THE EFFECT OF BOWSHAPE ON THE SEAKEEPING PERFORMANCE OF A FAST

MONOHULL
Alexander (J.A.) Keuning, Delft University of Technology, The Netherlands
Serge Toxopeus, Marin, The Netherlands
Jakob Pinkster, Delft University of Technology, The Netherlands

SUMMARY

In the earlier publications on the Enlarged Ship Concept (ESC) attention has already been given to the possibilities of
improving the seakeeping behaviour of a fast monohull significantly through a thorough change in the bowshape both
below and above the stillwaterline. The aim of this bow modification was to reduce the nonlinear hydrodynamic forces
in particular at the foreship. In the present study this has been taken one step further and the effect of a rather radical
change in shape of the bow over some 25% of the length is studied. The behaviour ( i.e. heave and pitch motions) in
both head- and following irregular waves of three systematic bowshape variations has been studied. Also the
manoeuvring characteristics for these variations are investigated. Because one of the serious concerns about these
proposed bow modifications lies with a possible increased sensitivity of the ships with the sharper and deeper bows to
broaching in following waves, this aspect of the behaviour in waves has been studied also.
The results of the comparison between these three designs (with this increasing change in bowshape) will be presented
in this paper and the pro’s and con’s of the proposed changes in bowshape will be discussed.

