Applied Ocean Research 42 (2013) 105–113

Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect

Applied Ocean Research

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/apor

Review

Hydrodynamic analysis techniques for high-speed planing hulls

Reza Yousefia , Rouzbeh Shafaghata , * , Mostafa Shakerib
a
Department of Mechanical Engineering, Babol Noshiravani University of Technology, Babol, Iran
b
Department of Mechanical Engineering, University of California, Berkeley, CA 94720, USA

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: A planing hull is a marine vessel whose weight is mostly supported by hydrodynamic pressures at high-
Received 11 June 2012 speed forward motion. Its high-speed character has made it popular and thus the interest for planing hulls
Received in revised form 9 May 2013 for military, recreational and racing applications is progressively rising. The design and analysis procedure
Accepted 10 May 2013
for high-speed planing hulls, due to their performance and speed requirements, is very important. Access to
a fast, accurate technique for predicting the motion of these hulls plays a significant role in improvement in
Keywords:
High-speed planing hull this field. Over the past several decades, numerous investigations have been done on hydrodynamic analysis
Analytical technique of high-speed planing hulls. In this study, the existing techniques for analysis of these hulls are reviewed.
Experimental technique Understanding the strengths and limitations of these techniques will help researchers and engineers select
Numerical method the most appropriate method for optimal design and analysis of a hull. To present a comprehensive study on
Benchmark table the existing techniques, they are classified into two major categories: analytical–experimental and numerical
techniques. The numerical techniques are further divided into methods for boundary value problems and
domain-dependent problems. Each technique is applicable only for a limited range of cases.
c 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction conditions. One of the greatest challenges in evaluating the perfor-

Nowadays, high-speed vessels are used for military, recreational,
racing, and transportation purposes. The number of high-speed hulls
has significantly increased in recent years owing to their speed and
performance. Accurate analysis of the hull behavior in motion plays
an important role, mainly due to the significance of their optimum
and reliable operation under a variety of sea conditions. The structural
design of these hulls is also important as it has direct effects on their
weight, cost and the load they can transport. The need for developing
new concepts in the design of these hulls is becoming indispensable.
Hydrodynamic forces on the high-speed hull, during its forward mo-
tion, support most of its weight and thus lift a large portion of the hull
out of water. Dynamic behavior of a hull in waves mutually alters its
hydrodynamic performance. As the hull advances in water, both its
underwater hydrodynamics and above-water aerodynamics affect its
motion and thus contribute to the dynamic behavior of the hull.
For marine vessels that move in the displacement mode, the wave-
making drag increases significantly with speed, requiring a higher
level of power. Optimum design of the ship architecture can decrease
the hydrodynamic drag at higher speeds. Planing hulls have charac-
teristics that distinguish them from other types of hulls. Understand-
ing the characteristics of the hull is important in making an accurate
prediction of the behavior of the planing hull under various operating
* Corresponding author. Tel.: + 98 912 376 7507.
E-mail address: rshafaghat@nit.ac.ir (R. Shafaghat).
mance of planing hulls is to obtain accurate and practical results from
hydrodynamic analyses.
The emphasis of this study is to evaluate the existing hydrody-
namic analysis techniques and determine the applicability of each
method. A brief description of the high-speed planing hull is first pre-
sented. Research studies in this field is then reviewed and classified.
Finally, the applicability and limitations of each analysis method are
presented in a benchmark table.
2. General specifications
In a planing vessel, hydrodynamic pressure distribution on the
hull creates a lift that supports a significant portion of its weight.
Hydrodynamic pressures also affect the stability of these hulls. In
some cases, the hull speed exceeds 60 knots. At lower speeds, the hull
displaces water to move forward. As the speed increases, a lift force
is generated, which eventually supports the hull and moves it out of
water. As the wetted surface area decreases, the hydrodynamic lift
rises further.
There is a point at which the hydrodynamic lift balances the weight
of the hull. Under this situation, the buoyancy forces decrease with
the increase of hydrodynamic forces. In the displacement mode, to
achieve a higher speed, a larger engine power is needed. However,
as the vessel shifts to the planing mode, the hydrodynamic forces
produced by the submerged portion of the vessel lift the hull toward
the water surface and thus cause a faster motion (Fig. 1). The vessel in
the planing mode has a higher efficiency and thus requires less power
for the same forward speed. This is because the wetted surface area

