Proceedings of the 27th International Conference on Offshore Mechanics and Artic Engineering
OMAE2008
EFFECT OF SPRAY-STRAKE ON PATROL VESSEL MANOEUVRABILITY
Andi Haris Muhammad*
Omar Yaakob
Departemen of Marine Technology, Universiti Teknologi Malaysia, Johor Bahru, 81310 Malaysia
ABSTRACT
This paper describes a design method on the spray-strake
parameters of a planing hull (patrol vessel) based on
manoeuvring performance in calm water condition. The method
set a spray-strake mathematical model which has been
developed using experimental data from towing tank. The
model selects such a spray-strake parameter which has the
effects on manoeuvrability characteristics. In showing these
effects, some IMO manoeuvring (for turning circle and zigzag
manoeuvre) have been simulated for a planing hull with the
designated spray-strake parameter. The results indicate that the
spray-strakes attached to the planing vessel have effects on its
manoeuvring performance.
1. INTRODUCTION
Planing vessel, which is widely used for many purposes such as
patrol, coastguard, survey or naval vessels, have increased
considerably over the last two decades or so. Some types of
such vessel run at very high speed, up to Froude number 1.0
can now be attained but their control at sea are particularly
difficult. Even in calm water such vessel sometimes suffers
serious instability, like porpoising, bow diving, large heel,
difficulty in course keeping and manoeuvring.
The manoeuvring performance of a planing hull is different
from that of a conventional type hull because the manoeuvring
motions affect the trim, deadrise angles and speed of the vessel.
Change its attitude could affect manoeuvring characteristics.
Coccoli and Scamardella [1] and Soares et al.[2] have
investigated on the manoeuvring by full scale sea trial on a
high speed craft, and found that the characteristic of tactical
diameters (DT) and advances (AD) of the vessel were over the
IMO limit criteria in calm water as compared to conventional
June 15-20, 2008, Estoril, Portugal
OMAE2008-57624
Adi Maimun
Agoes Priyanto
ship.
Many efforts for improving vessel manoeuvring have been
done through introduction of parameters that influence their
characteristics, such as added mass in forward speed. Other
parameters also influence manoeuvring performances such as
deadrise angle, trim angle and draught variations ([3] and [4]).
Additional influences are from appendages (bilge and central
keels) that are attached on the bottom of the hull [5].
Spray-strake is a horizontal profile which is attached to the hull
surface. The main purpose is to avoid the spray throwing in and
at the same time to provide a positive lift in forward part of the
vessel. The presence of the strakes not only reduces resistance
but also allows the planing hull to be more stable at relatively
higher speed. In the case of planing hull manoeuvring, it is
expected that the effect of spray strake is to increase lift (side
force) thus reducing the tactical diameter of vessel during
turning.
Starting from the above considerations, this research
concentrates on the use of 3 spray-strakes appendages which
are attached along the bare hull of a 22 m planing vessel. By
simulating the length of the spray-strake attached to the hull
surface of planing hull, the tactical diameter of vessel during
turning is expected to be reduced. The hydrodynamic
derivatives of the planing vessel with and without spray-strakes
were measured using a Planar Motion Mechanism (PMM). The
manoeuvring characteristics (turning circle and zigzag
manoeuvre) were simulated by using the time domain
simulation program with the input of the hydrodynamic
derivatives obtained from experiment.
1 Copyright © 2008 by ASME
2. RESEARCH METHODOLOGY Equation (1), using the coordinate system in Figure 1.
X = m(u& − rv)
In order to develop an assessment procedure for manoeuvring
Y = m(v& + ru)
performance of planing hull fitted with spray-strake, a (1)
N = I zzψ&&
systematic methodology was adopted. In particular, the study is
divided into 5 stages (see flowchart in Figure 1). The first stage
is the development of the mathematical model for ship Where:
manoeuvring simulation based on the 3DOF system equations m : mass of vessel
including effect of spray-strake. It is common practice to
I zz moment of inertia of vessel
:
consider only motions in the horizontal plane (i.e. surge, sway,
and yaw motions) [3]. Furthermore, heave and pitch motions
effect on manoeuvring are not significant because sea waves
are not considered [6]. Roll effect is neglected due to its small
effect on manoeuvring [7]. The second stage is the
experimental work to obtain the hydrodynamic coefficients.
The speed of vessel considered is 15 knots. This assumes that
the vessel is operating at a lower speed when manoeuvring in
restricted waters (i.e. port areas). The third stage is the
development of a simulation program based on the
mathematical model together with hydrodynamic derivatives Figure 2. Co-ordinate system
from towing tank. The fourth stage is the analysis of vessel The notation of u, v and r are velocity components at centre of
manoeuvring performance based on simulation results. Finally, gravity of vessel (C.G). Similarly, X, Y and N represent the
in the fifth stage a parametric study is carried out in processing hydrodynamic forces and moment acting also at C.G. of the
the data, especially to give a better understanding of the hull. These forces can be described by separating them into the
influence of spray-strake parameter on the planing hull following components:
manoeuvring performance.
X = X H + X R + X P + X SS
Y = YH + YR + YP + YSS
(2)
N = N H + N R + N P + N SS