AUTHORS BIOGRAPHY Lpp length between perpendiculars

[m]
Alexander (J.A.) Keuning holds the current position of lβ= Nβ/Yβ lever of application of lateral
Associate Professor at the Ship Hydromechanics force due to drift, forward of
Department at the Delft University of Technology, The CG [m]
Netherlands. He specializes in hydrodynamics of lγ= Nγ/(Yγ-M') lever of application of lateral
advanced marine vessels including yachts. force due to yawing, forward
Serge Toxopeus graduated in 1996 at Delft University of of CG [m]
Technology, Faculty of Mechanical Engineering and M'= M/(0.5ρLpp2T) sSection added mass
Marine Technology with a MSc. in Naval Architecture. for Heave [kg/m]
Since that time, he has been employed at MARIN as a mYY sectional added mass
consultant in the field of ship hydrodynamics, for sway [kg/m]
specialising in ship manoeuvring. His previous Nβ= Nuv/(0.5ρLpp2T) non-dimensional linear
experience includes the development and application of derivative of yaw moment in
the cross flow drag theory for high-speed surface ships. CG due to drift motion
Jakob Pinkster holds the current position of Assistant Nγ= Nur/(0.5ρLpp3T) non-dimensional linear
Professor at the Ship Hydromechanics Department at the derivative of yaw moment in
Delft University of Technology, The Netherlands. He is CG due to yaw motion
currently responsible for setting up new education Tp mean zero crossing wave
curriculum for ship hydromechanics department, is active period [s]
in teaching and research and carries out research projects u longitudinal (ship-fixed)
for industry. His previous experience includes velocity [m/s]
involvement with fast marine vehicles with regard to U ship speed [m/s]
design, construction, testing and trouble shooting. V water velocity component
normal to the local planning
surface [m/s]
NOMENCLATURE yw(t) momentaneous waterline half
beam of cross section [m]
AX(t) momentaneous submerged v transverse (ship-fixed)
transverse area of cross velocity in CG [m/s]
section [m] vξ local transverse (ship-fixed)
F’FK Froude-Krilov force [N/m] velocity [m/s]
g Gravitational constant [m/s2]
Yβ= Yuv/(0.5ρLppT) non-dimensional linear
H1/3 signficant wave height [m]
derivative of lateral force due
k wave number (2π/λ) [-] to drift motion
KG height of centre of gravity
Yγ= Yur/(0.5ρLpp2T) non-dimensional linear
(C.o.G) above above keel [m]
derivative of lateral force due
KM height of metacentre above
to yaw motion
keel [m]
β= arctan(v/u) drift angle [rad]
γ= rLpp/U non-dimensional yaw rate
[rad]
λ wave length [m]
ρ density of water [kg/m3]
ξ distance from the forward
perpendicular, positive in aft
direction [m]
ζ(t) momentaneous wave height
[m]
1. INTRODUCTION
The seakeeping behaviour of fast monohulls has a very
strong influence on the actual operability that can be
obtained with those ships in particular in the more
“exposed” working (sea) areas. Since the application of
fast planing monohulls in the role as patrol-, coastguard-,
survey- or naval vessels has increased considerably over
the last two decades or so, the improvement of this
behaviour of these fast monohulls in waves has been an
intense research topic for a long time now. It has been
shown by numerous authors in varies studies, both
analytical and experimental and in particular also full
scale measurements, that the level of vertical
accelerations in those positions onboard the ship, where
the crew has to perform its primary duties, is the most
dominant limiting factor for the comfortable and safe
operation of the ship. The voluntary speed reduction
applied by the crew and caused by excessive levels (and
more in particular extreme peaks) in the vertical
accelerations is the prime reason for the loss of full
operability of the ship in a seaway.
Many aspects of the hull design of the planing ship,
which could lead to a possible improvement in their
seakeeping behaviour, have been investigated. Among
those parameters are the deadrise-angle of the planning
bottom, the running trim of the ship at speed, the length
to beam ratio of the hull.
In 1995 Keuning and Pinkster, [1], introduced the
Enlarged Ship Concept (ESC) as a possible contribution
to these improvements. In principle this concept was
aimed at “bringing the length back into the design”. The
design practice over the preceding decades had focused
strongly on minimizing the length of the ships because of
its assumed direct relationship with the (building) cost of
the ship. Enlarging the length introduced many
possibilities for optimizing the design with respect to
resistance and seakeeping.
In 1997, [2], Keuning and Pinkster demonstrated that the
Enlarged Ship Concept gave even further opportunities
because significant bow shape modifications became
possible due to the large amount of available “void
space” in these designs. These applied bow modifications
improved the operability of these craft even more.
In the present study this is taken even one step further.
Based on the obtained insight in the dominant
hydrodynamic forces acting on a planning hull in head
waves, a radical bow shape modification is introduced
aimed at minimizing the hydrodynamic (exciting) forces
and by doing so aimed at reducing the peaks in the
vertical accelerations. This bow shape has been named
“Axe bow” for obvious reasons and its shape and the
philosophy behind it are explained in the following
paragraphs. In the present study the seakeeping
behaviour of the ESC with this new bow shape is
compared with the results obtained with the previous
ESC ships as reported earlier in [1] and [2].
In addition a first quick assessment is made of the
influence of this Axe bow shape on the
meanoeuverability of the ESC ship. This has been done
to obtain some insight in the possible draw backs of this
extreme bow shape that may arise when the ship is
sailing in large and steep following waves, i.e. when
there is a risk of broaching. Earlier findings with the ESC
revealed a large increase in the course stability when
compared to the shorter “base” ship. For some specific
applications such as patrol boat or navy vessel this
increase in course stability was considered even to be too
large and hence reducing the manouevrability of the
craft. The local deepening of the forward bow sections
and the fineness of these sections were thought to be
destabilizing in that respect and therefore increasing the
manoeuvrability again.
2. THE ENLARGED SHIP CONCEPT
2.1 INCREASING THE SHIP LENGTH
In the general quest for optimizing the seakeeping
behaviour of fast planning monohulls commonly used as
patrol- and naval-vessels, Keuning and Pinkster
introduced in 1995 the “Enlarged Ship Concept” (ESC)
as a possible contribution to the process.
This ESC concept was aimed at getting the “length back
in the design” of the fast monohull. The general design
trend at that time and applied over the last decennia for
fast planing monohulls was to reduce the overall length
of the ships as much as possible. Many ship owners
stipulated the maximum allowable length of their new
designs already at the beginning of the design process.
This trend was based on the supposed direct relation
between the building cost of the ship and its overall
length. In their first report, [1], Keuning and Pinkster
took an existing and quite successful design from
DAMEN SHIPYARDS, the Stan Patrol 2600, as their
“base” design and lengthened this ship with 25% and
50% respectively, whilst keeping all other design
parameters, such as speed, payload, functions, beam etc.
constant. The advantages of the enlarged ship ESC when
compared with the base boat were:
• Increasing the length and so reducing the
Froude number for the same forward speed.
• Increasing the Length to Beam ratio, beneficial
for the calm water resistance and reducing the
