1

Modeling and Simulation of a

 

  †
 
Wing-in-Surface-Effect (WiSE) Craft
‡
  Singgih S. Wibowo and A. Budiyono§

 
Abstract – Wing-in-Surface-Effect crafts (WiSE) operate and amphibious capability can lead to many potential ap-
based on an improved lift-drag ratio due to a favorable sur- plications. The highest advantage can be achieved in the
  water or ground) effect. These low-altitude
face (snow, ice,
high-speed air vehicles can be deployed for versatile and operation of WiSE crafts for modes of transportation in
economical means of transportation as a result of their am- the archipelagic regions. The crafts can land and take-off
 
phibious capabilities. This paper describes the mathemati- from practically any flat surface which therefore eliminate
cal modeling and simulation of WiSE motion in all regimes,
the need for building expensive airports. Their speed is
 
such as hydroplaning, take-off, transition to flight, and air-
borne phase. The equation of motion was derived based much higher than that of ships, with operational expenses
on Newton-Euler approach to describe the vehicle’s trans- much lower than those of airplanes. Military WiSE crafts
 
lational and angular motions in the body-axis. The aero- can fly below the air defence radars’ zone, and thus are not
dynamics characteristics of the WiSE craft were calculated
and predicted vulnerable to mine-torpedo weapons. The high efficiency
  using software available for predicting stabil-
ity and control derivatives. The hydrodynamic properties operation makes the WiSE craft a promising transporta-
of the craft were modeled for both transitional and plan- tion means of the near future.
ing modes. The numerical simulation is carried out using
MATLAB and Simulink to analyze and give real illustration
of the 3DOF motion for the purpose of designing control An important problem in the design of WiSE crafts is
system for the WiSE vehicle. the accurate prediction of aerodynamics characteristics of
Keywords – WiSE, Stability a wing that is in close proximity to the ground [2]. The
phenomena associated with the characteristics of the flow
Nomenclature about a vehicle under the influence of ground effect are
very complex. Numerous studies have been conducted an-
u, w velocity components in x and z-body
alytically, numerically and experimentally to develop aero-
axes system
dynamics analysis tools for the purpose of accurately pre-
Tx , Tz thrust components in x and z-body axes
dicting the performance of the WiSE vechiles.
system
θ, q pitch angle and rate
In Ref. [3], a mathematical model for dynamics of lifting-
Fx , Fz total external forces components in x and
bodies that operates under ground effect is presented. An
z-axes
analytical formulation is proposed for the force and mo-
FN , FA normal and axial forces
ment calculation in the presence of ground and taking the
CN , CA normal and axial force coefficients
aircraft attitude, described by Euler angles, and sink rate
FB buoyant force
into account. The work established the influence of the
Iyy inertia of the vehicle
attitude in the performance and stability characteristics
g gravity constant
of the vehicle. Zhang and Zerihan [4] examined three-
M total moment due to thrust, aero and hy-
dimensional features and edge vortices associated with a
dro
doublet-element wing in ground effect. The experimental
m mass of the vehicle
study established a link between the formation/behavior of
the edge vortex and the force/pressure behaviors.
I. Introduction
The present work deals with the dynamics of air vehicles

T HE WiSE crafts intentionally used the ground prox-

imity effects to generate a substantially high lift-to-
drag ratio. The efficient use of ground effect has been dis-
covered in nature where birds and flying fish spend less
energy moving in the vicinity of water surface [1]. The
advantages of having a favorable aerodynamics efficiency
† Address all correspondence to: Department of Aeronautics and
Astronautics, ITB, Jl. Ganesha 10, Bandung, Indonesia. Phone:
+62-22-250-4529. Email: agus.budiyono@ae.itb.ac.id
‡ Department of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Bandung Institute
of Technology, singgih_wibowo@yahoo.com
§ Department of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Bandung Institute
of Technology, agus.budiyono@ae.itb.ac.id
that intentionally fly in the vicinity of the ground. A math-
ematical model of flow about vehicle in ground effect is pre-
sented. The aerodynamics characteristics of the WiSE craft
were calculated and predicted using DATCOM, software
for calculating stability and control derivatives. A nonlin-
ear dynamics was examined through the numerical integra-
tion of the equation of motion. The three-dimensional sim-
ulation was developed to study the motion characteristics
of the vehicle in the longitudinal mode. The modeling and
simulation of the WiSE craft is performed for the purpose
of developing a control system for such vehicles operating
under the influence of ground proximity effect.
 2
 

