11th International Conference on Fast Sea Transportation
FAST 2011, Honolulu, Hawaii, USA, September 2011
Effects of Shallow Water on Catamaran Interference
Teresa Castiglione1, Wei He2, Frederick Stern3, and Sergio Bova1
1
Dept. of Mechanical Engineering, University of Calabria, Arcavacata di Rende, Cosenza, Italy
2
NAOCE, Shanghai Jiao Tong University, Shanghai, China
3
IIHR-Hydroscience and Engineering, The University of Iowa, Iowa City, Iowa,USA
ABSTRACT
The object of this study is the investigation of interference
effects between the wave systems of a multi-hull vessel in
the presence of shallow waters. The analysis is made
numerically by the URANS code CFDSHIP-Iowa V.4 on
the DELFT Catamaran model 372. The test matrix for
numerical computations includes two separation distances
(s=0.17;0.23) and the depth values of h/T=43.33 (deep
water), 2.5 and 2, at several speeds ranging within
Fn=0.270.75. Our computations are in quite good
agreement with EFD data from INSEAN and BSHC, with
CT average comparison errors amounting to E=4.8%D and
to E=11.3%D in deep and shallow water respectively.
Results show that the presence of a finite depth increases
significantly the ship total resistance, and its maximum
occurs at lower speed values (0.3<Fr<0.4) respect to deep
water case. The interference effects seem to have the same
magnitude both in shallow and deep water, though in
shallow water maximum interference seem to occur at lower
speed values, corresponding to CT peaks. Similarly as for
deep water, the lower separation value the greater the
interference value. Finally in the presence of shallow water
some negative interference is observed at Fr>0.5.
KEY WORDS
Shallow water, catamaran, CFD, Resistance, Interference.
1 INTRODUCTION
The separation distance between the hulls of a multihull
vessel, like a catamaran, plays an important role on ship
resistance. Due to the interaction between the wave systems
leaving from the hulls, the wave resistance of a multi-hull
vessel can be increased or reduced, depending on the
separation distance, S, and on ship speed. In order to
investigate this phenomenon, experimental and numerical
studies (Broglia et al, 2009; Moraes et al., 2004; Souto-
Iglesias et al., 2006; Tarafder et al., 2007) were recently
conducted, with focus on the correlation between the shapes
of the longitudinal wave cuts at different longitudinal planes
and the wave interference resistance.
Ship waves are considerably modified by the presence of a
finite depth and the interference between the hulls of a
multihull vessel varies accordingly. Molland et al. (2004)
gave measurements of total resistance, sink, trim and
multiple longitudinal wave cuts for three round bilge hulls
derived from the NPL and one from the Series 64. Tests
were performed for hull separation/length ratios (S/LPP) of
© 2011 American Society of Naval Engineers
0.2, 0.4 and infinity and for two depths, h, of shallow water,
over a length Froude number ranging within FrL=0.251
and a depth Froude number ranging within FrH=0.53.
With regard to predictions of wave resistance, numerical
methods are commonly based on linear theory, due to the
slender shape, typical for demihulls of a multi hull vessel.
Insel and Doctors (1995) presented a numerical approach
based on linear theory in shallow water, in order to
determine wave resistance and wave pattern for mono and
multi hull vessels. Moraes et al. (2004), investigated the
wave resistance component for high speed catamarans,
including the effects of catamaran hull spacing as well as
the effects of shallow water. Two methods were applied: a
2D method (SLENDER) based on slender-body theory and
a 3D method used by SHIPFLOW, based on potential
theory. Results were compared with the Millward (1992)
study of the effects of catamaran hull separation and shallow
water in a wide Froude number range where a linearized
wave theory was used.
The aim of the present work is to study the effects of hull
spacing, in conjunction with shallow water, on the wave
resistance of a high-speed multi-hull vessel, by a code based
on the Reynolds Averaged Navier-Stokes equations, which
could include comparison with previous studies based on
linear theory. Computation of resistance of a single hull at
several water depth values is also performed in order to
analyze the variation of the interference resistance in
shallow water and comparison with available experimental
data is shown. In the following text, h is the water depth and
it will be non-dimensionalized with ship draught, T. S is the
distance between the center of the hulls and is non-
dimensionalized with ship length, LPP.
