 0.6

0.4
2
0.2

0 0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
X/L from AP X/L from AP

Fig. 2: Vertical acceleration distribution factor Fig. 3: Longitudinal pressure distribution factor

2.2. Bottom Slamming Pressure 3. BOTTOM SLAMMING SIMULATION FOR

In the early 1960s, for small planing craft, Heller and
Jasper suggested a slamming pressure formula in a very
concise form[3]. Based on the numerical analysis in this
study, the current slamming design pressure given in
HSNC has been validated first and then a revised
slamming design pressure is proposed as below.
For semi-planing hull, the slamming design presurre can
be expressed as:
MONO-HULLS
3.1. LAMP method
The Large Motion Amplitude Program (LAMP) is a 3D
panel method developed by SAIC for the time-domain
simulation of nonlinear ship motions and wave loads in
extreme wave conditions. LAMP development started as
a DARPA project in 1988 and has been supported by the
US Navy, USCG, SAIC/MIT and ABS [12].

N 1Δ 70 − β bx 3.2 MONO-1 hull

p bxx = [1 + n xx ][ ]FL (4) MONO-1 is a large high speed semi-planing naval craft,
Lw Bw 70 − β cg recently built to ABS Class in accordance with the ABS
where Guides for Building and Classing High Speed Naval Craft
(HSNC). The overall length of the craft is more than
pbxx bottom design pressure at any section, 110m and loading conditions are as given in Table 3.
in kN/m2
N1 0.01 Table 3: Loading conditions of MONO-1
Δ displacement in kg Loading Condition Displacement Speed
Lw craft length on the waterline, in m (tons) (knots)
Bw maximum waterline beam, in m Full Load Departure 3100 38
βbx deadrise angle at any section, in degrees, Full Load Arrival 2900 41
not to be taken less than 10o nor more than 30o Full Load Minimum 2800 42
FL longitudinal pressure distribution factor Operation
Full Load Survival 3100 10
In the proposed formula, longitudinal pressure
distribution factor FL is introduced to consider 3D flow Fig. 4 shows the LAMP nonlinear geometry model of
effects near the bow and stern area, as shown in Fig. 3. MONO-1 that includes the hull geometry above the mean
waterline. Nonlinear hydrostatic restoring and Froude-
For semi-planing hull, the slamming design presurre may Krylov forces acting on the instantaneous wetted hull
be simplified as: surface are calculated over the nonlinear geometry model.

N 1Δ (5)
p bxx = [1 + n cg ]FV
Lw Bw
where

FV vertical acceleration distribution factor, defined

in HSNC 3-2-2/Figure 8
Fig. 4: LAMP nonlinear geometry model

Fig. 5 shows the LAMP linear hydro panel model of

MONO-1. A large number of quadrilateral or triangular
panels are distributed on the hull surface below the mean
waterline as well as on the truncated free surface. This

Slamming Impact Design Loads on Large High Speed Naval Craft 209
 ABS TECHNICAL PAPERS 2008

model is used to calculate radiation and diffraction forces
due to linear wave-body interaction.
Once the geometry models were prepared, nonlinear
time–domain seakeeping analysis was carried out using
LAMP. Fig. 6 shows the time history of vertical
acceleration calculated at x=90m from AP.
design factor for high speed craft. The figure presents the
actual design pressures that were actually used for the
scantling check of bottom plates. The actual design
pressures were determined by the vertical acceleration at
LCG directly measured from model tests. The proposed
slamming pressure in this study is very close to the actual
design pressure of MONO-1.

