Determination of Hydrodynamic Coefficients

in Roll Motion of High-Speed Planing Hulls

Sasan Tavakoli1, Parviz Ghadimi2, Abbas Dashtimanesh3, Prasanta K Sahoo4
1. Department of Maritime Engineering, Amirkabir University of Technology (Tehran Polytechnic), Tehran, Iran (V)
2. Department of Maritime Engineering, Amirkabir University of Technology (Tehran Polytechnic), Tehran, Iran (V)
3. School of Naval Architecture and Marine Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, Persian Gulf University, Bushehr, Iran (V)
4. Department of Marine and Environmental Systems, Florida Institute of Technology, Melbourne, Florida, USA (M)

KEY WORDS λ Mead wetted length (beams)

Roll motion, Planing hulls, Hydrodynamic coefficients, τ Dynamic trim angle (°), positive bow up
Mathematical Modeling. β Deadrise angle (°)
∆ Weight of boat (N)
NOMENCLATURE
Distances and coordinates:
a Position where effects of transom on hydrodynamic
2D sections:
and hydrostatic forces appears (m)
B(x) Total buoyant force of each section (Nm-1)
a' Non-dimensional position where effects of transom
c Mean wetted beam (m)
on hydrodynamic and hydrostatic forces appears.
ci Half wetted beam at each side(m)
HD Hydrodynamic center of pressure (m) a
Cpi a' =
BFn
HS Hydrostatic center of pressure (m) B