where, the subscripts H, P, R and SS refer to hull, propeller,

rudder and spray-strake, respectively. This is according to the
concept given by the Mathematical Modelling Group (MMG)
of Japan [9].

3.1. Forces and Moment Acting on Hull

The forces and moments acting on the hull can be expressed by
the following equations [10]:

X H = ( X u& − m) u& + ( X vr + m) vr

+ X vv v + X rr r − ( RESISTANCE )
2 2

YH = Y0 + (Yv& − m)v& + Yr& r& + Yv v + (Yr − m) r (3)

+ Yvvv v + Yvvr v r + Yvrr vr + Yrrr r
3 2 2 3

N H = N 0 + N v& v& + ( N r& − I zz ) r& + N v v + N r r

+ N vvv v + N vvr v r + N vrr vr + N rrr r

3 2 2 3

Figure 1. Research methodology flowchart Non-dimensional parameters are given by the following
formulae:
3. MATHEMATICAL MODEL
m′ = ; I Z′ = ; v′ = ; v&′ = 2 ; r ′ = ; r&′ = 2
ρ ρ
m IZ v v&L rL r&L2
Based on manoeuvring theory [8], an axis system fixed in the
3 5 U U U U
vessel with the origin positioned at the centre of mass allows L L
2 2
development of a suitable mathematical model to simulate its
manoeuvring. The mathematical model can be described by the

2 Copyright © 2008 by ASME

 X H' = ; YH' = ; N H' =
ρ ρ ρ
X' Y N the ratio of propeller diameter to rudder height.
2 2 2 2
LU LU L3U 2
2 2 2

3.2. Forces and Moment Induced Propeller and 3.3. Forces and Moment on Spray-Strake
Rudder
The forces and moments induced by propeller and rudder can Abkowitz [8] showed the approach of calculating the rudder
be modeled by the following formulas ([11] and [12]): and stabilizer fin forces and moments by principles of lift and
drag. The approach is essentially to calculate the angle of attack
X P = (1 − t P ) ρKT DP n developed at the control surface as the result of a transverse
4 2

YP = 0
resulting from the angle of attack (β), which are the force and
(4) velocity (v) and angular velocity (r). The lift characteristics

NP = 0 moment produced on the body are then attached as an

where: appendage to a larger hull. However, the effect of the
interferences of the hull on the water approaching the
K T ( J P ) = C1 + C 2 J P + C 3 J P
2
appendage must also be taken into account.
J P = U cos β (1 − w P ) /(nD P ) For the case of the spray-strake, force and moment can be
Where: tp: thrust deduction coefficient in straightforward modelled by the same principle. Figure 3 shows lift and drag
moving, CtP: constant, n: propeller revolution, DP: propeller forces caused by spray-strake. The mathematical model for
diameter, wp: effective wake fraction coefficient at propeller surge and sway forces and yaw moment due to the spray strake
location, JP: advance coefficient, C1 , C2 , C3 : constant. can be expressed as follow:
X SS = − DSS cos β + LSS sin β
YSS = − LSS cos β − DSS sin β
The terms on rudder force are assumed as follows. (7)
X R = −(1 − t R ) FN sin δ N SS = xSS .YSS
YR = −(1 + aH ) FN cosδ
(5)
N R = −( xR + aH xH ) FN cosδ
and
− 1⎛ v ⎞
β = tan ⎜ ⎟
⎝u⎠
(8)
where, δ is rudder angle, x R represents the location of rudder
(=-L/2) and t P , t R , a H and x H are the interactive force where, β is drift angle (or angle of attack), xSS represents the
coefficients among hull, propeller and rudder. KT is the thrust location of strake. The spray strake drag and lift forces can be
coefficient of a propeller force. These are the functions of the described as follow:

Drag Force, DSS = 12 ρASS C DU

advance constant of propeller. The dimensional of rudder force 2
is defined as follows. (9)
Lift Force, LSS = 12 ρASS C LU
FN = 12 ρAR fα U R sin α R
2
2 (6)
where, AR is rudder area, fα is the gradient of the lift where, ASS is strake area, CD is the drag coefficient of strake, CL
is the lift coefficient of strake and both can be approximated as
coefficient of ruder, and can be approximated as the function of
rudder aspect ratio Λ .
the ratio of strake bSS/tSS

CD = C b / t
fα = 6.13Λ /(2.25 + Λ)
*
D SS SS (10)
CL = C b / t
U R = uR + vR
*
2 2
L SS SS

−1 ⎛⎜ − v R ⎞
⎟⎟
α R = δ − tan ⎜ u
where, C * and C * is the drag and lift coefficients induced by
⎝ R ⎠

{ ( )}
D L
unit longitudinal and transverse velocity respectively. bSS is the
u R = ε (1 − w) u µ 1 + κ 1 + (8KT / π J 2 ) − 1 + (1 −η )
2 beam of spray-strake and tSS is the thickness of spray-strake.

vR = γ R (v − r l R )
The lift and drag coefficients of spray-strake can be evaluated
by means of experiments in the towing tank.
ε, κ, γR and lR in the above equations are the parameters that
describe the rudder inflow velocity and angle. (1-w) and η are
the propeller wake fraction and effective efficiency. (Dp/H) is

3 Copyright © 2008 by ASME

 Figure 4. The original body plan

Figure 3: Lift and drag force caused by spray-strake

4. PATROL VESSEL MANOUVERABILITY Figure 5. The body plan with spray-strake

4.1. The Model Tests.

The experiments were conducted in the 120 meter long towing

tank at Marine Technology Laboratory of Universiti Teknologi
Malaysia (UTM).
A 1/10 scale model of a 22 m long planing hull vessel named
“Rajawali” was used. Figure 4 shows the original body plan of
the vessel. Figure 5 shows the spray-strakes attached to the
hull. The main particulars of the vessel are shown in Table 1.
Spray strakes were specified according to the geometry Figure 6. Type and sectional shape of tested spray-strake
described in reference [13]. As shown in Figure 6, the spray- 4.2. Test Configurations and Parameters

mm in model scale. The deadrise angle, β = 22.9 deg. The

strake had a triangular cross-section with flat bottom of bsr =15
The Planar Motion Mechanism (PMM) test has been widely

ζ = 90 deg.
bottom of the strake lies parallel to the horizontal line and used to obtain the hydrodynamic coefficients in vessel
manoeuvring problems. The experiment data are mostly
analysed by a Fourier integral method. An oscillatory motion is
Table 1. Main dimensions of planing hull imposed on the model when it was towed in the tank at
constant speed. The motions generated by PMM are in the form
Dimension Ship Model of; pure sway, pure yaw, and yaw with drift. The model is also

Displacement , ∆ (tonne)
Loa (m) 22.00 2.200 free to roll, heave and pitch, but restrained in surge, sway, and
55.16 0.055 yaw motions. The input parameters of these tests are presented
Chine beam, Bx (m) 4.906 0.491 in Table 2.
Projected chine length, Lp (m) 21.13 2.113

Amidships bottom deadrise, β (deg)

LCG forward of transom (m) 9.22 0.922 Table 2. Input parameters of PMM test
22.95 22.95 Model Test Drift angle Amplitude Phase
Draft (m) 1.243 0.124 (degrees) (m) (degrees)
Block Coefficient, Cb 0.435 0.435 Pure Sway 0 0.1 ~ 0.4 0
Spray-strake number - 3 Pure Yaw 0 0.1 ~ 0.4 11.77
Speed (m/sec) 7.71 2.438 Yaw with 4.83, 9.66, 0.05 ~ 0.20 11.77
drift 14.49

Three conditions of the models tested are namely; (i) bare hull,

4 Copyright © 2008 by ASME

(ii) hull with 3 full-length spray-strakes (3SS-Full) and (iii) hull
with 3 half-length spray-strakes (3SS-Fwd) positioned from 0.00800

amidships to the stem.