0141-1187/$ - see front matter  c 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.apor.2013.05.004
106 Reza Yousefi et al. / Applied Ocean Research 42 (2013) 105–113
Fig. 1. A photograph of a high-speed boat in the planing mode.
Fig. 2. Hull resistance as a function of speed, indicating the three modes of motion.
Graph reproduced from [1].
and consequently the skin friction decrease.
Fig. 2 shows the hull resistance behavior in the three conventional
modes of motion (displacement, semi-planing (transition), and plan- 
ing) as a function of the loaded hull Froude number ( F r = V / gL,
where V is the forward velocity (m/s), g is the gravitational accelera-
tion (m/s2 ), and L is the length of the hull at the waterline (m)). The
Fr of the hull in the displacement mode is less than ∼0.5. The hull
speed beyond this falls within the “hump region” and is a transition
between displacement and planing modes. Once Fr exceeds 0.85, it
shifts to the planing mode. In comparison with other types of hulls,
the performance of the planing hulls strongly depends on the loca-
tion of its center of gravity. The hull experiences a different set of
conditions in each of the aforementioned mode. For instance, the hull
motion in the displacement mode is very similar to the motion of
displacement hulls.
In the semi-planing mode, the hull shifts from displacement to
planing mode and the Froude number stays less than ∼0.85. Similar
to the displacement mode, the trim of the hull, wetted surface area,
and drag all increase in this case. To achieve the planing mode, the
hull has to overcome a so-called resistance barrier (Fr = ∼0.5), which
requires a relatively high power. The practical upper limit for the
semi-displacement mode occurs when Fr reaches ∼0.85. The hull will
not shift to the planing mode if enough power is not supplied by the
vessel engine. As the Froude number increases, the trim of the hull
gradually decreases and tends to a constant value.
In the planing mode, the hydrodynamic lift and buoyancy forces
support approximately 95% and 5% of the hull weight, respectively. In
this mode of motion, the flow around the hull becomes two-phase and
the solution of the governing equations using analytical techniques
Fig. 3. Schematic of a planing hull.
becomes impossible. Although experimental tests are the most reli-
able way for modeling these flows, these techniques are very costly
and data are achievable only for a limited number of cases. The in-
herent limitations of analytical and experimental techniques have
motivated the researchers to use computational fluid dynamics (CFD)
methods in recent years.
3. Geometric characteristics
Planing hulls have a number of common geometric characteristics
which include the dead-rise angle, chine, and spray rail (Fig. 3).
The deadrise angle is defined as the angle between the bottom
of the hull with the horizontal (Fig. 3). According to this definition,
the hulls with a flat bottom have a deadrise angle of zero. Vessels
with a deadrise angle of zero move constantly and comfortably in
still water; however, in rough waters, they experience slamming. In
the event of slamming, the passengers will be uncomfortable and, in
extremely rough waters, slamming can hurt the passengers and cause
severe damages to the hull and the equipment onboard. The hulls
with a non-zero deadrise angle, on the other hand, break the water
and move more smoothly in both waters and are lifted to the water
surface while moving forward. Selecting a correct deadrise angle can
help stabilize the hull and facilitate a smoother ride. It also reduces
the wetted area and drag in the planing mode. To minimize slamming
effects, hulls usually come in a V-shaped structure. It should be noted
that hulls with a flat bottom have a much higher drag compared
to their V-shaped counterparts. As the hull advances in water, the
stern is the last section that comes out of water and is the first to
touch the water on its way back. Therefore, larger sterns result in
larger slamming effects. Slamming can be considerably reduced with
increase in deadrise angle.
The intersection of the bottom and side of the hull forms a line
that is called a chine. The chine becomes harder as the angle between
the side and bottom surfaces increases. A chine can cause a smoother
hull motion at higher speeds and in turbulent waters. It is also an
important factor in keeping the hull more stable. In addition, a chine
cuts the water and reduces the wetted area, which in turn, reduces
the drag force and increases the speed.
Spray rails can improve the efficiency and performance of high-
speed planing hulls. The shape, size, and location of the spray rails
have important effects on their effectiveness. Spray rails redirect the
upcoming water and confine it through the bottom of the hull and
thus cause a lift force. They improve the efficiency by reducing the
wetted area. Spray rails also increase the longitudinal and transverse
stability of the hull. Another advantage of spray rails is that they
protect the side walls from incident water. Spray rails come in a
variety of shapes; however, they all share a triangular cross-section.
Spray rails have sharp edges in order to prevent stagnation points for
the upcoming water.
Planing hulls have three main cross-sections: convex, concave,
or flat (Fig. 4). Convex cross-sections are more popular in practice
than the other two shapes. The convex hulls are very strong and,
compared with other cross-sections require less material, causing the
hull to become lighter. Another advantage of this shape is its reduced
slamming loads [2].
 Reza Yousefi et al. / Applied Ocean Research 42 (2013) 105–113
Fig. 4. Common cross-sections used in high-speed planing hulls. Left: convex; middle: concave; and right: flat [2].
Fig. 5. Hydrodynamic analysis techniques for planing hulls.
4. Analysis techniques for planing hulls
The design of a planing hull requires tools to allow for estimating
the dimensions, propelling power, hydrodynamic drag, and predicting
the hull motion behavior. Due to the complexity of the behavior of
these hulls, hydrodynamics of the flow around them has not been
fully understood. Hydrodynamic analysis of these hulls is much more
complicated than displacement hulls due to the spray drag, wave-
making drag, free-surface simulation, and the two-phase nature of
the flow. The best and most accurate results are from experiments
that have been conducted over the past several decades. Numerical
techniques can be used to determine the flow unknowns and predict
the hydrodynamic behavior of these hulls. Numerical methods can be
instrumental at different stages of the planing vessel design specially
in selecting the optimum hull form. In general, there are a variety of
theoretical and numerical techniques for hydrodynamic analysis of
planing hulls, which can be classified as in Fig. 5.
The main objective of this study is to describe the numerical tech-
niques that are more popular among researchers. FVM and BEM are
the dominant methods for viscous and potential flows, respectively.
However, FDM and FEM are among the least popular methods for
hydrodynamic analysis of the flow around planing hulls. It should
be emphasized that the FVM was originally developed in the form
of FDM [3]. Among the methods presented in Fig. 5, FEM and FDM
have limited applications in hydrodynamic analysis of planing hulls.
Therefore, in the following sections, among the methods based on
viscous flow, only FVM will be described.
4.1. Analytical–experimental techniques
There are a limited number of techniques for analysis of planing
hulls. Savitsky’s design and analysis method is among the most pop-
ular techniques. In 1964, Savitsky [4] conducted a series of tests on
various wedge-like hulls and obtained semi-empirical correlations
for estimating lift and drag forces. He obtained equations through a
regression procedure and suggested a method for estimating the drag
of high-speed planing hulls. To use his equations, the hull is assumed
to be in the planing mode, which in turn, requires that the pressure
applied to the bottom of the hull support the entire weight and thus
neglect buoyancy forces.
107
4.2. Boundary element method (BEM)
Fluid motion is described by the continuity equation in conjunc-
tion with the Navier–Stokes equations. These equations are based
on the conservation of mass and momentum, respectively. In gen-
eral, solution of Navier–Stokes equations is both complicated and
time-consuming. In practice, to simplify the governing equations, a
number of assumptions are made. Simplification of governing equa-
tions limits their applicability. In inviscid flows, in most applications,
the potential theory is used, which assumes negligible variations of
properties in the computational domain.
BEM uses the properties of the Green’s second identity to solve
a set of differential equations. In this technique, the flow field is not
separated from the boundary; the equations are solved only on the
boundary. This method reduces one dimension of the problem, lead-
ing to fewer unknowns. As a result, less memory and time are needed.
In BEM, the integral over the entire fluid region can be related to
the integral over the boundary, which results in easier meshing and
higher computational speed.
Due to the semi-analytical nature of this method and the use of
integrals, the function for the Laplace equation is exact. Discretization
of boundaries can be a source of errors in BEM. Using this technique,
partial velocity potentials are first calculated, followed by the total
potentials. Therefore, by calculating the partial potentials, velocity
is obtained by differentiation. Knowing the velocities, pressures and
forces are computed. Although BEM can considerably reduce the anal-
ysis time and provide reasonable solutions compared to the viscous