 
Fig. 2. WiSE aerodynamics and Thrust

 
Fig. 1. WiSE 18 seater single engine-twin propellers
 

  II. Dynamics of Wise

The approach to the analysis of dynamics of WiSE is
the same as that of the aircraft. Its motion is generally 6-
DOF (six degree of freedom) motion consisting three trans-
lational and three rotational motions. The 6-DOF motion
of an aircraft is commonly divided into two groups, lon-
gitudinal and lateral-directional modes. The first mode,
longitudinal motion, describes the motion in longitudinal
plane, OXb Zb . And the second mode describes the motion
in lateral, OZb Yb and directional plane, OXb Yb .
In this paper, we will only consider the longitudinal mo-
tion of WiSE. It consist of two translational and one rota-
tional motions, and therefore, this motion is called 3-DOF
(three degree of freedom) motion. Fig. 3. Transformation of lift and drag into normal and axial force

A. The Equation of Longitudinal Motion

Using Fig. 3 and transformation procedures explained in
Using the Newton-Euler equations, the translational and Ref. [6], the tranformation of lift and drag coefficients to
angular motions of the vehicle, in body axis, can be derived axial and normal force coefficients can be expressed as
as the following set of equations:

Tx + Fx CA = CL sin α − CD cos α (5)

u̇ = − qw − g sin θ (1) CN = −CL cos α − CD sin α (6)
m
Tz + Fz
ẇ = + qu + g cos θ (2) The aerodynamic force then expressed as
m
M
q̇ = (3) 1 2
Iyy FA = ρV SCA (7)
θ̇ = q (4) 2
1 2
FN = ρV SCN (8)
B. Aerodynamics 2
√
Aerodynamic characteritics of WiSE were calculated and where V = u2 + w2 denotes the speed of vehicle and S
predicted using Digital DATCOM, a computer program denotes reference area.
that predicts the stability and control derivatives of air-
plane [5]. The software commonly used for aircraft design C. Hydrodynamics
for its accuracy and efficient calculation. Determination of hydrodynamic of a WiSE is very im-
The lift and drag coefficients then transformed to the portant since it is the dominant external force and moment
axial and normal force coefficients, for the purpose of sim- acting on the vehicle, before the take-off and after landing
ulation. Note that the simulation will be done in body axis. maneuver. Before take-off, the motion of a WiSE can be
 
 3
 

divided into two stages, see Ref. [1]:

p(1) Transisional mode,
when the Froude number  F r = V / gD1/3 < 3, where V is
the vehicle speed and D is displacement of the vehicle, (2)
 
Planing mode with aerodynamic unloading, when F r > 3.
The value, F r = 3 is then called critical Froude number.
In the two  stages above, it is difficult to determine the
displacement because it is change with time which cause
the difficulty in determining  the Froude number. So, we
√
will use another approach by using F r = V / gb as refer-
ence Froude number in which  the beam b is used as the
characteristic length. We then define the critical Froude
number is 3.  It follows from Ref. [7], which stated the
planing condition happen when Cv > 3, and pure planing
occur at Cv  > 3.6. Fig. 4. Buoyancy Force
The complicated stepped form of the fuselage bottom
of WiSE, see Fig. 8, cause  difficulties in determining its
Buoyancy Force of WiSE 18 Seater
hydrodynamic characteristics, and it will be more difficult
 
during the take-off and landing since the attitude and its 25000
theta = -10
displacement change rapidly, see Ref. [8]. theta = -8
Since the   hydrodynamic characteritics of the stepped 20000 theta = -6
theta = -4

Buoyant Force [Kg]

bottom depend essentially on the step geometry and its ar- theta = -2
15000 theta = 0
rangement, there are not any universal experimental data theta = 2
applicable in design. Practically, the laborious hydrody- theta = 4
theta = 6
10000
namic tests in high speed towing tanks should be carried theta = 8
theta = 10 deg
out for each WiSE project separately, but this is both time
5000
consuming and costly. That is why we need proper mathe-
matical modeling for hydrodynamic determination, see Ref.
0
[8]. For this purpose, we will explain here the simple math- -0.75 -0.5 -0.25 0 0.25 0.5 0.75 1 1.25
ematical model that can be use to determine the hydrody- Altitude [m]