0.00600

4.3. Experimental Results 0.00400

The non-dimensional force coefficient, X ' (u ' ) in Table 3 was 0.00200

derived from the resistance test. Figures 7 to 12 show the forces

0.00000
and moments measured by PMM. The results from the -0.15000 -0.10000 -0.05000 0.00000 0.05000 0.10000 0.15000

experiments are then analysed and given in Table 3 in the form -0.00200

' ' ' ' ' ' '

of derivatives; X , X , X , X , Y , Y , Y , -0.00400
vv rr vvv rrr v r vvv
Bare Model -0.00600
' ' ' ' ' 3SS-Full Model
Y , N N , N , and N . 3SS-Fwd Model
rrr v r vvv rrr -0.00800

Added mass coefficient in the longitudinal direction ( X u& ) was

Figure 9. Sway force versus sway velocity
estimated from the Motora’s chart [14]. Interaction coefficients
(Non-dimensional)
of hull-rudder–propeller prediction was calculated based on the
Yoshimura Method in reference [15].
0.00300
All hydrodynamic coefficients of bare hull, hull with the full-
length spray-strakes (3SS-Full), and half-length spray-strakes
0.00200
(3SS-Fwd) used in the simulation are shown in Tables 3 and 4.
0.00600
0.00100

0.00500
0.00000
-0.06000 -0.04000 -0.02000 0.00000 0.02000 0.04000 0.06000

0.00400
-0.00100

0.00300
-0.00200
Bare Model
3SS-Full Model
0.00200 3SS-Fwd Model
-0.00300

0.00100
Bare Model
3SS-Full Model Figure 10. Sway force versus angular velocity
3SS-Fwd Model
0.00000
(Non-dimensional)
-0.15000 -0.10000 -0.05000 0.00000 0.05000 0.10000 0.15000

0.00080
Figure 7. Surge force versus sway velocity
(Non-dimensional) 0.00060

0.00700 0.00040
Bare Model
3SS-Full Model
0.00020
3SS-Fwd Model 0.00600

0.00000
0.00500 -0.15000 -0.10000 -0.05000 0.00000 0.05000 0.10000 0.15000

-0.00020
0.00400

-0.00040

0.00300

Bare Model -0.00060

3SS-Full Model
0.00200 3SS-Fwd Model
-0.00080

0.00100

Figure 11. Yaw moment versus sway velocity

0.00000 (Non-dimensional)
-0.06000 -0.04000 -0.02000 0.00000 0.02000 0.04000 0.06000

Figure 8. Surge force versus angular velocity

(Non-dimensional)

5 Copyright © 2008 by ASME

 0.00040 Table 4. Interaction coefficients
Interaction coefficients
1 − tR κ
0.00030

0.00020 0.8681 0.4558

γR
aH l' R
ε
0.00010 0.0226 1.0194
0.00000 0.9018 0.3799
-0.06000 -0.04000 -0.02000 0.00000 0.02000 0.04000 0.06000

-0.00010
Table 5 shows propeller diameters and rudder areas used in the
-0.00020 simulation. Resistance predicted for planing hull can be
obtained through model test in the towing tank. Propulsion
Bare Model
3SS-Full Model
-0.00030
prediction for use in simulation was calculated based on the
3SS-Fwd Model
-0.00040
Blount method in reference [16]. The propulsion choice is
submerged propulsion type with 12 deg inclined shaft on
Figure 12. Yaw moment versus angular velocity propeller. Rudder areas are calculated based on the rudder area
(Non-dimensional) coefficient found in reference [17]. It was found that the total
rudder area of these craft can be expressed as rudder area
2
Table 3. X, Y and N Hydrodynamic derivatives = 0.0016 LP

Derivatives Bare 3SS-Full 3SS-Fwd Table 5. Propeller and rudder parameters

X 'uu -0.00340 -0.00340 -0.00340 Parameters value
X ' u& − m ' -0.01273 -0.01273 -0.01273
Ship Speed, V (knots) 15

