Original Article

Proc IMechE Part M:

J Engineering for the Maritime Environment
2021, Vol. 235(2) 344–355
Numerical evaluation of hydrodynamic Ó IMechE 2021
Article reuse guidelines:
characteristics of planing hulls by using sagepub.com/journals-permissions
DOI: 10.1177/1475090221990243

a hybrid method journals.sagepub.com/home/pim

Emre Kahramanoglu1 , Silvia Pennino2 and Huseyin Yilmaz1

Abstract
The hydrodynamic characteristics of the planing hulls in particular at the planing regime are completely different from
the conventional hull forms and the determination of these characteristics is more complicated. In the present study,
calm water hydrodynamic characteristics of planing hulls are investigated using a hybrid method. The hybrid method
combines the dynamic trim and sinkage from the Zarnick approach with the Savitsky method in order to calculate the
total resistance of the planing hull. Since the obtained dynamic trim and sinkage values by using the original Zarnick
approach are not in good agreement with experimental data, an improvement is applied to the hybrid method using a
reduction function proposed by Garme. The numerical results obtained by the hybrid and improved hybrid method are
compared with each other and available experimental data. The results indicate that the improved hybrid method gives
better results compared to the hybrid method, especially for the dynamic trim and resistance. Although the results have
some discrepancies with experimental data in terms of resistance, trim and sinkage, the improved hybrid method
becomes appealing particularly for the preliminary design stage of the planing hulls.