namic characteristics of WiSE, by assuming the stepped

bottom as vee planing surface (hull). We will consider the
hydrodynamic in two stages, transisional mode and planing
mode.
C.1 Hydrodynamics in transisional mode
In the transisional mode, the speed of vehicle is still low.
Therefore we will consider in this mode, the force acting
on the vehicle is only buoyancy force. The buoyant force
can be expressed in the following relation, see Ref. [9],
FB = ρw gD (9)
where ρw is water density, g is gravity constant, and D is
immersed volume or also called displacement.
The presence of the buoyancy force FB is a consequence
of gravity, because an identifiable volume of fluid has
weight. The buoyant force always acts in the opposite di-
rection to OZh (upward) in order to support the weight of
displaced fluid. It follows that FB acts throungh the cen-
tre of gravity of the displaced fluid and consequently for a
fluid of constant density it must act through the geometric
centre (or ’centroid’) of the volume D, see Fig. 4.
The buoyancy force then transformed to the normal and
axial force as
FBx = FB sin θ (10)
FBz = −FB cos θ (11)
Fig. 5. Buoyant force as function of H and θ
We define the center of buoyant force is (xf b , zf b ) in body
axis. The moment produced by the force then can be de-
termined using the following relation,
MB = FBx · zf b − FBz · xf b (12)
C.2 Hydrodynamics in planing mode
The WiSE hull in front of step differs from the after step.
The front step hull has a vee bottom surface while the the
aft-step hull has a flat one. The hydrodynamic character-
istic of the surfaces are different, so it can be considered
as two planing sufaces, see Figs. 9 and 10. The mathe-
matical model of hydrodynamic force of planing suface has
been derived in Refs. [10] and [11]. The formulas has a
good agreement with wide range of tank-tests. So we used
this mathematical model for WiSE planing motion.
The hydrodynamic force of planing surface can be di-
vided into two forms: lift and drag both acting on the
center of pressure. The hydrodynamic lift is defined as a
force acting in the vertical direction, and the hydrodynamic
drag is defined as one in the horizontal direction as shown
in Fig. 10.
Hydrodynamic lift of vee planing surface can be ex-
pressed as
 4
 

Center of Buoyant Force

 
10

8
 
6
theta = -10
  4 theta = -8
theta = -6
xfg [m]

2
theta = -4
0   theta = -2
-0.8 -0.6 -0.4 -0.2 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1theta =1.2
0 1.4
-2 theta = 2

-4
  theta = 4
theta = 6
-6 theta = 8
  theta = 10 deg
-8
Altitude, H [m]
 
Fig. 8. WiSE nomenclature
Fig. 6. Center
  of Buoyant Force, xf g

  of Buoyant Force
Center

1.6
  theta = -10
1.4
theta = -8
1.2 theta = -6
theta = -4
1 theta = -2
zfg [m]

theta = 0
0.8 theta = 2
theta = 4
0.6
theta = 6
0.4 theta = 8
theta = 10 deg
0.2

0
-0.8 -0.6 -0.4 -0.2 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4
Altitude, H [m]

Fig. 9. Definition of lc , lm , and lk for planing surface

Fig. 7. Center of Buoyant Force, zf g

Eq. (15) is not completely empirical but actually has

physical significance since, as discussed in Refs. [10] and
1 [11], the first term of the equation represents the dynam-
ρ b2 V 2 CLβ
LH = (13)
2 w ics component of the planing load, while the second term
where ρw is water density, b is beam length, V is vehicle corresponds to the buoyant component of the load.
speed, and CLβ is the lift coefficient of the vee planing The mean wetted length lm is defined as, see Fig. 10,
surface having a dead-rise angle β, that can be calculated lk + lc
using the following empirical formula lm = (17)
2
CLβ = CL0 − 0.0065βCL0.6 (14) where lk is wetted keel length and lc is wetted chine length,
0
both measured from tail tip, see Fig. 10. The difference
The term CL0 in Eq. (14) is the lift coefficient of flat between wetted keel and chine length is defined by the fol-
planing surface, that can be expressed as lowing empirical formula:
µ ¶
√ 0.0095λ2 l k − lc =
b tan β
(18)
CL0 = θ1.1
b 0.012 λ + (15) π tan θb
Cv2
where θb = θ+ θb0 is the bottom surface trim-angle (in The hydrodynamics drag of vee planing surface is defined
degree), see Fig. 10. Here, θb0 denotes the bottom surface by the following formula
√
angle at θ = 0, which has value of 7 degree. Cv = V / gb Df + LH sin θb
is the well-known Froude number in which the beam b is DH = (19)
cos θb
used as the characteristic length, and λ is the ratio between
mean wetted length lm and wetted body defined as And Df is the friction drag, defined by