Cpi x, y Right handed coordinate locating at center of gravity,

fi(y) Wedge height function at each side (m) and z x is along to base line and positive forward, y is
HD Hydrodynamic force at each side of section (Nm-1) positive to starboard, and z is positive downward
fi
η1, η2 Right handed coordinate locating under center of
HS Hydrostatic force at each side of section (Nm-1) and gravity, η1 η2plane is the water surface, and η3is
fi
η3 positive upward
hi Water depth at each side (m)
xT Longitudinal position of transom stern with respect to
H Water height (m)
xyz coordinate
l Distance from the wedge apex along the wedge wall (m)
mi Rolling moment acting on each side (N-m/m) Forces and moments:
F2 Horizontal force (N)
M(x) Rolling moment of each section (N-m/m)
N(x) Total normal force of each section of each section (Nm-1) F3 Vertical force (N)
R(x) Rate of reduction at each section FHS Hydrostatic force (N)
Si Wetted region of each side FN Normal force (N)
w Impact velocity of the section (ms-1)
y Lateral distance from apex of the section, positive to Parameters related to roll motion:
starboard (m) A Amplitude of roll moment (N-m)
Y(x) Total lateral force of each section of each section (Nm-1) a44 Added mass coefficient (kg-m2)
z Vertical distance from apex of the section, positive upward b44 Damping coefficient (kg-m2s-1)
(m) c44 Restoring coefficient (Kg-m)
µ Asymmetrical parameter (m) M4 Roll moment (N-m)
R Amplitude of forced roll mechanism (rad)
ϕ Roll angle (rad)
Boat principal characteristics: ω Frequency of motion (rad/s)
B Beam of the boat (m) θϕ Phase shift for the forced roll motion (rad)
I44 Mass moment of Inertia about x axis (Kg-m2) θ Phase shift for the roll moment (rad)
M
LOA Length of Overall (m)
LCG Longitudinal position of center of gravity with
Physical factors
respect to transom (%L) g Gravity acceleration (ms-2)
LK Keel wetted length (m) φ Potential field
ρ Water density (kgm-3)
FnB Beam Froude No. FnB = V / gB
VCG Vertical position of center of gravity (m) INTRODUCTION
V Boat speed (ms-1)
Observations by crew of high-speed planing boats and sea trial
tests have indicated that high-speed planing hulls suffer poor
longitudinal and transverse instabilities, and boat may
experience unfavorable motions due to any small environmental
excitation. In this regard, dynamic motions of planing boats
have been investigated over the last thirty years, during which
innovative linear and nonlinear methods have been developed.
In these studies, different methods have been developed by
various authors to determine forces and moments acting on the
hull. However, majority of investigators have focused on
vertical motions of planing boats in waves (such as Zarnick
(1978), Hicks and Troesch (1994) etc.) and few researchers have
only attempted to model motions in transverse and horizontal
planes including sway, yaw and roll motions. Furthermore, most
of researches dealing with transverse and horizontal planing
motions, were experimentally conducted (such as Judge (2010),
Morabito et al (2014) etc). There exist only few articles, in
which mathematical models for transverse motion have been
developed. Therefore, it is needed to develop a simple
mathematical models for prediction of transverse motions of
planing boats for use in conceptual design phase. During the last
five years, there has been an increased interest in study of
transverse motions, and in the current paper, an attempt has
been made for a mathematical study of roll motion of planing
hulls.
One of the early investigation in this field was performed by
Savitsky (1958), who investigated the effects of heel angle on
forces acting on the bottom of a 20 degrees deadrise prismatic
planing surface in an asymmetry steady planing, and presented
an empirical equation for computation of lift force. However,
the study ignored the modeling of roll motion. Subsequently,
Brown and Klosinski (1994a, b) implemented a series of
experimental tests for studying forces and moments acting on
the bottom of a planing hull at different sway and roll angles. In
another published report by Brown and Klosinski (1995) used
free roll motion in order to measure roll hydrodynamic
coefficients of planing boats. They also derived two empirical
equations for predicting roll damping and added mass
coefficients. Lewandowski (1996) focused on roll motion of
planing boats and derived an empirical equation for restoring
roll moment which considers contributions of both
hydrodynamic and hydrostatics in rolling moment. In the same
year, Taxopeous (1996a, b), developed two different six-degrees
of freedom (6DOF) mathematical models with the aim of
modeling of maneuvering of high-speed planing crafts. One of
his models was exclusively provided for three boats of Delft TU
laboratory where the roll coefficients of the boat were modeled
using experimental results. The other model, for determination
of roll coefficients, utilized experimental data to derive
regressions equations along with some assumptions. In order to
compute roll damping moment, Taxopeous (1996b) used the
expression introduced by Geritsma (1989). Also, to calculate
roll added mass, he used formula presented by Papanikolaou
(1980). Furthermore, Ikeda and Katayama (2000), proposed a
straightforward method for determining of roll damping
coefficient based on lift of the hull. Based on their method, it is
initially required to find the slope of lift force versus trim angle
Tavakoli Determination of Hydrodynamic Coefficients Related to Roll Motion of High-Speed Planing Hulls
plot and then, to implement the presented relation. The proposed
method indicated that roll damping of planing boats has no
dependency on roll amplitude and frequency. Balsamo et al.
(2001), implemented a roll mechanism and measured roll
coefficients. In their experimental research, they applied a
sinusoidal roll moment to the boat, and used the hull response
for finding the hydrodynamics coefficients of roll motion. Their
results show that, for a prismatic hull in displacement and semi-
displacement regime, frequency significantly affect roll
coefficients, and at planing speeds, there is no dependency on
frequency. Rucselli (2009) attempted to find the roll damping of
planing boats by considering different components for roll
damping: two linear components and two non-linear
components. The first linear term that he considered, was the
term proposed by Ikeda and Katayama (2000) i.e., lift, where he
preferred to use an empirical expression suggested by Faltinsen
(2005) to obtain slope of lift as a function of trim angle. The
other component was related to wave making. The two non-
linear components which have been utilized by him were
frictional and large eddies terms. Begovic et al. (2013) presented
an experimental research on roll damping of hard chine hull
forms. Their experiments, however, were not performed at
planing regime. They specify that, for a hard chine hull-form,
damping coefficient is linear, and lift force is dominant
component of roll damping.
Judge (2010) introduced a forced roll mechanism for
determining roll coefficients of planing crafts. The description
related to this mechanism is precisely explained by Judge and
Beaver (2013). Judge (2012) used this methodology to measure
hydrodynamic and hydrostatic force acting on the bottom of the
boat and variations of wetted surface. Judge and Judge (2013)
preformed a series of experimental research which showed that
roll damping and added mass have no dependency on frequency
and amplitude. However, these two coefficients have direct and
inverse relation with load and Froude Number respectively.
Furthermore, Judge (2014) focused on the coupled motion of
heave and roll and show that hydrodynamic coefficient of heave
motion changes as a planing hull is subjected to roll motion.
In addition to experimental studies, it is worth mentioning that
during years from 2008 to 2013, researchers have attempted to
use 2.5D theory to simulate roll motion of planing hulls in time
domain. Sebastiani et al. (2008) were the first to have tried to
simulate roll motion by providing a modification of Zarnick's
method (1978). They assumed that as a planing boat experiences
roll motion, its added mass may be divided into two
components: added mass associated with starboard and added
mass associated with port. By using this assumption, they
determined roll moment and solved the roll motion equation in
the time domain. Ghadimi et al (2013) extended this model to a
6-DOF model. They mentioned, although asymmetric effects
have been neglected in their initiated mathematical model, but
they have been well aware from both asymmetric and oblique
effects on roll motion prediction and suggested that their
mathematical model be modified for consideration of such
conditions. Moreover, it must be noted that neither roll velocity
and roll acceleration were considered at their studies.
2
In some of the recent published papers, combination of
numerical methods and 2.5D theories, have been used to model
sway and roll motions. Tascón et al (2009) determined the sway
force and roll moment acting on a planing hull, at different sway
and roll angles. In their methodology, a water entry problem
was solved using computational fluid dynamics. In addition,
Tascón and Algarín (2013) used a similar methodology to
determine the roll moment acting on the body. Morabito (2015),
extended previous results of Judge (2000), to predict yaw force
acting on a planing and also to find the effects of transom stern
on yaw force.
The present study attempts to mathematically model forced roll
mechanism developed by Judge (2010) in order to determine
hydrodynamic roll coefficients. To achieve this goal, 2.5D
theory is used by which forces and moments acting on the
bottom of hull are determined. The pressure acting on each
section, is computed using potential theory, and considering
impact velocity as well as roll velocity. The roll moment acting
on each section is computed using pressure and the roll moment
acting on the craft is determined using integration of the
sectional moment. In addition, contribution of hydrostatic force
in restoring moment is taken into account. The hydrodynamic
and hydrostatic forces are reduced using a transom reduction
formula. It is attempted, to assess, validity of the present
method, by comparing predicted coefficient against previous
experimental data.
MATHEMATICAL FORMULATION
To model a planing hull in a forced roll motion, it is assumed
that the boat speed equals V and has no change during the roll
motion. Furthermore, it is supposed that the boat is subjected to
a specific harmonic roll motion and its corresponding roll
motion may be written in the form of
ϕ = R cos(ωt + θφ ) (1)
Transverse plane
V Also, fi(y) indicates the wedge height at each section. The
xη
1 β1 = β − ϕ (t )
z
η3
ϕ = R cos(ωt + θϕ )
Figure 1: Roll motion of a planing boat.
The linear roll motion of planing vessel is represented by
M 4 = ( I 44 + a 44 )ϕ&& + b44 ϕ& + c 44ϕ (2)
where, a44, b44 and c44 indicates added mass, damping, and
restoring coefficients related to roll motion, respectively. The
Tavakoli Determination of Hydrodynamic Coefficients Related to Roll Motion of High-Speed Planing Hulls
main aim is to find the moment acting on the body and then use
the methodology proposed by Judge (2010) to compute the
coefficients. To compute the roll moment, 2.5D theory has been
utilized as shown in Figure 1. Using this theory, an impact
velocity of w is considered for each section of boat which can be
written as:
w = V sin τ (3)
where τ is the trim angle of the boat, also a roll speed should
also be taken into account, being equal to roll speed of the boat
at any time. In the next section, it will be explained how the
moments acting on each section can be obtained. It should be
mentioned that, in the computations, the oblique speed is
neglected by the authors as this value is quite small.
2D sections
Water Entry for Finding Pressure- To determine forces and
moments acting on the planing hull, it is initially needed to
compute pressure over the corresponding sections. In order to
find the pressure, a water entry problem should be solved, while
the sections have been removing with roll speed. To accomplish
the solution, it is assumed that fluid is inviscid, incompressible
and the boundary conditions are linear. Therefore, the potential
field may be used for the fluid around the body, and the
governing equations along with boundary conditions can be
written in the form of
 2 -c2 <y < c1 , z < fi ( y ) − hi (t )
∇ φ = 0 
 ( y < −c2 ) ∪ ( y > c1 ), z < H (t ))
φ = 0 ( y < −c2 ) ∪ ( y > c1 ), z < H (t ))
 (4)
φ = − w + ϕ& (t ) y ( - c <y < c , z < f ( y ) − h (t ))
 y 2
cos β i
2 1 i i