“hump” behaviour and beneficial for the ship
motions in waves.
 • Increasing the Length to Displacement ratio,
beneficial for the calm water resistance and the
ship motions in waves.
• Reducing the pitch gyradius of the ship.
• Optimizing the longitudinal position of the
prime working areas on board with respect to
the vertical motions of the ship.
A picture of the general arrangements of these three
designs is presented in Figure 1.
The results obtained from this initial study, which were
based on calculations as far as resistance and motions in
waves were concerned and on data presented by
DAMEN SHIPYARD as far as building costs and
weights were concerned, showed :
• A significant decrease (around 30%) in the
required installed power to maintain the design
speed of 25 knots.
• A significant reduction of the vertical
accelerations in the wheelhouse and more in
particular of the distributions of the peaks and
their frequency of occurrence.
• A significant increase in the operability of the
ship in the Southern North Sea and Dutch
Coastal waters by some 50%.
• Only a small increase in the calculated building
cost: for instance only some 6 % for the longest
ship.
A graphical representation of these results is presented in
Figure 2. From these results it was concluded that the
Enlarged Ship Concept looked very promising indeed.
2.2 OPTIMAL POSITIONING OF THE
WORKING AREAS
A possibility introduced by increasing the length without
increasing the number of “functions” on board the ship is
that of optimizing the longitudinal position of the most
important working areas aboard the ship with respect to
the vertical motions. In the cases under consideration this
has been the wheelhouse. From motion analyses it is
known that, due to the phase lag between pitch and
heave, the minimal vertical motions do occur at roughly
30% of the ship length from the stern. Positioning the
wheelhouse as close to that position as possible might
easily reduce the vertical motions at that place by some
30% to 50%
Another aspect of this repositioning of the
accommodation etc. is found in a significant shift of the
longitudinal position of the Center of Gravity of the ship
to the stern also. This implicates for instance that the
pitch restoring moment with respect to the CoG can be
maintained when the bow is modified, because although
the volume forward is reduced its leverage is increased.
This aspect will be dealt with in the next paragraph.
2.3 MODIFYING THE BOW
In 1997 Keuning and Pinkster, [2], extended their
research on the possibilities with the ESC by using the
extra space, the “void” space, that is generated by
applying the ESC, to optimize the hull geometry of the
design with respect to the wave exiting forces and the
resulting (vertical) motions in a seaway. This change in
hull geometry was in particular applied in the forward
sections of the ship.
From an extensive study analyzing measurements and
observations made onboard real ships, such as Patrol
boats, Search and Rescue vessels etc, it became evident
that the limiting factor for the safe operation of the ship
as applied by the crew aboard of these high speed vessels
is the occurrence (once or maybe twice) of single high
peaks in the vertical acceleration. Once these occur the
crew will voluntary reduce the forward speed of the
vessel to prevent it from happening again. This action of
voluntary speed reduction was carried out almost
irrespective of the value of the actual significant value of
the vertical acceleration at that time. It is known from
both full scale measurements and from model
experiments and calculations that the relation (or factor)
between the significant value and the extremes (high
peaks) in the vertical accelerations is strongly dependent
on the non-linearity of the system. The factor between
these two, i.e. significant value with roughly 13.5%
chance of exceedance and the maximum with circa 0.1%
chance of exceedance, is not constant for non-linear
systems and increases significantly with the non-linear
behaviour of the system, [3].
So evaluating the operability of fast ships on the basis of
significant values only is not sufficient or even
misleading. The distribution of the peaks in the motions
and in particular the vertical accelerations should be
compared when comparing fast ships. The aim of any
optimization of the operability of fast ships in a seaway
should be the reduction of the value of the extremes in
these distributions.
From the results obtained from extensive research on the
nonlinear behaviour of fast planing monohulls in head
waves, [3], [4] and [5], it became evident that the most
important components of the exciting (wave) forces on a
planing hull, which contribute most to the nonlinear
behaviour, are the non-linear Froude-Krilov force and the
(non-linear) hydrodynamic lift. So minimizing these
forces therefore should lead to the desired reduction in
the extreme peaks in the vertical accelerations.
The non-linear Froude-Krilov force is found by
integrating the (hydrodynamic) pressure, as found with
potential theory, in the undisturbed wave over the actual
momentaneous submerged volume of the hull, whilst this
hull is performing non small relative motions with
respect to the incoming waves. In formula:
F'FK ( t ) = 2ρgζy W ( t ) + ρgKGA X ( t )
From these formulations its is obvious that minimizing
the change in time of this force should be achieved by
reducing the change in the sectional yw(t) and AX(t) when
the section is carrying out a vertical displacement with
respect to the water surface. Translating this to the
geometry of the shape of the ship sections this means that
the flare of these sections, in particular in the fore ship,
should be reduced over the “range” of the instantaneous
waterline.
Since the paper of Von Karman, [4], the theory used for
the calculation of the hydrodynamic loads on the hull of
a planing boat has been based on the concept of the
added mass. In concept this theory corresponds with the
“slender body” theory as it is frequently used to calculate
the hydrodynamic side force on, for instance, low aspect
wings and on the underwater part of the hull of surface
ships sailing under oblique flow. This slender body
theory is therefore also applied in the section of this
paper dealing with the manouevering characteristics of
the hulls.
Using this theory of Von Karman for the determination
of the normal force on a transverse section of a hull, this
force is given by the rate of change of the momentum of
the oncoming fluid expressed in the terms of added mass
of the particular cross section under consideration:
f=
D
(m a V )
Dt
The rate of change of momentum of the fluid at a
particular section is then further elaborated to:
D
(m a V ) =
Dt
 + Vm d (m a V ) dξ
ma V a−
dξ dt
As may be noticed a time dependent added mass of the
cross section is introduced which originates also from the
not small relative motions of the sections with respect to
the incoming waves.
From both the analytical and the experimental research
as reported by Keuning in [3] it became apparent that this
non-linear added mass is much more important for the
time dependent magnitude change of these
hydrodynamic forces (and so for the behaviour of a
planing hull in head waves) than was the frequency
dependency of this sectional added mass. Since the
change in the sectional added mass at these relatively
high encounter frequencies (fast ship in head waves) may
be considered to be proportional to the change in
sectional beam yw(t), once again this change in yw(t)
should be minimized.
2.3.1 The TUD 4100.
In 1997 this lead to the introduction of the TUD 4100
hull shape for the Enlarged Ship Concept, as reported by
Keuning and Pinkster in [2] at the FAST 1997.
The change in hull shape when compared to the original