Keywords
2D+T method, planing hull, potential based solver

Date received: 8 April 2020; accepted: 27 December 2020

Introduction experimentally. Although there are several experimen-

The flow separation at the chine, the dry transom, the
continuous change of the dynamic trim and sinkage,
the modifications of the wetted surface are some of the
principal characteristics of a planing regime. These fea-
tures make it difficult to model this regime, resulting in
a constant interest for researchers and designers in the
accurate evaluation of hydrodynamic performances of
planing crafts by numerical and empirical methods.
Several studies in the literature can be categorized as
experimental studies, empirical methods, 2D potential
methods and computational fluid dynamics (CFD)
approach.
Nowadays, although there are several methods to
investigate the hydrodynamic behavior of the planing
hulls in calm water, it is thought that experimental
studies are still the most reliable ones. Because of that
reason, it may be more proper the start with experi-
mental studies. Without a doubt, one of the most well-
known experimental study conducted by Fridsma.1 In
this work, Fridsma examined the behavior of prismatic
hulls in calm water and regular head seas,
tal studies in the literature related to planing hulls after
his enlightening work, Fridsma hulls are still used to
validate various numerical studies. Besides his work,
some other planing hull families have been presented to
the literature, especially in the last decades. Begovic
et al.2,3 developed a systematic series of planing hulls,
consisting of one monohedral and three warped hulls.
The calm water experiments and seakeeping results
were presented comprehensively in their studies. De
Luca and Pensa4 and Taunton et al.5 generated a series
of planing hulls and carried out experiments to investi-
gate the dynamic behavior of these hulls. Metcalf et al.6
1
Department of Naval Architecture and Marine Engineering, Yildiz
Technical University, Istanbul, Turkey
2
Department of Science and Technology, University of Naples
Parthenope Naples, Italy
Corresponding author:
Emre Kahramanoglu, Department of Naval Architecture and Marine
Engineering, Yildiz Technical University, Barbaros bulvari, Besiktas,
Istanbul 34349, Turkey.
Email: emrek@yildiz.edu.tr
Kahramanoglu et al.
also examined the calm water performance of high-
speed coast guard vessels.
Due to the difficulties of experiments and lack of
experimental facilities, the researchers also put forward
semi-empirical and/or empirical methods to predict the
performance of planing hulls. The most well-known
one was proposed by Savitsky.7 The work of Savitsky
was a milestone and paved the way for investigation on
the hydrodynamic characteristics of a planing hull in
calm water with a reasonable level of accuracy. Besides
its simplicity on the application, this method is still used
to mainly predict the resistance and trim values of the
vessels, especially in the preliminary design stage. The
Savitsky method was modified with several studies in
the literature. Savitsky et al.8 showed that another resis-
tance component associated with whisker spray should
be added to the original method since this component
can reach 15% of the total bare hull resistance.
Bertorello and Oliviero9 tried to extend the original
Savitsky method for non-monohedral planing hull
forms. Instead of a constant deadrise angle, they pro-
posed an effective deadrise angle calculation to predict
the resistance and dynamic trim values. Although the
numerical results were closer to the experiments in com-
parison to the Savitsky method, their method underesti-
mated the resistance and the dynamic trim of the vessel.
Schachter et al.10 suggested a novel approach based on
the Savitsky method and called Virtual Prismatic Hulls
(VPH) Method to predict the characteristics of planing
hulls in calm water. Although the results of the VPH
Method gave promising results in terms of keel immer-
sion, dynamic trim and total resistance, the authors
remarked that the method still needs to be improved.
Morabito11 presented an empirical method elaborating
on Kapryan’s extensive pressure measurements for the
evaluation of the three-dimensional pressure distribu-
tion acting on the bottom of a planing hull. Pennino
et al.,12,13 computed the equilibrium equations by the
integration of pressure distribution using Morabito’s
method to predict hydrodynamic characteristics of a
planing hull in the planing regime.
Since the empirical methods cannot be used for the
motions of the planing hulls in waves, 2D potential
methods became popular to predict the performance of
planing hulls in regular waves and a few cases also in
irregular waves. The milestone of this approach was
presented by Zarnick.14,15 In these studies, Zarnick pre-
sented a method which is based on the conversion of
the 3D problem to a 2D wedge entry problem to inves-
tigate hydrodynamic responses of planing hulls both in
regular and irregular head seas. This method can be
used not only for regular or irregular head seas but also
calm water, although its performance strictly depends
on the coefficients for hydrostatic force and moment.
Zarnick recommended that these coefficients can be
selected as 0.5. Akers16 proposed a nonlinear mathe-
matical model based on Zarnick’s approach. The vali-
dation of his model was performed with the work of
Fridsma’s experimental study.1 The coefficients of
345
hydrostatic forces and moments were determined using
the experimental data. The results of head sea analyses
were compared with available experimental data and
the original Zarnick approach. Even though the results
of this method generally had better results than the
original Zarnick’s approach, in some cases, it created
huge differences. van Deyzen17 improved a method
based on Zarnick’s 2D approach with the updates of
Keuning.18 In this work, the coefficients of hydrostatic
force and added mass were determined using the model
test data. The relative errors between the numerical
and experimental data were not found low, while the
general trends of the results were the same. In addition
to this, to increase the level of accuracy, he offered to
use sectional coefficients instead of constant values for
3D geometry. Garme19 proposed a function that repre-
sents the pressure drop correctly at the aft of the hull.
Therefore, the forces can be modelled accurately with-
out any hydrostatic coefficient correction. Kanyoo
et al.20 presented a nonlinear mathematical model
based on Zarnick’s method with Garme’s correction.
They validated the results for both calm water and reg-
ular head seas with the available experimental data.1
While they investigated the effect of time step size and
number of sections comprehensively, they only used
frictional resistance as a resistance component. In addi-
tion to these, the hydrostatic force coefficient was
selected considering Zarnick’s recommendation
although they used the Garme’s reduction function.
Algarin and Tacson,21,22 presented a mathematical
model for symmetric and asymmetric wedge entry
problems. Ghadimi et al.,23,24 employed calm water
analyses with a mathematical model based on Algarin
and Tuscon’s method. In their study, the numerical
results were validated using several benchmark models
with a high order of accuracy. Bilandi et al.25 presented
a 2D method to predict the hydrodynamic performance
of the stepped planing hulls. They compared the results
of their model with available experimental data in
terms of total resistance, dynamic trim and wetted sur-
face. They pointed out that the results up to Fn = 2.0
present good accuracy with model test data in terms of
trim and resistance. Surprisingly, they figured out that
their method gave more substantial errors for higher
Froude numbers. It was considered that the unsteady
turbulent phenomena cause this difference. Di Caterino
et al.26 showed that the 2D + t methods could be used
in the design and optimization processes. They used the
2D + t approach by producing different stepped hull
configurations. The numerical results were validated
with the viscous based solver, Savitsky method as well
as available experimental data. Bilandi et al.27 devel-
oped a mathematical model for double-stepped planing
hulls. They used two different models for several cases
in calm water. They compared the results with the pre-
vious work of the same authors28 and available experi-
mental data in terms of wetted surface, resistance and
trim. The results showed a similar trend with the
experimental data, while the dynamic trim generally
346 Proc IMechE Part M: J Engineering for the Maritime Environment 235(2)