φ → 0 (y + z → ∞ )
2 2
where H(t) is the water depth at each section, ci and hi(t) denotes
wetted half beam and water depth at each side, respectively.
deadrise angle of each sides is denoted with
(5)
β 2 = β + ϕ (t )
The sketch of the related water entry problem is shown in Figure
2.
ϕ& = − Rω sin(ωt + θϕ ) ϕ
w
z
c2 c1
z=H(t)
y
β1
β2
Figure 2: Sketch of a section having both impact and roll speed.
3
 and, then the buoyant force is reduced by applying a reduction
The solution to the equation (4), is obtained by Qin et al. (2011), function described later. To determine the roll moment, it is
extracted by augmenting an additional term to the classical necessary to compute center of hydrodynamic and hydrostatic
solution of Wagner (1932). The mentioned solution, however, is pressure at each side, which is achieved using the following
shown in different form, by considering two parameters, integral
1 ∫ pldl
c = (c1 + c2 ) HD Si
2 cpi = (12)
(6) ∫ pdl
1 Si
µ = ( c1 − c2 )
2 Similarly, transverse center of hydrostatic pressure is
used initially by Algarín and Tascón (2011). Accordingly, the determined by
potential field can be written in the form of c1
∫
HS
0
cp1 = c
yf ( y ) dy

2 2
1
∫0 f ( y ) dy
φ ( y, t ) = − w c − (− µ + y ) 0
(13)
∫− c2 yf ( y ) dy
cp2 =
HS
ϕ& 2 2
(7) 0
+ 2
c − ( − µ + y ) (6 µ + 2 y ) ∫− c2 f ( y ) dy
cos βi

The hydrodynamic pressure on the wedge surface is derived by

applying Bernoulli equation:
y
1 2
η2
p = − ρ (φt + ∇φ ) (8)
2 z
To find the pressure, values of c and µ must be determined. In fHD1
the current paper, in order to compute these values, the fHD2 fHS2 η3
methodology suggested by Algarín and Tascón (2011) has been fHS1
used, in which three phases are considered. Although their
φ
technique provides for the asymmetric wedge water entry
without roll velocity but in current paper, it is presumed that roll
velocity has no significant effects on the spray root position and Figure 3: Schematic of forces acting on a section during roll
motion.
consequently, values of c and µ are still calculated using
equation (6).
Using the determined forces, the roll moment acting on each
side is found as follows
Forces and Moments- The diagram of forces and moments n HD
acting on a 2D section is illustrated in Figure 3 which shows mi = fi (cpi cos β i − VCG sin ϕ )
both hydrodynamic pressure and hydrostatic pressure causes y HD
+ fi (cpi sin β i − VCG cos ϕ ) (15)
normal force and rolling moment. The hydrodynamic force at
HS
each side is derived using integration of pressure over the wedge + fhsi (cpi − VCG cos ϕ )
surface Finally, total normal, lateral and hydrostatic forces along with
HD
fi = ∫ pdl (9) rolling moment acting on each section are obtained by
Si
summation of the components associated with starboard and
and the normal and lateral forces may be found using port:
n HD
fi = fi cos β i n
N ( x ) = f1 + f 2
n
(16)
y HD
(10) y y
fi = fi sin β i Y ( x ) = f1 − f 2 (17)
HS HS
Furthermore, the submerged volume of the section is applied for B ( x ) = f1 + f2 (18)
determining the buoyant force:
c1
M ( x ) = m1 + m2 (19)
HS
f1 = ∫ f i ( y ) dy
0
(11) Forces Acting on the Boat
0
HS The forces acting on the boat during the roll motion are
f2 = ∫ f i ( y ) dy
− c2 determined by integrating the total forces acting on each section.
Based on Garme (2005), transom stern causes a reduction in
normal force in its vicinity, so, a hyperbolic function was
presented to consider corresponding reduction in normal force.