1/100th Vertical Accel at Full Load Departure

2
Current
LAMP
1.5 Model Test
Proposed

VACC (g)
1

0.5

Fig. 5: LAMP linear hydro panel model 0

0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
X from AP
Vertical Acc. at x=90m from AP
15

10
Fig. 7: Vertical acceleration at operational condition: full
departure with V=38knots and Hs=4m
VCAA(m/s^2)

-5 1/100th Vertical Acc. of LCS at Full Load Survival

-10 2
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200
-15 Current
t(s) LAMP
1.5 Proposed
Fig. 6: LAMP prediction of time history of vertical
VACC (g)

acceleration at x=90m from AP. 1

As given in Eq. (2), the slamming design pressure is 0.5

expressed in terms of the average of 1/100 highest vertical
acceleration in a design sea state under consideration. 0
Once the time series of vertical acceleration are obtained 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
from seakeeping analysis in time domain, peak analysis is X from AP
to be performed to estimate the 1/100 highest vertical
acceleration. Fig. 8: Vertical acceleration at survival condition: full
load departure with V=10knots and Hs=10m
Fig 7 shows the 1/100 highest vertical acceleration of
MONO-1 at operational condition: full load departure Bottom Slamming Pressure at Full Load Departure
with ship speed V=38knots and significant wave height 500

Hs=4m. Compared with model test measurements (green 400

dot) and LAMP simulation results (pink quare), the
300
proposed vertical acceleration (red line with triangle) has
P (kPa)

been significantly improved. 200

100
Fig. 8 shows the 1/100 highest vertical acceleration of
0
MONO-1 at survival condition: full load departure with 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
ship speed V=10knots and significant wave height X from AP
Hs=9m. The proposed vertical acceleration shows much Current Proposed Design
better agreement with LAMP results.
Fig. 9: Bottom slamming design pressure at operational
Fig. 9 shows the bottom slamming design pressure condition: full load departure
distribution along the ship length of MONO-1 at
operational condition. The main difference between the
current and proposed design pressure is coming from Fig. 10 shows the slamming design pressure on MONO-1
vertical acceleration, which is known as the most critical at survival condition. It can be seen that the slamming

210 Slamming Impact Design Loads on Large High Speed Naval Craft
 ABS TECHNICAL PAPERS 2008

pressure has been significantly increased by the proposed response, the first 1/5 of time series is ignored in the peak
formula in better agreement with actual design pressure. counting.

Bottom Slamming Pressure at Survival condition x=20 from AP

500 1500
LAMP
Current
400 Proposed
1000

w(kN/m)
300
P (kPa)

200
500
100

0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 0
X from AP 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200
t(s)
Current Proposed Design

Fig. 10: Bottom slamming design pressure at survival

condition: full load departure 1500
x=50 from AP

LAMP
Current
Numerical calculation of slamming impact pressure using Proposed
the 2D boundary element method can be a very 1000

w(kN/m)
challenging and time-consuming task. Instead, direct
calculation of vertical impact forces on each sectional 500
cuts using wedge approximation is considered in this
study, which is a more efficient and reliable method. As a
0
design practice, the slamming pressure may be estimated 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200
from sectional impact force as follows: t(s)

w
p= (6) x=90 from AP
B/6 1500
LAMP
where Current
Proposed
1000
w(kN/m)

p slamming pressure, in N/m2

w sectional impact force, in N/m
500
B maximum beam, in m

Fig. 11 shows the time history of sectional impact forces 0

simulated by LAMP/LMPOUND, calculated at three 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200
t(s)
representative sections x= 20m, 50m and 90m from AP at
operational condition. The current and proposed rule Fig. 11: Vertical impact force at operational condition
values are also compared in the figure.
Those counted peaks are to be represented by relevant
Note that the relative ship motion and acceleration is probability distribution functions. In this study, two-
expected high at x=90m from AP, but the impact force parameter Weibull distribution is considered as follows:
was actually low because of the high deadrise angle of
that section. xβ
Qj ( x > x ) = exp(− ) (7)
θβ
In general, the proposed impact forces have been Fig. 12 shows the peak analysis results of vertical impact
significantly increased because of the increased vertical forces using Weibul distribution. Note that the response at
acceleration. a exceedance probability level of 0.001 is a typical target
value that corresponds to the most probable short-term
Peak analysis is required for the representation of extreme value out of 1000 encountered wave cycles.
statistical properties of the response in time series, either
calculated by numerical simulation or measured by model
tests. In this study, only a highest peak is counted
between zero-crossings. No intermediate peaks are
counted as independent events. To eliminate the noise in
time series, only those peaks exceeding a threshold value
are counted. In this studt, 10% of the average of the 1/100
highest peak is used as threshold value. To avoid transient