hull of the Enlarged Ship is summarized by:
• Reducing the flare of the bow sections
• Narrowing the waterline
• Increasing the waterline length
• Deepening the fore foot
• Increasing the freeboard
A picture of the lines plan of the modified bow of the
TUD 4100 according to these lines of thought is depicted
in Figure 3. The change of the hull shape with the more
traditional one of the ESC 4100 is immediately evident.
2.3.2 The Axe bow
A far more radical “elaboration” of this same design
philosophy to minimize the nonlinear behaviour of the
system “fast planing monohull in head waves” is
introduced by what has now been christened the “Axe
bow”.
The most striking features to the eye of this new shape
are:
The flare in the bow sections is reduced to almost zero
for minimizing the change in momentaneous added mass
(hydrodynamic lift) and momentaneous submerged
volume (Froude-Krilov) whilst the foreship is carrying
out relatively large relative motions with respect to the
waves.
The stem is placed almost vertical to increase the
waterline length to the maximum and by doing so
bringing “back” volume of displacement in the forward
part of the ship and further forward with respect to the
center of gravity of the ship.
The sheer forward is significantly increased, to minimize
the risk of green water on deck and to guarantee
sufficient reserve buoyancy.
The centerline of the hull has been given a negative slope
towards the bow (downwards or reversed sheer), to
minimize the risk of hull emergence when sailing in
waves. The change in momentaneous added mass of a
section is obviously most abrupt when a section is re-
entering the water (slamming).
Great care has been taken to maintain a comparable pitch
restoring moment and reserve buoyancy in the hull
forward when compared to the other (parent) hull, i.e. the
ESC 4100.
Also shown in Figure 3 are the lines plan of the Axe bow
hull form derived from the ESC 4100 and also the lines
plan of the TUD 4100. Figure 4 shows a number of 3-D
renderings of the AXE 4100 hull form.
It should be clearly stated at this point that no serious
attempt has been made in this study to generate a
complete and fully feasible design of this AXE 4100
from all points of view. The principal idea of the present
study is to investigate the possible benefits of such a new
design concept on a conceptual level of design only. So a
“comparable” design with respect to the other two
designs, i.e. the ESC 4100 and the TUD 4100, has been
the main objective.
For the sake of clarity all main dimensions of the three
designs used for the comparison are presented in Table 1.
3. THE COMPUTATIONAL RESULTS
The computations on the three designs to evaluate their
hydrodynamic performance have been carried out with
two different programs: FASTSHIP of the Delft
Shiphydromechanics Department has been used to
calculate the calm water resistance, the trim and the
sinkage of the three designs as well as the motions in
irregular head waves and SURSIM of MARIN in
Wageningen has been used to assess the maneuvering
characteristics of the designs.
FASTSHIP is extensively described in [3] and is purpose
made for predicting the nonlinear behaviour of fast
(planing) monohulls in irregular head waves. SURSIM is
a simulation program developed at MARIN for the
prediction of the maneuvering characteristics of surface
ships. Both computer codes have been found to yield
reliable results for the applications they have been
designed for. The Axe bow design however is clearly not
a common design and therefore the programs had to be
adapted somewhat to accommodate this concept. That is
also the reason for carrying out rather extensive model
experiments with scale models of these three designs in
the Delft Towing Tank. The results of these tests
however are not available on the time of writing of the
present paper and will therefore be the subject of future
reports.
3.1 CALM WATER RESISTANCE
FASTSHIP predicts the calm water resistance, the
running trim and the sinkage under speed of a planing
monohull based on the results obtained with the Delft
Systematic Deadrise Series (DSDS). This DSDS is an
extensive series of model experiments set up as an
extension of the original Clement and Blount Series and
carried out at the Delft Shiphydromechanics Laboratory
with some 25 different models each of them towed in
some 16 different conditions. The typical speed range is
between Froude number based on volume of
displacement from 0.75 to 3.2. For higher speeds the
method of Savitsky is being used.
The results of these calculations are presented in Figure
5. depicting bare hull calm water resistance versus
forward speed.
From these results it may be noted that at the design
speed of 25 knots the TUD 4100 has the lowest
resistance and the ESC 4100 the highest. The AXE 4100
is close to the TUD 4100 but will probably have a
somewhat higher resistance because the total increase in
its wetted surface when compared to the other two cannot
be fully accounted for. At higher speeds the resistance of
the modified hulls of the Enlarged Concepts, i.e. TUD
4100 and AXE 4100, is significantly higher than the
original ESC 4100, which may be explained from the
modifications applied to reduce hydrodynamic lift in the
forebody.
3.2 MOTIONS IN IRREGULAR HEAD WAVES
The vertical motions of the fast planing monohull in
irregular waves are calculated by a solution in the time
domain of the three equations containing the important
forces (X and Z) and moments (My) working on the hull.
The running trim and the sinkage of the planing hull at
the particular forward speed under consideration are
determined using the procedure mentioned before. The
irregular wave realization, yielding at each time step the
wave profile over the length of the ship, is generated
using 50 different wave components to describe the
given sea spectrum.
The two seastates used for the present calculations are
the average conditions of Seastate 4 (Tp= 6 s and H1/3=
2.25 m) and Seastate 5 (Tp= 7.5 s and H1/3= 3.5 m)
respectively. The spectrum formulation used is the
Bretschneider formulation for the energy distribution
over the frequency range. Furthermore, for these
conditions, a vessel speed was taken as being 25 knots
for all different design concepts.
The results are presented as distributions of the peaks of
the amplitudes of the heave and pitch motion of the ships
in those conditions in Figure 6 and 7 respectively and as
the distribution of the peaks in the vertical accelerations
at the bow and the wheelhouse in the same conditions in
Figure 8 and 9 respectively. For the sake of clarity only
the negative peaks of the vertical accelerations (i.e.
upwards) are presented. The positive peaks remain below
the value of 10 m/s2 (i.e. the acceleration, g, due to
gravity).
From these figures it becomes immediately evident that
the reduction in the vertical accelerations both at the
“bow” (i.e. 10%L aft of the forward perpendicular) and
at the wheelhouse are already significantly reduced with
the application of the TUD 4100 bow shape and
dramatically reduced with the application of the AXE
4100 bow shape when compared with the original
(traditional) bow of the ESC 4100. These computational
findings correspond with the real life observations and
experience obtained so far with the Dutch Coast Guard
vessels of the “Jaquar” type (25 knots 42 meter Loa
Patrol boats) built along the lines of the TUD 4100. In
the earlier study on the TUD 4100, [2], these
computational results were also validated with model
experiments in the towing tank. The results obtained for
the AXE 4100 indicate that an ever further and very
significant improvement is to be gained in these sea
conditions, because both the significant values of the
vertical accelerations and, in particular, the extreme peak