Tavakoli Determination of Hydrodynamic Coefficients Related to Roll Motion of High-Speed Planing Hulls 4
Also, Morabito (2014) proposed a reduction function for normal
force and hydrostatic force, which indicates that the rate of
reduction for both hydrodynamic and hydrostatic forces are the
same. Recently, Morabito (2015) extended numerical results of
Judge (2000) for finding the yaw forces acting on the boat.
Morabito (2015) observations, for hulls with λ<1, transom
effects should be considered. Accordingly, in the current paper,
three dimensional forces and moments are computed by
applying reduction function presented by Garme (2005)
2.5
R ( x) = tanh( ( xT − x )) (20)
a studies are shown in Table 1.
A sin(θ M − θ R )
b44 = (30)
−ω R
VALIDATION OF THE PRESENTED METHOD
The validation of the presented method is assessed by
comparing the computed roll hydrodynamics coefficients
against available experimental data including: (1) Balsamo et al.
(2001) and (2) Judge and Judge (2013). The principal
characteristics of planing boats considered in experimental

where xT is longitudinal distance of transom from center of

gravity. Also, a is the position at where force reduction begins: Table 1: Principal characteristics of experimented by Balsamo et
al. (2001) and Judge and Judge (2013).
a
a′ = (21)
BFnB Parameter Balsamo et al. (2001) Judge and Judge
(2013)
Garme (2005) considers that a'=0.34. The reduction function is
LOA / (m) 2.5 1.524
applied for both hydrostatic and hydrodynamic forces. B / (m) 0.6 0.42
The final three dimensional normal forces, lateral force, Deadrise Angle (°) 10 20
hydrostatic force and roll moments are obtained using VCG (m) 0.14 0.1343
FN = ∫ R ( x )N ( x ) dx (22) C∆ 0.3107 0.1435
LK

F2 = ∫ R ( x )Y ( x ) dx (23) Figure 4 shows a comparison between computed and measured

LK
FHS = ∫ R ( x )B ( x ) dx
LK
M 4 = ∫ R ( x )M ( x ) dx
LK
The final force in vertical direction also is determined by
summation of normal force and hydrostatic forces
F3 = FN cos τ + FHS (26)
Determination of coefficients
To predict the restoring coefficient, the hull is mathematically
(Balsamo et al, 2001) roll moment needed to hold the boat at a
(24) fixed heel angle. The computations are carried out for three
different Froude beam numbers of 2.29, 2.99 and 3.59. At
(25) FnB=2.29 and 2.99, the current method has a favorable accuracy.
At FnB=3.59, however, the moment is over-predicted. This may
be due to the fact that hydrostatic force has smaller contribution
at high Froude number rather than at low Froude numbers. In
the other words, at high Froude Numbers, hydrostatic pressure
has little contribution in producing total pressure as stated by
Morabito (2014).
18
M (N.m)

Predicted
16
held at distinct fixed roll angles, and its required roll moment is 14
found. The mean values of moment and heel angles will be used Experimental Measurments of
12 Balsamo et al. (2001)
for finding C44, as proposed by Judge (2010): 10
M 8
C = 44
4
(27) 6
ϕ 4
The roll added mass and damping coefficients are also 2 φ(degrees)
computed using the forced roll motion. To obtain the 0
coefficients, the hull is subjected to the harmonic motion of 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5 5.5 6
equation (2), and then the rolling moment is computed, which is
(a)
in the form of
M 4 (t ) = A cos(ω t + θ M ) (28)
For roll velocity of 0, and roll acceleration of 0, the determined
amplitude of moment and its shift are applied in equations (29)
and (30):
A cos(θ M − θ R ) + RC44
a44 = 2
− I 44 (29)
ω R

Tavakoli Determination of Hydrodynamic Coefficients Related to Roll Motion of High-Speed Planing Hulls 5
 16 measured damping coefficient show that at low speeds, error is
Predicted

M (N.m)
14 larger in comparison with high Froude numbers. Also, in all
12 Experimental Measurments of cases, predicted damping coefficients are under-predicted. This
Balsamo et al. (2001) may be result of neglecting the viscosity in presented
10
mathematical model and also neglecting effects of roll speed on
8
spray. The predicted results for both Froude numbers, show that
6
there is a good agreement between predicted and measured roll
4 added mass.
2
φ(degrees)
0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5 5.5 6 6.5 0.1

b44/ρB5√(B/g)
0.09 Predicted
(b)
0.08 Judge and Judge (2013)
20
Predicted 0.07
M (N.m)

17.5 0.06
15 Experimental Measurments of 0.05
Balsamo et al. (2001)
12.5 0.04
0.03
10
0.02
7.5 0.01 ω/√(B/g)
5 0
2.5 0 0.25 0.5 0.75 1 1.25 1.5 1.75 2 2.25 2.5 2.75 3
φ (degrees)
0 (a)
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5 5.5 6 6.5 7 0.1

b44/ρB5√(B/g)
(c) Predicted
0.08 Judge and Judge (2013)
Figure 4: Comparison of predicated roll moment for holding of
boat at a fixed roll angle with experimental results of Balsamo 0.06
et al. (2001): (a) FnB=2.29, (b) FnB=2.99 and (c) FnB=3.59.
0.04
Balsomo et al. (2001) reported C44 for the considered planing
hull using the response of the boat to a specific roll moment. A 0.02
comparison between computed and measured restoring ω/√(B/g)
coefficients are illustrated in Figure 5, which shows reasonable 0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3
accuracy in prediction of C44.
225 (b)
C44 (N.m/rad)

Figure 6: Comparison of predicated damping coefficient of roll

200
motion with experimental results of Judge and Judge (2013): (a)
175 FnB=2.9, (b) FnB=3.6.
0.03
a44/ρB5

150 Predicted
0.025 Judge and Judge (2013)
125
100 Predicted 0.02

75 0.015
Experimental Measurments of
50 Balsamo et al. (2001) 0.01
25 0.005
FnB
ω/√(B/g)
0
0
2 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4 2.5 2.6 2.7 2.8 2.9 3 3.1 3.2 3.3 3.4 3.5 3.6 3.7
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3

Figure 5: Comparison of predicated restoring coefficient against (a)

experimental results of Balsamo et al. (2001).