Slamming Impact Design Loads on Large High Speed Naval Craft 211
 ABS TECHNICAL PAPERS 2008

x=20m from AP
Fig. 13 shows the LAMP geometry model of MONO-2
1 that includes the hull geometry above the mean waterline.
LAMP
Weibull
0.1 Current
Proposed

0.01
Q

0.001

0.0001
0 500 1000 1500 Fig. 13: LAMP geometry model
w(kN/m)
Fig. 14 shows the vertical acceleration of MONO-2 in
x=50m from AP operational condition. Compared with LAMP results, the
LAMP proposed vertical acceleration has been increased in the
1
Weibull stern area. Fig. 15 shows the vertical acceleration in
0.1 Current survival condition. It can be seen that the proposed
Proposed vertical acceleration has been significantly increased.
0.01
Q

0.001 1/100th Vertical Acc. at Operational Condition

2
0.0001 Current
0 500 1000 1500 LAMP
1.5
w(kN/m) Proposed
VACC (g)

1
x=90m from AP
1
0.5
LAMP
Weibull
0.1 Current 0
Proposed
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
Q

0.01
X from AP

0.001 Fig. 14: Vertical acceleration at operational condition:

full load at V=35knots and Hs=4m
0.0001
0 500 1000 1500
w(kN/m) 1/100th Vertical Acc. at Survival Condition
2
Fig. 12: Peak analysis of vertical impact force at Current
operational condition 1.5
LAMP
Proposed
VACC (g)

3.3. MONO-2 hull 1

MONO-2 is a medium-size high speed semi-planing naval 0.5

craft recently built to ABS Class in accordance with the

ABS Guides for Building and Classing High Speed Naval 0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
Craft (HSNC). The overall length of the craft is about
X from AP
60m and loading conditions are as given in Table 4

Table 4: Loading conditions of MONO-2 Fig. 15: Vertical acceleration at survival condition: full
Loading Condition Displacement Speed load at V=10knots and Hs=6m
(tons) (knots)
Full Load Departure 750 35 Fig. 16 shows the slamming design pressure of MONO-2
Full Load Survival 750 10 at operational condition. Note that the proposed design
pressure has been significantly increased in the bow and
stern areas.

212 Slamming Impact Design Loads on Large High Speed Naval Craft
 ABS TECHNICAL PAPERS 2008

Bottom Pressure at Operational Condition 1/100th Vertical Acc. at Survival Condition

400 2
Current
300 LAMP
1.5
Proposed
P (kPa)

VACC (g)
200
1
100

0.5
0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
0
X from AP
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
Current Proposed Design
X from AP

Fig. 16: Bottom slamming design pressure at operational Fig. 19: Vertical acceleration at survival condition
condition: full load departure
Fig. 20 and 21 shows the slamming design pressure of
3.4. MONO-3 hull MONO-3 at operational and survival condition,
respectively. Note that the proposed design pressure has
MONO-3 is a displacement-type naval craft recently built been consistently increased along the ship length.
to ABS Class. The overall length of the craft is about
100m and loading conditions are as given in Table 5.
Bottom Pressure at Operational Condition
500
Table 5: Loading conditions of MONO-3
Loading Condition Displacement Speed 400

(tons) (knots) 300

P (kPa)

Full Load Departure 2200 25 200

Full Load Survival 2200 10
100

Fig. 17 shows the LAMP geometry model of MONO-3 0

0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
that includes the hull geometry above the mean waterline. X from AP

Current Proposed

Fig. 20: Bottom slamming design pressure

at operational condition

Bottom Slamming Pressure at Survival condition

500

Fig. 17: LAMP geometry model 400

P (kPa)