flow based techniques, they lead to significant errors for problems in
which viscous effects are not negligible and/or wave breaking occurs.
4.3. Finite volume method (FVM)
In FVM, integrals over the control volume are discretized in the
computational domain. Navier–Stokes equations (3 equations) and
continuity for an incompressible flow have a total number of 4 un-
knowns (3 velocities and 1 pressure). These equations can be solved
simultaneously or iteratively. In the simultaneous method, a set of
equations are solved for the four unknowns. This method is costly
and requires a relatively high memory and computational time. Due
to the high volume of computations in this method, the computer
speed plays an important role [3].
FVM has the following algorithm:
1. Integration of the governing equations over the control volume.
2. Discretization, which includes replacing approximations for inte-
gral terms and converting the integral equations to a set of alge-
braic equations.
3. Selection of a method to solve the set of equations.
The first step, i.e. integration over the control volume, distin-
guishes FVM from other CFD methods.
The problem modeling can be done in three steps: calculating the
velocity and pressure distributions, modeling the free surface, and
simulation of the hull motion. To obtain the velocity and pressure
108 Reza Yousefi et al. / Applied Ocean Research 42 (2013) 105–113
distributions, Navier–Stokes equations are solved. Normal stresses
(pressure) and tangential stresses (due to viscous forces) are then
calculated from pressure and velocity distributions. Forces and mo-
ments are obtained from normal and tangential stresses. Furthermore,
linear and angular displacements are calculated using conservation
of linear and angular momentum equations.
In FVM, solution of the governing equations is significantly influ-
enced by the type and quality of the mesh, type of flow and turbulence
model (if used), and solution algorithm of the velocity and pressure
fields. The first step in numerical simulation of the flow around a
high-speed planning hull is to create an appropriate mesh. There are
a variety of meshes, each of which having advantages and drawbacks
depending on the specific problem. Based on the geometry of the
problem, a structured or unstructured mesh can be used. Structured
meshes are much simpler and require less information for discretiza-
tion and computation of the mesh. However, these meshes encounter
difficulty when they are used for complex geometries. On the other
hand, unstructured meshes are more efficient but require high capac-
ity storage for the mesh data. To resolve this, multi-block meshes are
used. The quality of the mesh is improved by increasing the resolu-
tion of the mesh in regions with a high gradient of flow parameters.
Multi-block meshes improve the accuracy of the solution [5].
Degree of freedom of the hull, motion amplitude and relative mo-
tion between the hull and fluid play an important role in selecting
a suitable mesh. Cartesian, overset, and body-attached meshes are
mainly used by researchers in this field. In some cases, remeshing
is also used to improve the simulation results. Cartesian meshes are
fixed and the effect of the motion of the structure is applied to the
discretized equations or the shape of the cells on the boundaries.
However, in overset method, a number of overlapped meshes are
used to discretize the computational domain. In this technique, one
simple mesh covers the entire domain, and for each moving section
or complex geometry, a separate mesh is used.
In remeshing, an unstructured mesh containing the boundaries
is first created. Linear and angular displacements are then applied
to the structure. Given the initial computational domain, which is
kept fixed throughout the solution, and displaced boundaries of the
structure, a new mesh on the entire domain is created. In the attached
mesh technique, by computing the linear and angular displacements,
the structure is first displaced, and then the undeformed mesh is
displaced accordingly. This method is appropriate in the simulation
of 6 degree-of-freedom small amplitude motion [6].
The flow regime around a high-speed hull is normally turbulent. In
turbulent flow, transport quantities such as momentum and energy
fluctuate at a high frequency. Simulations of these fluctuations are
time consuming and numerically expensive. Instead of direct sim-
ulation, the governing equations can be averaged over time (RANS
equations) to reduce the time and expense. The averaged equations
have additional unknowns, which can be obtained using turbulence
models.
In the analysis of turbulent flows, it is very important to select an
appropriate model. In hydrodynamic analysis of high-speed hulls, k–ε
and k–ω have mostly been used by researchers. k–ε model is popu-
lar due to its accuracy both for simple and complex flows including
recirculation, streamline curvature and swirl flows. The k–ε model is
further divided into three types: standard, RNG (re-normalization),
and realizable. While the standard model is used in high Re flows,
the RNG theory uses a differential equation to account for viscous
effects, which become important in low Re flows. However, effec-
tive use of this model depends on appropriate behavior of the flow
near the wall. The RNG model has a significant improvement over the
standard model specially where the streamlines are highly curved
and thus vortices and circulation exist. In flows with reduced veloc-
ity and separation due to reversed pressure gradient, RNG performs
better than standard k–ε. k–ε models lead to more accurate results
in regions with higher Re. However, near the wall, where the Re is
relatively small, it runs into troubles and results in less accurate es-
timation of the flow parameters. Therefore, k–ω model can be used
to predict turbulent variables near the rigid wall using finer mesh
elements.
In control volume method, there are two methods to solve the
Navier–Stokes and continuity equations: simultaneous and iterative
methods. In simultaneous method, all flow variables (velocities and
pressure) are first discretized to obtain a system of algebraic equa-
tions. These linear equations are then simultaneously solved. This
method is very expensive and requires powerful computers. In this
method, the velocity field is fist solved and the pressure is then com-
puted. On the other hand, in iterative method, the velocity and pres-
sure terms are discretized in two ways: estimation-correction and
partial step. Both of these discretization methods are usually used in
hydrodynamics problems and are relatively accurate. There are dif-
ferent methods for discretization of the velocity and pressure terms.
Among them, 1st and 2nd order up-wind are mostly used in this field.
In comparison to the 1st order up-wind discretization, the 2nd order
up-wind is less stable but more accurate.
On the convergence of the solution, it should be noted that in addi-
tion to the residuals plots, another criterion should be monitored. For
instance, in problems in which hydrodynamic forces are important,
variations of drag and lift with time can be plotted to monitor conver-
gence. Or, if the maneuverability of the hull is important, variations of
heave and pitch of the hull are usually monitored, as in [7]. A bench-
mark table, summarizing major velocity-pressure coupling schemes,
meshes, and turbulence models used in numerical investigations on
planning hulls, is presented in Section 6.
5. Review of research on high-speed planing hulls
A great deal of theoretical and experimental research has been
done on high-speed planing hulls since early 20th century and a num-
ber of techniques have been developed for hydrodynamic analysis of
these hulls. Earlier research on hydrodynamics of these vessels was
based on analytical methods. Due to the natural limitations of these
techniques, they were limited to two-dimensional (2D) studies with
the exception of the work by Wagner [8], Mauro [9], and Tulin [10],
which was based on three-dimensional (3D) flow. Doctors [11] per-
haps conducted the first comprehensive 3D study on planing hulls
with no limitations on the Froude number. Most of the research then
was based on BEM. Because BEM reduces one dimension of the flow
field, computations were quite fast and since the computers were
slow, it was a great advantage. However, an important factor, i.e.
viscosity, is neglected in this technique. This method was based on
potential theory and thus the results were not reliable for viscous
flows. With the advances of computer technology in the later decades
of the 20th century, interest in FVM, which is capable of providing
details about the flow field, gained momentum and has constantly
improved. FVM is now used in CFD codes or commercial software.
It should be noted that BEM is still being used. Depending on what
information about the flow is needed and the time constrains, either
of BEM or FVM is used. In the following sections, 2D and 3D ana-
lytic studies based on potential theory will first be presented. This
is followed by studies based on viscous flow. Finally, experimental
investigations will be briefly discussed.
5.1. Potential flow
One of the earlier studies on high-speed hulls is by Von Karman
[12], which was based on conservation of momentum for analysis
of 2D hulls. In 1932, Lamb [13] investigated a 2D planing problem.
He used an integral equation to obtain the pressure distribution as
a function of slope for a 2D planing plate with a small aspect ratio.
Later in 1951, Mauro [9] solved the 2D planing problem based on
Lamb’s method and by a Fourier series expansion to obtain an un-
known pressure distribution on a plane. He used the slope of the
 Reza Yousefi et al. / Applied Ocean Research 42 (2013) 105–113 109