values are very much reduced with the application of the
Axe bow shape.
There is only a small increase in the heave and pitch
motion of the AXE 4100 when compared with the other
ones, which was to be expected.
3.3 DIRECTIONAL STABILITY
During the project, it was questioned whether the Axe
bow concept would be more sensitive to broaching than
the original TUD4100. Calculations were conducted at
MARIN in order to determine the linear horizontal plane
manoeuvring coefficients. The aim is to determine the
hydrodynamic forces and stability levers for both drift
and yaw motions in order to compare the risks of
broaching for the two ships. Although the horizontal
plane stability is only one of many factors determining
broaching risks, it is thought to be one of the major
differences between the two hull forms.
Because of the unconventional hull form and the lack of
data published in literature regarding similar hull forms,
conventional methods to determine the hydrodynamic
coefficients in the horizontal plane can not be applied
successfully. Therefore, a method recently developed at
MARIN was applied during the calculations. This
method is based on the slender body strip theory method.
3.3.1 Slender body method
Already in 1966, Jacobs [7] proposed a strip theory alike
approximation for manoeuvring calculations. This strip
theory is based on calculations related to the sectional
added mass. By proper integration of the change of
sectional added mass, the required hydrodynamic
derivatives can be obtained. A publication of Beukelman,
see [8], clearly illustrates the application of this method.
Basically, the strip theory technique says that the lateral
force per slice of the ship is the rate of change of fluid
momentum per slice of the ship. This is expressed as:
dY D(mYY vξ )
=−
dξ Dt
æ dvξ dmYY dvξ dmYY ö
= −çç mYY + vξ + umYY + uvξ ÷÷
è dt dt dξ dξ ø indication about the sensitivity to broaching.
in which mYY is the lateral inertia coefficient or the two-
dimensional added mass in lateral direction and vξ the
local transverse velocity. This formula is used to
calculate the non-dimensional linear manoeuvring
coefficients Yβ, Nβ, Yγ and Nγ.
Just as with the other potential flow techniques, the
calculation will fail to come up with lateral forces on the
ship, while the turning moment will come close to the
Munk moment. When looking at the lateral force on the
ship due to a drift angle, the theory states that the force is
equal to the change in sectional added mass between the
most forward submerged section and the aftmost
submerged section. Unless the aft section abruptly ends
in a submerged transom, the sectional added masses at
the forward and aft sections are calculated to be zero and
therefore, the lateral force is zero.
Therefore, some modification has to be done to the added
mass distribution in order to arrive at the actual force
distribution along the length of the ship. Several
proposed modifications are published in literature. For
example, Beukelman [8] assumes a constant added mass
distribution in the aft ship region up to the section with
the maximum breadth. This actually means that for
example the sway coefficient for drift motion Yβ is only
related to the sectional added mass of the section with
maximum breadth. With that in mind, the assumption
clearly involves simplifications that result in the same
coefficients for ships with the same section at the
maximum breadth position, but different foreships.
Therefore, other corrections to the theory are required in
order to arrive at the realistic hydrodynamic coefficients.
A comparison published in literature between the results
of segmented model tests and the slender body theory is
made by Clarke, see [9]. The objective of segmented
model tests is to obtain insight into the distribution of the
lateral forces and yawing moments along the length of
the ship. In this comparison, it is found that especially in
the aft ship, deviations occur between the actual results
and the theoretical estimation.
At MARIN, extensive data sets exist concerning
segmented model tests. These test results were used to
verify and "tune" the slender body theory to arrive at the
required values of the linear manoeuvring coefficients.
Based on this, a viscous correction formula was obtained,
incorporating the full hull form.
3.3.2 Application to the TUD4100 and AXE BOW
concepts
The MARIN slender body method has been applied to
the two hull forms in order to determine the manoeuvring
derivatives. By comparison of the results for the two
ships, an indication of the relative differences in the
coefficients is obtained. These differences might give an
As a first step, the method was applied for the design
loading condition, i.e. the ship on even keel. Figure 10
(a) includes a graph and a table which shows the added
mass distributions along the length of the ships as well as
the derived linear manoeuvring coefficients.
In this figure, the peak in the distribution for the Axe
bow is noteworthy. According to MARIN experience, the
linear manoeuvring coefficients are mostly influenced by
the added mass in the forward part of the ship. Therefore,
this peak will have a large influence on the results of the
calculations.
It is seen that the differences in coefficients are
considerable. It is found that the coefficients for the Axe
bow are in some cases three times larger than the
TUD4100 coefficients. The reason for this lies mainly in
the shape of the bow: due to the very slender sections
with high height to breadth ratio and large draught, the
added mass distribution is considerably higher in the
foreship of the Axe bow than for the TUD4100.
These results show that during a drift motion, the yaw
moment on the Axe bow will be three times as high as
for the TUD4100. The lever of application of the side
force due to drift lβ indicates that the lateral force acts
forward of the forward perpendicular. However, it is
found that for the TUD4100, the force also acts very
close to the forward perpendicular. From this, it can be
concluded that the de-stabilising moments due to drift are
large for both designs.
During yaw motion, the yaw moment on the Axe bow is
also three times as high as for the TUD4100. The lateral
force lever lγ indicates a distance of 34%Lpp forward of
the centre of gravity. Due to the bow shape of the
TUD4100, the lever for this ship is relatively small.
To determine the amount of (in)stability, the difference
(lγ - lβ) of the stability levers should be examined. The
above calculation results show that both the TUD4100
and the Axe bow will be directionally unstable, with the
TUD4100 more unstable than the Axe bow. Because of
the comparative nature of this study, the influence of the
rudders on the directional stability of the hulls is not
taken into account.
More calculations have been conducted to determine the
linear manoeuvring coefficients for a more realistic
attitude of the ships at full speed. Based on tests with
similar ships, the running trims of both hull forms have
been estimated to be between 1.5° and 2° trim by the
stern, combined with almost no sinkage or heave. The
distribution of the sectional added mass for 2° stern trim
and the calculated manoeuvring derivatives are shown in
Figure 10 (b).
The change in the stability lever (lγ - lβ) due to the stern
trim is remarkable. It is seen that both the TUD4100 and
the Axe bow are still unstable, but now the TUD4100 is
less unstable than the Axe bow. The value for the Axe
bow hardly changed due to the stern trim. Remarkable is
the fact that the "hump" in the distribution of the added
mass for the TUD4100 disappears due to the stern trim,
while for the Axe bow, this hump is still existing.
A third condition was investigated, to obtain an
