See

discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/307990935

Resistance of Double-Chine Large Gigh-Speed

Craft

Article · June 1999

CITATION READS

1 8

2 authors, including:

Gregory Grigoropoulos
National Technical University of Athens
80 PUBLICATIONS 107 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

All in-text references underlined in blue are linked to publications on ResearchGate, Available from: Gregory Grigoropoulos
letting you access and read them immediately. Retrieved on: 04 October 2016
 RESISTANCE OF DOUBLE-CHINE LARGE HIGH-SPEED
CRAFT

by
G.J. GRIGOROPOULOS and T.A. LOUKAKIS
National Technical University of Athens, Greece

SUMMARY
A systematic series of double-chine, wide-transom hull forms with bottom warp has been developed at
the Laboratory for Ship and Marine Hydrodynamics of the National Technical University of Athens.
The series intend to be used for the design of large ships and pleasure craft, which operate at high but
pre-planing speeds. The series consists of five models with L/B = 4.00, 4.75, 5.50, 6.25 and 7.00, each
tested at several displacements. The models have been tested for resistance and seakeeping behaviour
in random seas. Only the resistance data is presented in this paper.

RESISTANCE DE GRANDS NAVIRES DE VITESSE A DOUBLE

BOUCHAINS

SOMMAIRE
Une nouvelle série des caréne, à double bouchains et large tableau qrriére a été développée au
Laboratoire d’ Architecture Navale, de l' Ecole Polytechnique d' Athénes. Ces formes ont été étudiées
aussi bien pour les grands nqvires que pour les bateau de plaisance opérant aux vitesses pré
planantes. Le série consiste en cinq modéles de rapport L/B = 4.00, 4.75, 5.50, 6.25 et 7.0 , chaque
modéle étant testé pour plusieurs déplacements.
La resistance aussi que la tenue à la mer ont été evalués pour des conditions de mer aléatoires. Dans
cet article, seules les données de résistance sont présentées.

1
LIST OF SYMBOLS
B overall breadth
BWL waterline breadth at rest
 0.1L WL  , the volume of displacement coefficient
3
CDL
C.G. centre of gravity
CR R R ( 12  WS V 2 ) , residuary resistance coefficient
CF R F ( 12  WS V 2 ) , frictional resistance coefficient
 volume of displacement at rest
D displacement
Fn Froude number
L overall length
LCG longitudinal position of the C.G. (positive forward of midship section)
LWL waterline length at rest
LOA overall length
ν kinematic viscosity
ρ water density
R ship/model resistance
RF ship/model frictional resistance
RR ship/model residuary resistance
Rn Reynolds number
RR ship/model residuary resistance
T mean draught
t trim (positive by stern)
V ship/model speed
WS wetted surface at rest

INTRODUCTION
There exist systematic resistance series for "slow" displacement-type hull forms (a lot of
them) and systematic series for "fast" semi-planing or planing-type hull forms (a few of them, e.g.
Clement and Blount, 1963 and Keuning and Gerrittsma, 1982). However, there exist only one
(Fridsma, 1971) systematic experimental investigation of the seakeeping characteristics of prismatic,
planing hull forms. In view of the fact that even the most advanced and computer-time consuming
analytical methods fail yet to predict either resistance or seakeeping characteristics of "fast", modern
hull forms, a systematic series covering both design aspects could be beneficial to the designer naval
architect. The resistance part of such a series is presented in this paper.

To clarify the aforementioned terms, we define as fast ships those that operate beyond the last
hump of the resistance curve of displacement-type hull forms, i.e. at speeds higher than approximately
Fn=0.50. The region between Fn = 0.50 and Fn = 1.00 we call the "pre-planing" region and the ship
that sails above Fn =1.00, we consider as being in the "planing" region. Obviously these definitions,
although consistent with common naval architecture custom and serving well the needs of the present
series, are nevertheless arbitrary.

In recent years the operating speeds of passenger ships, car-passenger ferries and cruise ships,
have increased considerably, due to the combined effect of the earning capacity of the higher speed
and the cheap prices of fuel. Thus, large displacement-type ferries operate at Fn in excess of 0.35.
Smaller ships, that want to go even faster, i.e. at Fn in excess of 0.55, they have to depart from the
displacement-type hull form. The double-chine, wide-transom hull form with bottom warp of the
present series represents a solution for this problem. Taking now into account the fact that the new

2
series possesses not only good resistance characteristics but also superior seakeeping qualities
(Grigoropoulos and Loukakis, 1995b), the solution is a very good one indeed. Obviously, this fact has
already been discovered and hence most of the recent large (with length in the 60 to 150 m region)
and fast (with speeds in the 30 to 40 knots region) passenger and car-passenger ships seem to have
hull forms similar to that of the series. Finally, it should be mentioned that the aforementioned
combination of hard-chine hull forms for large ships and high speeds (and hence the need for very
high propulsion power) leads usually to the installation of water-jets as propulsion devices.