lm 1 λb2 2
λ= (16) Df = ρw V Cf (20)
b 2 cos β w
 
 5
 

Friction Coefficient
  Using Schoenherr Equation
7.0

  6.0

5.0
 
4.0

CF*1000
  3.0

2.0
 
1.0

  0.0
1 5 9 13 17 21 25 29

  Log(Re)

Fig. 10. Hydrodynamic of planing surface

  Fig. 11. Friction ceofficient using Schoenherr equation

Here, Vw denotes the average

  fluid velocity along the bot- Lift Coefficient
tom, and Cf is friction coefficient of water. 0.4000
  between V , Vw and trim angle θb , has been
The relation lamda = 1
0.3500
defined by Sottorf as shown in Table I. Using the data in lamda = 2
Table I, we get the following empirical formula 0.3000 lamda = 3
lamda = 4
0.2500 lamda = 5
Vw
= −0.0002θ3b + 0.0021θ2b − 0.01θb + 1 (21) 0.2000
lamda = 6
V
0.1500

0.1000
TABLE I
0.0500
Average Fluid Velocity
0.0000
0 2 4 6 8 10
Vw Cv
θ (deg) V
0 1.00
Cl
2 0.99 Fig. 12. Lift coefficient θ 1.1
as function of Cv and λ
4 0.98
6 0.96
8 0.93 V λb
10 0.87 Re = (24)
υ
12 0.76
here, υ denotes water viscosity.
The hydrodynamic lift and drag then transformed to the
We define the center of pressure in the body axis as (xcp , axial and normal force as
zcp ), which is measured relative to cg. The center is located
on the keel line, see Fig. 10. It can be determined using
the following empirical formula, derived by Savitsky in Ref. FHx = LH sin θ − DH cos θ (25)
[11],
FHz = −LH cos θ − DH sin θ (26)
à !
1
lcp = 0.75 − λb (22) Finally, the hydrodynamic moment produced by the hy-
Cv2
3.06 λ3/2 + 2.42 drodynamic force can be derived as follows
Using Fig. 10, it follows that xcp = lcp − lcg , while zcp is
a function of xcp , which is determined manually using the MH = FHx · zcp − FHz · xcp (27)
figure.
For θb < 4 deg, we need to add lift coefficient due to
The friction coefficient Cf , can then be calculated using
buoyancy using the following relation taken form Ref. [13]
Schoenherr equation, see Ref. [12],
0.242 ∙ 2 ¸
log (Re Cf ) = p (23) 1 lc 1
Cf Cl,V ol = sin 2θb + (lk + 2lc ) tan β
(lk + lc ) Cv2 b 3
where Re is Reynold number, defined by (28)
 
 6
 

Center of Pressure of WiSE 18 Seater

 
10

8  
6
center of pressure [m]

4  
2

0  
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18
-2

-4  
xcp
-6
zcp
-8  
-10
  lcp [m]

  pressure as functio of lcp

Fig. 13. Center of

  Fig. 14. Simulation result: virtual reality picture of WiSE motion

D. Thrust Modeling on water

 
Another important things to consider for simulation is
the thrust model. In this work, we use standard model of
propeller engine as explained in Ref. [6]. The model is
divided into two modes, the first is the static thrust, i.e.
the thrust produced by engine before the vehicle moves
(V = 0), and the second is the dynamic thrust, the thrust
produced when the vehicle is moving. The static thrust is
defined as
P
Ts = η (29)
Vstall
and the dynamic thrust (V > 0) is
P
Td = η(30)
V + Vstall
Where η denotes the propeller efficiency, P is the engine
power, and Vstall is the stalling speed. The thrust direction
is assumed to be parallel to xb , which yields Tx = T and Fig. 15. Simulation result: virtual reality picture of WiSE motion at
Tz = 0. lift-off, side view