X ' vr + m '
Ship Resistance, RT (kN) 42.28
0.13169 0.12839 -0.00428 Number of propellers, N 2
Pitch ratio, P/D 1.2
X ' vv 0.00970 0.02510 0.01840 Number of Blades, Z 4
X ' rr 0.14710 0.17700 0.14070 Diameter, D (m) 0.9
Y 'v& − m '
Blade Area ratio, EAR 100
-0.00650 -0.00450 -0.00570 Propeller revolution (rps), n 18.28
Y ' r& Wake fraction, w (0.03 to – 0.05) 0.03
-0.21850 -0.26660 -0.23200
Trust deduction, t (0.07 to 0.11) 0.11
Y 'v -0.04080 -0.05020 -0.04440 Advance ratio, Jp 0.63
Y ' r − m'
Open Water Efficiency, ηo
Thrust coefficient, KT 0.27
-0.04640 -0.05420 -0.04770
Rotary Rotative Eff., ηR (0.97 ~ 1.01)
0.595
Y ' vvv
Hull Efficiency, ηH
-0.26120 -0.34150 -0.19210 1.01

Propeller Efficiency, ηP (0.62 ~ 0.65)

Y ' vvr 1.04
-0.47661 -0.18234 -0.51523
0.551
Y ' vrr 2.23624 1.14795 2.47799 Thrust, T (kN) 47.0
Y ' rrr Shaft angle, (deg.) 12
-1.80860 -2.07560 -2.30020
Rudder Area, ARm2 0.714
N 'v& 0.00080 0.00100 -0.00080
N ' r& − I ' z -0.02654 -0.03374 -0.02674
4.4. Time domain simulation Program
According to the IMO standards for ship manoeuvrability, the
N 'v -0.00450 -0.00580 -0.00460 assessment of the vessel manoeuvring is analysed based on the
N 'r -0.00330 -0.00440 -0.00340 swept path. There are two methods for this purpose. The first
one is the method of free running model tests, and the second
N ' vvv -0.03120 -0.05140 -0.04380 one is the method of computer simulation using mathematical
N ' vvr model. In this paper, manoeuvring performance investigations
-0.12430 -0.12447 -0.12496
for patrol vessel (for turning circle and zigzag manoeuvres) has
N ' vrr 0.48674 0.42263 0.41048 been carried out using a time domain simulation program based
N ' rrr on MATLAB-Simulink. The swept path of vessel can be
-0.51290 -0.53130 -0.45820
obtained by double integrating the acceleration of the vessel in
surge, sway and yaw axis of the mathematical model that
includes the hydrodynamic derivatives [18].

6 Copyright © 2008 by ASME

5. ANALYSIS AND DISCUSSION
Figure 13a shows the result of the simulation for turning circle.
The tactical diameters (DT) and advances (AD) manoeuvre of
the vessel were calculated. It is found that the tactical diameter
of the vessel for bare hull is 133.20 m, 6.6 times the vessel
length, which is 20.19 m. This tactical diameter is much more
than the required IMO criterion, which is five times the vessel
length. The advance is 104 m or 5.2 times the vessel length.
This value is also much more than the IMO criterion 4.5 times
the vessel length. The reason may be the effect of the high
forward speed of vessel. This is similar to the findings of (13b)
Coccoli and Scamardella (2004) and Soares et al.(2004)
Figure 13a shows that the results of the turning trajectory of the
full-length spray-strakes (3SS-Full) and half-length spray-
strakes (3SS-Fwd). It shows that the 3SS-Fwd Model has 3%
smaller tactical diameter than the bare hull while 3SS-Full
Model has 4% increasing. It is also found that the position of
spray-strakes on the hull has effect on the manoeuvring
performances of planing hull.
Figures 13b and 13c show the result of the simulation for the
zigzag manoeuvre 10/10 and 20/20 of the vessel were
simulated respectively. The horizontal and vertical axes
respectively express time and heading angle (ψ). It shows that (13c)
the heading angle of bare hull model has the smaller overshoot Figure 9. 35 turning circle (9a), 10/10 and 20/20 degree of
angle as compared to the model with spray-strake. The reason zigzag manoeuvre (9b, 9c) of bare hull and hull with spray-
may be the effect of position of spray-strake. strake at 7.72 m/s service speed
Figure 13b shows the time histories for the first zigzag 10/10 at
15 knots, the mean overshoot is about 4 to 6 degrees, whereas In order to conduct the parametric study of a planing hull
the second zigzag shows a mean overshoot is 6 to 9 degrees it manoeuvring performance fitted with spray-strake. Time
can be seen that the period is nearly constant. Figure 13c shows domain simulation program is used to conduct the parameter
the time histories for zigzag 20/20 at 15 knots, showing a mean effect. By lift and drag principle, a modular spray-strake
overshoot is about 6 to 9 degrees respectively, it can be seen mathematical model was developed together with
that the period is nearly constant, as seen in Figure 13b. hydrodynamic coefficients derived from experiments. With the
However, the first overshoot and the second overshoot for all use of simulation, many different configuration of spray-strake
cases are much less than the value required by the IMO criteria attached to the hull surface was analyzed.
(2002). Thus, the zigzag manoeuvre of the model tested
satisfies with IMO criteria. Figure 14a shows the results of the turning trajectory of the
vessel fitted with half-length spray-strakes (3SS-Fwd*). It
shows that the tactical diameter reduces and advanced
manoeuvre diminishes as bSS increases. On the other vessel
(3SS-Full*), Figure 15a shows the opposite effect. The results
indicate that the position of spray-strakes (xSS) on the hull has
significant effect on the manoeuvring performance of the
vessel.
Figures 14b and 14c show the result of the simulation for the
zigzag manoeuvre 10/10 and 20/20 of the vessel fitted with
half-length spray-strake (3SS-Fwd*) were simulated
respectively. The horizontal and vertical axes respectively
express time and heading angle (ψ). It shows that the heading
angle of model with bigger spray-strake attachment has the
(13a) larger overshoot angle as compared to the model with normal
size spray-strake.
Figure 14b shows the time histories for 10/10 zigzag