THE SYSTEMATIC SERIES

The length-beam ratio (L/B) is the dominant parameter in the generation of a systematic
series of "fast" hull forms, when both their resistance and seakeeping characteristics are o be
examined. The lower value of this parameter was taken as 4.00, because the series do not pertain to
small pleasure craft and the higher value to 7.00 in conformity with normal practice. The value of L/B
= 5.50 was used for the parent hull form of the series and five members of the series were designed,
constructed and tested with L/B values of 4.00, 4.75, 5.50, 6.25 and 7.00.
The parent hull, Fig. 1, has two successive chines running forward of the transom up to 70%
of the hull length. Highly flared lines form the bow region. The hull form has a wide transom and a
varying deadrise angle distribution, from 10o at the stern to about 70o at the bow, as suggested by
Savitsky, Roper and Benen (1972). The series members with different values of L/B were derived
from the parent by keeping the same midship section and altering appropriately the station spacing.

Fig 1: Lines plan of the parent hull of the NTUA systematic series
(the body plan has been scaled by a factor of three).

The other parameter of the Series is the non-dimensional volume of displacement coefficient
C DL   0.1L WL  , where  is the displaced volume and LWL the waterline length, both at rest. Six
3

values of CDL = 1.00, 1.61, 2.23, 3.00, 3.62 and 4.23 were used as shown in Table 1. The lower values
of CDL correspond to the operating conditions of large ships, whereas the higher values to smaller
passenger hips and pleasure craft. The model lengths were determined using the 21st I.T.T.C. High

3
Speed Marine Vehicles Committee (Trondheim, 1996), that at least two-meter models should be used
for such craft. However, the smaller values of CDL could not be achieved with these model lengths.
Thus, for the parent hull form, a larger model was also build and tested, as shown in Table 1 in the
shaded area.
Table 1: The characteristics of the tested models of the NTUA Series

L/B 4.00 4.75 5.50 6.25 7.00

LOA 2.292 m 2.292 m 2.292 m 2.605 m 2.917 m
CDL 3.820 m
3.4300 1.36522
1.00 41.443
-0.4795 0.0766
3.4970 1.63517 2.4074 0.73096 2.6510 0.88720
1.61 69.103 22.464 30.756
-0.5108 0.0966 -0.3480 0.0669 -0.3854 0.0743
2.1128 0.70763 2.1258 0.66092 2.4347 0.81661 2.7310 0.9876
2.23 21.053 21.506 32.236 45.436
-0.3066 0.0639 -0.2940 0.0702 -0.3387 0.0815 -0.3686 0.0932
2.0977 0.80396 2.1343 0.77624 2.1450 0.7280 2.4623 0.91432 2.7830 1.1304
3.00 27.707 29.143 29.615 44.794 64.618
-0.3056 0.0790 -0.3013 0.0760 -0.2967 0.0834 -0.3235 0.0992 -0.3451 0.1164
2.1104 0.85713 2.1488 0.82664 2.1600 0.7821 2.4817 0.99309
3.62 33.993 35.934 36.513 56.778
-0.3065 0.0874 -0.2948 0.0857 -0.2883 0.0945 -0.3105 0.1135
2.1231 0.90345 2.1615 0.87376 2.1750 0.8343
4.23 40.462 42.730 43.530
-0.3046 0.0957 -0.2876 0.0951 -0.2797 0.1055

Notes:
1. Each cell of the table contains the following characteristics of the model:
LWL [m] WS [m2]
D [Kgr]
LCG [m] T [m]

2. The shaded cells refer to the characteristics of the larger parent model, which is scaled by 5/3 to
the smaller one.
3. Longitudinal locations forward of the midship section are considered positive.

RESISTANCE CHARACTERISTICS OF THE SERIES

Our ambition has been to develop a series with good characteristics both in resitsance and
seakeeping. For this reason the parent hull has been tested against four other “equivalent” models with
the same displacement, and length and beam as close as possible. The four “equivalent” models are:
 Series 62 single chine, Clement and Blount (1963)
 Deep-V single chine, Keuning and Gerritsma (1982)
 Double chine based on Series 62, Savitsky, Roper and Benen (1972)
 Rounded bilge variant of the parent hull form, Grigoropoulos and Loukakis (1995a).

4
 0.20

0.15
R/D

0.10

0.05 R/D curves for the five "equivalent" models

Double Chine w/o spray rails, NTUA Series (L/B=5.50)

Rounded Bilge with spray rails, based on NTUA Series
Double Chine with spray rails, based on Series 62
Deep-V with spray rails, Keuning and Gerritsma (1982)
Series 62 with spray rails, Clement and Blount (1963)

0.00

0.00 0.40 0.80 1.20

Fn
Fig 2: Comparison of the resistance for the five “ equivalent ” models in the pre-planing region.