300
Fig. 18 shows the vertical acceleration of MONO-3 in
200
operational condition. Fig. 19 shows the vertical
acceleration in survival condition. Note that MONO-3 is a 100

displacement vessesl and has smaller vertical 0

acceleration than the semi-planing vessels of MONO-1 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
X from AP
and MONO-2. The proposed vertical acceleration shows
good agreement with LAMP simulation results. Current Proposed

Fig. 21: Bottom slamming design pressure

1/100th Vertical Acc. at Operational Condition at survival condition
2
Current
3.5. MONO-4 hull
LAMP
1.5
Proposed
MONO-4 is a typical high speed planing naval craft. The
VACC (g)

1 overall length of the craft is about 25m and loading

conditions are as given in Table 6.
0.5

Table 6: Loading conditions of MONO-4

0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
Loading Condition Displacement Speed
X from AP
(tons) (knots)
Full Load Departure 75 30
Fig. 18: Vertical acceleration at operational condition Full Load Survival 75 10

Slamming Impact Design Loads on Large High Speed Naval Craft 213
 ABS TECHNICAL PAPERS 2008

at operational condition
Fig. 22 shows the vertical acceleration of MONO-4 in
operational condition. Note that MONO-4 is a small Bottom Pressure at Survival Condition
planing hull and higher vertical acceleration is expected,
400
but the proposed vertical acceleraction is slightly reduced
compared to the current vertical acceleration which is 300
believed to be overpredicted. Fig. 23 shows the vertical

P (kPa)
acceleration in survival condition. The prosposed vertical 200

acceleration has been significantly increased. 100

Fig. 24 shows the slamming design pressure on planing 0

0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
hull of MONO-4 at operational condition, calculated by X from AP
eq. (4). Note that the proposed design pressure has been Current Porposed
reduced due to the reduction of vertical acceleration in
operational condition, as given in Fig.22. Fig. 25: Bottom slamming design pressure
at survival condition
Fig. 25 shows the slamming design pressure on planing
hull of MONO-4 at survival condition. 4. WETDECK SLAMMING DESIGN PRESSURE
FOR MULTI-HULLS
1/100th Vertical Acc. at Operational Condition
The underside of wet deck or cross structure of multi-
6
hulls is likely subject to significant slamming impact
Current
Proposed
loads in severe sea states. In this study, the current
4 wetdeck slamming design pressure given in HSNC is
VACC (g)

investigated for a latest high speed catamaran.

2
Numerical simulation of wetdeck slamming impact loads
can be a very challenging and time-consuming task.
0 Recently, a very efficient wetdeck slamming module has
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 been implemented into the LAMP system based on a 2D
X from AP longitudinal cut model [10].
Fig. 22: Vertical acceleration at operational condition
LAMP wetdeck module is used for the prediction of
wetdeck slamming pressure of a catamaran operating in
1/100th Vertical Acc. at Survival Condition design operational condition and survival condition.
6
According to the LAMP simulation results, a revised
Current
wetdeck slamming design pressure is proposed as
Proposed
4 follows:
VACC (g)

2
p wd = 30 FI VV I (1 − 0.5h a / h1 / 3 ) (8)

where
0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1

X from AP
FI wet deck pressure distribution factor as given in
Fig 26
Fig. 23: Vertical acceleration at survival condition V design speed in operation and survival
conditions, in knots, as given in Table 2
Bottom Pressure at Operational Condition VI relative impact velocity as given below
4h1 / 3
400 = + 1 (m / s)
L
300
ha vertical distance, in m, from waterline to
P (kPa)

200 underside of wetdeck

100
h1/3 significant wave height, in m, as given in Table 2
0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
X from AP