Moreover, Figure 6 and 7 show a comparison between damping

and added coefficients obtained from present method and as
measured by Judge and Judge (2013) at two different Froude
Numbers of 2.9 and 3.6 respectively. Trim and wetted keel
length that are reported by Judge and Judge (2013) are used to
determine the roll moment. Comparisons between predicted and

Tavakoli Determination of Hydrodynamic Coefficients Related to Roll Motion of High-Speed Planing Hulls 6
 0.03 β (°) 10 10 10 20

a44/ρB5
Predicted VCG (m) 0.067 0.067 0.067 0.067
0.025 Judge and Judge (2013) LCG (%L from bow) 60 78 60 60
0.02
C∆ 0.304 0.304 0.608 0.304

0.015 In the next step, transverse stability limits of a planing hull is

0.01
found by identification of the trim angle, at which restoring
moment is negative. This negative restoring moment causes
0.005 non-zero heeling for a planing boat as it moves forward. This
ω√(B/g) phenomena is categorized as an instability of planing craft
0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 during non-oscillatory motion in a transverse plane, as described
by Ruscelli et al. (2012). Similar study has been performed by
(b) Katayama et al. (2006) using recent develops in added mass
Figure 7: Comparison of predicated added mass of roll motion theory, which was published by Payne (1994).
with experimental results of Judge and Judge (2013): (a)
FnB=2.9, (b) FnB=3.6.
Effects of Parameters
To find effects of different parameters on added mass and
damping coefficients, the trim angle and mean wetted length of
RESULTS the boat measured by Fridsma (1969) have been used. The
stiffness coefficient is determined using equation (27). The run
The presented method is used to study the effects of different conditions for these cases are shown in Table 3, which are taken
factors on hydrodynamics coefficients of roll for a prismatic from the report published by Fridsma (1969). To determine
hull-form. In this way, planing hull series of Fridsma (1969) are damping and added mass coefficients, it is considered that
considered that their running attitudes are available at different ω/√B/g of motion be equal 2.01, and amplitude of motion be
Froude Numbers. Among planing hulls of Fridsma's series equal 10°. For each case, the computations are performed at
(1969), four cases were selected, so that the effects of the three different Froude Numbers.
following parameters on roll hydrodynamic coefficients could
be determined: Table 3: Measured trim angle and wetted length of the cases
(Fridsma (1969)).
• Longitudinal center of position,
• Weight of the boat, Case 1
• Deadrise angle, FnB τ (°) λ (beams)
2.14 1.93646 2.1831
Principal characteristics of the selected boats for parametric 3.03 2.05667 2.39437
studies are shown in Table 2. To demonstrate effects of each of 3.75 2.20288 2.47887
abovementioned parameters on roll coefficients, computed Case 2
coefficients of two of these four cases are compared against FnB τ (°) λ (beams)
each other. These two mentioned cases are selected such that all 2.14 4.09323 2.73239
of their principal characteristics to be the same, except the 3.03 3.51424 2.94366
desired parameter that its effects has to be identified. 3.75 3.15425 2.95775
Accordingly, to study effects of longitudinal center of gravity, Case 3
case 1 and 2, are compared against each other, since their FnB τ (°) λ (beams)
length, beam, deadrise angle, vertical center of gravity and load 2.154351 3.68804 3.82906
coefficient are equal. Coefficients thus determined for cases 1 3.045901 4.15832 3.2656
3.7946 3.78718 2.97871
and 3, are compared against each other, because they both have
Case 4
the same L, B, β, LCG, VCG, but, their deadrise angles are
FnB τ (°) λ (beams)
different. Similarly, as all the parameters of case 1 and 4,
1.831993 2.01609 3.86515
including L, B, LCG, and load coefficient, are the same, except 2.851677 2.28269 3.22491
their deadrise angles. These are considered for studying effects 3.919515 2.49477 2.91548
of deadrise angle.

Table 2: Principal characteristics of selected boats to study

Effects of LCG- To study the effects of LCG, cases 1 and 2,
effects of various parameters (Fridsma (1969)).
which have the same principal characteristics except
longitudinal location of CG, are considered and their roll
Parameter Case 1 Case 2 Case 3 Case 4
Length of Overall (m) 1.143 1.143 1.143 1.143 coefficients are determined. Figures 8 and 9 show the predicted
B (m) 0.2286 0.2286 0.2286 0.2286 damping and added mass coefficients, respectively. In each
L/B 5 5 5 5 figure, the dashed line refers to case 1, and the coefficients of