was underestimated with lower accuracy in comparison Table 1. Main particulars of the model hulls.
to resistance. Matveev,29,30 solved the flow around the
planing hull using the boundary element method and a Main particular Fridsma Mono Warped Unit
2D method. Sun and Faltinsen,31,32 predicted the beha- L 1.143 1.900 1.900 m
vior of the planing hull both in calm water and head B 0.229 0.424 0.424 m
sea conditions using similar mathematical models based D 71.25 319.70 320.38 N
on 2D potential approaches. LCG 0.469 0.697 0.660 m
VCG 0.067 0.143 0.152 m
In recent years, CFD approaches based on viscous
kyy 0.287 0.583 0.572 m
solvers are becoming a popular tool for the solution of TAP 0.058 0.096 0.106 m
the flow around the planing hulls. CFD approaches are beta (b) 20.00 16.70 14.3–23.8 deg
applied in many studies to predict the response of the Static trim 0.693 1.660 1.660 deg
planing hull both in planing and pre-planing
regimes.33–36 More in-depth knowledge of the planing
hull literature can be found in the comprehensive
approach, the drag and thrust forces are neglected as
review study of Yousefi et al.37
Zarnick’s approach takes only motions in the vertical
The main aim of this paper is to propose fast and
plane into account. For this mathematical model, the
robust methods, as alternatives to the Savitsky method
force acted on each section is calculated as the summa-
for the assessment of the resistance for planing hulls in
tion of hydrodynamic and hydrostatic forces:
calm water. To achieve this goal, two methods are pre-
sented by the authors: the hybrid method and the f2D = fHD + fHS ð1Þ
improved hybrid method. The trim and sinkage values
are obtained from the original Zarnick approach, while The hydrodynamic force is equal to the change in the
the resistance values are procured from the Savitsky momentum of water and cross-flow drag according to
method in the hybrid method. Since the trim values are Zarnick’s approach. Therefore, the hydrodynamic part
not in good agreement with experimental data, the can be written as follow:
hybrid method is improved by replacing the coefficients D
in the original Zarnick’s approach with the reduction fHD = (ma V) + CDC rbV2 ð2Þ
Dt
function proposed by Garme.19 All numerical results
obtained by the hybrid and improved hybrid methods Equation (2); ma denotes the sectional added mass, V is
are compared with each other and available experimen- the relative velocity in the vertical direction, CDC is the
tal data. cross-flow drag coefficient, b represents the sectional
half beam and r is the water density. In this equation,
the added mass and relative velocity are depending on
Planing hull models both space and time. However, when the hull reaches a
steady-state condition in calm water, they only depend
In this study, three different model hulls are used to on the state in space. With this reasonable assumption,
show the validity of the numerical methods. The first equation (2) can be written as follows:
one is the well-known benchmark model: Fridsma.1
The second one is the monohedral hull form developed ∂z ∂(ma V)
fHD = + CDC rbV2 ð3Þ
by Begovic and Bertorello.2 Since Fridsma’s experimen- ∂t ∂z
tal results are frequently used for validation of the ∂(ma V)
numerical studies in the literature, another chinned fHD = U + CDC rbV2 ð4Þ
∂z
type of planing hull which has a constant deadrise
angle is selected in the scope of our study to see the Here, z is the axis parallel to the baseline and U depicts
validity of the proposed method upon the different the horizontal velocity of the hull. The 2D flow passes
models. A warped planing hull model is also examined the hull as a substantive surface with the velocity U.14
to see the validity of the proposed method. The main Therefore, equation (3) can be rewritten as equation
particulars of the planing hull models are shown in (4). Since the surge velocity (v) is assumed to be con-
Table 1, and the 2D geometries of them are demon- stant in this theory, the vertical and horizontal veloci-
strated in Figure 1. ties can only be expressed through dynamic trim (t). If
these expressions are written as in equation (4), the final
expression for the hydrodynamic part can be evaluated.
Mathematical model
U = v cos(t) ð5Þ
In the numerical method based on Zarnick’s V = v sin(t) ð6Þ
approach,14 the hull is divided by 2D sections; thus, the
∂(ma )
forces and moments acting on the sections are calcu- fHD = v2 sin(t)cos(t) + CDC rbv2 sin2 (t) ð7Þ
∂z
lated by disregarding 3D effects. After calculating 2D
forces and moments, the 3D forces and moments are The hydrostatic part of the total force is directly related
evaluated by a numerical integration technique. In this to the sectional underwater area (A).
Kahramanoglu et al. 347

fHS = rgA ð8Þ LK represents the wetted keel length. Combining these
expressions with equations (9) and (10), the final gov-
In calm water, the forces and the moments acting on erning equations can be obtained. To solve this mathe-
the 3D hull are in equilibrium condition in the steady- matical model, CBM and CBF coefficients have to be
state regime. To provide this equilibrium, the total force known. The other authors determined these coefficients
has to be equal to the weight of the hull and the hydro- using calm water experimental data.16,38 It should be
dynamic and hydrostatic moments have to balance each kept in mind that the determination and accuracy of
other. Therefore, the governing equations of the mathe- these coefficients are strictly dependent on the experi-
matical model can be written as equations (9) and (10): mental data. However, the uncertainty of these coeffi-
X cients can be eliminated using a reduction function
FZ = FHD cos (t) + FHS  W = 0 ð9Þ
proposed by Garme.19 The same approach was also
X
MY = MHD + MHS cos (t) = 0 ð10Þ implemented in Ghadimi et al.24
 