impression of the change in directional stability due to
bow trim. This condition can occur when the ship runs
into a wave crest in following seas. The distribution of
sectional added mass and the derived manoeuvring
coefficients are shown in Figure 10 (c).
In bow trimmed condition, it is found that the Axe bow
now is almost stable. This is mainly caused by the
relatively large forward shift of the centre of gravity.
This results in a large reduction of the lever for drift, in
combination with a relatively small change of yaw lever.
The TUD4100 is found to be unstable, but slightly less
than in the even keel condition.
3.3.3 Discussion of the risk of broaching
The physics of broaching have often been published in
literature. A recent summary of broaching and capsizing
was described by McTaggart and De Kat [10].
If loss of stability is the reason for broaching in
following seas, a comparison of the KM values of both
ships is of interest. For these hull forms, it is found that
in stern trim or even keel condition, the KM values are
almost the same, but in bow trim condition, the KM
value for the Axe bow is about 0.6 m smaller than for the
TUD4100. This means that when the ship runs into a
wave crest, the transverse stability of the Axe bow is
reduced considerably, possibly resulting in capsizing or
broaching.
Although the yaw damping moments for the Axe bow are
calculated to be considerably higher than for the
TUD4100, the yaw moment due to drift, de-stabilising
the straight ahead motion of the ship, is thought to be of
major importance in the determination of the risk of
broaching. If only a slight drift motion is present, the
build up of the lateral forces in the foreship of the Axe
bow is considerable, inducing a yaw motion. Combined
with the inherent straight-line instability of the ship, it is
expected that a risk of broaching is present.
Another aspect of the relatively large yaw moments that
act on the Axe bow lies in the compensating moments
that are to be generated by the rudders. When the
moments on the Axe bow are about three times higher
than on the TUD4100, it means that to compensate this
moment by the rudders, a rudder-induced moment of also
about three times as high should be generated. Either the
rudder deflection should be about three times higher than
for the TUD4100, or the rudder efficiency should be
three times higher. This means that the controllability of
the Axe bow is expected to be less than the
controllability of the TUD4100.
Finally, broaching can occur due to an excessive roll
motion due to yaw-roll coupling. Because of the deep
bow of the Axe bow hull form, and the large transverse
forces in the bow area of the Axe bow, it is expected that
considerable yaw-roll coupling will exist for this hull.
With transverse forces about three to four times larger
than for the TUD4100, combined with probably a larger
vertical lever of application with respect to the centre of
gravity, the heeling moment due to drift or yaw might be
more than three times larger than for the TUD4100.
3.3.4 Considerations
The original slender body theory does not incorporate
any viscous or forward speed effects. The modified
slender body method developed at MARIN to determine
the manoeuvring derivatives based on the added mass
distribution was based on segmented model tests results
with conventional and naval surface ships. The design of
the hull of the Axe bow differs significantly from the
ships on which the modified theory was based and
therefore, the actual values of the coefficients are likely
different from the ones that might be obtained during
model tests. Unfortunately, no comparable data was
available at the time of writing of this paper. However,
because of the lack of information, the method was
applied to determine the sensitivity for broaching in a
qualitative way.
In order to obtain a more reliable prediction of the risk of
broaching model tests with the Axe bow hull form should
be conducted.
4. CONCLUSIONS
Since the introduction of the ESC, the available “space”
to modify the bow has been successfully applied to the
TUD 4100. The extension into the AXE 4100 leads to
further improvements in seakeeping capabilities. The
results obtained for the AXE 4100 indicate that a
significant reduction has been obtained for the vertical
accelerations in the wheelhouse. This is excellent for
workability and safe operation of the vessel. This holds
true for both significant as extreme acceleration values.
Pronounced reductions (50%) have also been found in
the extreme peak values at the bow. The leads to less
slamming and therefore lower slam forces which is
beneficial to the construction of the ship as well as the
perception of the crew when sailing her.
There is only a small increase in the heave and pitch
motion of the AXE 4100 when compared with the other
ones, which was to be expected.
The actual difference in vessel resistance between the
three concepts has yet to be fully examined (i.e. via
model tests).
In extreme weather conditions (non-applicable for
numerous designs) the following may be stated regarding
broaching: Based on the calculations of the
hydrodynamic horizontal plane derivatives and additional
determination of the metacentre heights in several
attitudes of the hull forms, it is concluded that the Axe
bow may probably be more sensitive to broaching than
the TUD4100 design. Also, it is expected that yaw-roll
coupling will be more pronounced for the Axe bow
design, increasing the risk of broaching.
The amount of sensitivity and hence the risk of broaching
is still subject to further model test investigations.
Broaching tendancy of the axe bow may be considerably
reduced by the application of a center skeg in the stern
region.
5. RECOMMENDATIONS
More calculations and model tests should be undertaken
to gain a better understanding and quantification of the
aspects involved in the determination of the effect of bow
shapes on the seakeeping performance of a fast
monohull.
7. REFERENCES
[1] Keuning, J.A., Pinkster, Jakob, "Optimisation of the
seakeeping behaviour of a fast monohull". Fast’95
conference, October 1995.
[2] Keuning, J.A., Pinkster, Jakob, "Further design and
seakeeping investigations into the “Enlarged Ship
Concept”. Fast’97 conference, July 1997.
[3] Keuning, J.A., “The Non linear behaviour of fast
monohulls in head waves”. Doctor’s thesis TU
Delft, 1994.
[4] Von Karman, W., “A study on Motions of High
Speed Planing Boats with Controllable Flaps”, Int.
Shipbuilding Progress, No 365, January 1985.
[5] Wagner, H. von, “Uber Stoss und Gleitvorgange an
der Oberfläche von Flüssigkeiten”, Zeitschrifft für
Angewandete Matematik und Mechanik, Band 12,
Heft 4, 1932
[6] Velde, J. van der, Pinkster, Jakob, Keuning, J.A.,
“Enlarged Ship Concept applied to a fully planing
SAR Rigid Inflatable Lifeboat”, Fast’99 conference,
August-September 1999.
[7] Jacobs, W.R., "The Estimation Of Stability
Derivatives And Indices Of Various Ship Forms
And Comparison Experimental Results", Journal of
Ship Research, 1966, Vol. 10, No. 3.
[8] Beukelman, W., "Manoeuvring Derivatives For A
Low Aspect-Ratio Surface Piercing Wing-Model In
Deep And Shallow Water", Delft University of
Technology Ship Hydromechanics Laboratory,
Report No. 998, MEMT 35, March 1995. ISBN 90-
370-0127-0.
[9] Clarke. D., "A Two-Dimensional Strip Method For
Surface Ship Hull Derivatives: Comparison Of
Theory With Experiments On A Segmented Model",
Journal Mechanical Engineering Science, Vol. 14,
No. 7, 1972.
[10] McTaggart, K. and De Kat, J.O.; "Capsize Risk of
Intact Frigates in Irregular Seas", Transactions
SNAME Annual Meeting, Paper No. 8, Vancouver
2001.
 Figure 1. General arrangements of the 26 m. “Base” boat (1.0 L) and
Enlarged Ship Concepts (1.25 L and 1.50 L respectively), (taken from [1])