7 Copyright © 2008 by ASME

manoeuvre at 15 knot. The first zigzag overshoot is about 4 to the zigzag manoeuvre of the vessel tested satisfies with IMO
5 degrees whereas the second zigzag shows a mean overshoot criteria.
of 6 to 8 degrees. It can be seen that the period is nearly
constant. Figure 14c shows the time histories for 20/20 zigzag
manoeuvre at 15 knots, showing a mean overshoot is about 6 to
7 degrees respectively, it can be seen that the period is nearly
constant, as seen in Figure 14b.

(15a)

(14a)

(15b)

(14b)

(15c)
Figure 15. Comparison of 35 turning circle (15a), 10/10 and
20/20 degree zigzag manoeuvre (15b, 15c) of bare hull with
different sizes of spray-strakes (3SS-Full* Model)

(14c) Table 6. summary of 10/10 and 20/20 degrees of zigzag

manoeuvre model simulated
Figure 14. Comparison of 35 turning circle (14a), 10/10 and
20/20 degree zigzag manoeuvre (14b, 14c) of bare hull with Model 1st 2nd 1st
Overshoot Overshoot Overshoot
different sizes of spray-strakes (3SS-Fwd* Model) bSS (m)
10/10 10/10 20/20
degree degree degree
Figure 15b and 15c also shows the result of the simulation for 3SS-Fwd* 0.150 4.77 6.23 7.27
the zigzag manoeuvre 10/10 and 20/20 of the vessel fitted with 0.075 4.70 6.15 7.09
0.300 4.82 6.31 7.46
full-length spray-strake (3SS-Full*) were simulated 3SS-Full* 0.150 4.25 6.90 6.03
respectively. Its result shows the opposite effect compared with 0.075 4.32 6.95 6.14
the 3SS-Fwd*(see simulation result in table 6). However, the 0.300 4.23 6.80 5.94
first overshoot and the second overshoot for all cases are much
less than the value required by the IMO criteria (2002). Thus,