Table 1
List of software programs and their major capabilities and characteristics.

Capabilities Software

Fluent ANSYS-CFX CFDShip-IOWA OpenFOAM Star-CD Tdyn

Computational Excellent Excellent Good Good Excellent Good

stability
Scripting capability Good Good — Excellent — —
Access to source No No No Yes No No
code
Availability of Easy Easy Very difficult Easy Difficult Difficult
software

Table 2
List of major numerical investigations performed after year 2000 and summary of their results. The x symbol next to each research represents whether the study obtains the pressure
distribution, trim diagram and drag curve. It also shows whether the study simulates the free-surface and investigates stability, wave pattern and maneuverability.

Pressure Trim Drag Free-surface Wave

Date Author(s) Hull Software/analysis method distribution diagram curve simulation Stability pattern Maneuverability

Finite volume method (FVM)

2000 Subramani et Planing Series CFD-Ship-Iowa: RANS, VOF, x x x
al. [49] 60 dynamic mesh
2001 Caponnetto Planing COMET: HRIC interpolation for x x x x
[37] VOF
2002 Thornhill Planing FLUENT: RANS, VOF x x x
[40]
2003 Caponnetto Planing COMET: dynamic mesh, RANS, x x x x x
et al. [39] k–ε
2005 Senocak and DTMB 5415 FLUENT: VOF, RANS, k–ε x x x
Iaccarino
[47]
2007 Özdemir [3] Planing FLUENT: RANS, k–ε, k–ω x x x
2007 Subramanian Planing w/ FLUENT: RANS, k–ε, x x
et al. [48] tunnel single-phase
2007 Javanmardi Trimaran NUMELS: dynamic mesh, x x x x x x
et al. [7] CICSAM for VOF
2008 Fultz [42] Pentamaran FLUENT: k–ε, PLIC for VOF x x x x
2009 Jahanbakhsh Catamaran NUMELS: dynamic mesh, VOF x x x
et al. [45]
2009 Seif et al. [44] Planing NUMELS: CICSAM for VOF x x x x
2009 Panahi et al. Catamaran NUMELS: dynamic mesh, k–ε, x x x x
[43] planing and CICSAM for VOF
wedge
2011 Pranzitelli et Semi-planing FLUENT and SHIPFLOW: RANS, x x x
al. [1] VOF, panel method, two-phase
2011 Brizzolara Planing wedge Star-CD: RANS, VOF x x x x
and Serra
[41]
Boundary element method (BEM)
2002 Savander et Planing plate Potential perturbation, vortex x x x
al. [25] distribution
2006 Kihara [34] Planing 2D + T, domain decomposition x
pyramid in spray region
2008 Ghassemi Series 62 BEM for pressure drag, BL for x x x
and Yu-min planing frictional drag and empirical
[27] method for spray drag
2010 Ghassemi Wedge/ flat Coupled BEM and boundary x x x x
and Kohansal plate, variable layer theory
[28] deadrise
2010 Sun and Planing 2D + T x x x x
Faltinsen
[32]
Finite element method (FEM)
2000 Yang et al. Planing, Series FEM, dynamic mesh x x
[29] 60
2005 Xie et al. [30] Planing FEM x