0.20 0.80
L/B = 5.5, CDL= 1.0

R/(D*Fn 2 ), DYNAMIC TRIM [deg], C.G.-RISE/Lwl [%]

CALM WATER RESISTANCE
DYNAMIC TRIM

0.16 C.G.-RISE/Lwl 0.60

2
R/(D*Fn )

0.12 0.40
R/D

0.08 0.20

0.04 0.00

0.00 -0.20

0.00 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00

Fn

Fig 3: Resistance, C.G. rise and dynamic trim of the parent hull form in the pre-planing region.

5
 The comparison for resistance and for models of approximately 2-m length at 29.7 Kp
displacement, is shown in Fig. 2. The superiority of the present Series in the region Fn = 0.50  0.80
is evident. It should be noted here that, whereas all other models required the installation of spray rails
to achieve their best resistance results, spray rails were not necessary for the parent hull form of the
series.
In order to better visualize the region of application and the usefulness of the Series, Fig. 3
has been prepared for the parent hull form at CDL = 1.00, where R/D, R/(D Fn2), C.G. rise/LWL and
dynamic trim have been plotted vs. Fn.
The experimental results were obtained at the Towing Tank of the Laboratory for Ship and
Marine Hydrodynamics of the National Technical University of Athens. The facility has dimensions
91 m X 4.6 m X 3.0 m and the highest speed of the towing carriage is 5.3 m/sec. The models were
attached to the carriage via a heave-rod, pitch-bearing assembly, free to vertical motion and trim. No
turbulence stimulators were used in the experiments.
As it can be seen from Fig. 3, in the operating region of the series, the hull form can
experience substantial C.G. movement and dynamic trim and hence a change in the waterline length,
which influences the prediction of frictional resistance at full scale. The usual towing tank practice in
such cases is to estimate the running waterline and the corresponding wetted surface per speed and to
perform all the calculations necessary for the full-scale predictions, according to the method of
Froude, using these speed-dependent values. This procedure greatly increases the information that the
Series tables should contain and makes their use less friendly. In our case, fortunately, the hull forms
being in the pre-planing region, it has been determined that the full-scale prediction s very little
affected if the static (hull form at rest) values for waterline length and wetted surface are used
throughout the method of Froude. Thus, in Table 1, for each pair (L/B) – CDL, the following
information is given: LWL, WS, D, LCG and T. Of this information and the values for
C R  R R ( 12  WS V 2 ) presented in the sequel, the residuary resistance can be computed. This
resistance, when added to the frictional resistance (calculated e.g. using the I.T.T.C. 1958 friction line
and a "roughness allowance") gives the total, full-scale resistance.
During the tests, an appropriate unloading force has been applied to the model to account for
the vertical component of the "thrust" force of a propeller axis, assumed to be longitudinally inclined
by 6.5o. However, this is an overall minor correction.

THE CONTENTS OF THE SERIES

As explained in the previous paragraph, the residuary resistance coefficient CR is the only
speed dependent experimental information necessary for the estimation of the full-scale resistance.
The values of CR, together with those for C.G. rise and dynamic trim are plotted vs. Fn in Figs. 4, 5, 6,
7 and 8 for L/B = 4.00, 4.75, 5.50, 6.25 and 7.00, respectively. For each case, the results for all CDL
values tested appear in the figure. It should be noted here that all results refer to the even-keeled
loading condition. This is natural due the size of the ships the Series are intended for. However,
additional tests have shown that small variations in initial trim, of the order of 0.5o, do not
significantly affect the resistance of the hull form.
To demonstrate the use of the Series, we assume the case of the hypothetical car-ferry with
the following characteristics: LWL = 115 m, D = 2520 mt, L/B = 5.5, WS = 1768.1 m2, and we want to
predict its resistance at 39.2 knots, i.e. at Fn = 0.60. For this case CDL = 1.61 and from Fig. 6, we read
CR = 2.2 10-3. The corresponding frictional resistance using I.T.T.C. 1958 friction line for Reynolds
number Rn = V LWL/ν = 1.95 109, is CF = 1.41 10-3. Hence R = RR + RF = ½ ρ WS V2 (CR+CF) =
135768 Kp, where ρ = 104.61 Kp sec2 /m4 for salt water of 15o C and ν = 1.18831 10-6 m2/sec the
kinematic viscosity of the salt water at the same temperature. Thus, the Effective Horsepower for the
ship is EHP = R VS / 75 = 36505 HP.

6
 It should be noted that the polynomial least square fitting used in Fig. 4 to 8 is good mainly to
distinguish the different CDL curves. The points on these figures represent the raw data and no
attempt to cross-fair it, especially in the high Rn region, has been made.