8 Copyright © 2008 by ASME

6. CONCLUSION
Based on the results of the research presently undertaken, the
•
following conclusions can be drawn:
The time domain simulation program developed in this
research is found to be suitable for investigating the
manoeuvring performance of a planing vessel with fitted
•
spray-strake under displacement vessel mode.
Using a time domain simulation program with the
hydrodynamic derivatives derived from PMM tests, this
research has shown that the spray-strake attached to the
planing vessel have some effects on its manoeuvring
•
performance.
By selecting the appropriate position of the spray-strakes,
the vessel's manoeuvring performance can have reduction
in the tactical diameter during turning and possibly
•
increase in safety of the vessel.
By lift and drag principle, a modular spray-strake
mathematical model was developed together with
•
hydrodynamic coefficients derived from experiments.
The main parameters of spray-strake that have strong
influences on manoeuvring quality can be identified as
location of spray-strake (xSS), beam of spray-strake(bSS)
and projected of spray-strake area (ASS).
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The authors wish to thank Ministry of Science Technology and
the Environment of Malaysia for funding to this research.
REFERENCES
[1]. Coccoli, D. and Scamardella, A., 2004, “High Speed
Craft Manoeuvring Sea Trials”, Proceeding of 9th
Symposium on Practical Design of Ships and Other
Floating Structures, Luebeck-Travemuende, Germany.
[2]. Soares, C.G., Francisco, R.A. and Laranjinha, M., 2004,
“Full-scale Measurements of the Maneuvering
Capabilities of Fast Patrol Vessel, Argos Class”, Marine
Technology, Vol. 41. No 1, pp 7-16.
[3]. Ikeda, Y., Katayama, T., and Okumura, H., 2000,
“Characteristics Of Hydrodynamic Derivatives in
Maneuvering Equations for Super High-Speed Planing
Hulls”, The Proceedings of The 10th International
Offshore And Polar Engineering Conference, Vol. 4,
Pp. 434-444.
[4]. Plante, M.C., 1998, “Hydrodynamic Manoeuvring
Aspects of Planing Craft”, Proceeding of DGA,
International symposium and Workshop on Force
Acting on a Manoeuvring Vessel, Val de Reuil, France.
[5]. Deakin, B.,1998, ”Model Test to Assess the
Manoeuvring of Planing Craft”, The International
HISWA Symposium on Yacht Design and Yacht
Construction.
[6]. Fang, M.C., Luo, J.H. and Lee, M.L. (2005). A Non
Linear Mathematical Model for Ship Turning Circle
Simulation in Waves. Journal of Ship Research,
SNAME, Vol.49: 69–79.
[7]. Munif, A. and Umeda, N. (2000). Modeling Extreme
Roll Motions and Capsizing of a Moderate-Speed Ship
in Astern Waves. Journal of the Society of Naval
Architects of Japan. Vol.187: 51–58
[8]. Abkowitz, M.A.,1964, “Lectures on Ship
Hydrodynamics - Steering and Manoeuvrability.” HyA
Report HY-5, Hydro-Og Aerodynamisk Laboratorium,
Lyngby, Denmark, 1964
[9]. Ogawa, A., and Kansai, H.,1987, “On the Mathematical
Model of Manoeuvring Motion of Ship”, International
Shipbuilding Progress. Vol. 25, No 292: Pp306-319.
[10]. Sung, Y. J., Yum, D.J. and Rhee, K. P.,2000, “An
Analysis of The PMM Tests Using a System
Identification Method”, The 7th International Marine
Design Conference, Kyung-Ju, Korea.
[11]. Kijima, K., Yasuaki, N., and Masaki, T.,1990.
Prediction Method of Ship Manoeuvrability in Deep and
Shallow Water”, Proceedings of the Marsim & ISCM 90
Conference,Tokyo, Japan.
[12]. Kijima K., and Tanaka S., 1993, “On the prediction of
ship manoeuvrability characteristics”, Proceeding of the
International Conference of Ship Simulation and Ship
Manoeuvrability, London
[13]. Condega, L. and Lewis, J.,1997 A Case Study of
Dynamic Instability in a Planing Hull, Journal of
Marine Technology, Vol. 24, No.2, pp 143-163.
[14]. Motora, S.,1959,”On the Measurement of Added Mass
and Added Moment of Inertia for Ship Motion. (part 2.
Added Mass Abstract for Longitudinal Motion) Do.,
Vol 106. (in Japanese)
[15]. Yoshimura, Y., and Ma, N.,2003, Manoeuvring
Prediction of Fishing Vessels. Proceeding of
International Conference on Marine Simulation and
Ship Manoeuvrability, Kanazawa, Japan: Vol. 2
[16]. Blount, D.L.,1997, “Design of Propulsion Systems for
High-Speed Craft, Journal of Marine Technology,
SNAME News Vol. 34, No. 4.
[17]. Hadler, J.B.,1962, “Prediction of the Power
Performance of the Series 62 Planing Hull Forms”.
SNAME Transaction, Vol. 70
[18]. Maimun, A. Muhammad, A.H., Salem, A.,2004.
“Development of a Simulation Program for Pusher-
Barge Manoeuvring”, 9th, JSPS Marine Transportation
Engineering Seminar, Hiroshima, Japan, Oct. 2004
9 Copyright © 2008 by ASME