Current Proposed

Fig. 24: Bottom slamming design pressure

214 Slamming Impact Design Loads on Large High Speed Naval Craft
 ABS TECHNICAL PAPERS 2008

Wet Deck Pressure Distribution Factor F_I

In the comparison to the slamming model test data for
2
CAT-1, it was found that additional pitch damping is
Current needed for an accurate LAMP simulation of the pitch
1.5
Proposed: Operational
Proposed: Survival motion in the most severe slamming conditions. In order
to match with measured pitch motion, the supplementary
pitch damping model is considered in LAMP simulations
F_I

1
as follows:
0.5

2 v5
0 ME5 = −v5 * KL5 − v5 * * KQ5
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 v5
X from AP
where
Fig. 26: Vertical acceleration at operational
v5 pitch velocity
KL5 linear pitch moment coefficient
5. WETDECK SLAMMING SIMULATION FOR KQ5 quadratic pitch moment coefficient
CATAMARAN
Using this added pitch damping model with coefficient
5.1 Test Vessel: CAT-1 tuned based on the pitch response near resonance, a very
good agreement between the predicted and measured ship
CAT-1 is an aluminum wave-piercing high speed motions was achieved
catamaran, which is a US Navy research vessel built to
ABS class. Recently wetdeck slamming events were Fig. 28 shows the sensor locations of pressure patches
reported during full-scale trials. used in the slamming model test of CAT-1 performed by
DTMB [11].
The overall length of vessel is about 70m and loading
conditions are given in Table 7.

Table 7 Loading conditions P1

Loading Displacement Speed
Condition (tons) (knots)
Full Load 960 40
Departure
Full Load 960 10
Survival

Fig. 28: Sensor location of presure patches

5.2 LAMP Simulations
A number of LAMP studies have been made for the CAT-
1 catamaran, including validation studies versus data from
both model tests and full-scale trials [11].
Fig. 27 shows the LAMP geometry model of CAT-1. For
the evaluation of wetdeck slamming in the simulations,
the underdeck surface is discretized by quadrilateral
panels along with 8 longitudinal cuts where the impact
loads are calculated.
used in model test of CAT-1
Fig. 29 shows a typical wetdeck slamming impact
pressure at four sensor locations of CAT-1 in a model test
condition wih regular waves. The wetdeck impact
pressure consists of the first sharp peak with short
duration due to slamming impact followed by a second
round peak with longer duration due to nonlinear
hydrostatic and Froude-Krylov forces.
Fig. 30 shows the time history of wetdeck slamming
impact pressure of CAT-1 calculated at a pressure
location P1, as shown in Fig. 28. The vessel is operating
in operational condition with ship speed V=40knots and
significant wave height Hs=4m. A significant increase of
wetdeck slamming presure is proposed based on LAMP
simulation results.

Fig. 31 shows the peak analysis results of wetdeck

Fig. 27: LAMP geometry model of CAT-1
slamming pressure at P1 using Weibul distribution,
comparing with current and proposed wetdeck slamming
design pressure. Note that the exceedance probability
level of 0.001 corresponds to the typical most probable
short-term extreme value.

Slamming Impact Design Loads on Large High Speed Naval Craft 215
 ABS TECHNICAL PAPERS 2008

Wet-Deck Slamming Pressure at P1

Fig. 32 shows the time history of wetdeck slamming 200000

impact pressure at the pressure location P1 in survival

condition with ship speed V=10knots and significant 150000
LAMP
wave height Hs=9m. Note that, in this study of the CAT- LAMP

p(Pa)
100000
1 vessel, the wetdeck slamming pressure of survival Current
Proposed
condition is found to be more severe than that of 50000
operational condition, which is likely due to the higher
chance of underdeck wetness in the severe sea state of 0

Hs=9m. 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900

t(s)

Fig. 33 shows the peak analysis results of wetdeck Fig. 32: Wetdeck slamming pressure at location P1
slamming pressure at P1 in survival condition. in survival condition