DISCUSSION
The double-chine, wide-transom hull forms with bottom warp can be used for the design of
modern ships operating at Fn's in the region 0.50 to 0.90. In this region, the resistance characteristics
of the present series are very good, when compared to other hull forms appropriate for fast ships. In
addition, although this is not the contained in this paper, the hull forms of the Series possess also
superior seakeeping characteristics. The combined (resistance and seakeeping) experimental results,
when completed, will represent a useful set for the practicing naval architect.
With respect to the resistance results, two larger models will be constructed and tested for L/B
= 4.75 and 6.25, so that the Series will be extended to lighter displacements, where appropriate.
Finally, the authors would like to suggest that the hull forms of the Series could also be
interesting for the design of naval ships.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
The paper represents the work of many people (mostly last year students at NTUA) for many
years, who carried out this extensive, very inadequately sponsored experimental piece of work. Prof.
T.A. Loukakis and Asst. Prof. G.J. Grigoropoulos conceived the series, supervised the work and wrote
the paper. Although the list of names is too long to be presented, many thanks are due to them, as well
as to the technical support staff of the Laboratory.

REFERENCES
1. Clement, E.P. and Blount, D.L. (1963). Resistance tests of a systematic series of planing hull
forms, Trans. SNAME, Vol. 71, p. 491.
2. Fridsma, G. (1971). A systematic study of the rough water performance of planing hulls in
irregular waves, Davidson Laboratory, Stevens Institute of Technology, Report 1495, March.
3. Grigoropoulos, G.J. and Loukakis, T.A. (1995a). Effect of spray rails on the resistance of planing
hulls, 3rd Intl. Conf. on FAST Sea Transportation, FAST’95, Travemuende, Germany, September.
4. Grigoropoulos, G.J. and Loukakis, T.A. (1995b). Seakeeping performance assessment of planing
hulls, Intl. Conf. ODRA’95, Wessex Inst. of Technology, Szczecin, Poland, September.
5. Keuning, J.A. and Gerritsma, J., 1982, “Resistance Tests of a Systematic Series of Planing Hull
Forms with 25o Deadrise Angle”, Int. Shipbuild. Progress, Vol. 29, No. 337, p. 222.
6. Savitsky, D., Roper, J.K. and Benen, L., 1972, “Hydrodynamic Development of a High Speed
Planing Hull for Rough Water”, 9th Symp. Naval Hydrodynamics ONR, Paris, p. 419.

7
 L/B=4.00

C DL=3.00
10.0
C DL=3.62
CR * 10-3

C DL=4.23

7.5

5.0

2.5

0.0
C.G. Rise/Lwl [%]

0.5

0.0

-0.5

3.0
Dynamic Trim [deg]

2.0

1.0

0.0
Fn
0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0

Fig 4: Residuary resistance, C.G. rise and dynamic trim vs Fn for L/B = 4.0

8
 L/B=4.75

CDL=2.23
10.0 CDL=3.00
CDL=3.62
CDL=4.23

7.5
CR * 10-3

5.0

2.5

0.0

0.5
C.G. Rise/Lwl [%]

0.0

-0.5

3.0

2.0
Dynamic Trim [deg]

1.0

0.0

0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0

Fn

Fig 5: Residuary resistance, C.G. rise and dynamic trim vs Fn for L/B = 4.75

9
 L/B=5.50

C DL=1.00
10.0
C DL=1.61
C DL=2.23
C DL=3.00
7.5
C DL=3.62
CR * 10-3

C DL=4.23

5.0

2.5

0.0

0.5
C.G. Rise/Lwl [%]

0.0

-0.5

3.0
Dynamic Trim [deg]

2.0

1.0

0.0

0.4 0.6 Fn 0.8 1.0

Fig 6: Residuary resistance, C.G. rise and dynamic trim vs Fn for L/B = 5.5

10
 L/B=6.25

C DL=1.61
10.0 C DL=2.23
C DL=3.00
CR * 10-3

CDL=4.23

7.5

5.0

2.5

0.0

0.5
C.G. Rise/Lwl [%]

0.0

-0.5

3.0
Dynamic Trim [deg]

2.0

1.0

0.0

0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0

Fn

Fig 7: Residuary resistance, C.G. rise and dynamic trim vs Fn for L/B = 6.25

11
 L/B=7.00

CDL=1.61
10.0
CDL=2.23
CDL=3.00

7.5
CR * 10-3

5.0

2.5

0.0
C.G. Rise/Lwl [%]

0.5

0.0

-0.5

3.0

2.0
Dynamic Trim [deg]

1.0

0.0

0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0

Fn

Fig 8: Residuary resistance, C.G. rise and dynamic trim vs Fn for L/B = 7.0

12