2 GEOMETRY AND TEST CONDITIONS
The tested geometry is the DELFT catamaran model 372,
designed at DELFT University of Technology. The lines
plan is plotted in Fig.1 and the main geometric
characteristics are summarized in Table 1.
Several experimental data sets are available for this
geometry. Experiments with the 372 catamaran model were
carried out at the Delft University of Technology (Van’t
Veer, 1998), in deep water (h/T=17.33). Separation distance
between the hulls was fixed to S/LPP=0.23. Experimental
data include resistance, sinkage and trim for the catamaran
advancing in calm water, free to heave and pitch, at constant
speeds ranging within Fn=0.180.75. Experiments for
evaluating interference effects were carried out at INSEAN
371
(Italian Ship Model Basin) (Broglia et al. 2009). The model Table 2. Experimental data set.
was tested in deep water (h/T=43.33), with variable demi-
hull spacing: S/LPP=0.17; 0.20; 0.23; 0.27 and 0.30. Depth Separation
Institution Geometry FnL
Experiments included also monohull at several speed (h/T) (S/L)
values, in order to compute the interference factor (IF). DELFT Catamaran 17.33 0.23 0.180.75
0.17
0.20
Catamaran 43.33 0.23 0.100.80
INSEAN
0.27 =0.05
0.30
Monohull 24 -
8.21 0.170.64
Catamaran 2.5 0.170.59
BSHC ( 0.23
=0.826)
2 0.120.55
1.5 0.110.55
Fig. 1. Lines Plan of Delft catamaran, WL indicates the
waterline. Table 3. CFD test matrix.
Depth Separation
Geometry FnL
Table 1. DELFT catamaran geometry. (h/T) (S/L)
Comparison
Main Particulars Units Value 0.17 with
Catamaran 43.33 0.300.75
Length overall, LOA m 3.11 0.23 INSEAN
=0.05
Length between perpendiculars, LPP m 3 Monohull 24 - EFD
Beam overall, B m 0.94 Comparison
2.5 0.17* with
Beam demihull, b m 0.24 Catamaran 0.270.55
2 0.23 BSHC
Distance between center of hulls, S m 0.7
EFD
Draught, T m 0.15
2.5 NO EFD
Displacement, D Kg 87.07 Monohull - 0.270.55 for
Draught AP, TAP m 0.15 2 validation
Draught FP, TFP m 0.15 *for this case EFD data are not available.
Vertical Center of Gravity, KG m 0.34 3 COMPUTATIONAL METHOD
Longitudinal Center of Gravity, LCG m 1.41 The code CFDSHIP-Iowa V.4, used herein, is an unsteady
RANS code developed for ship hydrodynamics, and is
Finally shallow water effects were investigated at the intended for steady and unsteady computations.
Bulgarian Ship Hydrodynamic Centre (BSHC) (Zlatev et al., For the current simulations, turbulence is modeled by a
2009). The catamaran was redesigned at BSHC, with a scale blended kk model without wall functions and the free
factor  (DELFT/BSHC)=0.826. The experimental program surface is captured using a single-phase level-set method
included four identical series of experiments at different h/T (Carrica et al., 2007). The URANS momentum equations
ratios, namely h/T=8.21 (deep water case), h/T=2.5, h/T=2 are discretized in space using a finite difference approach. A
and h/T=1.5 in calm water, with fixed separation distance second-order upwind scheme is used for discretization of
between the hulls, i.e. S/LPP=0.23. The whole test convective terms and second-order central differences are
conditions are summarized in Table 2. used for diffusion terms. Temporal terms are discretized
The simulations, presented in this work, include most of the using a second-order backwards Euler scheme. A pressure-
mentioned EFD conditions. However, in order to study implicit split-operator (PISO) algorithm is used to enforce
interference in conjunction with shallow water, more cases mass conservation, resulting in a Poisson equation for
were introduced, though experimental data lack for pressure.
validation. Overall, the numerical test matrix includes two CFDSHIP-Iowa allows overset multiblock grids and the
separation distances (S/LPP=0.17, 0.23) and the following code SUGGAR (Noack, 2005) is used to obtain the overset
depth values: h/T=43.33 (deep water); h/T=2.5 and h/T=2. domain connectivity between the set of overlapping grids.