Tavakoli Determination of Hydrodynamic Coefficients Related to Roll Motion of High-Speed Planing Hulls 7
case 2 denotes with solid line. The damping coefficient plot them, trim angle and wetted length decreases as the speed
show that for the case with LCG=78%L (case 2), b44 is larger. decreases.
This is result of values of trim angle and wetted length of boat at
this situation show in Table 3. Observations of Fridsma (1969) 0.11

a44/ρB5
show that for a boat with specific geometry and a constant load 0.1
0.09
coefficient, trim angle and wetted length of a boat increases as 0.08
the position of center of gravity moves to transom. Accordingly, 0.07
for the boat with LCG=78%, trim angle and wetted length are 0.06 LCG=60%L
LCG=78%L
larger in comparison with the case with LCG=60%L. Therefore, 0.05
0.04
it may be specified that as LCG moves to transom, trim angle
0.03
and wetted length of the boat increases and result in increasing 0.02
damping coefficient. This result can also be found in 0.01
FnB
observations of Ikeda and Katayama (2000), who stated that the 0
dominant component of roll damping in planing motion is lift. 1 1.25 1.5 1.75 2 2.25 2.5 2.75 3 3.25 3.5 3.75 4
They showed that lift of a planing hull increases with increasing
of trim angle, and consequently damping coefficient rises. Figure 9: Effect of LCG on added mass coefficient: C∆=0.308
(cases 1 and 2).
0.1
b44/ρB5√(B/g)

LCG=60%L
LCG=78%L Effects of Weight- Figure 10 and 11 show predicted damping
0.08
and added mass of roll motion for cases 1 and 3. Load
0.06 coefficient of cases 1 and 3, equal 0.304 and 0.608, respectively.
For the both cases, deadrise angles are equal, and LCG is
0.04 located at 60%L. In Figure 10 and 11, coefficients of case 1 and
3 are illustrated with dashed and solid lines, respectively. The
0.02 resultant plots sketched in Figure 10, show that for the heavier
FnB hull (case 3), the damping coefficient is larger than lighter boat
0 (case 1). The noticeable point is that, for the heavier boat, values
1 1.25 1.5 1.75 2 2.25 2.5 2.75 3 3.25 3.5 3.75 4
of damping coefficient are two times larger than lighter boat,
Figure 8: Effect of LCG on damping coefficient C∆=0.308 (cases which is the ratio of weight of heavier boat to lighter boat.
1 and 2). Similar results is obvious in those measured by Judge and Judge
(2013). Based on their measurement for the heavier boat, the
Figure 9 shows effects of LCG on the added mass of roll in roll damping coefficient was bigger, and approximately (not
planing motion. The results show that for the case that LCG is exactly) two times larger than lighter boat. Based on these
closer to transom, added mass coefficient is larger. The main results, as the load of a craft increases, the damping coefficient
reason is the wetted length of the craft. As the wetted area of a increases linearly with slope equals to rate of load.
boat increase, the added mass should increase because the area
dealing with water increases. As mentioned above, for the case 0.1
b44/ρB5√(B/g)

C_Delta=0.304
which LCG is closer to stern, wetted length gets larger. C_Delta=0.608
Accordingly, for the case with LCG=78%L, added mass is 0.08
larger. The remarkable point is the trend of variation of added
0.06
mass as a function of Froude beam number. For the case with
LCG=60%L, a44 has direct relation with Froude number. The 0.04
other case has an inverse relation with Froude number. This
trends, show that, for this case, trim angle has significant effect 0.02
on added mass than wetted length, which may indicate some
limits of the present method in prediction of added mass such as 0 FnB
it high dependence on trim angle. For the case 2, as shown in 1 1.25 1.5 1.75 2 2.25 2.5 2.75 3 3.25 3.5 3.75 4
Table 3, trim angle varies from 4.09° to 3.12°, while mean Figure 10: Effect of load on damping coefficient (cases 1 and 3).
wetted length/beam ratio increases from 2.73 to 2.95 but the
added mass decreases. It proves that, decreasing of trim angle Figure 10, shows the effects of load on added mass of roll for a
has more effects than increasing of wetted length. However, in planing boat. Based on the plots, for the heavier boat, added
the formulations presented by Lewandowski (2004), for added mass is larger, and decreases as the speed increases. For the
mass, no dependency on trim angle is observed. In addition, lighter cases, however, added mass increases with increasing of
Judge and Judge (2013) pointed out that a44 decreases as the speed. The main reason for this difference behavior of trend, is
boat speed increases. This conclusion was based on the values of trim angle and wetted length. For the lighter boat,
experimental cases that they studied. For the boat, studied by from FnB=2.14 to 3.76, trim angle and wetted length increases,

Tavakoli Determination of Hydrodynamic Coefficients Related to Roll Motion of High-Speed Planing Hulls 8
but for the heavier boat, both of these values decreases, and 0.1
β=10

b44/ρB5√(B/g)
result in reduction of added mass as a function of speed. 0.09
β=20
0.08
0.18
0.07
a44/ρB5
0.16 C_Delta=0.304
C_Delta=0.608 0.06
0.14
0.05
0.12
0.04
0.1
0.08 0.03
0.06 0.02
0.04 0.01
FnB
0.02 0
0 FnB 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5
1 1.25 1.5 1.75 2 2.25 2.5 2.75 3 3.25 3.5 3.75 4
Figure 12: Effect of deadrise angle on damping coefficient
Figure 11: Effect of load on added mass coefficient (cases 1 and (cases 1 and 4).
3).
The variations of added mass coefficient for the cases with
similar load coefficient and LCG, as a function of FnB, is
Effects of Deadrise Angle- Effect of deadrise angle on b44 is illustrated in Figure 13. The resultant plots show that, at
studied in this section. Hydrodynamic coefficients of cases 1 FnB<2.4, hull with smaller deadrise angle has larger added
and 4 are determined. These cases have equal weight mass, and then the hull with larger deadrise angle has larger
(C∆=0.304), similar position of LCG (60%L), beam and length, added mass. In the previous paragraph, variation of wetted
but their deadrise angles are not equal. The computed roll length and trim angle for the both of these cases was explained.
damping and added mass coefficients are shown in Figures 12 By considering these variations, it is deduced that, the mean
and 13, respectively. In both of these figures, dashed lines wetted length has main effects on added mass.
demonstrates coefficients of case 1. Also, coefficients of case 4,
are identified by solid lines. Figure 12, show that for the hull
with smaller deadrise angle (case 1), the damping coefficient is 0.045
larger. This is due to lift produced by the hull. For a hull with
a44/ρB5