Final design results

Overall performance indexes

1.8
Performance index [-]

1.6
1.4 Length
1.2 Building costs
1
Operational costs
0.8
0.6 Transport efficiency
0.4 Operability
0.2
0
2600 3300 4000
Design concepts

Figure 2. Overall performance indexes for the different design concepts (taken from [2])
 ESC 4100

TUD 4100

AXE 4100

Figure 3. The lines plans for respectively ESC 4100, TUD 4100 and AXE 4100

Figure 4. A number of 3-D renderings of the AXE 4100

 140
ESC 4100

120 TUD4100
Resistance (kN)

100 AXE4100

80

60

40

20

0
0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0 30.0 35.0 40.0
V (kn.)

Figure 5. The resistance curves for respectively ESC 4100, TUD 4100 and AXE 4100

ESC 4100 TUD 4100 AXE 4100

Dimensions
W.L.Length [m] 36.307 38.448 41
Length [m] 41 41 41
W.L.Beam [m] 5.628 5.662 5.608
Draft [m] 1.425 1.463 2.713
Displacement
3
Volume [m ] 111.28 111.16 111.57
Displ. [kg] 111285 111164 111570
LCB [%w.l.] 55.4 59.2 54.9
Waterplane
2
W.P.Area [m ] 168.24 157.76 162.11
LCF [%w.l.] 57.6 61.9 62.5
Ctr.Flotn.X [m] 25.619 26.357 25.631
Wetted Surface
2
Wetted S.Area [m ] 193.87 199.3 222.3
Initial Stability
Trans.GM [m] 3.062 2.709 2.543
Long.GM [m] 124.352 112.347 134.113
Coefficients
Waterplane [-] 0.823 0.725 0.705
Prismatic [-] 0.699 0.638 0.699
Block [-] 0.382 0.349 0.179
Midsection [-] 0.547 0.547 0.256
Lwl/(Displ^0.333)[-] 7.56 8.01 8.53