III. Simulation Procedures

The simulation is carried out using MATLAB/Simulink.
The virtual reality toolbox is used to develop a visualiza-
tion of the WiSE craft motion with adequate fidelity. The
simulation of the WiSE craft’s motion on the water surface
can be performed using two approaches:
1. Full hydrostatic, where the hydrodinamic forces and mo-
ments acting on WiSE vehicle are modeled as hydrostatic
forces and moments. In another word, the motion on the
water surface is considered as a transition mode.
2. Hydrodynamic planing., where the hydrodinamic forces
and moments acting on WiSE vehicle are modeled as com-
bination of hydrostatic forces and moments and the hydro-
dynamic planing.
In this work, the simulation was conducted by the second
method which combine the transition mode and planing
mode for Cv ≥ 3. The simulation was done with the vehicle
mass of 7200 kg. Contoh hasil tampilan dari virtual reality
dari gerak pesawat WiSE dapat dilihat pada Fig. 14, Fig.
15, Fig. 16 dan Fig. 17. Hasil-hasil simulasi yang lain
dapat dilihat pada Fig. ?? sampai dengan Fig. 28.
Dengan simulasi yang dilakukan, dapat ditentukan jarak
takeoff, yaitu jarak yang ditempuh pesawat WiSE sejak
diam kemudian berjalan di permukaan air hingga kemudian
lepas landas. Untuk kasus pesawat WiSE ini, lepas landas
didefinisikan terjadi ketika tinggi terbang ≥ 1 m. Fig. ??
shows that the take off distance of theWiSE craft is 400 m,
the aircraft liftoff at t = 22 second.
IV. Discussion on Results
Dari hasil-hasil yang diperoleh, dapat dilihat bahwa sim-
ulasi dapat berjalan dengan baik dengan menggunakan
metode (1), yaitu dengan menggunakan full hidrostatik.
Hasil simulasi menggunakan metode (1) ini disajikan dalam
Fig. ?? and Fig. 28.
Sementara bila digunakan metode (2), simulasi terhenti
karena adanya error. Error yang terjadi saat simulasi
 7
 
Motion Path
10
 
8
 
6
 

Height [m]
4
 
2

 
0

 
-2
0 100 200 300 400 500 600
Distance [m]
 

  Fig. 18. Motion path, simulation using first method

 
Fig. 16. Simulation result: virtual reality picture of WiSE motion at
lift-off, front view V. Concluding Remarks
  Dengan memperhatikan hasil-hasil yang telah diperoleh,
dapat disimpulkan bahwa penggunaan metode full hidro-
statik untuk simulasi gerak pesawat WiSE selama berada
di permukaan air layak digunakan. Sementara penggu-
naan metode Savitsky dan Shuford planing menghasilkan
error. Salah satu solusi untuk dapat menerapkan metode
planing adalah dengan mengasumsikan sudut sikap konstan
(θ = c, c > 0). Namun jika hal ini dilakukan hasil simu-
lasi tidak realistis, sebab kenyataanya sudut sikap pesawat
selalu berubah selama geraknya.