plane as a boundary condition in his solution. His method was valid
for plates moving at typical Froude numbers. Cumberbatch [14] was
able to solve the 2D planing problem for high Froude numbers. In
his method, the integral equation was expanded, with a power series
of inverse Froude number, and solved using an iterative technique.
He showed that the right combination of a geometric shape and flat
surface could remove the singularity of the leading edge. His results
showed a considerable reduction in drag force. Clement and Blount
[15] evaluated the existing techniques for predicting the motion of
high-speed hulls and compared them with experimental results.
Doctors [11] presented a finite pressure element method for solv-
ing the flow around a 2D plate. In his problem, an inviscid flow ran
over the free-surface. His idea was similar to Mauro’s; however, a
different pressure distribution was used. A linear potential flow was
used in his work. His method allowed for a variety of pressure distri-
butions for the planing plate.
110 Reza Yousefi et al. / Applied Ocean Research 42 (2013) 105–113
The strip theory, which is based on potential flow, is used to deter-
mine the drag and lift coefficients for planing hulls. In this technique,
the hull is divided into thin strips and each strip is then analyzed. This
method assumes a two-dimensional flow around the hull. Strip theory
was first used in Salvensen’s study [16] and has been improved over
the years. Frandoli et al. [17] showed that the strip theory provides
relatively good results even at higher Froude numbers.
Another method for analysis of high-speed hulls is 2.5D or 2D + T.
This technique assumes a fixed imaginary plane which intersects with
the hull as it moves through. In this technique, the problem reduces
to a plane moving the water surface. This technique was first used by
Tulin [10] and then Zhao et al. [18] extended the method for analysis
of high-speed hulls in calm water.
Three-dimensional methods are much more complicated than 2D
techniques. In 3D problems, the wetted surface area is much larger
and calculation of the integral equation is more sophisticated. In the
earlier decades of the 20th century, due to the limitations on com-
putational hardware, the 3D problem was tackled by only a limited
number of investigators. These studies were limited in hull speed and
aspect ratio. Earlier attempts for modeling 3D-planing problem were
made by Wagner [8]. He modeled the hydrodynamics of the planing
problem by a slender body moving in water. Furthermore, Tulin [10]
used a vortex distribution to determine the flow around the hull and
the plunging jet impact on the free-surface. Wagner’s water entry and
Tulin’s jet models laid the foundations for future studies.
Mauro [19] presented an integral equation for the 3D-planing
problem, which related the slope of the surface to the velocity po-
tential terms using a function of unknowns. His integral equation
was similar to the integral equation for the vortex distribution over a
thin planar foil. He then solved the integral equation by both a large
and a small aspect ratio approximation. He expanded the integral
equation with respect to the aspect ratio and only the first term was
taken into account, neglecting higher orders. Therefore, the solution
was an approximation. For smaller aspect ratios, his method required
a high Froude number. Mauro’s method was incapable to be used
for rectangular planing plates. Wang and Risipin [8] also solved the
3D steady state potential flow around a planning rectangular plate
with a moderate aspect ratio and a large Froude number. They ob-
tained the pressure distribution on the hull in the form of a series and
compared it experiments. Their results were in good agreement with
experiments.
Doctors [20] perhaps conducted the first comprehensive 3D study
on planing hulls with no limitations on the Froude number and as-
pect ratio. He used an integral equation that related the pressure
distribution to the velocity potential, which was earlier obtained by
Wehausen and Laitone [21]. The flow around the hull was modeled by
finite pressure elements. The pressure was allowed to vary with the
position of each element and the overall distribution was continuous.
The double integral equation was transformed to a line integral using
a special function. One of his problems was that the wetted area was
unknown a priori and thus it was part of the solution. Through an iter-
ative procedure, the wetted area was adjusted in such a way to satisfy
the trailing-edge Kutta condition until it reached a constant value.
The pressure distribution was found to be oscillatory. The pressure
oscillation was attributed to the inaccuracy of the pressure elements.
Because the pressure elements were not uniform on the free-surface,
the pressure distribution was not correctly modeled on the surface.
Wellicome and Jahangeer [22] studied the 3D-planing problem
based on the pressure distribution on the wetted area using rectan-
gular elements of constant pressure. Tong [23] also used these integral
equations for pressure to study the planing plate problem. In his study,
the elements were constant and matched the leading edge profile of
the wetted surface area. The shape of the wetted surface was known
a priori and the draft was determined at the transom.
In addition, Cheng and Wellicome [24] used pressure strips in the
transverse direction to study hydrodynamics of planing hulls. Pres-
sure along each strip was assigned a sinusoidal series, and thus each
term was represented by a mathematical formulation. The wetted
area was determined when the draft and the transom profile were as-
sumed unknown. In his case, there was no limit on the Froude number
and the aspect ratio. One drawback of this technique was that variable
transverse pressure strips produced a continuous pressure distribu-
tion only in the transverse direction; however, in the longitudinal
direction, the pressure distribution was discontinuous.
Savander et al. [25] applied the boundary value problem to a plan-
ing plate and obtained relationships between potential perturbation
and vortex distribution. They calculated the hydrodynamic pressure,
lift and drag forces for the planning plate at different speeds. Ghas-
semi et al. [26–28] have developed a computer code, based on BEM in
conjunction with boundary layer, for hydrodynamic analysis of plan-
ing and non-planing hulls. One of the drawbacks of this code is that
it does not take into account a two-phase flow model. It addition, the
code cannot be used for complex geometries and high Froude number
cases. They also used this code to study the wave pattern and pressure
coefficients. Furthermore, Ghassemi and Yu-Min [27], and Ghassemi
and Ghiasi [26] developed a hybrid technique to determine the hy-
drodynamic forces for steady state flow around a planing hull. In all
of these studies, good agreement between BEM and experimental
results was reported.
Yang et al. [29] used an FEM to simulate the flow around a planing
hull. In their simulation, the draft of the hull was determined through
an iteration procedure and then the heave and pitch were deter-
mined using the balance of normal forces and moments. They applied
a moving mesh near the hull. Their iterations were continued until it
converged to a dynamic balance. Tests were also done for the Wigley
and Series 60 for an extensive range of Froude numbers. When the
trim and draft were fixed, this technique revealed considerable differ-
ence with experiments compared to the variable trim and draft case
(two degrees of freedom). Xie et al. [30] also investigated 3D-planing
hulls using FEM. They used the potential theory and determined the
free-surface by adopting a coordinate system normal to the hull and
by assuming a zero pressure condition. In this technique, each ele-
ment on the planing plate was set to a constant power pressure field.
The pressure distribution obtained with this technique was in good
agreement with the results of Tong [23], Cheng and Wellicome [24],
and Wang and Risipin [31]. In this study, unlike previous studies, the
pressure was not oscillatory. The oscillation is believed to be related
to the constant pressure distribution and induced coefficient for pres-
sure elements, which was not used previously.
Sun and Faltinsen [32] investigated the performance of a planing
hull with unsteady flow assumption for the incident waves using the
BEM and 2D + T techniques. They also studied the resulting waves
due to the heave and pitch motions. The results were compared with
the experiments of Fridsma [33]. In addition, Kihara [34] used a 2D + T
technique along with BEM to investigate nonlinear free-surface flow
including the spray. Their idea was based on domain decomposition
in the spray region using boundary elements.
The aforementioned theoretical studies were all based on potential
theory and the free- surface fluctuations were assumed to be small.