2:5
Due to the water separation at chine and transom Cred (z) = tanh (z  LCG) ð15Þ
stern, the full amount of static buoyancy never occurs. 0:34BFnB
Therefore, the total pressure distribution deviates con- In equation (15), B, FnB and LCG are the beam of the
siderably from the hydrostatic pressure distribution planing hull, beam Froude number and longitudinal
once Archimedes’ Law is applied. The hydrostatic force center of gravity, respectively. It should be noted that
and moment terms have to be multiplied by a coeffi- the reduction function (Cred ) is applied to both sec-
cient which is between 0 and 1.14 Originally, Zarnick14 tional hydrodynamic and hydrostatic forces and also
used constant values for CBF and CBM equal to 0.5. kept in mind that if the reduction function is applied to
ð the hybrid method (improved hybrid method), the coef-
FHS = rgCBF Adz ð11Þ ficients of hydrostatic force and moments have to be
LK
selected as 1. The constant values in equation (15) are
ð determined empirically and the details about these coef-
MHS = rgCBM Azdz ð12Þ ficients can be found in related reference.19
Three reference coordinate systems which are shown
LK
ð   in Figure 2 are defined for the mathematical model.
∂(ma ) Gjcz is the local coordinates system, reference system
FHD = v2 sin (t) cos (t) + CDC rbv2 sin2 (t) dz
∂z moving with the boat, with origin on the boat center of
LK
gravity G; j the axis is parallel to the inclined baseline,
ð13Þ positive forward; z axis perpendicular to the baseline,
ð  
∂(ma ) positive downwards; c axis perpendicular to plan jz,
MHD = v2 sin (t) cos (t) + CDC rbv2 sin2 (t) zdz
∂z positive rightwards. OXYZ is the mobile reference sys-
LK
tem, in the case of constant speed, it is an inertial refer-
ð14Þ ence system. This reference system moves with the same

Figure 1. (a) 2D geometry of Fridsma,1 (b) 2D geometry of the monohedral hull,2 and (c) 2D geometry of the warped hull.2
348 Proc IMechE Part M: J Engineering for the Maritime Environment 235(2)

Figure 2. Reference coordinate systems. Figure 4. Flow directions around the planing hull.8

The second term RF is the friction component due to

the viscous drag acting tangential to the bottom.
DF
RF = ð18Þ
cos t
B2 l
DF = 0:5rV2 CF ð19Þ
cos (b)
l = 0:5(LK + LC ) ð20Þ

Here; LK ,LC , CF , and b represent wetted keel length,

Figure 3. Forces acted on the planing hull.
boat speed v, with origin O on the projection of the
center of gravity on the undisturbed free surface of the
water at the initial instant, it is adopted for the descrip-
tion of the wave elevation. Gxyz with the origin located
at the boat’s center of gravity, the x-axis is aligned
along the calm water free-surface, positive in the direc-
tion of boat travel and the z-axis positive downward. In
this reference system, the equilibrium equations are
solved.
The forces acting on a planing hull in calm sea con-
ditions are weight force W, shaft thrust T, drag R,
hydrodynamic force FHD and hydrostatic component
FHS as schematized in Figure 3. Shaft thrust and drag
are neglected, as their horizontal components, which
are predominant, are assumed constant over time and
thus in stationary equilibrium.
The total resistance acting on the hull cannot be
evaluated with Zarnick’s approach since this approach
only gives the information on dynamic trim and sink-
age once the steady-state position is reached. Therefore,
Savitsky’s approach is implemented with auxiliary
information after the calculation of dynamic trim and
sinkage. The total resistance of the hull is composed of
three components: frictional resistance component
(RF), component due to pressure forces (RP) and whis-
ker spray resistance (RWS).7,8
RT = RP + RF + RWS ð16Þ
The first term RP is the pressure drag, that is, the resis-
tance component due to pressure forces. It is directly
related to the ship weight (W).
RP = W  tan t ð17Þ
wetted chine length, the friction coefficient of the
wetted surface evaluated according to ITTC39 and
deadrise angle, respectively. In equation (20), the mean
wetted length (l) can also be evaluated from Savitsky’s
method iteratively.
B2 cos (Y)
RWS = 0:5  r  V2   Cf ð21Þ
4 sin (2a) cos (b)
 