In 2006, full-scale trials measurements of bow Wet-Deck Slamming Pressure at P1

accelerations of CAT-1 have been made in severe sea 1.0000

states. Futher study will be carried out for the validation

of LAMP wetdeck simulations using full-scale measured 0.1000
LAMP
data. Weibull

Q
0.0100
Current
0.0010 Proposed
Wet-Deck Slamming Pressure
40000
0.0001
P1 0 50000 100000 150000 200000
30000 P2
p(Pa)
P3
Fig. 33: Wetdeck slamming pressure at location P1
P(Pa)

20000 P4

in survival condition
10000

5.3. CFD Simulations

0
7 8 8 9 9 10 10
ABS is putting significant efforts for the development and
t(s) validation of computational fluid dynamics (CFD) code as
Fig. 29: Typical wetdeck slamming pressure an alternative numerical tool to deal with extremely
of CAT-1 in regular waves violent nonlinear wave flows such as sloshing, slamming
and green water impact problem.
Wet-Deck Slamming Pressure at P1
200000 The level-set Finite-Analytic Navier-Stokes (FANS) code
is a CFD two-phase flow solver with multi-block overset-
150000
LAMP
grid scheme, developed for highly nonlinear wave flows
LAMP around ships and offshore structures [7, 8].
p(Pa)

100000 Current
Proposed

50000 Recently, the level-set FANS method has been

successfully validated for the prediction of sloshing
0
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900
impact pressure on tank boundary by comparing with
t(s) sloshing model test data [9]. Fig. 34 shows an example of
FANS simulated flow inside a LNG tank at a low filling
Fig. 30: Wetdeck slamming pressure at location P1
condition with a prescribed transverse motion. Currently,
in operational condition
ABS is working with Texas A&M to implement a
compressible gas model into FANS code in order to more
Wet-Deck Slamming Pressure at P1 accurately predict sloshing and slamming impact pressure
1.0000
considering air cushion effect on trapped air. ABS is also
0.1000 building up a high performance computing system using
LAMP
Weibull
PC cluster for CFD simulation.
Q

0.0100
Current
0.0010 Proposed

0.0001
0 50000 100000 150000 200000

p(Pa)

Fig. 31: Wetdeck slamming pressure at location P1

in operational condition

216 Slamming Impact Design Loads on Large High Speed Naval Craft
 ABS TECHNICAL PAPERS 2008

Fig. 34: Sloshing of a low filling tank

in a transverse motion

FANS code was also used for the wetdeck slamming Fig. 35: FANS geometry model of CAT-1
simulation of the catamaran CAT-1. Fig. 35 shows the
overset moving grid system of FANS geometry model
with 25 blocks, 2.2 million nodes on half domain (y>0).
The simulations were performed using 16 processors on a
Linux cluster

Figures 36-38 show an example of a wetdeck slamming

event of CAT-1 in regular waves. The catamaran is towed
at a constant forward speed with Froude number Fr=0.3.
It is allowed to heave and pitch freely in waves as shown
in Figure 36. The incident wave length to ship length ratio
(λ/L) is 1.0 and the wave amplitude to ship length ratio is
H/L = 0.04. The heave displacement and pitch angle of
the catamaran were obtained by solving the following two
degree-of-freedom motion equations using the 4th-order
Runge-Kutta method:
⎧⎪mz&& = Fz
⎨ &&
⎪⎩ I yyθ y = M y ; I yy = mryy
2

It is seen from the free surface patterns in Fig. 36 and the

wave elevation contours in Fig. 37 that the level-set Fig. 36: Heave and pitch motions of CAT-1
FANS method has successfully predicted highly nonlinear in regular waves
waves in front of the bow and along the CAT-1 hulls. Due
to the large amplitude heave and pitch motions, wet deck
slamming (denoted by the blue color on the lower deck in
Fig. 38) was observed when the wave height between the
catamaran hulls exceeded the lower deck clearance. A
detailed examination of the animation movie indicates
that the ship bow was lifted upward by the incident wave
with the bulbous bow partially emerged out of the water
prior to the slamming impact. Wet deck slamming was
observed around the wave peak region when the bow
plunges into the water under combined heave and pitch
motions.
Fig. 37: Wave elevation contours