In reality, the flow around a planing hull is a nonlinear free-surface
phenomenon. A number of researchers have studied the nonlinear
planing hull problem using a variety of techniques. These techniques
will be described in the following section.
5.2. Viscous flow
With the advancement of computer technology, researchers have
started to widely use the FDM for solving the 3D, nonlinear problem
for displacement hulls. Hino et al. [35] utilized the FDM to study the
hydrodynamics of two simple prismatic geometries. They used the
Euler equation along with a nonlinear free-surface condition and a
 Reza Yousefi et al. / Applied Ocean Research 42 (2013) 105–113
Marker-and-Cell scheme. The wave at the stern was accurately ap-
proximated; however, the pressure at the bow was not in agreement.
Richard et al. [36] used the RANS model to predict the planing lift in
2D flat plates. They calculated the lift force for the plate planing at the
free-surface and with a slip wall approximation for the free-surface.
They found that the approximated free-surface produced better re-
sults than those from the calculated free-surface when compared
against the empirical correlations. They suggested enhancements in
the VOF method before these calculations could be used for design of
planing hulls.
In the same year, Caponnetto [37] used a two-phase, FVM to find
the pressure distribution on the planning hull. They utilized a uni-
form mesh in their analysis with the COMET software (zero degree-
of-freedom). For each speed, three trim angles and three drafts were
used. For other cases, the results were interpolated for a given lift and
LCP relative to the equilibrium state of the hull. Balance is achieved
when the lift equals the weight of the hull and the center of pressure
coincides with the center of gravity. They compared the results using
the Savitsky empirical correlations [4,38]. Caponnetto et al. [39] later
extended this work using CFD to solve the 3D, high-speed hull prob-
lem. In the new technique, they employed a two degree-of-freedom
moving mesh in the simulation. The two degrees of freedom included
balances of moments and normal forces to obtain the trim and draft,
respectively. The results were found to be quite accurate; however,
the computational cost was relatively high.
Pranzitelli et al. [1] used the panel method along with FVM to sim-
ulate the free-surface, two-phase flow around a semi-displacement
hull advancing steadily in calm water. A volume of fluid (VOF) method
was used to predict the free-surface profile and the drag. Using the
FLOWTECH SHIPFLOW software, they employed the panel method
to calculate the waves generated around the hull. In addition, Javan-
mardi et al. [7] used their NUMELS code to study the effects of the
three configurations of the Trimaran hull with a two-phase, viscous
flow model using FVM. They presented the hull maneuverability, sta-
bility, trimangle, and the drag. Furthermore, Thornhill et al. [40] used
FVM and the VOF method to investigate the steady, two-phase flow
around the hull. They assumed a 3D flow in calm water and used an
unstructured mesh. To find the equilibrium state for the hull, balances
of normal forces and moments were used to determine the draft and
trim angle, respectively. The results included diagrams for trim, drag,
and pressure as a function of speed and for three cases of zero, one
and two degrees of freedom. Their results were found to be in good
agreement with experiments. Finally, Brizzolara et al. [41] simulated
the free-surface flow around a wedge-like hull using FVM and the
VOF method. Lift, drag, and the trim angle were obtained and com-
pared against experiments and the results from Savitsky empirical
correlations.
Fultz [42] has recently investigated the flow around a Pentamaran
hull using FVM for two fluid conditions: single phase, and two-phase
(using the VOF). Panahi et al. [43] have also used the FVM and VOF
and the partial step method for velocity and pressure coupling to
simulate hydrodynamics of two different hulls. The first hull was a
two-dimensional wedge with a two degrees of freedom. They then
analyzed the motion of a planing Catamaran hull. In these studies,
they obtained the drag and trim angle curves and compared their
findings with other existing numerical results and found relatively
good agreement. They used the NUMELS-NUMERIC code, which was
developed and optimized by Seif et al. [44]. This code allows for
hydrodynamic analysis and maneuverability of high-speed planing
hulls. One limitation of this code is that suffers solution divergence at
higher Froude numbers. They have recently published several studies
including three-dimensional simulation of the nonlinear motion of a
high-speed hull, simulation of the motion of a Catamaran hull using a
moving mesh [45] and numerical simulation of a high-speed planing
hull.
111
5.3. Analysis using commercial software
With the development of computational techniques in recent
years, calculation of drag forces for a floating body using commer-
cial software has become reliable. MARNET-CFD research team in
Barcelona investigated the effects of incident water on transverse
sections of a planing hull, using both an experimental technique and
a numerical method with the FLUENT software. In the ANSYS users’
conference in 2008, Godderidge [46] presented a modeling of free-
surface flow using the CFX software. His results included the pressure
and trim diagrams as a function of speed and in the presence of a
free-surface pattern.
Senocak and Iaccarino [47] utilized the FLUENT software to in-
vestigate the free-surface flow around the DTMB5415 ship model.
They adopted the VOF method to track the free-surface and the k–ε
turbulence model in their simulations. A structured mesh was used
in their study. They found that the quality of the mesh considerably
affected their computations. Özdemir [3] used the FLUENT software
to compute the lift and drag for a high-speed hull. He obtained the
velocity and pressure fields and compared the accuracy of k–ε and
k–ω turbulence models.
Subramanian et al. [48] used the FVM based CFD-Ship-Iowa code
to simulate a Series 60 hull. VOF method was used to trace the free-
surface. With a moving mesh, the position of the hull changed with
time, which in turn, caused the trim and draft of the hull to change
toward a balance state. This procedure was continued until balance
was achieved. The results agreed with experiments very well. The
trim diagram and drag of the hull for a variety of speeds and free-
surface shapes were among their results. Subramani et al. [49] also
used FVM for a single-phase, RANS model to investigate the effect of
a tunnel on the pressure drag and lift. They used the FLUENT software
and compared the results with Savitsky experiments.
It should be mentioned that there are a number of computer soft-
ware that have the capability to simulate the flow around a hull, tak-
ing into account maneuverability, wave and free-surface effects, and
estimate the hull drag. ANSYS-FLUENT, ANSYS-CFX, CFD Ship-Iowa,
Open FOAM, Ship Flow, Tdyn, and Star-CD are among the available
software. To date, the first four software programs are the most popu-
lar ones having excellent computational stability. ANSYS-FLUENT and
ANSYS-CFX are easily available and have programming capabilities,
though they are not open source. Open FOAM is readily available, open
source and allows for user programming. Although CFDSHIP-Iowa is a
powerful and professional program for simulation of the flow around
ships; it is not easily available and has no user programming capabil-
ities. In addition, it is not open source. It should be noted that Open
FOAM has not yet gained popularity and FLUENT and CFX are still
the dominant software for simulation of the flow in this field. Table
1 summarizes the characteristics of a number of popular software
packages.
5.4. Experimental studies
Although the main focus of the current study is on computational
techniques, a brief description of some important experimental inves-
tigations is presented. Experimental measurements made by Sottorf
[50] were among the early experimental studies on planing hulls. He
conducted a series of systematic model tests for planing hulls and
measured the hydrodynamic drag, center of pressure, and pressure
distribution for a planning flat plate. In 1934, he extended his analysis
to include the V-shaped models [51]. His work was followed by Shoe-
maker [52], Sambraus [53], Sedov [54], and Locke [55]. These efforts
led to a large volume of experimental data on hydrodynamic charac-
teristics of planing plates under special conditions. Shoemaker [52]
reported data for hydrodynamic drag, center of pressure, wetted line,
and draft for a variety of trim angles, loading, and forward speeds.
Clement and Blount [15] further performed extensive model tests on
Series 62. These experimental data on planing hulls became a good
112 Reza Yousefi et al. / Applied Ocean Research 42 (2013) 105–113