p tan (t)
a = arctan ð22Þ
2 tan (b)
u = ka ð23Þ
u
Y= ð24Þ
cos (b)
Cf is evaluated as a function of the Reynolds number,
as reported in Savitsky et al.8 The spray area is needed
to be assessed to calculate the whisker spray resistance.
According to Savitsky et al.,8 the determination of this
area depends on the angle u, which is the angle between
the forward edge of whisker spray and keel line pro-
jected on a plane that passes through the keel and it is
perpendicular to the hull centerline plane (Figure 4).
According to this definition, this angle is considered 2a
(here, a is the angle between keel and stagnation line in
the horizontal plane). However, Begovic and
Bertorello2 experimentally showed that 1.5a, which is
more reliable for their monohedral hull.
In the scope of this study, a 2D numerical code based
on the mathematical model expressed in this section is
developed in MATLABÒ. The inputs of the code are
the hull geometry and the velocities, while the outputs
are the total resistance, dynamic trim and sinkage val-
ues at CG (center of gravity). The flow chart of the code
is expressed as in Figure 5. It should be noted that the
first trim angle is selected for the static trim of the plan-
ing hull model.
Kahramanoglu et al.
Figure 5. The flow chart of the numerical code.
Results
Sensitivity analysis for the 2D method
The sensitivity analyses for the proposed method is per-
formed for Monohull and Fridsma at three different
Froude numbers. As explained before, the proposed
2D method can be considered as time-independent
since it only aims to find equilibrium conditions in the
planing regime. Hence, the solution can only depend
on the number of sections among all numerical solution
features. Therefore, the independence of the solution
from the number of the section should be proved. In
Figure 6, the dynamic trim values for three different
advance velocities are shown in terms of the number of
sections.
In Table 2, the difference between the results
obtained from 50 to 100 and 100 to 200 sections are
shown in terms of dynamic trim, sinkage and resis-
tance. It should be kept in mind that, the sinkage value
of the minimum advance velocity for Fridsma hull has
Figure 6. Dynamic trim values by the number of sections (Left: Fridsma, Right: Mono).
349
a very small sinkage value (0.05 mm). The relative dif-
ference between 100 and 200 sections is very high
(almost 68 %) while the real difference is very small.
Therefore this value is kept out from this comparison.
As a result of the sensitivity study for the improved
hybrid method (see also Figure 6), since the relative dif-
ference are very small after 100 sections and the com-
putational effort does not change remarkably, the
number of the section was selected as 100 for both
models in all 2D analyses. The sensitivity discussion on
Warped hull hydrodynamics is left out in purpose
because the proposed method still required improve-
ments, especially for dynamic trim calculation, as will
be pointed out next subsection.
Validation of the 2D method
The numerical results derived by the hybrid and
improved hybrid method were compared with each
other and the available experimental data in terms of
dynamic trim and sinkage and resistance (Figures 7–9).
In these graphs, ‘‘Improved HM’’ means the improved
hybrid method which includes Garme’s reduction func-
tion, ‘‘Hybrid Method’’ depicts the hybrid method in
which the coefficients of hydrostatic force and moment
equal to Zarnick’s recommendation. In other words,
‘‘Hybrid Method’’ values are the same as the original
Zarnick approach in Figures 7 and 8.
In Figure 7, while the hybrid method that calculates
sinkage values from the original Zarnick approach has
some differences in comparison to experiments for both
models, the regimes of these values are found similar to
the experimental data. However, the results of the
improved hybrid method which includes the reduction
function offered by Garme19 show generally better
agreement with the experimental data in relatively
lower Froude numbers, especially for Fridsma hull. For
the warped hull, the results of the hybrid and improved
hybrid methods are similar. In Figure 8, dynamic trim
angle values are compared with each other and the
350 Proc IMechE Part M: J Engineering for the Maritime Environment 235(2)

Table 2. The difference of hydrodynamic characteristics for different number of sections.

Model Number of Dynamic trim Sinkage Resistance

sections used
to calculate Maximum Mean Maximum Mean Maximum Mean
the difference difference difference difference difference difference difference
(%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%)

Fridsma 50 and 100 sections 0.895 0.814 2.152 1.715 0.437 0.385
Fridsma 100 and 200 sections 1.730 1.566 4.278 3.437 0.783 0.705
Mono 50 and 100 sections 0.964 0.771 4.360 2.404 0.487 0.283
Mono 100 and 200 sections 1.803 1.507 11.18 5.136 0.997 0.624

Figure 7. Non-dimensional sinkage values for: Fridsma (a), Mono (b) and Warped (c) hulls.

available experimental data. For the monohedral hull,
the general tendency of the dynamic trim curve is
almost the same with experimental data, although it
overestimates the trim values. In addition to this, simi-
lar to Figure 7, the improved hybrid method has a
remarkably better agreement, especially relatively lower
Froude numbers. For Fridsma, the general tendency of
the results of the improved hybrid method was found
similar to experiments, in particular, FnB . 3 even
though it underestimates the trim values. However, it is
clear that the improved method has significantly better
results in comparison to the hybrid method although
the differences for the warped hull are higher especially
for relatively high Froude numbers.
In Figure 9, the total resistance results are given. For
the monohedral hull and the warped hull, while the
results of the hybrid method are close to the experimen-
tal data, the general tendency of the resistance values of
this method is not similar to the experiments. It can also
be seen from Figure 9; the improved hybrid method
Kahramanoglu et al. 351

Figure 8. Dynamic trim values for: Fridsma (a), Mono (b) and Warped (c) hulls.