Slamming Impact Design Loads on Large High Speed Naval Craft 217
 ABS TECHNICAL PAPERS 2008
Fig. 38: Wetdeck slamming event of CAT-1
in regular waves
CONCLUSIONS
In this paper, slamming impact loads have been studied
for the high speed naval craft recently built to ABS class.
Extensive nonlinear seakeeping analyses were carried out
to calculate vertical accelerations and sectional impact
forces along the ship length. Based on LAMP simulation
results, validated by model test measurements and design
practice, new requirements for bottom slamming design
pressure on mono-hulls and wetdeck slamming design
pressure on multi-hulls were proposed.
This paper also presents ABS’s on-going efforts for the
development and validation of CFD methods to predict
fully nonlinear 3D impact loads. The level-set FANS
method successfully demonstrates the nonlinear free
surface capturing capability for the benchmarking cases
of sloshing and wetdeck slamming analyses.
To minimize computational time, we are considering the
coupling of LAMP and FANS codes. FANS can be used
for nonlinear viscous flow near the ship while LAMP is
used for linear potential flow away from the ship. This
coupled analysis method will be challenging, but also
very promising for the simulations of slamming and green
water impact loads, sloshing impact loads coupled with
ship motion and damaged stability of vessels in waves.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
Since the 1988 DARPA project, the LAMP system has
been developed for the advanced ship motion simulation
under the sponsorships of the US Navy, the US Coast
Guard, and the American Bureau of Shipping. The
authors would like to thank Dr. L. Patrick Purtell of ONR
for his continuous supports for LAMP development.
218
REFERENCES
1. ABS, Rules for Building and Classing High Speed
Naval Craft, 2007
2. D. Savitsky and P. W. Brown, Procedures for
hydrodynamic evaluation of planing hulls in smooth and
rough water, Marine Technology, Vol. 13, No. 4, 1976
3. S. R. Heller and N.H. Jasper, On the structural design
of planing craft, 1960
4. G. Fridsma, A systematic study of the rough-water
performance of planing boats, Davidson Laboratory
Report 1945, Stevensen Institute of Technology, 1969
5. G. Fridsma, A systematic study of the rough-water
performance of planing boats, irregular waves, Part II,
Davidson Laboratory Report 1945, Stevensen Institute of
Technology, 1971
6. R. G. Allen and R. R. Jones, A simplified method for
determining structural design-limit pressures on high
performance marine vehicles, AIAA, 1978
7. H-C. Chen and K. Yu, Numerical simulation of wave
runup and greenwater on offshore structures by a level-set
RANS method, 16th ISOPE, Vol III, pp. 185-192, San
Francisco, 2006
8. H-C Chen and K. Yu, CFD simulations of wave-
current-body interactions including green water and
wetdeck slamming, FLUCOME, Florida, 2007
9. H-C. Chen and K. Yu, Chimera FANS simulation of
sloshing impact pressure inside a LNG tank: Benchmark
test and code validation, ABS Report, 2007
10. W. M. Lin, H-C. Chen and S. Zhang, Development
and evaluation of nonlinear numerical methods for
wetdeck slamming of a high speed catamaran, Procedding
of international conference on violent flows, 2007
11. W. M. Lin, S. Zhang, K.M. Weems, M.J. Meinholds,
B. Metcalf, and A.M. Powers, Numerical simulation and
validation study of wetdeck slamming on high speed
catamaran, Proceedings of 9th International Conferecne
on Numerical Ship Hydrodynamics, Ann Arbor,
Michigan, 2007
12. Shin, Y.-S., Belenky, V. L., Lin, W.-M., Weems, K.
M., Belknap, W. F., & Engle, A. H. ‘Nonlinear Time
Domain Simulation Technology for Seakeeping and
Wave Load Analysis for Modern Ship Design.’
Transactions of the Society of Naval Architects and
Marine Engineers 111, pp. 557-578, 2003
Slamming Impact Design Loads on Large High Speed Naval Craft