HYDRODYNAMIC DESIGN AND

ANALYSIS

PLANING CRAFT
• A systematic series of high-speed displacement hulls
(Series 64)
• The hull form was tested up to a Froude
number of 1.487
• observation from these tests
– beyond a Froude number of 0.9 the wave
resistance is no longer an important factor
– The frictional resistance, however, remains the
dominant factor
– Magnitude is about twice as large as the form drag

• From the experimental data it was concluded that for vessels

designed to operate at Froude numbers over 0.9 it is highly
desirable to keep the wetted surface to a minimum

• At high speeds generates lift, which causes the vessel to rise

above its static flotation level and to trim by stern thereby
reducing the wetted surface significantly.
• chief characteristic of the planing hull is effective flow
separation in high-speed displacement vessels
– Transom
– at the sides
• The flow separation is important
– negative pressure areas on the bottom of the hull
• This is usually accomplished
– hard chine configuration
– Greater dead rise
– more rounded sections
– proper placement of spray strips
– buttock lines that have no convexity aft of the bow sections
• Above a Froude number of 0.893, the wave
making resistance, which effectively becomes
a barrier for a displacement vessel, actually
decreases for planing craft as the speed
increases.
• Although designed for high-speed operation
• semi-displacement and displacement speed
ranges, and also in rough water as well

• hull form which best meets these requirements has

• Length breadth (slenderness) ratio of over 5
– reduce impact accelerations at high speed
– reduce trim
– Reduces resistance in the transition speed range
– high slenderness ratios - produce low resistance at low
speeds
– Deadrise angle of about 15 degrees in aft
– Deadrise angle of about 45 degrees forward
– with fine lines at the bow
– reduce slamming at all speeds
• Disadvantage
• small increase in resistance at low
displacement speeds
• small increase resistance at full planing

• The principal capabilities of a planing hull from

the technological viewpoint have been
summarized by Savitsky
– hydrodynamic technology is sufficiently advanced
- reliable preliminary performance
– Model-prototype performance - reliable design
and evaluation procedure
– Planing hulls generically – no navigational draught
limitations
 – The hard chine planing hull has more inherent roll
damping - reduces roll motions in a seaway
– Active roll fin stabilisers - further reduce roll
motions in the displacement speed range.
– Hull construction can follow normal shipyard
practice
– Much of the required structural technology is in
hand

• The principal limitations of a planing hull from

the technology viewpoint havebeen
summarised by Savitsky
– The lift-drag ratio at very high speeds (Fn greater
than 1.19) is less than for hydrofoils and SES craft
of comparable size
– The seakeeping performance in high sea states will
never be the equal of hydrofoil craft
Hull Characteristics which Affect Planing
Performance
Section Shape
• most frequently used section shape
– vee bottom having a deadrise angle varying
between a few degrees to around 30
degrees
• Reduces rough water pounding
• Improves directional stability
• Increases trim by stern
• Reduces hydrodynamic efficiency.

• The vee bottom hull forms could have a

variety of section shapes
• Convex
– inherently a wet section
– Can be avoided by spray rails and the vessel can
be kept dry
– The section pounds less than others of equal
deadrise angle
• Concave
– inherently a dry section
– The hollow areas almost always pocket the water
and produce impacts,

• Straight
– straight vee transverse section as good as any
especially in the aft body
– forebody shapes, it becomes apparent that such
shapes have all the faults and no virtues of both the
convex and concave sections
• Inverted Bell
– These sections designed as constant force sections
– The rounded keel does not pound
– produces a strong tendency to directional instability
– needs an external centreline keel or low spray strips to
break the cross flow
• The principal features which characterise the planform
of a lifting surface are
– aspect ratio
– taper ratio
– sweep-back
• Savitsky and Koelbel [4] have summarized the
requirements of planform design as follows:
– The span of the lifting surface is equal to the chine beam
– If the beam is fixed, the area and aspect ratio are
simultaneously determined by the LCG
– For a given step shape, the taper ratio and sweep-back are
both determined by the deadrise and trim angle