0.04
smaller deadrise, the lift is larger, and consequently, b44
becomes larger. This is similar to what Ikeda and Katayama 0.035
(2000) showed: dependence of roll damping on dynamic lift. 0.03
Also, Lewandowski's formulations (2004) show that, damping 0.025
of roll has direct relation with (1-sinβ), which means that, 0.02
deadrise angle has a inverse relation with damping coefficient,
0.015
and its increasing may result in decreasing of b44, and is in
agreement with current results. 0.01
β=10
0.005 β=20
For the case 1, damping coefficient increases by increasing of 0
speed, but for the case 4, b44 slightly increases from FnB=1.83 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5
to 2.85, and then significantly decreases from FnB=2.85 to 3.91.
For the case 1, mean wetted length decrease as the FnB Figure 13: Effect of deadrise angle on added mass coefficient
increases, while trim angle increase. However, variations of trim (cases 1 and 4).
angle is very slight so that, from FnB=2.85 to 3.91, trim angle
gets larger by 0.18 degrees, while variations of mean wetted Example: Finding Transverse Stability Limit for a
length is significant. Therefore, from FnB=2.85 to 3.91, Planing Boat
decreasing of wetted length dominates and causes decreasing of Katayama et al (2006) used 2.5D theory and integration of roll
b44. moment along the boat to study stability loss of planing boat.
They computed the moment using the added mass theory. Also,
they considered specific values for center of dynamic force
before and after chine wetting. Accordingly, the presented
method for determination of roll moment is used to find stability
limit for a planing boat. In this regard, for the model 2, at each
FnB=4.5 to 7.5, for different trim angles, the required wetted
length to support weight of the boat is determined and then roll
moment computed. Trim angle at which the roll moment is
negative, is found for each Froude Number, and shown in