For each case, speed values ranging within Fr=0.20.7 were Rigid overset grids move with relative motion during
chosen. Furthermore, in the current computations, the computations by a motion controller (6DOF) and the
catamaran is free to heave and pitch. An overview of the interpolation coefficients between the grids are recomputed
numerical test conditions is given in Table 3. dynamically every time the grids move. A MPI-based

372 © 2011 American Society of Naval Engineers

decomposition approach is used, where each decomposed
block is mapped to one processor.
Around two-five non-linear iterations are performed for
convergence of the flow field equations and of ship motions
equations within each time step.
3.1 Grids and Boundary Conditions
The computational domain includes a background
orthogonal grid and a boundary-layer curvilinear grid
conforming to ship geometry, fully immersed in the
background (Fig. 2). Three Cartesian background grids have
been created, one for each depth value. The Cartesian
background grids extend in the range -1  x  2.5, 0  y 
1.3, while z varies according to the depth values. The ship
axis is aligned with the x-axis, with the bow at x=-0.5 and
the stern at x=0.5. The free surface, at rest, lies at z=0. The
grids have been clustered in the vertical direction within -
0.05  z  0.05, allowing the computation of larger and
smaller free surface elevation, and in proximity of the
Fig. 2. Computational domain and Boundary conditions.
4 RESULTS
4.1 Numerical errors
Fig. 3.a) to c) shows the comparison between CFDShip
results and EFD data from INSEAN at several separation
distances, as well as for monohull. In Fig. 4.a) to c) the
numerical results are compared with BSHC experimental
data at several water depths. The average errors, respect to
INSEAN data, amount to 4.8%D for CT, to 10.3%D for
sinkage and to 3.93%D for trim. Highest errors are
observed in shallow water, with respect to BSHC
experiments. In this case, in fact, the average error for CT
amounts to 11.31%D, while for sinkage and trim it
amounts to 33% and 17%, respectively. Furthermore, a
high error in numerical predictions for CT, occurs at
Fr=0.274, h/T=2 (Fig.4.a), that affects the interference
value in the same conditions, as will be shown later. In
general, numerical results follow similar trends as EFD
© 2011 American Society of Naval Engineers
bottom. Furthermore the grids were also clustered in the
inner region between the hulls in order to catch the
interaction between the waves systems. 4M to 6M points
grids, split into 8 blocks were used for the cartesian
background grids, based on grid verification study done by
He et al. (2011). The boundary-layer grid has a double-O
topology. The grid spacing at the hull was set to y=10-5 to
yield y+< 1 for the highest Reynolds number case. The grid
comprises 1.6M points in 8 blocks  and can be used for all
the computations, by varying the y-axis position in order to
include both separations distances (S/LPP=0.17 and
S/LPP=0.23). The problem solution allows the use of a
symmetry boundary condition at the centerplane, y=0, and
half domain has been computed. At the bottom, an
impermeable slip boundary condition has been applied for
finite water depth, while, for deep water the ratio h/T was
set to 14 and a far-field boundary condition was applied.
Boundary conditions are included in Fig.2.
data for all variables and the agreement among all results
can be considered satisfactory. However a more detailed
Verification and Validation study is required and will be
included as future work.
4.2 Shallow Water and Interference
Numerical results are plotted in Fig. 5, which shows, at
fixed separation distances, CT varying with water depth,
and in Fig. 6-8, which include CT, Cr/Cf and IF as a
function of Fr at several separation distances, for each
water depth. CT is the total resistance coefficient, Cr/Cf is
the ratio between the residual resistance coefficient (Cr),
that takes into account the wave resistance component,
and the frictional resistance coefficient (Cf), IF is the
interference factor and is defined as:
R  2Rmono CT,cat  CT,mono
IF  cat  (1)
2Rmono CT ,mono
373
 a) b)
Fig. 3. Comparison between EFD (INSEAN) and CFDShip; a) CT; b) Sink(mm); c) Trim (deg).
a) b)
Fig. 4. Comparison between EFD (BSHC) and CFDShip; a) CT; b) Sinkage (mm); c)Trim (deg).
The presence of a finite depth has strong effects on
resistance as well as on interference. Starting with Fig.5, it
can be observed that CT increases considerably respect to
deep water case, and maximum is shifted to lower Fr
values. In fact, for deep water case, it occurs at Fr 0.5,
while, both for h/T=2 and h/T=2.5, it occurs at 0.3<Fr<0.4
Between Froude numbers 0.6 and 0.7, CT decreases with
decreasing water depth for the whole S/LPP range. Finally, at
Fr higher than 0.7 all curves show a convergent trend
towards the same value in any depth of water. At low
Froude numbers (Fr<0.3) any conclusion can be drawn, as
more investigation is needed.
About the interference in shallow water, Fig.6-8, show
numerical results of CT, IF and Cr/Cf, for deep water,
h/T=2.5 and h/T=2, at several separation distances and for
monohull. In deep water (Fig.6.a), maximum CT is
observed, for each separation distance, as well as for
monohull, at Fr=0.5. At low speed, i.e Fr0.35, as well as
supercritical speed (Fr0.7), the CT curves, for all S/LPP
values, collapse on monohull and interference is negligible.
Consequently, IF0 (Fig.6.c) and the catamaran resistance,
according to Eq.(1), can be calculated as twice the monohull
resistance. At 0.35<Fr<0.7, the differences between CT of
catamaran and monohull are significant and IF>0.
Therefore the catamaran resistance is higher than twice the
resistance of each demihull, due to the additional effects of
interaction of the waves systems generated by both hulls
(RT,cat=2RT,mono+RIF). Furthermore, before the hump
(Fr=0.5) the effects of separation distance on IF are
negligible, while at the hump IF is maximum and it is
higher for narrow separation distance than for wider
separation distance. For higher speed (Fr>0.5), IF curve is
slightly larger for narrow separation (S/LPP=0.17) than wide
374
c)
c)
separation. Finally, when speed increases to Fr>0.8
negative IF values are expected. For more detailed analysis
of interference in deep water, see He et al. (2011).
In shallow water (Figures 7.a and 8.a), maximum CT is
shifted to lower Froude numbers respect to deep water case,
but similarly as deep water, it occurs at the same Fr both for
catamaran and monohull. At 0.35<Fr<0.45, large
differences affect CT between catamaran and monohull. As a
consequence, high IF values are observed (Fig. 7.c and 8.c),
and IF humps occur at Fr corresponding to CT peaks.
Furthermore, similarly as for deep water, before the hump,
the separation distance effects on IF are negligible, while
they are relevant at and after the hump, where the curve for
narrow separation distance is higher than for the wide one.
At the highest Fr (Fr>0.55), the CT curves seem to
converge towards a single value with a reduction of the
interference effects, and negative IF values are expected to
occur at lower Fr respect to deep water case. In particular,
negative IF values were found for h/T=2 and S/LPP=0.23.
Such results are based on a purely numerical analysis, as
any experimental data are available for monohull in shallow
water. Therefore, further experimental investigation on
monohull is required in order to validate CFD for CT as well
as for IF. Furthermore a high IF value is observed for
Fn=0.274 (Fig.8.c). This is probably due to the errors in
numerical predictions of CT for the catamaran. In fact,
looking at Fig.4.a, it can be observed that numerical results
follow similar trends as EFD but the highest errors occur at
low Fr for h/T=2.
The ratio Cr/Cf, which takes into account wave resistance, is
plotted in Fig. 6, 7 and 8.b. It shows that wave resistance is
the main cause of interference both in deep and in shallow
water.
© 2011 American Society of Naval Engineers
 a) b) c)
Fig. 5. Numerical results of CT at S/LPP=0.23(a), S/LPP=0.17(b), and monohull (c)

a) b) c)
Fig. 6. Numerical results of CT (a), Cr/Cf (b), and IF(c) for catamaran and monohull in deep water.

a) b) c)
Fig. 7. Numerical results of CT (a), Cr/Cf (b), and IF(c) for catamaran and monohull at h/T=2.5.

a) b) c)
Fig. 8. Numerical results of CT (a), Cr/Cf (b), and IF (c) for catamaran and monohull at h/T=2.

© 2011 American Society of Naval Engineers 375

In fact, CT and IF humps occur when residuary resistance is
maximum, after the hump Cr/Cf is higher for lower
separation distance, same as CT and IF, while before the
hump the similarity is with CT but not with IF, due to
already discussed errors occurring at S/L=0.23, h/T=2.
Furthermore, in shallow water higher Cr/Cf values are
registered respect to deep water case.
Due to the lack of experimental data for some of the cases
dealt herein, the presented analysis is qualitative. However,
results found herein show a very good agreement with
literature where linearized theory and different geometries
were used (see Moraes et al.,2004).
5 CONCLUSIONS
In the present work, a preliminary numerical study was
undertaken in order to investigate the effects of shallow
water on the resistance and on the interference between the
hulls of a multi-hull vessel.
The following conclusions can be drawn from the
simulations:
a. In shallow water CT increases significantly respect
to deep water case and maximum is shifted to
lower Fr values, i.e. 0.3<Fr<0.4 for shallow water,
Fr0.5 for deep water;
b. In shallow water, maximum positive interference
occurs at 0.3<Fr<0.4, corresponding to the CT
peak, for all S/LPP and h/T values;
c. Similarly to deep water, also in shallow water, the
smaller the spacing between the hulls, the greater
the CT curve at the hump and after the hump.
Before the hump, the spacing between the hulls
seems to have negligible effects on CT.
d. In deep water, IF shape is such that negative
interference is expected at Fr>0.8. In shallow
water, negative interference seems to occur at
lower Froude number values;
Future work should include more investigation for low Fr
values, i.e. Fr <0.3, both by CFD and by experiments.
Further EFD investigation is also needed for monohull in
shallow water, in order to have benchmark data for CFD
validation and have a more rigorous estimate of the
Interference factor.
REFERENCES
Broglia, R., Zaghi, S. and Di MAscio, A.D. (2009).
“Analysis of the Hydrodynamic Performances of High-
Speed Catamarans by Viscous Flow Solver”.The
376
International Society of Offshore and Polar Engineers
(ISOPE).
Carrica, P., Wilson, R., Noack, R., and Stern, F. (2007).
“Ship Motions using Single-Phase Level Set with
Dynamic Overset Grids,” Computers & Fluids, 36, pp.
1415-1433.
He, W., Castiglione, T., Kandasamy, M., Stern, F. (2011).
“URANS Simulations of Catamaran Interference”.
Submitted to 11th International Conference on Fast Sea
Transportation, Hawaii, USA.
Insel, M., Doctors, L.J. (1995). “Wave pattern prediction of
monohulls and catamarans in a shallow water canal by
linearised theory”. Proceedings of 12th AFMC, Sidney.
Millward, A. (1992). “The effects of hull separation and
restricted water depth on catamaran resistance.” The
Royal Institution of Naval Architects.
Molland, A.F., Wilson, P.A., Taunton, D.J., Chandraprabha,
S., Ghani, P.A. (2004). “Resistance and wash wave
measurements on a series of high speed displacement
monohull and catamaran forms in shallow water.”
International Journal of Maritime Engineering, 146, pp
19-38.
Moraes, H.B., Vasconcellos, J.M., Latorre, R.G. (2004).
“Wave resistance for high-speed catamaran.” Ocean
Engineering, 31, pp. 2253-2282.
Noack, R. (2005). ‘SUGGAR: a general capability for
moving body overset grid assembly’. AIAA paper
2005-5117, 17th AIAA Computational Fluid
Dynamics Conference, Ontario, Canada.
Souto-Iglesias, A., Zamora-Rodriguéz, R., Fernandéz-
Gutiérrez, D., Pérez-Rojas., L. (2006). “Analysis of the
wave system of a catamaran for CFD validation.”
Experiments in Fluids, 42, pp 321-332.
Tarafder, M.S. and Suzuki, K. (2007) “Computation of
wave-making resistance of a catamaran in deep water
using a potential-based panel method.” Ocean
Engineering, 34, pp 1892-1900.
Van't Veer, R. (1998). ‘Experimental results of motions,
hydrodynamic coefficients and wave loads on the 372
Catamaran model’. Delft University Report 1129.
Zlatev, Z., Milanov, E., Chotukova, V., Sakamoto, N.,
Stern, F. (2009). “Combined model scale EFD-CFD
investigation of the maneuvering characteristics of a
high speed catamaran.” Proceedings of FAST09,
Athens, Greece.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This work was funded by the Office of Naval Research,
under the administration of Dr. Patrick Purtell.
© 2011 American Society of Naval Engineers