• Chine shape
– boat which will operate in the hump region or which
will have difficulty getting over the hump
– the chine beam at the transom should be wide to
provide as much buoyant lift at the stern as possible
– At full planing speeds - transom can be narrowed
considerably to reduce frictional drag -without a
noticeable loss in lift
– The narrow stern also improves handling in a following
sea, although with a moderate deadrise (say 15) the
wide stern is not bad
• The chine shape forward in the plan view
should not be very full because it reduces the
deadrise and makes the bow blunt with
consequent pounding and wetness
• Speeds near the resistance hump - bow makes
a significant contribution to the resistance -
fine as practicable
• If the chine line is made narrow it is possible
to develop a bow which does not pound badly

• Step Shape
• Whatever the transom shape in plan view, its
intersection with the mean buttocks should be
used in locating the centre of pressure in the
trim calculations
• None of these has a large effect on planing
efficiency
• Aspect Ratio
– In general the higher the aspect ratio (the wider the
surface with respect to its length) the better the lift to
drag ratio (L/D)
– For a fixed aspect ratio, there is an optimum wetted
area, the one which produces the optimum trim
– dimension of a planing surface is held constant and
the other varied
• finding the best beam for fixed LCG or the LCG for fixed
beam
– it will be found that the L/D does not necessarily
increase with increasing aspect ratio
– The best dimension will be the one which produces
the optimum trim angle

• Resistance Prediction of Planing Hulls

The methods have been grouped into the
following categories
– Planing hull series
– Prismatic equations
– Numerical methods
– Empirical calculations
– Theoretical
• Resistance prediction errors are generally due
to the following:
– Hull shapes and/or dimensions are outside the
range of the prediction method
– Scaling errors
– Prediction method that fails to accurately reflect
its database
– Error in measuring the resistance of the models or
full-size craft of the database used in developing
the prediction method.

• Planing Hull Series

• Resistance can be predicted from the testing
of scaled models by a systematic series.
• The models in the series are generally
developed by stretching or compressing the
parent hull in one direction or the other.
• The resistance is scaled to match the full-size
using scaling laws.
• Some of the planing hull series are:
Series 50
• This is the oldest of the planing hull series and
was developed in 1940s for the PT boat type
hulls. The series is for semiplaning boats

• Series 62
• This pure planing hull series was developed in the
early 1960s
• It has a low constant deadrise with midship
deadrise angle fixed at 13 degrees
• covers a wide range of
– Speed
– Loading
– Lp/Bm
– LCG (36% to 48% of the chine length from transom)
• The hull form has a blunt bow and high beam
taper
• The relative position of the centroid is slightly
aft of midship.
• It has also been used for shallow water planing
and powering

• Series 65
• Created in early 1970s to test hull forms for
possible hydrofoil applications
• It is oriented towards larger pre-planing craft
• Series 65 consisted of two series
• Series 65A
– have fine sections and high deadrise in the forebody
– exceptionally narrow stern (high beam taper)
– not a popular series for resistance prediction
Series 65B
• have fine sections and high deadrise in the forebody
• it has a deep-vee hull shape - patrol boats
• Mainly large hard chine craft designed for the
preplaning range and the lower end of the
semi-planing range
• These hull forms do not have any aft beam taper
• The series covers a wide range of
– loading
– Trim
– Deadrise
– Lp/Bm

Series 65 – A

Series 65 - B
Naval Academy Series
• Tested by U.S. Naval Academy consisted of three
systematic round-bilge models and three equivalent
hard chine models
• The series was intended for the lower end of the
preplaning speed range
– Direct comparison between round and hard chine hulls
– Resistance of hard chine hulls intended for slow speeds
– Effect of loading and LCG variation on resistance.
• This series was too small for an effective resistance
prediction method

Dutch Series
• This series developed in the late 1970s was similar
to Series 62 except that it had a higher deadrise
(25 degrees)
• The model form was of a pure planing hull form
• Tested only in the pre-planing and semi-planing
speed range
• The series was tested over a greater displacement
range than the original Series 62
BK Series
• Developed by the Soviets in the 1960s
• This was a semi-planing series oriented
towards large patrol boats

• MBK Series
• tested in the early 1970s was similar to the BK
series in structure and approach
• The parent hull was oriented towards smaller
semi-planing hulls
Norwegian Series
• small series tested in Norway in 1969
• The series was oriented towards small
semi-planing and pure planing boats
• The method was intended for the post hump
speed range
• Some of the series models had straight bow
sections instead of the convex sections of the
parent
• This series also studied the effect of aft beam
taper and forebody hull shape