Table 3. The numerical results for the Fridsma.

Fridsma Dynamic trim Non-dimensional sinkage Non-dimensional resistance

FnB Exp. Improved Hybrid Exp. Improved Hybrid Exp. Improved Hybrid
HM method HM method HM method

2.660 4.404 3.875 5.383 0.061 0.040 0.026 0.147 0.156 0.182
3.325 4.231 4.064 4.676 0.092 0.082 0.077 0.162 0.190 0.201
3.991 3.801 3.664 3.883 0.111 0.109 0.105 0.201 0.221 0.225

generally underestimates the resistance values, although
the small errors are presented. However, for Fridsma
hull, it can be said that the general tendency of the
improved method is not similar to the experiment.
Moreover, the hybrid method has better similarity. The
errors of Fridsma seem larger than that of the monohe-
dral hull and both methods overestimated the resistance
values if relatively higher FnB numbers are great of
interest. It should be also kept in mind that, the results
of the mono and warped hulls are generally similar since
the main particulars of them are in the same order.
Comparison of the numerical methods
The numerical results obtained using the hybrid and
improved hybrid methods are listed in Tables 3 to 5
through dynamic trim, sinkage and resistance for both
models. In Table 6, the standard deviation values of
the total errors are demonstrated. Since the 2D meth-
ods are valid in the planing regime, the relative errors
are obtained once the beam Froude number (FnB) is
higher than 2. To calculate the RMS values of the rela-
tive errors, equation (25) can be used.
352 Proc IMechE Part M: J Engineering for the Maritime Environment 235(2)

Figure 9. Non-dimensional total resistance values for: Fridsma (a), Mono (b) and Warped (c) hulls.

Table 4. The numerical results for monohedral hull.

Mono Dynamic trim Non-dimensional sinkage Non-dimensional resistance

FnB Exp. Improved Hybrid Exp. Improved Hybrid Exp. Improved Hybrid
HM method HM method HM method

2.256 4.174 4.467 5.851 0.040 0.027 0.019 0.145 0.139 0.163
2.500 4.227 4.545 5.477 0.050 0.044 0.040 0.151 0.149 0.166
2.819 4.024 4.406 4.930 0.057 0.063 0.060 0.163 0.161 0.170
3.097 3.720 4.150 4.457 0.071 0.075 0.072 0.176 0.170 0.175
3.381 3.413 3.837 4.009 0.075 0.085 0.082 0.192 0.179 0.182
3.657 3.153 3.522 3.614 0.079 0.091 0.088 0.205 0.192 0.193
3.923 2.782 3.231 3.274 0.077 0.096 0.093 0.235 0.207 0.207

!0:5
X
N
en 2 It can also be easily concluded that the results of the
RMSerror = ð25Þ
n=1
N improved hybrid method in terms of resistance are
more accurate than the results obtained from the hybrid
According to Table 6, the numerical results show that method except for the Warped hull. The order of accu-
the improved hybrid method predicts dynamic trim racy for sinkage values is lower than the others. It is
more accurately than the hybrid method which is identi- thought that it can be originated from the measurement
cal with the original Zarnick approach for both models. difficulties.
Kahramanoglu et al. 353

Table 5. The numerical results for the warped hull.

Warped Dynamic trim Non-dimensional sinkage Non-dimensional resistance

FnB Exp. Improved Hybrid Exp. Improved Hybrid Exp. Improved Hybrid
HM method HM method HM method

2.256 4.119 4.381 5.819 0.030 0.040 0.030 0.152 0.134 0.159
2.500 4.042 4.476 5.432 0.043 0.058 0.052 0.157 0.144 0.162
2.819 3.698 4.345 4.871 0.053 0.077 0.073 0.170 0.156 0.165
3.097 3.358 4.093 4.392 0.061 0.090 0.086 0.185 0.165 0.170
3.381 3.002 3.782 3.942 0.074 0.100 0.096 0.200 0.178 0.179
3.657 2.711 3.470 3.545 0.085 0.107 0.103 0.219 0.191 0.192
3.923 2.664 3.184 3.207 0.097 0.112 0.108 0.244 0.207 0.206

Table 6. The standard deviation of relative errors.