Table 1. Main dimensions and other relevant data for the ESC 4100, TUD 4100 and AXE 4100.
 4

Heave
seastate 4

3
Peak value X [m]

2
neg. TUD4100
neg.ESC 4100
neg. AXE4100

pos. TUD4100
pos.ESC 4100 pos. AXE4100

0
100 50 20 10 5 2 1 0.5 .2

Pe(X) (%)

4
neg. AXE4100
Heave
seastate 5 neg. TUD4100

neg.ESC 4100

3
Peak value X [m]

pos. AXE4100
pos. TUD4100
2
pos.ESC 4100

0
100 50 20 10 5 2 1 0.5 .2

Pe(X) (%)
file: c:\mijndo~1\jakob\easyplot\epwindow\fighea~1

Figure 6. The distribution of the peaks of the heave amplitude for respectively ESC 4100, TUD 4100 and AXE 4100.
 0.16

Pitch
0.14
seastate 4

0.12

0.10
Peak value X [rad]

pos. TUD4100
pos.ESC 4100
0.08
pos. AXE4100
neg.ESC 4100
0.06 neg. TUD4100

neg. AXE4100
0.04

0.02

0
100 50 20 10 5 2 1 0.5 .2

Pe(X) (%)

0.16
pos. TUD4100
Pitch
seastate 5
0.14

pos. AXE4100 neg. AXE4100

0.12 pos.ESC 4100
neg.ESC 4100

0.10
Peak value X [rad]

neg. TUD4100

0.08

0.06

0.04

0.02

0
100 50 20 10 5 2 1 0.5 .2

Pe(X) (%)
file: c:\mijndo~1\jakob\easyplot\epwindow\figpit~1

Figure 7. The distribution of the peaks of the pitch amplitude for respectively ESC 4100, TUD 4100 and
AXE 4100.
 140
Negative vertical acceleration
Bow
Seastate 4
120

100
Peak value X [m/s2]

80

60

ESC 4100

40

TUD4100
20

AXE4100

0
100 50 20 10 5 2 1 0.5 .2

Pe(X) (%)

140
Negative vertical acceleration
Bow
Seastate 5
120
ESC 4100

100
Peak value X [m/s2]

80 TUD4100

60

40
AXE4100

20

0
100 50 20 10 5 2 1 0.5 .2

Pe(X) (%)
file: c:\mijndo~1\jakob\easyplot\epwindow\figbow~1

Figure 8. The distribution of the peaks of the negative vertical acceleration at the bow amplitude for
respectively ESC 4100, TUD 4100 and AXE 4100.
 60
Negative vertical acceleration
Wheelhouse
Seastate 4

50

40
Peak value X [m/s2]

30

20
ESC 4100

10
TUD4100

AXE4100

0
100 50 20 10 5 2 1 0.5 .2

Pe(X) (%)

60
Negative vertical acceleration
Wheelhouse
Seastate 5 ESC 4100

50

TUD4100
40
Peak value X [m/s2]

30 AXE4100

20

10

0
100 50 20 10 5 2 1 0.5 .2

Pe(X) (%)
file: c:\mijndo~1\jakob\easyplot\epwindow\figwhe~1

Figure 9. The distribution of the peaks of the negative vertical acceleration in the wheelhouse amplitude for
respectively ESC 4100, TUD 4100 and AXE 4100.
 Design loading condition, 0° trim
Even keel condition
20000
18000
Hull TUD4100 Axebow
16000
Yβ -0.120 -0.329
14000
mYY [kg/m] Nβ -0.053 -0.178
12000
Yγ 0.003 -0.029
10000
Nγ -0.013 -0.042
8000
lβ 0.446 0.540
6000
lγ 0.124 0.339
4000
2000
lγ-lβ -0.322 -0.201
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
aft << x [m] >> front TUD4100 Axebow

Figure 10 (a). Added mass distribution and derived linear manoeuvring coefficients
(design loading condition, 0° trim).

Full speed condition, 2° trim by the stern

Stern trimmed condition
20000
18000
Hull TUD4100 Axebow
16000
Yβ -0.169 -0.261
14000
Nβ -0.040 -0.115
mYY [kg/m]

12000
Yγ 0.028 0.006
10000
Nγ -0.007 -0.027
8000
lβ 0.237 0.438
6000
lγ 0.066 0.238
4000
lγ-lβ -0.171 -0.200
2000
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
aft << x [m] >> front TUD4100 Axebow

Figure 10 (b). Added mass distribution and derived linear manoeuvring coefficients
(trimmed condition, 2° trim by stern).

Nose dive condition, 2° trim by the bow

Bow trimmed condition
20000
18000
Hull TUD4100 Axebow
16000
Yβ -0.162 -0.480
14000
Nβ -0.082 -0.219
mYY [kg/m]

12000
Yγ -0.013 -0.058
10000
Nγ -0.020 -0.056
8000
lβ 0.505 0.457
6000
lγ 0.223 0.411
4000
2000
lγ-lβ -0.282 -0.046
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
aft << x [m] >> front TUD4100 Axebow

Figure 10 (c). Added mass distribution and derived linear manoeuvring coefficients
(bow trimmed condition, 2° trim by bow).