Tavakoli Determination of Hydrodynamic Coefficients Related to Roll Motion of High-Speed Planing Hulls 9
Figure 14. The trim angles above the sketched line are
considered as stability range and trim angels under this line are
identified as the unstable regime. In stable range, the hull non-
zero heeling does not occur.
2.5
2 Brawn, Peter W., Klosinski, Walter E. Experimental
τ (Degrees)
1.5
1 Faltinsen, Odd M. Hydrodynamics of high-speed marine
0.5
0 hulls in waves by correction of near-transom lift.”
4.5 5 5.5 6 6.5
Figure 14: Stability Criteria for case 1.
CONCOLUSION
In the current research, a mathematical forced roll mechanism
for finding the roll coefficients has been used. To obtain the roll
moment acting on the body, 2.5D theory has been used, while
hydrostatic forces were also considered in computations. The
hydrodynamic pressure has been found by considering two
degrees of freedom for a wedge entering water. Also, effects of
transom on forces in its neighborhood have applied. The validity
of the current procedure has assessed by comparing the obtained
coefficients against experimental results. It has shown that, for a
planing hull, at a constant load, damping coefficients and added
mass are highly dependent on mean wetted length and trim
angles, since lift of planing hulls has direct relation with these
two parameters. It was also observed that, as the Froude beam
number increases, wetted length become the dominant factor in
roll damping. Development of a simple procedure for
determining hydrodynamic coefficients of roll motion, and
identifying the exact relation between trim angle, wetted length
as well as deadrise angle is part of further research.
REFERENCES
Algarín, Roberto and Tascón, Oscar. “Hydrodynamic modeling
of planing boats in asymmetry steady condition.” In: IX
HSMV, Naples, Italy, 2011.
Balsamo, Flavio., Milanesi, Stefano and Pensa, Claudio.
“Rolling dynamic in planing and semi-planing range.”,
FAST 2001, The 6the International Conference on Fast
Sea Transportation, Southampton, UK, 2001.
Begovic, Ermina., Bertorello, Carlo and Orsic, Jasna, P. “Roll
damping coefficients assessment and comparison for
round bilge and hard chine hull-forms”, 32nd
International Conference on Ocean, Offshore, and
Arctic Engineering (OMAE2013), Nantes, France,
2013.
Tavakoli Determination of Hydrodynamic Coefficients Related to Roll Motion of High-Speed Planing Hulls
Brawn, Peter W., Klosinski, Walter E. Directional test of two
prismatic planing hull. U.S. Coast Guard Research and
Development Center, Report No. CG-D-11-94, 1994a.
Brawn, Peter W., Klosinski, Walter E. Directional test of a 30
degree deadrise prismatic planing hull. U.S. Coast
Guard Research and Development Center, Report No.
CG-D-26-94, 1994b.
determination of the added inertia and damping of
planing boats in roll. U.S. Coast Guard Research and
Development Center, Report No. CG-D-03-95, 1995.
vehicles. Cambridge, UK, 2005.
Garme, Karl. “Improved time domain simulation of planing
FnB
7 7.5 International Shipbuilding Progress, 52: 3 (2005): 201-
230.
Ghadimi, Parviz, Dashtimanesh, Abbas, Faghrfour Maghrebi,
Yasser. “Initiating a mathematical model for
prediction of 6-DOF motion of planing crafts in regular
waves.” International Journal of Engineering
Mathematics, 2013 (2013): 1-16.
Geritsma, J. scheepsbewegingen, sturen en manoeuvren 1. Delft
University of Technology, Faculty of Mechanical
Engineering and Marine Engineering, Delft,
Netherlands, 1989.
Hicks, John E. and Troesch, Armin W. “The efficient use of
simulation in planing hull motion analysis.”Naval
Engineering Journal, 106: 1 (1994): 75-85.
Ikeda, Yoshisho, Katayama, Toru. “Roll damping prediction
method for a high-speed planing craft” In: Proceedings
of the 7th International Conference on Stability of
Ships and Ocean Vehicles (STAB2000), Tasmania,
Australia, 2000.
Judge, Carolyn Q. A theory for asymmetric vessel impact with
horizontal impact velocity. PhD thesis, University of
Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA, 2000.
Judge, Carolyn Q. “Frequency dependence of hydrodynamic
coefficient in roll” In: The 29th American Towing Tank
Conference, Annapolis, MD, USA, 2010.
Judge, Carolyn Q. “Static and dynamic forces and wetted
lengths for a planing hull forced in roll ”In:
Proceedings of the Chesapeake Power Boat
Symposium, Annapolis, MD, USA, 2012.
Judge, Carolyn Q. . “Coupling of heave and roll for high-speed
planing hulls.” In : 33rd International Conference on
Ocean, Offshore, and Arctic Engineering
(OMAE2014), San Francisco, California, USA, 2014.
Judge, Carolyn Q. and Judge, John, A. “Measurement of
hydrodynamic coefficients on a planing hull using
forced roll oscillations” Journal of Ship Research, 57:
2 (2013): 112-124.
Judge Carolyn Q. and Beaver William. “Development of forced
roll mechanism for planing hull models” Naval
Engineering Journal, 125: 2 (2013): 87-93.
Katayama, Toru., Fujimoto, Masashi and Ikeda Yoshiho, “A
study on transverse stability loss of planing craft as
super high forward speed.” In: Proceedings of the 9th
10
 International Conference on Stability of Ships and Toxopeus, Surge L. Mathematical model of the behavior of
Ocean Vehicles (STAB2006), Rio de Janerio, Brazil, planing ships. Delft University of Technology, Faculty
2006. of Mechanical Engineering and Marine Engineering,
Lewandowski, Edward. “Prediction of the dynamic roll stability Delft, Netherlands, 1996a.
of hard-chine planing craft.” Journal of Ship Research, Toxopeus, Surge L. A time domain simulation for maneuvering
40: 2 (1996): 144-148. of planing ships. Delft University of Technology,
Lewandowski, Edward. The Dynamic of Marine Crafts: Faculty of Mechanical Engineering and Marine
Maneuvering and Seakeeping. World Scientific, 2004. Engineering, Delft, Netherlands, 1996b.
Morabito, Michael G. “Empirical equations for planing hull Zarnick, Ernest E. A non-linear mathematical model of motion
bottom pressures.” Journal of Ship Research,58: 4 of a planing boat in regular waves. David W. Taylor
(2014): 185-200. Naval Ship Research and Development Center, Report
Morabito, Michael G. “Prediction of planing hull side forces in No. ADA052039, 1978.
yaw using slender body oblique impact theory.” Ocean
Engineering,101 (2015): 47-57.
Morabito, Michael G., Pavkov, Mark., Timmins, Connor and
Beaver, Bill. “Experiments on the directional stability
of stepped planing hulls.” In: Proceedings of the
Chesapeake Power Boat Symposium, Annapolis, MD,
USA, 2014.
Papanikoai, Apostolos. Hydrodynamische Koeffizienten fur die
linearen Schwingungen von schwimmenden Zylindem.
Schiffstechnik, 27(1980): 127-166.
Payne, Peter R. “Recent developments in added mass of planing
theory.” Ocean Engineering,21:3 (1994): 257-309.
Qin, Hunge., Zhao, Liyune and Shen, Jing. “A modified
Logvinovic model for hydrodynamic loads on as
asymmetric wedge entering water with a roll motion.”
Journal of Marine Science and Application,10 (2011):
184-189.
Ruscelli, Danilo. Dynamic of high-speed craft. PhD thesis,
Genoa University, Genoa, Italy, 2009.
Ruscelli, Danilo., Gualeni, Paola and Vivani, Michele. “An
overview of planing monohulls transverse dynamic
stability and possible implications with static intact
stability rules.” International Journal of Small Craft
Technology, Trans. RINA, 153: B2 (2012), B73-B86.
Savitsky, Daniel, Prowse, R. E., Lueders, D. H., High-speed
hydrodynamic characteristics of a flat plate and a20°
dead-rise surface in unsymmetrical planing condition.
NACA Technical Note No. 4187.
Sebastiani, Luca., Bruzzone, Dario., Gualeni, Paola., et al. “A
practical method for the prediction of planing craft
motions in regular and irregular waves.” 27th
International Conference on Ocean, Offshore, and
Arctic Engineering (OMAE2008), Estoril, Portugal,
2008.
Tascón, Oscar and Algarín, Roberto. “Numerical computation
of the added mass and damping coefficients of planing
hulls in roll via slender body the 2D impact theory.”
FAST 2013, The 12the International Conference on
Fast Sea Transportation, Amsterdam, Netherland,
2013.
Tascón, Oscar., Troesch, Armin W. and Maki, Kevin J.
“Numerical computation of the hydrodynamic forces
acting on a maneuvering planing hull via slender body
- SBT and 2-D impact theory.” FAST 2009, The 10the
International Conference on Fast Sea Transportation,
Athens, Greece, 2009.

Tavakoli Determination of Hydrodynamic Coefficients Related to Roll Motion of High-Speed Planing Hulls 11