Model Method Dynamic trim (%) Resistance (%) Sinkage (%)

Fridsma Improved HM 7.6 12.0 20.9

Hybrid method 14.3 20.7 34.6
Mono Improved HM 11.2 6.1 18.4
Hybrid method 24.6 8.2 23.4
Warped Improved HM 19.9 11.4 35.4
Hybrid method 32.0 9.29 26.8

Conclusion easily implemented for a quick survey, particularly

In the present study, two methods are used to calculate
resistance, dynamic trim and sinkage values of three dif-
ferent planing hulls in calm water. The first method (i.e.
hybrid method) is based on the combination of the
2D + t theory and the Savitsky approach. In the second
one, a reduction function which is proposed by Garme19
is applied to remove the uncertainty of the hydrostatic
coefficients in the 2D method. Later on, the obtained
trim values are used as an input for the Savitsky method.
This one is called the ‘‘improved hybrid method’’. The
sensitivity analysis of the improved model is performed
with an increasing number of sections in terms of the
dynamic trim, sinkage and resistance values. The valida-
tion of the proposed hybrid method is performed with
three different planing hulls.
The following outcomes can be summarized as
follows:
- The original Zarnick’s approach which is the first
part of the hybrid method can fail for the prediction
of the dynamic trim accurately, particularly at rela-
tively low Froude numbers.
- The improved hybrid method gives better results
than the original Zarnick approach in terms of trim
and sinkage for the planing hulls which have a con-
stant deadrise angle.
- The improved hybrid method uses Garme’s reduc-
tion function, therefore the uncertainty of the coeffi-
cients for the hydrostatic terms is eliminated.
- The improved hybrid method is very fast, robust
and easily applicable for the planing hulls. It can be
in the preliminary design stage.
- The improved hybrid method should be developed
for the warped hull forms since the order of the
accuracy of the dynamic trim angle is lower than
the planing hulls which have a constant deadrise
angle.
For future work, the validity of the 2D proposed
method should be provided for warped type
hulls. Moreover, this method should also be investi-
gated for seakeeping analyses at both regular and irre-
gular seas.
Acknowledgements
The compiled code in this study has been developed
during Emre KAHRAMANOGLU’s scholarship at
the University of Naples Federico II, supported by the
Scientific and Technological Research Council of
_
Turkey (TÜBITAK). The authors also thank Prof.
Ermina Begovic for her valuable help throughout this
study.
Declaration of conflicting interests
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest
with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publi-
cation of this article.
Funding
The author(s) received no financial support for the
research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
354 Proc IMechE Part M: J Engineering for the Maritime Environment 235(2)
ORCID iD
Emre Kahramanoglu https://orcid.org/0000-0002-
3646-1170
References
1. Fridsma G. A systematic study of the rough-water perfor-
mance of planing boats. NJ: Defense Technical Informa-
tion Center, 1969.
2. Begovic E and Bertorello C. Resistance assessment of
warped hullform. Ocean Eng 2012; 56: 28–42.
3. Begovic E, Bertorello C and Pennino S. Experimental
seakeeping assessment of a warped planing hull model
series. Ocean Eng 2014; 83: 1–15.
4. De Luca F and Pensa C. The Naples warped hard chine
hulls systematic series. Ocean Eng 2017; 139: 205–236.
5. Taunton DJ, Hudson DA and Shenoi RA. Characteris-
tics of a series of high speed hard chine planing hulls –
Part 1: performance in calm water. Int J Small Craft
Technol 2010; 152: 55–75.
6. Metcalf B, Faul L, Bumiller E, et al. Resistance tests of a
systematic series of U.S. coast guard planing hulls.
Report, Carderock Division, Naval Surface Warfare
Center, Maryland, 2005.
7. Savitsky D. Hydrodynamic design of planing hulls. Mar
Technol 1964; 1(1): 71–95.
8. Savitsky D, DeLorme MF and Datla R. Inclusion of
whisker spray drag in performance prediction method
for high- speed planing hulls. Mar Technol 2007; 44(1):
35–56.
9. Bertorello C and Oliviero L. Hydrodynamic resistance
assessment of non-monohedral planing hull forms based
on Savitsky’s methodology. Aust J Mech Eng 2007; 4(2):
209–223.
10. Schachter RD, Ribeiro HJC and da Conceic xão CAL.
Dynamic equilibrium evaluation for planing hulls with
arbitrary geometry and variable deadrise angles – the vir-
tual prismatic hulls method. Ocean Eng 2016; 115: 67–92.
11. Morabito MG. Empirical equations for planing hull bot-
tom pressures. J Ship Res 2014; 58(4): 185–200.
12. Pennino S, Mancini S and Scamardella A. Dynamic equi-