Fig. 17. Simulation result: virtual reality picture of WiSE motion at
flying
menggunakan metode (2) disebabkan moment hydrodi-
namik sangat besar. Ini dapat dilihat pada Fig. 30. Pada
saat Cv = 3 atau pada saat t = 8 detik, momen hidro-
dinamik untuk modus planing berharga −270, 000 Nm.
Tanda negatif menunjukkan arah momen ini menyebabkan
pesawat pitch-down. Dengan adanya momen sebesar ini,
maka pesawat akan menukik ke bawah dengan tiba-tiba.
Pada saat yang bersamaan, sudut pitch menjadi kecil, se-
hingga lift yang dihasilkan juga berkurang. Akibatnya pe-
sawat akan terus pitch down dan menjadi tidak terkendali.
Dan hal inilah yang menyebabkan simulasi menjadi error.
Perlu dicatat bahwa karakteristik hidrodinamika untuk
modus planing menggunakan metode Savitsky dan Shu-
ford hanya dapat dilakukan untuk sudut sikap yang posis-
tif, θ > 0. Jadi metode ini memiliki kelemahan jika di-
gunakan untuk simulasi gerak secara umum, karena dalam
kasus simulasi gerak sudut sikap selalu beroksilasi dan da-
pat berharga negatif.
References
[1] N. Kornev and K. Matveev, “Complex numerical modeling of
dynamics and crashes of wing-in-ground vehicles,” AIAA, 2003.
[2] C. Han and J. Cho, “Unsteady trailing vortex evolution behind
a wing in ground effect,” Journal of Aircraft, 2005.
[3] N. de Divitiis, “Performance and stability of a winged vehicle in
ground effect,” Journal of Aircraft, 2005.
[4] X. Zhang and J. Zerihan, “Edge vortices of a double-element
wing in ground effect,” Journal of Aircraft, pp. 1127—1137, 2004.
[5] H. Muhammad, T. Indriyanto, U. Muhdy, and J. Sembiring,
“Study of perfomance and control of WIGE 10-20 passengers,”
tech. rep., BPPT-ITB, 2004.
[6] G. Ruijgrok, Elements of Airplane Performance. Delft Univer-
sity Press, 1994.
[7] G. Fridsma, “A systematic study of the rough-water performance
of planing boats (irregular waves-part 2),” Report SIT-DL-71-
1495, 1971.
[8] K. Benedict, N. Kornev, M. Meyer, and J. Ebert, “Complex
mathematical model of the WIG motion including the take-off
mode,” Ocean Engineering, pp. 315—357, 2002.
[9] B. R. Clayton and R. E. D. Bishop, Mechanics of Marine Vehi-
cles. EFN Spoon, Ltd, 1982.
[10] B. V. Korvin-Kroukovsky, D. Savitsky, and W. F. Lehman,
“Wetted area and center of pressure of planing surfaces,” Tech-
nical Report SIT-DL-49-9-360, 1949.
[11] D. Savitsky, “Wetted length and center of pressure of vee-step
planing surfaces,” Report SIT-DL-51-9-378, 1951.
[12] E. J. Mottard and J. D. Loposer, “Average skin-friction drag
coefficients from tank tests of a parabolic body of revolution
(NACA RM-10),” NACA Report, 1952.
[13] J. Charles L. Shuford, “A theoritical and experimental study of
planing surfaces including effects of cross section and plan form,”
NACA Report 1355, 1957.
 8
 

  Velocity
Aerodynamic Axial Force
5000
50
 
40
 

Fx aero [N]
Velocity [m/s]

30
  0

20
 

10  

0   -5000
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Time [s] Time [s]
 
Fig. 19. Velocity history, simulation using first method Fig. 22. Aerodynamic axial force history, simulation using first
  method

 
4 Aerodynamic Normal Force
Angle of Attack x 10
20 0

15

10
-5
Fz aero [N]

5
Alpha [deg]

-5
-10
-10

-15

-20 -15
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Time [s] Time [s]

Fig. 20. Angle of attack history, simulation using first method Fig. 23. Aerodynamic normal force history, simulation using first
method

4 Aerodynamic Moment
Attitude x 10
2
20
1.5
15
1
10
0.5
M aero [Nm]

5
Theta [deg]

0
0

-0.5
-5

-10 -1

-15 -1.5

-20 -2
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Time [s] Time [s]

Fig. 21. Attitude history, simulation using first method Fig. 24. Moment of aerodynamic history, simulation using first
method

 
 9
 

4  
Hydrodynamic Axial Force x 10
4 Thrust History
x 10 3
2

1.5   2.5

1
  2
0.5

Thrust [N]
Fx hydro [N]

  1.5
0

-0.5   1

-1
  0.5
-1.5

-2   0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Time [s] Time [s]
 
Fig. 25. Hyrodynamic axial force, simulation using first method Fig. 28. Thrust history, simulation using first method
 

 
4 Hydrodynamic Planing Normal Force
x 10
4 Hydrodynamic Normal Force 0
x 10

-5
-5
Fz hydro [N]
Fz hydro [N]

-10
-10

-15

-15
-20 0 5 10 15 20 25 30
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 Time [s]
Time [s]

Fig. 29. Hydrodynamic Planing Normal Force, simulation using

Fig. 26. Hyrodynamic normal force, simulation using first method second method

5 Hydrodynamic Planing Moment

Hydrodynamic Moment x 10
x 10
5 0
1
-1

-2
0.5
M hydro [Nm]

-3
M hydro [Nm]

-4
0
-5

-6
-0.5

-7

-8
-1 0 5 10 15 20 25 30
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Time [s]
Time [s]

Fig. 27. Moment of hyrodynamic, simulation using first method Fig. 30. Hydrodynamic Planing Moment, simulation using second
method