Table 3
List of major experimental investigations on planning hulls and a summary of results.

Date Author(s) Hull Major results

1929 Sottorf [50] Planing flat plate Drag, center of pressure, pressure
distribution
1934 Sottorf [51] V-shaped model Drag and center of pressure
1934 Shoemaker [52] Sottorf’s V-shaped model Drag, center of pressure, wetted length and
draft
1938 Sambraus [53] Extended Sottorf’s V-shaped model Drag, center of pressure, wetted length
1939 Sedov [54] Extended Sottorf’s V-shaped model Drag, center of pressure, wetted length
1948 Locke [55] Extended Sottorf’s V-shaped model Drag, center of pressure, wetted length
1963 Clement and Blount [15] Series 62 model Database for future studies
1964 Savitsky [4] Wedge-shaped planing hull Semi-empirical correlations for drag, lift,
center of pressure
1969 Fridsma [33,56] Wedge-shaped Drag and center of pressure in
1971 planing hull regular and irregular waves
1976 Savitsky and Brown [38] Extended method to include effects of Drag, lift, and center of pressure
waves on drag
1953 Kapryan and Boyd [59] Prismatic planing hull, variety of Lift and pressure distribution
deadrise angles
2002 Katayama et al. [57] Wedge-shaped planing hull Drag and lift coefficients at various forward
speeds
2005 Bowles and Denny [58] Planing hull Predicted turbulent water surface at the
bow
2007 Savitsky [60] Prismatic planing hull Wetted surface characteristics and spray
drag

database for future studies.
In 1964, Savitsky [4] performed experimental tests and provided
empirical correlations for calculation of lift, drag, and center of pres-
sure for wedge-shaped high-speed planing hulls. His results were
reported for a variety of speeds, deadrise angles, and loading. Based
on Fridsma’s tests [33,56] on high-speed planing wedges in regular
and irregular waves, Savitsky and Brown [38] revisited and modified
their original method to include the effects of waves on accelera-
tion and wave drag. The main advantage of this method is that it is
simple and provides relatively accurate results for a number of hulls
with a regular shape. However, his method has some drawbacks. This
technique cannot be used for analysis of hulls with variable deadrise
angles in the longitudinal and transverse directions. In addition, this
method is semi-static and is unable to predict transient behavior. It
provides the total force through a series of correlations and cannot be
used to calculate the force at a point or on a particular panel.
Katayama et al. [57] also performed model tests to find hydrody-
namic drag for wedge-shaped high-speed planing hulls at different
speeds and obtained the lift and drag coefficients. In addition, Bowles
and Denny [58] found a model for prediction of turbulent water sur-
face at the bow of the planing hull.
Most of the previously mentioned investigations were focused
on force and moment measurements. Their main objective was to
provide experimental correlations for prediction of hydrodynamic
drag; however, there has been little experimental research on pres-
sure distribution measurement. Kapryan and Boyd [59] measured the
pressure distribution on planing hulls. They performed a series of ex-
periments on prismatic hulls with a variety of deadrise angles. The lift
force variations were obtained by integrating the pressure distribu-
tion. Savitsky et al. [60] has also recently studied the wetted surface
characteristics and spray to determine the spray drag.
6. Benchmark table
To help future researchers and engineers select the most appro-
priate design and analysis techniques for high-speed planing hulls,
the most recent research studies are summarized in Table 2. The
main purpose for this table is to compare the analysis techniques
and list their capabilities and limitations. Research studies on the hy-
drodynamic simulations of planing hulls published after 2000 have
been reported herein. In addition to listing the analysis technique for
each study, important results including pressure distribution, trim
diagram, drag curve, free-surface shape and effects, stability, wave
pattern, and maneuverability of the hull are presented. This bench-
mark table also contains information about the range of applicability
of each technique. Furthermore, given the importance of experimen-
tal techniques in the analysis of the performance of high-speed hulls,
a brief summary of experimental research is presented in Table 3.
7. Conclusions
Estimation of hydrodynamic forces is the most important compo-
nent in the analysis of high-speed planing hulls. Planing hulls create
complex free-surface flows. These flows include nonlinear phenom-
ena such as plunging jets and irregular waves. To date, model testing is
the best way to predict the hydrodynamic performance of hulls. With
the advancement in the computer hardware and software, numerical
techniques have become effective tools for hydrodynamic analysis.
The most important advantage of numerical methods is that they do
not suffer limitations that are normally encountered in model test-
ing such as the size of the hull, environmental conditions, analysis
and interpretation of results for prototype hulls. They also eliminate
the cost for construction of laboratory models. Numerical techniques
allow for hydrodynamic modeling of real size hulls, investigation of
design components in early phases, and obtaining detailed informa-
tion, which are otherwise impossible to obtain with experiments.
Computational fluid dynamics can be used in applications where
analytical solution of the governing equations is not possible, using
two methods: potential theory for inviscid flow and viscous flow.
FDM and FEM are nowadays rarely used in hydrodynamic analysis of
high-speed planing hulls, although FEM is mainly utilized for struc-
tural analysis of marine vessels. Potential flow-based methods are
applicable to steady state inviscid flows, in which the viscous effects
are negligible. Computational time for this method with an advanced
computer is on the order of minutes and thus is relatively fast.
Based on previous investigations, BEM is an appropriate technique
to obtain wave patterns; however, it is not recommended for simu-
lation of viscous flows with complex free-surface profiles. In these
flows, the viscous effects cannot be neglected and thus a comprehen-
sive analysis of the flow is required. FVM is a more appropriate and
accurate technique for modeling turbulent, free-surface flows. In re-
cent decades, turbulent models have been improved and solution of
 Reza Yousefi et al. / Applied Ocean Research 42 (2013) 105–113
free-surface flows has become possible. In conclusion, FVM is capable
of solving complex, free-surface flows such as breaking waves. It can
also be used to predict maneuverability, seakeeping capability, and
the equilibrium state of the hulls with complex geometries.
References
[1] Marshall R. Powering your boat. All about powerboats: understanding design
and performance. McGraw-Hill Professional; 2002.
[2] Grobler B. Development of high-speed planning trimaran with hydrofoil sup-
port. Stellenbosch: University of Stellenbosch; 2007.
[3] HK Versteeg, W Malalasekera. An introduction to computational fluid dynamics;
1995.
[4] Savitsky D. Hydrodynamic analysis of planing hulls. Marine Technology
1964;1:71–95.
[5] Ferziger JH, Peric M. Computational methods for fluid dynamics. Springer-
Verlag; 1999.
[6] Javanmardi MR, Seif MS, Jahanbakhsh E, Sayyaadi H. Catamaran motion simula-
tion based on moving grid technique. Journal of Marine Science and Technology
2009;17:9.
[7] Javanmardi MR, Panahi R, Jahanbakhsh E, Seif MS. Trimaran resistance cal-
culation. In: 15th annual (international) mechanical engineering conference
(ISME07). Tehran, Iran. 2007.
[8] Wagner H. Planing of watercraft. National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics;
1933.
[9] Mauro H. Two dimensional theory of the hydroplane. In: First Japan national
congress for applied mechanics. Japan. 1951, pp. 409–15.
[10] Tulin MP. The theory of slender surfaces planing at high speeds. Ship Technology
Research/Schiffstechnik 1957;4:125–33.
[11] Doctors LJ. Representation of planing surface by finite pressure elements. In:
Fifth Australian conference on hydraulics and fluid mechanics. New Zealand.
1974.
[12] Liu CY, Wang CT. Interference effect of catamaran planing hulls. Journal of Hy-
dronautics 1979;13:31–2.
[13] Lamb H. Hydrodynamics. Cambridge University Press; 1932.
[14] Cumberbatch E. Two-dimensional planing at high Froude number. Journal of
Fluid Mechanics 1958;4:466–78.
[15] Clement EP, Blount DL. Resistance tests of systematic series of planing hull
forms. Transactions of the SNAME 1963;71:491–579.
[16] Salvansen N, Tuck E, Faltinsen O. Ship motions and sea loads. Transactions of
the SNAME 1997;78:250–79.
[17] Ferandoli P, Merola L, Pino E, Sebastiani L. The role of seakeeoing calculations at
the preliminary design stage. In: NAV 2000 conference. Venice, Italy. 2000, pp.
951–9.
[18] Zhao R, Faltinsen OM, Haslum HA. A simplified nonlinear analysis of a high speed
planing craft in calm water. In: FAST’97. Sydney, Australia. 1997, pp. 431–8.
[19] Mauro H. High and low aspect ratio approximation of planning surface. 1967;72.
[20] Doctors LJ. Representation of three-dimensional planing surface by finite el-
ements. In: First international conference on numerical ship hydrodynamics.
Gaithersburg, MD, USA. 1975.
[21] Wehausen JV, Laitone EV. Surface waves.Encyclopaedia of physics. Springer-
Verlag; 1960, pp. 446–778.
[22] Wellicome JF, Jahangeer YM. The prediction of pressure loads on planing hulls
in calm water. Naval Architect, The Royal Institution of Naval Architects; 1979,
pp. 53–70.
[23] Tong J. A finite element approach to planning problem. UK: University of
Southampton; 1989.
[24] Cheng X, Wellicome JF. Study of planing hydrodynamics using strips of trans-
versely variable pressure. Journal of Ship Research 1994;38:30–41.
[25] Savander BR, Scorpio SM, Taylor RK. Steady hydrodynamic of planing surface.
Journal of Ship Research 2002;46:248–79.
[26] Ghassemi H, Ghiasi M. A combined method for the hydrodynamic characteristics
of planing crafts. Ocean Engineering 2008;35:310–22.
[27] Ghassemi H, Yu-min S. Determining the hydrodynamic forces on a planing hull
in steady motion. Journal of Marine Science and Application 2008;7:147–56.
[28] Kohansal AR, Ghassemi H. A numerical modeling of hydrodynamic characteris-
tics of various planing hull forms. Ocean Engineering 2010;37:498–510.
[29] Yang C, Lohner R, Noblesse F, Huang TT. Calculation of ship sinkage and trim
using unstructured grids. Barcelona, Spain: ECCOMAS; 2000, pp. 11–14.
113
[30] Xie N, Vassalos D, Jasionowski A. A study of hydrodynamics of three-dimensional
planing surface. Ocean Engineering 2005;32:1539–55.
[31] Wang DP, Risipin P. Three-dimensional planing at high Froude number. Journal
of Ship Research 1971;15:221–30.
[32] Sun H, Faltinsen OM. Numerical study of planing vessels in waves. Journal of
Hydrodynamics, Series B 2010;22:468–75.
[33] Fridsma G. A systematic study of the rough-water performance of planning
boats. Davidson Laboratory; 1969.
[34] Kihara H. A computing method for the flow analysis around a prismatic planing-
hull. In: 5th international conference on high performance marine vehicles.
2006.
[35] Hino T, Hirata N, Hori T. Calculation of free surface flows generated by planning
craft. In: FAST’91. 1991, pp. 317–30.
[36] Richard P, Stephen T, Stephen W. Free surface CFD simulations of the flow
around a planning plate. In: FAST 2001. Southampton, UK. 2001.
[37] Caponnetto M. Practical CFD simulations for planing hulls. In: HIPER’01. Ham-
burg, Germany. 2001.
[38] Savitsky D, Brown PW. Procedures for hydrodynamic evaluation of planing hulls
in smooth and rough water. Marine Technology 1976;13.
[39] Caponnetto M, Soding H, Azcueta R. Motion simulations for planing boats in
waves. Ship Technology Research/Schiffstechnik 2003;50.
[40] Thornhill E, Bose N, Veitch B, Liu P. Planing hull performance evaluation using a
general purpose CFD code. In: Fukuoka, Japan. 2002.
[41] Brizzolara S, Serra F. Accuracy of CFD codes in the prediction of planning surface
hydrodynamic characteristics. Rome: INSEAN (Italian Ship Model Basin); 2011.
[42] Fultz ER. CFD analysis of a penta-hulled, air entrapment, high speed planning
vessel. Naval Postgraduate School; 2008.
[43] Panahi R, Jahanbakhsh E, Seif MS. Towards simulation of 3D nonlinear high-
speed vessels motion. Ocean Engineering 2009;36:256–65.
[44] Seif MS, Jahanbakhsh E, Panahi R, Karimi MH. A unified computational method
for simulating dynamic behavior of planing vessels. China Ocean Engineering
2009;23:517–28.
[45] Jahanbakhsh E, Panahi R, Seif MS. Catamaran motion simulation based on mov-
ing grid technique. Journal of Marine Science and Technology 2009;17:9.
[46] Godderidge B. The simulation of free surface flows with computational fluid
dynamics. In: ANSYS UK user conference: inspiring engineering. UK. 2008.
[47] Senocak I, Iaccarino G. Progress towards RANS simulation of free-surface flow
around modern ships. Stanford, CA: Center for Turbulence Research, Stanford
University; 2005, pp. 151–6.
[48] Subramanian AV, Subramanian PVV, Ali NS. Pressure and drag influences due to
tunnels in high-speed planing craft. Amsterdam, PAYS-BAS: IOS Press; 2007.
[49] Seif MS, Amini E. Performance comparison between planing monohull and cata-
maran at high Froude numbers. Iranian Journal of Science and Technology,
Transaction B 2004;28.
[50] Sottorf W. Experiments with planning surfaces. National Advisory Committee
for Aeronautics; 1929.
[51] Sottorf W. Experiments with planning surfaces. National Advisory Committee
for Aeronautics; 1934.
[52] Shoemaker JM. Tank tests of flat and vee-bottom planning surfaces. National
Advisory Committee for Aeronautics; 1934.
[53] Sambaraus A. Planing surface tests at large Froude numbers airfoil comparison.
National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics; 1938.
[54] Sedov L. Scale effect and optimum relations for sea surface planning. Moscow:
Central Aero Hydrodynamical Institute; 1939.
[55] Locke FWS. Tests of a flat bottom planning surface to determine the inception
of planing. Department of Navy, BuAer, Research Division; 1948.
[56] Fridsma G. A systematic study of the rough-water performance of planning
boats (irregular waves-part II). Davidson Laboratory; 1971.
[57] T Katayama, S Hayashita, K Suzuki, Y Ikeda. Development of resistance test for
highspeed planing craft using very small model scale effects on drag force. 2002.
Asia Pacific workshop on hydrodynamics
[58] Bowles BJ, Denny BS. Water surface disturbance near the Bow of high speed, hard
chine hull forms. In: 8th international conference on fast sea transportation,
Petersburg, Russia. 2005.
[59] Kapryan WJ, Boyd GMJ. The effect of vertical chine strips on the planning char-
acteristics of V-shaped prismatic surface having angles of deadrise of 20◦ and
40◦ . NACA; 1953.
[60] Savitsky D, DeLorme MF, Datla R. Inclusion of whisker spray drag in perfor-
mance prediction method for high-speed planing hulls. Marine Technology
2007;44:35–56.