librium and resistance evaluation for warped planing
hulls. In: Presented at the FAST2017, Nantes, France,
2017.
13. Pennino S and Scamardella A. Dynamic equilibrium and
resistance assessment for warped hulls by means of total
pressure distribution. Part B 2018; 160: 10.
14. Zarnick E. A nonlinear mathematical model of motions of
a planing boat in regular waves. David Taylor Naval Ship
Research and Development Center, Maryland, 78/032,
1978.
15. Zarnick E. A nonlinear mathematical model of motions of
a planing boat in irregular waves. David Taylor Naval
Ship Research and Development Center, Maryland,
SPD-0867-01, 1979.
16. Akers RH. Dynamic analysis of planing hulls in the verti-
cal plane. In: Presented at the Meeting of the New England
Section of The Society of Naval Architects and Marine
Engineers, Portland, 1999.
17. van Deyzen A. A nonlinear mathematical model of
motions of a planing monohull in head seas. In:
Proceedings of the 6th international conference on high per-
formance, Marine Vehicles, Report, Naples, Italy, 2008.
18. Keuning JA. Non-linear behaviour of fast mono-hulls in
head-waves. PhD Thesis, Delft University of Technology,
Netherlands, 1994.
19. Garme K. Improved time-domain simulation of planing
hulls in waves by correction of the near-transom lift. Int
Shipbuild Prog 2005; 52(3): 201–230.
20. Kanyoo P, Taunton DJ and Blake JIR. Development and
optimization of mathematical model of high speed plan-
ing dynamics. In: FAST2015, Washington, DC, Septem-
ber 2015.
21. Algarin R and Tascon O. Hydrodynamic modeling of
planing boats with asymmetry and steady condition. In:
Presented at the HSMV 2011, Naples, Italy, 2011.
22. Algarin R and Tascon O. Analysis of dynamic stability
of planing craft on the vertical plane. Ship Sci Technol
2014; 8.
23. Ghadimi P, Tavakoli S, Dashtimanesh A, et al. Steady
performance prediction of a heeled planing boat in calm
water using asymmetric 2D + T model. Proc IMechE,
Part M: J Engineering for the Maritime Environment
2017; 231(1): 234–257.
24. Ghadimi P, Tavakoli S and Dashtimanesh A. Calm water
performance of hard-chine vessels in semi-planing and
planing regimes. Pol Marit Res 2016; 23(4): 23–45.
25. Bilandi RN, Mancini S, Vitiello L, et al. A validation of
symmetric 2D + T model based on single-stepped
planing hull towing tank tests. J Mar Sci Eng 2018;
6(4): 136.
26. Di Caterino F, Bilandi RN, Mancini S, et al. A numerical
way for a stepped planing hull design and optimization.
In: Marinò A and Bucci V (eds) Technology and Science
for the Ships of the Future. Netherlands; Clifton, VA: IOS
Press, 2018, pp.220–229.
27. Bilandi RN, Dashtimanesh A and Tavakoli S. Develop-
ment of a 2D + T theory for performance prediction of
double-stepped planing hulls in calm water. Proc
IMechE, Part M: J Engineering for the Maritime Environ-
ment. Epub ahead of print September 2018. DOI:
10.1177/1475090218797784.
28. Dashtimanesh A, Tavakoli S and Sahoo P. A simplified
method to calculate trim and resistance of a two-stepped
planing hull. Ships Offshore Struct 2017; 12(Suppl 1):
S317–S329.
29. Matveev KI. Hydrodynamic modeling of planing hulls with
twist and negative deadrise. Ocean Eng 2014; 82: 14–19.
30. Matveev KI. Hydrodynamic modeling of semi-planing
hulls with air cavities. Int J Nav Archit Ocean Eng 2015;
7(3): 500–508.
31. Sun H and Faltinsen OM. Dynamic motions of plan-
ing vessels in head seas. J Mar Sci Technol 2011; 16(2):
168–180.
32. Sun H and Faltinsen OM. The influence of gravity on the
performance of planing vessels in calm water. J Eng Math
2007; 58(1–4): 91–107.
33. Mousaviraad SM, Wang Z and Stern F. URANS studies
of hydrodynamic performance and slamming loads on
high-speed planing hulls in calm water and waves for
deep and shallow conditions. Appl Ocean Res 2015; 51:
222–240.
Kahramanoglu et al.
34. Sukas OF, Kinaci OK, Cakici F and Gokce MK. Hydro-
dynamic assessment of planing hulls using overset grids.
Appl Ocean Res 2017; 65: 35–46.
35. De Luca F, Mancini S, Miranda S, et al. An extended
verification and validation study of CFD simulations for
planing hulls. J Ship Res 2016; 60(2): 101–118.
36. Duman S, Sener B and Bal S. LCG effects on resistance,
lift and trim characteristics of R/V athena hull. Int J
Small Craft Tech 2018; 160: B43–B56.
355
37. Yousefi R, Shafaghat R and Shakeri M. Hydrodynamic
analysis techniques for high-speed planing hulls. Appl
Ocean Res 2013; 42: 105–113.
38. Pennino S. Vertical motion assessment for planing
hulls. PhD Thesis, Napoli Federico II, Naples, Italy,
2014.
39. ITTC. Recommended Procedures: Resistance Uncertainty
Analysis, Example for Resistance Test, Venice, Italy.
2002.