• Prismatic Equations
• A prismatic body has a constant cross-section and
straight buttocks along the body’s entire length
• Many pure planing hulls can be considered
prismatic
– Sections of the hull in contact with water are constant
when planing
– this assumption greatly simplifies the modelling of
planing hulls
• The basic prismatic variables are:
– beam
– deadrise
– LCG
– All up weight
• length and hull shapes
Design details
• Spray rails
or features not
• Air drag considered

• Advantages of using prismatic shapes

– Drag is considered to be the product of the tangent of the
trim angle and the craft’s weight plus the frictional drag
• From the tests conducted on prismatic models
– relate lift and
– longitudinal moment to wetted planing shape
– Trim
– Speed
• Algebraic manipulations and iteration are necessary to
determine trim, wetted area and drag for a given
speed, displacement and longitudinal moment
• Savitsky Method
• Oriented towards pure planing hulls operating
at hump speeds and beyond
• This method and its many forms is probably
the most commonly used method for
resistance prediction of planing craft

• Basic Planing Phenomena

• If look into the flow of liquid against an
inclined flat plate
• If we consider a two-dimensional jet of liquid
strikes the underside of a flat plate
• Ƭ = an angle inclined at to the jet direction
• V = impinging jet velocity
• Po = the pressure
assuming
• gravity effects are neglecting
• ambient pressures at the near and far edges of
the plate are the same as the pressure Po
• the liquid velocities V in these three regions
will be the same
• jet thickness at the near edge will be given by

• jet thickness at the near far edge will be given

by
• Velocity and Pressure Distribution under a
Flat Planing Form

• the planing craft will have a tendency to trim by

stern. However, excessive trim could be avoided
by the presence of buoyancy force in the aft
region of the craft, as the water level at transom is
higher then at midships.
• If the planing surface is made wide, normal to the
direction of motion, the transverse pressure
gradient is less, with less "leakage" of +∆p along
the sides Shortening the planing surface from aft
raises the average +∆p values under the bottom,
and decreases the friction resistance.
• Wave Rise for Flat Planing Surfaces
• for flat bottom planing surface water rises in
front of the surface, thereby causing the
running wetted length l to be larger than the
length defined by the undisturbed water level
intersection with the bottom.

• For very small values of trim angle the

stagnation line and spray root lines are nearly
coincident
• As the trim angle increases, the stagnation line
moves further aft of the spray root line.
• Flat-plate, wetted length data from all
available sources were collected and plotted in
the form λ versus λ1

• This empirical relation is applicable in the trim

range 2 to 24 degrees
• Flow under a Vee-Bottom Prismatic Planing
Surface
• the intersection of the bottom surface with the
undisturbed water surface is along two oblique
lines (OC) between the keel and chines
• Upto a trim angle of about 15 degrees there
appears no noticeable pile-up of water at the keel
line
• Beyond 15 degrees trim angle a pile of water at
keel has been observed
• Aft of the initial point of contact 0, there is a
rise of the water surface along the spray root
line OB
• It is generally found that the spray root line is
slightly convex, but as the curvature is small, it
is neglected, and the spray root-line OB
assumed to be straight
• The experimental studies show that for a
two-dimensional wedge penetrating a fluid
surface vertically, the actual wetted width of
the wedge was π/2 times the wetted width
defined by the calm water intersection with
the bottom because of the wave rise

• the difference between actual wetted keel

length and chine length for a prismatic planing
surface is given by:
• Experimental evidence indicates that this is
equation applicable for all deadrise and trim
• combinations when the speed coefficient is
greater than Cv = 2.0 (speed coefficient range
where there is full development of spray root).
• The equation is also valid for speed Coefficient
Cv =1.0 when deadrise angle (β) is 10 degrees
or less
• The flow direction along planing prism and extent of spray area
• Lift of a Flat Planing Surface
• The lift on a planing surface (at fixed draught
and trim) can be attributed to two separate
effects
• one is the dynamic reaction at the fluid
against the moving surface,
• second is the so-called buoyant contribution
to lift with pressures corresponding

• For surfaces of very small span and infinite

length flow is in a transverse direction and lift
is proportional to Ƭ 2
• Hence for a normal low aspect ratio planing
surface, the lift can be expressed in the form: